# Climategate



## lasty (2 December 2009)

The climate alarmists maybe feeling the heat more than they wished for as "Climategate" is about to open a can of worms ahead of Copenhagen as the director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change. 
Read the remainder here;
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...er-email-scandal/story-e6frfku0-1225806022990

I wonder what KRudd will say about that one.. He swallowed too much C02.. The heat got to him...He had a melt down...

Bring on the double dissolution ...:


----------



## Julia (2 December 2009)

I'm not sure you should be quite so gung ho about an imminent double dissolution election, Lasty.   There wouldn't be a chance of the Coalition winning at this stage imo.


----------



## lasty (2 December 2009)

Julia said:


> I'm not sure you should be quite so gung ho about an imminent double dissolution election, Lasty.   There wouldn't be a chance of the Coalition winning at this stage imo.




Maybe not Julia however with Rudd's mysterious behaviour of late with his,wastage of stimulus to dead people, $1 billion for extra bureaucrats, border control debarcle, his rant about climate change and I expect his carry on in Copenhagen will be a special, Labor may find itself in a spot of bother.
Rudd is a lose cannon and  I dont expect those votes to fall into the coalitions laps but independants and a senate change maybe loosen 
Labors powers.


----------



## ghotib (2 December 2009)

You can read the original announcements on the Climate Research Unit (CRU) website http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate.  You'll note that Fox has changed standing *aside* to standing *down*; maybe Fox doesn't recognise a difference. 

On the same page is the statement, which to my knowledge has not even been challenged let alone disproved, that more than 95% of the CRU data is easily available and has been for years. 

It's worth noting that the Climate Research Unit (CRU) collates data from many sources, and it's only one of several collating centres. This page is a collection of links to openly available data http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/. This one is a collection of links to papers about various areas of climate related science http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/. 

Neither claims to be complete, but at the very least they should give us non-scientists some sense of how much can be found even by non-specialists. 

Ghoti


----------



## Bushman (2 December 2009)

OMG - not another climate change thread. 

Maybe one of the mods should start an 'Aussie Climate Change Forum'?


----------



## lasty (2 December 2009)

http://biocab.org/MGW_to_2006.html

The last graph says it all.


----------



## BigWillieStyles (2 December 2009)

First post on the forums

Anyway, the whole anti-climate change stuff that has confused some people to whether globalwarming exists echoes a previous issue years ago with the Tabaco industry. The tobaco industry lobbyists were able to blur the line with society making people question if Tabaco actually causes cancer. Only difference now is that the world is alot more open with communication networks and the internet can make it easier for these lobbyists.

Unfortunately, these lobbyists are actually making progess as they move to confuse the world.


----------



## kitehigh (2 December 2009)

Well it was called Global Warming before and now its called Climate Change.  They had to change the name because for the last 11 yrs the globe has been cooling and they would have looked ridiculous still running with the Global Warming title.  
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Lets tackle real environmental issues like deforestation, soil erosion due to incorrect land you, contamination of fresh water supplies.


----------



## BigWillieStyles (2 December 2009)

kitehigh said:


> Well it was called Global Warming before and now its called Climate Change.  They had to change the name because for the last 11 yrs the globe has been cooling and they would have looked ridiculous still running with the Global Warming title.
> 
> Lets tackle real environmental issues like deforestation, soil erosion due to incorrect land you, contamination of fresh water supplies.




Climate change is the effect of global warming not another name.

The climate has not been cooling for the last 11 years, actually in 1998 the climate temperature spiked due to the high heat caused by the el nino year. The following year, the temperature regain where it left off before the el nino year and continued rising to this day. Hope that makes sense. 

An approach to global warming would help all those areas in the environment, and promote industry in electricity and environmental growth.

The ClimateGate issue is merely the problem of a scientist who mucked up his study and changed the results so he would have something to report on. Happens in science sometimes.


----------



## Calliope (2 December 2009)

BigWillieStyles said:


> First post on the forums
> 
> Anyway, the whole anti-climate change stuff that has confused some people to whether globalwarming exists echoes a previous issue years ago with the Tabaco industry. The tobaco industry lobbyists were able to blur the line with society making people question if Tabaco actually causes cancer. Only difference now is that the world is alot more open with communication networks and the internet can make it easier for these lobbyists.
> 
> Unfortunately, these lobbyists are actually making progess as they move to confuse the world.




Oops, BigWilly. Perhaps you should take a little more care before putting your foot in the water. *Tabaco* is a city in the Philippines; not noted for causing cancer.


----------



## wayneL (2 December 2009)

BigWillieStyles said:


> First post on the forums
> 
> Anyway, the whole anti-climate change stuff that has confused some people to whether globalwarming exists echoes a previous issue years ago with the Tabaco industry. The tobaco industry lobbyists were able to blur the line with society making people question if Tabaco actually causes cancer. Only difference now is that the world is alot more open with communication networks and the internet can make it easier for these lobbyists.
> 
> Unfortunately, these lobbyists are actually making progess as they move to confuse the world.




LOL

There is a slight difference.

There is evidence that tobacco causes lung and other cancers. That smoking causes cancer qualifies as a bona fide theory as scientists are able to make fairly accurate predictions about smokers in contrast to non-smokers.

Climate scientists have spectacularly failed to predict anything with regards to the effect of co2, except in hindsight. In trading we call that curve fitting. Climategate has exposed this "inconvenient truth" to the satisfaction of all except the most religiously faithful climate cultists.

BTW

Global Warming exists. Global Cooling exists. Climate Change exists. Climate can change without warming or cooling.

The debate is over to what extent, and by what mechanism climate change is influenced by humans. 

But holy crap! We've been through this a million times already. The co2 climate klaxon cult has been torn a new one repeatedly by fact, yet they come back for more.


----------



## Purple XS2 (2 December 2009)

Bushman said:


> OMG - not another climate change thread.
> 
> Maybe one of the mods should start an 'Aussie Climate Change Forum'?




Allow me to recommend climatedebatedaily, from the editors of arts and letters daily.

Something for everybody. Both are excellent sites.


----------



## Calliope (2 December 2009)

The alarmists are in retreat. Note the last line, the source...no less than the Pravda on the Yarra



> The good thing is people can now see the tactics of the alarmists and their army of bovver boys. You can read the emails online and then you can read the sly attempts to explain away the misdeeds. Despite their feigned reasonableness and world-weary calm over the email scandal, climate alarmists are in a mad fumbling panic. They are exposed as dangerous megalomaniacs, foolish, but with enormous power.
> 
> Their power came from the complicity of the media and because it suited a certain type of politician to build a new bureaucracy and pose as an environmental saviour, never having to face up to the consequences of being wrong.
> 
> Source: theage.com.au




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/climate-doomsayers-caught-out-20091126-jsa7.html


----------



## noco (2 December 2009)

Julia said:


> I'm not sure you should be quite so gung ho about an imminent double dissolution election, Lasty.   There wouldn't be a chance of the Coalition winning at this stage imo.




Julia, with the tide starting run against Rudd on this ETS and the fact that it is emerging as a conspiracy and a scam, Abbott with a united party,and  the tools and the amunition now avaiable to him, he could beat Rudd with a well oiled campaign. I would not write him off atm.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (2 December 2009)

ClimateGate has been out for several days now, now the fun begins as slowstream media can't contain it any longer. 

http://www.express.co.uk/ourpaper/view/2009-12-02

Story here
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573
...
Professor Ian Plimer condemned the  climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going.

In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.
...


----------



## HankMoody (2 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> The debate is over to what extent, and by what mechanism climate change is influenced by humans.
> 
> But holy crap! We've been through this a million times already. The co2 climate klaxon cult has been torn a new one repeatedly by fact, yet they come back for more.




Really?

Weren't there some infrared satellite pics taken that showed heat being built up at the co2 wavelength? Has this been "torn a new one"? Can you link me up? that's something that would interest me.

Cheers


----------



## wayneL (2 December 2009)

HankMoody said:


> Really?
> 
> Weren't there some infrared satellite pics taken that showed heat being built up at the co2 wavelength? Has this been "torn a new one"? Can you link me up? that's something that would interest me.
> 
> Cheers



Oh crap!

Some Gormon apostle has linked ASF to The Church of Al Gore of Latter Day Alarmists!  

Now... as you are the one making particular claims from left field, I would have thought the onus was on you to provide a link. 

Something that hasn't already been comprehensively trashed by real world observations and suspect anyway, because of a discredited and humiliated branch of the scientific community. That would be good.


----------



## alphaman (2 December 2009)

What I want to know is, should I try to reduce carbon emission or not?  Is there an agreement on this?


----------



## So_Cynical (2 December 2009)

lasty said:


> I dont expect those votes to fall into the coalitions laps but independants and a senate change maybe loosen
> Labors powers.




Oh there would be change in the senate for sure with ALL the senate seats vacated and up for grabs because of the DD...i would expect both the Libs and Greens to lose senate seats to Labor...the 2 ends of the political spectrum would be hammered IMO.



noco said:


> Abbott with a united party,and  the tools and the amunition now avaiable to him, he could beat Rudd with a well oiled campaign. I would not write him off atm.




LOL u have got to be kidding...united party :shake: well oiled campaign :silly: you are dreaming and in total denial. :screwy:


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 December 2009)

alphaman said:


> What I want to know is, should I try to reduce carbon emission or not?  Is there an agreement on this?




To the extent that you can do so easily, obviously it makes sense to do so. Fossil fuels have other non-CO2 impacts on the environment, are a finite resource and a likely source of future military conflict (oil and gas but not coal in this latter context).

But to the extent that reducing consumption sees millions unemployed and millions more starve plus a whole range of new non-CO2 environmental damage caused, well you'd want to have a _very_ convincing reason before going down that track.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 December 2009)

lasty said:


> http://biocab.org/MGW_to_2006.html
> 
> The last graph says it all.



That graph says a lot more than most probably realise:

1. The rise in CO2 concentration is almost linear since the early 1700's despite very minimal amounts of fossil fuels being used at the time. Coal use was just beginning then with oil not coming until the late 1850's and significant use of gas not until the 1930's. 

And more to the point, total fossil fuel use remained low at the global level until after WWII, a situation that makes a linear rise in CO2 concentration seem somewhat odd.

Whilst it seems logical that burning fossil fuels would increase CO2 in the atmosphere, that graph shows that most of the rise in CO2 happened before most of the fossil fuel burning occurred. Regardless of the climate change issue, that trend of itself does warrant some proper scientific (not political) investigation to find out what is going on. It clearly seems that the rise in CO2 is not due to fossil fuel use, and certainly not due to oil or gas which were not in use until after half the rise had already happened.

2. The graph shows a relationship between rising CO2 and rising temperature existed during the period 1700 to 1800 and again from about 1900 to 1930, and again during sometime around 1980 to the late 1990's. 

So, from 1200 years of data we find a relationship between rising CO2 concentration and rising temperature occurs for about 150 years or 12.5% of the time. For the other 1000+ years and 87.5% of the time, CO2 and temperature do not change in parallel and often head in different directions at the same time, a situation which suggests that CO2 is not the dominant determinant of the earth's temperature. Whether or not it has any effect at all can not be deduced from that graph.

But what about the spike during the late 20th Century that was more rapid than previous temperature changes? That is most likely a function of more accurate measurements.

An analogy to illustrate the point. Suppose that you live in Sydney (or anywhere else, I'll just pick Sydney for example) and you have a thermometer at home. 

Using your thermometer, you can get very accurate data on temperature changes as often as you want. Plot these on a graph and you'll get a chart that's all over the place with highs and lows.

Now go back and add historic data since European settlement in 1788. Looking through the record books, you'll have real trouble finding anything more than daily data and to a large extent you will end up settling for monthly or annual averages. Now your chart will look a lot smoother - there probably were heatwaves in 1800 but your data doesn't show this, hence your chart won't show it either.

Now add some data for the previous 1000 years based on some proper research. No way is that going to show daily or even annual temperature. At best, you'll be able to approximate general conditions over a decade or more and base your chart on that. Now your chart has no spikes at all because you have no evidence that they ever occurred, although it would be fair to assume that it wasn't 22 degrees every single day 1000 years ago.

So in short, the chart shows abrupt changes recently not because the climate has suddenly started abruptly changing, but because we now have the means to accurately measure it.

If I plot the price of BHP shares over the past 10 years, and then go back and get annual end of year data since the company was formed, then that too will show a recent spike in voltatility simply because I haven't included daily or monthly data until quite recently. Same with anything.

Overall, that graph is pretty convincing that CO2 isn't something to worry too much about in terms of the climate. But we ought to investigate the relationship between CO2 concentration and fossil fuel use to see why it does not behave as one would logically expect.

The rate of change of CO2 concentration does not parallel the rise in CO2 emissions as one would logically expect. That raises a lot of questions (1) why and (2) would reducing CO2 emissions by 20% or 50% (for example) have any effect on CO2 concentrations given that CO2 concentrations have risen at much the same rate despite huge changes in emission levels over the 300 years that CO2 concentraton has been rising at a roughly linear rate. 

That situation suggests there's more to the story than a simplistic relationship between man-made CO2 emissions and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere - we emit more and more but has shown up in atmospheric measurements once we passed the relatively trivial emission levels of the 1700's. 

*In that case any cut to fossil fuel use, unless it is 100% or very close to it, would seem to be pointless even if there were a reason to be worried about CO2 in the atmosphere.  *


----------



## Calliope (2 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Oh there would be change in the senate for sure with ALL the senate seats vacated and up for grabs because of the DD...i would expect both the Libs and Greens to lose senate seats to Labor...the 2 ends of the political spectrum would be hammered IMO.
> LOL u have got to be kidding...united party :shake: well oiled campaign :silly: you are dreaming and in total denial. :screwy:




You appear to be getting rattled Cynical and with good cause, The alarmists are now on the back foot and will soon be in full retreat. The Labor government have put all it's powers of spin and coercion into backing these dangerous megalomaniacs. Now that the GW crusade has been exposed as a fraud they have nowhere to turn.

Rudd's dreams of being a world opinion leader are starting to unravel. There will be many sleepless nights ahead for his large team of spin doctors.


----------



## drsmith (2 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> That graph says a lot more than most probably realise:
> 
> 1. The rise in CO2 concentration is almost linear since the early 1700's despite very minimal amounts of fossil fuels being used at the time. Coal use was just beginning then with oil not coming until the late 1850's and significant use of gas not until the 1930's.
> 
> ...



As a guess part of the answer may lie in fossil fuel type.

Coal is mostly carbon whereas a significant amount of energy from the combustion of hydrocarbons (oil and gas) comes from hydrogen.

What you say overall makes a lot of sense.


----------



## alphaman (2 December 2009)

Looking at Smurf's graph, assuming the data is correct, I think I'll no longer worry about global warming and the polar bears.


----------



## noco (2 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Oh there would be change in the senate for sure with ALL the senate seats vacated and up for grabs because of the DD...i would expect both the Libs and Greens to lose senate seats to Labor...the 2 ends of the political spectrum would be hammered IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL u have got to be kidding...united party :shake: well oiled campaign :silly: you are dreaming and in total denial. :screwy:




We'll just have to wait and see won't we. The laugh will be on you if you are proved wrong!!!


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 December 2009)

alphaman said:


> Looking at Smurf's graph, assuming the data is correct, I think I'll no longer worry about global warming and the polar bears.



Note that I am basing my comments there on the graph and can NOT confirm the accuracy or otherwise of the graph itself since I do not have the original data.


----------



## BigWillieStyles (3 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> LOL
> 
> There is a slight difference.
> 
> There is evidence that tobacco causes lung and other cancers. That smoking causes cancer qualifies as a bona fide theory as scientists are able to make fairly accurate predictions about smokers in contrast to non-smokers.







> “ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer,” said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Director of Strategy & Policy. “A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years.”




What the tabacco lobbyists said back then ...



> 1 “The claim that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer has not been scientifically proven………..it is a reductionist error and not keeping with the current theories of cancer causation to attempt to assign each cancer to an exclusive single cause…………the use of results from flawed population studies to frighten people by attributing large numbers of death yearly to smoking may be misleading and is most regrettable………
> 
> 2 “There is no experimental data to support the hypothesis that smoking causes lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, or chronic bronchitis………any number of things can influence the onset of a disease. The list includes genetics, diet, workplace environment, and stress…….we understand public anxiety about smoking causing disease, but are concerned that many of these much-publicized associations are ill-informed and misleading




Heres a insider document from The Brown and Wilson Tabacco Corporation about how doubt is their best tool for distracting the public.



> Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the “body of fact” that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy. Within the business we recognise that a controversy exists. However, with the general public the consensus is that cigarettes are in some way harmful to the health. If we are successful in establishing a controversy at the public level, then there is an opportunity to put across the real facts about smoking and health. Doubt is also the limit of our “product”. Unfortunately, we cannot take a position directly opposing the anti-cigarette forces and say that cigarettes are a contributor to good health. No information that we have supports such a claim.
> 
> Smoking and Health Proposal, Bates No. 690010927/0935 [1]




Interested in reading more  ----> http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf



Sounds somewhat similar to the global warming arguments to me.


----------



## HankMoody (3 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> Oh crap!
> 
> Some Gormon apostle has linked ASF to The Church of Al Gore of Latter Day Alarmists!
> 
> ...




Well seeing as you claimed it's all been torn a new one I thought you would be well educated on the subject. Obviously I was wrong.

And the poor attempt at a personal attack was interesting, pathetic, but still interesting.


----------



## Timmy (3 December 2009)

HankMoody said:


> And the poor attempt at a personal attack was interesting, pathetic, but still interesting.




Hank - firstly, see you are new, welcome to ASF.

Please watch out for calling other posters pathetic - you might like to read the announcements threads which discuss treating ASF members with respect and civility.  No, we are not perfect, but we appreciate an effort.

But, back to the positive - welcome.


----------



## wayneL (3 December 2009)

HankMoody said:


> Well seeing as you claimed it's all been torn a new one I thought you would be well educated on the subject. Obviously I was wrong.
> 
> And the poor attempt at a personal attack was interesting, pathetic, but still interesting.




1/ I made no claim, you did. I'm not trying to prove something, you are. 

2/ As suspected, precious little in the way of evidence for your claim, and a disingenuous attempt to shift the onus of proof.

3/ Can you please point out who I personally attacked. As far as I can see, I have not referred to any individual.

Misinterpretation of words, whether intentional or mistaken, just like similar misinterpretation of science, whether intentional or mistakes, leads to incorrect and probably very dangerous conclusions.


----------



## matty77 (3 December 2009)

rising sea levels...

can someone tell me how many L of extra water we need in the ocean to make is rise an extra 1 cm? im just curious on if I should be buying on the coast or not. (its a serious question for you climate gurus)..


----------



## drsmith (3 December 2009)

matty77 said:


> can someone tell me how many L of extra water we need in the ocean to make is rise an extra 1 cm?



Take your 1cm and multiply that by the surface area of the earth. Then multiply that by the ratio of sea/total surface area. 

In short you would have to pee for a very, very long time but if the polar ice caps melted, that's another story.


----------



## BigWillieStyles (3 December 2009)

matty77 said:


> rising sea levels...
> 
> can someone tell me how many L of extra water we need in the ocean to make is rise an extra 1 cm? im just curious on if I should be buying on the coast or not. (its a serious question for you climate gurus)..




Thats a very interesting question.
According to how stuff works, probably 7 metres if the ice in polar regions melted.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm


----------



## Buddy (3 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> Take your 1cm and multiply that by the surface area of the earth. Then multiply that by the ratio of sea/total surface area.
> 
> In short you would have to pee for a very, very long time but if the polar ice caps melted, that's another story.




You will get far more change in sea level from contraction/expansion, due to ocean temperature changes, than peeing in the ocean, so to speak.   Sorry. 
Unless the complete Antartic melts, or we hit another ice age, the impact of tectonic plate movement and subsidence would be the dominant mecanisms.


----------



## drsmith (3 December 2009)

Having introduced bladder contraction I didn't want to complicate the math with thermal expansion.

If the Greenland ice sheet melted that would add about 7m. If the lot went then about 70m. If the latter happened I could enjoy a short walk to the beach but one's mind would quickly turn to more pressing matters.


----------



## bellenuit (4 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> If the Greenland ice sheet melted that would add about 7m. If the lot went then about 70m. If the latter happened I could enjoy a short walk to the beach but one's mind would quickly turn to more pressing matters.




Are you sure about that figure. It implies that the average thickness of the ice over Greenland is more than a kilometre. That seems a lot, but could possibly be right.

The surface area of Greenland is 2.166 X 10^12 m2
The surface area of the earth under water is 340 X 10^12 m2

So, ignoring contraction of ice when it melts, that would imply the thickness of the ice over Greenland is 7 * 340/2.166 or 1098m


----------



## drsmith (4 December 2009)

The 70m figure includes the melting of Antarctica's ice.


----------



## derty (4 December 2009)

I figured you weren't much off the money there bellenuit, though when I looked the actual figure is over 2km thick! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

About Antarctica's ice:







			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> It covers an area of almost 14 million square km and contains 30 million cubic km of ice. That is, approximately 61 percent of all fresh water on the Earth is held in the Antarctic ice sheet, an amount equivalent to 70 m of water in the world's oceans. In East Antarctica, the ice sheet rests on a major land mass, but in West Antarctica the bed can extend to more than 2,500 m below sea level. The land in this area would be seabed if the ice sheet were not there.



 That ends up being over 2km thick average as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet

You also have to remember that the ice will be weighing the continent down, pushing the crust down into the mantle, similar to what mountain ranges do. So if that ice is removed the land surface will rise up too (isostatic readjustment) bringing with it the adjacent sea floor further adding the the sea level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostacy


----------



## bellenuit (4 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> The 70m figure includes the melting of Antarctica's ice.




But I am just using the 7m figure if Greenland's ice melted. It would imply ice thickness of over 1 km for Greenland.

Antarctica is 14 X 10^12 m2. If it were to add an additional 63m to sea level, then that implies the thickness of its ice is 63 X 340/14 or 1530 m. 

These are actual underestimates because they assume the surface area of the earth under sea stays constant as the sea level rises. But of course the surface area under sea will increase as low lying land is engulfed. This would imply an ice thickness greater than the above calculations would suggest.

I have just found a link on Google that says Antarctica's ice thickness is 7,000 feet on average. This is 2133 m. So your 70m figure seems about right.

Greenland's ice is 2.3km, again suggesting your figure is about right, allowing for the fact that as the sea level rises, it spreads over a greater area.


----------



## bellenuit (4 December 2009)

derty said:


> I figured you weren't much off the money there bellenuit, though when I looked the actual figure is over 2km thick! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
> 
> About Antarctica's ice: That ends up being over 2km thick average as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet




derty, our posts crossed. Yes I am quite surprised at the thickness. I was initially assuming a thickness for Greenland of in 10s of metres, not thousands.

According to Google Earth, my house is 24m above sea level. So 1/3 melting would suit me fine, saving trips to the beach. Anything more and its off to the hills for me.


----------



## derty (4 December 2009)

I have had a bit of a look about and the consensus seems to be that 70m rise is attributed to Antarctica alone. Greenland is an additional 7m.

Interesting .ppt here from 2004 http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/0615Oppenheimer.pdf discussing the ice sheets, sea level rise and showing little change in them at the moment. I have not followed up on the accuracy of this though he does go on to say that during the last interglacial period the ice sheets were much smaller and the temperature was 1-2 degrees warmer. Needs some follow up, but an interesting statement nonetheless.


----------



## Wysiwyg (4 December 2009)

Que sera sera


----------



## bellenuit (4 December 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Que sera sera




I like it. I was thinking of starting a thread along the lines of - "Assume it's already to late to stop global warming, how do we make the best of it".


----------



## OzWaveGuy (5 December 2009)

Thought this was kinda funny...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 December 2009)

Dodgy data, makes for dodgy science and encourages dodgy politicians to make dodgy taxes for dodgy revenue raising for dodgy social engineering on the pretext of dodgy assumptions about the weather.

Rudd fell for it.

The University of East Anglia have come clean.

Al Gore was comprehensively discredited by a British judge for his dodgy movie.

And still the trough drinkers are off to Copenhagen.

When will it all stop.

Its a religion.

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner (5 December 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Dodgy data, makes for dodgy science and encourages dodgy politicians to make dodgy taxes for dodgy revenue raising for dodgy social engineering on the pretext of dodgy assumptions about the weather.
> 
> Rudd fell for it.
> 
> ...




Yep its dodgy alright. It's more evil than Thatcher's poll tax or Howard's GST IMO. Because it is a 100% tax on what you can afford. With both sides ignoring the marginal utility of people with lower wages to buy expensive  environmentally friendly gadgets, toys, heaters, air-conditioners, plasmas, cars, homes etc...  But the average citizen will just have to keep paying through the nose because they can only afford the basics and the basics are dirtier for the environment.   

And to think half the tories were behind Turntable to get this up. WAJ
I suppose when your a multi-millionaire like most of our political leaders you can afford environmentally friendly luxuries.

Yep it has become so ridiculous it is like a religion.


----------



## -Bevo- (5 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Yep it has become so ridiculous it is like a religion.






Garpal Gumnut said:


> Its a religion.
> 
> gg




Third that, people have been brainwashed.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Yep its dodgy alright. It's more evil than Thatcher's poll tax or Howard's GST IMO. Because it is a 100% tax on what you can afford. With both sides ignoring the marginal utility of people with lower wages to buy expensive  environmentally friendly gadgets, toys, heaters, air-conditioners, plasmas, cars, homes etc...  But the average citizen will just have to keep paying through the nose because they can only afford the basics and the basics are dirtier for the environment.
> 
> And to think half the tories were behind Turntable to get this up. WAJ
> I suppose when your a multi-millionaire like most of our political leaders you can afford environmentally friendly luxuries.
> ...



It's certainly true that, with the possible exceptions of cars and low energy light bulbs, going "green" does require a significant up-front capital investment that is beyond the reach of many.


----------



## Julia (5 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Yep its dodgy alright. It's more evil than Thatcher's poll tax or Howard's GST IMO. Because it is a 100% tax on what you can afford. With both sides ignoring the marginal utility of people with lower wages to buy expensive  environmentally friendly gadgets, toys, heaters, air-conditioners, plasmas, cars, homes etc...  But the average citizen will just have to keep paying through the nose because they can only afford the basics and the basics are dirtier for the environment.
> 
> And to think half the tories were behind Turntable to get this up. WAJ
> I suppose when your a multi-millionaire like most of our political leaders you can afford environmentally friendly luxuries.
> ...



This is the point I keep trying to make.  We have thousands of people in Australia already struggling to exist financially, many through no fault of their own, i.e. being retrenched after age 40, illness/disability etc.

And in order to satisfy the Coalition's demands re the amended ETS, the extra funds for business were taken from the budget which would have compensated householders.

Yep, the Labor government is really for 'working families', or 'the ordinary people'.  What a joke.  And the Coalition under Turnbull was no better.
It remains to be seen what will happen under Abbott's leadership.
At least it won't be boring and at least he won't be sounding like a paid up member of the Labor Party.


----------



## Timmy (7 December 2009)

Hopefully some progress towards getting to the truth in the research can be made:

British to review data on weather after scandal

_The British Meteorological Office is to undertake a three-year reanalysis of its temperature data and has asked 188 nations - including Australia - for permission to release raw weather data in the wake of the climate-change email scandal._


----------



## tja125 (7 December 2009)

lol, this all kinda sounds like the whole debate some time ago about whether the earth is flat or not.

Even if you are undecided, i see this as one way of looking at it.

So suppose we follow the skeptic's view and they are wrong, we are ****ed! and suppose we follow the believers in climate change and they are wrong, well i guess we have wasted a bit of money, and we have cleaner air, more trees etc (Not so bad).

If we had two planets, one for skeptics and one for non-skeptics it would work out fine, but considering we only have one planet, i'm not that keen to simply wait and see if the skeptics are wrong or not.

My 2c


----------



## wayneL (7 December 2009)

tja125 said:


> lol, this all kinda sounds like the whole debate some time ago about whether the earth is flat or not.
> 
> Even if you are undecided, i see this as one way of looking at it.
> 
> ...



Unmitigated nonsense. Flat earth... pffffffft! Anyone using this argument from now on qualifies as a moron (Now that Gordon Brown has used it). It is not relevant and is a straw man argument.

The problem with the alarmists is that their narrow focus does not, in fact, address many environment problems we have... that would be the real ones, not the co2 ruse.

We could reduce co2 to 280ppm and still have monumental environmental problems which threaten humanity.


----------



## Knobby22 (7 December 2009)

Jimmy cracks corn and I don't care.


----------



## tja125 (7 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> Unmitigated nonsense. Flat earth... pffffffft! Anyone using this argument from now on qualifies as a moron (Now that Gordon Brown has used it). It is not relevant and is a straw man argument.
> 
> The problem with the alarmists is that their narrow focus does not, in fact, address many environment problems we have... that would be the real ones, not the co2 ruse.
> 
> We could reduce co2 to 280ppm and still have monumental environmental problems which threaten humanity.




I'm all for fixing other problems, but this thread was on climate change specifically, and I'm certainly not an alarmist. Maybe you should focus on widening your own narrow focus considering you are so quick to put other people in some category inside your little head. don't be so rude... moron yourself...


----------



## drsmith (7 December 2009)

If all the ice caps melted.....

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/spaceart/earthicefree.jpg


----------



## Knobby22 (7 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> If all the ice caps melted.....
> 
> http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/spaceart/earthicefree.jpg




We could cut a channel and fill the inland sea that existed years ago. Help out the world.

The worst thing about CO2 though is the fact that most of it goes into the sea and forms carbolic acid. Once the level reaches a certain point, expected to occur in 10-15 years, corals die, creatures can't make shells etc.

We haven't got the sense to act though. Too many deniers. Look at this thread for instance.


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> We could cut a channel and fill the inland sea that existed years ago. Help out the world.
> 
> The worst thing about CO2 though is the fact that most of it goes into the sea and forms carbolic acid. Once the level reaches a certain point, expected to occur in 10-15 years, corals die, creatures can't make shells etc.
> 
> We haven't got the sense to act though. Too many deniers. Look at this thread for instance.




Same can be said for people who ignore the School of Philosophy on this thread as well. Too many herd followers disregarding the impact and means of others to cope with paying more taxes. That goes for most of the pollies in Canberra couldn't give a rats about battlers.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> The worst thing about CO2 though is the fact that most of it goes into the sea and forms carbolic acid. Once the level reaches a certain point, expected to occur in 10-15 years, corals die, creatures can't make shells etc.




What is your evidence for this proposition. 

This sounds more like horse**** or religious prediction than science to me.

gg


----------



## Knobby22 (7 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Same can be said for people who ignore the School of Philosophy on this thread as well. Too many herd followers disregarding the impact and means of others to cope with paying more taxes.




I agree the ETS is flawed but we have to act!


----------



## derty (7 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> We could cut a channel and fill the inland sea that existed years ago. Help out the world.



There is no where in central Aust that you can cut a channel to fill now days, it is all well above sea level. 

The inland sea that is talked about is the areas of Australia that were inundated or represent palaeo-continental shelves in our past. Two of these major periods were the Devonian (time of armoured fish - approx 400Ma ago) and the Cretaceous (time of large sea going reptiles such as plesiosaurs - approx 145-65Ma ago). Australia essentially gets younger as you head east so it common for there to exist fossil coastlines and shallow seas preserved within the continent to give the illusion of an ancient inland sea.


----------



## tja125 (7 December 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> What is your evidence for this proposition.
> 
> This sounds more like horse**** or religious prediction than science to me.
> 
> gg




You live in Townsville where James Cook University has done studies into this very thing. Wake up!


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> The worst thing about CO2 though is the fact that most of it goes into the sea and forms carbolic acid. Once the level reaches a certain point, expected to occur in 10-15 years, corals die, creatures can't make shells etc.



If correct then that is the most scientifically relevant and useful comment I've heard from anyone, anywhere in this entire debate.

Taking that as correct, and looking at charts of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, it does however suggest that the issue has been totally misrepresented to the general public. The real threat would seem to be acidification of the oceans, not a rise in temperature of the atmosphere, since atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased at a roughly linear pace despite a parabolic rise in emissions.

"Ocean change" would be a better term than "climate change".


----------



## Knobby22 (7 December 2009)

Some proof:

Now to that alarming research on marine life in the southern ocean which shows that the tipping point where animals will struggle to survive will come sooner than scientists previously thought.

Researchers at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales are warning that acidity in the Southern Ocean will reach destructive levels where it will dissolve the shells of marine organisms by 2030.

As Jane Cowan reports that is at least twenty years earlier than scientists had previously predicted

http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/tighter-timeline-for-ocean-organisms/


----------



## Julia (7 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> I agree the ETS is flawed but we have to act!



Knobby, usually your posts are really sensible, but I'm a bit puzzled about this one.
Are you suggesting that although the ETS is badly flawed, we should still be implementing it?  If so, that just doesn't make sense to me.
Why not start of with whatever action being taken being right and in line with the rest of the world?


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> We could cut a channel and fill the inland sea that existed years ago. Help out the world.



I propose there is an annual world _Hold Your Breath Day_. Every man, woman and child (pets if able) shall hold their breath for 10 seconds to lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere. It could be incorporated into the _Earth Hour_ held on the last Saturday of March although I don't recommend a full hour without breathing.


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 December 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> I propose there is an annual world _Hold Your Breath Day_. Every man, woman and child (pets if able) shall hold their breath for 10 seconds to lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere. It could be incorporated into the _Earth Hour_ held on the last Saturday of March although I don't recommend a full hour without breathing.




LOL. You mean something to prevent this wysi.


----------



## Knobby22 (7 December 2009)

Julia said:


> Knobby, usually your posts are really sensible, but I'm a bit puzzled about this one.
> Are you suggesting that although the ETS is badly flawed, we should still be implementing it?  If so, that just doesn't make sense to me.
> Why not start of with whatever action being taken being right and in line with the rest of the world?




Sorry, was unclear.
The ETS is flawed. We should be able to come up with a better scheme.
Secondly, I mean we as the world should act. 
I think Rudd but think he lost his way on this because he remembers being cheered when he at the last climate change meeting and now at Copenhagen he has nothing to show anyone that he has achieved.


----------



## drsmith (7 December 2009)

derty said:


> There is no where in central Aust that you can cut a channel to fill now days, it is all well above sea level.
> 
> The inland sea that is talked about is the areas of Australia that were inundated or represent palaeo-continental shelves in our past. Two of these major periods were the Devonian (time of armoured fish - approx 400Ma ago) and the Cretaceous (time of large sea going reptiles such as plesiosaurs - approx 145-65Ma ago). Australia essentially gets younger as you head east so it common for there to exist fossil coastlines and shallow seas preserved within the continent to give the illusion of an ancient inland sea.



In an ironic twist we have been emptying inland basins of water with no better example than the Aral Sea.

While Lake Eyre itself is slightly below sea level the basin itself could be flooded by diverting east coast rivers westward (Bradford Scheme) but it would take a while (if ever ??) and modelling has indicated that there would be no tangable net benefit to rainfall over SE Aust (one of the original objectives of the scheme).

Elsewhere though there is more potential.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_canal


----------



## Knobby22 (7 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> In an ironic twist we have been emptying inland basins of water with no better example than the Aral Sea.
> 
> While Lake Eyre itself is slightly below sea level the basin itself could be flooded by diverting east coast rivers westward (Bradford Scheme) but it would take a while (if ever ??) and modelling has indicated that there would be no tangable net benefit to rainfall over SE Aust (one of the original objectives of the scheme).
> 
> ...




Interesting, isn't there also a lake in Russia that's emptying?


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> *While Lake Eyre itself is slightly below sea level the basin itself could be flooded by diverting east coast rivers westward *(Bradford Scheme) but it would take a while (if ever ??) and modelling has indicated that there would be no tangable net benefit to rainfall over SE Aust (one of the original objectives of the scheme).Elsewhere though there is more potential.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_canal




Lol, I bags the excavator job. But seriously, the Bradfield Scheme is a typical greedy, hair-brained, short-sighted, city slicker idea and thankfully someone pulled him up before he attempted world conquest. Leave nature be.


----------



## wayneL (8 December 2009)

tja125 said:


> I'm all for fixing other problems, but this thread was on climate change specifically, and I'm certainly not an alarmist. Maybe you should focus on widening your own narrow focus considering you are so quick to put other people in some category inside your little head. don't be so rude... moron yourself...



If you look very carefully, I didn't call you a moron. That is against the ASF code of conduct. I said anyone who uses the argument from now on qualifies as one.

Please don't call people morons.

What does strike me is how alarmists are unable or unwilling to make these subtle differentiations and consequently arrive at inappropriate conclusions... you know, stuff like not being able to find genuine warming in the data and  cherrypicking data, accepting data with a ludicrous amount of (obvious) artefact, and even hiding inconvenient truths to come to and expedient conclusion anyway.

As for not considering yourself an alarmist... what would you call me if I suggested pre-emptively nuking China "just in case" they decide to invade us some time in the next century or two?


----------



## wayneL (8 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Some proof:
> 
> Now to that alarming research on marine life in the southern ocean which shows that the tipping point where animals will struggle to survive will come sooner than scientists previously thought.
> 
> ...




Ahem...

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162



> In a striking finding that raises new questions about carbon dioxide’s (CO2) impact on marine life, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) scientists report that some shell-building creatures””such as crabs, shrimp and lobsters””unexpectedly build more shell when exposed to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
> 
> Because excess CO2 dissolves in the ocean””causing it to “acidify” ””researchers have been concerned about the ability of certain organisms to maintain the strength of their shells. Carbon dioxide is known to trigger a process that reduces the abundance of carbonate ions in seawater””one of the primary materials that marine organisms use to build their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (8 December 2009)

Ocean Acidification and Corals

Edit to add>> Here is a comment from the above blog which is spot on and furthers my consistent point that co2 is a red herring... meanwhile, there are more important things being ignored:



> Make no mistake. Corral(sic) reefs are in trouble. Largely from pesticide and fertilizer runoff as well as sewage sludge. CO2 is the least of their problems.


----------



## akkopower (8 December 2009)

I feel it is about time we all start to live our lives as described by some religous doctine. If we change our lifestyles and god exists (<0.0000001%) we save ourselves from eternal damnation, and live like gods for eternity. Else we wasted a few sundays in church......................


----------



## bellenuit (8 December 2009)

After listening to James Hensen, the NASA climatologist, on Lateline, I'm becoming more and more convinced that there is global warming and that man is responsible for it.

He holds the opinion that an ETS is useless to prevent GW and that the only solution is a direct tax on fossil fuels. He likens the ETS to the indulgences granted by the Catholic Church (in the middle ages?) that effectively allowed sinners to go on sinning, but could buy salvation if they had enough money to do so, by buying indulgences from the Church. That kept the Bishops happy as they got the income and the sinners happy as they could go on sinning (if they could afford it). The ETS is the same. It allows the major polluters to continue polluting by buying offsets, but it doesn't stop them polluting. Governments claw in the money from the cost of the offsets.

The topic of this thread is Climategate. All we know is that a few scientists have been over enthusiastic in their endeavours to prove global warming is man made. But why does that negate the 99% of the rest of the science that also seems to prove the same thing (and before anyone asks me to show the proof, I cannot, I am not an expert and simply have to make my judgement on what seems to be the most persuasive argument).

To be honest, what influenced me enormously at arriving at the conclusion that what most scientists are saying is right, is that Fox News is saying the opposite and promoting the argument that the leaked emails are proof that the whole of the science is fabricated. Being on the same side of the argument as them is anathema to me and I started to question the facts of the doubters and they held less water than the pro man made climate change argument.

I respect the opinions of everyone (well most) on ASF, but what I find interesting is that those who are against the science that seems to prove that man is responsible for GW and are latching on to whatever flimsy arguments that the doubters may offer, are also those who, like me, would ridicule the arguments put forward by the God believers on this forum who reject evolution and the rest of the science that explains the universe without the need for some omnipotent deity being involved. 

Why do we hold science in such esteem when it comes to the topic of religion, but doubt it so much when it comes to the major cause of climate change. If we are honest with ourselves, few of us understand the science underpinning either area and chose to go with whatever aligns with our prejudices.


----------



## wayneL (8 December 2009)

Eh?

There must be AGW because Fox says there isn't? 

That's not very logical.

Fox are undoubtedly outright denialists (and a pack of numpties to be frank), but they serve as a diametrically opposed counterpoint to the hystrionics of the AGW lobby.

I also must take issue with your statement that 99% of the rest of science proves the same thing. It absolutely does not... well only in the Goreists fantasies and in the now hysterical propaganda.

In the real world, pro AGW science is in real trouble... at least the Goreist/IPCC version of it is.


----------



## wayneL (8 December 2009)

BTW, another simmering controversy of climategate proportions is the lifestyles and "carbon footprints" of Copenhagen delegates.

What a colossal hypocrisy!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...mos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html



> Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
> Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.
> 
> By Andrew Gilligan
> ...


----------



## Aussiejeff (8 December 2009)

If I hear ONE MORE TIME the media broadcasting that friggin' _**SCREEEEEEEAAAAAAAMMMMMMMM!!!**_ by that kiddy starring in the global Warming Horror Movie Advertisement (ostensibly created to SHOCK and AWE the participants of this gobfest - and the Rest Of The Known World to boot) - I'll go mental   :silly:

Talk about gratuitous scare tactics.....

:angry:


----------



## Aussiejeff (8 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> BTW, another simmering controversy of climategate proportions is the lifestyles and "carbon footprints" of Copenhagen delegates.
> 
> What a colossal hypocrisy!!!
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...mos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html




....and just how many follow-up **Super Summits** do you think the World's Polly Waffles will be tempted to organise after being **wowed** by this stunning event?

Next stop Vanuatu?

Siberia?

Alice Springs?

Boggled....


----------



## wayneL (8 December 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> ....and just how many follow-up **Super Summits** do you think the World's Polly Waffles will be tempted to organise after being **wowed** by this stunning event?
> 
> Next stop Vanuatu?
> 
> ...



How about Hawkes Bay, I'll invest in a fleet of limos.


----------



## wayneL (8 December 2009)

from http://wattsupwiththat.com/


----------



## Aussiejeff (8 December 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> If I hear ONE MORE TIME the media broadcasting that friggin' _**SCREEEEEEEAAAAAAAMMMMMMMM!!!**_ by that kiddy starring in the global Warming Horror Movie Advertisement (ostensibly created to SHOCK and AWE the participants of this gobfest - and the Rest Of The Known World to boot) - I'll go mental   :silly:
> 
> Talk about gratuitous scare tactics.....
> 
> :angry:




Remember the Grim Reaper ads?

Also had _screeching, screaming_ kiddies being *bowled over*.

Maybe KRudd should develop an appropriate *screech* to scare us some more...


----------



## Agentm (8 December 2009)

the rains keep coming

and i gather the drought (caused by carbon no doubt) will continue

lol


----------



## Aussiejeff (8 December 2009)

Agentm said:


> the rains keep coming
> 
> and i gather the drought (caused by carbon no doubt) will continue
> 
> lol




Forecast for Friday is possible SNOW falls in the alps.

Dreaming of a White Xmas??


----------



## Aussiejeff (8 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> from http://wattsupwiththat.com/




Une classique, monsewer


----------



## Knobby22 (8 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> Ahem...
> 
> http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162




Very interesting research, thanks for discovering it and I am glad  some creatures such as crabs and lobsters have a defense for higher CO2 levels. But you cherrypicked the report to suit your beliefs. What about these quotes?

_Current atmospheric CO2 levels are about 380 ppm, she said. Above this level, calcification was reduced in the coral and the hard clam, but elevated in the lobster

 The “take-home message, “ says Cohen, is that “we can’t assume that elevated CO2 causes a proportionate decline in calcification of all calcifying organisms.” WHOI and the National Science Foundation funded the work._

and the conclusion:

_“It’s hard to predict the overall net effect on benthic marine ecosystems," he says. “In the short term, I would guess that the net effect will be negative. In the long term, ecosystems could re-stabilize at a new steady state.

 “The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”_


----------



## Knobby22 (8 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> Ocean Acidification and Corals
> 
> Edit to add>> Here is a comment from the above blog which is spot on and furthers my consistent point that co2 is a red herring... meanwhile, there are more important things being ignored:




To say one evil shouldn't be corrected because of another evil is illogical.

In any case they are two sides of the same coin. Much of the pollution is formed by burning fossil fuels whether the photochemical smog is made from cars or cold burning power stations.

And of course I agree fertilizers and lets face it human bodily waste entering pristine waters should not occur and is slowly being fixed worldwide however that doesn't mean you shouldn't act on related problems.

Sometimes they are linked. The destruction of forests in Brneo is destroying the habitat for many precious creatures such as Orangutangs. It is also adding massive amounts of carbon to the atmosphere and polluting the waters as waste washes into the sea and farming takes place. Part of Australia's plans to reduce this is to pay Indonesia to lock up the forests and take a carbon credit for our country for that. 

Everything is linked and maybe you don't agree with the emphasis but you cannot argue we should ignore the problems.


----------



## Knobby22 (8 December 2009)

Agentm said:


> the rains keep coming
> 
> and i gather the drought (caused by carbon no doubt) will continue
> 
> lol




Better not use Australian weather as your argument. New heat record for Melbourne occurred, our second heat record for the year.


----------



## wayneL (8 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Very interesting research, thanks for discovering it and I am glad  some creatures such as crabs and lobsters have a defense for higher CO2 levels. But you cherrypicked the report to suit your beliefs. What about these quotes?
> 
> _Current atmospheric CO2 levels are about 380 ppm, she said. Above this level, calcification was reduced in the coral and the hard clam, but elevated in the lobster
> 
> ...



Cherrypicking?

Me?

Only alarmists cherrypick! 

But as a point of order, the conclusion does not follow from the data presented. As such, it is a gratuitous hat tip to the powerful warming lobby. It made me laugh.


----------



## wayneL (8 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> To say one evil shouldn't be corrected because of another evil is illogical.
> 
> In any case they are two sides of the same coin. Much of the pollution is formed by burning fossil fuels whether the photochemical smog is made from cars or cold burning power stations.
> 
> ...




It may seem that way at face value. 

However attacking co2 levels may not reduce pollution... may even increase it.

Attacking general pollution, including that caused directly and indirectly by burning hydrocarbons, but not specifically co2 which isn't a pollutant in the strict sense, plus addressing land and resource use, may bring down or stabilize co2 as a by product.

I know which way I want to approach it.


----------



## Nyden (8 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Better not use Australian weather as your argument. New heat record for Melbourne occurred, our second heat record for the year.




No, we can. It was 14 degrees today, with a whole lot of rain as well  What a scorching hot summer we're having in Melbourne.


----------



## Knobby22 (8 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> It may seem that way at face value.
> 
> However attacking co2 levels may not reduce pollution... may even increase it.
> 
> ...




I am in partial agreement with you on this. I worry that setting up a giant beauracracy of carbon credits is a messy, wasteful and ultimately fruitless way to do it as mankind has a way of evading laws like this. I am hoping for a visionary to come out of Copenhagen but I don't fancy my chances.:karaoke:


----------



## Knobby22 (8 December 2009)

Nyden said:


> No, we can. It was 14 degrees today, with a whole lot of rain as well  What a scorching hot summer we're having in Melbourne.




So the hottest November ever dosn't mean anything???


----------



## Nyden (8 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> So the hottest November ever dosn't mean anything???




Sigh, it wasn't the hottest November. The hottest November was back in 1890-something. Wow, over a 100 years ago - how's that for Climate Change?

Edit: Apparently it was broken : - but again, doesn't the fact that heat waves existed back then indicate that cycles are just a natural order?


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 December 2009)

Nyden said:


> Sigh, it wasn't the hottest November. The hottest November was back in 1890-something. Wow, over a 100 years ago - how's that for Climate Change?
> 
> Edit: Apparently it was broken : - but again, doesn't the fact that heat waves existed back then indicate that cycles are just a natural order?




This graph is plotted for mean maximum temperature from 1861-1890. Along side it is the 2009 plot to this year October 2009. Looks very normal if on the slightly high side by 1 or 2 °C .


----------



## gav (8 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Better not use Australian weather as your argument. New heat record for Melbourne occurred, our second heat record for the year.




And you better not use Australian weather as your argument either... 

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-email-mess-hits-australia-20091204-kb39.html

"In another case, 30 years of data is attributed to a site at Cobar Airport but the frustrated programmer writes: "Now looking at the dates. something bad has happened ... COBAR AIRPORT AWS [automatic weather station] cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!" 

"I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar co-ordinates."


----------



## Trade wind (8 December 2009)

Deny science at your peril, or rather your grandkids' peril. Global warming has taken off at an unprecedented rate since the 1980s and only a fool or an ideologue like Tony Abbott could deny it. Check out the graph below and others like it from NASA:

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

NASA is a reputable organisation last time I looked but, hey, I'm sure there are deniers who claim all science is a commie plot. And if humans aren't causing global warming, what is? Sunspots? Alien ray guns?


----------



## wayneL (9 December 2009)

Trade wind said:


> Deny science at your peril, or rather your grandkids' peril. Global warming has taken off at an unprecedented rate since the 1980s and only a fool or an ideologue like Tony Abbott could deny it. Check out the graph below and others like it from NASA:
> 
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
> 
> NASA is a reputable organisation last time I looked but, hey, I'm sure there are deniers who claim all science is a commie plot. And if humans aren't causing global warming, what is? Sunspots? Alien ray guns?




:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

Science..... 

The science has been comprehensively discredited. The hockey stick smashed to pieces, the IPCC models rendered to a quirky little curve fitted curiosity that have utterly failed to predict anything except that more reputations are going in the tank.

The data used to construct that graph is totally degraded into farce. It cannot be relied upon.

The Church of Al Bore of Latter Day Alarmists have taken to the Goebbelsian tactic of repetition. It will fool many, maybe enough to fulfil their agenda, whatever it is. But it won't fool everyone maybe enough to foil their stinking idea of... whatever it is.

Meanwhile, genuine environmental issues continue unabated and irrepairable damage done to the credibility (by association with the Klimate Klaxons) of fair dinkum environmental activists.


----------



## wayneL (9 December 2009)

FYI Via Wattsupwiththat.



> Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak
> Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol...
> 
> ..."It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text




Also Copenhagen conference in 'disarray'

Also a good read on weather stations shenanigans: 

The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero

Oh Dear, the wheel are falling off the bandwagon. They will have to resurrect Goebbels himself to get out of this one.


----------



## Aussiejeff (9 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> FYI Via Wattsupwiththat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Future generations might well look back on this period in the "development" of human civilization as "The Age Of Smoke & Mirrors"....


----------



## Calliope (9 December 2009)

Climategate's Deep Throat;


----------



## Wysiwyg (9 December 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> Future generations might well look back on this period in the "development" of human civilization as "The Age Of Smoke & Mirrors"....



I suppose that goes with the speed and distance information can circulate nowadays. Lying is an option people take when they are wrong or they want to control a situation.


----------



## tja125 (9 December 2009)

LMFAO


----------



## tja125 (9 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> from http://wattsupwiththat.com/




LOL, anyone who believes anything about these so called "scandal emails" please watch this video to very end!:

http://www.desmogblog.com/another-look-stolen-emails


----------



## wayneL (9 December 2009)

tja125 said:


> LOL, anyone who believes anything about these so called "scandal emails" please watch this video to very end!:
> 
> http://www.desmogblog.com/another-look-stolen-emails




I watched it the very end. :sleeping:

What does it prove?


----------



## tja125 (9 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> I watched it the very end. :sleeping:
> 
> What does it prove?




It doesn't need to prove anything, it simply explains exactly what the so called scandal is all about and shows that it isn't such a scandal after all... Plain and simple


----------



## So_Cynical (9 December 2009)

While we are on the subject of facts and figures...i found this chart in a overview document put together by Hydro Tasmania...apparently over the last decade or so Tasmania's comprehensive Hydro electricity generation system has been generating less and less power from Hydro due to consistently falling water inflows.

Tasmania is famous in southern Australia for its very predictable weather and very predictable rainfall....this has got to do with Latitude, mountains, the southern ocean and prevailing weather patterns.

Hydro Tasmania has been monitoring river flows in the 6 major catchments since early this century...all very easy to monitor, very accurate and not really open to any interpretation....water inflows have been in a declining long term, unprecedented trend since the late 70's

http://www.hydro.com.au/documents/Corporate/Hydro_Electricity_in_Tasmania.pdf
.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> While we are on the subject of facts and figures...i found this chart in a overview document put together by Hydro Tasmania...apparently over the last decade or so Tasmania's comprehensive Hydro electricity generation system has been generating less and less power from Hydro due to consistently falling water inflows.
> 
> Tasmania is famous in southern Australia for its very predictable weather and very predictable rainfall....this has got to do with Latitude, mountains, the southern ocean and prevailing weather patterns.



Depending on what historic baseline you use, total system inflows now are up to 16% down (on a rolling average basis) from those long term figures. It amounts to an annual increased loss of about 0.5% of original flows.

What's more worrying is to realise that man-made rainfall creation has partially offset the decline, Tasmania being one of the few places where cloud seeding has been proven to work and is in permanent use on a commercial basis. Without that, the situation would be even worse.

The basic nature of the decline in inflows takes two forms. First is increased evaporation due to changing climate and second is what I term the "rain hole" during Autumn - a period where rains essentially cease at that time of year (which historically was not the case). Those trends both date back to the 70's and were becoming clear during the 1990's.

Also evident is a virtual absence of high rainfall years in recent times, a similar situation to that seen in SW WA that has seriously affected Perth's water catchments.

It is also a factually correct matter that the Hydro's system would have failed specacularly in each of the past few years if not for extensive use of thermal support generation via Bell Bay power station (the only significant fuel burning power plant ever built in Tas which has spent most of its life sitting idle), development of wind energy and more recently the import of electricity from Victoria. Indeed it would be true to say that the situation has been very tight despite those measures.

All that said, Winter 2009 was exceptionally wet and has lifted Hydro storages to a peak of 46.9% on the 5th of October, a huge rise from the level of 27.3% just 14 weeks earlier and the low of 16.9% in june 2008.

My frequent references to Tasmania in the context of the energy and climate change debate is not because I live there. It is due to a number of factors as follows. 

1. First Australian state to go down the energy-intensive industry track and it went further than anywhere. If Tasmania were an independent country, it would have ranked 1st in the world in that regard for many years. For some decades, that sector of the Tasmanian economy was somewhat larger than the resource industries of Qld, WA, SA and the NT combined at that time.

2. Also the first Australian state to face the reality of resource constraints as half a century of hydro-electricity as the state's primary means of economic development came to an end in the 1980's amidst a blaze of environmental controversy. *The underlying resource may be different, but that is the same fundamental situation faced by the rest of the country at some point ahead*.

3. Economic problems and general events since the 1980's have shown that even stabilising energy consumption is anything but easy in a world set up for constant growth. Eventually, the economic pain became too great in the late 1990's after years of recession and what many termed "a second wave of hydro-industrialisation" was launched, albeit fuelled by gas and imported electricity. Total system load is up 32% since 1996 and the economy has boomed ever since...

4. Easily one of the first places globally to recognise the problems with fossil fuels, that having been noted as far back as the 1950's in relation to oil depletion and the 1960's in relation to CO2. 

5. Worth noting also that Hydro itself publicly noted the environmental issues surrounding large scale dam construction as far back as the early 1960's. A decade later it was one such development in Tas that gave rise to the world's first Green political party. A decade after that the conservation movement put an end to further large scale dam building.

6. Still has a predominantly renewable electricity supply and could foreseeably return to 100% within a decade if the economics worked and non-CO2 environmental issues didn't constrain development. Technically it's all easily doable, it comes down to cost and politics.

7. Worth noting in a political context that throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's electricity was a consistently dominant theme in Tasmanian state elections and on a number of occasions, most recently 1998, became the primary issue. Energy isn't a new issue to most Tasmanians...

8. Somewhat ironically, would seem to be one of the few real examples globally of measurable effects of climate change. Even more ironic in that the effect is to reduce renewable energy output.

Hence my often repeated view that anyone wanting to understand the issues of energy would be well advised to examine the circumstances in Tasmania over the past three decades. Then you'll find it's not as easy as it sounds - stabilise energy consumption and you end up an economic laughing stock. Develop more energy and the economy booms once again. There's a rather big issue there... 

First attached photo is of Great Lake and Lake Gordon, the largest and second largest system storages, virtually empty during the drought. Great Lake has been in continuous use for power generation since 1916, Lake Gordon since late 1977. Both photos taken by Smurf.


----------



## Mr J (10 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> While we are on the subject of facts and figures...i found this chart in a overview document put together by Hydro Tasmania...apparently over the last decade or so Tasmania's comprehensive Hydro electricity generation system has been generating less and less power from Hydro due to consistently falling water inflows.




And this data is statistically significant? I doubt it, I would have thought a trader would know not to be so results-oriented. That's the problem with all of this - everyone is drawing conclusions from data that seems to be completely insignificant to me. 10 years of rainfall? The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It seems like seeing the market close down today and assume we're in for a crash.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 December 2009)

Mr J said:


> And this data is statistically significant? I doubt it, I would have thought a trader would know not to be so results-oriented. That's the problem with all of this - everyone is drawing conclusions from data that seems to be completely insignificant to me. 10 years of rainfall? The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It seems like seeing the market close down today and assume we're in for a crash.




I am now beginning to understand why many traders have trouble with global warming, (besides the facts they are influenced through biased business media interests especially Fox (follow the money and the politics! the cartoon above is back to front!)).

Stock prices are influenced by many changing factors including especially human psychology that ensures that you can't draw conclusions from history that are accurate. You can't backtest and expect the system to work for ever.

Global warming is a measurable scientific fact. It is happening over the short term. In the past it has happened over the long term. The world is getting hotter and we know why! The seas are only going to become more acidic and we know why! There isn't going to be a crash like the stock market. There have been thousands of scientific studies confirming this and though the nay sayers pick on instances where it has gone wrong (due to the weakness of some scientists but that is the way of humanity) the direction is irrefutable. 

As a fundamental investor I know that media is changing and you should not invest in Channel 9. As a trader you don't care as long as the profit occurs.


Read some news. This is yesterdays.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2765726.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2765906.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2766508.htm

As I said, follow the money. Follow the science. See the crap for what it is.


----------



## Nyden (10 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> I am now beginning to understand why many traders have trouble with global warming, (besides the facts they are influenced through biased business media interests especially Fox (follow the money and the politics! the cartoon above is back to front!)).
> 
> Stock prices are influenced by many changing factors including especially human psychology that ensures that you can't draw conclusions from history that are accurate. You can't backtest and expect the system to work for ever.
> 
> ...




Or, in your case - follow the media? 

I would say that everyone on this thread believes in Climate Change - but few of us believe that it is man-made. 

The temperature on this planet has been shifting since the beginning! We have no control over it, simple as that.


----------



## brty (10 December 2009)

> I would say that everyone on this thread believes in Climate Change - but few of us believe that it is man-made.




I'm one of those, except that I believe that it is possible it's man-made, yet there is no conclusive evidence of it, hence I get called a 'denier'.

What really concerns me is that if all energies  go into fighting co2 emissions, yet something else proves to be the main cause of CC, then we're stuffed. What I have long thought is that we should be learning to live with change, both hotter and colder, by spending the billions, maybe hundreds of billions, on securing food, water, energy, and safe living areas (above areas that could be flooded, away from cyclone prone locations etc).

brty


----------



## lasty (10 December 2009)

"As a trader you don't care as long as the profit occurs."

"As a Scientist they dont care as long as the funding keeps coming"


----------



## wayneL (10 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> As I said, follow the money. Follow the science. See the crap for what it is.




Indeed.

This is what leads many to different conclusions to alarmists.


----------



## Agentm (10 December 2009)

i was talking to my friend in houston texas, 3 inches of snow a week back there..  and that has not happened in 15 years there he says

the whole system of evolution and change in climate is inter related. seasons change as the tilt on the axis changes, the sun rotation increases and decreases, the tidal effect of the inner planets on the sun, and the massive jupiter effect on the solar orbits..

the solar activity has finally died down on the sun, 

and things will change - on earth (lol as it is in heaven)

the effects of carbon (a leading indicator of effect)  is in no way the cause of the warming, the cause of how all planets sit, their orbits, speed and tilt and the speeding up and slowing of the suns rotation all have root causes and effects on many stellar planets.. 

taxing the end product of climate change is a ludicrous notion, and one that will never have any credibility for those who actually care enough to be interested in and fully understand what the actual global climate change is about.. which is a natural progression and inter relationship of entire planetary system..  


the gravity of climate change is in essence caused by gravity.. and the velocity of mass, the temperatures that it causes and the relationships between masses and objects in a planetary system..

just as the moons gravity causes change in the liquids and flows of all the gasses, liquids and matter on earth. it generates temperature in the earths core, it has a real and measured effect on the entire planet itself in every respect..

everything in orbit aroiund the sun also has cause and effect.. and most importantly the sun itself and its winds sunspots and rotation has measurable effects on weather patterns on earth..


pointing all these satellites at the surface and measuring the change of climate in a microclimate of earth, then going bonkers and spinning out on a carbon figure which is nothing more that a net  result of a changing climate, is inexcusable when your ignoring the total picture of where that microclimate sits in the stellar system.. and what the inter relationships are.

having a narrow minded closed shop way of viewing your environment wont change whats actually happening in terms of the bigger picture. and more importantly whats about to occur right now...

its like looking into a pond and seeing it evaporate and forgetting to look outwards and see what caused that evaporation.. omg theres a sun up there...  hmmmmmm

i fully understand how climate change advocates can believe their data, but its time some of them woke up and looked around at thought things through..

not everything is fully understood, but what is understood by many is that things are about to change in the climate of earth and its not going to be anything like a global warming outcome..

Maunder Minimum

let the global warming nutters live their fears imho.. but in no time the cycle of suns present change will be far more understood..

time to buy some cold weather gear.. as we enter the age of aquarius


----------



## Knobby22 (10 December 2009)

lasty said:


> "As a trader you don't care as long as the profit occurs."
> 
> "As a Scientist they dont care as long as the funding keeps coming"




That's a complete slur on scientists completely against their code of ethics.
If that's what you think then you should get out and meet some scientists involved. 

As I said, follow the money and the politics. The money for the naysayers doesn't come from innocent sources. And if you watch Fox you know the politics. Goebbals would be proud if he ran it.


----------



## wayneL (10 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> That's a complete slur on scientists completely against their code of ethics.
> If that's what you think then you should get out and meet some scientists involved.
> 
> As I said, follow the money and the politics. The money for the naysayers doesn't come from innocent sources. And if you watch Fox you know the politics. Goebbals would be proud if he ran it.



LOL that's mild.

One of Missus' best friends is a PhD and works in gene technology. She has far far far FAAAAAAAAAR worse things to say about the integrity of many scientists.

Trying to flip the propaganda argument ain't going to work either. Even if Co2 induced global warming happens to be real"An Inconvenient Truth" was by far the most obnoxious piece of propaganda since Genghis Khan was a lad.

Fox is not where the credible sceptical argument resides. I have placed enough links here to show that.


----------



## noco (10 December 2009)

Agentm said:


> i was talking to my friend in houston texas, 3 inches of snow a week back there..  and that has not happened in 15 years there he says
> 
> the whole system of evolution and change in climate is inter related. seasons change as the tilt on the axis changes, the sun rotation increases and decreases, the tidal effect of the inner planets on the sun, and the massive jupiter effect on the solar orbits..
> 
> ...




Good one Agent M, you are spot on with your hypothesis. You are a man after my own heart. I believe in climate change but not man made.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 December 2009)

Never watched "An Inconveniant truth". 

Not into politicians doing science.


----------



## Mr J (10 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Never watched "An Inconveniant truth".
> 
> Not into politicians doing science.




Are you into scientists doing politics?


----------



## Calliope (10 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> As I said, follow the money and the politics. The money for the naysayers doesn't come from innocent sources. And if you watch Fox you know the politics. Goebbals would be proud if he ran it.




Money is useful but power will trump it every time. At the moment what they are fighting over in Copenhagen is power. Any agreement that comes out of of these talks (backed by *the iffy science*) will result in more control over the lives of you and me.

It won't have any effect on the temperature of the earth.


----------



## derty (10 December 2009)

While I agree that energy from the Sun is the main driving force in the main climate cycles on the Earth. It is due to Earth's orientation and orbital character wrt to the Sun, not the variability of the Sun's energy output.

What you have written here Agentm is mumbo jumbo.



Agentm said:


> i was talking to my friend in houston texas, 3 inches of snow a week back there..  and that has not happened in 15 years there he says



 why do people keep doing this?



Agentm said:


> the whole system of evolution and change in climate is inter related. seasons change as the tilt on the axis changes, *the sun rotation increases and decreases, the tidal effect of the inner planets on the sun, and the massive jupiter effect on the solar orbits..*



The poles of the sun and the equator rotate at different speeds, thus winding up the Sun's magnetic field but the Sun as a whole does not speed up and slow down. What mechanism do you propose for this and where does the energy for it come from?? 

By tidal you mean gravity? The effect of the inner planets on the Sun is absolutely minuscule. Gravity drops off at rate of the inverse of the distance squared. 

Jupiter does have stabilising effect on the orbit of the planets but it is not a massive effect due the the inverse distance squared law.

Where are you getting this stuff?



Agentm said:


> the solar activity has finally died down on the sun,
> 
> and things will change - on earth (lol as it is in heaven)
> 
> the effects of carbon (a leading indicator of effect)  is in no way the cause of the warming, *the cause of how all planets sit, their orbits, speed and tilt and the speeding up and slowing of the suns rotation all have root causes and effects on many stellar planets..*



This makes no sense to me. Are you saying the speeding up and slowing down of the Sun is effecting the planets? What is a stellar planet?



Agentm said:


> taxing the end product of climate change is a ludicrous notion, and one that will never have any credibility for those who actually care enough to be interested in and fully understand what the actual global climate change is about.. which is a natural progression and inter relationship of entire planetary system..
> 
> 
> the gravity of climate change is in essence caused by gravity.. and the velocity of mass, the temperatures that it causes and the relationships between masses and objects in a planetary system..
> ...



The temperature in the Earth's core is largely a result of radioactive decay with some residual heat from the planetismal collision phase during it's formation. The tidal effect within the Earth's centre is minuscule as far as heat generation goes. It also takes tens of thousands to millions of years for the heat generated in the core to eventually convect and conduct it's way to the surface. 



Agentm said:


> everything in orbit aroiund the sun also has cause and effect.. and most importantly the sun itself and its winds sunspots and rotation has measurable effects on weather patterns on earth..
> 
> 
> pointing all these satellites at the surface and *measuring the change of climate in a microclimate of earth*, then going bonkers and spinning out on a carbon figure which is nothing more that a net  result of a changing climate, *is inexcusable when your ignoring the total picture of where that microclimate sits in the stellar system.. and what the inter relationships are.*



What are these inter-relationships? As far as I can see you have the Sun supplying us with energy and gravity. To put gravity in perspective the Moon's gravity is about one tenmillionth (1/10,000,000) of the Earth's gravity at the Earth's surface, the Suns gravitational effect is just under 50% of that of the Moon's (about 1/20,000,000th). As for the rest of the planets I don't really see how they fit into this argument.



Agentm said:


> having a narrow minded closed shop way of viewing your environment wont change whats actually happening in terms of the bigger picture. and more importantly whats about to occur right now...
> 
> 
> its like looking into a pond and seeing it evaporate and forgetting to look outwards and see what caused that evaporation.. omg theres a sun up there...  hmmmmmm
> ...



If the model you have proposed is thinking things through then you may want to think a bit more.



Agentm said:


> not everything is fully understood, but what is understood by many is that things are about to change in the climate of earth and its not going to be anything like a global warming outcome..
> 
> Maunder Minimum
> 
> ...



It will be interesting to see how long this minimum lasts.. 2008 had 266 sunspot free days and 2009 is currently at 259 sunspot free days  (http://spaceweather.com/). The highest number of sunspot free days since the space age began, though during the 19th century and early 20th century these numbers were common for solar minimums. 1912 and 1913 were comparable if not quieter. (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/images/blankyear/100years.gif)
To assume another minimum of the magnitude of the Maunder Minimum is upon us is a bit premature.


----------



## Dunger (10 December 2009)

> Global warming is a measurable scientific fact. It is happening over the short term. In the past it has happened over the long term. The world is getting hotter and we know why! The seas are only going to become more acidic and we know why! There isn't going to be a crash like the stock market. There have been thousands of scientific studies confirming this and though the nay sayers pick on instances where it has gone wrong (due to the weakness of some scientists but that is the way of humanity) the direction is irrefutable.




Climate is changing but I don't see how you can say we know _why?_

Climate Change is a symptom. It's cause and consequences are well and truly open for debate.

There may have been thousands of studies confirming climate change and their reason why but it will only take ONE study to prove them all wrong and that climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon of the earth.

The earth has had much higher CO2 levels - 800,000 years ago. The temperature has also fluctuated since the formation of the earth so why is it a concern over the last 30 years?

There's also concerns about the data that the climate change lobbyists use. If it doesn't fit their model, they say the data contains errors. 

That's not how science works. The data must fit the hypothesis and the hypothesis must fit the phenomena. Not the other way around which appears to be the M.O of some scientists.

It's comparable to creationists who have faith in the bible and claim that the creation of the earth fits to their story... The evidence proves otherwise.

Meteorologists can't predict the weather 3 days ahead. How can they claim to be able to predict the change in weather in 5, 10, 20 or 30 years? Even if they say their computer model fits the past - that's easy to achieve, anyone can use hindsight.


----------



## bellenuit (10 December 2009)

Dunger said:


> Meteorologists can't predict the weather 3 days ahead. How can they claim to be able to predict the change in weather in 5, 10, 20 or 30 years? Even if they say their computer model fits the past - that's easy to achieve, anyone can use hindsight.




But it's not quite the same. They are not trying to predict whether it will rain in Cairns on January 6th 2020. They are trying to predict global climate influences based on the best models they have at their disposal, even though those models are far from perfect. 

Should they ignore what the science is indicating, just because the models aren't perfect?  

No one can predict with guaranteed accuracy what the ASX 200 will close at next Thursday. If they could, they would become very rich in a short time. But computer models show a long term uptrend in stock prices when viewed over many years and at a rate better than interest on cash. That's why most people invest in the share market. They know there are no guarantees, but to reject the models because they are not perfect would indeed be foolish.

Why should it be any different for climate modelling? Who best to do the modelling than the experts in that area. There may be some scientists that may not have acted ethically (though that has yet to be proven). But we don't reject economic modelling because a small percentage of all economic data may have been found to be suspect, so why reject climate models because of some questionable figures in one set of data?


----------



## wayneL (10 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> so why reject climate models because of some questionable figures in one set of data?



Because they don't work.


----------



## Mr J (10 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> Why should it be any different for climate modelling?




Years in the market is meaningful. Decades of the Earth's history is not. I'll be the first to admit that I have no idea of a statistically significant sample when it comes to the Earth's climate, but I find it very hard to believe a few decades could be anything more than the most miniscule of noise. Humans have a long history of being results-oriented and not considering appropriate timeframe and variance.

Please tell me what 30 year means for the following graph.


----------



## So_Cynical (10 December 2009)

Mr J said:


> And this data is statistically significant? I doubt it, I would have thought a trader would know not to be so results-oriented. That's the problem with all of this - everyone is drawing conclusions from data that seems to be completely insignificant to me. 10 years of rainfall? The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It seems like seeing the market close down today and assume we're in for a crash.




Significant? are you serious? Tasmania has the most reliable non tropical rainfall in this Continent...or should i say "had" the most reliable rainfall...did u even look at the chart? if you did you will see inflows trending with great reliability for the first 60 years (this is the first significant bit because it shows predictability and consistency, a baseline) then clearly trending down for the next 30 with a slight acceleration over the last decade.

Its damming evidence (excuse the pun) of climate change that is not open to interpretation...yes its significant. 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/significant


----------



## Julia (10 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> Should they ignore what the science is indicating, just because the models aren't perfect?



There is considerable dispute about 'what the science is indicating'.  That is why so many are opposed to irrevocable and far reaching decisions being made which could substantially disadvantage the Australian and for that matter the world economy.

As long as scientists who dissent from the popular voice are being excluded from peer reviewed journals, and are not being acknowledged by most of the media, there is no genuine and balanced discussion from which ultimately a genuine consensus could come.



> No one can predict with guaranteed accuracy what the ASX 200 will close at next Thursday. If they could, they would become very rich in a short time. But computer models show a long term uptrend in stock prices when viewed over many years and at a rate better than interest on cash. That's why most people invest in the share market. They know there are no guarantees, but to reject the models because they are not perfect would indeed be foolish.



I completely disagree.  For one thing to compare the climate modelling with the stock market hardly seems relevant.  And for the other, accepting imperfect modelling as the basis for a massive global tax which is unlikely to have any effect on climate seems to me to be the ultimate madness.



> Why should it be any different for climate modelling? Who best to do the modelling than the experts in that area. There may be some scientists that may not have acted ethically (though that has yet to be proven).



Not sure how much proof you need.


> But we don't reject economic modelling because a small percentage of all economic data may have been found to be suspect, so why reject climate models because of some questionable figures in one set of data?



I disagree again.  If you go back to all the forecasts by economists and other so called experts in the financial field at the start of the GFC (think the beginning of the sub prime), how many of them came even remotely close to calling what actually happened?  Bugger all!

Sorry, bellenuit, but I think you've just defeated your own argument with this post.





wayneL said:


> Because they don't work.



Quite so.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 December 2009)

Julia, I couldn't have put it better.

Well reasoned arguments, well done.

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner (11 December 2009)

Julia said:


> There is considerable dispute about 'what the science is indicating'.  That is why so many are opposed to irrevocable and far reaching decisions being made which could substantially disadvantage the Australian and for that matter the world economy.
> 
> As long as scientists who dissent from the popular voice are being excluded from peer reviewed journals, and are not being acknowledged by most of the media, there is no genuine and balanced discussion from which ultimately a genuine consensus could come.
> 
> ...




It's pretty simple Julia. The government want to aggregate green house emissions amongst the entire population and distribute the payment to all taxpayers. This is the Combet plan. Pro-worker/paye taxpayer my ass!  :horse: 

Well all I can say as a taxpayer is this "stick it where the sun don't shine."

I'm an individual and don't see why I should have to pay more taxes than the big guys.


----------



## bellenuit (11 December 2009)

Julia said:


> There is considerable dispute about 'what the science is indicating'.  That is why so many are opposed to irrevocable and far reaching decisions being made which could substantially disadvantage the Australian and for that matter the world economy.




Julia. You seem to be assuming that my post was in favour of an ETS. It had nothing whatsoever to do with what policies to adopt. I was responding to the notion that as we cannot accurately predict the weather 3 days ahead, that we shouldn't bother to try and predict global weather patterns and their causes, even though they may effect our very existence as a species. As I indicated, the purpose of the modelling is not to show whether Christmas day will be a nice day in Cairns in 2020, but whether the trends in climate could lead to situations that could be catastrophic to us as a species and if so, is there any action that we can take to prevent such changes.



> As long as scientists who dissent from the popular voice are being excluded from peer reviewed journals, and are not being acknowledged by most of the media, there is no genuine and balanced discussion from which ultimately a genuine consensus could come.




I agree. And don't those scientists also use their own models to come to their conclusions? Or perhaps use the same models as the mainstream scientists, but come to different conclusions.

And I wouldn't make the assumptions that all the scientists that think differently to the mainstream are excluded from peer review. From what I have read, many have been peer reviewed and found wanting.



> I completely disagree.  For one thing to compare the climate modelling with the stock market hardly seems relevant.




I'm not sure why you think it is not relevant? I was simply indicating that economic modelling is trying to predict long term trends in the economy and based on those trends we make decisions on whether we should invest in shares or property or whatever. It is not trying to predict the price of BHP in 2020. Equally climate modelling, as stated above, is trying to predict long terms trends in climate change, not whether it is going to be a nice day in Cairns on Christmas Day, 2020. It was an an analogy to illustrate the purpose of climate modelling, not to suggest that the climate and the economy exhibit the same trends. It was a throwback to the "not being able to predict the weather in 3 days time" idea means we shouldn't bother modelling at all. We equally cannot predict accurately the value of indices or particular stocks in 3 days time, but that doesn't mean we should not try to model economic trends.



> And for the other, accepting imperfect modelling as the basis for a massive global tax which is unlikely to have any effect on climate seems to me to be the ultimate madness.




I have no argument there. 



> Not sure how much proof you need




Certainly a lot more than the rantings of Rush Limbaugh and the Fox network. Somebody posted a video clip, either on this or the other "climate" threads a day or two ago, that seemed to give a fairly good counter-explanation of the "smoking gun" emails to that promoted by the mainstream media. We are being told what interpretation to give on the use of certain words in those emails and if we accept those interpretations then they appear suspect. But even if those few emails are truly indicating fraudulent activity, that doesn't make the whole of the science suspect. And as I said, the counter-explanations are plausible alternative interpretations IMO. I find the very same issues when dealing with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They present facts but then try to tell you how you are to interpret those facts. There are often alternative interpretations that are far more plausible than what the CTs suggest. If you can find that video, it is worth taking a look. All is not what it seems.



> I disagree again.  If you go back to all the forecasts by economists and other so called experts in the financial field at the start of the GFC (think the beginning of the sub prime), how many of them came even remotely close to calling what actually happened?  Bugger all!




Were those that didn't do any economic modelling more accurate? The models didn't forecast the GFC. Pity. You and I and a lot of others would not have lost a lot of money (at least on paper) if they had. But though the models didn't forecast sudden aberrations in the long term trend of a gradually increasing stock market, many of us who stayed invested are slowly recuperating our losses and if past experiences are anything to go by, in 10 years or so it may seem as if it never happened. 



> Sorry, bellenuit, but I think you've just defeated your own argument with this post.




I wouldn't concede that at all, Julie. You have either construed me to have said something I didn't say, or if you actually do disagree with what I said, you are of the opinion that climate science is all bogus. I cannot understand how you would hold the latter opinion, as you do hold some climate scientists in high esteem.

For the record......

I believe climate modelling is not a waste of time and if it makes predictions that suggest that we, as a species, could be in danger, then we should not ignore those predictions, even if we know the model to be far from perfect. That is all that my original post stated. It was a statement in support of science as opposed to not bothering with studying anything because we can't even predict the weather in 3 days time.

I did not state what action we should take. I just stated that we should not ignore the predictions. The actions may be to invest more in researching climate change to improve the model, or to cut down on those actions that the model might be indicating is the cause of the potential problem as a precaution until we know more or even to go all out and assume the model is right and ban outright any activity that the model suggest is a potential cause, even if it means destroying our economies (a better to be poor than dead scenario).  

Personally I believe in a combination of the first two of these. One should always strive to improve the science, but I also believe if there is a belief that CO2 could lead to catastrophic global warming, then we should take actions to cut down on the emissions of CO2. Such as encouraging nations like Brazil and Indonesia not to destroy their rain forests. Such as using renewable energy in place of fossil fuels. These actions will come at some cost, but if they give us some extra breathing space until we get the science right, then it will be money worth spent.

Finally. I do not support the ETS in any way and never have. It has merits, but only if it is universally implemented and compliance is guaranteed. It cannot be implemented by just a few countries, without destroying the economies of those countries due to the disadvantage they would be placed under compared to their competitors.


----------



## Mr J (11 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Significant? are you serious? Tasmania has the most reliable non tropical rainfall in this Continent...or should i say "had" the most reliable rainfall...did u even look at the chart? if you did you will see inflows trending with great reliability for the first 60 years (this is the first significant bit because it shows predictability and consistency, a baseline) then clearly trending down for the next 30 with a slight acceleration over the last decade.
> 
> Its damming evidence (excuse the pun) of climate change that is not open to interpretation...yes its significant.
> 
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/significant




Thank you, I know what significant means. No I didn't look at the chart. I still fail to see how a sample of 90 seasons is significant for a climate that moves in much, much, much, much larger cycles. Scientists are currently arguing about the trend within a trend within a trend within a trend etc. You don't see many traders care about what happens on a 1 second chart. I'm not stating that the sample is insignificant, I'm just questioning its significance.

I think the question of how well we really understand the climate is an even more important question. Models don't seem to have been shown as useful, and I think that suggests a lack of understanding of the global climate. I imagine it's an extraordinarly complex system, and that we're probably extremely arrogant for thinking we can understand it at this point in time.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (11 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> FYI Via Wattsupwiththat.
> 
> Also a good read on weather stations shenanigans:
> 
> ...




ClimateGate emails are only the start, I submit that the data such as in the above URL has been 'fiddled' for years - who cares what the models predict or don't predict. 

Alaska's data also adjusted upwards
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ts/more_man_made_warming_this_time_in_alaska/

Many are starting to review the data submissions - Want a prediction? Here it is - My model predicts that nearly all of the data sets will show warming based on "adjusted" data - upwards for the most recent, downwards for the earliest - definitely man-made so there shouldn't be any debate on that one from the warmists alarmists.


----------



## Julia (11 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> And I wouldn't make the assumptions that all the scientists that think differently to the mainstream are excluded from peer review. From what I have read, many have been peer reviewed and found wanting.



The following is an extract from an article in The Australian 9 December. It is written by Mark Dodgson, Director of Technology and Innovation Management Centre at Uni of Qld Business School.  He is discussing the process of peer review.


> "I regularly hear the advice that to be published you should get to know the editors of a targeted journal, preferably a top tier journal, recognised by some ranked list.
> 
> You should attend conferences where they are present and take every opportunity to ingratiate yourself by volunteering as a peer reviewer and refereeing submissions to the journal.
> 
> ...



There is much more.



> Certainly a lot more than the rantings of Rush Limbaugh and the Fox network.



I'd have given you more credit, bellenuit, than to suggest the opposition science is limited to Fox and the rest of the lunatic fringe.

I'd respectfully suggest you read "Heaven and Earth" by Professor Ian Climer.
Your local library will have it.


> . All is not what it seems.



I certainly agree there.



> Were those that didn't do any economic modelling more accurate?



You didn't have to do any 'economic modelling' to see that markets were falling all over the world and that the ramifications of the American subprime were going to be immense.
I don't actually know what you mean when you refer to 'economic modelling'.
Perhaps you could outline what this means?



> The models didn't forecast the GFC. Pity. You and I and a lot of others would not have lost a lot of money (at least on paper) if they had.



At the risk of diverting from the original topic, I'd just point that I didn't lose money.  Why?  Because I ignored the assurances of the wise economists that it wouldn't come to much and it would all be just okey dokey, and I exited the market.  No economic modelling required.  Just simple observation.



> But though the models didn't forecast sudden aberrations in the long term trend of a gradually increasing stock market, many of us who stayed invested are slowly recuperating our losses and if past experiences are anything to go by, in 10 years or so it may seem as if it never happened.



Well, that's fine if you're happy to take ten years to recover your previous market value.  I don't find that acceptable.

Good to hear that you don't find the proposed ETS entirely functional

Perhaps the issue is as simple as the amount of trust one has in various 'experts' and governments.  Sadly, mine is minimal.


----------



## bellenuit (11 December 2009)

Julia,

I not quite sure what your point is. Are you saying all climate science is bogus and should be disregarded? That we should stick our heads in the sand and not try and model as best we can global climate trends.

You have approached both my notes as if I am promoting the current consensus scientific view, whereas all I am suggesting is that we continue to invest in climate science even though it has shortcomings. I have not argued in favour of any of the opinions offered by climate scientists, whether mainstream or not. 

My comment on peer review was to say that it is not true that all ALL scientists that have an opposing view to the mainstream cannot get peer reviews. Some have been peer reviewed and found wanting. 

There is not just one opposing view to the current consensus opinion. There are many and some are based on quack science just like in any other scientific field. However, there are many dissenting scientists whose opinions I respect.



> I'd have given you more credit, bellenuit, than to suggest the opposition science is limited to Fox and the rest of the lunatic fringe.




That part of my note had nothing to do with the opposition science. It specifically related to the the two e-mails that seemed to suggest there may have been tampering with data and a refusal to share data. Limbaugh, Fox and the Saudi Government have been using those e-mails to say ignore all climate science it is obviously bogus, and have been telling people how to interpret those notes, even though there are other explanations available. I think most scientists, of whatever persuasion, see those leaked e-mails as irrelevant to the vast body of climate science. In any case, most are waiting for the internal investigation to be completed and see what explanation is given. 

With regards to Prof Ian Climer, I have read extracts of articles written by him and his contribution is just as valid as any other scientist, perhaps even more than some. That also goes for James Hensen of NASA, another scientist who is not mainstream.



> Perhaps the issue is as simple as the amount of trust one has in various 'experts' and governments.  Sadly, mine is minimal.




I have little trust in governments and a lot of trust in scientists. I have no choice but to form my opinion from what the scientists say, because when it comes to global climate trends, I am not in any position to make my own science. 

Climate science is probably more contentious than other scientific areas and that requires one to be open minded about all views. 

All I have done is express opinions that are pro science. That the fact that we cannot predict the weather in 3 days time is no excuse for not trying to determine global climatic patterns. That if climatic trend predictions indicate we, as a species, are at risk, then they shouldn't be ignored. I didn't limit that to the determinations of just one side of the debate. Any creditable scientist whose findings predict serious detrimental effects to the earth or its  inhabitants should have his/her findings investigated. I did not at any time promote bad science or try to defend bad science and some of the practices pointed to in this thread are clearly bad science.  

I still fail to see why what I have said should be so contentious. It is almost as if "science" is a dirty word among many on this thread, just like it is among creationists. That somehow or other every corrupt scientist has decided to make climatology their area of expertise.


----------



## wayneL (11 December 2009)

bellenuit;517853I said:
			
		

> have... a lot of trust in scientists.




This is a mistake. They should earn trust just like in any field.

They are human, which means the default position is that should not immediately be trusted.


----------



## Julia (11 December 2009)

Bellenuit, we are going round in circles.  You've now said the same thing several times.  Let's leave it alone.  No point in rehashing.  I'm fast becoming too sick of it all to care.
If a political decision is made to introduce a massive tax on the basis of inconclusive science, then there's nothing I can do about it.

If you have some sort of intuitive and absolute respect for scientists, then that's your choice.  I'm with Wayne in expecting them to earn it.  So far I cannot see that they have done this.

You haven't addressed my other question of what you consider to be the 'economic modelling' you earlier referred to as being valid with respect to the share market.  If you regard this as being as useful as you regard the modelling by popular science, then I'd like to try to understand why.


----------



## bellenuit (12 December 2009)

Julia said:


> You haven't addressed my other question of what you consider to be the 'economic modelling' you earlier referred to as being valid with respect to the share market.




Julia, I'm just referring to the economic models produced by government departments to forecast employment, GDP growth etc. Since these models predict that the economy will continue to grow and as there is usually a strong correlation between growth in the economy and growth in the share market, we can be fairly certain that over the long term the share market will continue to offer good investment returns as it has in the past. I wasn't trying to make comparisons between climate science and economic science, but was using it as an analogy to show how modelling can be a useful tool to show long term underlying trends, even though it cannot accurately predict specific items in the immediate future, such as the weather in 3 days time in Cairns or the closing price of BHP next Thursday.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (12 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> ....I'm just referring to the economic models produced by government departments to forecast employment, GDP growth etc. Since these models predict that the economy will continue to grow....




LOL. Models??? It's politics bellenuit. 

I'm guessing your referring to these 'models' that had the Gov back in 2007 predicting Australia's economy was so strong nothing would affect it - because of china and 'good management'. Just before the ~50% decline.

Still trying hard not to laugh out loud


----------



## bellenuit (12 December 2009)

OzWaveGuy said:


> LOL. Models??? It's politics bellenuit.
> 
> I'm guessing your referring to these 'models' that had the Gov back in 2007 predicting Australia's economy was so strong nothing would affect it - because of china and 'good management'. Just before the ~50% decline.
> 
> Still trying hard not to laugh out loud




Of course you are right, OzWaveGuy. Modelling is just a waste of time. 

Why bother trying to predict trends in the economy and what demands those trends will make in terms of  resources, infrastructure, education, hospitals etc. The guys down in the pub have it all worked out. 

Companies shouldn't bother modelling their business based on assumptions on future sales, material requirements, costs etc. into the future. It will be all right when the time comes. There will be enough cash to buy the raw materials. So what if sales are double what we anticipated. Our component suppliers will just make everything we need available to us on time. I'm sure their typical 6 months lead time can be cut to 1 week just for us.

Modelling is trying to predict future trends. Of course there are going to be errors in the models. They don't know the complete interrelationship of all the variables. There are external influences that they cannot model because they have no access to the data, such as the amount of toxic debt held by the banking system (this was a direct contributor to the GFC which the models didn't predict).

How politicians decide to respond to the forecasts made by the models is a different story. That is politics and there is nothing the modellers can do about it.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (12 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> Of course you are right, OzWaveGuy. Modelling is just a waste of time.




Incorrect and misrepresented in your post. Models are extremely useful tools, many industries use them for planning/financial/staffing/quotas etc - and they are accurate (for periods of time).

However, they *poorly predict the future *when the underlying trend changes. Many have seen forecasts by IDC/Gartner/Economists/RBA wrt to industry and economic growth and trends - but this is strongly related to historical growth statistics and data. Get an unexpected trend change (eg GFC) and the obvious question becomes: "Why didn't YOUR model predict the sudden (and aggressive) change?". Simple: they don't work all the time

*With respect to climate change:* The sun has been less aggressive and the earth has cooled for the last 9-11 years depending which data sets are reviewed. So again, the obvious question: Why didn't the 'expert' models predict this? Answer : They don't work.

*ClimateGate and the uncovering of the truth *is now history in the making as the Psychology of the crowd changes from Climate Change to Climate Scam. Many are now exposed to the underlying strategy: to move wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. It's almost true when people say this is the *worlds biggest con*.

Where there is common ground is on the topic of *cleaner and more effective energy sources:* I haven't found anyone who disagrees with this (although someone in this forum will probably step in now, or an Oil Company Rep).

Feel free to comment bellenuit, but do not misrepresent my views or in this case, views or assertions that I did not make in the first place!


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 December 2009)

OzWaveGuy;518004Where there is common ground is on the topic of [B said:
			
		

> cleaner and more effective energy sources:[/B] I haven't found anyone who disagrees with this (although someone in this forum will probably step in now, or an Oil Company Rep).



Trouble is, we don't really have anything that's ready to go as a replacement for fossil fuels without some major drawback.

Either it doesn't produce the same useful product, is of far lower productivity, or has it's own environmental downsides.

Solar, wind etc are useful as a source of _intermittent_ electricity production certainly. But that doesn't work to run, say, a smelter or a city without relying predominantly on backup from fossil fuels. It's a partial solution only, and then only to the production of electricity (ie no good for replacing petrol etc).

Fossil fuels have massive productivity - man puts very little effort in to get a lot of energy back. Most of the alternatives "employ more people", a polite way of saying they are not as productive and won't scale up as an actual replacement for coal etc.

And as for the environment, need I say more than that nuclear and hydro are the only large scale non-fossil fuel sources we have now apart from firewood etc. Opposition to hydro started the world's first Green political party, closely followed by similar opposition to nuclear. Burning wood isn't without problems and controversy either.

So a better energy source we certainly need, I doubt anyone would argue with that. But we don't have it yet so any forced reduction in fossil fuel use will simply force a rise in the use of nuclear, hydro, wind, etc instead - all of which come with their own problems and don't truly replace the economic role of fossil fuels, particularly oil.


----------



## So_Cynical (13 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Trouble is, we don't really have anything that's ready to go as a replacement for fossil fuels without some major drawback.




The British seem to be adopting a strategy of just building heaps of wind farms and using that power to feed into the baseline power demand....like when ever a wind tower is producing, that is treated as base line and there's a reduction in normal non wind output so that wind power genuinely replaces the non renewable at that point in time.

Its like if there is enough wind generators and there located all around the coast then there's always wind somewhere...so always renewable power being pumped into the grid...so its like a variable baseline power that's always there.

And i hate to keep harping on the "innovation" theme but it is a major part of the Kyoto agreement and the thinking that lead to it all those years ago....and i cant help but think that the Americans will come up with some solutions once GHG abatement has a real value....and money starts to flow from offsets.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> The British seem to be adopting a strategy of just building heaps of wind farms and using that power to feed into the baseline power demand....like when ever a wind tower is producing, that is treated as base line and there's a reduction in normal non wind output so that wind power genuinely replaces the non renewable at that point in time.
> 
> Its like if there is enough wind generators and there located all around the coast then there's always wind somewhere...so always renewable power being pumped into the grid...so its like a variable baseline power that's always there.
> 
> And i hate to keep harping on the "innovation" theme but it is a major part of the Kyoto agreement and the thinking that lead to it all those years ago....and i cant help but think that *the Americans will come up with some solutions* once GHG abatement has a real value....and money starts to flow from offsets.




Not sure I place as much faith in "Americans" coming up with "solutions" as yourself. 

Sure, they solved the Global Financial Crisis and won the World War On Terror, didn't they? 

So it should be a cinch they'll also win the inevitable Global Warming War I too?

Nup....


----------



## tja125 (13 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> After listening to James Hensen, the NASA climatologist, on Lateline, I'm becoming more and more convinced that there is global warming and that man is responsible for it.
> 
> He holds the opinion that an ETS is useless to prevent GW and that the only solution is a direct tax on fossil fuels. He likens the ETS to the indulgences granted by the Catholic Church (in the middle ages?) that effectively allowed sinners to go on sinning, but could buy salvation if they had enough money to do so, by buying indulgences from the Church. That kept the Bishops happy as they got the income and the sinners happy as they could go on sinning (if they could afford it). The ETS is the same. It allows the major polluters to continue polluting by buying offsets, but it doesn't stop them polluting. Governments claw in the money from the cost of the offsets.
> 
> ...







bellenuit said:


> Julia. You seem to be assuming that my post was in favour of an ETS. It had nothing whatsoever to do with what policies to adopt. I was responding to the notion that as we cannot accurately predict the weather 3 days ahead, that we shouldn't bother to try and predict global weather patterns and their causes, even though they may effect our very existence as a species. As I indicated, the purpose of the modelling is not to show whether Christmas day will be a nice day in Cairns in 2020, but whether the trends in climate could lead to situations that could be catastrophic to us as a species and if so, is there any action that we can take to prevent such changes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Great posts Bellenuit you seem to make a lot of sense, and good on you for posting. I too would sleep a lot better if Fox wasn't spreading total crap all over the world lol. Here is that link to the video once more that you talked about for anyone who missed it:

http://www.desmogblog.com/another-look-stolen-emails


----------



## OzWaveGuy (13 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Trouble is, we don't really have anything that's ready to go as a replacement for fossil fuels without some major drawback.




My response is simple: Has the Government of the day really looked? IMO - No! Rationale: The population 'Control' attributes are also a key factor in the strategy.

Why hasn't Wong or Krudd looked within Australia and evaluated the innovators that exist within?

eg here's one I found the other day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLngerzzSBI and appears to have real potential

Is it real? Does it work? I don't know - but neither does the Gov.​
The posters that *support* ETS/Copenhagen Treaty/Climate Change/Scare-Mongering on the ASF are *working incredibly hard* to convince others: My only question is: *Who are you working for?*

I would have expected the warmists alarmists to be actively discussing and debating alternative energy innovations, instead most are simply moving with the psychology of the warmist crowd repeating the same old propaganda.

If someone has created a thread to discuss alternative energy sources - esp ones being developed in Aust, please place a link to the thread(s).


----------



## prawn_86 (13 December 2009)

OzWaveGuy said:


> If someone has created a thread to discuss alternative energy sources - esp ones being developed in Aust, please place a link to the thread(s).




Here is one thread for you OWG - https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4240


----------



## wayneL (13 December 2009)

tja125 said:


> Great posts Bellenuit you seem to make a lot of sense, and good on you for posting. I too would sleep a lot better if Fox wasn't spreading total crap all over the world lol. Here is that link to the video once more that you talked about for anyone who missed it:
> 
> http://www.desmogblog.com/another-look-stolen-emails




Richard Littlemore is an idiot... a bloody cheek accusing others of being nitwits.

Focussing on Fox means that the pro ACC are the real sceptical science, or even the moderate ACC proponents such as Pielke Snr (whom they detest as a traitor to the crusade).

Littlemore is simply the flip side of Fox.


----------



## tja125 (13 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> Richard Littlemore is an idiot... a bloody cheek accusing others of being nitwits.
> 
> Focussing on Fox means that the pro ACC are the real sceptical science, or even the moderate ACC proponents such as Pielke Snr (whom they detest as a traitor to the crusade).
> 
> Littlemore is simply the flip side of Fox.




Richard Littlemore explained the fake emails and outlined everything that was said in the emails as plain facts, without twisting them around or taking things out of context, or quoting things said without properly researching or reading the extent of the emails (Unlike almost everyone else). He also researched things before jumping to conclusions and simply explained these emails properly, which no one else did. I don't see at all how fox would do any of these things, or research anything properly before simply reporting some rediculous news headline. So sorry i do not see how Littlemore is anything like, any sort of equivalent or flipside to Fox and i believe anyone could PLAINLY see this simply from watching that video or reading anything he has written.

What a joke, you have made my day, i don't often laugh outloud, thankyou.


----------



## wayneL (13 December 2009)

tja125 said:


> Richard Littlemore explained the fake emails and outlined everything that was said in the emails as plain facts, without twisting them around or taking things out of context, or quoting things said without properly researching or reading the extent of the emails (Unlike almost everyone else). He also researched things before jumping to conclusions and simply explained these emails properly, which no one else did. I don't see at all how fox would do any of these things, or research anything properly before simply reporting some rediculous news headline. So sorry i do not see how Littlemore is anything like, any sort of equivalent or flipside to Fox and i believe anyone could PLAINLY see this simply from watching that video or reading anything he has written.
> 
> What a joke, you have made my day, i don't often laugh outloud, thankyou.



Sorry mate, your laughter is of the delusional variety. 

You are (whether intentional or not) complicit in spin. Even George Monbiot has conceded the damage the emails have done.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> Sorry mate, your laughter is of the delusional variety.
> 
> You are (whether intentional or not) complicit in spin. Even George Monbiot has conceded the damage the emails have done.




Whatever, the Chinese have everything in hand. Literally. Whatever spin the IPCC wants to come up with, it appears The Inscrutibles are non-plussed about it all.

At least until 2050.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 December 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> Whatever, the Chinese have everything in hand. Literally. Whatever spin the IPCC wants to come up with, it appears The Inscrutibles are non-plussed about it all.
> 
> At least until 2050.



According to this article there are moves afoot to regulate emissions by limiting the coal used per tonne and reduce the number of small steel manufacturers. Moves an Australian government would not even whisper. (or will they?)



> Chinese steel firms with production capacity of less than 1 million tonnes per year will be eliminated from the sector, according to a draft policy document released on Wednesday.
> 
> *As part of its efforts to impose "order" *on the fragmented steel sector, China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology will also raise environmental standards on steel mills, forcing them to upgrade their equipment or have their licenses revoked.
> 
> *Mills should not use more than 92 kg of coal and 6 tonnes of water for each* *tonne of steel produced. Waste water emissions should not exceed 2 cubic metres per tonne of steel produced, and sulphur dioxide emissions should also be limited to 1.8 kg per tonne of steel.*




http://www.chinamining.org/News/2009-12-09/1260340950d32085.html


----------



## tja125 (13 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> Sorry mate, your laughter is of the delusional variety.
> 
> You are (whether intentional or not) complicit in spin. Even George Monbiot has conceded the damage the emails have done.




I only laugh at **** that is hilarious, i don't have any problems with delusional ideas, unlike a lot of people. As for the spin, i can tell my breath is wasted so i'll give up trying to convince you and just be content with the laughter you give me (better than seinfeld, and thats saying something).

*Smiles and Nodds... Walks Away...*

Thanks again LOL.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 December 2009)

OzWaveGuy said:


> My response is simple: Has the Government of the day really looked? IMO - No! Rationale: The population 'Control' attributes are also a key factor in the strategy.
> 
> Why hasn't Wong or Krudd looked within Australia and evaluated the innovators that exist within?



The brown coal industry in Australia was created by a small number of determined individuals, most notably Sir John Monash, and the backing of the Victorian state government which saw the economic and strategic potential back in 1918 and formed the SECV to make it happen.

Large scale hydro-electricity in the Australian context came about at the hands of a small number of business men with the backing of the Tasmanian state government back in 1914 who saw the massive economic potential if offered the island state.

South Australia launched its own low grade coal industry in the 1950's after numerous attempts mostly by the SA state government. It offered SA a reliable fuel supply at a time when that was problematic and also the potential to do something with manufacturing industry as Vic and Tas were pursuing. 

All of these came about with little or no support from the Australian Government or the other states (though NSW indirectly helped by cutting off coal supplies to Vic and SA).

In the case of Tasmania, it went far enough for the Commonwealth to rule out assistance or any kind of bail out if this "high risk venture" sent the state broke. The key argument there being that electricity was unlikely to be of long term use in the event that the only customer signed up at the time ceased to exist. 93 years after it started operating, that first customer is still going strong, as are the other 230,000 who subsequently decided that electricity was no gimmick.

Talk about lack of foresight! The Victorian and Tasmanian brown coal and hydro ventures respectively dominated Australian industrial power supply for decades to come and lead to the establishment of many new industries and much employment in both states. 

Some years later the economic advantage shifted to black coal and Qld jumped on the bandwagon as Vic and Tas had done decades earlier. Witness all those processing plants built in Qld in recent times as a direct result.

What would I do? Well I'd revisit the thinking of the Vic and Tas governments a century ago and this time focus on geothermal. Let's actually go and build a large scale plant, probably in SA, backed by the Australian government. 

Yes it's a gamble but it is the most likely chance we have to gain a national economic advantage in cheap energy once again as black coal's days seem to be numbered. And it just happens to offer an almost complete fix for CO2 from electricity generation as well.


----------



## So_Cynical (13 December 2009)

OzWaveGuy said:


> If someone has created a thread to discuss alternative energy sources - esp ones being developed in Aust, please place a link to the thread(s).




Energy from Thorium forum http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/

Some very smart cookies there.


----------



## wayneL (13 December 2009)

Something to hide.

From Anthony Watts' blog



> Journalist Phelim McAleer (‘Mine Your Own Business’, ‘Not Evil Just Wrong’) asks Prof Stephen Schneider from Stanford University an Inconvenient Question about ‘Climategate’ emails. McAleer is interrupted twice by Prof Schneider’s assistant and UN staff and then told to stop filming by an armed UN security guard.






Yet they allow sceptics to be invaded by rabble. Secuity not interested.


----------



## wayneL (13 December 2009)

tja125 said:


> I only laugh at **** that is hilarious, i don't have any problems with delusional ideas, unlike a lot of people. As for the spin, i can tell my breath is wasted so i'll give up trying to convince you and just be content with the laughter you give me (better than seinfeld, and thats saying something).
> 
> *Smiles and Nodds... Walks Away...*
> 
> Thanks again LOL.




OK  

**gives tja125 a patronizing pat on the head as he wanders off.


----------



## So_Cynical (13 December 2009)

Climategate - The other side of the story...i found this link over at the Thorium forum...some interesting reading.

FactCheck.org Debunks 'ClimateGate'
How The Right-Wing Noise Machine Manufactured ‘Climategate’
NWF CEO Larry Schweiger: Polluter-Pushed Hack Can't Cloud Science
AP Review: Stolen Emails Don't Undercut Vast Body of Scientific Evidence

http://swifthack.com/


----------



## Soft Dough (13 December 2009)

Bushman said:


> OMG - not another climate change thread.
> 
> Maybe one of the mods should start an 'Aussie Climate Change Forum'?




the forum doesn't exist, bit like something else really.

I mean are the Y2K, ozone layer, alien invasion, meteor destruction, WMD and man on moon threads not enough to keep you satisfied?


----------



## tja125 (14 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> Something to hide.
> 
> From Anthony Watts' blog
> 
> ...






Lol, i love lord monkeytongue's comments at the end of the second video about them being hitler youth, classic! This whole climate change thing sure sounds like a dirty commy conspiracy to me i'm sold, please spoon feed me some more fox. Gotta watch out for the reds under the bed.

LOL


----------



## wayneL (14 December 2009)

tja125 said:


> Lol, i love lord monkeytongue's comments at the end of the second video about them being hitler youth, classic! This whole climate change thing sure sounds like a dirty commy conspiracy to me i'm sold, please spoon feed me some more fox. Gotta watch out for the reds under the bed.
> 
> LOL




No comment about the brownshirt tactics in the first video, yet makes much of Monckton's use of common garden variety of English language metaphor. 

Very balanced comment there tj.

We are all cognitively biased to some extent. Some are so biased you have to wonder about their state of mind. I am genuinely concerned for you tj, if that the best you can do and believe you have some sort of point.


----------



## wayneL (14 December 2009)

OK this is degrading into personal pot shots. I'm giving myself an uppercut and a request that others cease the personal stuff as well.

Let's just stick to the science/logic/politics etc.


----------



## wayneL (14 December 2009)

Back to the science:

Have a read of this regarding the warming trend in West Antarctica.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/...ssues-and-adjustments-in-antarctic-ghcn-data/



> SNIP:
> 
> Indeed the Devil is in the details, the details that few people, apparently including the scientists, bother to look at.
> 
> ...


----------



## tja125 (14 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> No comment about the brownshirt tactics in the first video, yet makes much of Monckton's use of common garden variety of English language metaphor.
> 
> Very balanced comment there tj.
> 
> We are all cognitively biased to some extent. Some are so biased you have to wonder about their state of mind. I am genuinely concerned for you tj, if that the best you can do and believe you have some sort of point.




well i didn't bother commenting on the first video as it was just silly it didn't really have that great a point, i actually found more convincing videos than the first video simply by clicking on "whats related" on youtube to the first video. Hence i didn't bother commenting on that one. And i already stated i couldn't be bothered having this argument with as your mind is already made up, so we are both wasting eachother's time (which basically means i'm not going to tell you you are wrong anymore, i just enjoy the entertainment you give me).

I only commented on lord M's word as i found it amusing. Nuff said


----------



## tja125 (14 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> No comment about the brownshirt tactics in the first video, yet makes much of Monckton's use of common garden variety of English language metaphor.
> 
> Very balanced comment there tj.
> 
> We are all cognitively biased to some extent. Some are so biased you have to wonder about their state of mind. I am genuinely concerned for you tj, if that the best you can do and believe you have some sort of point.




Lol, and the best i can do? i am concerned for you if you beleive i was actually trying to make any serious point/debate at all in that post, i was merely saying how amusing it was i thought that was pretty ****in obvious. LOL


----------



## wayneL (14 December 2009)

tj,

Fair enough, you have the right of reply to my post. For my part, the kindergarten verbal jousting stops here; we are well outside ASF's code of conduct, my bad. I suggest you do likewise.


----------



## sinner (15 December 2009)

If you think this won't happen here, that's foolish. Frankly, it is obvious to me that it is ALREADY happening. ETS in it's current form is a sticky sticky mess from an environmental and financial perspective. I don't like it. We should have a hard rolling tax on emissions (not just carbon) which increases YoY and by usage as well as a tarriff on any imported products which are not meeting stringent emissions rules. That way the polluters pay and they can't just offshore to China to sell our resources back to us.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=118953



> By Jerome R. Corsi
> © 2009 WorldNetDaily
> 
> WND research reveals the European Union's cap-and-trade exchange is vulnerable to a sophisticated form of corporate extortion in which EU bureaucrats in Brussels are manipulated into paying hundreds of millions of dollars in carbon permit bribes to keep companies from moving jobs to Third World nations.




As a trader, every day I see government manipulation in the currency markets which FAILS ALMOST EVERY TIME. For example, the Bank of Japan and Swiss National Bank intervene in spot markets often to weaken their respective currency against USD and Euros. But it never works. The moral of the story is: hard market lessons are like a bandaid, you need to get it over with as soon as possible, let the market set the price because in the end it will anyway. 

To me this situation is identical. We need to step in now and set some hard rules on how this will work from which there can be no loopholing or escape. We need to set a dollar value on the environment, and make no mistake that value will end up being higher than anyone is willing to currently pay. But wiggle all you want, sooner or later we will be paying the dollar value of the environment, willingly or unwillingly. 

The market is human nature, you can't **** with it. You can try but it never works. The environment is nature, you can't **** with it. You can try but it never works. All that will happen is the price we strove so hard to avoid paying will be extracted from us down the line by nature in what will probably not be a nice way.


----------



## Julia (15 December 2009)

I posted this on the Al Gore thread.  

Lateline on ABC TV tonight, beginning 10.15 pm, will have a panel discussion on climate change. I didn't catch all the participants but one is Ian Plimer, so it might be worth watching.


----------



## Julia (15 December 2009)

Sinner, if we should "put a price on the environment" how do you suggest this happen fairly?

Australia is widely quoted to have the highest per capita emissions, but this needs to take into account our extraordinary droughts and bushfires, something not experienced by e.g. Europe for the most part.

There are so many differences and anomalies between nations that (perhaps in my ignorance) I can't see it would work on a fair basis.  I understand this is presently one of the many sticking points at Copenhagen.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 December 2009)

sinner said:


> If you think this won't happen here, that's foolish. Frankly, it is obvious to me that it is ALREADY happening. ETS in it's current form is a sticky sticky mess from an environmental and financial perspective. I don't like it. We should have a hard rolling tax on emissions (not just carbon) which increases YoY and by usage as well as a tarriff on any imported products which are not meeting stringent emissions rules. That way the polluters pay and they can't just offshore to China to sell our resources back to us.



Strongly agreed although I note that there is not one single physical product that would not be subject to such a tariff since everything requires energy to manufacture and/or transport.

Given that globalisation always was largely a play on cheap energy, it seems fitting that we'd see a reintroduction of tariffs as energy prices rise due to both supply constraints and environmental concerns.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 December 2009)

Soft Dough said:


> the forum doesn't exist, bit like something else really.
> 
> I mean are the Y2K, ozone layer, alien invasion, meteor destruction, WMD and man on moon threads not enough to keep you satisfied?




Y2K - Hoax. Those who didn't take action "suffered" the same "consequences" as those who did with very few exceptions.

Ozone layer - Probably true. Works in the lab and corresponds with observed ozone levels in the stratosphere.

Alien invasion - Conspiracy.

Meteor destruction - Possible.

WMD - Hoax as part of a broader plan to continue access to cheap oil.

Man on the moon - Anyone's guess.


----------



## sinner (16 December 2009)

Julia said:


> Sinner, if we should "put a price on the environment" how do you suggest this happen fairly?
> 
> Australia is widely quoted to have the highest per capita emissions, but this needs to take into account our extraordinary droughts and bushfires, something not experienced by e.g. Europe for the most part.
> 
> There are so many differences and anomalies between nations that (perhaps in my ignorance) I can't see it would work on a fair basis.  I understand this is presently one of the many sticking points at Copenhagen.




I dunno exactly how you would quantify it J, but to me it is obvious that right now, we are not paying ANYTHING on environmental costs and this cost doesn't look set to rise until it is extracted from us involuntarily by the environment (in the form of poor health due to pollution, degraded environment, ecosystem feedback loops, etc). In fact we probably taking out leverage on future environment for relatively short term dollar gain.


----------



## sinner (16 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Strongly agreed although I note that there is not one single physical product that would not be subject to such a tariff since everything requires energy to manufacture and/or transport.
> 
> Given that globalisation always was largely a play on cheap energy, it seems fitting that we'd see a reintroduction of tariffs as energy prices rise due to both supply constraints and environmental concerns.




 

All I am saying is put a notional $ value on pollution (for all non-essential services etc excluding hospitals and such) and the market will work everything out itself.

Environmentally unsustainable projects will fold up and die, yes. Barnaby Joyce is looking at me right now with a knife in his hand. But sooner or later (my guess is that the necessity of energy will make this a sooner) the market will provide new, better opportunities. Environmentally sustainable projects will unfold and fly. We will take some pain in the short term but only due to our past folly of ignoring this $ value (which has ALWAYS existed, we just ignored it previously). In the long term things will work out fine. I don't subscribe to the statements that with a notional $ value placed on pollution our economy (or any economy) will collapse into an irreparable state. To do so would place almost no faith in the human species of which I am a part.

As an example. Yes everything would be subject to the "tariff" but what is the trriff for a locally grown, in season tomato driven from a hydroponic garden on the edge of Melbourne to the inner city versus an out of season tomato stored in a Woolworths warehouse somewhere for 6 months before being driven across the state to the inner city?

Yes, the cost of Woolworths tomatos will go up. But the local farmer will receive relational increase in sales allowing her or him a better economy of scale and price competition. Without Woolworths to contend with for tomatos (who klnows, they might even stock the product) they might even be able to sell for cheaper than before!


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 December 2009)

sinner said:


> As a trader, every day I see government manipulation in the currency markets which FAILS ALMOST EVERY TIME. *For example, the Bank of Japan and Swiss** National Bank intervene in spot markets often to weaken their* *respective currency against USD and Euros.* *But it never works.* The moral of the story is: hard market lessons are like a bandaid, you need to get it over with as soon as possible, let the market set the price because in the end it will anyway.



Give the bank executives your mobile phone number (in case you're in Canberra for crisis talks with Barnaby :arsch so they can call you for advice on growing tomatoes and possibly some guidance on currency investment.


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2009)

Christopher Monckton interviews Greenpeace Activist in Copenhagen:


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2009)

The Goreistas are putting up a brave front and plenty of spin after having their reputations and credibility put into the tank by having their fraud exposed, but behind the scenes, powerful people are not impressed at having been deceived.

Check these images out from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/...-of-science-cannot-be-accepted-or-tolerated/:


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2009)

By the way, I don't suppose anyone missed Al Bore's clanger yesterday http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece  ROTFL


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> By the way, I don't suppose anyone missed Al Bore's clanger yesterday http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece  ROTFL




The best thing Mr Bore could do for the world environment right now would be to go take a dump on that pesky Phillipines volcano that has started spewing Megatons of CO2 into the atmos!!


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2009)

Some interesting quotes (stolen from another forum)



> "We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
> - Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
> 
> "We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."
> ...




*You are being played folks!!*


----------



## basilio (16 December 2009)

> Re: Climategate
> Some interesting quotes (stolen from another forum)
> 
> Quote:
> ...




You are absolutely right Wayne. We are being played.


----------



## HankMoody (16 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> Christopher Monckton interviews Greenpeace Activist in Copenhagen:





Oh that's funny. A 'scientist' interviewing a regular joe, and he still manages to stuff up the last 10 years of data.


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2009)

basilio said:


> "And a score of of other creative quotes that come from some mindless lying piece of xxxx and eagerly quoted with no effort at verification because why bother bother with reality when loud lies will suffice"
> 
> 
> You are absolutely right Wayne. We are being played.




Basilio, 

As indicated, I lifted that straight from another forum. They could very well be inaccurate or out of context. I have no reason to believe they are at this stage however.

If you can refute these quotes, or put them into a different context, I would appreciate you doing so before any "mindless lying piece of xxxx" accusations are laid.

The ball is in your court, I am ready and willing to stand corrected.


----------



## basilio (16 December 2009)

> Basilio,
> 
> As indicated, I lifted that straight from another forum. They could very well be inaccurate or out of context. I have no reason to believe they are at this stage however.
> 
> If you can refute these quotes, or put them into a different context, I would appreciate you doing so before any "mindless lying piece of xxxx" accusations are laid.




Simple Wayne. The comments you have repeated would be considered outrageously libelous given the people being quoted. You seem to have simply repeated these comments and have taken them on face value. 

I have seen enough of what passes for debate on this issue to recognize a pack of misrepresentations and lies. If you can't provide the evidence to substantiate such grave allegations then you shouldn't be repeating them and this forum shouldn't be spreading them.

That's why we have laws about slander and libel.


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2009)

basilio said:


> Simple Wayne. The comments you have repeated would be considered outrageously libelous given the people being quoted. You seem to have simply repeated these comments and have taken them on face value.
> 
> I have seen enough of what passes for debate on this issue to recognize a pack of misrepresentations and lies. If you can't provide the evidence to substantiate such grave allegations then you shouldn't be repeating them and this forum shouldn't be spreading them.
> 
> That's why we have laws about slander and libel.




Basilio,

I have in fact secured what are purported to be the sources of the quotes. They seem to be genuine. There are in fact many more along these lines. However I will take some time later on to verify them.

But what I have in front of me right now, I have no reason to suspect they are frauds. The original collation resides on a public website, so if there were any libel issues, they would have been taken down.

Remember that the ultimate defence of libel/slander is the truth. 

That you have automatically presumed them to be lies, says what?


----------



## basilio (16 December 2009)

> But what I have in front of me right now, I have no reason to suspect they are frauds. *The original collation resides on a public website, so if there were any libel issues, they would have been taken down.*
> 
> Remember that the ultimate defence of libel/slander is the truth.
> 
> That you have automatically presumed them to be lies, says what?




Well wayne if you believe that because a public website contains information that hasn't been taken down it must be the truth -- I have a few bridges to sell you..

About my presumption of lies or misrepresentation? Question of credibility Wayne. After a time when I see certain sources create and repeatedly report statements that don't coincide with reality I will give these sources very little credibility in the future. I won't trust them. All I will do is admire the very creative way they have have attempted to manipulate  the reader. For example I have seen the outrage of scientists who have watched in disbelief as websites routinely quote selective parts of what they say and then skip lines to come up with a totally dishonest statement.

Using "quotes" from people to make them look like liars, con men, dishonest whatever is a highly effective method of destroying a person. Which makes it even more important to ensure these quotes are real - not manufactured, twisted or talking about a totally different topic.


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2009)

Basilio, 

Here is one very easily verified:

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
- emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

It was taken from the article here: http://www.americanenvironmental.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28

My only cripe is that sans a context, one is left to infer it. However, the quote is accurate and on the public record. Here is the except it came from:



> I'm not a naysayer. I'm a scientist who believes in the scientific method and in what facts tell us. I have worked for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve human life as well. I believe we can do this only from a basis in reality, and that is not what I see happening now. Instead, like fashions that took hold in the past and are eloquently analyzed in the classic 19th century book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," the popular imagination today appears to have been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis.
> 
> Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that *the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe*, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naÃ¯ve. "Wolves deceive their prey, don't they?" one said to me recently. Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change.


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2009)

basilio said:


> Well wayne if you believe that because a public website contains information that hasn't been taken down it must be the truth -- I have a few bridges to sell you..
> 
> About my presumption of lies or misrepresentation? Question of credibility Wayne. After a time when I see certain sources create and repeatedly report statements that don't coincide with reality I will give these sources very little credibility in the future. I won't trust them. All I will do is admire the very creative way they have have attempted to manipulate  the reader. For example I have seen the outrage of scientists who have watched in disbelief as websites routinely quote selective parts of what they say and then skip lines to come up with a totally dishonest statement.
> 
> Using "quotes" from people to make them look like liars, con men, dishonest whatever is a highly effective method of destroying a person. Which makes it even more important to ensure these quotes are real - not manufactured, twisted or talking about a totally different topic.




Methinks he doth protest to much.


----------



## basilio (16 December 2009)

> Quote:
> I'm not a naysayer. I'm a scientist who believes in the scientific method and in what facts tell us. I have worked for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve human life as well. I believe we can do this only from a basis in reality, and that is not what I see happening now. Instead, like fashions that took hold in the past and are eloquently analyzed in the classic 19th century book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," the popular imagination today appears to have been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis.
> 
> *Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe*, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naÃ¯ve. "Wolves deceive their prey, don't they?" one said to me recently. Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change.




So exactly how much rope do you need Wayne?  *The comment attributed to Daniel  Bothkin simply wasn't his.  As you point out he was quoting some other colleagues ideas. *In fact he seems to be saying that he believes in open and honest assessment  I suppose without undue exaggeration. How would he feel if he saw his name associated with statement he  does not agree with ? 

And yet your source manages to do exactly what I was saying before - deliberately twist and manipulate a statement to convey the completely opposite intention.


----------



## basilio (16 December 2009)

Well The American Environmental Coalition was certainly an interesting website. It's list of supporters starts with Pat Roberston from the  Christian Evangelical right, sweeps up the astro turf entities of The Cato Institute, Junk Science and Frontiers for Freedom and originally was set up by aides and staffers for Rebublican nominee Mitt Romney.

And why was it set up ? To attack John McCain on Climate Change in the last election.



> 15 January 08
> Romney Tied to Global Warming Denier Group
> Tags: American Environmental Coalition, clean air watch, Exxonmobil, Frontiers for Freedom, Gary Marx, George Landrith, Jay Sekulow, mitt romney, News We made, pat michaels, Political Spin, Richard Littlemore, steve milloy, US
> 
> ...




http://www.desmogblog.com/romney-tied-to-global-warming-denier-group

One can check out all the links on the site for documentation on the above allegations.

As for Daniel Bothkin? The quote is still a misrepresentation


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2009)

basilio said:


> So exactly how much rope do you need Wayne?  *The comment attributed to Daniel  Bothkin simply wasn't his.  As you point out he was quoting some other colleagues ideas. *In fact he seems to be saying that he believes in open and honest assessment  I suppose without undue exaggeration. How would he feel if he saw his name associated with statement he  does not agree with ?
> 
> And yet your source manages to do exactly what I was saying before - deliberately twist and manipulate a statement to convey the completely opposite intention.



You're dreaming.

The point is that the public are being played. The quoted excerpt achieves that.

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe" remains substantively an accurate reflection of how the AGW lobby are overstating the effects of co2 increases. 

As I stated, I have a problem with the lack of context, but in it's complete context, it is even more damning. The compiler would have done better to include more.


----------



## Sean K (16 December 2009)

There's a very good quotes from Wiki

"scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

They are all referenced and I assume they aren't legal action material.

I'm sure some all the quotes have been done in this thread before, but it's the first time I've seem them all in one spot.

Of course, all the quotes could have been put in there lunatics.

FWIW


----------



## Macquack (16 December 2009)

wayneL said:


> Basilio,
> 
> Here is one very easily verified:
> 
> ...





> Actual Quote
> *Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that *the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate.





basilio said:


> So exactly how much rope do you need Wayne?  *The comment attributed to Daniel  Bothkin simply wasn't his.  As you point out he was quoting some other colleagues ideas. *In fact he seems to be saying that he believes in open and honest assessment  I suppose without undue exaggeration. How would he feel if he saw his name associated with statement he  does not agree with ?






wayneL said:


> You're dreaming.




Wayne, you are the one that is dreaming, basilio caught you out far and square on that one.


----------



## Macquack (16 December 2009)

Lord Monckton Invades SustainUS Booth - Calls U.S. students "Hitler Youth"


WayneL's pinup boy Lord Monckton is one farking ugly farker and a pompous twat to boot.

Lord Monckton concludes: "Don't you dare ever invade any meeting of mine again and behave in that childish, boonish, Hitler-ish fashion. Do I make myself clear?” 

I was hoping at that point that the jewish guy would knock Monckton's bulging eyeballs through the back of his head where he would have a better view of the world.


----------



## GumbyLearner (16 December 2009)

I'm sure Al Gore didn't want to be inconvenienced by this question or his own CO2 *o*missions.

It's pretty hard not to be sceptical about the expensive charade that is *COP*15.

The climategate emails are how old?


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2009)

Macquack said:


> WayneL's pinup boy Lord Monckton is one farking ugly farker and a pompous twat to boot.




When exactly did you graduate from kindergarten Macquack? Childish, puerile stuff there mate. 

I note Macquack is silent about the silencing of climate critics questions.

I also note Macquack is silent on the putrid corruption and politicking amongst climate scientists, yet becomes pedantic in the extreme when it suits his view.

The extreme cognitive bias is plain for all to see.

pffft!


----------



## Mr J (16 December 2009)

Macquack said:


> Lord Monckton Invades SustainUS Booth - Calls
> WayneL's pinup boy Lord Monckton is one farking ugly farker and a pompous twat to boot.




Maybe, but doesn't seem to be anyone's fool, unlike the rest of those people in those two videos. Regardless of the facts on climate change, there's a lot of activists who nothing about it. It is a religion, and that's exactly what certain people want.


----------



## Macquack (16 December 2009)

C'mon Wayne, you would have to admit Monckton  makes Marty Feldman look mighty handsome!


----------



## Macquack (16 December 2009)

Mr J said:


> Maybe, but doesn't seem to be anyone's fool, unlike the rest of those people in those two videos.




Monckton is no scientist, just a self-promoting personality. He tackles some easy pickings in those two videos (as you point out) and struggles to articulate his argument before reverting to his "Hitler" slur. Irrespective of his argument, how could anyone take this guy seriously.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 December 2009)

Mr J said:


> Maybe, but doesn't seem to be anyone's fool, unlike the rest of those people in those two videos. Regardless of the facts on climate change, there's a lot of activists who know nothing about it. It is a religion, and that's exactly what certain people want.



Yes I found that interesting. Obviously their group leader's name is Simon.

But Monk Tongue plays it up for the camera too.


----------



## GumbyLearner (17 December 2009)

Macquack said:


> C'mon Wayne, you would have to admit Monckton  makes Marty Feldman look mighty handsome!




C'mon Macquack you have got to rise above that from an analysis perspective. The guy might have ping-pong eyeballs but really what he is saying about increased food costs for the 3rd-world are not without merit. 

You see as an old hand used to taking out garbage and recycling the good stuff, I'm not against environmental solutions. But I certainly am not going to swallow the dog**** spewed by the populists, because most people cannot comply with greater taxes.

If you want a good read on Monckton as a former adviser to the Iron Lady, read this book *Thatcher's Gold by Paul O'Halloran and Mark Hollingsworth.
*
He's a scientist which I am not, but it could be worth a read to understand some more about the unspoken elite involved.

Anyway this is all about redistributing the burden to the average punter. That's the whole problem IMHO.


----------



## Aussiejeff (17 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> C'mon Macquack you have got to rise above that from an analysis perspective. The guy might have ping-pong eyeballs but really what he is saying about increased food costs for the 3rd-world are not without merit.
> 
> You see as an old hand used to taking out garbage and recycling the good stuff, I'm not against environmental solutions. But I certainly am not going to swallow the dog**** spewed by the populists, because most people cannot comply with greater taxes.
> 
> ...




.... the overnight announcement of Mr Benwanker as Time magazine's _2009 Man Of The Year_ sorta reinforces that re-distribution of debt view....   WTF???? didn't this goose oversee the worst collapse of US financial markets since King Kong swung from the Empire State building??? So he is REWARDED???  Double-WTF????  :angry:

Yeah, mum - I can hear you calling from the grave just fine .... "THE WORLD'S GONE MAD!!!"


----------



## wayneL (17 December 2009)

Macquack said:


> C'mon Wayne, you would have to admit Monckton  makes Marty Feldman look mighty handsome!




I am in no position to bag anyone's looks!


----------



## Julia (17 December 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> .... the overnight announcement of Mr Benwanker as Time magazine's _2009 Man Of The Year_ sorta reinforces that re-distribution of debt view....   WTF???? didn't this goose oversee the worst collapse of US financial markets since King Kong swung from the Empire State building??? So he is REWARDED???  Double-WTF????  :angry:
> 
> Yeah, mum - I can hear you calling from the grave just fine .... "THE WORLD'S GONE MAD!!!"




Madness, indeed.  Matches Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize.
Have you read Time's justification for this, AJ?  Hard to imagine what it could be!


----------



## Knobby22 (17 December 2009)

Julia said:


> Madness, indeed.  Matches Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize.
> Have you read Time's justification for this, AJ?  Hard to imagine what it could be!




This is the justification from Time:

_The story of the year was a weak economy that could have been much, much weaker. How the mild-mannered man who runs the Federal Reserve prevented an economic catastrophe.

Professor Bernanke of Princeton was a leading scholar of the Great Depression. He knew how the passive Fed of the 1930s helped create the calamity — through its stubborn refusal to expand the money supply and its tragic lack of imagination and experimentation. Chairman Bernanke of Washington was determined not to be the Fed chairman who presided over Depression 2.0.

So when turbulence in U.S. housing markets metastasized into the worst global financial crisis in more than 75 years, he conjured up trillions of new dollars and blasted them into the economy; engineered massive public rescues of failing private companies; ratcheted down interest rates to zero; lent to mutual funds, hedge funds, foreign banks, investment banks, manufacturers, insurers and other borrowers who had never dreamed of receiving Fed cash; jump-started stalled credit markets in everything from car loans to corporate paper; revolutionized housing finance with a breathtaking shopping spree for mortgage bonds; blew up the Fed's balance sheet to three times its previous size; and generally transformed the staid arena of central banking into a stage for desperate improvisation.

He didn't just reshape U.S. monetary policy; he led an effort to save the world economy._

I don't think he has done an outstanding job, just an adequate one.
What people shouldn't forget is that it was not Bernanke that created this mess though he did nothing to stop it occurring. 

It was the actions of the Bush Administration and the elected representatives that greatly reduced regulation of the financial industry combined with stymying and cutting the power and money of those regulators to do their jobs. They had way too much faith in neoclassical economic theory.

Some of it was also caused by bubbles in the economy forming but a big percentage was the complete lack of ethics of the people operating in the bubbles.   

Finally, this quote I got from Mish's website which is pretty true. It mentions some of the other "great men" who have been Time's man of the year.

_Appearing on the cover of Time as person of the year is like a bell ringing. It almost always is akin to a figurative death sentence for the person involved, and sometimes even a literal one.


Jeff Bezos made the cover in 1999 - the year the internet portion of the tech stock bubble topped out.
GW Bush made the cover as his popularity rating had just begun to slide, ending at the worst such rating since Nixon, concurrent with a stock market crash.
Hitler made the cover in 1938.
General Chiang Kai Chek in 1937. It turned out to be an ill omen, career-wise.
Stalin made the cover in 1939 and again in 1942.
Kennedy made the cover the year before he was assassinated, as did Martin Luther King - a literal death sentence in both cases.
Lyndon B. Johnson made the cover in 1964 - he was about to lead the country into the Vietnam catastrophe.
Nixon and Kissinger made it in 1972.
It was Yury Andropov's turn in 1983 - he died shortly thereafter.
Gorbachov became 'man of the decade' half a year before being forced to step down.
Obama's turn was last year.
Most worrisome however, in 2006 Time decided to write on its person-of-the-year cover 'You!'._


----------



## bellenuit (17 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> _Appearing on the cover of Time as person of the year is like a bell ringing. It almost always is akin to a figurative death sentence for the person involved, and sometimes even a literal one.
> 
> 
> Jeff Bezos made the cover in 1999 - the year the internet portion of the tech stock bubble topped out.
> ...




I'm pretty sure Time's "person of the year" is for the most influential person, whether good or bad. That's why some of the above were included. 2007 had Vladimir Putin. 



> Jeff Bezos made the cover in 1999 - the year the internet portion of the tech stock bubble topped out.




Bezos was a survivor of the dot come era though. He founded Amazon, which is still going strong today.


----------



## Aussiejeff (17 December 2009)

Julia said:


> Madness, indeed.  Matches Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize.
> Have you read Time's justification for this, AJ?  Hard to imagine what it could be!




Time?

Dear Julia, I have no Time at all.....


----------



## Julia (17 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> I'm pretty sure Time's "person of the year" is for the most influential person, whether good or bad. That's why some of the above were included. 2007 had Vladimir Putin.
> .



I hadn't realised that.  Thanks bellenuit.


----------

