# Climate change another name for Weather



## Garpal Gumnut (24 July 2008)

It has been raining solidly in N.Queensland for the last few days. Most dams are full. It dropped to 16 last night. I have to wear a jumper from about 4pm onwards.

If you want to know what the weather is like stick your head out the window.

Winter rain and low temperatures are a normal variant, as are rising tides and drought.

These jokers on the Goremobile know as much about the climate as Wayne Swan knows about economics.

gg


----------



## Julia (24 July 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It has been raining solidly in N.Queensland for the last few days. Most dams are full. It dropped to 16 last night. I have to wear a jumper from about 4pm onwards.
> 
> 
> gg




Most dams are full?  I don't think so.   The Water Commission's report today was that even with all this current rain the dams which provide Brisbane's water supply still will not reach 40%.

Yes, it's suddenly very cold and miserable.  Daytime temperature hasn't risen above 15 here.


----------



## Whiskers (24 July 2008)

Yeah, well and truly soaked down here on the Wide Bay coast too Garpal. I think over 80mm so far over about three days.

The cane harvesting season has got off to a false start again due to the rain. But then Indego Jones forcast this way back in the 50's or so... from his solar sunspot activity.

I'm not real keen on labels, but I am in favor of changing some of our poluting and unsustainable industrial practises.

If one has to put labels on things it should be a label that well represents the outcome and encourages positive action. 

In this case the campaign aught to be called something like _Sustainable Development. _ That imediately invisages an acceptable and relatively personal goal, whereas _Climate Change _is a bit hairy fairy for me. It seems to be more of a backward looking name calling of the past whereas something like _Sustainable Development _ has a more personally involving and proactive ring about it to me.


----------



## So_Cynical (25 July 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It has been raining solidly in N.Queensland for the last few days. Most dams are full. It dropped to 16 last night. I have to wear a jumper from about 4pm onwards.
> 
> If you want to know what the weather is like stick your head out the window.
> 
> ...




Great news, 2 dams outa 100 are full...what did i tell ya's....its all Baloney.

30 years of research, and 100 years of data collection, melting glaciers, breakaway ice 
shelf's, frequent once in a 100 years weather events.......its all normal.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG!.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 July 2008)

Whiskers said:


> Yeah, well and truly soaked down here on the Wide Bay coast too Garpal. I think over 80mm so far over about three days.
> 
> The cane harvesting season has got off to a false start again due to the rain. But then Indego Jones forcast this way back in the 50's or so... from his solar sunspot activity.
> 
> ...






So_Cynical said:


> Great news, 2 dams outa 100 are full...what did i tell ya's....its all Baloney.
> 
> 30 years of research, and 100 years of data collection, melting glaciers, breakaway ice
> shelf's, frequent once in a 100 years weather events.......its all normal.




I have more research and data on the financial markets S_C than that and I still cannot predict what the NASDAQ, FTSE or XAO will do next week. 

Climate change is as silly a label as calling Stock trading "Stock change".

Whiskers is on the money with his thoughts.

gg


----------



## wayneL (25 July 2008)

Many moons ago I lived in Queensland (during one of her infamous dry spells) and was told by locals how wet it used to be... the weather has changed... blah blah.

Then something serendipitous happened. Some enterprising soul printed a bunch of birthday cards, one for each year from 1901 up to the current year. So I could pick the 1929 for my mum and so on.

Inside these birthday cards, there was various data from that year in which the birthday card referred to... population, number of cars regoed that year, etc, and weather data - rainfall, hottest day, coldest day, things like that.

This intrigued me, bearing in mind the meteorological assertions of the yocals, so I spent quite some time looking at all this weather data from 1901 on.

The thing that floored me was how much weather was constantly changing through the years. There was no typical weather pattern at all.

Conclusion - climate changes. It's normal.


----------



## skint (25 July 2008)

And then there's this....

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0


----------



## wayneL (25 July 2008)

skint said:


> And then there's this....
> 
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0




"the model" LOLOL

A model is... well, a model is just a model. And their modeling has been useless in prediction.

The model is crap.

Ok, back to eating, drinking and merriment for me.


----------



## skint (25 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> "the model" LOLOL
> 
> A model is... well, a model is just a model. And their modeling has been useless in prediction.
> 
> ...




It baffles me when there is a near concensus amongst scientists that some believe their lay opinion based on zilch has more cred. Are any of the ostriches here qualified in ANY way to comment? I'm not qualified. Just makes a whole lot more sense to listen to the thousands of climatologists as opposed to those with zero relevant background saying "Yeah, I just reckon it sounds iffy, you know, just because..well, just because."


I agree though, there's not much use in getting down in the dumps over climate change, or any other major issue like market meltdown etc.. Gonna happen anyway!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 July 2008)

skint said:


> It baffles me when there is a near concensus amongst scientists that some believe their lay opinion based on zilch has more cred. Are any of the ostriches here qualified in ANY way to comment? I'm not qualified. Just makes a whole lot more sense to listen to the thousands of climatologists as opposed to those with zero relevant background saying "Yeah, I just reckon it sounds iffy, you know, just because..well, just because."
> 
> 
> I agree though, there's not much use in getting down in the dumps over climate change, or any other major issue like market meltdown etc.. Gonna happen anyway!




Mate it is not scientific, it is belief.

Popper believed that if it was not disprovable it wasn't science. 

Some don't agree with these scientists. And the Goremobile disciples believe it not to be disprovable.

They have the ear of Hollywood and the Media, and some governments. But the rest of us make our own minds up, on the available evidence and past *WEATHER. *

gg


----------



## prawn_86 (25 July 2008)

As i have said in various other threads:

There is no doubt the climate is changing (ie weather as GG suggests). It has done so for eons, with multiple ice ages etc.

The only question is how much (if anything) is mankind contributing to the climate change?

We will never know the answer to the above, as we cannot simulate the planet without mankind. Only models do this based on PAST behaviour, which in a dynamic environment is virtually useless over a longer timeframe. Much the same as a lot of TA people would have very little chance of succesfully picking a stock price a few years in the future.

We can approximately forecast a short period based on historical data, but that is it.


----------



## spooly74 (25 July 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> But the rest of us make our own minds up, on the *available evidence *
> gg




Bingo!

I have yet to see an explanation anywhere for the predicted temp increase from the IPCC of 3 degrees (avg) from co2 doubling,  why, i repeat *why* is the observed warming only 1.5 Degrees .....and that is if you take co2 as the only factor in warming, this does not include even one cow fart!

I wouldn't be surprised to see the big companies get together to fight this upcoming bull$hit tax.


----------



## skint (25 July 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Mate it is not scientific, it is belief.
> 
> Popper believed that if it was not disprovable it wasn't science.
> 
> ...




I expect Al Gore would believe the science to be theoretically disprovable but as the science is sound, would not think it is even remotely likely. Popper determined science to be necessarily _theoretically_ disproveable. The laws of physics, for example, are theoretically disprovable but are hardly likely to be disproven any time soon. Climate change falls well within the category of theoretically disproveable science. Problem is, no-one has been able to do so. If someone did disprove it (many, many have tried) they'd make a whack of money. The overwhelming evidence for and lack of evidence against climate change is how the concensus has been arrived at. 'Tis the nature of science, although if you searched hard enough, you'd still probably find a flat earth proponent. Still haven't seen any counter evidence provided here beyond "geez, it was cold the other day."


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 July 2008)

skint said:


> I expect Al Gore would believe the science to be theoretically disprovable but as the science is sound, would not think it is even remotely likely. Popper determined science to be necessarily _theoretically_ disproveable. The laws of physics, for example, are theoretically disprovable but are hardly likely to be disproven any time soon. Climate change falls well within the category of theoretically disproveable science. Problem is, no-one has been able to do so. If someone did disprove it (many, many have tried) they'd make a whack of money. The overwhelming evidence for and lack of evidence against climate change is how the concensus has been arrived at. 'Tis the nature of science, although if you searched hard enough, you'd still probably find a flat earth proponent. Still haven't seen any counter evidence provided here beyond "geez, it was cold the other day."




The reason you haven't seen evidence is that this is not a scientific forum. It is a stock forum in which members beliefs etc. can be aired. You have your belief and I have mine. We could both bombard each other with utube links and weighty research papers from both sides. I defend your right to have your belief, at least you won't be banging on my door during Sunday lunch trying to sell me a pamphlet like Greenpeace and the Godbotherers do.

gg


----------



## skint (25 July 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The reason you haven't seen evidence is that this is not a scientific forum. It is a stock forum in which members beliefs etc. can be aired. You have your belief and I have mine. We could both bombard each other with utube links and weighty research papers from both sides. I defend your right to have your belief, at least you won't be banging on my door during Sunday lunch trying to sell me a pamphlet like Greenpeace and the Godbotherers do.
> 
> gg




LOL The godbotherers are charging for ruining our Sundays now? My advice? Ruffle your hair, take a gob full of toothpaste and green food colouring  and when you answer the door, tell them "I work for the other side" in a gutteral tone. Should work on most, but the mormons are particularly resistant.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 July 2008)

skint said:


> LOL The godbotherers are charging for ruining our Sundays now? My advice? Ruffle your hair, take a gob full of toothpaste and green food colouring  and when you answer the door, tell them "I work for the other side" in a gutteral tone. Should work on most, but the mormons are particularly resistant.




LOL Fair enough. Whats the best way to get rid of the Greenpeace ones, and the Warmers for that matter? I don't reckon you could get rid of Al Gore or Jane Fonda for 50c.  

gg


----------



## pepperoni (25 July 2008)

The only thing that gore said that really worried me is that 7 times the earth has been under one mile of ice. 

If only we could warm the place up so it wouldnt happen again, but in syd the last 2 months feel like the start of an ice age.

The panic bulls needed something to grab on to post the 2000 bug though didnt they.

But as usual the sky aint falling.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 July 2008)

pepperoni said:


> The only thing that gore said that really worried me is that 7 times the earth has been under one mile of ice.
> 
> If only we could warm the place up so it wouldnt happen again, but in syd the last 2 months feel like the start of an ice age.
> 
> ...




Agree , it is the most beautiful day here in Townsville, after the storms of the past few days,  and I am off to the races to make my fortune. 

I wonder what Al Gore is doing today. Probably flying in one of his gas guzzling aeroplanes. 

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 July 2008)

I believe QANDA this week has 
Malcolm Turnbull
Penny Wong, and 
Tim Flannery. 

gg - assuming Turnbull and Wong balance each other - you ought to be there to balance Flannery - enlighten us with your counter-arguments m8 

ps Both Turnbull and Wong have held Environment portfolio in last year, both have made almost arguments for action  - and Penny Wong has succeeded in signing up the states re Murray Darling where Turnbull was denied that.   IMO, Twelve months ago Turnbull made sense on this (and a lot of things) - but since he's had to play second fiddle to Nelson, his cred is going downhill fast.   

PS QANDA is a top show - last week the plain-speaking Barnaby Joyce made it clear that the top job of Leadership of the Libs is Peter Costello's for the taking - all he has to do is ask.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 September 2008)

The following quote is from the Daily Mail in London, a publication not given to  overly dramatic prose or sensationalism. It is an apt comment on how the left media in the UK misrepresent a valid viewpoint from those who are not warmeners. Is it any wonder that our ABC and the Sydney Morning Herald trot after them in an effort to demonise those who disagree with their modern version of godbothering, a belief in global weather being due to human intervention. Its weather.!!  Get over it.

gg



"The BBC is being investigated by television watchdogs after a leading climate change sceptic claimed his views were deliberately misrepresented.

Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, says he was made to look like a ‘potty peer’ on a TV programme that ‘was a one-sided polemic for the new religion of global warming’.

Earth: The Climate Wars, which was broadcast on BBC 2, was billed as a definitive guide to the history of global warming, including arguments for and against.

During the series, Dr Iain Stewart, a geologist, interviewed leading climate change sceptics, including Lord Monckton. But the peer complained to Ofcom that the broadcast had been unfairly edited.

‘I very much hope Ofcom will do something about this,’ he said yesterday.

‘The BBC very gravely misrepresented me and several others, as well as the science behind our argument. It is a breach of its code of conduct.

‘I was interviewed for 90 minutes and all my views were backed up by sound scientific data, but this was all omitted. They made it sound as if these were just my personal views, as if I was some potty peer. It was caddish of them.’

Ofcom confirmed it was looking into a ‘fairness complaint’ about the documentary.

A BBC spokesman said: ‘We stand by the programme.’

Lord Monckton, 56, a former journalist and Cambridge graduate, says scientific data shows the world is cooler today than in the Middle Ages.

He appeared alongside other sceptics including distinguished Florida-based meteorologist Professor Fred Singer, John Christy, a climate change expert and adviser to the U.S. government and the climatologist Dr Patrick Michaels, of the University of Virginia.

All their interviews, he claims, were heavily cut so that they appeared as personal views.

‘We do not dispute that there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but we do dispute its effects’, he said. ‘The data shows that 2008 is the same temperature as 1980 and that the effects of these changes in the atmosphere are not negative but more likely to be beneficial.’

Lord Monckton played a key role in a legal challenge heard in the High Court in October 2007 in an effort to prevent Al Gore’s film on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, from being shown in English schools. "


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 September 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/29/2376800.htm?section=justin

Then again .... the Mediterranean countries are in as much trouble as Aus it seems . 
At least they are acting ....
"(plan to reduce CO2 to) 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, or by 30 per cent if other big economies join in"



> Europe warming faster than world average: study
> Posted 7 hours 53 minutes ago
> Updated 7 hours 54 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## rederob (29 September 2008)

I learned a long time ago not to argue with people who were not rational.
The same applies to people who believe, from limited reading or knowledge, that something is what they think it is.
It's akin to crossing a road because you can't see any cars, only to be hit by a plane because you really are on a runway.
If you want to close your minds to the science of climate change you won't be open to the pace of climate change that some want to simply call "weather".
Atmospheric content of CO2 is increasing at around 2 parts per million per annum, having increased over 50% since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  
More alarming in the past few years is the increase of methane in the atmosphere.  Methane is around 30 times more potent as a greenhouse gas, and if global warming is unlocking methane there is not much we can do after the event.  That's because "man" can reduce CO2 emissions, but nature is responsible for methane.
I find it amusing that some posters who pay a lot of attention to technical indicators for their trading are unwilling to accept the well mapped science that gives rise to a near certain outcome that significant and rapid climate changes are just decades away.


----------



## Nashezz (30 September 2008)

You are so on the money skink.

Armchair scientists here on the forums armed with belief (lets call it 'ignorance') that dispute what thousands of scientists around the world are in agreement about. These scientists devote their intellectual lives to studying this stuff and actually know what they are talking about. 

That QANDA show that 2020 mentioned was quite interesting. I found it particularly interesting that Tim Flannery pointed out the difference between 'sceptics' and the majority of scientists agreeing about climate change. He said that we had to take notice of the good science and good science is 'peer reviewed science'. He had not seen one scrap of science disproving climate change that had been peer reviewed and I think he has some small interest in this area. If you are sceptical than you will want to believe whoever you can grasp onto to believe I guess. Goodness knows how you can be sceptical when you look at graphs of population/pollution/emissions etc over time. Seriously, can't just continue pollute and grow exponentially and expect the world to just keep chugging along with no effect.

Surely even if you are a sceptic the cost of waiting to see if your scepticism is true is far too high? Surely it is not a bad thing to reduce our emissions and pollution to what are hopefully sustainable levels?


----------



## Calliope (30 September 2008)

Saving the world from global warming for our grandchildren is now a luxury we cannot afford. We have much greater problems here and now. I don't have to spell out what they are.

Oddly enough, drops in productivity and energy use may solve the problem anyway.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 September 2008)

skint from 26July]LOL The godbotherers are charging for ruining our Sundays now? My advice? Ruffle your hair said:


> ... Armchair scientists here on the forums armed with belief (lets call it 'ignorance') that dispute what thousands of scientists around the world are in agreement about. These scientists devote their intellectual lives to studying this stuff and actually know what they are talking about.
> 
> ... Tim Flannery pointed out the difference between 'sceptics' and the majority of scientists agreeing about climate change. He said that we had to take notice of the good science and good science is 'peer reviewed science'. He had not seen one scrap of science disproving climate change that had been peer reviewed and I think he has some small interest in this area.
> 
> .... Surely even if you are a sceptic the cost of waiting to see if your scepticism is true is far too high? Surely it is not a bad thing to reduce our emissions and pollution to what are hopefully sustainable levels?



spot on Nash. (although I'm not sure which of skint's posts you are referring to - maybe not the one above lol )  

I still believe that a sceptic / skeptic would still vote for  "act anyway just in case";

and only a denialist would vote against caution.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 September 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Bingo!
> 
> I have yet to see an explanation anywhere for the predicted temp increase from the IPCC of 3 degrees (avg) from co2 doubling,  why, i repeat *why* is the observed warming only 1.5 Degrees .....and that is if you take co2 as the only factor in warming, this does not include even one cow fart!



How much of that observed warming is due to man-made direct heat discharge? That's highly relevant given that such heat is temporary and in no danger of running out of control (versus the CO2 argument which is largely permanent and may get out of control).


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 September 2008)

Nashezz said:


> Goodness knows how you can be sceptical when you look at graphs of population/pollution/emissions etc over time. Seriously, can't just continue pollute and grow exponentially and expect the world to just keep chugging along with no effect.
> 
> Surely even if you are a sceptic the cost of waiting to see if your scepticism is true is far too high? Surely it is not a bad thing to reduce our emissions and pollution to what are hopefully sustainable levels?



I just wish they'd face the reality that the solutions available are:

1. Move to 100% clean energy. That's the only way you can have ongoing development without ongonig rises in emissions. Going for a few solar panels etc doesn't fix the problem. 

2. Rapid reduction in population (more rapid than could be done through natural death). We're talking about perhaps an 85% cut to the human population here folks and that won't be easy. And that's not something you'd want to do without outright proof of the need, now is it?

My preference is option 1 for pure self interested reasons - I'd rather not be shot or otherwise killed anytime soon. 

Trouble is, the green mafia will fight 100% clean energy to the bitter end - that's their track record so far be it carbon capture, hydro, nuclear or any other technology that actually offers a solution. We're not going to 100% clean energy with solar and wind alone - it just doesn't work with the technology we have.

Most politicians who claim to want action have about as much credibility as if a fast food company started a war on obesity. They just won't support the things necessary to achieve what it is they claim to want. That's why the problem, assuming it exists, won't be fixed anytime soon.


----------



## freddy2 (30 September 2008)

Nashezz said:


> You are so on the money skink.
> 
> Armchair scientists here on the forums armed with belief (lets call it 'ignorance') that dispute what thousands of scientists around the world are in agreement about. These scientists devote their intellectual lives to studying this stuff and actually know what they are talking about.




Look where following computer models got us in the financial system where 1000's of scientists were in agreement about risk (or lack thereof). The climate is just as complex as the financial system and both are unable to be modelled to any degree of accuracy. I suspect that scientists in both fields have preconceived ideas and choose models that come out with the results they want (eg increased CO2 equals catastrophic climate change, sub-prime risks are low) and discard the ones that do not regardless of accuracy to the real world. These models are highly sensitive to initial inputs and it's easy to keeping choosing assumptions and initial inputs until you get the outcome you want.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 September 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> We're talking about perhaps an 85% cut to the human population here folks and that won't be easy.



smurf
you're right when you say that it will be hard to get a majority decision to go with that one


----------



## rederob (30 September 2008)

freddy2 said:


> Look where following computer models got us in the financial system where 1000's of scientists were in agreement about risk (or lack thereof).



I don't recall too many scientists spouting off about their financial models, but there certainly were many well balanced market commentators that foresaw the present carnage well ahead of it happening.
In fact one of the threads opens with a piece in April last year that recounts a fund manager quitting equities in advance of a severe and imminent correction.
Ross Garnaut released his report today.  The cost of inaction is now documented should we take that path.


----------



## wayneL (30 September 2008)

rederob said:


> I don't recall too many scientists spouting off about their financial models, but there certainly were many well balanced market commentators that foresaw the present carnage well ahead of it happening.
> In fact one of the threads opens with a piece in April last year that recounts a fund manager quitting equities in advance of a severe and imminent correction.
> Ross Garnaut released his report today.  The cost of inaction is now documented should we take that path.



Anthropogenic Climate Change Hypothesis in the same paragraph as Modern Economic Hypothesis; how apt.

Both arbitrary input sensitive.

Both rely on public funding.

Both dominated by corrupt/self interested academics.

Both complete rubbish.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> Both complete rubbish.



not as much rubbish as that statement


----------



## freddy2 (30 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> Anthropogenic Climate Change Hypothesis in the same paragraph as Modern Economic Hypothesis; how apt.
> 
> Both arbitrary input sensitive.
> 
> ...




Both ignore when their models don't match reality.

Both resort to ad hominen attacks instead of debating the skeptics arguments.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 September 2008)

ABC had a TV show tonight ...Two in the Top End



> Tim Flannery and John Doyle continue their unique adventure investigating Australia's northern frontier. Ploughing through sodden roads the pair finally make it to Darwin, the big smoke of the north



Great wits both of em - Prof Flannery of course Aussie of the Year last year and passionate about AGW/CC.   He's the one that has the "rescue plan" in a file in his top drawer. 

His qualifications to comment on Climate (and Paleontology) are pretty impressive.- written books about it / them - shouldn't be ignored I wouldn't have thought 

:topic PS There was a humourous moment there ... A Croc breeder discussing with Doyle ( Rampaging Roy Slaven) - "croc meat is really interesting - if you feed em chicken , then it tastes like chicken ... and if you feed em fish, then it tastes like fish" .... 

Doyle asks with a grin "and if you feed em croc?" 
"like croc"
- "and what does etc" ... lol


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (30 September 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It has been raining solidly in N.Queensland for the last few days. Most dams are full. It dropped to 16 last night. I have to wear a jumper from about 4pm onwards.
> 
> If you want to know what the weather is like stick your head out the window.
> 
> ...




Good thread GG!

The world is cooling not heating. It's cyclical and normal for climate to change or is that weather to change?


----------



## wayneL (30 September 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> - Prof Flannery of course Aussie of the Year last year and passionate about AGW/CC.   He's the one that has the "rescue plan" in a file in his top drawer.
> 
> His qualifications to comment on Climate (and Paleontology) are pretty impressive.- written books about it / them - shouldn't be ignored I wouldn't have thought



This would be the Flannery who thinks we should pump SO2 into the atmosphere and fill our skies with chemtrails?

I'm tempted to go all _ad hominem_ on the professor, but there's no need really; he's doing a great job of destroying his cred all by himself.


----------



## rederob (1 October 2008)

wayneL said:


> Anthropogenic Climate Change Hypothesis in the same paragraph as Modern Economic Hypothesis; how apt.
> 
> Both arbitrary input sensitive.
> 
> ...




You are welcome to add the science that supports a contrary view.
I will agree that the earth has undergone massive swings in climate between ice ages.  Except for climate events likely triggered by volcanic ash in the atmosphere, the time cycles of these changes are not measured in decades but in hundreds or thousands of years.


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 October 2008)

wayneL said:


> This would be the Flannery who thinks we should pump SO2 into the atmosphere and fill our skies with chemtrails?
> 
> I'm tempted to go all _ad hominem_ on the professor, but there's no need really; he's doing a great job of destroying his cred all by himself.



https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=294922

As I said elsewhere, whether or not it gets to the point of using sulphur, he still has 17% of the people to convince there's even a problem.    If they refuse to listen, then ... 

yes it may get to the point of resorting to "a manmade volcano" to (help) correct things.

Wayne, there must be a dozen posts around here where you've implied that there was no GW whatsoever, let alone AGW.   I still don't understand your arguments in favour of doing nothing about CO2  (then again you once posted that it was ok to act there as well) 

I personally believe in Suzuki's opinion that all politicians who ignore the threat of AGW/CC should be held legally responsible.  You agree with Suzuki when it suits you, but disagree with him when it doesn't. 

Ever heard of the mountain pine beetle?
This is what he can do - ...  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_pine_beetle


> The beetles kill the trees by boring through the bark into the phloem layer on which they feed and in which eggs are laid. ...  .
> 
> Over time (usually within 2 weeks of attack), the trees are overwhelmed as the phloem layer is damaged enough to cut off the flow of water and nutrients. In the end, the trees starve to death,....
> 
> The current outbreak of mountain pine beetles is ten times larger than previous outbreaks.[3] The recently mild winters have Alberta, Canada forestry officials worried because the beetles will have a devastating impact on an ecosystem which may be ill-equipped naturally to deal with it. Fortunately, a cold snap in early 2008 is hoped to have dropped the pine beetle population to more manageable levels. [4] However, preliminary results from the summer of 2008 indicate that the cold winter was less successful at killing pine beetle than predicted.


----------



## wayneL (1 October 2008)

There is no A*G*W.

There is warming in some areas (eg Arctic). There is cooling in some areas(eg Antarctic). The "global" trend was up for a while. But since 1998 the trend has been down.

There is natural Climate Change on a macro scale. There is also anthropogenic climate change on a regional scale due to deforestation, heat sink effects of cities etc.

What the protagonists like to do is highlight the warming bits while disregarding the cooling bits. That's not science. That's bullsh!t.

But to once again reiterate, as a sustainablie (that word we coined elsewhere), I favour reduction in all unsustainable practices. That includes the unsustainable use of fossil fuels. I will again reiterate, my personal contribution (or decontribution if you like) is massively in excess of IPCC gravy trane-ers and I am confident in excess of most AGW whingers and whiners. I take a holistic view as detailed dozens of times. CO2 is the least of our problems.

As Smurf has repeatedly pointed out we must reduce energy AND resource consumption; I agree with that, but who's doing it? Not you lot.

It is action that counts, not words.

So the IPCC can take there BS model that hasn't even proceeded past hypothesis stage and take it straight to hell along with their corrupt science and their monumental hypocrisy. Leave the saving of the planet to those of us who actually do something (less actually).

Idiots like Flannery are the ones that should be in gaol, and as far as David Suzuki goes, he's a hypocrite of the worst order. If he thinks politicians should be locked up, then IPCC delegates should be executed for not practicing what they preach, starting with that obscene, fat, hypocritical energy guzzling, carbon footprint giant, Al Bore.

They are intellectual prostitutes who do not deserve a cent of the $billions of public money they are scamming from the poor overtaxed public.


----------



## jonojpsg (1 October 2008)

It is ridiculous to try and avoid the fact that higher CO2 levels are consistent with higher average temperatures.  The data shows it, not some model of the future, but actual measurements taken from ice cores.

If this is the case, how can anyone claim that if we continue to let CO2 levels rise we will not have any effect on temperature

Come on, this is not a political game we are talking about here, it is a fact of life on this planet.


----------



## wayneL (1 October 2008)

jonojpsg said:


> It is ridiculous to try and avoid the fact that higher CO2 levels are consistent with higher average temperatures.  The data shows it, not some model of the future, but actual measurements taken from ice cores.
> 
> If this is the case, how can anyone claim that if we continue to let CO2 levels rise we will not have any effect on temperature
> 
> Come on, this is not a political game we are talking about here, it is a fact of life on this planet.



Sorry jono,

It is the IPCC playing the politics game.

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 October 2008)

wayneL said:


> But to once again reiterate, as a sustainablie (that word we coined elsewhere), I favour reduction in all unsustainable practices. That includes the unsustainable use of fossil fuels. I will again reiterate, my personal contribution (or decontribution if you like) is massively in excess of IPCC gravy trane-ers and I am confident in excess of most AGW whingers and whiners. I take a holistic view as detailed dozens of times. CO2 is the least of our problems.
> 
> As Smurf has repeatedly pointed out we must reduce energy AND resource consumption; I agree with that, but who's doing it? Not you lot.
> 
> It is action that counts, not words.



Easiest way to work out how concerned people _really_ are is by what they're actually doing. 

So could someone please explain this to me:

1. In city areas most cars are simply commuter transport and a means of carrying the shopping home. So how do we explain more than 10 - 20% of vehicles in the major cities being larger than a 4 cylinder hatchback?

_Every single person who drives a car larger than they absolutely need has made a conscious decision to spend extra money in order to produce extra CO2._

2. Why are solar water heaters still a niche technology with 60% of Australian homes using the least efficient technology available for heating water?

_Given that efficient water heating is one of the cheapest ways to cut CO2 emissions, it's logical that anyone willing to pay to cut CO2 would start with this option since it's the cheapest._

3. Why is there still mass opposition to nuclear, hydro and wind power whilst there is virtually no public opposition to the oil industry and very little against coal or gas?

_The entire Green movement has spent many years and a great deal of effort opposing energy development. But virtually all that effort has gone into opposing the cleaner sources, not the big CO2 emitters. This makes an outright mockery of the claim that CO2 is the most important environmental issue. In practice it ranks behind everything from nuclear waste to the scenic effects of transmission lines._

4. Why do environmentalists and most Australians continue to support the aviation based tourism industry?

_If you want to cut CO2 emissions, then simply not flying for your own personal enjoyment is arguably the simplest and easiest way to do it. Unless, of course, your recreation trumps CO2 on your list of priorities._

Bottom line is that these are all very significant points relating to this issue and ALL of them imply that Australians do not see CO2 as the most important issue. Actions speak louder than words and on that basis CO2 ranks below scenery preservation, toxic waste, wilderness protection, saving money, status symbols and personal recreation. 

Every time there's a choice to make, CO2 loses out to these other objectives. Toxic waste and the wilderness might be arguable points, but recreation and status symbols? It doesn't look like there's too much genuine concern to me.


----------



## Calliope (1 October 2008)

Smurf. I live in the sunshine state, where every backyard has it's Hills hoist.
Yet would you believe the number of people who use clothes dryers, simply because they won't wait another day for the sun to come out. There are few houses that don't have a clothes dryer.


----------



## Nashezz (2 October 2008)

wayneL said:


> There is no A*G*W.
> 
> There is warming in some areas (eg Arctic). There is cooling in some areas(eg Antarctic). The "global" trend was up for a while. But since 1998 the trend has been down.
> 
> ...




Wayne don't go all bleeding heart for the poor overtaxed public. We are doing alright.

Show us your science then Wayne. Obviously all the scientists of the world that got degrees and PhDs studying and devoting their lives to this stuff are idiots or tossers with an agenda. So show us your science. Why are you right and they (who study it) are all wrong? What can you see that all those science buffoons have all missed?

Tell me how you can possibly think that the population change shown in this graph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_curve.svg
and the associated clearing of trees, resource use, pollution/emissions, etc, cannot have a serious and devastating effect of one kind or another. 

Whether it global warming or something else, it is entirely unsustainable so why fight the people trying to get people/goverments to worry and change their habits? Who cares what approach they use? Or do you really think we should just carry on regardless?


----------



## wayneL (2 October 2008)

Nashezz said:


> Wayne don't go all bleeding heart for the poor overtaxed public. We are doing alright.
> 
> Show us your science then Wayne. Obviously all the scientists of the world that got degrees and PhDs studying and devoting their lives to this stuff are idiots or tossers with an agenda. So show us your science. Why are you right and they (who study it) are all wrong? What can you see that all those science buffoons have all missed?
> 
> ...



Nashezzz

Will you please carefully re-read my posts on this matter and review your post?


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 October 2008)

A question for all:

Do you expect that there will actually be a voluntary reduction (globally) in greenhouse gas emissions?

A simple question. Are we going to cut emissions or not. Not should we or shouldn't we, but _will_ we cut emissions. 

My own opinion is "No". I don't believe that emissions will actually be reduced other than due to factors that were going to happen anyway (oil runs out, geothermal simply ends up being cheaper than coal).


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 October 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> A question for all:
> 
> A simple question. Are we going to cut emissions or not. Not should we or shouldn't we, but _will_ we cut emissions.



Or put another way ... are we intelligent enough to sort out such problems   

Or if you prefer..

Is there such a thing as an intelligent independently minded lemming?


----------



## wayneL (2 October 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> A question for all:
> 
> Do you expect that there will actually be a voluntary reduction (globally) in greenhouse gas emissions?
> 
> ...



Judging by the way IPCC "scientists" and associated gravy trane-ers... and indeed their disciples conduct their affairs - nope.

Need we look any further than the example of Al Bore?


----------



## Nashezz (3 October 2008)

wayneL said:


> Nashezzz
> 
> Will you please carefully re-read my posts on this matter and review your post?




I did, and I missed what you wanted me to see 

I just don't understand how you can say that all the scientists producing this kind of stuff are self-interested nincompoops - how could that possibly be true. I know plenty of scientific people and not one of the people I know would generate a hypothesis merely to prop up a job for themselves - let alone a conspiracy amongst vast numbers of them. 

I found the link you provided about ice cores very interesting but I am not sure why that one article, or others similar, are worth so much more to you then other scientific reports that support AGW theory. Has, as Tim Flannery pointed out, tat article been peer reviewed by other scientists to make sure that what you are presented with in that article is not misleading? For myself, I am prepared to go with the vast majority of scientific belief at the moment because

a) while I have a scientific background I know SFA about climate or meterological science
b) AGW actually makes sense to me in my brain as I can't fathom our vast population and its associated pollution and forest removal not having some massive effect.


----------



## rederob (4 October 2008)

wayneL said:


> There is no A*G*W.
> 
> There is warming in some areas (eg Arctic). There is cooling in some areas(eg Antarctic). The "global" trend was up for a while. But since 1998 the trend has been down.
> 
> ...



What I really enjoy is the definitive nature of poorly informed responses.
1998 was the hottest year of last century if I correctly recall, and the 90s was the warmest decade since reliable weather records have been kept.
Not surprisingly there was always going to be a chance that temperatures might decline for a very short while.

Scientists are concerned that greenhouses gases - principally CO2 and methane - are at the highest levels recorded: Which is particularly alarming given that they are using data from various sampling techniques that goes back over 40,000 years.

We know that man had a very small footprint on the greenhouse gas front pre-industrial era.  We would be foolish to believe that "nature" alone has given rise to present greenhouse gas levels far beyond those of years ago.

Some argue that methane from animals has always been a contributor to greenhouses gases and that we shouldn't be concerned given animals have inhabited the earth for longer than humans.  Unfortunately they fail to understand that the number of animals bred and pastured for human consumption has increased dramatically, and at a faster rate than human population growth.  The global per capita consumption of meat continues to rise.

Scientists know that greenhouse gas levels correlate strongly positively with global warming.  They know that present levels are off the scales compared to any time they have been able to determine from available information.  Worse, they know that CO2 takes several hundreds of years to "disappear" from the atmosphere.  And they know that warmer temperatures unlock natural stores of methane.

Man continues to pander to economic interests despite a body of information that puts the earth on a collision course with climatic mayhem.  The folly here is that when - and not if - sea levels start to rise at an alarming pace it will be too late implement the measures advocated for years that could have stalled the inevitable.


----------



## wayneL (4 October 2008)

rederob said:


> Man continues to pander to economic interests despite a body of information that puts the earth on a collision course with climatic mayhem.  The folly here is that when - and not if - sea levels start to rise at an alarming pace it will be too late implement the measures advocated for years that could have stalled the inevitable.



:sleeping:

What I really "enjoy" is all the tut tutting and lecturing of the AGW lobby from this position of poisonous obnoxious hypocrisy. 

As I keep asking, AGWers; what are you doing about it? From what I see, sweet **** all, as Smurf also observes. 

My position as a person interested in sustainability covers more that co2. I guarantee yo that my carbon footprint is smaller than 99% of you AGW whingers and whiners.

And you know what? I frankly sick of the sanctimonious lecturing of IPCC bureaucrats, politicians and AGW freaks who drive big cars, have big boats, live in a big house with air conditioning, pop out children and train them to consume like themselves, perpetuating the rape and pillage of this planet.

So don't lecture me hypocrites, go lead by example.

My position is that the IPCC is wrong and the science is BS, but let's get save the planet anyway. co2 is a diversion, there are other pressing issues like the trashing of the ocean, deforestation, mass extinctions, soil degradation, DU contamination etc etc.

Watch this for example:



Missus and I decided not to have children, live in a modest home, drive as little as possible, eat a sustainable diet (nearly vego) work pro-actively in the environment movement, support environmental causes etc.

Only to be lectured by absolute tossers like Polly Toynbee about reducing carbon from her large energy hungry mansion and villa in Italy which she jets to regularly. Only for governments to see it as a taxation bonanza rather than some real action.

So let's see some action from you people! Failing that you can all **** off and I'll go and enjoy my money and buy big houses, cars, boats etc and I'll live out my years in luxury like IPCC delegates.


----------



## rederob (4 October 2008)

wayneL said:


> My position is that the IPCC is wrong and the science is BS, but let's get save the planet anyway. co2 is a diversion, there are other pressing issues like the trashing of the ocean, deforestation, mass extinctions, soil degradation, DU contamination etc etc.



The debate should not be "all or nothing".
And it's reasonable to expect proponents of AGW to lead by example: That not all do does not make the science wrong.

My concern is that manmade events tend to have the "supertanker effect".  That is, we know it has to be turned around, but it won't happen soon.  On the climate change front my fear is that we have already unlocked Pandora's box and it's now just a matter of time.

Our western cultures promote consumerism and thrive on it.  There is no incentive for thrift or sustainability, indeed, the opposite.

We have suffered leadership of deferral, denial, and duplicity.  The latter notably through lip service to sustainable energy practices while pouring hundreds of millions into carbon-based energy research.

By the way, at a different level - that is on the water restrictions front, where we live - our household of 4 over the age of 15 years uses less water *in total *than the current 170 litre per person campaign.  That will decrease further when we install a rainwater tank in the new year that will plumb into the system.


----------



## Pat (4 October 2008)

The science is not BS.

What separates our planet from our 3 terrestrial neighbors is liquid water and an atmosphere with minimal CO2. The CO2 difference is explained by the effect of life. 
CO2 acts as a blanket, so they use the term greenhouse effect, energy (heat) gets in easily but has a much harder time leaving.

Billions of years ago the CO2 was slowly removed from the atmosphere by the life on this planet, life being plants and micro organisms, and stored in the earth as carbon (oil/coal/forests/etc). 

Now days we are removing the life from the planet that removes this carbon from the oxygen and we are also putting all this carbon from the ground back into the atmosphere.

For the the hypothesis of AGW to be BS you would have to disprove this point- "CO2 acts as a blanket, so they use the term greenhouse effect, energy (heat) gets in easily but has a much harder time leaving."

or

We just ain't releasing a whole lot of CO2. Now thats BS.

The rest is all pretty solid scientific theory.


----------



## Nashezz (4 October 2008)

Wayne,

If it makes you feel better, me and my wife try and lead sustainable lives as well.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 October 2008)

Pat said:


> CO2 acts as a blanket, so they use the term greenhouse effect, energy (heat) gets in easily but has a much harder time leaving.



If I recall correctly, light goes straight through but heat is trapped by CO2 (just like a car with the windows heats up if parked in the sun).

I did some experiments with this one years ago and, in the lab at least, CO2 did indeed lead to higher temperatures than the normal atmosphere under otherwise identical conditions.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 October 2008)

smurf said:
			
		

> I did some experiments with this one years ago and, in the lab at least, CO2 did indeed lead to higher temperatures than the normal atmosphere under otherwise identical conditions.




I'm guessing you agree with the theory that CO2 leads to warming, smurf

:topic  all good stuff - 
like old fashioned polarised glasses that can see the fish under the water 
I did some work with polarised light in a lab a few years back as well.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 October 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I'm guessing you agree with the theory that CO2 leads to warming, smurf



I understand the theory that increased CO2 would lead to warming of the planet. In theory, that is what should happen to my understanding.

What I do NOT agree with however is this:

1. Linking every undesirable weather event with CO2.

That's rubbish, not science. Right now here in Tassie we've got serious drought in the NE and close to flooding in the West. Nothing unusual there, it's a reasonably common situation that all those river flow guages have been recording for close to a century. 

It's nonsense to try and claim that's proof of climate change caused by CO2 - there's nowhere near enough data to base such a claim on. All it proves is what's been known for years - (1) rainfall in Tasmania is most reliable in the SW and least reliable in the NE and (2) cloud seeding makes it rain more in targeted areas. 

2. Any linkage with overall cooling of the Earth and claiming that this is somehow linked to CO2. 

Cooling quite simply does not fit with the theory. It's not a question of "climate change", it's "global warming" pure and simple. If it's not warming then quite simply reality isn't matching the theory.

3. The notion that the point source of CO2 emissions is in any way relevant. 

The theory says it's atmospheric concentration, not what goes up any individual stack, that matters. It's politics at its worst to claim that shifting a few smelters from Queensland to, say, China will save the Barrier Reef from CO2-induced climate change. That's a political and economic strategy, not an environmental one, that would actually make the situation worse due to greater shipping volumes.

4. Attempts to link all sorts of non-CO2 environmental issues to the global warming issue.

Installing a water tank, for example, means you've just added rather a lot of CO2 in order to mine the materials, make the tank and transport it to your house. I'm not against water tanks, but the notion that installing one is doing something to solve the CO2 problem is rubbish. In most cases building a large dam is a lower CO2 and far cheaper option by most calculations - tanks make sense only when that's not an option. 

5. The notion that somthing is actually being done to reduce CO2 emissions.

No it's not. A few token gestures here and there maybe, but overall it's not just business as usual but rapid expansion for the fossil fuel industries. No amount of political lies change this reality - global emissions are heading  higher, not lower.

6. Unwillingness to accept the consequences of recucing CO2 emissions.

If we'd had current thinking on CO2 for the past 40 year then it's almost certain that the nuclear and hydro debates in particular would have had very different outcomes. 

Good luck for anyone who wants to argue against dams when even the Greens have ended up using the term "clean green hydro". Likewise it's no secret that the CO2 issue is the only thing that's given the nuclear industry in Australia anything close to public support.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 October 2008)

we disagree m8 ,  
I have no reason to doubt the IPCC....
and in any case, I refuse to gamble with this matter. 

btw, this isn't a matter of whether a few of us (or Al Gore) turns the bathroom light out or leaves it on all night.  It's whether the entire world changes attitude, changes energy sources, demand management, nuclear, massive grids for more efficient off-peak etcetc .

btw here's what John Denver's mate  (Buckminster Fuller) thought about it way back when ... (already posted elsewhere)- 


  What if? A New Global Option - Part 1

The song "What One Man Can Do" is about John's good friend and mentor Buckminster Fuller. 

Fuller was president of Mensa.  Mensa is an exclusive club - only people in the 98th percentile of IQ in the community need apply. 

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



> Richard Buckminster “Bucky” Fuller (July 12, 1895 – July 1, 1983)[1] was an American architect, author, designer, futurist, inventor, and visionary. He was the second president of Mensa.[2] .....
> 
> Throughout his life, Fuller was concerned with the question "Does humanity have a chance to survive lastingly and successfully on planet Earth, and if so, how?"[citation needed] Considering himself an average individual without special monetary means or academic degree,[3] he chose to devote his life to this question, trying to identify what he, as an individual, could do to improve humanity's condition, which large organizations, governments, and private enterprises inherently could not do.
> 
> Pursuing this lifelong experiment, Fuller wrote more than thirty books, coining and popularizing terms such as "Spaceship Earth", ephemeralization, and synergetics. He also worked in the development of numerous inventions, chiefly in the fields of design and architecture, the best known of which is the geodesic dome...




PS Note that "mid-latitude storm tracks are shifting poleward" - it's true !!  A friend does a lot of sailing , been doing so for 40 years - he's noticed it, no question .. 

And there is your drought in Tas straight away.  

PS These are from a PowerPoint on the IPCC website..


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 October 2008)

PS Here's Bucky Fuller's global energy grid btw.   (trouble is , as drawn , it has to go through Alaska ) )  
 Got Bucky's chance of getting it past Palin. 

PS - getting back to more "normal" action on GW/CC - (reduction of CO2 through carbon trading schemes etc ) - some brilliant side benefits with the global effort - slowing the felling of forests ( the lungs of the planet), reforestation, animal habitat, etc etc  .   Support it for that if nothing else   Support Copenhagen ! - When next will you get the ears of the ENTIRE WORLD to act on ANYTHING - so it's not perfect in your view - accept it as near enough - a step in the right direction, etc.

"one small step for mankind, one giant leap for the other co-habitants of this planet"   etc


----------



## Calliope (4 October 2008)

Pat said:


> The rest is all pretty solid scientific theory.




Solid scientific theory  Well I wouldn't know a GW from a CC but I know a good oxymoron when I see one. Thanks.


----------



## wayneL (5 October 2008)

Calliope said:


> Solid scientific theory  Well I wouldn't know a GW from a CC but I know a good oxymoron when I see one. Thanks.




AGW or ACC does not even pass as theory as it fails to predict with any accuracy whatsoever. It is hypothesis only... and for the benefit of AGW hypocrites - UNEQUIVOCAL!


----------



## mayk (5 October 2008)

On global warming, some simple questions.

What is the worst that can happen? How long? How fast?
As far as I am aware the answer is never crystal clear and then there is hypocritical answer of "we can avoid this..". But what are the projected scientific answers to these question. 


WHO thinks planet is sustainable for about 500million people only. So in the interest of humanity, why not the rest jump off the planet! Nothing wrong for the greater good.


I think from next decade we will see a massive change in attitude in how people perceive CG. The prime reason for that is the CG education at school level. New generation are taught CG as science and sustainable living is promoted for the better or worse.

I guess sustainable living is the key word here, promulgated by the phrase "live within your means", now carbon foot-print is the part of 'mean'.


----------



## chops_a_must (5 October 2008)

wayneL said:


> AGW or ACC does not even pass as theory as it fails to predict with any accuracy whatsoever. It is hypothesis only... and for the benefit of AGW hypocrites - UNEQUIVOCAL!




Ooooffff...

I'm loathed to go all Popperarian on yo ass, but you've sort of opened a can of worms...

A lot of science is purely hypothesis. An inability to be tested does not necessarily make it un-scientific. It just means the case isn't as strong.

Also, a whole heap, well most, (aside from the purest of hard sciences) of science has virtually zero predictive power. Probability being a measure of past events and all that extrapolated.

To me most of the debate is simply irrelevant. Yes, it is almost undeniable a lot of the world has undergone massive climate change.

Whether this is because of the heat sinks in cities, imbalance of sulphur, methane or too much CO2, it's not really the point.

You don't not treat a cancer patient because you don't know the cause. I fail to see the difference here.


----------



## wayneL (5 October 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Ooooffff...
> 
> I'm loathed to go all Popperarian on yo ass, but you've sort of opened a can of worms...
> 
> ...



But if you read my posts, we aren't very far apart.

My beef is with the consideration of co2 to the exclusion of all else. Just plain ****ing stupid when there are so many other, more imminent threats to work on.

For instance, are e so Goddamn childish that we need masses of unnecessary plastic adornment on every insignificant purchase we make? FFS!! I bought a low voltage oven light bulb yesterday... a tiny thing with cardboard, plastic, pretty printing probably using 3 times the resources than the actual bulb... just to be thrown away!

WTF!!

If we address all these other things, co2, IF it is indeed a factor in ACC, will resolve itself anyway.

Sorted.

But, because of the prevailing dogma, we have a situation where, to use a current analogy, we ban short selling to cure mis-pricing of risk!

Dumb Dumb Dumb!


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 October 2008)

wayneL said:


> My beef is with the consideration of co2 to the exclusion of all else. Just plain ****ing stupid when there are so many other, more imminent threats to work on.




and suppose a top priority of action on GW is to encourage reforestation and leaving alone current habitat.  Suppose we are almost there ..

except for those who want to throw out all the baby animals with the bathwater because of some pedantic argument about " no, not unless we achieve this habitat "renewal" (sic) without talking about carbon i.e. the things trees are made of. ... "

PS FFS (since everyone else seems to think saying WTF and FFS adds cred to an argument  - personally I prefer not to go there) 



			
				2020 said:
			
		

> PS - getting back to more "normal" action on GW/CC - (reduction of CO2 through carbon trading schemes etc ) - *some brilliant side benefits with the global effort - slowing the felling of forests ( the lungs of the planet), reforestation, animal habitat, etc etc  . Support it for that if nothing else * Support Copenhagen ! - *When next will you get the ears of the ENTIRE WORLD to act on ANYTHING *- so it's not perfect in your view - accept it as near enough - a step in the right direction, etc.




so wayne , if you want the world to address protection of habitat, - but to ignore CO2 -  what are you doing about it that has any REALISTIC chance of reaching the ear of the world - pinned back and under duress in some cases like Sarah Palin - the way Copenhagen will reach said ear?

take the 90% benefits of reduction of (any and all) pollution and increase in forests - and smile at the stupidity of the scientists that they did it - in your opinion -  for the wrong reasons....


----------



## wayneL (5 October 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> and suppose a top priority of action on GW is to encourage reforestation and leaving alone current habitat.  Suppose we are almost there ..
> 
> except for those who want to throw out all the baby animals with the bathwater because of some pedantic argument about " no, not unless we achieve this habitat "renewal" (sic) without talking about carbon i.e. the things trees are made of. ... "
> 
> ...



Look,

In the minds of the 99% of comatose schmucks that inhabit this planet, global warming is about taking the bus, nuclear energy and putting up a couple of windmills or a solar panel, NOT about reducing their overall impact. The "supposed" danger is project out in decades time. They'll be dead or nearly so, therefore don't care.

The example of the North Pacific plastic problem is NOW... and almost nobody knows about it.

In a centuries time, the sea level will be largely the same no matter what co2 emissions do, but Earth will be trashed.

Fantastic. 

BTW, I'll use any acronym I like to emphasize a point OK. A petty point to make, typical of a one issue mind.


----------



## Nashezz (5 October 2008)

C'mon Wayne.

2020 is not denying your point, but merely saying that the move to curtail CO2 is a step in the right direction. And how can it not be since we produce so much more in such a short time and we have far less capacity for that production to be absorbed. It is part of a solution, not the be-all and end-all.

Almost anyone I know that is concerned about this is actually concerned about their overall impact and in fact does things to limit it - unlock CO2 which most people I know feel they can have little effect on other then trying to use less electricity or taking public transprt as you mentioned. An example of this would b water which since we have had a drought here people have managed to reduce average water use by a half - mostly by being aware and active about the fact we need to conserve water (and also due to legislation limiting garden water use). People do care and people do want to do something, they just need more education about the dangers of not and the ways that they can (imo).


----------



## Greg71 (6 October 2008)

Kind of sobering.  

http://breathingearth.net/


----------



## wayneL (6 October 2008)

Some reading for you people:

A list of inconvenient questions but by no means comprehensive sourced from various places:

How do you explain that global temperatures according to UN data have not increased since 1998 and there has been no significant warming since 1995? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=A17DEFA8-802A-23AD-4912-8AB7138A7C3F

Are you aware that even the UN IPCC does not consider climate models to be “predictions” or “forecasts” but merely emission scenarios?http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html

Are you aware of multiple scientific studies showing the medieval warm period (before SUV’s and human emissions) to be warmer than current temps? http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/09/25/questioning-20th-century-warmth/ and http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025

How do you explain that CO2 levels have been much higher in the Earth’s history, but have not coincided with human or animal extinction? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=B6A8BAA3-802A-23AD-4650-CB6A01303A65

Can you explain why Greenland has cooled since the late 1930’s and 1940’s? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=175B568A-802A-23AD-4C69-9BDD978FB3CD

Can you explain why Antarctic sea ice has expanded to record levels in recent years? http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2965  and  http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=F1F2F75F-802A-23AD-4701-A92B4EBBCCBF

Are you aware that Arctic Sea ice has EXPANDED in 2008? http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/18/will-msm-report-2008-arctic-ice-increase

Are you aware of the multiple peer-reviewed studies blaming Arctic sea ice reductions on many factors not related to man-made carbon emissions? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=D6C6D346-802A-23AD-436F-40EB31233026 (also debunks Polar Bear extinction fears)

Are you aware that the Earth is currently in one of the coolest periods in its geologic history? http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/al_gore_is_a_greenhouse_gasbag/

Are you aware that a recent U.S. Senate report features more than 500 scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears””more than 10 times the number (52) of UN IPCC scientists who signed off on alarmist (and media hyped) Summary for PolicyMakers in 2007? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport and http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=37AE6E96-802A-23AD-4C8A-EDF6D8150789

Are you aware that many solar scientists and geologists are now warming of a possible coming global cooling? http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4613

How do you explain that an analysis in peer-reviewed journal found COLD PERIODS – not warm periods? http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/04/24/floods-and-droughts-and-global-cooling

How do you explain the recent U.S. government report which found Hurricanes declining, NO increases in drought, tornados, thunderstorms, heat-waves? http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3588


----------



## Pat (6 October 2008)

Calliope said:


> Solid scientific theory  Well I wouldn't know a GW from a CC but I know a good oxymoron when I see one. Thanks.



Not the first time you've pointed my morons out  Not sure if it is a bad thing.



wayneL said:


> AGW or ACC does not even pass as theory as it fails to predict with any accuracy whatsoever. It is hypothesis only... and for the benefit of AGW hypocrites - UNEQUIVOCAL!



My post #53 does pass Wayne... as theory, solid theory in fact.  
Thats the AGW logic.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 October 2008)

wayneL said:


> But if you read my posts, we aren't very far apart.
> 
> My beef is with the consideration of co2 to the exclusion of all else. Just plain ****ing stupid when there are so many other, more imminent threats to work on.
> 
> ...




Yes, I agree. I just had my pedantic hat on. 

The real argument and issue is just so far beyond what people seem to be stuck on, it isn't funny.


----------



## Green08 (6 October 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Yes, I agree. I just had my pedantic hat on.
> 
> The real argument and issue is just so far beyond what people seem to be stuck on, it isn't funny.





Chops and Wayne - I agree with you.. So much is wasted with compeletly unnecessary packaging, toys that break etc. What drives me nuts is at the green groccer.  People putting 2 bananas in a plastic bag, 1 tomatoe, 4 apples every different vegie or fruit in an individual bloody bag FFS and then ask for _another plastic bag to carry it home it._  We take the trolley and every thing is laid in it.  When I get to the check out I give her my reusable officework bags and begin putting the items on the belt.  People actually look at me as if I'm the nut and I just tell them point blank "I care about my children's future.  Please be curtious and use less plastc".  They are usually so stunned.  When the groccer sees me coming they know it could be show down at the till again.My kids love it!


----------



## Pat (6 October 2008)

Green08 said:


> Chops and Wayne - I agree with you.. So much is wasted with compeletly unnecessary packaging, toys that break etc. What drives me nuts is at the green groccer.  People putting 2 bananas in a plastic bag, 1 tomatoe, 4 apples every different vegie or fruit in an individual bloody bag FFS and then ask for _another plastic bag to carry it home it._  We take the trolley and every thing is laid in it.  When I get to the check out I give her my reusable officework bags and begin putting the items on the belt.  People actually look at me as if I'm the nut and I just tell them point blank "I care about my children's future.  Please be curtious and use less plastc".  They are usually so stunned.  When the groccer sees me coming they know it could be show down at the till again.My kids love it!



So what your saying is that we should do everything we can? I assume this includes green energy, electric cars, limited deforestation and such and such?


----------



## Pat (6 October 2008)

I disagree that too much emphasis is placed on "CO2" emissions, it's just one piece of the pollutant pie.
Perhaps the argument is that there is not enough emphasis on other important factors like recycling etc.


----------



## Nashezz (6 October 2008)

wayneL said:


> Some reading for you people:
> 
> A list of inconvenient questions but by no means comprehensive sourced from various places:
> 
> ...




Why would governments want to spend the massive money required if the science is so dodgy?

Your posting of articles from canadafreepress are not even worth responding to - that is hardly a bastion of good journalism let alone worthy scientific commentary (imho).

Without responding to all of your links/questions, everyone agrees, to my knowledge, that the Earth has not had the same highs we saw in 1995 or 2000 but that doesn't mean it isn't going to get hotter again, and that AGW isn't the cause. All your other posts about 'anomalies' that digress from rising temps are just that, 'anomalies'. We may have had warmer periods but the Earth also had far greater capacity to respond to the cause in the past (before forests were removed).

There are many more climatologists that rate CC and AGW then the 50 IPCC you selectively claim represent the argument - its an unworthy attempt to skew numbers.

This article (August 2008) appears to disagree rather dramatically with your posting about Greenland
http://esciencenews.com/articles/20...ntinued.breakup.2.greenlands.largest.glaciers


----------



## wayneL (6 October 2008)

Nashezz said:


> Why would governments want to spend the massive money required if the science is so dodgy?
> 
> Your posting of articles from canadafreepress are not even worth responding to - that is hardly a bastion of good journalism let alone worthy scientific commentary (imho).
> 
> ...



Fine, you and your lot buy a Prius. 

Me and my lot will do what we can for your descendants.

I'm 100% satisfied at what I'm doing. I'm also 100% satisfied that the IPCC is a fraud.

...and never the 'twain shall meet.

Lat post from me... until next time.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 October 2008)

Nashezz said:


> Why would governments want to spend the massive money required if the science is so dodgy?
> 
> Your posting of articles from canadafreepress are not even worth responding to - that is hardly a bastion of good journalism let alone worthy scientific commentary (imho).
> 
> ...




There is a concept Nash mate , called publication bias, ( I think thats what it is called) where only articles that come up with a result ever get published, those that neither agree nor disagree lie unpublished.

Also some publications ignore studies which do not adhere to their world view.

gg


----------



## rederob (7 October 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> There is a concept Nash mate , called publication bias, ( I think thats what it is called) where only articles that come up with a result ever get published, those that neither agree nor disagree lie unpublished.
> 
> Also some publications ignore studies which do not adhere to their world view.
> 
> gg



The world of science has many that disagree.
They can and do put up or shut up.

The problem with most that disagree is that they confine their argument to something quite specific that might suggest global warming is not an issue.
Global warming in a complex set of interrelationships underpinned largely on known effects of so called "greenhouse gases".
Unfortunately many of Wayne's links are tenuous at best and fail reasonable tests of the science.

One of the biggest problems faced in the present debate is that we expect to get (see) results quickly.  This is plain silly as our earth-years are far too short, while decades are only marginally better. The science suggest that typical measurable variations are in the hundreds of years given variations of a few degrees can take thousands of years.

That aside for a moment, it is possible that the earth - were it not for the effects of global warming - could currently be in a long term "cooling" phase.  If that were the case, then we have seriously missed the boat and Wayne will only be happy if he is heading for the hills (but perhaps he's already hiding there!).


----------



## Green08 (7 October 2008)

Pat said:


> So what your saying is that we should do everything we can? I assume this includes green energy, electric cars, limited deforestation and such and such?




You do what you feel is right for your ideology, the life you want to lead and being true to yourself.  People are dynamic as is the world and conclusions change based on information and how each interprets it.  I have children do you? I can't change the world, but I can do what I feel is right to lessen the impact in my own small ways. My daughter is aware and kids process information well.  Giving them critical analytical skills to question what they see and impact their future is essential.   I am amazed at the amount of people who use plastic bags and bin them. Just a thought and simple use of a recycle bag can make a difference.

Thank you for your advise on the motorbike thread, this is of my move to use less petrol.  

I don't believe in electric cars yet, what’s the point of recharging batteries from electricity from another polluting source, just transferring pollution.
Honda are working on some amazing technology with hydrogen few years away.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (7 October 2008)

Green08 said:


> Chops and Wayne - I agree with you.. So much is wasted with compeletly unnecessary packaging, toys that break etc. What drives me nuts is at the green groccer.  People putting 2 bananas in a plastic bag, 1 tomatoe, 4 apples every different vegie or fruit in an individual bloody bag FFS and then ask for _another plastic bag to carry it home it._  We take the trolley and every thing is laid in it.  When I get to the check out I give her my reusable officework bags and begin putting the items on the belt.  People actually look at me as if I'm the nut and I just tell them point blank "I care about my children's future.  Please be curtious and use less plastc".  They are usually so stunned.  When the groccer sees me coming they know it could be show down at the till again.My kids love it!




Hello Green,

That is good what you do at the grocery store.


----------



## Pat (7 October 2008)

Green08 said:


> You do what you feel is right for your ideology, the life you want to lead and being true to yourself.  People are dynamic as is the world and conclusions change based on information and how each interprets it.  I have children do you? I can't change the world, but I can do what I feel is right to lessen the impact in my own small ways. My daughter is aware and kids process information well.  Giving them critical analytical skills to question what they see and impact their future is essential.   I am amazed at the amount of people who use plastic bags and bin them. Just a thought and simple use of a recycle bag can make a difference.
> 
> Thank you for your advise on the motorbike thread, this is of my move to use less petrol.
> 
> ...



I agree 100% green08, being green... is the way to go. 
No kids for me. Though I was taught to be concious of my world as I was growing up.... at home and school. Education is almost everything IMO.

Do you know how much electricity it takes to produce Hydrogen? There is plenty of H20 around but we need to separate the O from the H2 to burn it.

IMO H2 is a substitution for oil.

I hope we can stop using coal and gas to generate electricity in the near future.


----------



## Green08 (7 October 2008)

Pat said:


> Do you know how much electricity it takes to produce Hydrogen? There is plenty of H20 around but we need to separate the O from the H2 to burn it.
> 
> IMO H2 is a substitution for oil.
> 
> I hope we can stop using coal and gas to generate electricity in the near future.




Yes acutely aware of how much energy especially coal would be needed to separate the o from h2.  The disasterous effects that would occur.

However, they are using solar power it's obviously in model stage but they showed I think it was discovery channel, that this proto type on a small tank of hydrogen can go over 300 kms!  They know the problem is getting enough solar panels.  Fully support this type of initiative as - like a thread- new ideas come up, agreements, collaborations.  Look at Fibreforce in the US.  Have a material 12 times stronger than steel and a fraction of the weight of steel.

People are out there doing amazing things, bravo to them! for taking the risk in the light of negativity.


----------



## Pat (7 October 2008)

Green08 said:


> People are out there doing amazing things, bravo to them! for taking the risk in the light of negativity.



Did you see the show on discovery.. or... the history channel "Who killed the electric car"?

I miss my Foxtel and my doco's. We recently scrapped it as our monies are better elsewhere.... more beer


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 November 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> PS - getting back to more "normal" action on GW/CC - (reduction of CO2 through carbon trading schemes etc ) - some brilliant side benefits with the global effort - slowing the felling of forests ( the lungs of the planet), reforestation, animal habitat, etc etc  .   Support it for that if nothing else   Support Copenhagen ! - When next will you get the ears of the ENTIRE WORLD to act on ANYTHING - so it's not perfect in your view - accept it as near enough - a step in the right direction, etc.
> 
> "one small step for mankind, one giant leap for the other co-habitants of this planet"   etc




Back in September was the peak of the Ozone hole size.The fifth largest ever recorded.Unfortunately there isn`t any 1000 year old data on the ozone hole to compare but I would think that its size now is man made. 



> The ozone hole is a region of exceptionally depleted ozone in the stratosphere over the Antarctic that occurs at the beginning of Southern Hemisphere spring (August) and typically reaches its maximum extent in late September or early October.




Collectively we shall make changes as the damage reports worsen in the future years.Maybe when it reaches South America or New Zealand.Oops, off on my third person view again when we (I) are contributors by default.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 November 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Back in September was the peak of the Ozone hole size.The fifth largest ever recorded.Unfortunately there isn`t any 1000 year old data on the ozone hole to compare but I would think that its size now is man made.
> 
> Collectively we shall make changes as the damage reports worsen in the future years.Maybe when it reaches South America or New Zealand.Oops, off on my third person view again when we (I) are contributors by default.



wys, Agree - no question it's man made , as you say. 

http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm


> Chloroflourocarbons were first created in 1928 as non-toxic, non-flamable refrigerants, and were first produced commercially in the 1930's by DuPont. ...
> 
> In 1974 M.J.Molina and F.S.Rowland published a laboratory study demonstrating the ability of CFC's to catalytically breakdown Ozone in the presence of high frequency UV light. Further studies estimated that the ozone layer would be depleted by CFC's by about 7% within 60yrs and based on such studies the US banned CFC's in aerosol sprays in 1978. Slowly various nations agreed to ban CFC's in aerosols but industry fought the banning of valuable CFC's in other applications.



Not banned altogether etc. 

I noticed on weekend that Kiwis now have highest rate of melanomas.
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318360/2310064

At least we've acted and slowed it down I guess   We're obviously not being rigourous enough about banning all CFCs. 



> ... ozone depletion has been measured everywhere outside the tropics, and that it is, in fact, getting worse. in the middle latitudes (most of the populated world), ozone levels have fallen about 10% during the winter and 5% in the summer. Since 1979, they have fallen about 5% per decade when averaged over the entire year. Depletion is generally worse at higher latitudes, i.e. further from the Equator.
> 
> The severity of the ozone hole varies somewhat from year to year. These fluctuations are superimposed on a trend extending over the last three decades. *The graphs below show these variations. The red bars indicate the largest area and the lowest minimum value*.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (18 November 2008)

Cooking the books - seems like anyone can do it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 November 2008)

The "Other Recession" we seem to be determined to have ...
that of the glaciers ...

There are gonna be environmental refugees by the millions 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/24/2226285.htm


> Mt Cook glacier melting away: scientists
> Posted Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:40am AEST
> 
> Scientists in New Zealand say most of their country's largest glacier could melt away within the next 20 years.
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/02/2407916.htm


> Chilean glacier will vanish in 50yrs: study
> Posted Sun Nov 2, 2008 12:47pm AEDT
> Chile's official water authority has warned that the Echaurren glacier near Santiago, which supplies the capital with 70 per cent of its water needs, could disappear in the next half century.
> 
> ...




likewise Himalayas,  Antarctic etc

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/himalayan-glacial-melt


> Expedition documents melting Himalayan glaciers
> G8 meets as glaciers melt on World Environment Day
> 05 June 2007
> 
> ...





Here's one trying to rebuild a Japanese coral reef that is 80% gone.  
http://www.physorg.com/news146117038.html


http://www.physorg.com/news146117038.html


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 November 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> The "Other Recession" we seem to be determined to have ...
> that of the glaciers ... likewise Himalayas,  Antarctic etc
> 
> http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/himalayan-glacial-melt




Hello, The images of the Halong and Middle Rongbuck glaciers in above site are strong examples.



> The February 2007 release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on the science of climate change concluded, with a 90 percent certainty, that *global warming is caused by human **behaviour.* The report galvanised the European Union to set a target of reducing carbon emissions by at least 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020, *and by 30 percent if other industrialised nations set similar targets*.




Looks like it`s "other countries" that won`t/can`t ?? join the reduction program target for 2020.

My ma told me cousins of ours wants to have eight kids (3 already) and I tried to explain to her that the planet, with present pollution output of which we all contribute by being human, is being destoyed.

But with the over-consuming (mind) people, the tribe leaders will have to implement rules & regulations to turn this destruction of nature around.

One or two children per couple is a sustainable number.Why have more and ask ourselves why bring children into the world.This decision should be a personal (freedom/human rights etc.) choice and selfishness put aside.

Can`t stop the wheel (nature might) but we can leave less of a rut.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 November 2008)

Are the recent Gold Coast storms and flooding due to weather or global warmening?

I'd like to know to better trade my SUN shares. 

I generally buy in storms and sell in quiet weather, but am unsure if I may be on the wrong track.

If its a warmening I'm going to go bust.

If its weather I'll keep on scalping.

I'd be most appreciative of any views.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 November 2008)

Pat said:


> I agree 100% green08, being green... is the way to go.
> No kids for me. Though I was taught to be concious of my world as I was growing up.... at home and school. Education is almost everything IMO.
> 
> Do you know how much electricity it takes to produce Hydrogen? There is plenty of H20 around but we need to separate the O from the H2 to burn it.
> ...



From just about every perspective it's better to use the coal or gas directly than to turn it into electricity then H2. Efficiency, environment, financial - all in favour of skipping the electricity and H2 step and just using it in the conventional manner in an engine etc.

As for stopping using coal and gas for electricity, it's technically very doable but faces truly massive resistance from established interests. 

With the exception of a few owners of renewable generation (which with one exception have effectively zero political influence), I'm not aware of any significant company, political party or other group in Australia that promotes what would be needed to make the change. At best, some promote ideas that may produce a few % at best and thus don't threaten conventional power sources. At worst, they do nothing or actively oppose the development of viable alternatives to replace fossil fuels. So don't hold your breath waiting for cuts in coal or gas use.

As for the climate change issue itself, a great many people now have rather a lot of egg on their faces. "The drought is permanent due to climate change and will only get worse" they said. And they said it so often it was quoted word for word in the national media. 

No doubt these people are aware of what's going on in SE Queensland. No matter what the cause, they've been proven absolutely wrong. And sadly, they've helped reduce the credibility of climate change science, and thus the possibility of the community supporting real action, through their ridiculous claims that have made them a laughing stock.

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious. Just as those worried about peak oil are laughed at by people who point to past predictions of doom that turned out to be wrong, so the same will happen with climate change. Claims of evidence that are then disproven isn't helping the credibility of the cause - unless the cause is politics rather than genuine concern for the environment.


----------



## Family_Guy (20 November 2008)

Not sure about climate change, but i have seen a few cyclones in my time up north, but this vid from Brissy with the storms the other night is fairly close to the real thing.......only 6 or so hours shorter.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=skrnDGl1LxQ


----------



## wayneL (25 November 2008)

A couple of articles that caight my eye this month:



> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...A1YourView&xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
> 
> The world has never seen such freezing heat
> 
> ...






> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...1YourView&xml=/opinion/2008/11/23/do2310b.xml
> 
> Stubborn glaciers fail to retreat, awkward polar bears continue to multiply
> 
> ...


----------



## prawn_86 (25 November 2008)

Well we are supposed to be going into summer next week (1st week of Dec), yet the weather here is still like winter.

We have had only about 1 - 2 weeks out of 12 of proper spring weather, the rest has been below 20c and cold and windy and drizzle. Normally in spring you get weeks on end of nice breeze and about 25 - 30 degrees. Not this year.

According to the forecast our first day of 'summer' is going to be 19 degrees


----------



## Pat (25 November 2008)

wayneL said:


> A couple of articles that caight my eye this month:



Nice to see you back on the climate change/GW threads... how was your ASF break?


----------



## Pat (25 November 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Well we are supposed to be going into summer next week (1st week of Dec), yet the weather here is still like winter.
> 
> We have had only about 1 - 2 weeks out of 12 of proper spring weather, the rest has been below 20c and cold and windy and drizzle. Normally in spring you get weeks on end of nice breeze and about 25 - 30 degrees. Not this year.
> 
> According to the forecast our first day of 'summer' is going to be 19 degrees



Yep, there was plenty of snow in Thredbo on the weekend. 
We had the hottest and coldest days in a few decades in October, on the NSW Central Coast that is. Weird and wacky weather...

Summer never starts till mid December, round here anyway.


----------



## wayneL (25 November 2008)

Pat said:


> Nice to see you back on the climate change/GW threads... how was your ASF break?



It was good. I'm now refreshed.

We had snow in Cheltenham in OCTOBER this year. First time in decades apparently. On the weekend they had 5 inches of snow up in Lincolnshire.

Maybe we'll get a white Christmas this year. That would be nice.


----------



## prawn_86 (25 November 2008)

Pat said:


> Summer never starts till mid December, round here anyway.




I can remember this time last yr (exam time so i do remember it clearly) and it was above 30 just about every day. Definite shorts and t-shirt weather. Now im lucky to even get out of a jumper...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 November 2008)

There is a very good editorial in the Weekend Australian today questioning the soothsaying of the Global Warmeners.

Seemingly a recent CSIRO paper has debunked much of the fears of the Warmeners about the health of the Southern Ocean and its ecology.

Does anyone have a copy of the paper?

I've been unable to find it online.

gg


----------



## Calliope (29 November 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> There is a very good editorial in the Weekend Australian today questioning the soothsaying of the Global Warmeners.
> 
> Seemingly a recent CSIRO paper has debunked much of the fears of the Warmeners about the health of the Southern Ocean and its ecology.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24722322-16382,00.html


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 November 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> There is a very good editorial in the Weekend Australian today questioning the soothsaying of the Global Warmeners.
> 
> Seemingly a recent CSIRO paper has debunked much of the fears of the Warmeners about the health of the Southern Ocean and its ecology.
> 
> ...






Calliope said:


> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24722322-16382,00.html




Sorry Calliope, I meant a copy of the CSIRO paper. Thanks anyway.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 November 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> There is a very good editorial in the Weekend Australian today questioning the soothsaying of the Global Warmeners.
> 
> Seemingly a recent CSIRO paper has debunked much of the fears of the Warmeners about the health of the Southern Ocean and its ecology.
> 
> ...



How dare you, or anyone, question the Climate Change religion? 

I wonder if the CSIRO will now end up like well known environmentalist David Bellamy who has been effectively silenced for his disagreement with the Climate Change crowd.

Overall, I think that climate change as an issue (as opposed to the scientific aspects of it) went parabolic just like the commodities markets. From a scientific perspective, climate is something us humans ought to be interested in and ought to be putting a proper research effort into given the significance of it. 

But when it came to the point that even the average hair dresser was getting worried about the carbon footprint of their salon and everyone from politicians to school kids were saying that we must take _drastic_ measures _now_ regardless of the consequences, well that says it all really. Science had given way to mass hysteria in exactly the same way as rational investment gives way to the greater fool during a financial bubble.

Bottom line is if those calling for panic get their way, then the environmental costs will be huge. Solarise, wind farm everything we can no matter what the cost (financial, aesthetic, environmental), dam the lot and nuke the rest. That's what would happen in practice. If there's a hill, put a turbine on it. If there's a roof, put a solar panel on it. If there's a river, dam it. And nuke plants everywhere to supply the other 80%.

Don't panic. Think instead. Yes we do need to stop using fossil fuels for all sorts of reasons from acid rain to outright war. But I've yet to see any convincing evidence that it has to happen yesterday. Do it gradually, develop the technologies such as hot dry rocks and solar towers, and then we can cut CO2 _without_ sending every other aspect of the environment and the economy straight to hell.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 November 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> .... Seemingly a recent CSIRO paper has debunked much of the fears of the Warmeners about the health of the Southern Ocean and its ecology.
> 
> Does anyone have a copy of the paper?
> 
> ...    I meant a copy of the CSIRO paper.




Maybe this one ? 

They (CSIRO etc) are not denying Global warming, nor greenhouse effect, nor intensifying winds, nor that the Southern Ocean has become warmer and fresher since the 1960's .  Just that the take up of carbon in the ocean hasn't changed much . 

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20082611-18489.html


> Windswept ocean still absorbs carbon
> Wednesday, 26 November 2008
> 
> CSIRO's Dr Steve Rintoul with an Argo robotic profiler, used  to monitor ocean circulation.
> ...




Looks like your presumption that it "debunks" AGW is pretty much debunked.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 November 2008)

Thanks for the link to the paper 2020 mate.

You warmeners are starting to sound like godbotherers. 

When was anyone able to predict the future as you guys are trying to do.
:error:

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 November 2008)

Climate change is indeed another name for Weather (or rather long term weather change)

Climate is to weather as locust is to locust plague. 

So gg, do you check with the weather bureau's forecast before you go fishing at sea? 

In the old days, you looked at the barometer - falling pressure = storms etc.  

These days they are pretty accurate out a few days - and indeed ( with El Niño-Southern Oscillation Index etc) they are getting pretty good for yearly trends  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Niño-Southern_Oscillation

PS This one espouses/reinforces the direct link between sea temp and hurricane intensity ...


> http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html?id=898
> Studies link strong storms with rising sea surface temperatures
> Atlanta (March 16, 2006) ””Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have released a study supporting the findings of several studies last year linking an increase in the strength of hurricanes around the world to a global increase in sea surface temperature. The new study strengthens the link between the increase in hurricane intensity and the increase in tropical sea surface temperature. It found that while factors such as wind shear do affect the intensity of individual storms or storm seasons, they don’t account for the global 35-year increase in the number of the most intense hurricanes. The study appears online in the March 16 edition of Science Express at www.scienceexpress.org.







			
				gg said:
			
		

> You warmeners are starting to sound like godbotherers.



lol - and you denialists are starting to sound like ostriches.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 November 2008)

these models are pretty bludy clever 

"El Niño-Southern Oscillation, ENSO,  is the most prominent known source of inter-annual variability in weather and climate around the world (about 3 to 8 years), .. " 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Niño-Southern_Oscillation



> The atmospheric signature, the Southern Oscillation (SO) reflects the monthly or seasonal fluctuations in the air pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin, Australia.
> 
> The most recent occurrence of El Niño started in September 2006[2] and lasted until early 2007.[3] From June 2007 on, data indicated a weak La NiÃ±a event, strengthening in early 2008.
> 
> ENSO is associated with floods, droughts, and other disturbances in a range of locations around the world. These effects, and the irregularity of the ENSO phenomenon, makes predicting it of high interest. Significant advances in the predictability of ENSO were contributed by Stephen Zebiak and Mark Cane.[4] *ENSO is the most prominent known source of inter-annual variability in weather and climate around the world (about 3 to 8 years),  *etc






> History of the phenomenon
> ENSO conditions seem to have occurred at every two to seven years for at least the past 300 years, but most of them have been weak.
> 
> Major ENSO events have occurred in the years 1790-93, 1828, 1876-78, 1891, 1925-26, 1982-83, and 1997-98.[19]
> ...


----------



## basilio (29 November 2008)

How  certain is global warming? Can anyone accurately predict the future? Why should we worry about something that might never happen?

Lots of ways to consider the issue of whether mankind is changing the earths climate and if so how concerned we should be.

If you take the trouble to read the analysis of the thousands of climate scientists who have examined the evidence it looks as if there is a very large chance we are going to cook the planet in a way that will destroy almost all life as we know it. At least that is what they think will happen.

Of course its possible they are all wrong. The future hasn't happened after all and who knows what will actually occur until it happens....

Perhaps. But in fact as intelligent people we plan our entire lives and the structure of our society  on being able to foresee probable events and taking steps to prevent damage.

We don't travel on overladen ships because there is real risk they will sink in a minor storm. (Plimsoll line ) We design aeroplanes with really, really reliable engines and do careful maintenance to try and ensure they don't fall out of the sky. We actually take out house and car insurance because we figure that while it is only a small chance we will have a fire, we can't afford the consequences if there is one.  We have days of total fire ban because we have a pretty clear idea of what will happen if a BBQ gets away on 40 degree day with a 40 knot north wind. 

This is not rocket science.

If there was just a 1% chance that the continual emission of CO2 was going to cause the  effective destruction of almost all life on life (and extreme as it sounds that is the direction  we are going) wouldn't it make sense to change direction even at considerable cost? Perhaps call it life insurance ?

By the way who do you think was responsible for the speech below on climate change in 1989 ?

_



			While the conventional, political dangers - the threat of global annihilation, the fact of regional war - appear to be receding, we have all recently become aware of another insidious danger. It is as menacing in its way as those more accustomed perils with which international diplomacy has concerned itself for centuries. It is the prospect of irretrievable damage to the atmosphere, to the oceans, to earth itself.

What we are now doing to the world, by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters and by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate - all this is new in the experience of the earth. It is mankind and his activities that are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways.
The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world’s climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all. That prospect is a new factor in human affairs. It is comparable in its implications to the discovery of how to split the atom. Indeed, its results could be even more far-reaching.

The evidence is there. The damage is being done. What do we, the international community, do about it?

In some areas, the action required is primarily for individual nations or groups of nations to take. But the problem of global climate change is one that affects us all and action will only be effective if it is taken at the international level. It is no good squabbling over who is responsible or who should pay. We have to look forward not backward, and we shall only succeed in dealing with the problems through a vast international, co-operative effort.

The environmental challenge that confronts the whole world demands an equivalent response from the whole world. Every country will be affected and no one can opt out. Those countries who are industrialised must contribute more to help those who are not.

The work ahead will be long and exacting. We should embark on it hopeful of success, not fearful of failure. Darwin’s voyages were among the high-points of scientific discovery. They were undertaken at a time when men and women felt growing confidence that we could not only understand the natural world but we could master it, too. Today, we have learned rather more humility and respect for the balance of nature. But another of the beliefs of Darwin’s era should help to see us through - the belief in reason and the scientific method.

Reason is humanity’s special gift. It allows us to understand the structure of the nucleus. It enables us to explore the heavens. It helps us to conquer disease. Now we must use our reason to find a way in which we can live with nature, and not dominate nature.

We need our reason to teach us today that we are not - that we must not try to be - the lords of all we survey.

We are not the lords, we are the Lord’s creatures, the trustees of this planet, charged today with preserving life itself - preserving life with all its mystery and all its wonder.

May we all be equal to that task.”
		
Click to expand...


_
Interested in learning why we should take out a policy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Bit long but does cover all elements of the research that has been undertaken. Perhaps complex for people without some science background

http://www.realclimate.org/
A web site by climate scientists.

And why do we have to do this yesterday? The really scary part about global warming is the effect of climate change feedback loops. At present scientists have identified and are monitoring at least 12 effects of global warming which if they continue will cause the release of even more CO2 and speed up the process to the point where it is unstoppable. Bit like starting forest fire and letting it go.. .  Once it has a good hold on dry forest it will burn until there is no more fuel..

http://www.andweb.demon.co.uk/environment/globalwarmingfeedback.html


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 November 2008)

basilio said:


> How  certain is global warming? Can anyone accurately predict the future? Why should we worry about something that might never happen?
> 
> Lots of ways to consider the issue of whether mankind is changing the earths climate and if so how concerned we should be.
> 
> ...




I agree that we should be more holistic in our treatment of the earth but refute the behaviour of the global warmeners.

They have elevated their computations on probability to an expectation that it will happen.

This is pursued with a theological diligence and dissenters are shouted down and marginalised.

It further makes for a cosy train on which the lazy of thought sit, tossing barriers in front of honest workers and capitalists , in the name of saving the earth.

The godbotherers should take a page out of the warmeners book. They have the ability to negate every proof contrary to any tiny tenet of their belief by ridiculing and ignoring such proof. 

Probability and expectation are different, but this seems to escape their notice.

As with the stock market, when a cabbie starts quoting the index its time to get out. Equally when a Hollywood starlet or starboy finds god or starts pushing global warmening, its time to question the science and expectation.

If you want to know what the weather is , stick your head out the window, don't turn on the TV.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 November 2008)

basilio said:


> By the way who do you think was responsible for the speech below on climate change in 1989 ?



lol MT ? by any chance ?
She who must be obeyed!


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 November 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> If you want to know what the weather is , stick your head out the window, don't turn on the TV.




lol


> James was walking down the road one morning when he met his friend Danny.
> "Morning, Danny. Er ... Danny, you're wearing a glove on one hand and none on the other. Did you know?"
> 
> "Yes, well I heard the weather forecast this morning, you see."
> ...






> A film crew was on location deep in the desert. One day an old Indian went up to the director and said, "Tomorrow rain."The next day it rained.
> 
> A week later, the Indian went up to the director and said, "Tomorrow storm." The next day there was a hailstorm.
> 
> ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 November 2008)

basilio said:


> If there was just a 1% chance that the continual emission of CO2 was going to cause the  effective destruction of almost all life on life (and extreme as it sounds that is the direction  we are going) wouldn't it make sense to change direction even at considerable cost?



That's an arguable point given that the "cost" of action to reduce CO2 will involve an awful lot of damage to the natural environment.

If we're going to act over the next 50 years then there are a lot of options.

If we're going to act over the next 20 years then, in practice, we're going to have to rely totally on technology that's ready and proven literally right now. 

This means that, in practice, if we decide it's urgent and we have to begin today and we're going for a decent cut then we end up with probably 65% nuclear, 15% large scale hydro, 10% fossil fuel and 10% others (mostly wind) for power generation at the global level in participating countries. And just about all of that capacity would be under physical construction within a year or two, hence the reliance on present technology.

And in the process of this we end up switching everything possible over to electricity, so total power generation sharply increases from present levels.

Also we'd end up trashing a lot of forests for biofuel crops. This is already happening to some extent, to the point of threatening some species, and it would almost certainly be massively expanded in order to meet the CO2 cuts in an environment where the consequences of doing so are ignored.

Are you SURE you want to nuke and flood everything and kill a lot of trees and birds in order to fix the CO2 problem? If we knew we had another 30 years then that wouldn't be necessary so it's not as simple as it may seem.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 November 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> That's an arguable point given that the "cost" of action to reduce CO2 will involve an awful lot of damage to the natural environment.



and smurf , there's another arguable point that the cost of inaction to reduce CO2 will involve fifty times more damage to the natural environment


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 November 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> and smurf , there's another arguable point that the cost of inaction to reduce CO2 will involve fifty times more damage to the natural environment



Indeed there is, I'm just pointing out that it's not a "nothing to lose" situation - it's lose or lose and the debate is about which is the bigger loss.

I say that knowing that we've had the coal Vs nuclear debate in Australia before just as we've had the hydro Vs coal and wind Vs coal debates. In all cases, the "green" position has been the one that ends up with more coal being burnt, presumably because many see the alternatives as worse.

That's why I'm not optimistic that anything will be done. First people won't want the financial cost. And then there will be fierce objection to the environmental costs. That's been the entire history of the energy Vs environment debate internationally - it's land use change, aesthetics and radioactive things that spark protests, not CO2. Same from Australia to the US to Europe.

2020 and others. I'm going to work out a proper example here on how a community (eg an Australian state or territory) would actually cut CO2 by x% by a given date. I think the results will be interesting to say the least. I'll focus on energy-related emissions only to keep it simple. Does anyone have a % cut and a date in mind for this exercise?


----------



## wayneL (30 November 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> and smurf , there's another arguable point that the cost of inaction to reduce CO2 will involve fifty times more damage to the natural environment



...and in one sentence you expose the whole hypocrisy of the AGW religion. 

Example - Al Bore:

Still lives with an *enormous* carbon footprint and has admitted that he is raking it in off the back of the CC scare.

There is an easy way to lessen the impact on the planet in whatever form is actually factual (i.e. NOT co2 induced GW)

DO LESS!

Travel less
Eat less
Own less
Package less
Breed less
Build smaller houses
Walk instead of drive

I don't see the GW scammers doing that.

I do them doing MORE of the above. Last time I was lectured on GW was as Sainsbury's by a woman who had driven to the Supermarket in her BMW X5, from her rather large centrally heated and energy hungry house, from behind her trolly full of te most elaborately packaged items she could buy.

Pullleeeeze, such obnoxious and poisonous duplicity from you people is truly sickening. Come back when you can walk the talk; until then, frac off and let the truly environmentally conscious do the real work.


----------



## basilio (30 November 2008)

I wonder.....

How much reading or research do other forum members do on global warming? The issue has been around now since the mid eighties and the physical evidence of a warming earth have become clearer and clearer. 

The core of the argument, that CO2 traps the suns energy and warms the earth, was recognised  over a hundred years ago. The fact that over the last 200 years and particularly in the last 40-50 years, man has poured far more CO2 into the atmosphere than can be taken out through natural process (trees, soil intake, absorption into the ocean) was always going to cause the earth to warm up.

The role of scientists has been to work out by how much and what the effect might be. And along the way scientists have come to learn about the many other effects on the earths climate and teased out their impact. *In the end  their understanding is that the biggest cause of the current global warming is excess manmade production of CO2.* And if it continues at the current projection... well we are cooked

I'm surprised at the disbelief and sometimes outright scorn directed to the scientific community. Do you really believe the men and woman who have drilled ice cores and tested and checked and rechecked and reworked their figures and almost to a singularity have come to the same conclusion are abjectly wrong? Would anyone on the forum express the same scorn for building engineers, medical scientists, chemical engineers and the like? 

As far as solutions go..  there are possible ways to radically reduce our carbon emissions AND absorb as much as possible of the excess we already have. Again if anyone is interested in reading a constructive approach to the issue I suggest "The Geography of Hope" by Chris Turner. Great read, positive, real, uplifting. 

Cheers

PS It was Margaret Thatcher who  made the Global Warming speech to UN in 1989. Of course she did  ****all about it afterwards.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 November 2008)

wayneL said:


> Pullleeeeze, such obnoxious and poisonous duplicity from you people is truly sickening. Come back when you can walk the talk; until then, frac off and let the truly environmentally conscious do the real work.




YOu insist on making this personal WL
So I'll make it personal 
Perhaps you don't act because you don't have kids to apologise to?

PS act as in something other than dancing around the edges. - you're talking cents.  I want to talk dollars.  
Get some international cooperation into place - reafforestation, nuclear, education of women in third worlds etc.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 November 2008)

basilio said:


> I wonder.....
> 
> How much reading or research do other forum members do on global warming? The issue has been around now since the mid eighties and the physical evidence of a warming earth have become clearer and clearer.
> 
> PS It was Margaret Thatcher who  made the Global Warming speech to UN in 1989. Of course she did  ****all about it afterwards.



I've been aware of it since 1987. Did the initial panic thing but after the 1991 power supply scare (in Tas) I realised it was all a bit more complicated. 

Those two things were actually quite defining events in my life. I couldn't have named a single power station anywhere in 1990. By 1992 I was lobbying politicians, was a technical expert to various groups by 1995 and in 1997 released an integrated energy strategy which has in practice been largely implemented.

So yeah, I've done a bit on the subject. And that's what turned my initial optimism, thinking it was simply a matter of doing a few things to cut emissions, into a more conservative view that acknowledges just how radical the required measures are and how difficult it would be to implement them without the support of economic rivals. It's not a matter of changing a few bulbs, catching the bus and closing a coal-fired power plant or two then giving the workers jobs in tourism - that approach sounds good but it doesn't actually work once you do the sums.

If someone cares to choose a date and a % cut, then I'll work out a proper example of how that could actually be achieved. Obviously it's going to be fairly basic, but I think it's a worthwhile exercise. I'm planning to do one for Tasmania and one for another state, likely either Vic or SA. Only reason for those location is having the data available. Anyone got a date and % cut figure in mind?

AS for Thatcher, I must point out that there were a lot of non-environmental issues withing the UK at the time for which an objective to cut CO2 was highly convenient politically. When you are trying to convince a public that has never heard of climate change that closing coal mines, thus putting huge numbers out of work, and building nuclear plants (this was just 3 years after Chernobyl...) is somehow a good idea then you'd be a fool not to mention the CO2 issue. 

Truth is the local issues were more about military nuclear activities, maximising the estraction rate (and hence profits and taxes) of North Sea oil and gas and smashing the unions. CO2 wasn't the issue, but it was a useful political tool at time.


----------



## professor_frink (30 November 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> If someone cares to choose a date and a % cut, then I'll work out a proper example of how that could actually be achieved. Obviously it's going to be fairly basic, but I think it's a worthwhile exercise. I'm planning to do one for Tasmania and one for another state, likely either Vic or SA. Only reason for those location is having the data available. Anyone got a date and % cut figure in mind?




I've pretty well lost interest in following this debate these days, but would be interested in seeing an example of whatever % cut and date is being called for by the xspurts at the moment. 

Was it 20% by 2020? Something like that would be interesting to see.


----------



## wayneL (30 November 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> YOu insist on making this personal WL
> So I'll make it personal
> *Perhaps you don't act *because you don't have kids to apologise to?
> 
> ...




I beg your pardon? You can't read.


----------



## Calliope (30 November 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Get some international cooperation into place - reafforestation, nuclear, education of women in third worlds etc.




The time is out of joint for international cooperation among world leaders to agree on a theory that global warming is man-made and then do something about it. They have other issues on their plates.

Our leader often tells us that the price of inaction on carbon emissions far exceeds the price of action. He then gets in his private jet and crisscrosses the globe, laying down a huge carbon footprint, to hobnob with other world leaders doing the same thing. When they meet they create a lot of hot air and achieve little.

The issue is further complicated by the fact that countries like Russia, Canada and the Scandanavian countries would greatly benefit from global warming. Warming in Russia in particular would provide access to enormous mineral resources and oil and open new shipping channels.


.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 November 2008)

Calliope said:


> ... Warming in Russia in particular would provide access to enormous mineral resources and oil and open new shipping channels.



yep - gives a new meaning to the Cold War doesn't it - maybe rename it the Warm War 

But hang on - Wayne assures us that it's not getting warmer, and that there is no nett melting of glaciers ice caps etc.  (Depends which of his posts you read) 

Interestingly the only places in October 2008 to be cooler (anomalies) than "the 1961 - 1990 base period"  appear to be Alaska and Arizona (?)  Maybe Sarah DID have a direct link to God after all 

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 November 2008)

wayneL said:


> I beg your pardon? You can't read.



You can't make a consistent argument more like it .


----------



## jeflin (30 November 2008)

The Kyoto Protocol laid down firm guidelines for countries to achieve "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."

US is the only rouge industrialized nation holding out after Australia ratified the agreement. Not surprising that George Bush cares little about destroying the earth to protect the greedy capitalists. 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071203-AP-aus-kyoto.html


----------



## Calliope (30 November 2008)

jeflin said:


> US is the only rouge industrialized nation holding out after Australia ratified the agreement.




China still has a fairly *rouge* complexion.


----------



## spooly74 (30 November 2008)

basilio said:


> I wonder.....
> 
> The role of scientists has been to work out by how much and what the effect might be. And along the way scientists have come to learn about the many other effects on the earths climate and teased out their impact. *In the end  their understanding is that the biggest cause of the current global warming is excess manmade production of CO2.* And if it continues at the current projection... well we are cooked




CO2 in the atmosphere in 1900 ~ 280ppm
CO2 in the atmosphere today ~380 ppm

IPCC have a forcing of 3 degrees per doubling of CO2. Worth noting that the IPCC don't do any scientific research themselves, they correlate the results from scientists around the world ....cherry pick if you like 

Log2(380/280) x 3C = 1.32C

Now, have we *observed* an increase of 1.32C since industrial times?

*NO!*



Smurf1976 said:


> 2020 and others. I'm going to work out a proper example here on how a community (eg an Australian state or territory) would actually cut CO2 by x% by a given date. I think the results will be interesting to say the least. I'll focus on energy-related emissions only to keep it simple. Does anyone have a % cut and a date in mind for this exercise?




Agree with the prof ...Use 20% reduction by 2020.
Will be very interesting Smurf ... cheers.


----------



## skint (30 November 2008)

wayneL said:


> ...and in one sentence you expose the whole hypocrisy of the AGW religion.
> 
> Example - Al Bore:
> 
> ...




What a revelation! You've found evidence of hypocricy and duplicity in those that appreciate the need for action on climate change. May I cordially welcome you to the real world. I too, could name a great number of people who behave in a similarly hypocritical manner and others again that practice what they preach. Homogenising those that see sense in erring on the side of the vast majority of climatologists may help simplify things in your own mind, but unfortunately makes very little sense. Indeed, being able to dichotomise people into definitive personality types on pretty much any mainstream issue would be rare. For example, as groups, and with a large enough sample size, you would find many differences between Labor and Liberal voters, but as individuals, they're obviously many and varied, given we have about 21 million people in the country.
The main thing to be taken from your post is that whilst _some_ individuals, companies and government bodies may alter their behaviour of their own accord, there are a great many others whose behaviour changes only in response to consequences such as cost and legislation. A while back there was a push to "Buy Australian". Many agreed with the notion but most went invariably for the product they deemed to be of better value. Clearly, we have a need for a legislative and pricing framework on climate change, and the sooner the better. If you happen to be one of those doomsday scenarists that catastrophise addressing the problem in a meaningful way, I'll save a can of soup for you.


----------



## MR. (30 November 2008)

skint said:


> Clearly, we have a need for a legislative and pricing framework on climate change, and the sooner the better.




Must be done ASAP. But that is still short term.  The only real way to solve this problem is less people.  I have strongly believed it for a long time that caping the amount of new borns world wide will solve so many problems. 

However we must have continued  "wealth creation"  we must grow grow grow.  I don't agree.  Some things just have to be done.

Reduced our consumption in electricity from 29 KWH's per day down to just under 20 KWH's per day.  It has now averaged that for a year now.  Light globes, turning the air conditioner off at the switchboard has saved most of the power.  At the end of the day it doesn't make much of a difference because more consumers are born.  It's just prolonging it all.


----------



## inenigma (30 November 2008)

Has anyone noticed the reception of Digital TV during a storm.....

Global Warming. More Storms. Less TV Reception....

More reasons to tell the spoilt daughter Foxtel doesn't work anymore......


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 November 2008)

MR. said:


> The only real way to solve this problem is less people.



No point in martyrdom not having kids ourselves ... since Bob Geldof's  first LIVE AID Concert 24 years ago, Ethiopia's population has doubled 
And there has been zilch education of African women generally about contraception / birth control. 

Mind you, each Aussie makes about the same CO2e as 23 (app)   Ethiopians.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2428637.htm


> ANDREW GEOGHEGAN: A quarter of a century ago Ethiopia became a byword for famine.
> 
> (Bob Geldof song plays)
> 
> ...


----------



## Naked shorts (30 November 2008)

Hopefully the crazy storms/rain in Brisbane keep up. Im none to keen to drink my own sh*t.

http://news.theage.com.au/national/bligh-signals-backflips-on-water-dam-20081125-6gly.html

Currently if the dams get below 40%, recycled water gets put into the system.


*CO2 Scrubber Sucks Up Emissions From Cars, Home Heating*
http://gizmodo.com/5057860/co2-scrubber-sucks-up-emissions-from-cars-home-heating

I would love to hook these things up to some solar cells.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 November 2008)

What amuses me is how the Elites blame hardworking law abiding western folk for their scientific concept of an unproven future weather armageddon.

They then move on predictably to over population. Then some elitist git like Bob Geldof of all people gets dragged into the argument to prove a point. 

The same folk who brought us the falsifiable global warmening also brought us western guilt for the famines of the third world. 

The final arseabout argument they then give is that blame rests with us for war and famine anywhere on this earth. 

Wake up and get a life.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 November 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> What amuses me is how the Elites blame hardworking law abiding western folk for their scientific concept of an unproven future weather armageddon.
> 
> They then move on predictably to over population. Then some elitist git like Bob Geldof of all people gets dragged into the argument to prove a point.
> 
> ...



You're right gg, 
 let's stick to the people who have vested interests - particularly clumsy greedy capitalists who could give a sh*t about the future of the planet 

PS so , in your opinion, overpopulation is not a problem ?
answer truly now - lol
don't change the subject with a lot of claptrap.

PS I've had a day devoted to Zen and the art of Mazda maintenance ... needless to say, I could have taught some sailors some new swear words (as much as I love Buddhism)


----------



## MR. (30 November 2008)

What are you smoking up there?

So perhaps then global warming comes about from the unsubstantiated hot air extinguished from a Garbled GumNUT arguing for the sake of an argument!   Truly I do value my time more than this.   Over population is not just a predictable response.  Wakeup,  it ‘s the problem and (for your sake) *"any"* climate change is just a remnant of this disease on top of forest clearing,  rapid extinction of animals and water and air pollution.
*The disease is too many humans. * 

Unfortunately us educated western societies can identify this problem but nothing will be done.  Like financial stimulus packages, we just keep making patches and put our efforts into last minute endeavours to save some endangered rodents.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> What amuses me is how the Elites blame hardworking law abiding western folk for their scientific concept of an unproven future weather armageddon.
> 
> They then move on predictably to over population. Then some elitist git like Bob Geldof of all people gets dragged into the argument to prove a point.
> 
> ...






2020hindsight said:


> You're right gg,
> let's stick to the people who have vested interests - particularly clumsy greedy capitalists who could give a sh*t about the future of the planet
> 
> PS so , in your opinion, overpopulation is not a problem ?
> ...






MR. said:


> What are you smoking up there?
> 
> So perhaps then global warming comes about from the unsubstantiated hot air extinguished from a Garbled GumNUT arguing for the sake of an argument!   Truly I do value my time more than this.   Over population is not just a predictable response.  Wakeup,  it ‘s the problem and (for your sake) *"any"* climate change is just a remnant of this disease on top of forest clearing,  rapid extinction of animals and water and air pollution.
> *The disease is too many humans. *
> ...




Overpopulation will revert to a mean population sufficient to be fed by the resources available.

Famine and disease have predictably kept the world in equilibrium.

They will continue to do so. 

HIV is rampant in Africa. Until 3 months ago the President and Health Minister of South Africa denied it was due to a virus.

Look at Zimbabwe. Famine there is a result of misguided dogma. 

Ethiopia, Darfur and Somalia are basket cases notwithstanding that git Bob Geldof's ministrations..

The Elites would like to salve their consciences by saving everyone and then limiting the population via birth control which has been proven never to work.

People procreate.

Resources are limited. 

You guys are living in an elitist collective divorced from the realities of everyday life. 

Go visit some of these famine and war wracked countries , and then comment. 

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 December 2008)

African populations tend to grow at about 3% per annum. 
When you say it fast, it doesn't sound that serious. 
But then you realise that Ethiopan population has doubled in 24 years since the Live Aid stuff (rule of 72, 1.03^24 = 2, or doubled) you realise it's a catastophe.  

Their population builds up, then crashes in appalling misery - starvation of infants etc.   

There's no need for the famines to be as devastating as they are (not saying they can be avoided of course) - if only the population was a bit better educated on contraception etc . 

Elitism? - what the hell are you talking about gg.  
Since when is wanting people to rise out of their ignorance called elitism?.


----------



## wayneL (2 December 2008)

Just occasionally, some sense comes from the MSM... http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24723425-11949,00.html



> Written by John Stapleton, The Australian
> Saturday, 29 November 2008
> cold snap
> 
> EUROPE is shivering through an extreme cold snap. One of the coldest winters in the US in more than 100 years is toppling meteorological records by the dozen, and the Arctic ice is expanding. Even Australia has been experiencing unseasonable snow.




But the stories about global warming have not stopped, not for a second.



> In May last year, The Sydney Morning Herald breathlessly reported that climate change had reduced the Southern Ocean's ability to soak up carbon dioxide, claiming that as a result global warming would accelerate even faster than previously thought.
> 
> The story was picked up and repeated in a number of different journals around the region.






> But this week the CSIRO suggested the exact opposite. "The new study suggests that Southern Ocean currents, and therefore the Southern Ocean's ability to soak up carbon dioxide, have not changed in recent decades," it said. This time the story got no coverage in the SMH, and was run on the ABC's website as evidence the Southern Ocean was adapting to climate change.






> the story is being pointed out as an example of media bias on global warming. Critics argue that the ABC and the Fairfax media are the worst offenders.






> "The ABC and the Fairfax press rarely provide an opportunity for global warming sceptics to put their view," Mr Windschuttle said. "The science is not settled.






> "We are seeing an increasing number of people with impeccable scientific backgrounds questioning part or whole of the story. I don't believe the ABC has been reflecting the genuine diversity of the debate.




Bob Carter of James Cook University, one of the world's best-known climate change sceptics, said there was no doubt Windschuttle was correct.



> "With very few exceptions, press reporters commenting on global warming are either ignorant of the science matters involved, or wilfully determined to propagate warming hysteria because that fits their personal world view, or are under editorial direction to focus the story around the alarmist headline grab -- and often all three," Professor Carter said.






> National Climate Centre former head William Kininmonth said coverage of global warming had been hysterical and was getting worse, with a large public relations effort inundating the media with information from the alarmist side.


----------



## numbercruncher (2 December 2008)

Both sides of this debate shift from " climate change " to " Global Warming " or vice versa and it makes for frustrating discussion.

Just in that piece you write there Wayne shuffles betwen the two a few times ....


I for one would debate that climate change is occurring but not neccesarily warming ....

Seems a Global recession should slow down our polluting ways though


----------



## wayneL (2 December 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> Both sides of this debate shift from " climate change " to " Global Warming " or vice versa and it makes for frustrating discussion.
> 
> Just in that piece you write there Wayne shuffles betwen the two a few times ....
> 
> ...




Climate Change is a term invented to cover the GWers @ss... so they can assign anthropegenic implications to cold events as well as warm events. Essentially the two terms are interchangeable for the IPCC zealots. 

However, climate change is a completely natural phenomenon. Mayan civilization was wiped out by climate change, well before man found oil. The Viking settlements in Greenland also wiped out by climate change a thousand years ago.

As the IPCC hypothesis has utterly failed to be able to predict weather trends, it doesn't even qualify as a theory, it remains as hypothesis. But the fact of biased IPCC cherry picking of available studies actually disqualifies it as science. It's politics only.

Let's focus on real environmental issues that if addressed, will alleviate any real co2 concerns as a byproduct much more effectively.


----------



## wayneL (2 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> You can't make a consistent argument more like it .




...and let's make any _ad hominem_ carping based on fact, rather than puerile straw man mis-truths and other logical fallacies.


----------



## billhill (2 December 2008)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Climate Change is a term invented to cover the GWers @ss...




I always thought the term was chosen by governments because it sounded less serious then global warming.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2008)

billhill said:


> I always thought the term was chosen by governments because it sounded less serious then global warming.



 Climate Change = the symptom, GW = the cause. 
example - with nett global warming, the gulf stream will probably slow down - Europe (UK Scandinavia) will get less warming - they will cool down, US will heat up. 

Climate Change only sounds less serious if you haven't read about some of the things that will happen


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2008)

ok – let’s put it another way ...

a)	the industrial revolution started us down a road where the world has never been before – do you think that the earth can sustain an endless buildup in the number of coal powered generators and the like? – no ok
b)	do you think it’s a good idea that we stop burning so much fossil fuel? (for whatever reason – not least is that it’s gonna run out if we keep this rate up)  – you do – great
c)	do you think that we should be encouraged to invent ? to grasp opportunities?  i.e. things like cleaner energy options? where solar has become several times more efficient over the last 10 years or so. 
d)	how do you feel about encouraging everyone, including third world countries to leave their forests standing? – you think it’s a good idea  – great
e)	when it comes to pollution, do you think it’s a good idea that we work towards global cooperation, with all countries on board? – it’s a good idea – great
f)	is this counter to man’s normal tendency to pursue “old-fashioned dirty development” at the cost of all else , including the environment we hand on to the next generation? (and maybe encourage them to have a smaller next generation) 
g)	how hard is it to get the public motivated to think differently to this ingrained mindset? – pretty hard ? yep
h)	have you ever seen the level of international discussion and agreement on this matter before? nope, nor have I
i)	should we encourage this trend or not - ? or should we argue that we agree with all the positive outcomes, but disagree with the reason for doing it?   

This from wikipedia :-
Remember that both parties in the recent US election wanted to become more conscious and proactive on this one.   EVEN the US!!  Why stand in the way of the anti - pollution message ?? -  I just don't understand why anyone who would do that.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2008)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Bob Carter of James Cook University, one of the world's best-known climate change sceptics ...




Carter vs Karoly

Already posted elsewhere ... some youtubes on the ABC debate over the Great GW Swindle Debate (where incidentally they show it to be full of errors and manipulation of facts ... - Bob Carter didn't really say enough to comment on though)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=234760&highlight=karoly#post234760

My money's on Karoly


----------



## wayneL (2 December 2008)

2020,

All very alarming if the science was unequivocal as portrayed by that lieing gang of shysters, the IPCC. The problem is that the collation of the available science is shYte. It is a cherry picked fraud... UNEQUIVOCAL.

You keep labouring under the same logical fallacies. You also continue with your totally disgraceful straw man argument by misrepresenting my position. Are you intellectually challenged? It seems so. Either that or totally disingenuous and politically partisan....or both. No surprises there.

How else can you support someone so intellectually and morally compromised as that vested interest hypocrite Al Bore? 

It's all politics. The sooner the the mainstream wakes up to that fact, we can concentrate on things that matter. To repeat for the millionth time, co2 is just a sideshow, the main game is other forms of pollution the effects of which are real and measured.

eg the North Pacific swirling rubbish tip as per the youtube I posted, and that is just one example. Another is the disappearance of bees, nothing to do with climate change, everything to do with real anthropogenic impacts such as pesticide use, and without them, we all starve long before sea levels don't rise.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2008)

Carter vs Karoly ... judge for yourself ...
(Carter comes on about 9m10s mark) 
...  Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 4/9


----------



## wayneL (2 December 2008)

I'm interested in good science, not a good debate.

GW science is largely junk, the hockey stick entirely discredited, the IPCC exposed as being on the take. Sorry 2020, you and your ilk are no better than a religious proselyte, converting people with fear rather than fact.

That's the truth of the matter.

Over and out.


----------



## basilio (2 December 2008)

It's a challenge Wayne. The reality of global warming is that within our lifetime our world will become far hotter, far wilder and far less pleasant to live in. In fact in many areas uninhabitable.

You take the view that this is just not going to happen. That somehow 20-30 years of research, examination and *finally physical evidence of  warming* cannot be compared to a  relative handful of people who dispute the evidence.

If you wanted to consider a valid comparison think about the public debates on cigarette smoking and asbestos related disease.
*
Doctors in  London 1939 established that cigarette smoking  was causing a huge increase in lung cancer.*  And yet the tobacco industry continued  its promotion, development, advertising and misinformation on the facts. 

During the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's the industry just lied and lied to protect profits.

Asbestos was similarly identified as a killer in the 30's. Same story of deliberate lies and malfeasance. In both cases it seemed amazing that in the face of repeated proof that their products were killers, spurious arguments of "individual right to smoke" "freedom of thought" deliberately twisted research, national bribery, and so on allowed both industries to continue making awesome profits while killing millions of people.

Does any of this sound familiar Wayne?

It might because apart from many similarities in the arguments it so happens that the same immoral, lying bastards who kept the tobacco industry going are the ones who developed a similar patter on global warming in the 90's and to this day.

We've been stooged Wayne et al. When we finally realised in the 80's that we were on the wrong track as far as the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere we had some sort of rough chance of turning things around. Twenty years later that opportunity is thin... and that's being wildly optimistic.

I have attached a story which outlines with dates, names and evidence the process that used the tobacco lobbyists skills for Global Warming deniers. 


_*The denial industry*
For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story_
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2


For anyone interested in how we might reverse  global warming George Monbiots book Heat (mentioned above) is an excellent source. I have attached a summary of the book as a start. (Cheers Smurf) 

_Review of George Monbiot's "Heat"
by Dave Pollard

Other recent books like The Weather Makers explain what we're doing to cause global warming and the catastrophes it will soon cause. George Monbiot's book Heat is devoted entirely to answering the question What Do We Do To Stop It. This is the first in a series of articles summarizing his action plan.

From the outset, Monbiot makes clear that he's not looking for a subsistence solution: He doesn't believe any such solution can be 'sold' to the majority of the people in affluent nations, so he doesn't propose to try. We need to retain, he says, our creature comforts, our political and economic freedoms, our right to health care and education and security and freedom from fear._ 

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/22176


----------



## Pat (2 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> It's all politics. The sooner the the mainstream wakes up to that fact, we can concentrate on things that matter. To repeat for the millionth time, co2 is just a sideshow, the main game is other forms of pollution the effects of which are real and measured.



Wayne can you please elaborate on your "politics" argument. What is it the GW'ers are trying to gain?

I personally don't see any negative outcome to the GW/CC debate. Apart from a little sacrifice... mainly money. 
So far the modern world is more aware of our effect on the environment, and the changes our foot prints can make. As a result, we are trying to cater to the new breed of enviro friendly people- hybrid cars, super efficient diesel engines, LED's, subsidised solar panels and such and such. All these little advances in human evolution help a tiny bit, lots of tiny bits over time is what we need, and I'm happy with the progress we've (humans) made so far. We can't change the dirty past but we can try to have a cleaner future.

I agree that we can do so much more, our big massive TV's, our big heated houses, but any change will happen very slowly, and so, arguing over weather GW is wrong or right, or true, is unimportant and the benefits of the debate should be the topic of discussion.

The green revolution is here and maybe we need to be scared into "sustained green advancement". And if this is true, so what?


----------



## wayneL (2 December 2008)

As a point of interest, here is the cover of GMs other book:






As such, Monbiot blows whatsoever any credibility on the subject of GW. Critical thinkers and investigators will know why. GW religionistas will fall for his argument.

Monbiot is well known as a left wing radical in this country, in favour of silencing criticism. The fact that he writes for the Gaurdian will speak volumes for those who know of it's agenda.


----------



## wayneL (2 December 2008)

basilio,

To help you understand how wrong your post is, Isuggest you look uo the meanings of these word.


fact
theory
hypothesis

I see you are confused about these.

DYOR

Over and out


----------



## wayneL (2 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Over and out




Just before I go, read this: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...comments/save_the_planet_ban_warming_summits/


----------



## basilio (2 December 2008)

> As a point of interest, here is the cover of GMs other book:
> 
> *Manifesto for a new world order.*
> 
> ...




Thanks for your astute observations Wayne And actually George has written more than one book  as well as  few hundred newspaper articles, lectures ect. But let's not let any effort at actually reading his material and checking his sources  get in the way here..

Did anyone else have any comments after reading the extract from George Monbioits book detailing the role of ex-tobacco lobbyists in destroying scientific debate on global warming?


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2008)

Return of the Bible Plagues
Tuesday, December 2, 8.30pm
Channel: SBS
Duration: 60 minutes Documentary
To punish the Egyptian Pharaoh for enslaving the Israelites and refusing to let them leave, God sent down 10 plagues on Egypt. The first was turning the Nile into a river of blood.

compares this with current trends with GW etc.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Return of the Bible Plagues
> ... God sent down 10 plagues on Egypt. The first was turning the Nile into a river of blood. compares this with current trends with GW etc.



In those days they had algal blooms in the Nile - these days they are having them in the lakes of Austria


----------



## rub92me (2 December 2008)

I see the argument is still extremely polarized and dogmatic (with a couple of exceptions). 
I don't know what is happening, but I'm pretty sure the truth is not at the extremes. 
Sound familiar?


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Overpopulation will revert to a mean population sufficient to be fed by the resources available.
> 
> Famine and disease have predictably kept the world in equilibrium.
> ...
> ...



see  gg

last night I had a few beers with a fellow who used to be an auditor in Zimbabwe.  
a) coroners/ doctors are prohibited from saying that people died from AIDS - they have to say something else (like pneumonia etc) - at risk of death..
b) you say anything against Mugabe at risk of death
c) the anti-Mugabe people are the first to have clean water cut off etc - they are being killed by cholera etc disproportionally. etc  

Please don't compare you recent holiday in Sth Africa as any relevance to what is happening in Ethiopia, Zimbabwe or anywhere else for that matter


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> see  gg
> 
> last night I had a few beers with a fellow who used to be an auditor in Zimbabwe.
> a) coroners/ doctors are prohibited from saying that people died from AIDS - they have to say something else (like pneumonia etc) - at risk of death..
> ...




You warmeners seek to debase the arguments of anyone who opposes your cant and godbotherlike predictions.

As Shakespeare said:

The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

And don't get me started on auditors.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2008)

So gg, what's your opinion of the Pope (head godbotherer yes?) telling these people that condoms are the "route to hell"?

At the risk of combining pathos and "humour (sic - literally)" in the one post ...
like the African Peasant who thought that the "Alternative Route" was the sister in law 

PS promiscuity and adultery are rife in African third world countries as well


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 December 2008)

billhill said:


> I always thought the term was chosen by governments because it sounded less serious then global warming.



It was known as "the greenhouse effect" for many years. Most Australians would have heard that term somewhere in the late 1980's.

Then it became "global warming" during the 1990's. My understanding is that this was supposedly to convey a more serious message, since "greenhouse effect" seemed a somewhat humorous term to some and didn't convey the message of a serious scientific issue.

This decade it has become "Climate Change", a terms which effectively allows any change in climate, or simply a variation in weather, to be attributed to the CO2 issue. This seems more a political action than a scientific one.

In regard to the population issue that some have mentioned, it will correct itself sooner than most are expecting. There are 2 big and 3 medium pillars that enable the present population level to be sustained. Without either of the two big pillars, or without the collective contribution of the medium ones, it simply isn't practical to sustain the present population.

Major pillars: Oil, Natural Gas

Medium pillars: Coal, Nuclear energy, Hydro-electricity

Take out the energy and the whole lot comes crashing down rather fast. That means, in short, food production collapses without oil and gas whilst food processing, preservation and distribution falls in a heap without those plus coal, nuclear and hydro.

Rather alarming I'd think that BOTH of the major pillars are seriously limited resources and that only one of the medium pillars is actually sustainable in the long term. So it's either a technological revolution, we find a heap more oil and gas, or population is headed down in a big way at some point.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 December 2008)

Pat said:


> Wayne can you *please elaborate on your "politics" argument. What is it the GW'ers are trying to gain*?
> 
> I personally don't see any negative outcome to the GW/CC debate. Apart from a little sacrifice... mainly money.
> So far the modern world is more aware of our effect on the environment, and the changes our foot prints can make. *As a result, we are trying to cater to the new breed of enviro friendly people- hybrid cars, super efficient diesel engines, LED's, subsidised solar panels and such and such*. All these little advances in human evolution help a tiny bit, lots of tiny bits over time is what we need, and I'm happy with the progress we've (humans) made so far. We can't change the dirty past but we can try to have a cleaner future.
> ...



Emphasis mine.

Politics. Primary outcome I can see is an accelerated shift of economic wealth to non-Kyoto countries and a consequent increase in their domestic consumption and hence environmental impact. That is the ultimate outcome of all measures to deal with the problem that I've heard or seen promoted.

Energy conservation and efficiency. When you have the present monetary system with its inherent requirement for constant growth, energy efficiency and conservation are totally ineffective at reducing CO2 emissions. Whilst one individual may emit less, across the whole economy that is offset. For example, you spend less on petrol because you use less of it. So you spend more on something else - and that something else pollutes more than you'd probably like to admit whilst we have an energy system almost totally based on fossil fuels. The only thing that actually works is to change that energy system to something else - renewables or nuclear.

Big heated houses. The big thing I can agree with the argument there. But as for the heating, no way am I going back to the practice of being stingy with the heating. Just too many colds, flu etc and there's a link with cardiovascular disease as well if you do a bit of research. My heater will be on tonight as it will be on any night the thermostat chooses to switch it on. I'm not about to shiver in the dark whilst we've got clean energy alternatives that could be used if only enviornmentalists would stop opposing practically all of them.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> My heater will be on tonight as it will be on any night the thermostat chooses to switch it on. I'm not about to shiver in the dark whilst we've got clean energy alternatives that could be used if only enviornmentalists would stop opposing practically all of them.



Try a woollen jumper m8
It's December for cyrysake


----------



## Pat (3 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Energy conservation and efficiency. When you have the present monetary system with its inherent requirement for constant growth, energy efficiency and conservation are totally ineffective at reducing CO2 emissions. Whilst one individual may emit less, across the whole economy that is offset. For example, you spend less on petrol because you use less of it. So you spend more on something else - and that something else pollutes more than you'd probably like to admit whilst we have an energy system almost totally based on fossil fuels. The only thing that actually works is to change that energy system to something else - renewables or nuclear.



Yep, thats true, so should we bother?

It's only the beginning. Time is needed to change, slowly but surely we shall have to.

Your 2 major pillars can be replaced by renewables- the sun. Sure the technology is not entirely there, but we are on our way.  Give it 100yrs, I'm sure I'd smile at the things I'd see.


----------



## wayneL (3 December 2008)

Here's a sight you never see in Oz (That's snow BTW, not white beach sand):







Another weather event to blame on GW 






While the adults fret and grumble, the kids make the most of it.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 December 2008)

2020hindsight post #128 refers said:
			
		

> Mind you, each Aussie makes about the same CO2e as 23 (app)   Ethiopians.



or
1.4 Kiwis
2.0 Norwegians or Germans or Russians
2.5 Austrians or Sth Africans
3 Swedes or Argentinians or Swiss
4 Mexicans
5 Thais
6 Chinese
7 Fijians
10 Tongans
11 Indians
20 Afghans etc 
.........
3 french hens , 2 turtle doves etc


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Here's a sight you never see in Oz



so your opinion today ( as against a couple of weeks ago) is that it's not getting warmer?


----------



## wayneL (3 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> so your opinion today ( as against a couple of weeks ago) is that it's not getting warmer?




Deary me! 

By continuing with this straw man argument:

a/ You have trouble comprehending the English language and are therefore intellectually challenged.

b/ You haven't read my posts properly and are therefore intellectually slovenly.

c/ You are willfully misrepresenting what I have written and therefore deceitful and/or dishonest.

If a/ you should excuse yourself as not having the mental capacity for a reasoned debate.

If b/ you should apologize for casting aspersions based on inaccurate recollections.

If c/ you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself and give yourself a good uppercut to the solar plexus.

I have an idea which of the above it is, but I'd like to hear it from you. But before doing so, I'd like you to carefully review my posts on this matter so-as to not further embarrass yourself.


----------



## jonojpsg (3 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> It was known as "the greenhouse effect" for many years. Most Australians would have heard that term somewhere in the late 1980's.
> 
> Then it became "global warming" during the 1990's. My understanding is that this was supposedly to convey a more serious message, since "greenhouse effect" seemed a somewhat humorous term to some and didn't convey the message of a serious scientific issue.
> 
> ...




ABSOLUTELY Smurf - I'd point people to Peak Oil thread for more discussion on this point.  Sorry for butting in


----------



## basilio (3 December 2008)

> Deary me!
> 
> By continuing with this straw man argument:
> 
> ...




Wayne why are we wasting out time and energy discussing these issues with you?

Looking at your previous posts and in particular your aggression to fellow forum members I think you are acting like a troll.


----------



## wayneL (3 December 2008)

basilio said:


> Wayne why are we wasting out time and energy discussing these issues with you?
> 
> Looking at your previous posts and in particular your aggression to fellow forum members I think you are acting like a troll.




Basilio, strong opinions opposite to yours does not make me a troll.

Have a look at many of the global warmers arguments. If there is any disagreement with their position, whether it is based on excellent science, common sense, observation, observation and comment on junk science, whatever, the immediate reaction is to go ad hominem and try to destroy the dissenters credibility. 

If that is the debating landscape as set by the warmers, then so be it. Fire with fire.

In my answer to 2020 there, he is trying to build a straw man argument that my argument has no consistency. This is demonstrably wrong. I have simply set out choices as to his reason/motivation.

Warmers try to portray the argument as irrefutable and settled based on the science. This is so far from the truth that is laughable. You cannot be a scientist and ignore all the science that refutes your hypothesis. That's not science, that's fraud.

Now, if you have something useful to add to the debate, please do so, otherwise take your ad hominem slurs elsewhere.

BTW, while 10,000 IPCC delegate burn 100's of tonnes of fossil fuel flying to Poland to have a wafflefest, European ski slopes are opening early. http://insurance.essentialtravel.co.uk/news/travel-news-article6467.asp


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 December 2008)

Pat said:


> Your 2 major pillars can be replaced by renewables- the sun. Sure the technology is not entirely there, but we are on our way.  Give it 100yrs, I'm sure I'd smile at the things I'd see.



Technically it's possible but I'd expect _economic utility_ to be a problem as far as converting sunlight into fertilizer or chemicals is concerned. You can't have industrial agriculture without those and if you don't have industrial agriculture then you don't have the yield to feed the populaton. Technically doable as I said, but it only works if it can retain the same productivity as oil or gas and I'm doubtful on that point.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> so your opinion today ( as against a couple of weeks ago) is that it's not getting warmer?



Lightening the mood a tad here... 

I sure wish it was warmer. 8 degrees outside now, 4 with the wind chill factor. There's something just not quite right about freezing whilst putting up Christmas lights in Australia!

Oh well, the lights will add a bit of warmth directly and perhaps via CO2. Add in my all the heating I'm using and my power bill's going to be a real ripper... Just as well it's been raining though, that will help keep the carbon footprint lower.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Basilio, strong opinions opposite to yours does not make me a troll.
> 
> Have a look at many of the global warmers arguments. If there is any disagreement with their position, whether it is based on excellent science, common sense, observation, observation and comment on junk science, whatever, the immediate reaction is to go ad hominem and try to destroy the dissenters credibility.
> 
> ...





In a nutshell , the essence of science is the ability to be falsifiable, not necessarily false, but falsifiable. Science is ongoing.

Warmeners have a religious tinge about them , and that is the essence of this argument.

gg


----------



## Julia (3 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Lightening the mood a tad here...
> 
> I sure wish it was warmer. 8 degrees outside now, 4 with the wind chill factor. There's something just not quite right about freezing whilst putting up Christmas lights in Australia!
> 
> Oh well, the lights will add a bit of warmth directly and perhaps via CO2. Add in my all the heating I'm using and my power bill's going to be a real ripper... Just as well it's been raining though, that will help keep the carbon footprint lower.



Well, Smurf, here's the solution.
You get out of Tassie and its shocking climate, come up here to balmy Qld (where all you have to contend with are house demolishing storms), and take over the management of the Queensland electricity supply.
It would seem to be a win-win situation all round.
We'd make you very welcome.


----------



## wayneL (3 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> In a nutshell , the essence of science is the ability to be falsifiable, not necessarily false, but falsifiable. Science is ongoing.
> 
> Warmeners have a religious tinge about them , and that is the essence of this argument.
> 
> gg




GG,

You will enjoy this article:

The Religion of Global Warming


----------



## spooly74 (3 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> In a nutshell , the essence of science is the ability to be falsifiable, not necessarily false, but falsifiable. *Science is ongoing.
> *
> gg



So true.
In the 4th IPCC report, it showed that the previous report in 2001, had overestimated the anthropogenic effect by at least *one-third* since the industrial revolution....and that's giving the cherry pickers the benefit of doubt.


----------



## wayneL (4 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Science is ongoing.




Link to a recent paper: http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/3349



> New Research Questions the Impact of CO2 on Climate
> Written by Dennis Behreandt
> Monday, 06 October 2008 16:15
> 
> ...


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (4 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> GG,
> 
> You will enjoy this article:
> 
> The Religion of Global Warming




Good article there Wayne. 

Feed the masses a lie and religion comes out with loyal followers.


----------



## wayneL (4 December 2008)

from www.goredearth.com


----------



## Sean K (4 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Good article there Wayne.
> 
> Feed the masses a lie and religion comes out with loyal followers.



Yep, and this quote fits well...

'As with the system of papal indulgences introduced in the late Middle Ages, anyone with enough money can buy their freedom from damnation by purchasing enough ‘credits.’ This gives them an official license to continue sinning, by emitting excessive amounts of carbon dioxide, regardless of what a corrupt sham the whole system has become.'

And nice summary. How about the dude who can't get his book published because it goes against the new religion. LOL

“My fear with this cogently argued book is that it flies so much in the face of the prevailing orthodoxy that it would be very difficult to fine a wide market.”


----------



## Pat (4 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Technically it's possible but I'd expect _economic utility_ to be a problem as far as converting sunlight into fertilizer or chemicals is concerned. You can't have industrial agriculture without those and if you don't have industrial agriculture then you don't have the yield to feed the populaton. Technically doable as I said, but it only works if it can retain the same productivity as oil or gas and I'm doubtful on that point.



My point is we are making the first steps towards a cleaner future. As long as the human race tries to better our ways, we so much more of a chance of being around for another 50 000 yrs or so. Why not try?


----------



## Pat (4 December 2008)

I'm not an enviro fanatic. But I do see the logic in the GW/CC argument.

I also find it illogical to dismiss/ignore the argument based on contradicting evidence. *The hypothesis can only be proved/disproved with (lots of) time.* unless you got a crystal ball... 

We should work on a solution to the problem... That doesn’t mean destroying the economy/world as we know it to find the solutions. The solutions actually have a chance at making this world a much better place to live.


----------



## jonojpsg (4 December 2008)

Julia said:


> Well, Smurf, here's the solution.
> You get out of Tassie and its shocking climate, come up here to balmy Qld (where all you have to contend with are house demolishing storms), and take over the management of the Queensland electricity supply.
> It would seem to be a win-win situation all round.
> We'd make you very welcome.




Hey stop trying to pinch people Julia - we've got few enough as it is!  Although I did manage to convince my good mate to move back from Brissie recently he he he.  When the temperatures gone up another couple o degrees and you are sweating away up there in 30+ averages most of the year then you'll be wanting to head south 

BTW for those who are positing arguments about colder temperatures in Europe being evidence against AGW, remember that big current called the Gulf Stream without which Europe would be frozen solid?


----------



## wayneL (4 December 2008)

jonojpsg said:


> Hey stop trying to pinch people Julia - we've got few enough as it is!  Although I did manage to convince my good mate to move back from Brissie recently he he he.  When the temperatures gone up another couple o degrees and you are sweating away up there in 30+ averages most of the year then you'll be wanting to head south
> 
> BTW for those who are positing arguments about colder temperatures in Europe being evidence against AGW, remember that big current called the Gulf Stream without which Europe would be frozen solid?





The cooling of Europe because of Gulf Stream interruption is something that is postulated for sometime in the future. There is no current effect

The Gulf Stream effect has a much smaller effect on European weather than is portrayed in the media by warming alarmists.

Ref: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 December 2008)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=286707
The above discusses Gulf Stream.  It's not expected to be too dramatic (as if anyone knows for sure ) 

For a list of myths addressed by NewScientist :-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html



> *Can we trust the science?*
> Chaotic systems are not predictable
> We can't trust computer models of climate
> Many leading scientists question climate change
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 December 2008)

the hockey stick..
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646



> The hockey graph was first published in a 1999 paper (pdf) by Michael Mann and colleagues, which was an extension of a 1998 study in Nature. The graph was highlighted in the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
> 
> Since 2001, there have been repeated claims that the reconstruction is at best seriously flawed and at worst a fraud, no more than an artefact of the statistical methods used to create it (see The great hockey stick debate).
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (4 December 2008)

LOL

A list of debunked debunkings.

The New Scientist eschews any evidence to the contrary and disseminates junk science as it's core mission. 

Some points to consider of course, but cherry picking arguments cannot be taken seriously.

Laughable.


----------



## derty (4 December 2008)

Some comments from a solar physicist regarding the Sun's role in the observed warming in recent times. Claims increases in solar energy cannot account for recent warming, though measurements only go back to 1978, which some may argue is much too short a time frame to make any significant conclusions. Either way he is pretty adamant that AGW is a factor.

from: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24748258-11949,00.html



> THE sun is a powerful player in the planet's climate as the energy it sends to Earth waxes and wanes. But the sun is not driving recent global warming as climate change sceptics claim.
> 
> That is the message from atmospheric scientist Marvin Geller of Stony Brook University in New York state, a keynote speaker at this week's Australian Institute of Physics national congress in Adelaide.
> 
> ...


----------



## treefrog (4 December 2008)

MR. said:


> Must be done ASAP. But that is still short term.  *The only real way to solve this problem is less people.*  I have strongly believed it for a long time that caping the amount of new borns world wide will solve so many problems.
> 
> However we must have continued  "wealth creation"  we must grow grow grow.  I don't agree.  Some things just have to be done.
> 
> Reduced our consumption in electricity from 29 KWH's per day down to just under 20 KWH's per day.  It has now averaged that for a year now.  Light globes, turning the air conditioner off at the switchboard has saved most of the power.  *At the end of the day it doesn't make much of a difference because more consumers are born*.  It's just prolonging it all.




Mr, for me the jury is still out on GW - was very disgusted when ICCC (chair I think) admitted *science not there, yet, but let's change the world in case it eventuates* or similar. I do however agree the most significant world problems currently stem from overpopulation and the drive by human nature to advance there individual lot. People are by nature selfish - the human race would not be here if people did not have that trait.
But this from the US census burea.
Monthly World population figures:
07/01/08    6,706,992,932
08/01/08    6,713,766,305
09/01/08    6,720,539,678
10/01/08    6,727,094,555
11/01/08    6,733,867,928
12/01/08    6,740,422,806
01/01/09    6,747,196,179
02/01/09    6,753,969,552
03/01/09    6,760,087,438
04/01/09    6,766,860,811
05/01/09    6,773,415,688
06/01/09    6,780,189,061
07/01/09    6,786,743,939
-about 73mil extra in one year!!!! and nobody dares to talk about it, the GWarmers don't dare, certainly not the pollies or the churches - why not??

back in 78/9 as a young married (no kids) I was overly impressed by the club of rome's publication "Limits to Growth" - a remarkably similar emotive argument to GW. - the best science in the world, all the best brains etc etc, yarda yarda.
I fell for the hype  (as GWarmers have today) and had my nuts disconnected as my contribution to overcome the obvious resouce consumption and overpopulation problem.
Today, much older, much wiser and certainly a cynic towards religious zealots (GWarmers are definately in that bracket), I am a firm believer in people having the courage of their convictions (how indeed I did back in 79), but can no longer convert to any such fashionable religion.
I do believe that everyone has a very definate footprint on this planet and the best thing the GWarmers could do (and seriously) is put their name down to participate in a cull: no good just talking about "the problem" if you really do believe it, have the courage of your convictions.


----------



## basilio (4 December 2008)

Back to the discussion on whether climate warming is for real, the effect it may have on our future and what we might be able to do about it.

I notice that 2020 hindsight has simply referred readers to his previous explanations and the New Scientist which addresses the global warming myths. In theory  New Scientists represents some of the best analysis of current scientific knowledge but I would be interested to hear Wayne et als views on their authenticity.( But we now know the New Scientist just disseminates  "junk science". That is a real laugh.)

But the discussion on this forum and across the world has not been about the science. I suppose it couldn't be because on any objective measure the overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate related issues agree that climate change is real and caused by us. 

The argument has become one of cherry picking of evidence, attacks on the presenters, appeals to false logic and the introduction of red herrings. The whole intention has been *not *to win the argument (because the overwhelming evidence to the contrary quickly kills that possibility) but to create sufficient misunderstanding, fear and confusion *to ensure no action is taken that might harm the interest of those who would be affected by tackling the problem.*

A few posts back I brought up the comparison between the disgraceful campaigns run by the tobacco industry to protect their profits and the campaigns against global warming, again to protect the interests of fossil fuel companies. Both very clever, very effective campaigns.  And not by accident, orchestrated by many of the same players.

*Wayne response was to simply attack George Monbiot as a lefty radical.*  The evidence is documented and available for public viewing.  But it is easier and quicker to dismiss uncomfortable truths by just attacking the person rather than examining the facts.

Another troubling attack is labeling "global warmers" as "god botherers" "a new global warming religion" and so on. Another neat, nasty, trick.

This ad hominem attack is saying that all the science behind understanding our climate and in particular the effect on the planet is just some blind religious zealotry. In effect those people who argue there is something to be worried about are the equivalent of your sunday morning Seventh Day Adventists (and apologies to those people).  Again nothing to do with the science just attack the person.

It gets even better (or worse) when the role of traditional religions is wilfully misrepresented as some of the recent posts have done. I suggest almost all religions would have a respect for the earth either as  part of Creation or simply because it's a wonderful place. With that mindset how could you countenance a course of action that, *on clear evidence*, you believed was going to radically hurt the earth? In fact you don't have to be religious to be seriously concerned about the impact of global warming on the only place we have to live. 

*This is not an example of blind religiosity just simple respect for our home  and healthy self interest*

In the past few years we even saw some really creative stories pointing out the climate changes on Mars ect and attempting to use these to debase what is happening on earth. (I suggest these were so *obviously* dumb even the proponents had to make a strategic withdrawal)

The cleverest and probably most dishonest part of the discussion about the uncertainty of global warming has been the cherry picking of evidence. Going back to the examples of the tobacco industry, all the research undertaken by the industry was systematically culled to weaken the connection between smoking and cancer. Disappear a few results, disappear a few studies, alter a couple of givens and what is left can be made to sing your tune. In fact the basis of good science is replicability. A scientist has to outline all the details of his/hers research so that it can be replicated and proven (or disproven).

For example Wayne recently highlighted out some research that suggested 



> 1. The cooling of Europe because of Gulf Stream interruption is something that is postulated for sometime in the future. There is no current effect
> 2. The Gulf Stream effect has a much smaller effect on European weather than is portrayed in the media by warming alarmists.



Ref: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/

But if you go to the paper you'll find that in his conclusion the author is extremely concerned about global warming. To quote



> The climate system is so rich, complex and still not well understood that the current emphasis on the limited impacts of the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic ocean circulation i*s a serious distraction of effort and resources *when many regions of the world face a truly worrying future, even in the near term.
> 
> Priorities should shift to :
> 
> ...




Is it honest to accept one element of the research and then totally ignore the entire conclusion? 

The last 20 years of scientific research has given us reams of understanding about the changes in climate over the millions of years on earth. Certainly there are many factors that have affected and are affecting our climate and there is much more to learn. But there is overwhelming evidence that we  rapidly heating the earth  through CO2 emissions and we have a very short time to work out how we are going survive the consequences. We are all in the same boat. 

References

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/95/S1/S39
Manufacturing Uncertainty: Contested Science and
the Protection of the Public’s Health and Environment

Overviews the effective efforts of industry to create sufficient doubt about products to keep them in the market place

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
This paper analyzed the overwhelming support of the scientific community on the causes of Global Warming


----------



## spooly74 (4 December 2008)

basilio said:


> Certainly there are many factors that have affected and are affecting our climate and there is much more to learn.



Agree 110%



basilio said:


> But there is overwhelming evidence that we  rapidly heating the earth  through CO2 emissions and we have a very short time to work out how we are going survive the consequences. We are all in the same boat.



This is where the is sufficent doubt basilo, and it's based on one of the most important scientific foundations ..... observation.

CO2 in the atmosphere in 1900 ~ 280ppm
CO2 in the atmosphere today ~380 ppm 

IPCC pedict a forcing of 3 degrees per doubling of CO2. It was 3.5 degrees in the last IPCC report. What changed?
Doing the math results in a warming of roughly 1.3C since 1900, which we have not seen. Why? 

Trying to predict the Earth's climate is the most complex scientific project ever undertaken, and any objectivity has now been completly destroyed by the media and politicians. :bad:


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> so your opinion today ( as against a couple of weeks ago) is that it's not getting warmer?




well Wayne
your respect for Suzuki  - and the green movement - seem to have taken a dive over the course of these discussions that's for sure. 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=237706&highlight=suzuki#post237706


> I'll tell you one *educator who has my utmost respect - David Suzuki.* That man walks the walk and has done for as long as I can remember. Where's his peace prize?




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=245848&highlight=suzuki#post245848


> FFS!!! Hasn't that been my position throughout the whole debate? How disingenuous!! Please do me a favour and re-read my posts.
> 
> That is exactly what I am advocating. By the disproportionate focus on the nebulous possibility of AGW, less focus is placed on the above points. *The world focuses on stupid electric cars* and nuclear energy so we don't have to change our lifestyles, when the ONLY answer is to change our lifestyles.
> *I'm a card carrying greenie dude *(in the practical, not political sense), that's obvious (Sarcastic quips about Hummers aside).




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=257461&highlight=suzuki#post257461


> I'll *forgive Suzuki's muppetry on AGW because as a zoologist, he knows SFA about climate*;




But equally there are plenty of examples of you saying you have problem with "AGW" not with "GW" - so you agree that it's getting warmer yes?


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 December 2008)

Pat said:


> I'm not an enviro fanatic. But I do see the logic in the GW/CC argument.
> 
> I also find it illogical to dismiss/ignore the argument based on contradicting evidence. *The hypothesis can only be proved/disproved with (lots of) time.* unless you got a crystal ball...
> 
> We should work on a solution to the problem... That doesn’t mean destroying the economy/world as we know it to find the solutions. The solutions actually have a chance at making this world a much better place to live.



Totally agreed there. If only we'd start focusing on solutions like that rather than the ones that DO destroy the economy / world as we know it which seem to dominate the proposed actions.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 December 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2437363.htm



> Young tradies turning green
> AM - Thursday, 4 December , 2008  08:21:04
> Reporter: Michael Turtle
> PETER CAVE: A new survey has found that some young tradespeople and apprentices believe they have a moral obligation to be more environmentally friendly. *But they're facing resistance from bosses and clients, who just want the cheapest solution.*  etc






> MICHAEL TURTLE: A new survey by the development group, Dusseldorp Skills Forum, has found about *80 per cent of young apprentices and tradespeople like Nigel Croke care about being green*.
> 
> .....
> MICHAEL TURTLE: *But there are barriers to turning that desire into practice*. The survey found the biggest is the cost of the materials and tools.
> ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (4 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> *From just about every perspective it's better to **use the coal or gas directly than to turn it into electricity* then H2.
> 
> Efficiency, environment, financial - *all in favour of skipping the electricity and H2 step and just using it in the conventional manner in an engine etc.*
> 
> As for stopping using coal and gas for electricity, it's technically very doable but faces truly massive resistance from established interests.




Hi, just wondering how coal/gas can be used directly with these considerations

A. cleanly --- coal = dirty, dusty, choking, smoky (big problem unless high-grade anthracite) , carbon monoxide, CO2 still produced

B. efficiently?? --- coal/gas = every home and car using the stuff means that it would have to be delivered or collected and then stored (see C), ash disposal would be a daily chore, chimney sweeps regular, still have cost of fuel.

C. safely --- coal/gas leaks can lead to explosion and illness when handled by the inexperienced (mums/kids), extreme storage fire hazard, carbon monoxide poisoning, burns, suffocation, sabotage.  

Enjoy your thoughts smurf76 but I don`t see how direct use would be better.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 December 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Hi, just wondering how coal/gas can be used directly with these considerations
> 
> A. cleanly --- coal = dirty, dusty, choking, smoky (big problem unless high-grade anthracite) , carbon monoxide, CO2 still produced
> 
> ...



We already use oil directly to power vehicles with relatively few problems. 

What I mean is that rather than turning coal into electricity, electricity into hydrogen and then running the vehicle on hydrogen, it's more efficient to just turn coal into diesel and use that in a conventional diesel engine. 

Consider this. Burn 11 MJ of gas at home to heat enough water for a shower. Or burn 29 MJ of the exact same gas at a power station and use electricity to heat the water. It's clearly a lot more efficient to just use the fuel and skip the electricity stage.

Another one. Take 10 litres of oil, turn it into petrol and deliver that to the service station. That will drive my car about 120 km. Or take the same oil, burn it in a power station, use the electricity to make hydrogen and use the hydrogen in the car. Now I need about 45 litres of oil to drive that same 120 km. No fumes out the car's exhaust maybe, but it's anything but an efficient process overall.

Not directly related to the above, but I've made the point before about what's wrong with distributed generation and why large scale is better. It seems I'm not the only one thinking that way. http://www.electricalworld.com.au/onestory.php?idNum=869


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 December 2008)

smurf
bet you $50 we'll be nuclear powered in 100 years if not before


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> This would be the Flannery who thinks we should pump SO2 into the atmosphere and fill our skies with chemtrails?



So industry and power stations have spent an outright fortune to STOP putting SO2 into the air due to the problems it is well understood to cause (acid rain) and now we're going to deliberately let the stuff out into the air?

I really can't take seriously anyone who thinks adding SO2 is a good idea. Get yourself a tour of a sulphuric acid plant and you'll soon understand what SO2 does. Just don't park a decent car anywhere near the place. And don't build the place anywhere near houses because they'll end up rusting and falling apart too. Heck, even the fence around the plant and the sign out the front will rust and fall over alarmingly fast. And you end up with holes in your clothes literally everywhere. (A tour won't be long enough to hurt your car etc, just give it a wash afterward, but working there will take its toll for sure).

The zinc works in Tas bought roofing material from Israel as that's the only thing they could find that had a chance of lasting in that environment. So far so good - it used to rain and on at least one occasion snowed _inside_ the plant as there were so many holes in the old roof. All thanks to good old SO2 eating its way through everything. And that's despite the $100 million+ they've spent containing the stuff.

We know SO2 does seem to cool the planet. And we know that temperatures went up once the big cuts to SO2 emissions took plance in the 70's. No surprises there but trust me, we really don't want to start putting heaps of SO2 into the air.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> So industry and power stations have spent an outright fortune to STOP putting SO2 into the air due to the problems it is well understood to cause (acid rain) and now we're going to deliberately let the stuff out into the air?
> 
> I really can't take seriously anyone who thinks adding SO2 is a good idea. ....



smurf 
He doesn't think it's a good idea
He pretty sure it's the lesser of two evils 
Ever heard of the pine beetle? - damage it can do?

(lesser of two weevils?)

Tim Flannery wrote the Weather Makers - he's no slouch on this stuff 
http://www.webwombat.com.au/entertainment/books/the-weather-makers-tim-flannery.htm

PS. Just been watching him on TV  - with John Doyle in "Two Men in a Tinnie". Funny witty honest dudes.


----------



## drsmith (4 December 2008)

The SO2 would be released into the stratospthere which is a layer of atmosphere above the weather layer (troposphere). It would therefore not find it's way into the water cycle via clouds and rainfall in theory at least.

In practice, who knows.


----------



## wayneL (5 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well Wayne
> your respect for Suzuki  - and the green movement - seem to have taken a dive over the course of these discussions that's for sure.



The "green" movement have become prostitutes for funding and attention. As detailed earlier, I prefer the term "sustainable".

Suzuki was great until he became mesmerized and sold out to the AGW gravy train. It's true, I wouldn't p!ss on him if he was on fire now.


> But equally there are plenty of examples of you saying you have problem with "AGW" not with "GW" - so you agree that it's getting warmer yes?



I think there is pretty clear evidence emerging that warming has halted and that we may be cooling.

There is very little credible evidence of a long term warming trend to due to human influences, the hockey stick having been thoroughly trashed and discredited. There is however, ample evidence of natural climate change.

That said, some areas will still warm against the cooling trend, just as some areas cooled against the warming trend previously. Will there be warming again some time in the future? I have no doubt, as I have no doubt that there will also be periods of cooling.

I also have no doubt that humans are behaving in an unsustainable way and are trashing this planet. CO2 is a non-issue, but nearly everything else is and I will continue to try to focus people's attention away from CO2 an onto the myriad of other genuine, and measurable problems we face.

The REAL problem we face is that funding is only available for warming alarmists and not for research that can really benefit us.

In this I have been totally consistent.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> GG,
> 
> You will enjoy this article:
> 
> The Religion of Global Warming




Thanks for an excellent article wayne.

Summary

Tom DeWeese sums it up well. “Global warming has become a new religion. No one is supposed to question whether it is a fact and the faithful have vowed to follow no matter what the true facts may show. Global warming is a theory, nothing more, and large numbers of scientists around the world are beginning to question its validity. There is no consensus of support.” (10) Within the past years, multitudes of peer-reviewed journal articles and at least a dozen books have provided sound evidence of this lack of consensus but you won’t find the books at your local bookstore. Try Amazon instead. Why? These recent books have the temerity to question ‘the doctrine.’ A good example is An Appeal to Reason by Nigel Lawson of the UK. This is his fourth book but he could find no British publisher. He reports, one rejection letter said, “My fear with this cogently argued book is that it flies so much in the face of the prevailing orthodoxy that it would be very difficult to fine a wide market.” (11)

DeWeese concludes, “The truth is there is no man-made global warming. There’s only the scam of an empty global religion designed to condemn human progress and sucker the feeble minded into worldwide human misery.” 

gg


----------



## Pat (5 December 2008)

basilio said:


> A few posts back I brought up the comparison between the disgraceful campaigns run by the tobacco industry to protect their profits and the campaigns against global warming, again to protect the interests of fossil fuel companies. Both very clever, very effective campaigns.  And not by accident, orchestrated by many of the same players.



So it's a conspiracy?


----------



## wayneL (5 December 2008)

FYI some big snowfalls in the UK... lots of pretty pictures.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tranded-motorists-snow-blankets-parts-UK.html


----------



## WCA (5 December 2008)

Some believe, some don't.

I don't see the evidence. Been here for 20 years. The temperature is the same. My Rainfall records show wets and drys but last year was average, this year above average.

The dams aren't as full but thats not lack of rainfall, thats just more people.

I am glad the argument around this debate is starting to be more sensible.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 December 2008)

Pat said:


> So it's a conspiracy?



Pat
same people, Ball, Singer ..
evidence of payments by Exxon..  
what do you reckon


----------



## basilio (5 December 2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by basilio View Post


> A few posts back I brought up the comparison between the disgraceful campaigns run by the tobacco industry to protect their profits and the campaigns against global warming, again to protect the interests of fossil fuel companies. Both very clever, very effective campaigns. And not by accident, orchestrated by many of the same players.



So it's a conspiracy? 


Not necessarily Pat. The very successful long term campaign of the tobacco industry marketing people was creating fear, uncertainty, doubt.  Their job was to  ensure that the general public never accepted the mounting scientific evidence of the link between smoking and lung cancer and overlooking the millions of people dying from the disease. And of course there were the old standbys of Freedom of Expression, Individual Liberty and Rugged Individualism.

At the same time the these people had develop a moral code that enabled them to ignore the suffering they were causing because of the greater good they were creating  (their wages , the tobacco industries profits)

These skills and mindset were naturals when developing a campaign to undermine the science behind global warming research. You couldn't get better talent.

Okay that was all a bit loaded, but Pat what did you think of the extract from George Monbiots book examining the connections and the campaign?  It was really very clever.

*
The denial industry*


> For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...hicalliving.g2


----------



## basilio (5 December 2008)

The denial industry
For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story

    * George Monbiot


ExxonMobil is the world's most profitable corporation. Its sales now amount to more than $1bn a day. It makes most of this money from oil, and has more to lose than any other company from efforts to tackle climate change. To safeguard its profits, ExxonMobil needs to sow doubt about whether serious action needs to be taken on climate change. But there are difficulties: it must confront a scientific consensus as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung cancer or that HIV causes Aids. So what's its strategy?

The website Exxonsecrets.org, *using data found in the company's official documents, lists 124 organisations that have taken money from the company or work closely with those that have*. These organisations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled "junk science". The findings they welcome are labelled "sound science".

Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-known websites and lobby groups as TechCentralStation, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Some of those on the list have names that make them look like grassroots citizens' organisations or academic bodies: the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, for example. One or two of them, such as the Congress of Racial Equality, are citizens' organisations or academic bodies, but the line they take on climate change is very much like that of the other sponsored groups. While all these groups are based in America, their publications are read and cited, and their staff are interviewed and quoted, all over the world.

*By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread*. For those who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging the consensus.

This is not to claim that all the science these groups champion is bogus. On the whole, they use selection, not invention. They will find one contradictory study - such as the discovery of tropospheric cooling, which, in a garbled form, has been used by Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday - and promote it relentlessly. They will continue to do so long after it has been disproved by further work. So, for example, John Christy, the author of the troposphere paper, admitted in August 2005 that his figures were incorrect, yet his initial findings are still being circulated and championed by many of these groups, as a quick internet search will show you.

But they do not stop there. The chairman of a group called the Science and Environmental Policy Project is Frederick Seitz. Seitz is a physicist who in the 1960s was president of the US National Academy of Sciences. In 1998, he wrote a document, known as the Oregon Petition, which has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth.

The document reads as follows: "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Anyone with a degree was entitled to sign it. It was attached to a letter written by Seitz, entitled Research Review of Global Warming Evidence. The lead author of the "review" that followed Seitz's letter is a Christian fundamentalist called Arthur B Robinson. He is not a professional climate scientist. It was co-published by Robinson's organisation - the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - and an outfit called the George C Marshall Institute, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The other authors were Robinson's 22-year-old son and two employees of the George C Marshall Institute. The chairman of the George C Marshall Institute was Frederick Seitz.

The paper maintained that: "We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."

It was printed in the font and format of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: the journal of the organisation of which Seitz - as he had just reminded his correspondents - was once president.

Soon after the petition was published, the National Academy of Sciences released this statement: "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

But it was too late. Seitz, the Oregon Institute and the George C Marshall Institute had already circulated tens of thousands of copies, and the petition had established a major presence on the internet. Some 17,000 graduates signed it, the majority of whom had no background in climate science. It has been repeatedly cited - by global-warming sceptics such as David Bellamy, Melanie Phillips and others - as a petition by climate scientists. It is promoted by the Exxon-sponsored sites as evidence that there is no scientific consensus on climate change.

All this is now well known to climate scientists and environmentalists. *But what I have discovered while researching this issue is that the corporate funding of lobby groups denying that manmade climate change is taking place was initiated not by Exxon, or by any other firm directly involved in the fossil fuel industry. It was started by the tobacco company Philip Morris*.

In December 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency published a 500-page report called Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking. It found that "the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact. In adults: ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in US non-smokers. In children: ETS exposure is causally associated with an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. This report estimates that 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to ETS."

Had it not been for the settlement of a major class action against the tobacco companies in the US, we would never have been able to see what happened next. But in 1998 they were forced to publish their internal documents and post them on the internet.

Within two months of its publication, Philip Morris, the world's biggest tobacco firm, had devised a strategy for dealing with the passive-smoking report. In February 1993 Ellen Merlo, its senior vice-president of corporate affairs, sent a letter to William I Campbell, Philip Morris's chief executive officer and president, explaining her intentions: "Our overriding objective is to discredit the EPA report ... Concurrently, it is our objective to prevent states and cities, as well as businesses, from passive-smoking bans."

To this end, she had hired a public relations company called APCO. She had attached the advice it had given her. *APCO warned that: "No matter how strong the arguments, industry spokespeople are, in and of themselves, not always credible or appropriate messengers."*

*So the fight against a ban on passive smoking had to be associated with other people and other issues. Philip Morris, APCO said, needed to create the impression of a "grassroots" movement - one that had been formed spontaneously by concerned citizens to fight "overregulation". It should portray the danger of tobacco smoke as just one "unfounded fear" among others, such as concerns about pesticides and cellphones. APCO proposed to set up "a national coalition intended to educate the media, public officials and the public about the dangers of 'junk science'. Coalition will address credibility of government's scientific studies, risk-assessment techniques and misuse of tax dollars ... Upon formation of Coalition, key leaders will begin media outreach, eg editorial board tours, opinion articles, and brief elected officials in selected states."*


Part 1
   _________________________________________________

Thought this research was worth contributing to the debate

Cheers


----------



## basilio (5 December 2008)

Part 2 The Denial Industry



APCO would found the coalition, write its mission statements, and "prepare and place opinion articles in key markets". For this it required $150,000 for its own fees and $75,000 for the coalition's costs.

*By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the fake citizens' group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. It was important, further letters stated, "to ensure that TASSC has a diverse group of contributors"; to "link the tobacco issue with other more 'politically correct' products"; and to associate scientific studies that cast smoking in a bad light with "broader questions about government research and regulations" - such as "global warming", "nuclear waste disposal" and "biotechnology". *APCO would engage in the "intensive recruitment of high-profile representatives from business and industry, scientists, public officials, and other individuals interested in promoting the use of sound science".

By September 1993, APCO had produced a "Plan for the Public Launching of TASSC". The media launch would not take place in "Washington, DC or the top media markets of the country. Rather, we suggest creating a series of aggressive, decentralised launches in several targeted local and regional markets across the country. This approach ... avoids cynical reporters from major media: less reviewing/challenging of TASSC messages."

The media coverage, the public relations company hoped, would enable TASSC to "establish an image of a national grassroots coalition". In case the media asked hostile questions, APCO circulated a sheet of answers, drafted by Philip Morris. The first question was:

"Isn't it true that Philip Morris created TASSC to act as a front group for it?

"A: No, not at all. As a large corporation, PM belongs to many national, regional, and state business, public policy, and legislative organisations. PM has contributed to TASSC, as we have with various groups and corporations across the country."

*There are clear similarities between the language used and the approaches adopted by Philip Morris and by the organisations funded by Exxon. The two lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been invented by Philip Morris's consultants. *"Junk science" meant peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other diseases. "Sound science" meant studies sponsored by the tobacco industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive. Both lobbies recognised that their best chance of avoiding regulation was to challenge the scientific consensus. As a memo from the tobacco company Brown and Williamson noted,* "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.*" Both industries also sought to distance themselves from their own campaigns, creating the impression that they were spontaneous movements of professionals or ordinary citizens: the "grassroots".

But the connection goes further than that. TASSC, the "coalition" created by Philip Morris, was the first and most important of the corporate-funded organisations denying that climate change is taking place. It has done more damage to the campaign to halt it than any other body.

*TASSC did as its founders at APCO suggested, and sought funding from other sources. Between 2000 and 2002 it received $30,000 from Exxon. The website it has financed - JunkScience.com - has been the main entrepot for almost every kind of climate-change denial that has found its way into the mainstream press*. It equates environmentalists with Nazis, communists and terrorists. It flings at us the accusations that could justifably be levelled against itself: the website claims, for example, that it is campaigning against "faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas". I have lost count of the number of correspondents who, while questioning manmade global warming, have pointed me there.

The man who runs it is called Steve Milloy. In 1992, he started working for APCO - Philip Morris's consultants. While there, he set up the JunkScience site. In March 1997, the documents show, he was appointed TASSC's executive director. By 1998, as he explained in a memo to TASSC board members, his JunkScience website was was being funded by TASSC. Both he and the "coalition" continued to receive money from Philip Morris. An internal document dated February 1998 reveals that TASSC took $200,000 from the tobacco company in 1997. Philip Morris's 2001 budget document records a payment to Steven Milloy of $90,000. Altria, Philip Morris's parent company, admits that Milloy was under contract to the tobacco firm until at least the end of 2005.

He has done well. You can find his name attached to letters and articles seeking to discredit passive-smoking studies all over the internet and in the academic databases. He has even managed to reach the British Medical Journal: I found a letter from him there which claimed that the studies it had reported "do not bear out the hypothesis that maternal smoking/ passive smoking increases cancer risk among infants". TASSC paid him $126,000 in 2004 for 15 hours' work a week. Two other organisations are registered at his address: the Free Enterprise Education Institute and the Free Enterprise Action Institute. They have received $10,000 and $50,000 respectively from Exxon. The secretary of the Free Enterprise Action Institute is Thomas Borelli. Borelli was the Philip Morris executive who oversaw the payments to TASSC.

Milloy also writes a weekly Junk Science column for the Fox News website. Without declaring his interests, he has used this column to pour scorn on studies documenting the medical effects of second-hand tobacco smoke and showing that climate change is taking place. Even after Fox News was told about the money he had been receiving from Philip Morris and Exxon, it continued to employ him, without informing its readers about his interests.

TASSC's headed notepaper names an advisory board of eight people. Three of them are listed by Exxonsecrets.org as working for organisations taking money from Exxon. One of them is Frederick Seitz, the man who wrote the Oregon Petition, and who chairs the Science and Environmental Policy Project. In 1979, Seitz became a permanent consultant to the tobacco company RJ Reynolds. He worked for the firm until at least 1987, for an annual fee of $65,000. He was in charge of deciding which medical research projects the company should fund, and handed out millions of dollars a year to American universities. The purpose of this funding, a memo from the chairman of RJ Reynolds shows, was to "refute the criticisms against cigarettes". An undated note in the Philip Morris archive shows that it was planning a "Seitz symposium" with the help of TASSC, in which Frederick Seitz would speak to "40-60 regulators".

The president of Seitz's Science and Environmental Policy Project is a maverick environmental scientist called S Fred Singer. He has spent the past few years refuting evidence for manmade climate change. It was he, for example, who published the misleading claim that most of the world's glaciers are advancing, which landed David Bellamy in so much trouble when he repeated it last year. He also had connections with the tobacco industry. In March 1993, APCO sent a memo to Ellen Merlo, the vice-president of Philip Morris, who had just commissioned it to fight the Environmental Protection Agency: "As you know, we have been working with Dr Fred Singer and Dr Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ..."

Singer's article, entitled Junk Science at the EPA, claimed that "the latest 'crisis' - environmental tobacco smoke - has been widely criticised as the most shocking distortion of scientific evidence yet". He alleged that the Environmental Protection Agency had had to "rig the numbers" in its report on passive smoking. This was the report that Philip Morris and APCO had set out to discredit a month before Singer wrote his article.

I have no evidence that Fred Singer or his organisation have taken money from Philip Morris. But many of the other bodies that have been sponsored by Exxon and have sought to repudiate climate change were also funded by the tobacco company. Among them are some of the world's best-known "thinktanks": the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason Foundation and the Independent Institute, as well as George Mason University's Law and Economics Centre. I can't help wondering whether there is any aspect of conservative thought in the United States that has not been formed and funded by the corporations.

Until I came across this material, I believed that the accusations, the insults and the taunts such people had slung at us environmentalists were personal: that they really did hate us, and had found someone who would pay to help them express those feelings. Now I realise that they have simply transferred their skills.


----------



## basilio (5 December 2008)

Part 3

While they have been most effective in the United States, the impacts of the climate-change deniers sponsored by Exxon and Philip Morris have been felt all over the world. I have seen their arguments endlessly repeated in Australia, Canada, India, Russia and the UK. By dominating the media debate on climate change during seven or eight critical years in which urgent international talks should have been taking place, by constantly seeding doubt about the science just as it should have been most persuasive, they have justified the money their sponsors have spent on them many times over. It is fair to say that the professional denial industry has delayed effective global action on climate change by years, just as it helped to delay action against the tobacco companies.

· This is an edited extract from Heat, by George Monbiot


_I appreciate this has been a very long post and perhaps this Forum is not the appropriate place for it. 

The conversation over the past few days has repeatedly touched on the quality of the publics knowledge on Global Warming issues. The information that George Monbiots lays out is on the public record for verification.  When we ask questions about who do we believe I suggest it is fair to examine the history and credentials of the presenters.

When the presenters are paid lobbyists of the Tobacco Industry and fossil fuel industry that's  important._

Cheers


----------



## Wysiwyg (5 December 2008)

> For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive.





Golly gosh, I must say there is alot of bunkum being perpetuated on this thread.Sensationalism from both sides is ever-present and it does help to recognise it.



p.s. read your reply smurf76 thanks.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 December 2008)

basilio said:


> ... The chairman of a group called the Science and Environmental Policy Project is *Frederick Seitz*.
> 
> ... In 1998, he wrote a document, known as the *Oregon Petition*, which has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth.
> 
> ...




bas, classic  
brilliant read.


----------



## wayneL (5 December 2008)

I finally managed to struggle through the Manbiot article. I see Manbiot quite often here in the UK. He's an intelligent chap, a strong advocate of AGW and a mean debater.

There is one problem with this article, it's full of crap. Manbiot, like Bore, is a hypocrite of the highest order; for what he accuses the climate realist lobby of, the AGW hoax lobby is guilty of to an absolutely greater degree by a power of ten.

I'm not surprised that oil money is behind some of the research, and I'm not happy that those researchers feel indebted to make a particular conclusion. That's the reality of science today I'm afraid. But to imply that ALL research that doesn't come to the AGW conclusion is funded by big oil and therefore suspect is so typical of the British Fabian Society based leftist ideologues who fudge facts with politics and disinformation.

Let's get back to the science. The science for AGW hypothesis is well dodgy to say the least and is in serious trouble of collapse... because there is just so much good science that debunks it. e.g. the paper I linked to a few posts back.

It's everywhere, but folks don't want to see it. In the world of climate change, the CCers are like the New Earth creationists, clinging violently and unreasonably to something that gave them answers to a phenomenon they didn't quite understand.

The climate realists come along and they are like the evolutionary scientists. They still don't have a 100% picture, but a set of irrefutable facts that point to the framework of truth, only to be politically threatened and attacked by the AGW religionistas who don't want their gravy train derailed.

The article is typical Fabian disinformation.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> II'm not surprised that oil money is behind some of the research, and I'm not happy that those researchers feel indebted to make a particular conclusion. That's the reality of science today I'm afraid.



In the interest of balance, it must be said that much of the research backing the AGW theory is funded by those with a vested interest in that outcome just as research countering that view is funded by the oil etc industries.

All up, I'd be surprised if there's ANY significant research being done on this subject is not funded by or otherwise directly associated with someone who has a vested interest in proving / disproving that CO2 is changing the climate. That, sadly, is the reality of science these days.


----------



## wayneL (5 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> In the interest of balance, it must be said that much of the research backing the AGW theory is funded by those with a vested interest in that outcome just as research countering that view is funded by the oil etc industries.
> 
> All up, I'd be surprised if there's ANY significant research being done on this subject is not funded by or otherwise directly associated with someone who has a vested interest in proving / disproving that CO2 is changing the climate. That, sadly, is the reality of science these days.




Yes, that's what I was trying to say, thanks for making it clearer.


----------



## basilio (6 December 2008)

A few  points regarding the the Monbiot extract.

Firstly the organisations established by the Tobacco Lobby and then used by Exxon and others were not attempting to undertake scientific research on GW. *Their specific intention was to create uncertainty and doubt about the science that was already examining the issue.* Much of the GW research in the 80's was coming to the conclusion that we faced a very serious problem that was going to require a change in direction away from fossil fuels to cleaner renewable energy. This was not what the fossil fuel industry wanted to hear.

With that in mind most of the attacks have been on the researchers ie suggesting GW research was Junk science rather than Sound  Science.  It's worth remembering how this started. Back in 1992 the American EPA pulled together a report which showed the damage that second hand cigarette smoke was causing people. The tobacco industry had to discredit the EPA and this report to avoid laws that would outlaw much public smoking as a health hazard. That was the start of the The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition ,TASSAC - the front group for the tobacco industry.

There is no final certainty on how our climate works. We have nowhere near finished our understanding all the feedback loops that can affect our climate.  But the overwhelming number of scientists in the field are sure that the rapid increases in Co2 and Co2 equivalent gases are warming the earth and if allowed to continue will cause catastrophic consequences. The remaining information completes the dots. This part of the picture is clear.

Wayne, you suggest that there is recent research which casts doubt on GW theories. John Christys research  is also open to question. If you check back in  Monbiots story John wrote a paper in 2005 that he latter had to acknowledge was based on wrong information.



> This is not to claim that all the science these groups champion is bogus. On the whole, they use selection, not invention. They will find one contradictory study - such as the discovery of tropospheric cooling, which, in a garbled form, has been used by Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday - and promote it relentlessly. They will continue to do so long after it has been disproved by further work. So, for example, John Christy, the author of the troposphere paper, admitted in August 2005 that his figures were incorrect, yet his initial findings are still being circulated and championed by many of these groups, as a quick internet search will show you




But as Monbiot points out this doesn't stop the initial  research still being circulated and promoted.

It is also suggested that this story (which is only part of a book) is perhaps a beat up, inaccurate, whatever?   *As far as I can see all the details have been cleared by the most potent possible people - the lawyers for the fossil fuel industry and tobacco lobby. 
*
There is just no way on earth The Guardian could have allowed such a story to be published without certainty that all the facts can be clearly established. Equally there is no way Big Oil/Big Tobacco would have let such a damaging story continue if they could prove it wrong. 

In essence the issue was summarized excellently by Wysiwyg.



> Quote:
> For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 December 2008)

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=F6t2D74UcrY Global Warming Debate - Introduction, part 1 of 10
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz8KiA-YMt8  Richard Lindzen, part 2 
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=reV7bVhhcto  Richard Somerville, part 3 

  Richard Somerville, part 3 (GW IS a crisis)

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=QzTPPl05Wok Michael Crichton, part 4 

  Michael Crichton, part 4  (GW is NOT a crisis)

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=TGa6_k00Cus  Gavin Schmidt, part 5
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=KtPDuZzfzhw  Philip Stott, part 6
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=UERzOB2CWQg  Brenda Ekwurzel, part 7
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=dD8RI0tRcNs Q&A1  part 8
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=rNttO8rAJNE Q&A2 part 9
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=VU0BwGdeoq8 Q&A3 part 10

 Q&A3 part 10 

Each part is about 8 mins = 80 mins total. 
I’ve embedded typical speaker for and one against the motion i.e. that “GW is not a Crisis”

It’s interesting that in the final part 10, (only 5 mins), all six speakers admit that “more greenhouse gases will make the world warmer”.
Furthermore (5.5) five and a half  admit that “energy conservation is a good thing”.

Richard Sommerville puts the IPCC case. 

Michael Crichton contests it -. yet   he admits there are no longer hurricanes in Long Island as there were 30 years ago -  and that the weather is very different.
And he admits the following ( his words) …


> “Is the globe warming .. yes
> Is the greenhouse effect real? yes
> Is CO2 a greenhouse gas and is it being increased by man? Y
> would we expect this warming to have an effect? Y
> ...



Philip Stott argues similarly, (4 billion in poverty are more important etc) but at least he makes some specific objections – that biofuels are not a good idea in his opinion, and that wind farms can be a negative effect on the local environment. 

I thought the crucial summing up came from Richard Sommerville in part 10 …

Brian Lehrer (mod) :- "This side say that the real crisis is poverty , dirty water, and lack of modern energy supply for billions of poor people on earth.  so if this is a crisis, how do you prioritise it in comparison to those other things [like GW and its effects]" 
… 



> Richard Sommerville (3m00s mark):- “I cannot imagine why Philip Stott and Michael Crichton seem to think that doing something about these terrible crises  [poverty etc] is impossible if you do something about climate change.  CC need not be in competition with doing something about the terrible toll that poverty and preventable disease take. We can tackle both of those and many other worthy things as well..
> 
> Crichton sees that “ok – but he sees more publicity given to GW than to poverty in Africa.” – so in the end his argument is all over the place.




There was another interesting exchange ...



> Philip Stott:  “IPCC admit they know very little about 80% of the factors behind climate change” [lol - he happily says that his theory about reflectivity can't be modelled very well - as he understand it ... NASA's Gavin Schmidt does his best to clarify for both of them]
> 
> Gavin Schmidt “what does that 80% etc even mean” etc
> Richard Sommerville :-  “This field is like all fields of medical science.  Medical science is incomplete , - but good enough to be useful - but you don’t dismiss what the doctor advises because she hasn’t solved all diseases.  Climate science is the same.”
> ...





> Philip Stott : [just after admitting that man is not only affecting things by CO2, but in many other ways eg reflectivity etc] ... The earth is as fragile as an old boot.    [not according to the science we DO know]


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 December 2008)

I notice there's a new face to this "world clock" ...

http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf

compare the current view with this "datum" at 8pm on 06Dec08 Sydney time

22,424,955,140 tonnes CO2 emissions (this year) 
Concentration of CO2 ..    388.010629 ppm

Still   plenty of time to sit around and argue about it?  - don't you think ?


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 December 2008)

:topic 
off topic - except that the anti-action lobby ( 2 out of 3 in that IQ^2 debate) want to argue that the plight of Africans is the reason we should give a low priority to GW ... 

So arguably the topics are linked - action on both fronts yes?



2020hindsight said:


> ...c) the anti-Mugabe people are the first to have clean water cut off etc - they are being killed by cholera etc disproportionally



sounds like there's a good chance that cholera will force some reason into Mugabe  



> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/04/2437313.htm
> Cholera-wracked Zimbabwe appeals for help
> By Africa correspondent Andrew Geoghegan
> Posted Thu Dec 4, 2008 7:40am AEDT
> ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 December 2008)

You can put up all the youtubes you like mate, but warmeners are godbothering and will not look at the evidence against.

gg


----------



## spooly74 (6 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Still plenty of time to sit around and argue about it?  - don't you think ?




Seems there is still plenty to discuss.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 December 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Seems there is still plenty to discuss.




Yeh, plenty, is it going to warm or is it going to cool.

Sounds like weather to me.

gg


----------



## rederob (7 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> You can put up all the youtubes you like mate, but warmeners are godbothering and will not look at the evidence against.
> 
> gg



Actually it's more the opposite case.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 December 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Seems there is still plenty to discuss.




I'm sure there is ..

("Temp rise between 1 and 6 deg per century - we'll use 1 for this clock's purpose")

And I'm sure that you'd agree Spooly that even the most optmistic of optimistic models would only predict 1degC per century rise in temp .  This clock is totally unrealistic in that regard.   IPCC say IF we have concerted action NOW in a cooperative manner, we could possibly limit the temp rise to 2degC by 2100.   

Meanwhile of course, land is being cleared, animal habitat decreasing etc - and all these matters would be turned around if the world signed up to Kyoto - and was pressured into doing something other than make excuses that something else was more important, therefore do nought etc. 



			
				gg said:
			
		

> Yeh, plenty, is it going to warm or is it going to cool.




gg, you should have been in that debate - you could have been the only one arguing that CO2 is not causing warming.


----------



## wayneL (7 December 2008)

FYI - Dates are American format.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Meanwhile of course, land is being cleared, animal habitat decreasing etc - and all these matters would be turned around if the world signed up to Kyoto



1. Biofuels production and the required massive land clearing is already threatening extinctions. Scaling it up won't help there.

2. Widespread use of nuclear must surely increase the risk of serious accidents and consequent non-CO2 environmental damage.

3. Hydro dams flooding the wilderness, the very issue that started what is now known as the Greens. A number of new hydro-electric projects are now under active consideration in Australia solely as a response to the CO2 issue and in particular to carbon trading, caps or taxes. It'll be interesting to see how that debate goes - politically it's going to be hard to argue against unless your position is that CO2 isn't too important which puts the Greens etc in a rather difficult policy position.

4. Wind, tidal etc also has significant non-CO2 impacts on the local environment. Those turbines have their benefits but I doubt that too many large birds would agree with having more of them.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 December 2008)

smurf said:
			
		

> 2. Widespread use of nuclear must surely increase the risk of serious accidents and consequent non-CO2 environmental damage



I can't accept that there isn't already widespread use of nuclear.   

Heck there are 128 centuries of combined operating experience out there in the big wide world (France gets 70% odd  of its power from its 59 nuclear plants  etc) - and none in Australia. 

As of 1 Nov 07, USA had 104 reactors plus one under construction, 
Russia had 31 plus 8 under construction
China had 11 plus 8 under construction
India had 17 plus 6  
Canada had 18 
Japan 55
Korea 20
Iran 1 under construction,  etc etc 

even Mexico has 2 ! - so we are technically not up to it where the Mexicans are 

"As of 1 November 2008 in 31 countries 439 nuclear power plant units with an installed electric net capacity of about 372 GW are in operation and 38 plants with an installed capacity of 32.6 GW are in 14 countries under construction.

As of end 2007 the total electricity production since 1951 amounts to 59,450 billion kWh. The cumulative operating experience amounted to 12,750 years by the end of 2007."

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 December 2008)

I'll be honest and express my opinion that I think CCS will prove to be a waste of time. 

More power to do it - possibility of leakage - monumental dimensions to the problem etc 

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

I'll stick something on the poetry thread 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=369959

(where I can claim poetic licence if I've made a mathematical mistake lol).


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (7 December 2008)

Why not solar power? Why not wind power? Why not ocean power? Why not the unemployed strapped to bicycles charging up batteries for buildings etc?


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> (France gets 70% odd  of its power from its 59 nuclear plants  etc) - and none in Australia.




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


> France has a long relationship with nuclear power, starting with Henri Becquerel's discovery of natural radioactivity in the 1890s and continued by famous French nuclear scientists like Pierre and Marie Curie






> Historically, nuclear power was supported by the Gaullists, the Socialist Party and the Communist Party. A 2001 Ipsos poll found that 70% of the French population had a "good opinion" of nuclear energy in France and 63% want their country to remain a nuclear leader.[10] According to reporter Jon Palfreman, the construction of the Civaux Nuclear Power Plant was welcomed by the local community in 1997:
> 
> In France, unlike in America, *nuclear energy is accepted, even popular*. *Everybody I spoke to in Civaux loves the fact their region was chosen*. The nuclear plant has brought jobs and prosperity to the area. Nobody I spoke to, nobody, expressed any fear.[11]
> 
> A variety of reasons are cited for the popular support; *a sense of national independence and reduced reliance on foreign oil, reduction of greenhouse gases, *and a cultural interest in large technical projects (like the TGV and Concorde).[11][12]


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> *even Mexico has 2 *! - so we are technically not up to it where the Mexicans are




Hello 2020, You think the present Labor government will be the one to bring in a nuclear power plant first?

They have Peter Garrett as Minister for Environment, Heritage and Arts so it would seem unlikely as I do remember rocking to the anti-nuke Midnight Oil in my youth.Don`t know how much clout he has or whether he goes with the flow these days.

It won`t happen tomorrow but it will happen.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 December 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> 1. You think the present Labor government will be the one to bring in a nuclear power plant first?
> ...
> 2. It won`t happen tomorrow but it will happen.



hi wys
1. no I don't mate   As I've said before, in the end it was one topic where I agreed with the trend that Johnny Howard took (in his last days of flip flops )

2. yes, I agree - absolutely!  Aussie nuclear plants probably completed in 50 years (just my guess / opinion obviously).

Speaking of those Howard flipflops leading up to the election ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 December 2008)

Heck , Switzerland has 5 nuclear reactors - and it's half the size of Tasmania    (41280 km^2, vs 90760 km^2)

http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/switzerland.php


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf
> 
> compare the current view with this "datum" at 8pm on 06Dec08 Sydney time
> 
> ...




New data about 24 hours later :-

22,500,721,784 tonnes CO2 emissions (this year) 
Concentration of CO2 ..    388.01424421 ppm

Increase in CO2 emitted by man in the past 24 hours (and a bit) = 75,766.000 tonnes

and increase in CO2 concentration in the same time is about 0.001 %


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> FYI - Dates are American format.




pretty much consistent with the graph don't you reckon - 

but it's about the trend (obviously)


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 December 2008)

Re : That map on post #225 - 
 only Australia and Antarctica - of all 7 continents - have yet to have nuclear power.


----------



## wayneL (7 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> but it's about the trend (obviously)




Yes. But the IPCC only like to pick those trends that fit their religion, ignoring and obfuscating all other trends that don't... like southern sea ice. Ever notice there is no date comparison images for the Antarctic?

Also climate fraudsters, like CNBC bobbleheads, like to extrapolate short term trends to infinity. This is why many neo classical economists, like climate "pseudo scientists", are laughing stocks and not to be taken seriously.

The trend is your friend... until it bends at the end. 

I'll see you a  and raise you a 3s


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Yes. But the IPCC only like to pick those trends that fit their religion, ignoring and ...



hang on a sec wayne
 you publish two results from two consecutive years
and you pretend that the scientifically honest opinion is that the trend is getting cooler (OR DO YOU - WHO KNOWS ?) 

and then you criticise IPCC


----------



## wayneL (8 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> hang on a sec wayne
> you publish two results from two consecutive years
> and you pretend that the scientifically honest opinion is that the trend is getting cooler (OR DO YOU - WHO KNOWS ?)
> 
> and then you criticise IPCC




We can only deal with facts. But when doing so, we must consider ALL facts, not just those that suit your religious belief such as the "Young Earth Creationesque" IPCC.

Much to the alarm of the alarmists, when ALL data is considered, there is evidence that the recent warming trend in some parts of the earth has halted and may be reversing, as is normal with the cyclical nature of Earth's climate.

A sure way to confuse oneself, is to believe the propaganda of a totally fraudulent organization such as the IPCC and Al Bore and be faced with:

1/ the reality in several years time that there is no or very little co2 warming.

2/ the disgracefully hypocritical behaviour of their High Priests, Al Bore and members of the IPCC committee.

3/ The monumental hypocrisy of their own actions.

4/ The humiliation of having supported lunatic hair brained and dangerous nutters like Tim Flannery.

5/ The depression of having prostrated themselves on the political CC alter and support of their liberty sapping ulterior agenda.

No excuse me before I go feeling sorry for you when you clearly are undeserving of sympathy.


----------



## Sean K (8 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> 4/ The humiliation of having supported lunatic hair brained and dangerous nutters like Tim Flannery.



Wayne, I'm currently reading a Flannery book called The Weathermakers that is HIGHLY recommended by Intrepid Travel who are big supporters of GW dogmatists. Intrepid are leading the travel industry in carbon offsetting etc etc. 

I've found some of his stuff has some foundation based on some seemingly facts but then at other times leaps to hard conclusions not based on anything other than his own preamble. Sometimes those conclusions are the most significant in a chapter. Troubling. However, overall, so far, seems to have some merit.

I'm a major skeptic of GW, probably because I find it my purpose to always take the opposing opinion of the masses. That's probably an ego thing, so I'm a bit lost trying to find the truth in regard to this issue. 

So, opinion on Flannery? 

Hair brained nutter?

Is his stuff really bunk in your opinion? Where does he lose it?


----------



## jonojpsg (8 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> pretty much consistent with the graph don't you reckon -
> 
> but it's about the trend (obviously)




It's definitely about the trend Wayne - which is most obviously a decreasing sea ice cover in the Arctic.  **** mate, if last years "trend" had continued there wouldn't be any ice left next year!!  As it is, it will still only be ten- twenty years before this happens in northern summers.


----------



## explod (8 December 2008)

Interesting discussion guys but comning in cold just some thoughts:

A mate of mine recently on the Dargo River fishing (Esat Victoria)  There was a scientist from CSIRO testing the river.   After some discussion he sated that not only is Australia the driest continent on the planet but that the last two hundred years have been the wettest in over half a million years.

I though like the idea of two bob each way.   The subsidies to the oil industry if redirected would eventually provide cheaper clean alternatives.  Probably provide more jobs while we get there.   And now that we are all broke and will probably soon work for a pittance we will have no worries.   See you on the chain gang.

Anyway just


----------



## wayneL (8 December 2008)

kennas said:


> So, opinion on Flannery?
> 
> Hair brained nutter?
> 
> Is his stuff really bunk in your opinion? Where does he lose it?




When he thought filling the upper atmosphere with so2 was a good idea.


----------



## basilio (8 December 2008)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by 2020hindsight View Post
> hang on a sec wayne
> you publish two results from two consecutive years
> ...




It's amazing the depth of invective heaped on  scientists and others who view global warming as a critical  disaster in the making. Not much analysis on the evidence just a monumental spray on the people.

This takes us back to the analysis George Monbiot reported a couple of years. This identified that the vast majority of public criticism against the possibility GW was real was run by fossil fuel company lobbyists whose cleverest skills are promoting fear, uncertainty and doubt - not to mention an excellent line in scorn and ridicule.  

Consider Al Gore. He had been banging on about GW for many years but with relatively little success. I suppose because he was a politician he was probably seen as suspect anyway.

So after he loses the 2000 election he trots off and becomes a one man presenter on the science behind global warming and the consequences we face if we don't take urgent action. He did this hundreds of times until a friend with a camera (so to speak) said _"Bloody hell. This presentation is really good, and really important. Lets turn it into a doco and get millions of people to see it and understand what is happening."_

Lets remember what he has done. He took the years of research and evidence that scientists had done, distilled the essence of the information and put it together in an understandable, humourous and engaging way. 

Boring? Hardly. Wrong or misleading? Only if your main mission in life is creating fear, uncertainty or doubt.  So of course since An Inconvenient Truth he has been ridiculed (Al Bore) or scorned.

What about Tim Flannery? Up until a few years ago he was a very capable palaeontologist. He them decided, as a scientist, to scrutinise the work of climate scientists on global warming. The Weather Makers reflects his initial understanding of the history of changing climate on life on earth *along with the realisation that mankind is in the process of the creating most rapid and dangerous climate change in history. *

Wayne decides that Tim is nutter because he proposes we spray SO2 into the atmosphere to slow global warming.  Tim would be the first person to agree this was an extreme measure and certain to cause a range of real problems.  But then Tim's overriding concerns are :-

1) The solutions we should have started 20 years ago - de -carbonisation of the economy, developing non polluting fuels, restoration of forests ect have all been sabotaged.

2) The problem is getting worse far more quickly than scientists believed even 5 years ago

3) If we don't actually tackle global warming  with an almighty hit we face the likelihood of runaway global warming  that will cook the earth to the point of killing almost all life.

The evidence of points 2 and 3 are best illustrated with the rapid decline in Arctic Sea Ice.  Even 10 years the GW models suggested that the arctic sea ice would be last for at least 100 years. But even that rate of decline was quick historically speaking.
*
But the pace of GW has accelerated so quickly in the past few years scientists are suggesting the arctic could be ice free in the summer by 2030.*

*The problem is that when the oceans are ice free in the northern summer the heat of the sun pours unchecked into the ocean adding  enormously to the heat load in the oceans. The then warmer oceans are undermining the glaciers holding up the Green Land ice caps . 
*

The collapse of the Greenland ice caps effectively raise the sea levels by 7 metres. Join the dots.

This quickening of GW is a postive feedback loop.  There are a dozen other positive feedback loops identified  as happening around the world.  Can you appreciate why climate scientists are  scared xxxxless?

Cheers

 _________________________________________________________




> How Bad is Bad
> A terrifying leap in average global temperatures of 6.4C *with higher figures nearer the poles *could occur over the next century, according to the most authoritative report yet on global warming.  The rise, which would make agriculture, even life, almost impossible over much of the Earth, was the worst-case scenario envisaged by hundreds of scientists on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).




For the rest of the story and links to feedback loop  research check out

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/treder20081120/



Up to date science research on Climate  Change  from Science Daily 
Can we  believe that all these scientists are deceiving themselves and everyone else ?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0902-our_changing_climate.htm


----------



## wayneL (8 December 2008)

:sleeping:

Going around in circles here again. Anyway, I've had my fun in this thread. I'm going to go and play in the early snowfalls and leave you guys to your egregious and misguided fretting.

Perhaps we'll cross swords over trading.

Ciao

:band


----------



## explod (8 December 2008)

basilio said:


> Up to date science research on Climate  Change  from Science Daily
> Can we  believe that all these scientists are deceiving themselves and everyone else ?
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0902-our_changing_climate.htm




No, but tell me what as a newcomer can I do if I was to offer 3 or 4 hours a week to the cause.  Perhaps in changing attitudes but open to your best suggestions.

cheers explod


----------



## basilio (8 December 2008)

Cheers Wayne,

I can appreciate your frustration.

Really, really wish you were right and that we had little to be concerned about.


----------



## spooly74 (8 December 2008)

basilio said:


> *
> But the pace of GW has accelerated so quickly in the past few years scientists are suggesting the arctic could be ice free in the summer by 2030.*




Got a link to the physics behind this statement?


----------



## basilio (8 December 2008)

Concern about the accelerating rate of ice melt in Arctic  peaked this year when there was an extraordinarily big jump in the ice free ocean. This has caused the scientists in this field to reassess their predictions.

As I mentioned earlier the Arctic will warm much more quickly than the rest of the world because the increasing loss of summer sea ice will enable far more of the summer suns  24 hr a day energy to be absorbed by the oceans.

http://oilsandstruth.org/ice-free-arctic-could-be-here-23-years-area-2x-size-england-lost-last-week

The website below has some excellent extra information.

http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/...-total-loss-possible-by-2030-scientists-warn/


----------



## basilio (8 December 2008)

Someone else's brief summary on the rapidly changing scenarios for melting of Arctic sea ice and collapse of Greenland ice cap.

*
Melt your Hearts out*t

A







> Edmundsen did traverse the Northwest Passage in 1905.  Trouble with comparison to today is that he started in 1903.
> 
> Jim Hansen wrote a recent article on Scientific Reticence stacks.iop.org/ERL/2/024002 in which he describes how scientists don't do a good job of reflecting the cumulative information because it requires individuals to step outside their personal field of expertise. Five years ago a report noted that Greenland's melt rate indicated a complete loss of ice cover in a thousand years.  If you look at the globe, Greenland is unique at its latitude for having an ice cap, and is regarded as a self-perpetuating relic of the last ice age.  About three years ago the melt rate was shown to have doubled as indicated by increased runoff from inland waterways, and extreme surface melting.  Earlier this year, the rate was again doubled, due to measurements of melting of ice around the shores and the rate of exposed rock warming and melting surrounding ice.  These reports are not being reconciled with each other, but the suggestion is that in five years we have gone from a thousand years to 250 years for a 20 foot sea level rise.
> 
> ...


----------



## basilio (8 December 2008)

Oops here I go again...

Spooly 74 your request for some clearer back up for my assertion that the Arctic could be ice free by 2030 brought some thought provoking information.

One of the claims made by people who disagree that GW is actually happening is that scientists are following the money for GW grants and that they have become  very alarmist because this will gain them more funds. (I believe that is the argument).

In the real world  however, anyone who has been involved in scientific research would know only too well the pressure to be conservative in your conclusions. The big statements too often end up getting you nailed to the floor.

Anyway James Hansen hit the nail on the head with the following  paper published in the New Scientist. I have only attached the first sections. The remainder of the article outlines why he is concerned  about a rapid break up of the Greenland ice cap.



> * Huge sea level rises are coming - unless we act now*
> 
> * 25 July 2007 by James Hansen
> 
> ...




http://www.newscientist.com/article...evel-rises-are-coming--unless-we-act-now.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 December 2008)

basilio said:


> ... Anyway James Hansen hit the nail on the head with the following  paper published in the New Scientist. I have only attached the first sections. The remainder of the article outlines why he is concerned  about a rapid break up of the Greenland ice cap.



thanks bas ...
This from 2 years ago - Hansen complaining that the White House censored his information to the public. 

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=jc4OzpgTOhk
embedded:-
 James Hansen on White House censoring of Global Warming



> Chief NASA scientist is restricted from telling public about global warming by Bush Administration.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 December 2008)

ps :-
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=7M4KTodpqzg
embedded:-
 Climatologist James Hansen at House Hearing, 2006 - part 1/6
etc

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=gMDS5kEA2ZM
embedded:-
 NASA Dr James Hansen on Global Warming and Coal


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 December 2008)

To give you an idea of the nonsense that Andrew Bolt puts out,  he said on Insiders the other day that "Climate Change stopped ten years ago (1998)".

(there's a video attached to this if you're real keen :- 
http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2007/s2427253.htm  )

So what does the graph of Global Temp look like? lol .  O boy - there was a spike in 1998! - so he figures the trend since then is down 

The man is a conman, or a professional statistician lol - simple as that.  

what was that one ? 


> A mathematician, an applied mathematician, and a statistician all apply for the same job. At the interview, they are asked the question, what is 1+1.
> 
> The mathematician replies, "I can prove that it exists but not that it is unique."
> 
> ...




The first graph below ends in 2004. (the others in 2007 - origin NASA)


----------



## inenigma (8 December 2008)

basilio said:


> Really, really wish you were right and that we had little to be concerned about.




I was young and something once before....  I wanted to make a difference.   I sent letters to the presidents of the country my parents had immigrated to.  I met Gerald Ford.  I demonstrated.

My Great Grandkids are stuffed.


----------



## spooly74 (8 December 2008)

*Melting ice may slow global warming*
Scientists discover that minerals found in collapsing ice sheets could feed plankton and cut C02 emissions



> Collapsing antarctic ice sheets, which have become potent symbols of global warming, may actually turn out to help in the battle against climate change and soaring carbon emissions.
> 
> Professor Rob Raiswell, a geologist at the University of Leeds, says that as the sheets break off the ice covering the continent, floating icebergs are produced that gouge minerals from the bedrock as they make their way to the sea. Raiswell believes that the accumulated frozen mud could breathe life into the icy waters around Antarctica, triggering a large, natural removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/07/melting-icebergs-slow-global-warming


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> To give you an idea of the nonsense that Andrew Bolt puts out,  he said on Insiders the other day that "Climate Change stopped ten years ago (1998)".



There are liars, outliers, and out-and-out liars.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> There are liars, outliers, and out-and-out liars.




And 2020 there are the naive, the foolish, the believers, the godbotherers, and sheep.

Warmeners choose your group.

:sheep:


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> And 2020 there are the naive, the foolish, the believers, the godbotherers, and sheep.
> 
> Warmeners choose your group.
> 
> :sheep:



trouble is gg, 
Theory and practice are the same in theory. In practice they are different.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 December 2008)

You blokes who don't believe / accept the scientific evidence - nor want to take into account the consequences of getting it wrong - might enjoy this one ... 



> A statistics major was completely hung over the day of his final exam. It was a true/false test, so he decided to flip a coin for the answers. The professor watched the student the entire two hours as he was flipping the coin...writing an answer...flipping the coin...writing an answer. At the end of the two hours, everyone else had left except for that one student. The professor walked up to his desk and interrupted the student.
> 
> "Listen, I see you didn't study for this test; you didn't even open the exam. If you're just flipping a coin for answers, what's taking you so long?"
> 
> The student (still flipping the coin) said, "Shhh! I'm checking my answers!"


----------



## lusk (8 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> The first graph below ends in 2004. (the others in 2007 - origin NASA)








0.6C measured back in 1860, what did they do to measure temperature back then, lick your finger 
and stick it in the air?


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 December 2008)

This website might help ...

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/068.htm



> ... climate indicators, including tree rings, corals, ice cores, and laminated lake/ocean sediments, can be used to provide detailed information on annual or near-annual climate variations back in time.
> 
> Certain coarser resolution proxy information (from e.g., boreholes, glacial moraines, and non-laminated ocean sediment records) can usefully supplement this high-resolution information. Important recent advances in the development and interpretation of proxy climate indicators are described below.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> There are liars, outliers, and out-and-out liars.




and, like I say,  1998 was an outlier 



> out·li·er  ... A value far from most others in a set of data.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 December 2008)

I'm reliably told by an electrical wholesaler that standard incandescent bulbs are now "getting hard to get" and that there have been quite a number of large volume purchases which have essentially wiped out their stock. So it looks like not everyone is so keen on filling the house with compact fluorescent lights (CFL's).

As for me, I'm using CFL's where practical and worthwhile but not everywhere. Yes, I've done the maths and here's what I decided based on that. It's influenced by being in a climate where heating is needed most of the time and I don't have an air-conditioner - so the heat given off by a bulb isn't really being wasted. 

Dining - CFL dimmable

Lounge - CFL (3 of them)

Hall - CFL

Garage / Workshop - Ordinary fluorescent tubes.

Kitchen - Halogen (not recessed downlights) and I've been unable to find a viable CFL or LED replacement with sufficient light output. A shame given the $20 cost of the special 75W halogen bulbs of which there are 3. 

Family room - Incandescent. I can't find a CFL or LED of adequate rating that fits in the light fitting unfortunately. So I'll be sticking with the special 8,000 hour  incandescent bulbs I've bought for this one until I can find something else that fits. 

Home office / computer room - The old incandescent blew up rather violently so I replaced it with a self-ballasted mercury vapour lamp I happened to have on hand. I'll get a CFL next time now that some nice and bright ones are easily available. 

Sensor lights, front entrance, bedroom, toilet, laundry - I've done the sums and I don't see an overall environmental benefit using CFL's in these applications so I'll stick with ordinary bulbs. LED's would be a far better alternative than CFL's but they aren't quite there yet with light output and quality - not far off now though. In the meantime, I've got a box of spare bulbs stashed under the house.


----------



## prawn_86 (10 December 2008)

Well into our second calender week of 'summer' and they are forecasting the weekend to be 19 degrees.

I think we have only had one day above 35 since about April, whereas usually it would be 30+ most days throughout Spring and definitely by now...


----------



## jonojpsg (10 December 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Well into our second calender week of 'summer' and they are forecasting the weekend to be 19 degrees.
> 
> I think we have only had one day above 35 since about April, whereas usually it would be 30+ most days throughout Spring and definitely by now...




Hmm, methinks Prawn that you should check your stats.  Adelaide mean max temps for Sep through Dec are mid 20s.  Not sure that 30+ most days fits into that?


----------



## prawn_86 (10 December 2008)

jonojpsg said:


> Hmm, methinks Prawn that you should check your stats.  Adelaide mean max temps for Sep through Dec are mid 20s.  Not sure that 30+ most days fits into that?




Usually, from my experience, we get a sustained buildup with increasing temps the further into spring then summer we get, however this yr it just hasn't happened. Still forecasting days below 20 degrees ands its virtually the middle of December...


----------



## basilio (10 December 2008)

Spooly, that was good research you brought up on the possibility that melting ice floes might start some negative feedback loop in the oceans.  I think I can remember scientists suggesting seeding the oceans with iron oxide to stimulate  plankton.

Don't think it will be anywhere near a solution but at least it is not a positive feedback loop like many others.

It* is* an unusually cool summer for the moment Prawn. Thank heavens for that. In fact the world as a whole has been a little cooler this year. It's because we have a La Nina (the opposite of the El Niño) which in Australia's case should have resulted in heavier than normal rainfalls.  Didn't quite get that part of the story in southern Australia. It seems that the over riding impacts of global warming have also changed the westerly wind patterns that bring us the spring rains.

Excellent discussion on El Niño/La Nina in Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Niño


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 December 2008)

thanks bas.
And when El Niño hits next, things will change significantly for the worse. 

Good to see someone who looks into this deeper than whether or not they have to wear a jumper last week or not.


----------



## spooly74 (10 December 2008)

*Climate inquiry will not question global warming science.*

http://www.3news.co.nz/News/Politic...tabid/419/articleID/83484/cat/67/Default.aspx



> A parliamentary committee inquiry into climate change policy will not relitigate the science that blames humans for global warming, according to *new terms of reference*.
> 
> The National government has put the emissions trading scheme (ETS) on hold while it conducts a *complete review*.




What a load of $hite! A complete review my :arsch: !
GW Science is now not even questionable?

Ladies and Gents .... that it not how science works.


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 December 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Usually, from my experience, we get a sustained buildup with increasing temps the further into spring then summer we get, however this yr it just hasn't happened. Still forecasting days below 20 degrees ands its virtually the middle of December...





Prawn, my suspicion has been confirmed.NASA has just informed me of the reason why South Australia has become cooler than usual.If you take a high vantage point on the Eyre Peninsula and look seaward you will see for yourself.I`m sorry.Goodbye.


----------



## jonojpsg (10 December 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Prawn, my suspicion has been confirmed.NASA has just informed me of the reason why South Australia has become cooler than usual.If you take a high vantage point on the Eyre Peninsula and look seaward you will see for yourself.I`m sorry.Goodbye.




He he he


----------



## prawn_86 (10 December 2008)

LOL, oh well I had a good run. 

Not much here in SA anyway, i doubt we'll be missed :


----------



## basilio (10 December 2008)

Hi,

Couple of just published articles that forum members might find useful in this discussion.

Firstly the evidence around the world on the accelerating pace of global warming is becoming terrifying. There isn't a more appropriate word.

But at the same time the willingness of deniers to disregard reality( to possibly preserve some mental sanity )  also expands  exponentially. 

Really worth checking these out. George Monbiot does an excellent job of spelling out how completely deceptive some of the deniers materiel has become.



[







> Cyberspace has buried its head in a cesspit of climate change gibberish[/B]
> The Stansted protesters get it. The politicians of Poznan don't quite. But online, planted deniers drive a blinkered fiction
> Comments (670)
> 
> ...




http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/09/climate-change-science-environment




> *Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst*
> As ministers and officials gather in Poznan one year ahead of the Copenhagen summit on global warming, the second part of a major series looks at the crucial issue of targets
> 
> * David Adam
> ...





http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-copenhagen-global-warming-targets-climat


----------



## spooly74 (10 December 2008)

basilio said:


> Hi,
> 
> Couple of just published articles that forum members might find useful in this discussion.
> 
> *Firstly the evidence around the world on the accelerating pace of global warming is becoming terrifying. There isn't a more appropriate word.*




Sorry, Basilio, but your above quote (my bold) is garbage. The IPCC couldn't model a haircut. What evidence btw?

Now Rudd is in the firing line....about time too. Hypocrite.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24778428-421,00.html


----------



## basilio (10 December 2008)

Spooly,

Good story on Kevin Rudd and the amount of CO2 emitted in Kirribilli.  I agree that as a matter of principle and leadership Kirribilli house should be a good example. And now is the time to do it. No question at all.

The question of O/S travel is more difficult. The times are demanding. Kevin Rudd does offer a better than average input on world economic issues. I don't think it makes much sense for a PM to simply close up shop. But your right air travel is a big cause of GW gases.

With regard to evidence for the accelerating pace of global warming....
The article I began below details the evidence that is terrifying scientists. Worth a read.

And of course Monbiots story explains how the blindingly obvious is being denied while completely wrong statements on GW are vigorously promoted.



> *Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst*
> As ministers and officials gather in Poznan one year ahead of the Copenhagen summit on global warming, the second part of a major series looks at the crucial issue of targets
> 
> * David Adam
> ...



]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...targets-climat


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 December 2008)

Well many would argue (including that previous adviser to Tony Blair - already posted - he's included in the ABC debate on the Great Global Warming Swindle) that it's moved past the science (where the massive majority of scientists agree anyhow - it's now entered the "security" stage. (where even if the IPCC is half right, then there's still a hell of a problem out there in the future, between deserts on the one hand, and sea levels on the other. 

This article just added to the ABC website a couple of hours ago :-

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/10/2442933.htm?section=justin



> Protect climate change refugees, conference hears
> Posted 2 hours 13 minutes ago
> Updated 2 hours 14 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 December 2008)

PS
As posted elsewhere, this is what the Brits are ultimately on about with the global warming debate ...   the last speaker on this youtube (Rowley) was an adviser to Blair. 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=277569&highlight=Rowley#post277569

   Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 6/9

"Nick Rowley, Climate Change Strategist - of UK gives a great summary...
balancing the risks of getting this wrong



> on the subject of observed global warming , if you look at the great bulk of the world's climate scientists, *around 98% of them really accept that basic science, - that is as close to certain - almost - as you can get - in relation to science*.
> 
> Yet there are uncertainties, essentially about the future - and a future prediction is always going to be uncertain - and that's why, when you look at the IPCC reports, you have scenarios - lower, middle, and upper scenarios - and for mine, I very much hope they are wrong .
> 
> ...




As Rowley says (from the Brit point  of view) ... 


> "*essentially it's not the science, it's actually the policy responses to the magnitude of the risk*. "




So even if UK stays pleasantly cool , thanks to changes in Gulf stream etc , there will be a problem from the environmental refugees of the future (remember Greymouth NS is the same latitude south as Portugal is north - obviously the gulf stream is a major factor - so matter what some around here would say  ) 
Remember that the sea level has risen 175mm (7") in100 years, and the rate is increasing.


----------



## awg (10 December 2008)

I think it is interesting to note that aprrox 12,000 yrs ago, the climate changed from Ice Age, and heated up to an estimated average up to 4 degrees hotter than today, ( over several thousand years) according to info quoted in a book i read by Jared Diamond.

It has been postulated that this lead to large scale glacial melting, with many effects, including one theory, that the rising Mediteranean flooded the Black Sea, via the Bosphorous Strait, about 8000 yrs ago, leading to widespread great flooding mythology, such as Noahs Ark, Tale of Gilgamesh etc.

There is considerable geological evidence to support this.

in fact it is known beyond doubt, that sea levels have fluctuated vastly over time.

IMO, greenhouse gases, human factors, are certainly impacting on this natural process, just no one can say exactly how much.

One thing i think can be said for certain is that sea levels are rising, and will continue to rise, unless a new Ice Age kicks in.

So those super beachfront locations like Wamberal, Collaroy ( and Bangladesh) are going to be worth less than they are now.

fortunately (for me), my place is atop a high cliff


----------



## wayneL (10 December 2008)

This is getting hysterical.

I beginning to believe it's actually some form of mass psychosis.

It's certainly noting to do with science.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> This is getting hysterical.
> 
> I beginning to believe it's actually some form of mass psychosis.
> 
> It's certainly noting to do with science.




Agree totally.

Science is ongoing.

This is godbothering.

Weather is weather.

Stick your head out the window, don't call a loser like Al Gore.

gg


----------



## So_Cynical (11 December 2008)

This thread is a great example of why its best to avoid threads like this.:sheep::bonk::error::chainsaw:

There is a great sailing book called "Heavy Weather Cruising" it's about 
handling heavy weather in small yachts on the open ocean...anyway ill 
always remember a line from it that goes something like this.

"being able to predict weather with modern equipment is helpful, however 
the weather will be whatever it is, and that is what you will have to deal with."

The Scientific consensus is that, the ultra long range forcast is for 
increasing GW and climate change...and thats what we have to 
prepare for...it would be grossly irresponsible to do anything else.


http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Adlard-Coles-Heavy-Weather-Sailing/Peter-Bruce/e/9780071592901


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 December 2008)

So_Cynical said:


> This thread is a great example of why its best to avoid threads like this.
> 
> The Scientific consensus is that, the ultra long range forcast is for
> increasing GW and climate change...and thats what we have to
> prepare for...it would be grossly irresponsible to do anything else.




The scientific consensus before Copernicus was that the earth was flat, right back to the Sumerians. 

Many people lost their lives, fingers and appendages arguing otherwise.

There is contrary opinion about Weather, but it is discarded and devalued by the warmeners.

Science is ongoing, not fixed, as is the Weather.

gg


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 December 2008)

So_Cynical said:


> "being able to predict weather with modern equipment is helpful, however
> the weather will be whatever it is, and that is what you will have to deal with."




Aint that the truth!



> The Scientific consensus is that, the ultra long range forcast is for
> increasing GW and climate change...and thats what we have to
> prepare for...it would be grossly irresponsible to do anything else.




This so called global warming due to human existance need not be prepared for -- but averted.

What could we do to avert global warming? 

Consider breeding less, use and create low emission/emissionless energy for heating, cooking, lighting and transport.

I wonder what people will think of us in the year 2500.Bloody fossil fools.


----------



## GumbyLearner (11 December 2008)

Here is an example of a weather pattern that has existed for hundreds if not thousands of years.

However, it has recently become a problem for people in North Asia because of industrial growth. Does anyone classify this as climate change?

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

It is also tracked by the US military command in Korea for health and safety reasons.

http://www.seoul.amedd.army.mil/sites/yellowsand/default.asp


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (11 December 2008)

> I wonder what people will think of us in the year 2500.Bloody fossil fools.



They'll be asking questions alright and not just on this topic.


----------



## wayneL (11 December 2008)

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6



> UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
> 
> Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'
> 
> POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.  Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.


----------



## wayneL (11 December 2008)

OOOOOOPPS!

Seems it's the coldest year in yonks.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/10/global-warming-freeze/

Where I live, we had snow in both October and November. On Sunday, there was frost on the ground ALL DAY; the ground in some places frozen solid.

Today we took our Jack Rascal for a walk around Pittville Lake, as we do every day. The Lake was iced over. These are all apparently rare occurrences in and of themselves for this area, but the yocals say they can't remember it EVER happening prior to January.

It's currently only 9:00 PM and though it hasn't snowed, everything outside is white from a thick layer of frost.

Maybe we'll get a White Christmas. That would be nice. I've asked Santa for a warm pair of gloves.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (11 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!
> 
> http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6




Agreed.

Not only have the Climate Change 'scientists' been 'cooking' the temperature books so to speak, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html

But the questioning voices of hundreds of scientists (which have always been there) are now getting louder.

This is not unusual to see in a bear market. People will start to question many 'beliefs' that were present in the bull market years, esp if it means higher costs (eg Carbon tax) that people are not willing to accept or believe is even warranted.

I'm sure more will unfold in this space as the bear market wears on.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (11 December 2008)

From
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico​
I was in a recent conversation with an IPCC member and we debated the impact of the sun on global warming. The IPCC stance was clearly "the SUN is a constant" and hence ignored temperature influence on the earth - which I believe is an incorrect assumption as well as bad science.


----------



## explod (11 December 2008)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Not only have the Climate Change 'scientists' been 'cooking' the temperature books so to speak, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html
> 
> ...




Yeh, a conundrum, 

what is wealth?               life for your Grandchildren or money.


----------



## skint (11 December 2008)

OzWaveGuy said:


> From
> http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
> 
> “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico​
> I was in a recent conversation with an IPCC member and we debated the impact of the sun on global warming. The IPCC stance was clearly "the SUN is a constant" and hence ignored temperature influence on the earth - which I believe is an incorrect assumption as well as bad science.





Modelling has indeed integrated natural phenomena such as the sun and volcanos.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0


----------



## wayneL (11 December 2008)

skint said:


> Modelling




A model is.... well, it's just a model.

However, what's real is real.

The IPCC's model is not real.

End of story.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (11 December 2008)

The IPCC use upto 14 models and 'average' it all out

Most models would account for the heat from the sun, including cloud cover, but accounting for solar activity and what degree of solar activity is another question.

The fundamental view from the IPCC was that solar activity was constant - which it is not. Seems other scientists are now raising this as a major issue that needs consideration - sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## skint (11 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> A model is.... well, it's just a model.
> 
> However, what's real is real.
> 
> ...




Models are used all the time. They are used to predict the effect of interest rate movements, 5 day weather forecasts, the el nino patterns, fiscal stimulus packages, landing a spaceship on mars and a few squillion other things. Good models are able to predict, as is the case with the effect of global warming on climate change. As the models become more accurate, we're discovering they have understated the effects on climate change, if anything. Describing an unseasonally chilly day displays your lack of understanding on the matter. It's an unseasonally cool one here in Sydney also. So what? Doesn't change the fact that globally, the world is warming, when viewed holistically. Most of the ostriches even recognise the reality of a world heating up. They tend to be in denial, moreover regarding the contribution of anthropogenic factors. The graph on youtube shows that without factoring in human activity, the increases in temperature do not make sense. Factor in that activity and it fits like a glove.
"End of story".


----------



## spooly74 (11 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!




Chapter1, p97, 2001 IPCC Report.


----------



## wayneL (11 December 2008)

skint said:


> Factor in that activity and it fits like a glove.
> "End of story".



I would hate to see your gloves. 

Please review these quotes from the current IPCC conference in Poznan Poland. Not oil or tobacco lobbyists, but real scientists... making a total idiot out of that @sshole, George Monbiot.



			
				Nobel Prize Winner for Physics said:
			
		

> “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”






			
				Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson said:
			
		

> “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.”






			
				UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh said:
			
		

> "Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”






			
				Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet said:
			
		

> “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,”






			
				Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera said:
			
		

> “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.”






			
				U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA said:
			
		

> “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”






			
				Geoffrey G. Duffy said:
			
		

> “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.”






			
				Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs said:
			
		

> “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.”






			
				Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers said:
			
		

> “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?"






			
				Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland said:
			
		

> “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.”






			
				Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden said:
			
		

> “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.”






			
				Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal said:
			
		

> “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.”






			
				Dr. Takeda Kunihiko said:
			
		

> “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a politicalvehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”


----------



## explod (11 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> I would hate to see your gloves.
> 
> Please review these quotes from the current IPCC conference in Poznan Poland. Not oil or tobacco lobbyists, but real scientists... making a total idiot out of that @sshole, George Monbiot.




The word skeptical indicates a certain amount of uncertainty.  Some of the scientists have been so busy gaining letters and writing books (probably to make money) that I would be skeptical of their conclusions.  Having been among academia I am aware that some have to rub the system the right way to get there.

For our granchindren we cannot offord to sit on the fence, we are gambling with thier future.    There are cleaner alternatives to the fossil fuel regime and with the same subsidies would be cheaper.


----------



## wayneL (11 December 2008)

explod said:


> The word skeptical indicates a certain amount of uncertainty.  Some of the scientists have been so busy gaining letters and writing books (probably to make money) that I would be skeptical of their conclusions.  Having been among academia I am aware that some have to rub the system the right way to get there.
> 
> *For our granchindren we cannot offord to sit on the fence,* we are gambling with thier future.    There are cleaner alternatives to the fossil fuel regime and with the same subsidies would be cheaper.



Agreed.

But my consistent argument is that the AGWH religion draws attention from other "real" and urgent matters. 

If you love your grandchildren, focus on the other myriad of environmental catastrophes and stop shadow boxing against the nonsense of co2 induced GW. If approached in this way, co2, if a factor in CC, will reduce as well.

Fretting about co2 emissions exclusively will do absolutely nothing for your , or anyone else's grandchildren.

And that's a fact Jack.


----------



## Trader Paul (11 December 2008)

..... and speaking of weather, here's some of God's handiwork,
in the skies, above Idaho ... a fire rainbow ... see pic, below ..... 

Closer to home, be alert for a big weather event on New Year's Day 2009,
around 119 degrees East and 21 degrees South (Port Hedland ???) .....
..... figuring on extreme heat and a cyclone, followed by a LOT of rain,
a few days later.

have a great day

  paul



=====


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 December 2008)

Trader Paul said:


> ..... and speaking of weather, here's some of God's handiwork,




Highly unlikely as in the bottom right hand corner of the picture (of light refraction into colour spectrum) is the  © AP which is Associated Press.


----------



## jonojpsg (11 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Agreed.
> 
> But my consistent argument is that the AGWH religion draws attention from other "real" and urgent matters.
> 
> ...




Have to say that I agreewith you there Wayne  There are indeed many issues on the environmental front that present major hurdles to our society continuing in any sustainable way.  We need to keep our focus broad and look at ways to address all of them, including potential CO2 induced warming.

I agree too that once an organisation becomes so inward focussed that they call dissenters flat-earthers, there is urgent need for change.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (11 December 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Highly unlikely as in the bottom right hand corner of the picture (of light refraction into colour spectrum) is the  © AP which is Associated Press.



Actually AP are pretty harsh on copyright with their articles by bloggers. Using their photos I don't know about. 
Are you saying it is not a real effect but a manufactured effect?


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Are you saying it is not a real effect but a manufactured effect?




Nay s.p.

Q... Do you see your thoughts as abstract dominative?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (11 December 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Nay s.p.
> 
> Q... Do you see your thoughts as abstract dominative?



Only when there are no spaces after full stops, or periods as the US calls them.


----------



## explod (11 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Agreed.
> 
> But my consistent argument is that the AGWH religion draws attention from other "real" and urgent matters.
> 
> ...




We have pussy footed around with recycled rubbish and a bit of tree planting for a long time now for little effect.  Is it not time to hit the big culprits like oil and coal between the eyes so that we start to make a real difference.  Then we can work our way down to all the other thinkg.  

Lets knock off the biggest criminal first.


----------



## numbercruncher (11 December 2008)

> Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/carbonemissions.climatechange

You will all eventually run out of Air to breathe at the rate humanity is going .....

Just keep pumping out carbon dioxide and cutting down forests and we should be able to extinct the problem


----------



## OzWaveGuy (11 December 2008)

explod said:


> We have pussy footed around with recycled rubbish and a bit of tree planting for a long time now for little effect.  Is it not time to hit the big culprits like oil and coal between the eyes so that we start to make a real difference.  Then we can work our way down to all the other thinkg.
> 
> Lets knock off the biggest criminal first.




Agreed. But I doubt that moving wealth from the middle class to the rich via a Carbon Tax would make a difference - unless your one of the receivers of the wealth


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (11 December 2008)

explod said:


> We have pussy footed around with recycled rubbish and a bit of tree planting for a long time now for little effect.  Is it not time to hit the big culprits like oil and coal between the eyes so that we start to make a real difference.  Then we can work our way down to all the other thinkg.
> 
> Lets knock off the biggest criminal first.




The destruction of forests in Malaysia, Indonesia and Brazil are a big cause for concern.

By creating a religion and then creating a TAX to tax a nation with when the rest of the world is doing nothing is a little silly. 

Clean up the oceans, the soil and prevent loss of forest. These are the immediate threats. 

The Earth's atmospheric pressure is not heavy enough for heating to continue unabated. It is time the other scientists were given their right to be published.


----------



## numbercruncher (11 December 2008)

Yes less forests is less oxygen @




> Evidence from prehistoric times indicates that the oxygen content of pristine nature was above the 21% of total volume that it is today. It has decreased in recent times due mainly to the burning of coal in the middle of the last century. Currently the oxygen content of the Earth's atmosphere dips to 19% over impacted areas, and it is down to 12 to 17% over the major cities. At these levels it is difficult for people to get sufficient oxygen to maintain bodily health: it takes a proper intake of oxygen to keep body cells and organs, and the entire immune system, functioning at full efficiency. At the levels we have reached today cancers and other degenerative diseases are likely to develop. And at 6 to 7% *life can no longer be sustained*.





The developing worlds Coal burning might be enough to finish us off if enough of them put up Coal burning power stations huh ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 December 2008)

explod said:


> We have pussy footed around with recycled rubbish and a bit of tree planting for a long time now for little effect.  Is it not time to hit the big culprits like oil and coal between the eyes so that we start to make a real difference.  Then we can work our way down to all the other thinkg.
> 
> Lets knock off the biggest criminal first.



And the biggest criminal is... Constant Growth!

Yep, let's move to an economic model where the entire concept of "economic growth" is something only found in history books. Ultimately, if we maintain even 0.1% annual growth then we'll eventually consume the entire planet.

Now it's oil, next it's CO2, then it's something else. CO2 is a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself. If we fix (or ignore) the CO2 issue but continue the notion of constant growth on a finite planet then we'll simply hit some other limit before long. 

In all seriousness, I'd suggest a target GDP change of -2% per annum with tough measures taken should "growth" threaten to occur even briefly. That's the only way we'll fix the CO2 without simply ending up in some other (likely worse) situation. 

Odds of that happening? In practice, zero. We're going to burn all we can get until either we end up cooked or run out of things to burn. That's what humans do with practically everything. Sad maybe, but that's my conclusion having been considering this issue since the 1980's. 

It would have been 15 years or so until I finally accepted that no real action would actually be taken unless the banking system _completely_ collapsed first and on a scale that all attempts to revive it were abandoned. Then we need an entire new financial system to which "growth" is an irrelevant concept since it's neither required nor likely to happen. That's a massive change from the present system which knows only two things - constant growth or outright collapse. 

I'm sure most will reach that conclusion given enough time (it being still a fairly new issue for some).


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> If you love your grandchildren, focus on the other myriad of environmental catastrophes and stop shadow boxing against the nonsense of co2 induced GW. If approached in this way, co2, if a factor in CC, will reduce as well.
> 
> Fretting about co2 emissions exclusively will do absolutely nothing for your , or anyone else's grandchildren.
> 
> And that's a fact Jack.




And the other fact is that those two things work together - in tandem. 

i.e. concentrate of the pollution , the CO2 comes down

Conversely and equally, concentrate on the CO2, the pollution comes down (and the forests are protected, etc) 



			
				wayneL said:
			
		

> Seems it's the coldest year in yonks.
> 
> Where I live, we had snow in both October and November. On Sunday, there was frost on the ground ALL DAY; the ground in some places frozen solid.




Depends what you read - this says it's the worst ice in Gulf of Finland in 300 years 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,540694,00.html


> Hundreds of Baby Seals Could Starve to Death
> 03/11/2008
> 
> Rising temperatures could spell disaster for seals living in the Baltic Sea in northern Europe. An environment group is warning that hundreds of baby seals are now facing a painful death.
> ...




Seems the Gulf of Finland is Finnish 
Also Gulf of Bothnia and Gulf of Riga.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> The destruction of forests in Malaysia, Indonesia and Brazil are a big cause for concern.
> 
> By creating a religion and then creating a TAX to tax a nation with when the rest of the world is doing nothing is a little silly.
> 
> ...




Pleased to see you agree with the principles of Carbon Trading, Snake - credits for leaving carbon standing vertical for instance.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> In all seriousness, I'd suggest a target GDP change of -2% per annum with tough measures taken should "growth" threaten to occur even briefly. That's the only way we'll fix the CO2 without simply ending up in some other (likely worse) situation.
> 
> Odds of that happening? In practice, zero. We're going to burn all we can get until either we end up cooked or run out of things to burn. That's what humans do with practically everything. Sad maybe, but that's my conclusion having been considering this issue since the 1980's.



See Smurf - you're MORE pessimistic than IPCC recommendations - They say start immediately, reduce CO2 by 1.9% per annum - and you'll limit the temp growth to 2degC by 2100degC.

Of course if you can reduce by more then all the better. 


			
				smurf said:
			
		

> no real action would actually be taken unless the banking system completely collapsed first and on a scale that all attempts to revive it were abandoned. Then we need an entire new financial system to which "growth" is an irrelevant concept since it's neither required nor likely to happen



I guess we are half way there at the moment


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 December 2008)

awg said:


> 1. I think it is interesting to note that aprrox 12,000 yrs ago, the climate changed from Ice Age, and heated up to an estimated average up to 4 degrees hotter than today, ( over several thousand years) according to info quoted in a book i read by Jared Diamond.
> 
> 2. It has been postulated ... about 8000 yrs ago, leading to widespread great flooding mythology, such as Noahs Ark... etc.
> ...
> ...



awg
1. Here's the graph of global temp - with the simple addition at the end of what would happen if the IPCC could talk us into restricting temp increase by 2100 to 2 degC.   (There are other scenarios where we stuff around like old women and do buga all - and then the temp increase could be 3 or even 6 degC increase).   You'll see that there is nothing like what weve had in the last 10K years - and incidentally, many say it is hotter now (albeit in a state of change and not fully realised yet - a "paper debt" at this stage) - than it has been for a million years) - AND THAT'S TODAY ! - BEFORE THOSE (HYPOTHETICAL) INCREASES AT THE END OF THE GRAPH. 

2. mmm lol - Noah's ArK? lol 

3, 4, 5, agreed

6. _ lol - so you think that millions of environmental refugees won't impinge on you provided you (and your grandkids) like on a hill 



			
				 2020 post #184 said:
			
		

> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646
> In fact, independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It *might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years*




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


----------



## wayneL (11 December 2008)

New Scientist -- LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Shills


----------



## wayneL (11 December 2008)

explod said:


> We have pussy footed around with recycled rubbish and a bit of tree planting for a long time now for little effect.  Is it not time to hit the big culprits like oil and coal between the eyes so that we start to make a real difference.  Then we can work our way down to all the other thinkg.
> 
> Lets knock off the biggest criminal first.




Yeah but no but yeah but no. Certainly reduce reliance on fossil fuels because of:

* Other nasty pollutants that are intrinsic with them. (sulfur, non-co2 carbon particles etc)
* Finite supply
* Energy security issues
etc

But once again, the pure co2 factor in CC is a non-issue.


----------



## basilio (11 December 2008)

> But once again, the pure co2 factor in CC is a non-issue.




Is as simple as that Wayne isn't it? Simply deny that CO2  is a major factor in climate change. It appears that the basis of your whole view on the wrongness of the vast majority of climate scientists conclusion is a simple assertion.

*Trouble is your assertion is simply and demonstrably wrong*. Simple science experiments in school demonstrate the capacity of extra CO2 to capture warmth. 

Scientists for at least 150 years have understood how CO2 is responsible for warming the atmosphere. Of course there are other factors involved in climate change on earth and we can see their effects over time. *But the critical issue facing us is that we have  injected a huge extra amount of CO2 into the atmosphere in the last 200 years and that this is rapidly warming the planet. * Full stop. End of earth as we know it.

For those who would like to see a simple experiment which demonstrates the warming effect of CO2 check out

http://www.rsc.org/education/teachers/learnnet/JESEI/co2green/home.htm

There is a particularly excellent history study on the evolving knowledge of scientists on CO2. It's an interesting and pretty easy read. (But it is long. )



> *The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect*
> 
> In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future




http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> New Scientist -- LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL
> 
> Shills




such a load of bs there wayne


----------



## basilio (11 December 2008)

I was just reading that quite long chapter on how scientists came to understand how CO2 warms the atmosphere. 

It is really very interesting. The writer is a physicist who also studies historical science. For most members of the forum who don't have an extensive  science background (and that includes me), I think you will find it fascinating to see the dead ends, errors and so on that have been part of the understanding we have now.

And it disappoints me that on an issue that will decide whether we live or die as a species our public discussion can be based on errors of fact and easily rectified misunderstandings.

Cheers


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 December 2008)

basilio said:


> For those who would like to see a simple experiment which demonstrates the warming effect of CO2 check out
> 
> http://www.rsc.org/education/teachers/learnnet/JESEI/co2green/home.htm




So CO2 is proven to heat up and hold heat longer than air.Fact.

Imagine trying to reverse the effect once (now?) it started, the whole (sane) earth population would band together to correct the imbalance.Ahh yes, the final frontier.Maybe peace and harmony among all (sane) humans for the first time ever with agreement on something bigger than our ego`s.

After all, take away the ego-self and we have a balanced functional productive individual of utmost benefit to the tribe.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 December 2008)

basilio said:


> And it disappoints me that on an issue that will decide whether we live or die as a species our public discussion can be based on errors of fact and easily rectified misunderstandings.:banghead



lol well said
"  "  indeed 

PS Wayne has already broken down 10 brick walls that way - 
but hopefully he hasn't damaged the bricks - and they'll be able to rebuild them after he's shuffled off - and we've come to serious terms with this problem


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 December 2008)

As discussed a few pages ago, here's an example of how a community could cut CO2 emissions by 20% (compared to 2008 levels) by 2020.

I'm focusing only on energy use here and not counting methane from cows etc. That's primarily due to difficulty getting the data etc.

My purpose here is to give an example of what would be required in a physical sense to achieve the target. It is not my intention to propose that these are the best or only means of reducing emissions. 

Also I'm assuming:

1. That the reduction must be permanent. That is, emissions don't jump up again in 2021 etc. 

2. That "business as usual" means 2% annual growth in overall energy demand and 4% overall economic growth (the difference between the two reflecting improving energy efficiency)

3. That the economically cheapest methods will be the ones used except where they are presently off-limits for some reason (eg dams in the wilderness). In that case, they will be used only if there is no realistic alternative.

4. Any supply side measures (eg wind farms) already built specifically to address the CO2 issue are assumed not to have been built under a "no action" scenario. That is, we've already taken some limited action to cut CO2 and I'm calculating this out of the figures.

So here's the scenario for Tasmania. I'll post some data for some other states later. All figures are approximate.

2008 (assuming average weather and without CO2 reduction measures already taken).

Energy from oil: 37 PJ (736,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from hydro: 37 PJ (2,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from coal: 15 PJ*  (380,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from wood: 8 PJ (assumed to be carbon neutral - trees replanted and use of waste wood)
Energy from gas: 5 PJ (72,000 tonnes carbon)
_TOTAL: 102 pj (1,190,000 tonnes carbon)_ 

*Includes 4 PJ burnt in other states due to Tas net electrcity imports. Rest is used locally for non-power generation purposes in industry.

2020 "no action" scenario:

Energy from oil: 47 PJ (935,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from hydro: 37 PJ (2,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from coal: 32 PJ* (813,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from wood: 6 PJ (assumed to be carbon neutral)
Energy from gas: 22 PJ** (317,000 tonnes carbon)
_TOTAL: 144 PJ (2,067,000 tonnes carbon)_

*Includes 21 PJ burnt in other states due to Tas net electricity imports.
**Includes 13 PJ burnt in Tas for electricity generation.

Comment: Total energy use rises from 102 PJ to 144 PJ, an increase of 41%, despite an increase in actual delivered energy of only 27%. This reflects the increasing reliance on fossil fuel power generation verus the present high reliance on (far more energy efficient) hydro-electric generation. That is, the difference is due to energy losses at thermal power stations.

Total carbon emissions from energy rise 74%, again reflecting the increasing reliance on coal and gas-fired power generation to meet all increased demand from a very low (historically zero) base for non-hydro generation.

To achieve a 20% reduction on 2008 levels would require that total emissions not exceed 952,000 tonnes of carbon from energy-related purposes.

As is apparent from the figures above, non-power generation sources in themselves exceed the emissions target in 2020. That thus leaves no option, in practice, other than to reduce non-electricity emissions to some extent whilst reducing electricity generation emissions close to zero (given the greater difficulty of reducing non-electricity emissions)

Replacing all coal use (except at TEMCO where there is no alternative) and some oil use (virtually all heavy vehicles) with natural gas would see the situation alter as follows for non-electricity fuel use::

Energy from oil: 35 PJ (697,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from coal: 1 PJ (25,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from gas: 31 PJ (446,000 tonnes carbon)
TOTAL: 1,168,000 tonnes carbon - an 2% reduction on 2008 levels.

It is thus clear that fuel switching between fossil fuels, the "easy" option, can not in itself achieve the emissions targets. There is thus a need for far greater reliance on renewables (in practice electricity).

Switching boiler fuel uses to electricity and retaining the use of gas in heavy transport results in the following outcome:

Energy from oil: 35 PJ (697,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from coal: 1 PJ (25,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from gas: 12 PJ (173,000 tonnes carbon)
TOTAL: 895,000 tonnes carbon from non-electricity energy uses, 25% below total energy emissions in 2008 thus leaving modest room for electricity-related emissions.

So technically, it is possible to achieve the 20% emissions reduction target without major disruption. But the only realistic way to do it is for a major increase in the use of the state's renewable energy resources.

Now, the question that would dominate Tasmanian politics in a rather massive way if this were actually to happen. What needs to be built to get that renewable electricity and achieve the 20% overall emissions cut?

We will still be able to use 4PJ of gas for power generation in order to meet the 20% energy-related emissions reduction exactly. That leaves the overall situation as follows:

Energy from oil: 35 PJ
Energy from existing hydro: 37 PJ
Energy from coal: 1 PJ
Energy from existing wood uses (primarily home heating): 6 PJ
Energy from gas: 16PJ
Energy from new renewables: 26 PJ 

So, how to get the electricity?

Wind: Woolnorth (already built due to the CO2 issue), Musselroe, Heemskirk, Robbins Island and another 6 presently unidentified large wind farms. That will push wind to its realistic limit within existing hydro system capacity.

Hydro: Existing plant efficiency upgrades (already done due to the CO2 issue) plus one of the following options:

19 new schemes, none of which is particularly large and one of which is (just) inside a protected area.

OR

3 new dams, which combined would flood virtually the entire length of the Franklin River rather than just the lower third that was the subject of intense debate a quarter century ago.

OR

Burn approximately 4 million tonnes (green weight) of wood per annum as fuel.

In conclusion, yes we can achieve the 20% reduction in energy-related carbon emissions BUT:

1. It requires enormous capital ($ billions) to build the alternatives. Availability of such capital is highly doubtful.

2. It will have a very significant non-CO2 impact on the environment.

3. Politically it would incredibly difficult. Anything involving the Franklin is certain to spark protests across the nation and perhaps even internationally. Likewise anything involving the burning of 4 million tonnes of wood (though ironically it was environmental campaigners who first proposed this). 19 small dams would be possible, if only due to the impracticality of blockading 19 sites at the same time, but actually building that many schemes in little more than a decade is itself problematic given their geographically dispersed nature. 

As I said, this isn't meant to be in any way perfect. I'm simply trying to illustrate that there's a lot more to it than changing a few bulbs and catching the bus to work. The only reason for choosing Tasmania is having the data at hand - but the principle that it's not going to be easy applies everywhere.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (12 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Pleased to see you agree with the principles of Carbon Trading, Snake - credits for leaving carbon standing vertical for instance.




Thank you for being polite to me 2020. 

I believe that forests should not be cleared but selectively logged as it happens in NSW. Young forest is good forest.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (12 December 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> So CO2 is proven to heat up and hold heat longer than air.Fact.
> 
> Imagine trying to reverse the effect once (now?) it started, the whole (sane) earth population would band together to correct the imbalance.Ahh yes, the final frontier.Maybe peace and harmony among all (sane) humans for the first time ever with agreement on something bigger than our ego`s.
> 
> After all, take away the ego-self and we have a balanced functional productive individual of utmost benefit to the tribe.




Dribble.:freak3:


----------



## wayneL (12 December 2008)

I look forward to the day when the debate is dominated by science rather than ego, self interest and politics. If/when that day comes, which may take some decades (when folks catch on that the climate cycle has turned and that the beach is still in the same place), the debate may finally turn sensible.

I understand the concern, and the CC debate is one that we should be having; but it should be open to all science and not cherry picked for some hidden agenda. 

Until then, we'll have people like 2020 playing kindergarten games instead of proper discussion.

Fortunately, a growing number of scientists have the balls and integrity to speak out against their own self interest and in the interests of science and truth. Godspeed to them. Let's listen to both cases and not have 2020esque closed minded puerility.


----------



## wayneL (12 December 2008)

basilio said:


> Is as simple as that Wayne isn't it? Simply deny that CO2  is a major factor in climate change. It appears that the basis of your whole view on the wrongness of the vast majority of climate scientists conclusion is a simple assertion.
> 
> *Trouble is your assertion is simply and demonstrably wrong*. Simple science experiments in school demonstrate the capacity of extra CO2 to capture warmth.
> 
> ...



Is this a joke? This is so typical of the totally crap science being used to push the AGW agenda.

In what way does the experiment duplicate the conditions present in the earth's atmosphere? It absolutely does not. CO2 in the atmosphere does not constitute anywhere even remotely close to that used in the "experiment".

As such, to use that as some sort of affirmation of mane made global warming is naive, stupid and dangerous. Look! Let's put a bunch of Hydrogen in an inverted beaker and strike a match... yep, it blows your fingers off. Strike a match in an atmosphere with 0.04% H and.......... nothing happens.

Please, let's get real children.   x 100


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 December 2008)

Trouble is Wayne, you're not a sceptic - you're in De Nile.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 December 2008)

And even if a fair judge came down 50-50 for and against (purely hypothetical since they invariably rule in favour of the action crowd instead of the inaction crowd)  - he would still act because of 
a) the consequences of getting this wrong, and 
b) because of all the other benefits - those ones that you also agree are essential and urgent


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Dribble.:freak3:



Well I would say "dribble" is better decribed as the stuff that Michael Crichton argues in that debate hosted by "Intelligence Squared" - refer posts #215 - 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=369727&highlight=crichton#post369727

i.e. the best defence he can come up with against it is that , yes it's happening, but we should not be distracted from improving the conditions of the third world.  

Why not do both (as Sommerville points out in the last video) - in any case they are closely related - the third world, (and countries like Aus and around the Mediterranean) are the major benefactors.


----------



## wayneL (12 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Trouble is Wayne, you're not a sceptic - you're in De Nile.



Hardly.

Let me know when you've emotionally progressed past pre-school level, and when you intellectually capable of distinguishing between propaganda and science. Then I would like to see some evidence of original thought.

As it is, it's just regurgitated and discredited nonsense, straight from "A Convenient Gravy Train". Kindergarten level again.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Is this a joke? This is so typical of the totally crap science being used to push the AGW agenda.
> 
> In what way does the experiment duplicate the conditions present in the earth's atmosphere? It absolutely does not.
> 
> ... As such, to use that as some sort of affirmation of mane made global warming is naive, stupid and dangerous.




All 6 participants in the intelligence squared debate agreed that CO2 causes warming Wayne.  

btw, I'll let other readers decide who around here is the worst offender in the ad hominem stakes.


----------



## basilio (12 December 2008)

Wayne the evidence for how science has come to the conclusion that CO2 increases air temperature even at very small levels is in the other reference in my earlier post. The classroom experiment is just proof of concept. The decades of scientific research outlined in the other link proves the facts on the ground.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Nice work Smurf on offering a model to decrease CO2 emissions. As you clearly state it is not necessarily the best or only way.

Because the situation has become so desperate,  practical discussion now revolves around ways of actively removing CO2 and storing it safely. Because we also have many other pressing problems solutions need to be clever and address more than one issue. We just don't have the resources or time to try and solve each problem in isolation.

A couple of  promising suggestions are

1) *The widespread production of char by burning organic material in incomplete combustion and burying the result in the ground*. In theory one could plant huge areas of land with fast growing plants, capture the carbon in the char and store it permanently in the soil. The exceptionally good side benefit is boosting the productivity of the soil and therefore its growing capacity

2) *Widespread  development of organic local farming programs.* Again intensive organic farming (possibly using char from above) will result in large increases in the amount of carbon stored in the soil. This strategy will also save huge amounts of CO2  by


Reducing the need for largescale conventional farming which has very high inputs of fossil fuels ( planting, harvesting, transport, fertiliser )
Improving the health of the population through better foods, more activity and hopefully more community interaction
Assist poorer third world countries feed themselves
Overall reduce the demand for fossil fuels

Interestingly enough the best example of putting into practice the  change to organic farming model has been Cuba. In the early 90's Cuba almost collapsed when the USSR stopped providing cheap oil and buying their sugar. Cuba* had *to go cold turkey fast. 

Cheers

References below
_________________________________________________________

*Carbon: The Biochar Solution*


> Lisa Abend, TIME Magazine
> ... Burn almost any kind of organic material ”” corn husks, hazelnut shells, bamboo and, yes, even chicken manure ”” in an oxygen-depleted process called pyrolysis, and you generate gases and heat that can be used as energy. What remains is a solid ”” biochar ”” that sequesters carbon, keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere. In principle, at least, you create energy in a way that is not just carbon neutral, but carbon negative.
> 
> And the benefits only begin there. When added to thin and acidic soil of the kind found in much of South America and Africa, char
> ...




http://www.energybulletin.net/node/47415

*Cuba-A Hope*
by Dale Allen Pfeiffer


> .....Into this mix, we find that "Cuba has disproved the myth that organic agriculture cannot support a modern nation." And in terms of locally privatized agriculture we find a pure form of capitalism advocated by Catherine Austin Fitts (www.solari.com) that centers around neighborhood ownership, place-based financing and decentralized control. Further, the Cuban data shows that privately owned co-op farms are outproducing state-owned ventures. "The CCSs, made up of small, independent farmers, have outperformed the CPAs, the UBPC cooperatives and the state farms."
> ...




http://www.energybulletin.net/node/1342

Glomalin: Hiding Place for a Third of the World's Stored Soil Carbon[/B]


> A sticky protein seems to be the unsung hero of soil carbon storage.
> 
> Until its discovery in 1996 by ARS soil scientist Sara F. Wright, this soil "super glue" was mistaken for an unidentifiable constituent of soil organic matter. Rather, it permeates organic matter, binding it to silt, sand, and clay particles. Not only does glomalin contain 30 to 40 percent carbon, but it also forms clumps of soil granules called aggregates. These add structure to soil and keep other stored soil carbon from escaping
> 
> ...Glomalin is causing a complete reexamination of what makes up soil organic matter. It is increasingly being included in studies of carbon storage and soil quality. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy, as part of its interest in carbon storage as an offset to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, partially funded a recent study by lab technician Kristine A. Nichols, a colleague of Wright's.




http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/sep02/soil0902.htm


----------



## basilio (12 December 2008)

Came across a far more accessible story which demonstrates how important farming techniques can be in capturing carbon in the soil

*Soil Plays Important Role In Earth's Health*




> Talk of the Nation, July 11, 2008 · Soil may be good for growing things in; it's also an important player in climate change. Well-nourished soil can help in carbon sequestration, removing carbon dioxide from the air, while depleted soil doesn't have the same carbon-grabbing potential.




http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92455289


----------



## explod (12 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> And the biggest criminal is... Constant Growth!
> 
> Yep, let's move to an economic model where the entire concept of "economic growth" is something only found in history books. Ultimately, if we maintain even 0.1% annual growth then we'll eventually consume the entire planet.
> 
> ...




Had to revisit your great post from yesterday Smurf.  Printed it off and mulled it over coffee this morning.

Vegie patches, some windmills and riding push bikes by .005% of our planets content is going to do ziltch.

Karl Marx, socialism, they screwed it into communism.

I was taught once that a new mindset can take place if you can motivate 10% of a group into action.   And lets think on that, government keep the sheeple happy with sport(Grand Prix, what a symbol) TV, gambling whilst most flat out working to survive, some working on getting the baby bonus, another percentage are too old and then there are those at school.  Then we ask what does guvmint represent, us, money err maybe thereself.

As you say Smurf, economic growth.   Could the economic meltdown be anough for us to become equal, take a big drop in living standard, one child per couple and live without money.

You may have hit the bottom line Pal, any other suggestions to the first step.

cheers explod


----------



## wayneL (12 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> All 6 participants in the intelligence squared debate agreed that CO2 causes warming Wayne.



Once again, 650 participants of the conference in Poland disagreed, were skeptical, or believe that anthropomorphic effects are grossly overstated.



> btw, I'll let other readers decide who around here is the worst offender in the ad hominem stakes.



Fine, just drag yourself from kindergarten level of ad hominem so that your argument will at least have the appearance of considered and open debate. Then I won't have to keep pointing it out.


----------



## wayneL (12 December 2008)

Rare snow in Louisiana http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jwhzTlgiwD8UzoTqAITfOIsD8s0AD950LVGO0

The US Senate Minority Report on the 650 (gasp) dissenters http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=37283205-c4eb-4523-b1d3-c6e8faf14e84 (PDF)

Comment on ad hominem attacks of the above http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDc2MmEwNWUwYmY5Yjg0ZTgzN2E5ZmUwY2Q3MWYzMzg=


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Comment on ad hominem attacks of the above http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDc2MmEwNWUwYmY5Yjg0ZTgzN2E5ZmUwY2Q3MWYzMzg=




OK Wayne - This is what your linked website thinks of your (past?)  hero David Suzuki (totally ethical I believe you said - or something similar - walks the walk etc) ...

Seems your opinion of Suzuki has turned 180 degrees in a little over a year.  



> Adding to the conflicts, Hoggan is also chair of the board of directors for the David Suzuki Foundation, *a radical environmental activist group run by a man who ”” ironically ”” calls for climate skeptics to join Lefebvre in jail. This spin machine is aimed at discrediting skeptics*.






> Says Mr. Suzuki: ‘The skeptics are a small group known for their support of corporations like the fossil fuel industry. In fact, many are receiving money directly from the industry.’”
> 
> So, one’s supporters dictate one’s opinions. Funny, I was thinking the same thing.
> 
> *Corcoran describes Suzuki’s and Hoggan’s “slanderous campaign” as designed “to portray all who raise doubts about climate change theory ”” so-called skeptics ”” as pawns of corporate PR thugs manipulating opinion*




As I've said a few times, I really like Suzuki's proposal that politicians should be held legally responsible if they ignore the evidence and get this wrong.   And that obviously goes even if every "t" is not dotted, and every "i" is not crossed, (at this particular point in time)


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 December 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/09/2441232.htm



> *It's the climate, stupid*
> By Amanda McKenzie
> Posted Tue Dec 9, 2008 9:30am AEDT
> 
> ...






> According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a grouping of over 2,000 of the world's best climate scientists, 550 ppm gives us an almost certain chance of warming the planet by 2 degrees. *While 2 degrees doesn't sound like much, it is widely agreed to be a dangerous threshold that should not be crossed.* Two degrees may trigger "runaway climate change", that is, where natural systems start releasing greenhouse gases in such quantities that temperatures rise 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 degrees, leaving much of the planet uninhabitable.
> 
> These substantial risks put the current discussion of economic impacts into perspective. While an emission reduction target of 5 to 15 per cent may be politically "realistic" and economically convenient today, it will result in a significantly changed climate with substantial economic, environmental and societal consequences in the future. *This certainly does not represent a prudent approach to managing risks to Australia's key assets or future prosperity*.






> *Amanda McKenzie completed her honours thesis in climate law at Monash University in 2007 and is co-director of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, *a coalition of 25 youth organisations across Australia. She is currently attending the United Nations climate change conference in PoznaÃ±, Poland.


----------



## wayneL (12 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> OK Wayne - This is what your linked website thinks of your (past?)  hero David Suzuki (totally ethical I believe you said - or something similar - walks the walk etc) ...
> 
> Seems your opinion of Suzuki has turned 180 degrees in a little over a year.




Yes, I hadn't realized at the time, that he'd sold out and compromised his ethics. My bad.

But that is part of evidential and indeed scientific process; evidence changes the hypothesized result, the correct and intellectual response being to modify views and even perhaps the whole hypothesis, as such evidence comes to light. I'm happy with that process and happy to be able to change my mind on things.

However this is something that many scientists have forgotten and what self interested beaurocrats(?) actively discourage. Gratifyingly, there are still many who hold to the scientific process, as the 650 scientific dissenters show.

If evidence for AGW becomes conclusive, I'm happy to change my mind on that too. At the moment however, the best and latest data points in the opposite direction.



> As I've said a few times, I really like Suzuki's proposal that politicians should be held legally responsible if they ignore the evidence and get this wrong.   And that obviously goes even if every "t" is not dotted, and every "i" is not crossed, (at this particular point in time)



Of course, it would be contingent upon politicians to examine ALL evidence, not just that presented by compromised climate pessimists. 

The incontrovertible fact of the matter, is that the climate change hypothesis is very much in dispute and is in fact collapsing before our very eyes as the latest data comes in.


----------



## wayneL (13 December 2008)

...and you all thought I was BSing about how cold it is atm.



> Britain shivers through coldest start to winter for 30 years as bookies slash odds on white Christmas
> By DAVID DERBYSHIRE
> Last updated at 2:57 PM on 12th December 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## chops_a_must (13 December 2008)

We have had an incredibly mild start to summer here.

The coldest and wettest I can remember in Perth Wayne.

The ocean water is also very warm for this time of year, so I think we are in for continued humid but cool weather for a while to come.

Haven't even had the fan on, let alone air con at all yet. I hope it stays like that.

Absolutely no easterlies either, which I'm finding rather odd...


----------



## prawn_86 (13 December 2008)

Obviously Adel gets a alot of its weather coming through from Perth so its been unseasonally cold here also.

At the moment its about 16 degrees and drizzle, in summer! And as Chops mentioned, the winds here are also different. Normally we get northerlies off the desert this time of year, but we have only had about 2 days of that so far....

strange times. No wonder all the propaganda has been changed to 'climate change' instead of GW, now they can say "see the climate is changing!" when really its always been changing


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2008)

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml
"Climate" Stations in Aus :-
BOM = bureau opf meteorology = yet another pack of losers 



> The Australian Reference Climate Station (RCS) network has been established for high quality, long-term climate monitoring, particularly with regard to climate change analysis. The establishment of the network followed a request by the World Meteorological Organization to all of its member nations in 1990


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2008)

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/g_trendmaps.cgi



			
				prawn said:
			
		

> now they can say "see the climate is changing!" when really its always been changing



yep, lol - the rate of increase per decade keeps changing 

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/...riable=dtr&region=aus&season=0112&period=1950


----------



## basilio (13 December 2008)

The big news on the web is the "650 dissident scientists" who are skeptical about global warming.  And I agree that if there were 650 such qualified people who had serious reservations  perhaps there is something to talk about.

But this just part of the fear, uncertainty ,doubt picture which is coming from a core of  ruthlessly self interested industries who stand to lose much money and influence when we have to address climate change properly.

In my looking around I came across a very detailed post by another blogger when opened up the duplicity and stupidity of this  so called army of dissenters. I checked out the references and am happy to support the argument.

And by the way did people notice that meteorologists did state that this year was a La Nina year which meant we were going to have unusually colder and wetter conditions ? Not necessarily next year or the year after. Just this year.
 _____________________________________________________________



> First of all, I'm sure all you GW 'skeptics' know that a list of names is nothing but an argument from authority. At first glance, this sounds impressive. Over six hundred names of scientists who reject GW. But let's put that in perspective. The American Geophysical Union has close to 50,000 scientists. How many are on the list? Zero. So who are the scientists on Inhofe's list? Most are not even scientists. Look at the names. There are many economists, computer scientists, engineers, and so forth. Many of those who do have a PhD don't even have one in the field of climate science. For example, one name on the list is James A. Peden. Is he an internationally renowned climate scientist, bravely going against the alleged consensus and the evil schemes of Al Gore? No, he is a web designer. Others are similar in nature, such as local TV weatherman Steve Baskerville. The bar for scientists must be set pretty low to have these guys on the list.
> 
> http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/2...7-andy-revkin/
> 
> ...



__________________


----------



## prawn_86 (13 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> yep, lol - the rate of increase per decade keeps changing




Thats a flawed argument, the rate of increases and dereases of anything generally changes. How do you know the rate of increasing wasnt slowing 10000 years ago?

Its like when accelerating or slowing in a car, you migh gently slow down at first, then put more pressure on and slow at an increasing rate, then relax the pressure and slow more slowly.

Wow, thats confusing. Point is, rate of change is not relevant, as it too changes all the time


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2008)

> So what about James Inhofe, who runs this blog? Inhofe was a Bush political appointee with ties to the oil lobbyists.
> 
> On April 28, 2004, Inhofe was honored for his "work in promoting science-based public policy" [4] by the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, a think tank that disputes the scientific consensus on the causes and magnitude of global warming. (*The think tank has received $658,575 from ExxonMobil since 1998).*
> 
> ...



Top post bas lol, 
 or as Wayne would say 

LOLLLOOLLLLLLOOOLLOOLLL argh LOLLLOLLL


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Thats a flawed argument, the rate of increases and dereases of anything generally changes. How do you know the rate of increasing wasnt slowing 10000 years ago?
> 
> Its like when accelerating or slowing in a car, you migh gently slow down at first, then put more pressure on and slow at an increasing rate, then relax the pressure and slow more slowly.
> 
> Wow, thats confusing. Point is, rate of change is not relevant, as it too changes all the time



not sure what your point is prawn, but this is what's happened over the last 1000 and 2000 years, and this is what will happen if it gets 2 degC hotter. (one of the most optimistic of the IPCC scenarios)


----------



## Calliope (13 December 2008)

basilio said:


> But this just part of the fear, uncertainty ,doubt picture which is coming from a core of  ruthlessly self interested industries who stand to lose much money and influence when we have to address climate change properly




Back  to reality:

Pat Howes, AWU National Secretary.



> My members and their wives, husbands and children are getting pretty tired of being told their jobs are dirty and polluting, particularly by bankers relentlessly pocketing their money and frittering away superannuation.




News item on Mr Rudd's railway's infrastructure boost.



> All regions will benefit but $580 million will be spent on rail projects in the Hunter Valley in NSW aimed at doubling the coal-handling capacity of the Newcastle port.




The Weekend Australian editorial,



> Mr Rudd is acutely aware of the mood in the suburbs, where voters would take a dim view of any government that pushed deep-green policies at the expense of jobs or prosperity. We confidently predict therefore that the emissions target the government will announce on Monday will not be deep enough to mollify the tree-hugging Left.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 December 2008)

basilio said:


> And by the way did people notice that meteorologists did state that this year was a La Nina year which meant we were going to have unusually colder and wetter conditions ? Not necessarily next year or the year after. Just this year.



Indeed. But why do proponents of climate change not point out that we've had a few El Niño's in recent years which would be expected to give us hotter and drier weather? They were outright wrong to link the drought to CO2 when we already have another reasonably well understood explanation for it that has nothing to do with CO2.

It's like saying a road is unsafe because there have been 5 fatal crashes there in the past 10 years. But then you find out that every single one of those crashes involved a driver at least 3 times over the legal alcohol limit and driving atleast double the legal speed limit. It would be playing games to blame the design of the road for the accidents, call in a consultant to examine it and so on when there's a rather obvious explanation for the crashes which can't be blamed on the road. Same situation with many of the things attributed to climate change.


----------



## chops_a_must (13 December 2008)

Notice the areas that have become hotter, have mainly experienced much development in this time period... especially the Ord:


----------



## basilio (13 December 2008)

> Indeed. But why do proponents of climate change not point out that we've had a few El Niño's in recent years which would be expected to give us hotter and drier weather? They were outright wrong to link the drought to CO2 when we already have another reasonably well understood explanation for it that has nothing to do with CO2.




Good point to bring up Smurf. El Niño has been recognised as part of ongoing climate anomalies. Climate scientists however are analyzing how the impact of CO2 warming is amplifying El Niño effects and perhaps increasing the number of El Niño events overall. There is a connection.


El Niño, Global Warming, and Anomalous U.S. Winter Warmth


> Jan 2007
> If a particular seasonal anomaly appears to be related to El Niño, can we conclude that climate change played no role at all? Obviously not. It is possible, in fact probable, that climate change is actually influencing El Niño (e.g. favoring more frequent and larger El Niño events), although just how much is still very much an issue of active scientific debate. One of the key remaining puzzles in the science of climate change therefore involves figuring out just how El Niño itself might change in the future, a topic we're certain to discuss here again in the future.




http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...o-global-warming-and-anomalous-winter-warmth/


----------



## wayneL (13 December 2008)

basilio said:


> The big news on the web is the "650 dissident scientists" who are skeptical about global warming.  And I agree that if there were 650 such qualified people who had serious reservations  perhaps there is something to talk about.
> 
> But this just part of the fear, uncertainty ,doubt picture which is coming from a core of  ruthlessly self interested industries who stand to lose much money and influence when we have to address climate change properly.
> 
> In my looking around I came across a very detailed post by another blogger when opened up the duplicity and stupidity of this  so called army of dissenters. I checked out the references and am happy to support the argument.



You'll have to add more detail to carry any weight bas. Just saying you support the argument, says nothing. Some of the dissenters, I agree, have dubious climate qualifications, but many are imminently qualified and credible.

But the whole premise of that bloggers post, and your point, actually sticks on both sides of the argument. Many climate pessimists aren't climate scientists either, or aren't scientists at all.

e.g. David Suzuki is a zoologist, not a climate scientist. Al Bore is a politician and lobbyist and proven exaggerater in the US High Court, not a scientist.

Therefore, it is still "case open"; the science is nowhere near settled as is represented by the pro warmers.

The science continues to pour in and be pored over... and is still way inconclusive. Sorry about that.


----------



## explod (13 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> You'll have to add more detail to carry any weight bas. Just saying you support the argument, says nothing. Some of the dissenters, I agree, have dubious climate qualifications, but many are imminently qualified and credible.
> 
> But the whole premise of that bloggers post, and your point, actually sticks on both sides of the argument. Many climate pessimists aren't climate scientists either, or aren't scientists at all.
> 
> ...




I know a bloke that at 30years was just a plumber.  He then went to school and ended up with a PHd. major sociology, if you did not like what he said I suppose you would go back and call him a plumber.    We can all learn new things and understand facts.

Many of the scientist calling the worst scenarios 10 years ago now look to be conservative.  What has happened seems to be worse in my view than anyone predicted.  I may be wrong, but maybe right so owe it to my granchildren to err on the side of seeeing if I can be part of a change that may help.


----------



## Sean K (13 December 2008)

Seems to be a significant shift occurring in the argument to me.


Initially, it was scientists stating claim of global warming through carbon emissions.

Then, a rock star thought it was a way to be a good person, and maybe sell more records, because the computer had decimated sales. 

And his fans followed, who may be voters. 

Oooo, what a way to catch votes, thought a politician.

Then, politicians jumped on, and more voters followed.

Then, the weight of numbers of lay people meant that other politicians had to jump on. 

And, politicians needed the lay people's opinion to suit their political agenda.

The politicians fed the GW fire with money, and television, and movies.

Then, there were studies done by more scientists.

And then there were chinks.

And the numbers didn't add up. 

Then, the number of scientists studying GW expanded exponentially.

Then, the results started to flow, and GW was not all it seemed.

TBC


----------



## chops_a_must (13 December 2008)

"Hello hello, yeah yeah yeah Bono" would most likely turn people off supporting GW measures as he is such a turd.


----------



## wayneL (13 December 2008)

explod said:


> Many of the scientist calling the worst scenarios 10 years ago now look to be conservative.What has happened seems to be worse in my view than anyone predicted.



Eh?

Where are all these worse happenings. Look! The warmers assign anything on the edges of the distribution curve as being cause by co2. But the reality is that there has always been weather events on the edges of the curve. Weather distributions are leptokurtic and always have been.



> I may be wrong, but maybe right so owe it to my granchildren to err on the side of seeeing if I can be part of a change that may help.




You are missing my point. Kyoto, or any incarnation of it henceforth will do absolutely nothing about co2 levels. To think that a political organisation like the IPCC or any government can make a difference is laughable. As Smurf has pointed out, using low energy lightbulbs and driving a stupid Prius is like pissing into the ocean. IT WON'T DO ANYTHING.

The biggest loudmouths about AGW are doing even less, epitomized by the Gore charlatan. It is a cash cow and a notoriety vehicle from them and nothing more; we see that from their actions.

Even worse, to repeat myself ad nauseum, focus exclusively on co2 diverts attention from real issues. 

I guarantee you that folks who focus on general pollution without focusing on co2, are doing more than you, basililio, or 20bloody20 will ever do, with the side effect that their co2 emissions are lower. There are just so many people out there, like 2020 and Al Bore, who crap on about co2 and carry on with there own large carbon footprint lives as per normal. How many tonnes of carbon were released by 10,000 delegates to fly to Poland to release yet more hot air?

These are the villains you should be addressing and kicking in the @rse; those who think they know, yet do nothing. They are like clergy who preach the ten commandments by day and go out raping and pillaging by night.

I repeat, if you love your grandchildren, forget about co2, worry about resource consumption and overall pollution.

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.


----------



## explod (13 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Eh?
> 
> Where are all these worse happenings. Look! The warmers assign anything on the edges of the distribution curve as being cause by co2. But the reality is that there has always been weather events on the edges of the curve. Weather distributions are leptokurtic and always have been.
> 
> ...




Of course, what are we arguing about, said similar in a post a few days ago.  And add overpopulation.   Dont' even understand chemistry or co2

And when everyone is broke/or money is worthless in a year or two it will be easy.  We will all try to get back to our Great Great Grandfathers farm.   Oops its an air strip.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2008)

prawn] now they can say "see the climate is changing!" when really its always been changing [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=2020hindsight]yep said:


> Thats a flawed argument, the rate of increases and dereases of anything generally changes
> ....
> Point is, rate of change is not relevant, as it too changes all the time




PS Prawn,

My point was that lately it's always an increase - and if the only thing left to contest is the rate of increase, then we're losing the battle yes?

Here's the graph (from NASA) with temps at 10 yearly intervals.  The blue lines represent a decrease over the previous decade; the red ones an increase.  Here's why there are a couple of blues around 1940-60's (i.e when they started to clean up sulphate pollution) :-



> http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-real-global-warming-swindle-440116.html
> The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention




And btw, rate of increase is extremely relevant, surely.  That's why it's urgent XXX  superurgent we start to turn this Titanic around before we hit the flaming iceberg.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2008)

And the spike 1998 was a bad El Niño year.
You cannot argue - as Andrew Bolt and co try to do - that it's been cooling since 1998.  
Wait till the next El Niño.


----------



## rederob (13 December 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Wow, thats confusing. Point is, rate of change is not relevant, as it too changes all the time



The rate of change is most relevant.
Climate change is inevitable, and moves from ice ages to warmer cycles and back again are likely without human interference.
Climate scientists can argue the toss about if it was warmer or colder 10 years or 20 years ago, but they can't dispute the quantum and rate of emission of greenhouse gases at present.
Disbelievers will need to show that greenhouse gases will, in the foreseeable future, cool our climate.
There is no science that supports this.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> And the spike 1998 was a bad El Niño year.
> You cannot argue - as Andrew Bolt and co try to do - that it's been cooling since 1998.
> Wait till the next El Niño.



That graph shows, roughly, a rate of warming since around 1980 that is about the same as the rate of warming 1910 - 1940. Given that the rate of CO2 emissions now is much greater than during the period 1910 - 1940, it is apparent that there are factors other than CO2 which are influencing this warming.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 December 2008)

Smurf will soon do a few more calculations on my scenario of how to implement actual reductions in CO2 emissions. I'm proposing the following, comments welcome. 

1. Extend the Tasmania scenario to a 30% cut by 2030.

2. Repeat the same exercise for Victoria - 20% by 2020 and 30% by 2030.

3. Do the same exercise for both states with zero GDP growth over the entire period.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> That graph shows, roughly, a rate of warming since around 1980 that is about the same as the rate of warming 1910 - 1940. Given that the rate of CO2 emissions now is much greater than during the period 1910 - 1940, it is apparent that there are factors other than CO2 which are influencing this warming.




Sorry, Don't think I can necessarily agree with your logic there Smurf. 

In any case CO2 is not the only factor, there are half a dozen. But CO2 is one of the main ones we can control  (reflectivity etc) 

ANd in any case - CO2 is going up, and so is temp  Are you suggesting that's a coincidence?

(The hockey stick is terrifying, even after a recalculation - second draft if you wish - hence I've dropped about 0.1 deg from that extrapolation). 

Attitudes in some of these posts remind me of Ayn Rand.  viz:-



> ... a quote by Ayn Rand (US novelist - ironically she wrote "Atlas Shrugged"  )
> 
> Ayn Rand ........Here's what she said about pollution:- back in the 60's granted - but we are reaping the rewards today ...
> 
> ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Sorry, Don't think I can necessarily agree with your logic there Smurf.



I'm simply looking at the "Getting Warmer" chart YOU posted. The "Global Temperature Change" chart shows essentially the same thing. 

It shows warming of about 0.5 degrees between 1910 and 1940 followed by a sudden cooling of about 0.2. Then there's a jump in the late 1970's of about 0.2, back to about 1940 levels, followed by a warming of 0.5 over the following 30 years. 

Two obvious points from these charts:

1. There is a warming trend.

2. Warming over the period 1910 - 1940 and 1978 - 2008 occurred at about the same rate of 0.5 to 0.6 over a 30 year period or 0.02 degrees per annum.

Not shown on the chart is that CO2 emissions during the period 1978 - 2008 were far higher than during the period 1910 - 1940 and yet the extent of warming was almost identical. That very strongly suggests that there are factors other than CO2 at work here. 

What caused the 1910 - 1940 warming? If it was CO2 then why have we not seen far greater warming since given the huge increase in CO2 emissions?

If it was not due to CO2 then what, if any, evidence do we have that the cause of the 1910 - 1940 warming has not again caused warming since the late 1970's?

I note an approximately 30 year cycle seems to exist at least during the 20th Century. It could be argued that the 1940's - 1970's period should have cooled more than it did but CO2 emissions worked to keep temperatures higher. But if that is the case, then you would logically expect the rate of warming since the late 1970's to have exceeded that during the 1910 - 1940 period which it clearly hasn't. 

CO2 may well have an influence, but we certainly aren't seeing anything resembling a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature during the 20th Century. The effect would seem to have diminished over time - more and more CO2 is pumped out but the rate of warming is the same as it was 70 years earlier with far lower CO2 emissions. That is what the charts show. Why I don't claim to know.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Two obvious points from these charts:
> 
> 1. There is a warming trend.
> 
> ...




The hockey stick has gone mad since then, but moving on ... 

You answer this yourself surely. (below)
Who says it is a linear relationship?  
And who says it is instantaneous? 
....



> CO2 may well have an influence, but we certainly aren't seeing anything resembling a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature during the 20th Century. The effect would seem to have diminished over time - more and more CO2 is pumped out but the rate of warming is the same as it was 70 years earlier with far lower CO2 emissions. That is what the charts show. Why I don't claim to know.




Found this excerpt from IPCC report.  (GHG's since 1970). 
Actually I was looking for a New Scientist article where they pointed out that CO2 and temperature can be mutually dependent.   And that starts to make for a pretty complicated relationship. 

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PRA1-PA103,M1

And, you're right, it still comes back to the big challenge(s) - to try to improve the efficiency of energy, reduce energy per capita, as well as the number of those capitas. - While at the same time those capitas want more capital each.    Hence I also add this extract from that report which amounts to a mission statement.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 December 2008)

Here's what a sensible scientist would propose as the way forward (wean ourselves off coal) - albeit it will never happen to his proposed plan obviously - we're struggling to even admit there's a problem , let alone act. :-

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/back-to-1988-on-co2-says-nasas-hansen/?apage=2

And so what do we do?  in NSW anyways... 
lol
we announce that we're gonna spend a fortune upgrading our ability to dig up more coal


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 December 2008)

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/causes_co2.htm



> Are the changes in CO2 concentration causing changes in temperature or is it the other way around? It’s both


----------



## wayneL (15 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm simply looking at the "Getting Warmer" chart YOU posted. The "Global Temperature Change" chart shows essentially the same thing.
> 
> It shows warming of about 0.5 degrees between 1910 and 1940 followed by a sudden cooling of about 0.2. Then there's a jump in the late 1970's of about 0.2, back to about 1940 levels, followed by a warming of 0.5 over the following 30 years.
> 
> ...



^^^^^^^ An Inconvenient Truth ^^^^^^^


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 December 2008)

spooly74 said:


> 1. CO2 in the atmosphere in 1900 ~ 280ppm
> CO2 in the atmosphere today ~380 ppm
> 
> IPCC pedict a forcing of 3 degrees per doubling of CO2. It was 3.5 degrees in the last IPCC report. What changed?
> ...




1. Certainly it's nonlinear as you say spooly. 
Certainly (as both you and Smurf say) it's getting hotter - and CO2 is increasing. 
If it's not exactly matching what you believe should be the instantaneous prediction, then I'd refer you to your second point - that it's extrememly complex ( including feedbacks etc)

2. The question becomes, should we be diverting scientific reseach funds from the health of our globe ...
to check what happens when particles collide in big underground rings. 

Which is the more important do you reckon?


----------



## basilio (15 December 2008)

*What is the worst thing that can happen regarding Climate Change?*

We have gone back and forth on the ins and outs of climate change. We have probably agreed that we can't be certain about what will happen. The clearest fact is that by continuing to debate the issue we end up doing nothing about it and facing whatever consequence occurs.

There is a particularly excellent argument on YOU Tube which doesn't try to convince anyone of the certainty of Climate Change but does show that the safest course is to act furiously as if the scientists are right. 

How does the argument go ? Put simply if climate change is crock of sxxx but we plough billions into renewable energy, changes in lifestyle , business upheaval ect the possible worst consequences could be a global depression, poverty and so on.

However if climate change is real and we don't take action then the consequences will be even more disastrous than simply a global depression. We are talking the full catastrophe. Sunk cities, destroyed landscapes, floods, droughts, total collapse.

The conversation doesn't attempt to prove or disprove the science behind global warming. It just  gives us a clear understanding of the choices we face and the consequences of action or inaction.

It is only 10 minutes long. Whatever your views on the science of the issue the logic of how to approach the situation is worth considering. I'd be interested to hear responses.

Cheers



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ


----------



## wayneL (15 December 2008)

basilio said:


> *What is the worst thing that can happen regarding Climate Change?*
> 
> We have gone back and forth on the ins and outs of climate change. We have probably agreed that we can't be certain about what will happen. The clearest fact is that by continuing to debate the issue we end up doing nothing about it and facing whatever consequence occurs.]




I don't agree. My point has always been to shift the debate sideways to real, demonstrable, measurable and current environmental issues, issues that because of the focus on co2 get totally ignored. Concentrate on these and co2 will naturally be contained, whether it is a real issue or not.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 December 2008)

I don't know why anyone is worried about global warming.

Goerge Bush whispered to me his plan.
If the world gets too hot, we explode a couple of nukes. Heard of global winter? It will balance out.

Knob


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 December 2008)

btw smurf, you've made a few approximations in your post back there. 
In general I wouldn't bother to reply, but you add phrases like "which it clearly isn't" etc - and I though I'd reply as follows (pedantry on both our parts maybe):-



Smurf1976 said:


> a. I'm simply looking at the "Getting Warmer" chart ... "Global Temperature Change" essentially the same..
> 
> b. It shows warming of about 0.5 degrees between 1910 and 1940 followed by a sudden cooling of about 0.2. Then there's a jump in the late 1970's of about 0.2, back to about 1940 levels, followed by a warming of 0.5 over the following 30 years.
> 
> ...




a. There's a chart back there which shows the steepest imaginable slope since the industrial revolution compared to prior to that - but no matter, let's stick to the last 100 years or so

b. It actually shows warming of about 0.39 degC in the 30 years between 1910 and 1940.

and about 0.54 degC between 1974 and 2004 - note that these are 5 year mean values, centred about the year in question. 

These equate to about 0.013 deg per year and 0.018 deg per year resp.

1. warming trend? - agreed 

2. about the same rate? - I disagree

c. no problems with your statement that "factors other than CO2 at work here". - some with negative and some positive effects.   

d. that cyclical stuff was what the Great Global Warming Swindle tried to argue.  Durkins soundly thrashed by Tony Jones when interviews - exposed for manipulating NASA graphs to suit his arguments etc   Sure some of the factors are somewhat cyclical (and accounted for by IPCC).  But the big one is the steady rise in GHGs.

e. "which it clearly hasn't"  - lol - sorry mate - refer to the scaled atttachment - it clearly has.   0.013 deg per year, vs 0.018 deg per year, (at least between 1974 and 2004).  Btw, I'm not gonna try to justify every bend in that graph - and the "stitch to the right" in the graph has gotta have complex origins (though still well matched by the IPCC models). 

f. no-one said it was linear relationship - including the IPCC.  (nor instantaneous, nor simple etc)
cheers


----------



## basilio (15 December 2008)

> I don't agree. My point has always been to shift the debate sideways to real, demonstrable, measurable and current environmental issues, issues that because of the focus on co2 get totally ignored. Concentrate on these and co2 will naturally be contained, whether it is a real issue or not



.

Wayne what part of the *logic* of the video did you find a hole in? As I see it your logical approach is

   This is the Titanic

   The Titanic is unsinkable

   Therefore we can't be sinking


----------



## wayneL (15 December 2008)

basilio said:


> .
> 
> Wayne what part of the *logic* of the video did you find a hole in? As I see it your logical approach is
> 
> ...




(sigh) How goddamn tiresome you warmers are with your strawman arguments. That is anything but my logical approach.

Until you lot read posts properly, I'm just not going to bother.

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.


----------



## Aussiejeff (15 December 2008)

Regardless of anyone's point of view, the fact is that the GuvMint has just released it's long-awaited policy on Carbon Trading.

Essentially, to offer a MAX reduction of OZ emissions of 15% by 2020 - but only if the Rest Of The World signs up to at least the same.

Otherwise, an "unconditional" maximum of only 5% cuts by OZ will be mandated.

I'm sure these targets are going to be slammed by Greens and many others over the coming days. 

Can't say I'm all that impressed myself, purely from an environmental pollution point of view. But big polluting businesses will be ****-a-hoop, no doubt. FREE Carbon Credits for all....  

For me, the most disturbing part of the announcement is actually that the GuvMint appears to be so strongly down-beat with respect to ANY future hope of effective joint action by the world's developing nations in setting meaningful emission cut targets.

By the sound of it, they have already packed up the bat and ball and started to head home.... 

http://business.theage.com.au/business/big-emission-cuts-ruled-out-20081215-6ymf.html


----------



## basilio (15 December 2008)

Your absolutely right Wayne. It is a waste of time talking with people who don't read posts properly.

It's even more useless trying to address zombie arguments that no matter how thoroughly discredited are still trotted out for another airing.


----------



## Aussiejeff (15 December 2008)

For anyone who may have forgotten, in the run-up to the election a little over a year ago, our esteemed KRudd was on the verge of "supporting a [size=+1]*60%* cut by 2020[/size] to lower greenhouse emissions - depending on the Garnaut report".

I predict that the next KRudd approval ratings might look a fair bit sicker in % terms.

I wonder what Malcolm will make out of this... all he has to offer is 1% more on KRudd's MIN & MAX numbers and he will have the Greens in his pocket!  He will have a grin like a Cheshire Cat right now.


----------



## wayneL (15 December 2008)

basilio said:


> Your absolutely right Wayne. It is a waste of time talking with people who don't read posts properly.
> 
> It's even more useless trying to address zombie arguments that no matter how thoroughly discredited are still trotted out for another airing.




Agreed, but you've precluded about 90% of the warmer's arguments then.


----------



## MrBurns (15 December 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> For anyone who may have forgotten, in the run-up to the election a little over a year ago, our esteemed KRudd was on the verge of "supporting a [size=+1]*60%* cut by 2020[/size] to lower greenhouse emissions - depending on the Garnaut report".
> 
> I predict that the next KRudd approval ratings might look a fair bit sicker in % terms.
> 
> I wonder what Malcolm will make out of this... all he has to offer is 1% more on KRudd's MIN & MAX numbers and he will have the Greens in his pocket!  He will have a grin like a Cheshire Cat right now.




Yep Labor Voters dudded in the eye AGAIN ...LOL You think they'd learn by now but trot out the old Labor line and they roll over like employees of the Daily Planet..
5% HAHAHA sucked in again, like to hear what that hero and mega hypocrite 
Garratt has to say.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 December 2008)

MrBurns said:


> Yep Labor Voters dudded in the eye AGAIN




Guess it's called politics. 
When half the people say you've gone too far, (big business);  and half say you haven't gone far enough (greens)  and taking into account the circumstances of the current economic changing climate, that's probably all you're gonna get away with. 

Of course you could always be ethically driven like Nick Greiner (whom I admired), start up the ICAC in NSW, only to have it rule you corrupt, and hence you get kicked out. 

I sure as hell wish that the Libs had not been such a negative influence on this - to this day (even today) they still won't make a decision, reserving the right to go wherever the wind blows. 

And at least it will be first step on the ladder - and if that's as fast as they can go, and still hold power, then that's it then .

(PS but with the recently announced investment in coal areas, you'd have to say we're going backwards, no question)


----------



## MrBurns (15 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Guess it's called politics.




Yes I know just stiring the labor voters, they dont seem to be biting tonight.

I personally arent convinced that warming is influenced by human activities.

Reducing emissions is a good idea anyway.

If we are responsible for the problem we're rooted anyway, Govt's wordwide wont have the political will to reduce emmissions to any meaningful extent mainly because it would virtually bankrupt any developed country that tries it.

They literally would rather see the planet go under than lose an election.

Also if we are the problem even if we had the will we couldnt make enough changes in time to change anything now.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 December 2008)

MrBurns said:


> ... They literally would rather see the planet go under than lose an election.
> 
> Also if we are the problem even if we had the will we couldnt make enough changes in time to change anything now.




MB, I'd agree with you - except it's defeatist, and this test is too important to fail 

And the worst failure would be to fail to try.


----------



## MrBurns (15 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> MB, I'd agree with you - except it's defeatist, and this test is too important to fail
> 
> And the worst failure would be to fail to try.




They'll try all right , just have a look it's pathetic. too little too late and the catch 22 is if they really pulled out all stops there would be millions out of work and electricity would be unafordable.

It needs new free thinkers but there aren't any, with any influence anyway.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 December 2008)

MrBurns said:


> too little too late.



lol - I was importing solar (photovoltaic) cells back in the early 80's - lost a bundle - too much too early


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 December 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/16/2447132.htm?section=justin



> The Government announced yesterday it proposes to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, with an option for cuts of up to 15 per cent if other countries come on board.
> 
> *The Opposition will not state its official position on the scheme until it has seen the results of an independent study into the plan, which is due to be completed in two months time.*
> 
> ...




and meanwhile Rome burns.



> "What we are seeing at the moment is glee on the faces of the industry group, ...  and they will be on Malcolm Turnbull's back to immediately shift position and support the Government."


----------



## MrBurns (16 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> and meanwhile Rome burns.




Yep if you expect planet earth polititians to save earth you may as well start building your own spaceship now.

Just watch how they handle the global economic problem to see how effective they are though there's a much bigger issue at stake there - MONEY.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> My point has always been to shift the debate sideways to real, demonstrable, measurable and current environmental issues,
> 
> ... Concentrate on these and co2 will naturally be contained, whether it is a real issue or not.




Here's a real demsonstrable issue Wayne ...
(But since you arrive at the correct bottom line - i.e. act on all these things and they'll all benefit, I'm not gonna take you to task too much). 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/12/2444380.htm


> ... The waves washed away costal village houses or shuddered them up to 50 metres inland.
> ...
> *The Papua New Guinea defence boat has evacuated 120 people from a low lying island*, and a local Red Cross team is supplying water and makeshift shelters on the New Ireland main land.




evacuating 120 people today ... tip of the iceberg when compared with what is to come   (try 50 million)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/12/2445384.htm


> Australian pledge
> The $1 million support includes relief supplies and funding for non-government organisations already responding to the disaster.
> 
> An Australian Defence Force C-130 will fly water containers, tarpaulins and water purification tablets, which will be distributed in the worst hit areas in New Ireland and Manus provinces.
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/14/2445952.htm


> Relief operations in Papua New Guinea, where huge seas have displaced thousands of people, have been stepped up with the Royal Australian Air Force now delivering supplies to stricken islanders.




This from the recent conference (last week) in Canberra:-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/10/2442933.htm


> *Protect climate change refugees, conference hears*
> Posted Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:09pm AEDT
> Updated Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:08pm AEDT
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 December 2008)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=373231


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2008)

Excuse me, but a tidal surge <> anthropogenic sea level rises.


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2008)

55 years ago, East Anglia, the same thing happened.

It happens and it's nuttin' to do with GW anthropogenic or otherwise.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 December 2008)

so lol - you're back to saying we shouldn't act!

make up your mind wayne

Incidentally in that poem linked back there , I used a term "gambler-pseudo-scientist"  - anyone you can think of fits that bill?


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> so lol - you're back to saying we shouldn't act!
> 
> make up your mind wayne
> 
> Incidentally in that poem linked back there , I used a term "gambler-pseudo-scientist"  - anyone you can think of fits that bill?



Would you be so kind to explain to the readers of this thread as to how you drew that conclusion from my post.

Or is this a demonstration of how to draw erroneous conclusions for irrelevant data sets?

Don't bother apologizing for your appalling and dishonest (but thoroughly typical) misrepresentation, it will not be accepted. 

Your integrity is lower than a snake's belly.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Would you be so kind to explain to the readers of this thread as to how you drew that conclusion from my post.
> 
> Or is this a demonstration of how to draw erroneous conclusions for irrelevant data sets?
> 
> ...



To act on global pollution or not?

two options wayne - multiple choice.

first option , one syllable , rhymes with "less"
second option , one syllable , rhymes with "moe"

which do you choose?


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 December 2008)

and while you're at it mr gambling-pseudo-scientist man, 

see if you can interrupt NASA from their great work of plotting these trends - to hire you a spaceship - 

and go find some other planet to gamble with maybe.


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2008)

I see bluster and BS, but no answer.

On form there.


----------



## lcl999 (16 December 2008)

I recently reviewed the reaction to Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and his follow-up, the "Copenhagen Consensus" and drew the following conclusions.
1) The environmental movement (EM) is very prone to biased selection of data to support their position, so we get exaggerated forecasts. For example,  estimates of sea level changes over the next 50 years have a median of around 40 cm. Forecasts of tens or hundreds of metres are either invented or extreme outliers on the spectrum of forecasts. Good PR but bad science. 
The EM is also prone to attack its opponents with sneering and slurs rather than closely reasoned arguments.
2) On the other hand, the doubters or realists tend to be less emotional and more scientific in presenting their arguments.
3) There are good arguments that much of the money to be spent on ameliorating climate change would be better spent on cures for malaria and HIV/AIDS, 3rd world education, addressing wars, etc. etc. 

Think it through.


----------



## Calliope (16 December 2008)

lcl999 said:


> I recently reviewed the reaction to Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and his follow-up, the "Copenhagen Consensus" and drew the following conclusions.
> 1) The environmental movement (EM) is very prone to biased selection of data to support their position, so we get exaggerated forecasts. For example,  estimates of sea level changes over the next 50 years have a median of around 40 cm. Forecasts of tens or hundreds of metres are either invented or extreme outliers on the spectrum of forecasts. Good PR but bad science.
> The EM is also prone to attack its opponents with sneering and slurs rather than closely reasoned arguments.
> 2) On the other hand, the doubters or realists tend to be less emotional and more scientific in presenting their arguments.
> ...




Your post puts into a nutshell the thoughts of many of the realists who read this thread but do not post. Those who do are attacked by the alarmists with sneers and slurs in a deluge of so much obfuscation, muddled thinking and idealogical nonsense, that to respond you have to stoop to their level.

Wayne is fighting a rearguard action, but no reasoned and rational argument will penetrate the idealogical mindsets of 2020 and his brainwashed acolytes.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 December 2008)

lcl999 said:


> I recently reviewed the reaction to Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and his follow-up, .



I think Lomborg participated in another of those "interlligence squared" debates - like the one I posted on #215.  (the one where all 6 participants agree that CO2 is increasing and causing warming).

Some rainy day, it might be worth seeing if it's on youtube.  See if he does any better.


----------



## Panacea (16 December 2008)

Calliope said:


> Your post puts into a nutshell the thoughts of many of the realists who read this thread but do not post. Those who do are attacked by the alarmists with sneers and slurs in a deluge of so much obfuscation, muddled thinking and idealogical nonsense, that to respond you have to stoop to their level.
> 
> Wayne is fighting a rearguard action, but no reasoned and rational argument will penetrate the idealogical mindsets of 2020 and his brainwashed acolytes.




Rubbish! The 'deniers and skeptics' are equally vehement, biased and unscientific in their rants.

Look at your post (quoted). You start by complaining of being a "realist ... attacked by alarmists", then go on to attack people who don't agree with you ("idealogical mindsets of ... brainwashed acolytes").  

Bit hypocritical mate.


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2008)

Panacea said:


> Rubbish! The 'deniers and skeptics' are equally vehement, biased and unscientific in their rants.
> 
> Look at your post (quoted). You start by complaining of being a "realist ... attacked by alarmists", then go on to attack people who don't agree with you ("idealogical mindsets of ... brainwashed acolytes").
> 
> Bit hypocritical mate.




I think you've missed the point of Calliope's post, to wit:



> Those who do are attacked by the alarmists with sneers and slurs in a deluge of so much obfuscation, muddled thinking and idealogical nonsense, *that to respond you have to stoop to their level.*




Climate optimists would dearly like to just stick to the science... not junk science such as assigning simple storm surges to rising sea levels, real science, but we are forced to play by the alarmist's rules as per above.


----------



## PeterAD (16 December 2008)

Hi,

Just came to get some information on an organisation and couldn't help putting in my two cents. 

Climate change related or not, there are some dramatic things occurring on our planet. 

Deforestation, depleting fisheries, above average desertification, more and larger cities created and draining water from agriculture and tapping permanent and unreplenishable aquifers, while at the same time food crops are being transformed into ethanol crops, unsustainable populations, over-carbonisation of our air (causing higher rates of related diseases) and oceans, (causing acidification and an number of problems related to this) glacial melts causing flooding and reduced flow during growing seasons in the major food bowls of the planet namely China and India...etc etc.

Lots of good books to read, Plan B 3.0 by Lester Brown (2007 edition out  already) is an easy factual read that expands on these ideas. 

Respectfully,

Peter


----------



## rederob (16 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Climate optimists would dearly like to just stick to the science... not junk science such as assigning simple storm surges to rising sea levels, real science, but we are forced to play by the alarmist's rules as per above.



Really?
Climate optimists have not demonstrated a climate model that shows how the continually increasing man-effected gas emissions will either maintain present climate conditions, or lead to cooling.
Climate optimists have been unable to counter the historically recent trend - ie past 100 years or so - of rapidly increasing earth temperatures, after the previous 1,000 years showed a steady trend of global cooling.  
The "realists" cannot explain either increasing surface or tropospheric temperatures over the past century. Nor can they readily explain the enhanced deterioration (melt) of glaciers or rapid rises in the "snow line".
Instead, the skeptics rely on past data or images of extreme weather events to show that nothing has really changed; we've seen it all before.
What the skeptics seem unwilling to concede is that the rather small measurable changes in temperature  could be due to other than natural influences.
They can succeed in a fashion because we don't have a reliable "human" history of weather beyond a few hundred years, and have had to rely on "science" for our best estimates of climatic conditions in those times. In such an environment who really cares if the temperature differential a thousand years ago was less than a degree from present averages?
The people that are starting to care most are those who in recent years have actually measured weather events and eventualities, and seen a pace of change unprecedented in recorded history.
By labelling them alarmists or junk scientists or crackpots we immediately give skeptics a reputable chair at the table.  The skeptics will show example after example of data/event to "prove" no change: It's just the same old weather, repeating.
And they are right.
But they don't tell you that the frequency is changing, that the intensity is changing, that the spatial distribution is changing.  The skeptics cannot afford to join all the dots because their arguments then begin to fall apart. 
A wee bit before my time first Copernicus and later Galileo were condemned for proposing the earth revolved around the sun. Many scientists of the time could prove it was not the case, and the Church ensured it was also a matter of faith. 
Weather and climate are not matters of faith.  They are matters of science.  when the skeptics can model present trends to prove an alternative view, I will sit up and take notice.


----------



## Happy (16 December 2008)

rederob said:


> ...
> Weather and climate are not matters of faith.  They are matters of science.  when the skeptics can model present trends to prove an alternative view, I will sit up and take notice.




I would rather reduce my footprint just in case even if sceptics were right.

But I have my doubts, since we’ve had ice ages.

Maybe, just maybe with our global warming, we will coincidentally slightly reduce severity of the next one.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 December 2008)

lcl999 said:


> ...  For example,  estimates of sea level changes over the next 50 years have a median of around 40 cm. Forecasts of tens or hundreds of metres are either invented or extreme outliers on the spectrum of forecasts. Good PR but bad science.



LCL
So you don't have a problem with 40cm?

As for the "outliers" question ...
as I've said before, anyone (as I believe I've heard Andrew Bolt proclaim) that says that global warming stopped in 1998 , been getting cooler since etc  - when 1998 was a serious El Niño spike year - is talking nonsense.  

Forget bad science - it's "spinning the stats" as only the best (or worst) policians would even attempt. 

And as I mentioned then, there are liars,  outliers,  and out-and-out-liars 

PS You don't mention your preference - action or inaction ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 December 2008)

basilio said:


> *What is the worst thing that can happen regarding Climate Change?*
> 
> We have gone back and forth on the ins and outs of climate change. We have probably agreed that we can't be certain about what will happen. The clearest fact is that by continuing to debate the issue we end up doing nothing about it and facing whatever consequence occurs.
> 
> ...



Fundamentally, what I'm worried about most is that we end up with BOTH scenarios.

1. Australia acts to cut emissions and ends up with scenario 1 for this country.

2. The world as a whole continues to emit more and more CO2 thus bringing about scenario 2 for the whole planet, including Australia and others who did act.

How realistic is this scenario? It is the exact path we're following right now. Emissions continue to rise and will do so even if the various agreements to stop it are implemented. So scenario 2 is highly likely if the science is right. Meanwhile various groups are proposing that we seriously risk scenario 1 as well. 

That's what's actually happening right now. Emissions are going up whether you, I or anyone else likes it or not. That's the reality of the situation.

I have not heard one single comment from anyone with any clout that would seek to even modestly change this situation - nobody's proposing more than token use of renewables / nuclear. And nobody's proposing a reduced population. Without one or both of those, we're headed for some combination of scenarios 1 & 2 whether we like it or not. Efficiency buys time yes, but it ultimately fails absolutely without either renewables / nuclear becoming dominant and/or population reduction. Do the math yourself if you doubt it.

If you want an example of how it's all about politics and not the environment, I point you to events in Hobart over the past 24 hours. The council approves a large new building to be built in Murray St. 4 blocks down the road at one end of the Waterfront there are protests outside parliament over Rudd's emissions cut plan. Meanwhile there's still arguing about building the new hospital at the other end of the Waterfront. All on ABC news right now.

The politics is breathtaking to say the least. Which state government champions the CO2 issue more than any other? Tasmania. Which is generally regarded as the greenest council area in that state? Hobart. And yet despite all that, we're proposing more buildings to use more energy whilst contemplating relocating the state's largest hospital just a few metres above sea level. Meanwhile that protest is being run by a political party that has long supported mass tourism - the impact of which is easily demonstrated by those huge gas turbines and belching diesel exhausts atop the cruise ship in port just a few metres away. So many contradictions in such a small place. 

Actions speak louder than words and it's pretty clear that we're not acting to cut emissions and we're not preparing for rising sea levels either. Despite what they say, it's pretty clear that they aren't seriously losing any sleep over climate change, at least not to the point of taking it seriously and acting accordingly. That makes their public fuss on the issue a matter of politics and economics rather than actual concern.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 December 2008)

And Wayne, as I've said before also, I preferred the logic of this post of yours,  #22 on the "GW - How valid and serious" thread 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=230853&highlight=pillaging#post230853



			
				wayneL from another thread said:
			
		

> Well let's reduce CO2. As others have said, the risk is not worth taking by not doing something. I'm a skeptic over the anthropomorphic bit of GW, nevertheless I'm doing all I can reasonably do and still live in a society... much more than those bleating on about it...


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> LCL
> PS You don't mention your preference - action or inaction ?



Action.

But only if "action" means just that - action and not some other objective being pursued under the guise of climate change. 

I'm not convinced on the science, but to the extent that we can reduce fossil fuel use without too much disruption we ought to do it. Fossil fuels will run out eventually anyway so in the long term we're going renewable whether we like it or not.

Cut emissions? Yes.

Implement an _economic_ treaty under the guise of climate change that actually results in _higher_ emissions? No.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 December 2008)

well said smurf –
except that a small step is all we might be able to achieve (at first , initially , till others come on board etc etc ) - and the main thing stopping us from getting stuck into this problem is the inertia of the type evident in many of the posts here. 

btw, suppose you were on a Code Committee (which I happen to be - in another field).   Given a sense of perceived responsibility in the matter, (real or imagined),  or if you prefer , knowing how Codes will always err on the safe side – which would you specify?.  Accept the opinion of the vast majority of scientists on this? or reject it.?



Smurf1976 said:


> Action.
> 
> But only if "action" means just that - action and not some other objective being pursued under the guise of climate change.



btw, lol - 
the Libs have gone away to check if even a 5% reduction is maybe too much 
You're not gonna get much "action" with that attitude 

PS and that goes for all the associated pollutions/pollutants, CO2 included. - to say nothing of denying the world a "new mindset" towards cleaner greener, more forest preservation, etc .


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ( ... initially , till *others* come on board etc etc ) ...




and that applies both to other Aussies, (in the interests of political survival)
and also other countries (in the interests of long term dramatic action).

btw, I have tremendous respect for the Chinese - their responsibility in introducing the one-child policy - to self-regulate whereby they have reduced their population by about 300,000,000 of what it could have been - or the population of the entire USA.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> LCL
> ...
> As for the "outliers" question ...
> as I've said before, anyone (as I believe I've heard Andrew Bolt proclaim) that says that global warming stopped in 1998 , been getting cooler since etc  - when 1998 was a serious El Niño spike year - is talking nonsense.
> ...



....
regression analysis maybe?


----------



## Julia (16 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Action.
> 
> But only if "action" means just that - action and not some other objective being pursued under the guise of climate change.
> 
> ...



If the so called high polluters, e.g. aluminium industry, wish to continue without change, as I understand it they can do this, simply buying carbon credits.   Then if this renders their business non-viable in Australia, they say they will just move offshore where no such scheme is in place.
If this is correct, then I am mystified as to how any benefit will accrue to any global emissions situation.
If it's wrong, then I'd appreciate a detailed explanation from someone who knows how it all works (seems very few people can claim this at this stage) explaining how the proposed system is going to bring about whatever benefits are sought.


----------



## basilio (16 December 2008)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by basilio View Post
> What is the worst thing that can happen regarding Climate Change?
> 
> ...




I can see your point Smurf. If there isn't an absolutely committed total action on reducing CO2 then early movers could face economic problems and still cop it in the neck from general global warming.

I'd like to suggest another possibility. If we accept, with good reason, that the worlds supply of fossil fuels are peaking and will go into rapid decline in the near future (See  Dec 2008 IEA Energy report) then we have to move to renewable energies ASAP if only to avoid the disaster of a country with severe energy shortages.

IF along the way we  implemented best energy practices  in homes, industry and commerce we could save a lot of money, a lot of CO2 and reduce the need for some of the new renewable energy sources. Wouldn't these actions result in a net benefit to the country?
*
IF* we also had a long, hard look at our consumption patterns and decided that in fact we can quite easily live happily without changing our cars, kitchens, clothes and electronic toys with each season - well the savings would mount up.

And lets not even consider how much resources are thrown at military toys ..
*
One would see in effect a "war" economy or an economy of international emergency.., It's focus would be on re engineering a world based on  sustainable consumption, renewable energy and renewable technologies. 

If there was even a 10% chance that the effects of Global Warming and Peak Oil were going to effectively destroy life as we know it what are our other options?*

As noted in an earlier post Plan3.0 B by Lester Brown is not a bad start. 

"The Geography of Hope" by Chris Turner is also an inspiring and practical book on the subject.

What have we got to lose?



> IEA calls for “Clean Energy New Deal”
> At the UN climate talks (COP14) in Poznan, Poland, IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka called for a “clean energy new deal,” saying that countries must act now to develop renewable energies and make traditional energy sources more efficient, such as capturing carbon released by coal-burning power plants.  “It’s not an exaggeration to say the world stands at a crossroads on climate change.  The science is clear – action is urgently needed,” Mr. Tanaka added.


----------



## spooly74 (17 December 2008)

> “It’s not an exaggeration to say the world stands at a crossroads on climate change. *The science is clear* – action is urgently needed,” Mr. Tanaka added.




Laughable.

Here is another beauty from the head of the IPCC last week.



> *Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst*
> 
> "What the IPCC produces is not based on two years of literature, but 30 or 40 years of literature. We're not dealing with short-term weather changes, we're talking about major changes in our climate system. *I refuse to accept that a few papers are in any way going to influence the long-term projections the IPCC has come up with*."




Even funnier considering he comments were made in response to Jim Hansen and not a climate skeptic.

Meanwhile back on Earth.



> *As Ice Melts, Antarctic Bedrock Is on the Move*
> As ice melts away from Antarctica, parts of the continental bedrock are rising in response -- and other parts are sinking, scientists have discovered.
> 
> The finding will give much needed perspective to satellite instruments that measure ice loss on the continent, and help improve estimates of future sea level rise.
> ...





> *
> Earth has warmed 0.4 C in 30 years*
> A map of Earth's climate changes since December 1, 1978, (*when satellite sensors started tracking the climate*) doesn't show a uniform global warming. It looks more like a thermometer: Hot at the top, cold at the bottom and varying degrees of warm in the middle.
> 
> ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 December 2008)

Julia said:


> If the so called high polluters, e.g. aluminium industry, wish to continue without change, as I understand it they can do this, simply buying carbon credits.   Then if this renders their business non-viable in Australia, they say they will just move offshore where no such scheme is in place.
> If this is correct, then I am mystified as to how any benefit will accrue to any global emissions situation.



That is precisely the situation.

I would support reasonable action if this outcome were precluded somehow. The only ways I can think of to achieve that is either ALL countries are bound by the SAME requirements (highly unlikely given the economic incentive to cheat) or we introduce tariffs on practically everything and drop the whole globalisation idea.

The electricity market for heavy industry is a lot more competitive than most realise. It's not Victoria competing with Tasmania as many seem to think. Nor is it power company A competing with power company B. It's international and has been for a century. 

Qld is really the only competitive Australian state now that NSW, Vic and Tas are effectively out of the game. 40 years ago the Qld power industry was tiny and fragmented - Tas and SA were both ahead of Qld in absolute terms. Within 5 years Qld is headed to become the biggest producer of electricity in Australia, most of it heading straight into heavy industry were prices are determined by international markets. And all that's based on cheap black coal.

The ONLY reason for the ferro alloy smelter in Tas is cheap power. There's no other reason it was ever built in Tas - the non-electricity raw materials aren't produced locally. It exports to about 70 countries.

The ONLY reason for the aluminium smelters in Tas, Vic and NSW is cheap power. They don't mine bauxite there and there's no other advantage apart from historically abundant cheap electricity. Qld does mine bauxite, but the smelters are nowhere near the mine - they're where the cheap power is.

Lack of cheap electricity is why WA and the NT, both of which do mine bauxite, do not have any aluminium smelters.

That electricity became uncompetitive is why Japan shut down its electricity-intensive industries during the 1980's. That industry ended up being transferred largely to Australia.

That electricity became uncompetitive is why Tasmania's industry and economy stagnated after the mid-1980's. That industry ended up being transferred largely to South America and South Africa.

Much the same with any other heavy industry. You build the plant wherever electricity is cheap and move it if the situation changes. Labour isn't the major cost so that doesn't matter too much, hence it was soaring power prices and not labour rates that saw the recent demise of many energy intensive industries in the US.


----------



## Aussiejeff (17 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well said smurf –
> except that a small step is all we might be able to achieve (at first , initially , till others come on board etc etc )




There is also the distinct possibility that small steps WON'T make any significant change to emissions but WILL still cause some economic and social pain - in which case, those "still to come on board" will actually be much more dissuaded to do so!

Why bother if small steps don't actually achieve a worthwhile emissions reduction? A classic chicken and the egg scenario.... open to endless debate (ie MORE hot air and NO meaningful action).

The one overruling emotion in all this is human GREED. The whole planet's population (whether rich or poor) has an underlying greed for power, wealth, status, material well-being etc, etc. That has held true since prehistoric times and continues unabated for now and for as long into the future as the human race manages to exist.

Over millenia, civilisations have been totally based on populations greedily "advancing" their personal standards of living and material well-being - usually at the expense of anything (other populations or even Mother Nature) that may stand in their way. I read plenty of history and I see nothing has basically changed in that regard. Lots of philosophy on how to "improve humankind's relationship with each other and the planet", but ultimately, very little to show for it.

Smurf rightly raises the factor of "over-population". To which many might *cringe* and put their fingers in their ears. Well, China's current birth rate is between 1-2 per woman and the situation we find ourselves in is bad enough. Well, where do we think the planet would be right now if China had maintained it's 1969 birth rate level of 6 children per woman??!! 

What a sacrifice they have made! Yet, we still point the finger at China and say "they should do more". Hmmm. Fair? Or just greedy for maintaining our little patch the way WE want it - not how other nations might like to see us? No surprise then that every population has the same basic feelings about everyone else!

Which brings me to the easy answer.

Obviously, it is 42.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 December 2008)

spooly74 said:


> "action is urgently needed"   = Laughable.
> 
> "[Jim Hansen's paper, in which he "suggested a joint review by Britain's Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences of all research findings since the IPCC report.comment"- with a view to upgrading them in terms of the dangers we face]    =  Even funnier ...



Gee Spooly, what do you want them to do ? m8,  
When they say "let's act" it's laughable
When they say "let's accept some limitations on how much we can achieve"   it's even funnier.  



> Even without the new information there was enough to make most policy makers think that urgent action was absolutely essential




Actually that's a great article you quote from ...  I recommend everyone read it . Here are just some of the other possible excerpts :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...enhagen-global-warming-targets-climate-change



> Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst
> 
> As ministers and officials gather in Poznan one year ahead of the Copenhagen summit on global warming, the second part of a major series looks at the crucial issue of targets
> David Adam , The Guardian, Tuesday 9 December 2008
> ...






> Bob Watson, chief scientist at the Environment Department and a former head of the IPCC, warned this year that the world needed to prepare for a 4C rise, which would wipe out hundreds of species, bring extreme food and water shortages in vulnerable countries and cause floods that would displace hundreds of millions of people.
> 
> ..."We must alert everybody that at the moment *we're at the very top end of the worst case [emissions] scenario.* I think we should be striving for 450 [ppm] but I think we should be prepared that 550 [ppm] is a more likely outcome." Hitting the 450ppm target, he said, would be "unbelievably difficult".



Garnaut gets a mention:-


> ... risk a failure to agree that "would haunt humanity until the end of time".
> 
> ...Garnaut :-  "The awful arithmetic means that exclusively focusing on a 450ppm outcome, at this moment, could end up providing another reason for not reaching an international agreement to reduce emissions. In the meantime, the cost of excessive focus on an unlikely goal could consign to history any opportunity to lock in an agreement for stabilising at 550ppm - *a more modest, but still difficult, international outcome. An effective agreement around 550ppm would be vastly superior to continuation of business as usual*."
> 
> ...




And back to that reference to Jim Hansen ...


> Earlier this year, Jim Hansen, senior climate scientist with Nasa, published a paper that said the world's carbon targets needed to be urgently revised ...  He used reconstructions of the Earth's past climate to show that a target of 350ppm, significantly below where we are today, is needed to "preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed and to which life on Earth is adapted". Hansen has suggested a joint review by Britain's Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences of all research findings since the IPCC report. Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the IPCC, argues that suggestions the IPCC report is out of date is "not a valid position at all".
> 
> He said: "What the IPCC produces is not based on two years of literature, but 30 or 40 years of literature. We're not dealing with short-term weather changes, we're talking about major changes in our climate system. I refuse to accept that a few papers are in any way going to influence the long-term projections the IPCC has come up with."
> 
> *At Defra, Watson said: "Even without the new information there was enough to make most policy makers think that urgent action was absolutely essential. The new information only strengthens that and pushes it even harder. It was already very urgent to start with. It's now become very, very urgent.*"


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 December 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> There is also the distinct possibility that small steps WON'T make any significant change to emissions but WILL still cause some economic and social pain



AJ 
Have a read of that article ... 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...enhagen-global-warming-targets-climate-change
 Here's an excerpt :-Garnaut on the same topic (trying to be realistic, but you're right, we're not doing nearly enough). :-



> It says developed nations including Britain, the US and Australia, would have to slash carbon dioxide emissions by 5% each year over the next decade to hit the 450ppm target. Britain's Climate Change Act 2008, the most ambitious legislation of its kind in the world, calls for reductions of about 3% each year to 2050.
> 
> Garnaut, a professorial fellow in economics at Melbourne University, said: "Achieving the objective of 450ppm would require tighter constraints on emissions than now seem likely in the period to 2020 ... The only alternative would be to impose even tighter constraints on developing countries from 2013, and that does not appear to be realistic at this time."
> 
> The report adds: "The awful arithmetic means that exclusively focusing on a 450ppm outcome, at this moment, could end up providing another reason for not reaching an international agreement to reduce emissions. In the meantime, the cost of excessive focus on an unlikely goal could consign to history any opportunity to lock in an agreement for stabilising at 550ppm - a more modest, but still difficult, international outcome. An effective agreement around 550ppm would be vastly superior to continuation of business as usual."


----------



## wayneL (17 December 2008)

Let's face it. The developing world ain't going to cut back on pollution, and there's billions of them.

Ergo, nothing we do is going to make a difference. Why should we trash our economies if it won't make a difference?

And why should I have anxiety about it? I had the foresight not to have children. Most importantly, why should I stand being preached at by hypocrites.

**** it, I'm pulling up the ladder Jack. I'm going shopping for decent 4x4 (lot's of cheap X5s going cheap from ex BTL magnates at the mo.) and I'm cranking up the central heating... and I'm getting rid of those stupid flouro bulbs, they're sh!te.

I'm now in favour of the extra lane on the M25 and the new runway at Heathrow. I want to fly to Paris etc several times a year.

Hasta la vista baby.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Let's face it. The developing world ain't going to cut back on pollution, and there's billions of them.
> 
> Ergo, nothing we do is going to make a difference. Why should we trash our economies if it won't make a difference?
> 
> ...




so you've managed to stop laughing at the science yet wayne?


----------



## spooly74 (17 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Gee Spooly, what do you want them to do ? m8,
> When they say "let's act" it's laughable
> When they say "let's accept some limitations on how much we can achieve"   it's even funnier.



Nooo! When they say the science is clear .... it's laughable.
When they say that no new data will change their view .... it's criminal. They are admitting that their FLAWED current models are not only good enough, but perfect.
Don't you see that??


*Defying Predictions, Sea Level Rise Begins to Slow*
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13679&red=y#379264

*Earth has warmed 0.4 C in 30 years*
http://www.physorg.com/news148239677.html

*Emerging Arctic Amplification *
http://climatesci.org/2008/12/15/em...ation-by-mark-c-serreze-and-andrew-p-barrett/


----------



## wayneL (17 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> so you've managed to stop laughing at the science yet wayne?



My view has not changed a jot, but I just don't care anymore, nobody else does. 

If Al Bore can have a limo, I'm having one too.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 December 2008)

spooly74 said:


> ... When they say that no new data will change their view .... it's criminal. They are admitting that their FLAWED current models are not only good enough, but perfect.
> Don't you see that??



cmon
they didn't say that - sheesh
talk about misquoting and/or quoting out of context.


----------



## spooly74 (17 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Really?
> Weather and climate are not matters of faith.  They are matters of science.  when the skeptics can model present trends to prove an alternative view, I will sit up and take notice.




And what may I ask are the IPCC proving atm?


----------



## Sean K (17 December 2008)

spooly74 said:


> And what may I ask are the IPCC proving atm?



Back to 95 by the look.

And a H&S pattern occuring with the shoulders at -.1 ish, for  quite a significant potential fall towards -.4 ish. Maybe a nice little ice age on the way.


----------



## lcl999 (17 December 2008)

Gentlefolk, especially PeterAD and Basilio, please take care when referring to Lester Brown. To quote a highly respected environmental scientist “To any modern professional it is no news at all that Paul Ehrlich and Lester Brown have perennially exaggerated the problems” [Michael Grubb, Review: Relying on Manna from Heaven?, Science, New Series, Vol. 294, No. 5545  (Nov. 9, 2001), pp. 1285-1287]


----------



## wayneL (17 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> cmon
> they didn't say that - sheesh
> talk about misquoting and/or quoting out of context.




You would be about the last person with any right to whinge about misquoting.


----------



## lcl999 (17 December 2008)

Gentlefolk, have a close look at the graph posted by 2020Hindsight titled "Global Annual Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly"

Note that in the period 1910 to 1940 the temperature rose by half a degree, the same as in the period 1970 to 2000. But from 1910 to 1940 greenhouse gas emissions by humans was a small fraction of that in the second period. A reasonable interpretation of the graph is that up to 1970 all variations were "natural", ie due to changes in sunlight or other non-human causes. After 1970, humans probably caused some of the increase. 

Over past millenia, and even over periods as short as a few hundred years, the world temperature has varied substantially. It will continue to do so in the future whether we cut CO2 emissions or not. It is a cheaper option to learn to live with the changes and spend the money we save on curing diseases, war, ignorance etc.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (17 December 2008)

lcl999 said:


> Gentlefolk, have a close look at the graph posted by 2020Hindsight titled "Global Annual Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly"
> 
> Note that in the period 1910 to 1940 the temperature rose by half a degree, the same as in the period 1970 to 2000. But from 1910 to 1940 greenhouse gas emissions by humans was a small fraction of that in the second period. A reasonable interpretation of the graph is that up to 1970 all variations were "natural", ie due to changes in sunlight or other non-human causes. After 1970, humans probably caused some of the increase.
> 
> Over past millenia, and even over periods as short as a few hundred years, the world temperature has varied substantially. It will continue to do so in the future whether we cut CO2 emissions or not. It is a cheaper option to learn to live with the changes and spend the money we save on curing diseases, war, *ignorance* etc.




Just like the innability to look at celestial causes and the earth's rotation around the sun. Considering the sun does not cook the Earth from where we are now is a blessing. But at times the Earth will be slightly closer to the sun than at other times. Ice ages and hotter temperatures will result from this.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (17 December 2008)

Julia said:


> If the so called high polluters, e.g. aluminium industry, wish to continue without change, as I understand it they can do this, simply buying carbon credits.   Then if this renders their business non-viable in Australia, they say they will just move offshore where no such scheme is in place.
> If this is correct, then I am mystified as to how any benefit will accrue to any global emissions situation.
> If it's wrong, then I'd appreciate a detailed explanation from someone who knows how it all works (seems very few people can claim this at this stage) explaining how the proposed system is going to bring about whatever benefits are sought.



Keating's Banana Republic remark will be prophetic Julia. That's all that will come of this.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (17 December 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Nooo! When they say the science is clear .... it's laughable.
> When they say that no new data will change their view .... it's criminal. They are admitting that their FLAWED current models are not only good enough, but perfect.
> Don't you see that??
> 
> ...




Ands then there are these instances happening:

http://newsbusters.org/node/20680?q...e-used-fictional-film-clip-inconvenient-truth

I haven't seen the movie and I will not watch it either.


----------



## Calliope (17 December 2008)

Julia,

Mr Rudd is even more cunning than Mr Howard was. Not only has he given the flick to the "extreme enviromentalists" (his words, not mine), but he has managed to save face after reneging on his extravagant promises pre-election to make drastic cuts to emissions.

He gets away with another symbolic gesture (0.5% cut) with a promise to overcompensate the non-taxpayers for their inconvenience and again at the expense of the taxpayers. 

At the same he is careful to not damage too much, those industries without which we would be a basket case. He will just squeeze enough out of them to make the non-taxpayers happy, and keep his popularity rating up.


----------



## Calliope (17 December 2008)

Yeah - I misspoke - The symbolic gesture was a 5% cut target.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Considering the sun does not cook the Earth from where we are now is a blessing.




I can think of a million sarcastic comments but I won`t.


----------



## spooly74 (17 December 2008)

> *Blessed change in the climate*
> 
> While most of the media has failed to take Rudd to task, the truth is that if the Rudd Government genuinely believed climate change to be the greatest moral threat facing humanity, and if it fully accepted the findings of the UN panel that laid down a minimum target cut of 25 per cent to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 to prevent catastrophic climate change, then we now would have bigger cuts. A true believer in those claims could do no less.
> 
> To a true believer, policy responses to a temporary global financial crisis could not compete with the sort of policies required to stem permanent, irrevocable damage caused by climate change.




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24811095-7583,00.html


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> My view has not changed a jot, but I just don't care anymore, nobody else does.
> 
> If Al Bore can have a limo, I'm having one too.




This is the beginning and it should be the end of the argument.

Rich blokes like Bore have managed to keep the family wealth intact since the Pilgrim fathers on the back of dupes and hardworking folk, through agrarianism and industrialisation.

Now he is getting the basket weavers to knit his family's next fortune on unproven science.

Wake up.

Get a limo or a life.

gg


----------



## rederob (17 December 2008)

Garpal Gum nut said:


> This is the beginning and it should be the end of the argument.
> 
> Rich blokes like Bore have managed to keep the family wealth intact since the Pilgrim fathers on the back of dupes and hardworking folk, through agrarianism and industrialisation.
> 
> ...



You stand in a long line of fools that adopt a point of view based on a notion that has no substance, and then propagate it ad infinitum.
The science is proven, and continues to be backed by more and more observations that paint a bleak future on the climate front.
Pathetic journalists like Bolt will have us all believe that Australia is not getting any warmer because it recently got cooler - as it did this year.  But with inherent neglect he will fail to mention that this is the 15 hottest year since records were kept.
Elsewhere, the WMO will be releasing detailed information on land ice melts that confirms the "amplication effect" is in full force.  This effect occurs when the surface area of ice recedes and allows oceans to absorb solar radiation rather than reflect it.  In essence it means that higher latitudes will experience warming more rapidly than lower latitudes. 

I no longer wonder about the "evidence" that will be required to prove once and for all that the greenhouse model got it right.  By then I expect it will be so late that only catastrophic changes to our liifestyles will make any difference at all, and then too slowly for us to enjoy our efforts.


----------



## Julia (17 December 2008)

Calliope said:


> Julia,
> 
> Mr Rudd is even more cunning than Mr Howard was. Not only has he given the flick to the "extreme enviromentalists" (his words, not mine), but he has managed to save face after reneging on his extravagant promises pre-election to make drastic cuts to emissions.
> 
> ...






It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Keating's Banana Republic remark will be prophetic Julia. That's all that will come of this.




So I'm not alone in wondering if I've missed something.  What a huge farce.
I've been trying hard to be fair to Rudd & Co, swallowing as much as possible of my dislike and distrust, but this has to really take the cake in terms of being a non-policy designed to achieve nothing.  I can't believe he will earn anything but scorn.

If he'd been transparent and said "well, folks, given the economic situation we just can't afford to undertake an emissions policy which will really make any difference.  We need to look after business first because they are worth far more to us politically than those pesky greenies...." etc then at least we could have given him some brownie points for honesty.


----------



## wayneL (17 December 2008)

rederob said:


> You stand in a long line of fools that adopt a point of view based on a notion that has no substance, and then propagate it ad infinitum.
> The science is proven, and continues to be backed by more and more observations that paint a bleak future on the climate front.
> Pathetic journalists like Bolt will have us all believe that Australia is not getting any warmer because it recently got cooler - as it did this year.  But with inherent neglect he will fail to mention that this is the 15 hottest year since records were kept.
> Elsewhere, the WMO will be releasing detailed information on land ice melts that confirms the "amplication effect" is in full force.  This effect occurs when the surface area of ice recedes and allows oceans to absorb solar radiation rather than reflect it.  In essence it means that higher latitudes will experience warming more rapidly than lower latitudes.
> ...




What a funny world we live in. You can believe in AGW and drive around in limos and live in big houses, maybe own a couple of Prius' for show, and that's kosher.

But say you have doubts and live the same way and you're a fool or Satan.

Rob, it is the believers that should be judged more harshly, but like any religion, only "others" are damned. The church members can steal and fornicate all they want (and burn fossil fuels), just so long as they say their Hail Marys (oe Hail Al.... or is it Heil Al).

How many tonnes of co2 are being expelled to expound BS in Poland? 

When I see that fat bastard on a pushbike and living in a teepee, I might be convinced that these people are fair dinkum. They aren't.

I'd like to know what the big mouthed alarmists in this thread are doing to save the world.

As for me, I'm going to buy a limo huge enough to write "STOP GLOBAL WARMING" on the side in big letters. That way I won't be tut tutted at from the hypocrites in their X5s and Range Rovers.

BTW, I'm a member of the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust; we save furry and feathery critters, acquire land for them etc. Even they see through the BS. They are real scientists see.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 December 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Smurf rightly raises the factor of "over-population". To which many might *cringe* and put their fingers in their ears. Well, China's current birth rate is between 1-2 per woman and the situation we find ourselves in is bad enough. Well, where do we think the planet would be right now if China had maintained it's 1969 birth rate level of 6 children per woman??!!



I'm being totally serious when I say that Australia's 21 million people is too many. NSW, Vic, SA and WA are pretty clearly struggling to sustain present populations as it is with only Qld, Tas and possibly NT being logical places for population growth. But even in those 3 states, the realistic potential for growth is likely to be less than the needed population reduction in the other states - Australia is over populated.

I'm looking solely at environmental and resource issues here and ignoring economic arguments about the benefits of population growth.

As for the "greed" argument, totally agreed there. We're not going to stop wrecking the environment unless and until we embrace a target for sustained negative GDP growth. That's the bottom line - if we fix CO2 then it will either be directly at the expense of something else or will simply enable us to carry on until some other limit is hit.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Examine the outcome of four decades of conservation versus development debates in Tasmania and you'll find quite simply that the outcome has _always_ been a tradeoff. All that's really happened is a few less dams were built and a lot of woodchips produced as the economic alternative. A mill was stopped and oil-fuelled tourism (and thus CO2) ramped up as the alternative. Forests locked up so we had another go at hydro-industrialisation, albeit fuelled mostly by coal and gas this time around.

*All we've done is change the location and nature of the impact - we're still harming the environment*. If the conservation groups had never existed then in Tas we'd have quite a few more dams, about the same number of trees but in different places, more water pollution but less air pollution, and we'd be burning less coal, oil and gas. That's the net effect - impacts changed but not avoided. 

That's a point well understood by conservationists themselves. It's a fact that they were the first ones to propose ramping up logging as a serious alternative back in the dams debate era. As they put it at the time, they saw it as better to keep half the rivers and half the trees than to end up with no rivers but still have nearly all the trees. That's roughly the outcome we ended up with so they pretty much got their way. 

Same with most things environmental. There are environmental downsides to CFL's (energy saving lamps) just as there are benefits. There are downsides to catalytic converters on cars, mass tourism, wind power, solar, recycling and everything else "green". Just as there are benefits. To a large extent, we're just changing the nature of the impact rather than actually reducing it, *the inevitable consequence of continuing to pursue constant growth on a finite planet*.


----------



## Pat (17 December 2008)

Seems you can study Climate change at Uni. The science must be flawed if they are teaching this to the new minds of science   

http://www.handbook.mq.edu.au/unit.php?edition=2009&unitCode=GEOS214
http://www.handbook.mq.edu.au/unit.php?edition=2009&unitCode=GEOS301
http://www.handbook.mq.edu.au/unit.php?edition=2009&unitCode=GEOS301

Regardless of the non belivers out there, the wanted changes *will* take place... Until then enjoy the smog/warm weather LOL!

PS. I'm sure uncertanty reigns supreme on both sides of the debate.


----------



## wayneL (18 December 2008)

Pat said:


> Seems you can study Climate change at Uni. The science must be flawed if they are teaching this to the new minds of science
> 
> http://www.handbook.mq.edu.au/unit.php?edition=2009&unitCode=GEOS214
> http://www.handbook.mq.edu.au/unit.php?edition=2009&unitCode=GEOS301
> ...



Appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

You can study economics at uni too. Look how wrong they got it. Only the Austrian school knew the current financial malaise was inevitable, but you can't study Austrian School economics at uni.

You can study politics at uni too. But I have yet to meet a qualified political scientist who is not pretty hard to the left of the spectrum, due to what is taught.

Hell, you can even study nutritional science.... and that field is in a freakin mess.

As you may have noticed, climate change science is all tied up with economics and politics. For there to be changes, there will have to be changes to economics, the entire system of money and politics. That is the scary bit and where I am inclined to don my tin foil hat.


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> To a large extent, we're just changing the nature of the impact rather than actually reducing it, *the inevitable consequence of continuing to pursue constant growth on a finite planet*.




Seems like you have dropped out of the race Smurf.Jobs jobs jobs is what the tribe leaders espouse and up here they are  going to bury the by product of energy creation.Out of sight out of mind.All temporary fixes for the next generations to inherit.



> Queensland is also spending $300 million on developing the technology for burying carbon emissions, a technology that might never be perfected and, furthermore, is twenty years into the future.




As for population well with no natural predators there is only one way to go I`m sorry.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (18 December 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> I can think of a million sarcastic comments but I won`t.



Pleae, please watch the youtube link.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=pmQVWH9u8Xo


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 December 2008)

LOL snake, you`re not a closet boy george fan are you?


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 December 2008)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWsQg92fD5A

YA! Think about it!


----------



## wayneL (18 December 2008)

GumbyLearner said:


> www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWsQg92fD5A
> 
> YA! Think about it!



WTF?

MÃ¶glicherweise konnten Sie dieses Lied fÃ¼r uns Ã¼bersetzen.


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 December 2008)

WTF?

Ich liebste fischen und ich liebste wahlstimmen.


----------



## wayneL (18 December 2008)

GumbyLearner said:


> WTF?
> 
> Ich liebste fischen und ich liebste wahlstimmen.




Ah ja, verstehe ich jetzt.

Ich denke?


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 December 2008)

No go to Jacks tea shop!

:bonk:


----------



## rederob (18 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> As you may have noticed, climate change science is all tied up with economics and politics. For there to be changes, there will have to be changes to economics, the entire system of money and politics. That is the scary bit and where I am inclined to don my tin foil hat.



Pro climate change "science" took decades to get noticed by the politicians.
When it did, anti-climate change junk science, bankrolled by vested interests, attacked its legitimacy: Judging by many posting here they have been fairly successful.
The correct point is not that *climate change science is all tied up with economics and politics*, but the response to it must be. 

The continuing petty point scoring does not change the science. Nor can it change the data.


----------



## basilio (18 December 2008)

> Pro climate change "science" took decades to get noticed by the politicians.
> When it did, anti-climate change junk science, bankrolled by vested interests, attacked its legitimacy: Judging by many posting here they have been fairly successful.
> *The correct point is not that climate change science is all tied up with economics and politics, but the response to it must be.*
> *
> The continuing petty point scoring does not change the science. Nor can it change the data.*




Great summation Redrob.

--------------------------------------------------
_Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts_


----------



## Pat (18 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
> 
> You can study economics at uni too. Look how wrong they got it. Only the Austrian school knew the current financial malaise was inevitable, but you can't study Austrian School economics at uni.
> 
> ...



What else do you think to be junk? apart from economics, politics and nutrition.
It's all part of our evolution. You know they used to say the world was flat.


----------



## Calliope (18 December 2008)

I doubt if Mr Rudd shares the views of the confirmed  global warmers on this thread. After all his hype on "drastic action" and "leading the world" in cutting global emissions he has now pulled his head in. Now that he knows that he is not going to lead the world or even save the Reef or the rivers he doesn't want to play any more.  

He is smart enough to realise early that there in now little mileage in the harebrained theory that that climate can be controlled by reducing carbon emissions which won't happen anyway. After his token 5% target he is assuming the Copenhagen talkfest will be a fizzer and his stance will be justified.

Just to rub in his increasing doubts he goes on another overseas jaunt laying down another huge carbon footprint. How many light globes would you have to replace with fluros to compensate for that little indulgence.

It  would be ironic if Turnbull ended up to the left of Rudd on this issue. His credibility would be shot. All you can do with a dead horse is bury it.


----------



## wayneL (18 December 2008)

rederob said:


> P
> The continuing petty point scoring does not change the science. Nor can it change the data.



Indeed.


----------



## spooly74 (18 December 2008)

Thankfully there is no need to look at other parties attacking the legitimacy of 'offical' climate science. The IPCC are doing a bang up job of that themselves, and blissfully ignoring any data that dare contradict the conclusions they are still tring to prove.

The U.S. Climate Change Science Program has released its report on Abrupt Climate Change. It includes a chapter on “Rapid Changes in Glaciers and Ice Sheets and their Effects on Sea Level”
http://climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-4/final-report/sap3-4-final-report-ch2.pdf 



> Considerable effort is now underway to improve the models, but it is far from complete, *leaving us unable to make reliable predictions of ice-sheet responses to a warming climate if such glacier accelerations were to increase in size and frequency.* It should be noted that there is also a large uncertainty in current model predictions of the atmosphere and ocean temperature changes which drive the ice-sheet changes, and this uncertainty could be as large as that on the marginal flow response.




And for some perspective again from the head of the IPCC.



> "What the IPCC produces is not based on two years of literature, but 30 or 40 years of literature. We're not dealing with short-term weather changes, we're talking about major changes in our climate system. *I refuse to accept* that a few papers are in any way going to influence the long-term projections the IPCC has come up with."




:bs:


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 December 2008)

rederob said:


> ... anti-climate change junk science, bankrolled by vested interests, attacked its legitimacy: Judging by many posting here they have been fairly successful.



indeed


----------



## prawn_86 (18 December 2008)

Even if climate change is man-made, who cares.

Little old ozzy cant do a thing about it. Our emissons are a drop in the ocean and not worth crippling our economy for unless India, US, China and a lot of others also take action


----------



## Panacea (18 December 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Our emissons are a drop in the ocean and not worth crippling our economy for unless India, US, China and a lot of others also take action




That's the whole point of setting different targets. A small target to get the ball rolling and a larger target when the rest come on board. 

Also, Australians are big emitters on a per-capita basis. Having a small overall population doesn't give us license to pollute at will.


----------



## Calliope (18 December 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Even if climate change is man-made, who cares.
> 
> Little old ozzy cant do a thing about it. Our emissons are a drop in the ocean and not worth crippling our economy for unless India, US, China and a lot of others also take action




Yes.  Yes it is pointless getting worked up to a fever pitch over whether man can or should change the climate.  We will always be guided by self interest. A Chinese worker who wants a car couldn't  give a stuff about the Barrier Reef, and why should he? He will never see it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 December 2008)

rederob said:


> The correct point is not that *climate change science is all tied up with economics and politics*, but the response to it must be.
> 
> The continuing petty point scoring does not change the science. Nor can it change the data.



Trouble is, we keep hearing "scientists" demanding specific political and economic actions rather than focusing on the science. 

Stick to actual science - saying that some ice melted somewhere so we have to increase funding for public transport is blatant politics, not science. Just say that the ice is melting and we need to cut emissions - leave the "how" part, which is the politics, out of it if you want any respect as a scientist.

The level of public misinformation on this whole issue is incredible. I'd guess that no more than 5% of people here (or anywhere else) could explain why replacing the bulbs at home with energy savers actually leads to a slight increase in emissions, not a decrease. Same as they couldn't explain why switching from electric hot water to solar will have zero net impact on emissions either way (assuming coal is used to generate the power).

Anyone game to have a go at answering that question? It's a simple answer that doesn't relate to power station efficiency or anything technical like that. Just about everyone has actually heard the answer already via the media and it's been widely discussed on this forum. It's just that the politics and commercial interests have effectively covered it up in order to profit - and that's my point. 

Any takers?


----------



## basilio (18 December 2008)

> The level of public misinformation on this whole issue is incredible. I'd guess that no more than 5% of people here (or anywhere else) could explain why replacing the bulbs at home with energy savers actually leads to a slight increase in emissions, not a decrease. Same as they couldn't explain why switching from electric hot water to solar will have zero net impact on emissions either way (assuming coal is used to generate the power).




Excellent point Smurf and delighted that you have brought it up.

My understanding is that the relatively small "savings" made by changing light globes simply make the current power stations a little more inefficient. They still have to run but the juice is not being used. In fact as I understand it at night when there considerably less power used many areas have problems with over voltage which can reduce the life of electric motors.

This goes back to the core issue. We need to replace the  electricity energy source to a  less polluting or non renewable supply or if we are going to reduce energy use , reduce it by enough to close down an entire coal fired power station.

_________________________________________________
_
Climate Change and Peak oil - The right solutions, right now_


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 December 2008)

basilio said:


> Excellent point Smurf and delighted that you have brought it up.
> 
> My understanding is that the relatively small "savings" made by changing light globes simply make the current power stations a little more inefficient. They still have to run but the juice is not being used. In fact as I understand it at night when there considerably less power used many areas have problems with over voltage which can reduce the life of electric motors.



The answer is far simpler than that... 

As for generation efficiency, it's massively complicated but in general yes, a plant run at half load is less efficient than one run at full load. Gas turbines in particular don't like running at part load but everything from nuclear to hydro does have an optimum efficiency level at a given output. 

That's one of the reasons why, to the extent that we are going to keep using fossil fuel generated power, it's best to keep the loads relatively stable. Hence the benefits of shifting some consumption to off-peak times and the problem with high levels of wind etc generation.

The answer to the original question is a lot more fundamental than that however and doesn't depend on the thermal efficiency of power generation being altered by changing consumer behaviour. I'll post the answer tomorrow if nobody's answered it by then.


----------



## basilio (18 December 2008)

Interesting Smurf....

I think the point about the change of electric hot water to solar hot water is that off peak electric is in fact using  power at night which would otherwise be wasted. Refer back to the comment on  power stations working at lower efficiences.  Of course this wouldn't necessarily be the case with on demand electric hot water units.

And you may be suggesting that the production of the Solar hot water unit produces more emissions than are saved.

Are you also suggesting that the production of Compact Fluorescent globes in itself causes more emissions that may be saved over its life? Is there also a power factor consideration in the use of CFLs that results in more power being used than actually measured?

And I will be very interested to see your answer and references. 

Cheers


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> ..1. Stick to actual science - saying that some ice melted somewhere so we have to increase funding for public transport is blatant politics, not science.
> 
> 2.  why replacing the bulbs at home with energy savers actually leads to a slight increase in emissions, not a decrease.
> 
> 3. Same as they couldn't explain why switching from electric hot water to solar will have zero net impact on emissions either way (assuming coal is used to generate the power).




Here's my 
1. well if CO2 causes warming, then ice will melt, albeit by a long circuitous route.  

2. dunno - Would you accept that instead of 60 x 100W lamps, you could run 100x 60W lamps instead?

3. (if everyone uses less power, then surely the power stations can scale down - or if you prefer there's no need for them to scale up when population increases. 

what if you go to nuclear - plus your proviso that there's a hydro or some other "battery" somewhere to store offpeak output. 

(or a network grid where we share power with the Indian subcontinent and /or Europe)


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 December 2008)

NASA's graphs again ... 

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



> Our traditional analysis using only meteorological station data is a line plot of global annual-mean surface air temperature change derived from the meteorological station network [... Hansen et al. (2001).]
> 
> Uncertainty bars (95% confidence limits) are shown for both the annual and five-year means, account only for incomplete spatial sampling of data



.



> The annual mean graphs will be updated around January 15, 2009


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 December 2008)

basilio said:


> Interesting Smurf....
> 
> I think the point about the change of electric hot water to solar hot water is that off peak electric is in fact using  power at night which would otherwise be wasted. Refer back to the comment on  power stations working at lower efficiences.  Of course this wouldn't necessarily be the case with on demand electric hot water units.
> 
> ...



Nope, it's far simpler than that. 

The CFL's do save energy overall although most of them do use more than is measured by an ordinary household electricity meter or is stated on the packaging. Yes this is due to power factor - some of them are surprisingly low. The extra energy isn't to the point of making them a waste of time though - in themselves they do save energy and emissions according to all calculations I've seen on the subject.

The solar HWS is also viable purely in energy terms. Actually, they are basically the only thing on the energy supply side that stacks up financially as an alternative to conventional large scale generation. The answer to the question doesn't relate to how the solar HWS works - they do save energy and emissions as long as we're comparing the same source of boost energy with what would otherwise be used to heat all the water if you didn't buy the solar HWS. That is, electric off-peak versus solar with electric off-peak boost or gas compared to solar with gas boost. If you start comparing a gas HWS with a continuous electric boost solar then that's when it all goes wrong economically and envrionmentally. 

The answer to the original question doesn't relate to the technical efficiency of power generation or any specific appliance, solar HWS and CFL's included. It's something far broader and simpler than that.


----------



## Panacea (19 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> The answer to the original question doesn't relate to the technical efficiency of power generation or any specific appliance, solar HWS and CFL's included. It's something far broader and simpler than that.




Population growth perhaps?


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> "The annual mean graphs will be updated around January 15, 2009"



No-one said this was a monotonically increasing function.   It's chaotic to the extent that it dances around the trend line. 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonic_function


> The meteorological year, December 2007 through November 2008, was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis of surface air temperature measurements.
> 
> It was the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880.
> 
> The nine warmest years all occur within the eleven-year period 1998-2008.



Here's also a graph of CO2 from wiki.  Worse to come folks (both for CO2 and temp).


----------



## wayneL (19 December 2008)

Someone for you to vilify:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24820442-5000117,00.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 December 2008)

so Bolt (like you perhaps) doesn't understand chaos theory lol.
ooohh


----------



## wayneL (19 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> so Bolt (like you perhaps) doesn't understand chaos theory lol.
> ooohh



You, unlike the IPCC climate change hypothesis, are totally predictable.

Ergo, my theory on you stands (viz 
	

		
			
		

		
	





	

		
			
		

		
	
), whereas the IPCC's hypothesis doesn't even qualify as a theory.

Thank you for contributing to my research. 

BTW, why do warmers only invoke chaos theory when the data contradicts (as expected by true scientists) your hypothesis? Genuine question.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 December 2008)

Wayne read the post mmediatelty before yours (#469)


> It's chaotic to the extent that it dances around the trend line.




I realise it's hard to understand - but try ok?

PS Joe - gee you've got some classy posters on this website .


----------



## spooly74 (19 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> The meteorological year, December 2007 through November 2008, was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis of surface air temperature measurements.
> 
> It was the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880.
> 
> The nine warmest years all occur within the eleven-year period 1998-2008.




UAH MSU satellite data suggests 2008 will end up about the 15th warmest (16th coldest) in their 30 years of lower tropospheric data.

Is your chart above land based temp only?

http://surfacestations.org/


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 December 2008)

Panacea said:


> Population growth perhaps?



It's simpler than that...

It's not economic growth either.


----------



## Panacea (19 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'd guess that no more than 5% of people here (or anywhere else) could explain why replacing the bulbs at home with energy savers actually leads to a slight increase in emissions, not a decrease. Same as they couldn't explain why switching from electric hot water to solar will have zero net impact on emissions either way (assuming coal is used to generate the power).
> 
> Anyone game to have a go at answering that question? It's a simple answer that doesn't relate to power station efficiency or anything technical like that. Just about everyone has actually heard the answer already via the media and it's been widely discussed on this forum. It's just that the politics and commercial interests have effectively covered it up in order to profit - and that's my point.




I've just re-read the question (quoted) and I must say you have me stumped. I'm sure it'll be one of those 'Doh!' moments when you finally pony up the answer. 

Intrigued...


----------



## basilio (19 December 2008)

Re Andrew Bolts latest story 



> Someone for you to vilify:
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...000117,00.html




He is a very special writer.... In fact he has few peers as far as distortion, deception and abuse. Unless I can find  external proof of anything he says I put it in the same category as a 1950's  tobacco company.

Just to pick one example of his work look at his quotation on Robyn Williams



> The seas will rise up to 100m by 2100, claims ABC Science Show host Robyn Williams




Gee that looks really alarmist doesn't it?  Right off the planet stuff.

But if you actually were interested in the truth you could simply go to the ABC website which has a word for word transcript ( yes it is tautologous) of the interview where this issue came up.

Guess what? Robyn was interviewing Jonathon Overpeck  a  researcher who in 2006 showed that the sea levels on earth were 100 metres higher when there wasn't Arctic or Antarctic ice. Basically he found all these  ancient coral reefs  around the world 100 plus metres  higher than present sea levels. His point (Jonothans) was



> Jonathan Overpeck: Greenland is accelerating in it's contribution to sea level. It's still pretty small compared to what we're likely to get in the future; but to melt all of Greenland could take centuries, even millennia. The ice sheet that we're more worried about is the west Antarctic ice sheet because that one's underneath sea level, grounded underneath sea level. It rests below sea level. And that means that we might be able to get it to disintegrate by warming the ocean, and having the glacier flow more rapidly out into the ocean.
> 
> Robyn Williams: And as it goes out, as the ice melts, the reflection of the sunlight is diminished; more heat is absorbed and the effect is then increased.
> 
> ...




One could easily take apart the rest of the disinformation Andrew served up today but life is too short to waste on him.

For the full text of the interview check out

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1879875.htm

If you want to understand why Johnathan research is so critical check out



> *Has the Arctic melt passed the point of no return?*
> 
> By Steve Connor, Science Editor
> 
> Scientists have found the first unequivocal evidence that the Arctic region is warming at a faster rate than the rest of the world at least a decade before it was predicted to happen




http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...lt-passes-the-point-of--no-return-1128197.htm
______________________________________________________
_
Global Warming and Peak OIl - The right solutions, right now._


----------



## spooly74 (19 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's simpler than that...
> 
> It's not economic growth either.




Was Basilo on the right track in earlier posts?

Virtually everything we do, uses CO2 eventually. It's all energy!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> WTF?
> 
> MÃ¶glicherweise konnten Sie dieses Lied fÃ¼r uns Ã¼bersetzen.






sprechen Sie Englisch Sie, krauts bumsend

gg


----------



## spooly74 (19 December 2008)

basilio said:


> If you want to understand why Johnathan research is so critical check out
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Basilo did you read the latest report from U.S. Climate Change Science Program ? Available from http://climatescience.gov



> Considerable effort is now underway to improve the models, but it is far from complete, leaving us unable to make reliable predictions of ice-sheet responses to a warming climate if such glacier accelerations were to increase in size and frequency. It should be noted that there is also a large uncertainty in current model predictions of the atmosphere and ocean temperature changes which drive the ice-sheet changes, and this uncertainty could be as large as that on the marginal flow response.




CCSP vs The Independant?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 December 2008)

I'm not very learned or as scientifically constipated as many on this thread.

The argument is basically between a rational approach and empiricism.

The empirical evidence is all over the place for global warming, weather whatever you want to call it.

My reason tells me that the world will change over the next 100000 years, but not over the next 15-40.

I saw Flannery and that joker who performs with HG Nelson,  on the Murray River programme last night on TV.

They found fossils from millions of years ago 50 feet above the level of the river.

Think about it. 50 feet ABOVE the river level. 

My reason tells me that in 1000000 years some joker will pick one of my incisors out of a rock near here.

Graphs, statistics , all bunkum, all scientifically falsifiable.

Rationalism and Empiricism., thats what it comes down to.

gg


----------



## spooly74 (19 December 2008)

Correlation? Maybe?

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/


----------



## basilio (19 December 2008)

> Basilo did you read the latest report from U.S. Climate Change Science Program ? Available from http://climatescience.gov
> 
> Quote:
> Considerable effort is now underway to improve the models, but it is far from complete, leaving us unable to make reliable predictions of ice-sheet responses to a warming climate if such glacier accelerations were to increase in size and frequency. It should be noted that there is also a large uncertainty in current model predictions of the atmosphere and ocean temperature changes which drive the ice-sheet changes, and this uncertainty could be as large as that on the marginal flow response.
> CCSP vs The Independant?




Thanks for the tip off Spooly. I did check out the website and the report. Did you have an opportunity to read the information in its entirety ?  I suspect that the section you have quoted has been very selectively picked up and flogged around the world as another example of the "uncertainty" surrounding rapid climate change.

I have  posted the US Climate Change science  press Release. It simply echos the conclusions reached in the other story I cited from The Independent. Please note that the reporter was quoting the scientific research on the topic. The statements about the Arctic region warming quicker than ever is their conclusion.


> *Abrupt Climate Change: Will It Happen this Century?*
> The United States faces the potential for abrupt climate change in the 21st century that could pose clear risks to society in terms of our ability to adapt.
> “Abrupt” changes can occur over decades or less, persist for decades more, and cause substantial disruptions to human and natural systems.
> A new report, based on an assessment of published science literature, makes the following conclusions about the potential for abrupt climate changes from global warming during this century.
> ...



http://climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-4/final-report/sap3-4-press-release.pdf

_______________________________________

_Climate Change and Peak Oil - The right solutions, right now._


----------



## spooly74 (19 December 2008)

basilio said:


> Thanks for the tip off Spooly. I did check out the website and the report. Did you have an opportunity to read the information in its entirety ?  I suspect that the section you have quoted has been very selectively picked up and flogged around the world as another example of the "uncertainty" surrounding rapid climate change.




No, the link to the independant did not work ..... and don't suspect anything, read it all. It's about modelling uncertainty with regard to Ice Sheets and their Effects on Sea Level only.

"Selectively picked and flogged around the world"... LOL, the irony! 
_______________________________________

_Climate Change and Peak Oil - The right solutions, right now._[/QUOTE]


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 December 2008)

spooly74 said:


> .. And for some perspective again from the head of the IPCC.
> 
> "What the IPCC produces is not based on two years of literature, but 30 or 40 years of literature. We're not dealing with short-term weather changes, we're talking about major changes in our climate system. I refuse to accept that a few papers are in any way going to influence the long-term projections the IPCC has come up with."   :bs:






			
				spooly said:
			
		

> …  and don't suspect anything, read it all. It's about modelling uncertainty with regard to Ice Sheets and their Effects on Sea Level only.
> 
> "Selectively picked and flogged around the world"... LOL, the irony!




btw spooly, that quote which you've now quoted twice - it could be that you are quoting seriously out of context yes?- 

have you posted a link to the full speech ?  If you have I've missed it ...  I think (might be wrong) that the closest would be my link to that article as follows (and btw, if you read it all , it's bludy terrifying) :- 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...enhagen-global-warming-targets-climate-change

Almost certainly he is saying that he doesn't need any more encouragement from Jim Hansen that things are serious, - and let's face it , he doesn't need to paint it any more serious, - so he doesn't take on that paper.  

THAT's what he is saying (surely?) - he is not (on first read of the extract in that article) - as you try to twist his words - ignoring any evidence against the theory that it's getting hotter etc.  (it is evidence FOR warming - AND some - that he says "will not influence their projections")


PS Have you ever read the IPCC report on levels of certainty?  confidence  etc?   They're scientists m8 - they aren't ostriches .  sheesh.    Trouble is they don’t have infinite funds to keep defending scurrilous and vexations counters from vested interests.


----------



## Panacea (19 December 2008)

Out with it, Smurf.


----------



## wayneL (19 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> PS Have you ever read the IPCC report on levels of certainty?  confidence  etc?   *They're scientists m8*




No they're not. They're lobbyists and vested interests with a science degree, big difference. In fairness, these people exist on both sides.

Real scientists use a real scientific process and don't purport statistical confidences from inadequate data sets. The real scientists are marginalized because they come up with inconvenient truths.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> The level of public misinformation on this whole issue is incredible. I'd guess that no more than 5% of people here (or anywhere else) could explain why replacing the bulbs at home with energy savers actually leads to a slight increase in emissions, not a decrease. Same as they couldn't explain why switching from electric hot water to solar will have zero net impact on emissions either way (assuming coal is used to generate the power).
> 
> Anyone game to have a go at answering that question? It's a simple answer that doesn't relate to power station efficiency or anything technical like that. Just about everyone has actually heard the answer already via the media and it's been widely discussed on this forum. It's just that the politics and commercial interests have effectively covered it up in order to profit - and that's my point.
> 
> Any takers?



My aim here is solely to illustrate the extent of mass misinformation on this subject.

The answer?

Australia has announced a 5% cut to emissions.

That's it. That's the answer. Here's the explanation:

Each year government will make available the required number of permits (or whatever they end up calling them) to allow the legislated amount of CO2 to be emitted. Those wishing to emit CO2 (eg power stations) need to surrender the required volume of permits in order to do so - no permits = no CO2 emitted.

What happens if we go over the limit? In short, we can't. The market price of the permits soars in order to prevent that happening. There's no more supply at _any_ price therefore demand (ie CO2 emissions) can't exceed the legislated cap (unless the law is changed).

What happens if we go under the limit? In short, that's very unlikely to occur. The market price of the permits would collapse completely if emissions fell short of the target since supply of the permits is at a fixed rate determined by government. Lack of buyers, same supply = price crash. Now, in that scenario industry is just going to buy permits and not bother cutting emissions, thus putting us back on the CO2 growth path until emissions once again equal the availability of permits.

The end result of this scheme is that, unless we end up with an outright economic collapse, war or some similar scale event that pushes emissions right down then we already know _exactly_ what our CO2 emissions in 2020 will be. The law tells us that, all we've got to do is look at the number.

So what happens if I cut my energy use at home in half? In short, through the market mechanism, someone else ends up emitting that CO2 instead. There's a fixed volume of permits and it's virtually guaranteed they'll ALL be used.

So by switching to solar (for example) I'm not really cutting emissions - we've already determined what the emissions total will be. All I'm doing is providing a means of meeting that target. National CO2 emissions will be exactly the same if I disconnect the power or alternatively leave everything running 24/7. All that changes is my share of market demand for CO2 permits - I use more, someone else must therefore use less and vice versa.

Same applies if we build a new coal-fired power plant or alternatively build a new wind farm. We'll need to use things like wind to meet demand for electricity with less CO2 that's for sure, but simply building the coal plant will not of itself increase national CO2 emissions - those emissions are capped at a set level. All it will do is mean that new plant emits x amount of CO2 and something else emits less - the total remains unchanged.

For pretty obvious reasons, those who would like to see a low price for CO2 permits (eg industry) will be very keen to find consumers willingly cutting their emissions and bearing much of the cost. Someone's going to pay and from industry's perspective it's just fine if someone else can either (1) do it cheaply or (2) makes uneconomic decisions that reduce CO2 because they're not aware of how this all works. Even better if you're the one selling the solar panels etc.

And the CFL's? That's a bit more complex but in short:

1. Me using less energy at home merely results in someone else in Australia completely offseting that saving in CO2.

2. The CFL's are generally accepted as more energy intensive to manufacture than incandescent lamps.

3. *Since they are largely manufactured in China, a country not bound by Australia's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme or even the Kyoto Protocol, the emissions from manufacturing are not subject to any form of emissions cap*.

4. A + B = C. No change in Australian emissions since they're at a fixed level by legislation. Some increase in overseas emissions due to manufacturing. Total emissions therefore go up.

In and of themselves CFL's do have a lot of advantages and they do save energy. Same with solar HWS, catching buses and lots of other things. Since both manufacturing and consumption occur in Australia (generally) for the solar HWS, it's overall impact is effectively zero - it's a means of meeting a national target but it doesn't change the end result in terms of total emissions.

*But when you have a fixed national volume of CO2 emissions, no individual or even a large corporation can in practice opt out. I can't opt out and neither can the likes of BHP. To the extent that one individual or business pollutes less, somoene else will pollute more as a direct result. That's the very basis of how this and all "cap and trade" schemes work*.

Now, all this is very open public knowledge. But I'd doubt if more than 0.1% of the population realises that this is what is being done. You may well be encouraged to go solar etc, but all you are doing is providing, at your expense, the means of compliance with legislation. You aren't saving one gram of CO2 - the total level is set by legislation - but you're helping drive down the cost of CO2 permits for those who need to buy them. 

Bottom line is there's nothing any of us can do now. Government has taken the decision out of our hands and decided what the total level of emissions will be. We can't act to cut further no matter how concerned we might be as individuals. Nor can we opt out and pollute. 

The only thing we can rationally do is:

(1) lobby for change if we want a different set level of emissions  

(2) take whatever action is in our personal best interests (generally a purely financial consideration) in relation to all of this. Use solar and fill the house with CFL's for sure if that's benefiting you financially or in some other way. But just remember that every gram of CO2 you save will simply enable someone else to pollute more - and they almost certainly will.

Me? If I needed to buy a new hot water system then I'd go for a heat pump in my present house. And I do have some energy saving lamps. 10 years ago I would have done it for the energy savings, environmental benefits and to support innovative technologies. The only reason to do it now is if it saves money (which it does, but that's largely due to subsidies in the case of the heat pump - I'm saving money but society as a whole isn't).


----------



## Julia (19 December 2008)

Smurf, how depressing.  How pointless it all is.
You've just confirmed what I'd been thinking would happen.

How is it possible that no one stands up and yells about the stupidity and hypocrisy of all this?

I was listening to a radio talkback programme last night on climate change (I'm getting to really hate the expression).  There was a guest who was a rabid devotee of what he described as the unquestionable science plus the presenter who displayed an equal level of enthusiasm.

Any listener who called in with objections or scepticism was quickly deluged with scorn and derision.

And so it goes.


----------



## spooly74 (19 December 2008)

Fantastic post Smurf


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 December 2008)

A simpler way to look at all of this.

Say that last year you had a party and 200 cans of beer were drunk. It would have been a lot more than that, but you only bought 200 cans.

This year you are having another party and inviting all the same guests plus 25% more people. But you will only buy 190 cans of beer.

It's highly likely that you're going to run out of beer at the party. 

What happens if someone drinks more than they really should? It means others drink less - you've only got 190 cans.

What happens if you and a few others decide to remain completely sober the whole night? It just means others drink more than they otherwise would - you don't have enough beer at the party and it's near certain that the whole lot is going to be consumed.

So there's nothing you can do to avoid running out of beer. Your guests are almost certain to drink the whole lot. 

It's the same with CO2 now. We've decided on 190 cans and that's what's going to happen. Nothing even a large corporation does will alter the final outcome.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's the same with CO2 now. We've decided on 190 cans and that's what's going to happen. Nothing even a large corporation does will alter the final outcome.



yeah but ... there's less waste (if you step down to lesser wattage lamps for instance - your example you'll recall) and hence more productive use of that "can". 

i.e. it goes to a thirstier man


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 December 2008)

lcl999 said:


> Gentlefolk, have a close look at the graph posted by 2020Hindsight titled "Global Annual Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly"
> 
> Note that in the period 1910 to 1940 the temperature rose by half a degree, the same as in the period 1970 to 2000. But from 1910 to 1940 greenhouse gas emissions by humans was a small fraction of that in the second period. A reasonable interpretation of the graph is that up to 1970 all variations were "natural", ie due to changes in sunlight or other non-human causes. After 1970, humans probably caused some of the increase.




LCL , Here are the various contributions to the temp at those years...

Btw, the shape of that graph has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads - all triggered by the Great Global Warming Swindle.  I've given a bit of a summary - or at least the links - on the "Poll on Action" thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Here's a good wiki article on the controversy surrounding that show :-

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



> However, though the model captures the gross features of twentieth century climate change, it remains likely that some of the differences between model and observation still reflect the limitations of the model and/or our understanding of the histories of the observed forcing factors.
> 
> In the lower portion of the figure are the results of additional simulations in which the model was operated with only one forcing factor used at a time. A key conclusion of the Meehl et al. (2004) work is that the model response to all factors combined is to a good approximation equal to the sum of the responses to each factor taken individually






> [However] ....
> Note that "Net" reflects the model runs with all factors included and is not identical to simply summing the individual factors.


----------



## Panacea (19 December 2008)

Thanks Smurf, your post clarified the issue very well. 

One question though. If I buy an Australian product, I know that the emissions produced in it's manufacture fit under our cap. Products manufactured overseas presumably don't fit under our cap. Do I not therefore have an incentive to buy Australian products given that anything manufactured in Australia cannot increase emissions, while overseas produced goods can?


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> yeah but ... there's less waste (if you step down to lesser wattage lamps for instance - your example you'll recall) and hence more productive use of that "can".
> 
> i.e. it goes to a thirstier man



Indeed it does. But if it's the social drinker staying totally sober so that the loud mouth alcoholic can guzzle massive amounts then I see a problem there. In practice, that's exactly what seems to be happening so far.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 December 2008)

Smurf said:
			
		

> Two obvious points from these charts:
> 
> 1. There is a warming trend.
> 
> ...



Incidentally Smurf, 
when you say “rate of warming since (late) 1970s clearly hasn’t exceeded that during 1941 – 1940",  the approx numbers (referring to that table in post #493) would appear to be :-

total  0.26degC between 1900 and 1940; and then a further 0.26 to 1994 (= 0.52 total)

but the CO2 contribution in each case is approx 
0.10 degC;  and then a further 0.59  resp due CO2 (GHG);  (= 0.69 total)
and
0.18 degC;  and then a further 0.03 due to solar forcing. (= 0.21 total)

Summary, the CO2 (GHG) contribution is the big contribution to the recent warming.


----------



## derty (20 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I'm not very learned or as scientifically constipated as many on this thread...
> 
> They found fossils from millions of years ago 50 feet above the level of the river.
> 
> ...



A little assistance with your scientific learning GG. 

Just as the climate is not static, neither are rocks. Tectonic forces over time can buckle and uplift deposited sediments. Dependant on how strong and long lasting the tectonic event is, sediments and their hosted fossils can be lifted kilometres above their original level of deposition. The rocks at the summit of Mt Everest are sediments and contain fossils of extinct animals from the ancient Tethys Sea. 

So as the fossils on Mt Everest do not indicate that the Earth's sea level was 8 kilometres higher than present levels in the Ordovician times (~450 million years old), finding fossils 50 feet above a current river level is not necessarily an indicator of fossil sea levels. I have drilled limestones that contain shells, corals and even whale teeth (30-55 million years old - so are younger than the dinosaurs) under the salt lakes in WA.  These fossils are situated 250-300m above current sea level. Tectonically WA has been a very quiet place over the last few hundred million years. In comparison the eastern part of Australia has been extremely active. So finding fossils 50 feet above the level of the Murray is not particularly surprising. You will find that there are fossils at much higher levels over there.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 December 2008)

derty said:


> A little assistance with your scientific learning GG.
> 
> Just as the climate is not static, neither are rocks. Tectonic forces over time can buckle and uplift deposited sediments. Dependant on how strong and long lasting the tectonic event is, sediments and their hosted fossils can be lifted kilometres above their original level of deposition. The rocks at the summit of Mt Everest are sediments and contain fossils of extinct animals from the ancient Tethys Sea.
> 
> So as the fossils on Mt Everest do not indicate that the Earth's sea level was 8 kilometres higher than present levels in the Ordovician times (~450 million years old), finding fossils 50 feet above a current river level is not necessarily an indicator of fossil sea levels. I have drilled limestones that contain shells, corals and even whale teeth (30-55 million years old - so are younger than the dinosaurs) under the salt lakes in WA.  These fossils are situated 250-300m above current sea level. Tectonically WA has been a very quiet place over the last few hundred million years. In comparison the eastern part of Australia has been extremely active. So finding fossils 50 feet above the level of the Murray is not particularly surprising. You will find that there are fossils at much higher levels over there.




Thanks derty, 

It makes me wonder though that with so many variable changes, weather, tectonics etc, how the warmeners with their graphs and predictions can be so sure about the future.

I'm not.

Its a chaotic system our universe.

gg


----------



## wayneL (20 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Thanks derty,
> 
> It makes me wonder though that with so many variable changes, weather, tectonics etc, how the warmeners with their graphs and predictions can be so sure about the future.
> 
> gg



Because it's a religion, as per the article I posted earlier in this thread.

And like any religion, their behaviour does not reflect their doctrine. (eg Al Bore)


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 December 2008)

> My reason tells me that in 1000000 years some joker will pick one of my incisors out of a rock near here.




Etch your initials on it.Might be worth a bit.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Thanks derty,
> 
> It makes me wonder though that with so many variable changes, weather, tectonics etc, how the warmeners with their graphs and predictions can be so sure about the future.
> 
> ...



it's because they are scientists trying their best to understand and model the parameters and see if they can understand the trends - and predict tomorrow's weather (so you can better plan a fishing trip) , next week's (so you can better plan a trip), next year's (so you can better plan a crop), and next century's (so you can check whether indeed we are carrying on in a sustainable way  -   and try to avoid dropping the grandkids in a mess that they won't thank us for)


----------



## wayneL (20 December 2008)

This thread has become more about personalities than CC or weather.

Let's cut the ad hominem from now on, OK.


----------



## Calliope (20 December 2008)

OK 2020. You have shot your bolt. I accept he is a drag on the non-believers cause. And besides he writes for a right wing rag. A believer with the same level of bias who wrote for the Age or the Guardian would be quite acceptable to your mob.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 December 2008)

Here's one Professor on Andrew Bolt <removed>
http://www.crikey.com.au/Media-Arts...nge-scientist-quoted-by-Bolt-fights-back.html



> Andrew Bolt abused my research: climate scientist
> 5 Oct 08
> In his column (published in the Herald Sun and the Brisbane Sunday Mail in September), Bolt quoted the findings of Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at the University of California, San Diego:
> 
> ...


----------



## spooly74 (20 December 2008)

> Nasa set to launch 'CO2 hunter'
> 
> The US space agency is set to launch a satellite that can map in detail where carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere.
> 
> ...




This will help.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 December 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Correlation? Maybe?
> 
> http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/



refer my reply to LCL999 , post #493. 
there's more than one factor. cmon ! - sheesh 

they are miles ahead of you, spooly.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Indeed it does. But if it's the social drinker staying totally sober so that the loud mouth alcoholic can guzzle massive amounts then I see a problem there. In practice, that's exactly what seems to be happening so far.




heck - the can that we pass back (because we don't waste as much power )might be handy to experiment with CCS (carbon capture and storage) - which doesn't come cheap energy-wise (massive energy required in fact) )

Gotta be an industry there waiting to be developed.  (not that I hold out much hope for CCS being a significant assistance - but we might as well have a go I guess) 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=369959


----------



## spooly74 (20 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> refer my reply to LCL999 , post #493.
> there's more than one factor. cmon ! - sheesh




It was simply a possibility to explain the missing heat we are not seeing in the IPCC models. What are your thought on this?
I agree there is more than one factor, when/where did I say otherwise?

It will be interesting to see what happens with the PDO index and temp in the future. No?



> they are miles ahead of you, spooly.



Child.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 December 2008)

spooly74 said:


> It was simply a possibility to explain the missing heat we are not seeing in the IPCC models. What are your thought on this?
> I agree there is more than one factor, when/where did I say otherwise?
> 
> It will be interesting to see what happens with the PDO index and temp in the future. No?



Sure it will be interesting...  
As long as we start doing something in the meantime.  
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=QIzztkyovjc part 7 – 10m 
procrastination penalty , level of risk, etc


btw, I'll concede that your 1.3 degC is consistent with doubling = 3deg etc, and that 0.7C (as per post #493) is less ...

...if you concede that 0.7 degC is still massive. 

As I asked you once before (unanswered I believe), is this better channeling of research money i.e. into the health of the planet .. than the Large Hadron Collider ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 December 2008)

More dodgy information being used with this issue. And it's in an official government publication.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/renewabletarget/consultation/pubs/RATE_consultation.pdf

In short, the electricity consumption for the pulp and paper industry in Australia that they've quoted is only slightly more than that used by one mill in Tas. Quite simply, they're seriously understating the energy consumption of the industry at the national level whilst seeming to correctly state the value of production. 

That conveniently allows a serious understating of the impact on the industry of any increase in energy prices...


----------



## rederob (20 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> This thread has become more about personalities than CC or weather.
> 
> Let's cut the ad hominem from now on, OK.



That would be a good idea.
It would also be useful if the anti climate change brigade could put up a contrary case.
If you are not going to "believe" that the climate is warming, present some "evidence" that refutes it.
Garpal's contributions  to a thread he started pander to the head in the sand brigade, or those that can feign ignorance of the facts as a valid excuse for whatever they prefer. 
Yours, Wayne, are often equally disconcerting; tarring those with a view shared by Gore as unworthy, then invoking the "straw man" ploy against your critics.  Jump off your bandwagon and ask yourself what the consequence of unprecedented planetary pollution will be within a generation.  I know that you know and are acting to redress it.  But you need to convince several billion people that oblivion is around the corner unless we all take some personal responsibility and act *now*.
Smurf's point about CO2 emissions misses two vital points.  First, without any "agreed" cap on emissions it is probable that CO2 levels will simply continue to increase: Someone needs to start with something that actually constitutes a reduction, no matter how little.  Secondly, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas and emissions are set to substantially increase as frozen lands continue to open up and release methane that has been trapped since the last ice age.


----------



## wayneL (20 December 2008)

rederob said:


> That would be a good idea.
> It would also be useful if the anti climate change brigade could put up a contrary case.
> If you are not going to "believe" that the climate is warming, present some "evidence" that refutes it.
> Garpal's contributions  to a thread he started pander to the head in the sand brigade, or those that can feign ignorance of the facts as a valid excuse for whatever they prefer.
> ...




Red

Can you please review my views on pollution sans co2. Then, will you please review the PM exchange between you and myself, detailing the same. 

You will see that my accusations of straw man arguments are thus valid, particularly now, against yourself. Bad show Mr Rederob. I will however accept an apology, if offered.

As far as evidence, this thread is interspersed with links to evidence contrary to, or pointing to exaggeration of anthropogenic global warming. Your review of the thread will turn them up.

Good hunting.


----------



## wayneL (20 December 2008)

Once again, it's probably a very tough issue not to get emotional about, but let's leave the personality issues out of this thread. We've all had a good go at each other, but it's time to stop and focus on the topic of debate.

Thanks


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Smurf's point about CO2 emissions misses two vital points.  First, without any "agreed" cap on emissions it is probable that CO2 levels will simply continue to increase: Someone needs to start with something that actually constitutes a reduction, no matter how little.  Secondly, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas and emissions are set to substantially increase as frozen lands continue to open up and release methane that has been trapped since the last ice age.



I haven't missed anything there since my point isn't about reducing CO2 emissions. 

My point is about misinformation of the general public, convincing them that doing this or buying that is going to help when that is not the case. I'm not sure of the precise legal term, but it's deceptive marketing at its worst - misleading consumers that spending their money in a certain way will result in an outcome that is legislated to happen anyway. 

I don't have a problem with the idea of cutting CO2 per se if that is what they science says should happen. My issue is with schemes to separate ordinary consumers from their money in the belief that they are helping solve a serious problem when in reality all they are doing is paying for something that is going to be done anyway. 

It is a reality that the vast majority of Australians have no real technical knowledge on this issue. All they have is an idea that CO2 is a bad thing and that burning coal makes it worse. That's about it.

I know for a fact that if you ask ordinary people on the street (major capital cities) how electricity is generated then the vast majority give the wrong answers. That one's been done and bottom line is most don't have a clue. That's to the point of some people living near power stations not even knowing what it is (true). 

Likewise there are many who think that diesel accounts for the vast majority of transport-related emissions and that LPG is pollution-free. Completely wrong on both counts.

So I do think that there's a responsibility to be giving consumers accurate information about the impact of the decisions they make rather than doing whatever it takes to grab their money.


----------



## explod (20 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> So I do think that there's a responsibility to be giving consumers accurate information about the impact of the decisions they make rather than doing whatever it takes to grab their money.




I dont' think you can tell consumers anything.   They will do what they think is best for thier pocket.   As far as accuracy, climate change cannot be quantified very accurately.   I get the feeling that the planet's system to support life is turning pear shaped and we do need to take some notice of that.   

Have been reading Chris Turners book, "The Geography of Hope" kindly lent to me by Basilio a week ago.   The thing hitting me between the eyes is that alternative clean energy output (no co2) is now increasing at a greater rate that fossill fuel output(and that is including the coal fired plants being built in china.  There is an underlying revolution of change happening because some do care about the future and they are finding it cheaper.   Even BP are getting involved.  And talking of yield in this low interest environment I noticed the other day that Babcock and Brown Windmills have a yield of about 6 cents and the shares have dropped to about 80 cents.   Now that is getting somewhere.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 December 2008)

explod said:


> I dont' think you can tell consumers anything.   They will do what they think is best for thier pocket.



I'm no expert on marketing but I'd assume there's at least some proof that it works - otherwise businesses wouldn't keep spending so much on it. 

The present marketing on this subject, largely from government, says do things that aren't best for your pocket because that will help the environment. Trouble is, it won't help the environment, it's just transferring money.

Basically, we've got those who stand to profit calling for action and those that stand to lose opposing it. It's all about money, not the environment.


----------



## rederob (20 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Anthropogenic Climate Change Hypothesis in the same paragraph as Modern Economic Hypothesis; how apt.
> 
> Both arbitrary input sensitive.
> 
> ...



Your early forays into this thread set your theme: Attack the messengers.
Scientist, the IPCC, Al Gore and anyone else thinking that AGW has some merit are discounted out of hand. So anyone posting in favour of climate change is guilty by association and a junk science, CC/AGW religious freak to boot.
And apparently attributing these themes to you in this thread makes me guilty of misrepresentation, requiring an apology!!!
I don't discount the possibility that AGW isn't now happening, and that it's just weather.
However, the data suggests that man's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is aligning with historical data that positively correlates higher temperatures with higher gas levels.
More importantly, surface and lower tropospheric temperatures are trending sharply higher, consistent with the theory of global warming.
Lucky this isn't rocket science.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 December 2008)

rederob said:


> More importantly, surface and lower tropospheric temperatures are trending sharply higher, consistent with the theory of global warming.



I'll keep out of the personal arguments but I do have a serious scientific question about this.

How much of that warming is due to man-made non-greenhouse gas sources? (Direct heat emission, solar absorption change due to land use change etc)

I don't hear much said about this one and yet we do know the heat emissions are significant - they warm up entire cities and a great distance around them for example. So how much has this added to the global temperature? It wouldn't be zero.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 December 2008)

rederob said:


> I don't discount the possibility that AGW isn't now happening, and that it's just weather.



The temperature as we are measuring it has trended up, that's a fact.

Whether we are measuring it properly (thermometers at surface level in cities would be useless to measure such a change, for example) and why it's gone up are the questions.

I've followed this whole issue and plenty of other environmental debates for years now and not much has changed overall. Any response that involves cutting CO2 comes down to that same issue at the heart of all environmental debates - jobs versus the environment. It's the same with the forests. Same with pulp mills. Same with dams. Same with just about any environmental issue you care to mention - someone loses their job and has their life effectively destroyed if we change what we're doing, something else gets destroyed if we continue business as usual.

The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle as it is with all these issues and most others. Adding lots of CO2 will probably impact something in some way, but the worst case scenarios are unlikely to be what actually happens. 

But the facts always get distorted in the debate - that's political reality. It's been the same in every debate, environmental or other, that I've seen. Listen to the most extreme views and you'll be left thinking that the last tree will be cut down by Christmas and we'll be suffocating on CO2 by next Easter. That's just not true.

As is nearly always the case, the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.


----------



## basilio (20 December 2008)

> The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle as it is with all these issues and most others. Adding lots of CO2 will probably impact something in some way, but the worst case scenarios are unlikely to be what actually happens.




That might be a dream Smurf.. 

The problem with the Global Warming situation is that it is getting out of hand in a very dangerous way. The best analogy is a forest fire or avalanche that picks up its own momentum.  This is being caused by positive feedbacks that are currently releasing more and more CO2 into the atmosphere beyond what humans are inputting. See below.

With regard to the Rudd governments 5% reduction. It is a sick joke. If we are going to have any chance of stopping runaway global warming the overall amount of greenhouse reduction needs to be much more much quicker.

If anyone is interested in poking a stick at the Rudd government consider supporting Get Ups Boxing day Climate  Change ad.

Check it out



> We need to act fast. Hidden in the fine print of Prime Minister Rudd's woefully inadequate 5% climate target announcement on Monday was over $130 million for an 'information campaign' to sell us his sparse climate package. Doesn't it remind you of the kind of climate policy John Howard would have announced?
> 
> So we're planning to make waves this Summer by landing the first blow during the Boxing Day cricket Test.
> 
> ...




By the way Smurf that was a deadly accurate analysis of the personal effect of reducing energy consumption. It does highlight the need for more effective measures.




> *Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century*
> 
> ScienceDaily (May 22, 2006) — Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Now, researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.




http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060522151248.htm


----------



## Calliope (20 December 2008)

basilio said:


> With regard to the Rudd governments 5% reduction. It is a sick joke. If we are going to have any chance of stopping runaway global warming the overall amount of greenhouse reduction needs to be much more much quicker.
> 
> If anyone is interested in poking a stick at the Rudd government consider supporting Get Ups Boxing day Climate  Change ad.




You've made my day. Our erstwhile reliable, dependable, venerated climate change warrior Kevin Rudd has now been exposed as a mere politician. 

This is a mortal blow to the true believers. Supporters of those who Rudd calls "extreme environmentalists" are now flocking to man the barricades. If the Get Up! mob combine with the hysterical chicks in the Rising Tide movement Rudd is doomed. After all it was the Greens who put him there. They now want their pound of flesh

And all because he broke a core promise!

People like 2020 who have put Rudd on a pedestal must now be having a rethink.


----------



## chops_a_must (20 December 2008)

So this Garnaut guy has proven himself to be environmentally incompetent and one of the most environmentally destructive people on the planet.

As a self confessed greenie, how the **** can the minions following him around in here do so with such mindless regard to his own environmental destruction which is far far worse than any climate change bollocks...


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> So this Garnaut guy has proven himself to be environmentally incompetent and one of the most environmentally destructive people on the planet.
> 
> As a self confessed greenie, how the **** can the minions following him around in here do so with such mindless regard to his own environmental destruction which is far far worse than any climate change bollocks...



 so chops , 
You have a problem with this article ? 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/20/2451930.htm


> Garnaut's assessment of climate plan 'offensive'
> Posted 4 hours 14 minutes ago
> Updated 2 hours 20 minutes ago
> 
> ...




PS Two more articles as follows :-


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/20/2451809.htm
> Govt's emissions reduction target not high enough: Garnaut
> Posted Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:19am






> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/20/2451899.htm
> The Federal Opposition says criticism of the Government's climate policy by Professor Ross Garnaut shows that Kevin Rudd has significantly watered down his original aims.




let's face it , it's all politics - Labor are forcing the Libs to back them in the Senate, because of the level of denial in the community.   They need to 
a) stay in power, (in "these uncertain times")  and
b) move this thing as much as they can.

And to be fair, we should lean on India China and particularly USA at Copenhagen .  And the "5% now 15% then" policy would seem to have some logical (or maybe pragmatic ?) basis.  

PS IMO Garnaut has watered down his original stance, (so he also cannot be too critcal) ...  and Rudd has watered it down even more. 

But hopefully after Copenhagen, we ( as in the planet) will start to move this thing forward.


----------



## chops_a_must (20 December 2008)

No, I have a serious problem with this. In fact, in my eyes, it is a monumental problem I have with it:



> Ok Tedi’s new mine owners accused of environmental damage
> 
> Print
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> No, I have a serious problem with this. In fact, in my eyes, it is a monumental problem I have with it:



ahh - god Ok Tedi was a disgrace wasn't it? 

Spent a bit of time in PNG - walked Kokoda in the 60s etc.  Been to some of the islands 

http://www.miningwatch.ca/index.php?/Cyanide/WB_Ok_Tedi_report


----------



## chops_a_must (20 December 2008)

NO MATE!!!

He is on the board that is STILL OPERATING IT and is in full knowledge of the breach of its operating conditions.


If we want to "Save the Great Barrier Reef", it is acknowledge that the biggest danger to it, is silt being discharged into the Coral Sea from PNG!!!

Now guess what. One of the biggest contributors to this is, yep, you guessed it, Ok Tedi. Still.

Your credibility, and his, is permanently ****ed on this issue. So don't ever quote or reference him again because it is an affront to actual environmentalists.



There is no "was" about it, it is an "IS". And to suggest so is more than ignorant.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ahh - god Ok Tedi was a disgrace wasn't it?
> 
> Spent a bit of time in PNG - walked Kokoda in the 60s etc.  Been to some of the islands
> 
> http://www.miningwatch.ca/index.php?/Cyanide/WB_Ok_Tedi_report




This is all old news, next you'll be talking about the vikings wiping out the monasteries in Scotland and Ireland.

Lets talk about weather.

Its a typical late December day here in Townsville.

Whats it like in the warmening areas.

gg


----------



## Julia (20 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> So this Garnaut guy has proven himself to be environmentally incompetent and one of the most environmentally destructive people on the planet.
> 
> As a self confessed greenie, how the **** can the minions following him around in here do so with such mindless regard to his own environmental destruction which is far far worse than any climate change bollocks...



So what has the revered Professor Garnaut done to earn this criticism?
All I've heard from him was today when he castigated Rudd & Co for being too timid.

This whole thing is getting to the point where it's so farcical it's funny.


----------



## chops_a_must (20 December 2008)

Julia said:


> So what has the revered Professor Garnaut done to earn this criticism?
> All I've heard from him was today when he castigated Rudd & Co for being too timid.
> 
> This whole thing is getting to the point where it's so farcical it's funny.




See above Julia.


----------



## Green08 (20 December 2008)

I would agree Chops that the story is dreadful - if 100% true even worse.

But 13 years ago how serious was Professor Ross Garnaut on his current theme if available accurate evidence of weather that you could study?

I'm not saying either way as so much truth goes untold for decades - longer. Whilst rubbish is bantered around in front of us (mmm recent results of markets) and we go "didn't see that one coming" "my money".

Humans behave in pack manner with almost anything.  Very few actually questioning beyong their comfort zone and enraging others.

I do agree without doubt the climate has been for sometime increasing, the causes manmade and natural but the one thing the earth has not had on it is the constant increasing burden of humans and their wants.

If we stuck to our needs things would be OK. Not necessarily living in the dark ages.


----------



## Julia (20 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> See above Julia.



So are you saying Garnaut is on the Ok Tedi board?
If so, how very funny indeed.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This is all old news, next you'll be talking about the vikings wiping out the monasteries in Scotland and Ireland.
> 
> Lets talk about weather.
> 
> ...






Julia said:


> So what has the revered Professor Garnaut done to earn this criticism?
> All I've heard from him was today when he castigated Rudd & Co for being too timid.
> 
> This whole thing is getting to the point where it's so farcical it's funny.




It is a joke,

Its belief and politics.

Lets get on with life.

I am sorry I ever started this thread. 

It seems to be a flytrap for the extremes of environmentalism and godbothering.

gg


----------



## chops_a_must (20 December 2008)

Julia said:


> So are you saying Garnaut is on the Ok Tedi board?
> If so, how very funny indeed.




Yes indeed Julia. Will be very interesting to see if the Libs can use this:



> Dr Garnaut, who recently visited Port Moresby for climate change talks, reluctantly spoke to the ABC about the issue.
> 
> But as the chairman of PNG Sustainable and a board member of Ok Tedi, is it OK to let that amount of waste to go down the river?
> 
> ...


----------



## Green08 (20 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It is a joke,
> 
> Its belief and politics.
> 
> ...




The dice have been case for the environment.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 December 2008)

Green08 said:


> The dice have been case for the environment.





You've got it in one Green.

It is the dice.

Read the Diceman.

A great book.

All this kerfuffle is like the Y2000 bug.

Pure conjecture, graphs and opinions by scientists.

Show me one instance where a scientist predicted an event 50 years forward, and was correct.

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner (20 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> You've got it in one Green.
> 
> It is the dice.
> 
> ...




Fair call GG

Y2k was a huge con. A lot of businesses stopped spending on IT after being ripped off by 'industry experts'

A scientist who can predict future events hmm.....

I know


----------



## spooly74 (20 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Show me one instance where a scientist predicted an event 50 years forward, and was correct.
> 
> gg




Do equations count?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 December 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Do equations count?




If the premise is correct.

gg


----------



## Calliope (20 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I am sorry I ever started this thread.
> It seems to be a flytrap for the extremes of environmentalism and godbothering.
> gg




Don't be sorry. You're on a winner.  The smug, arrogant climate change zealots have been hoist with their own petard and are now is disarray.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 December 2008)

Calliope said:


> Don't be sorry. You're on a winner.  The smug, arrogant climate change zealots have been hoist with their own petard and are now is disarray.




Thanks Calliope , its a lonely rational effort refuting these godbotherers and warmeners. 

No wonder Socrates was condemned for mocking the gods, not that I'm in his league by any means, but sometimes hemlock seems preferable to the way our great economy is being hijacked by these basket weaving zealots in this debate.

We dig dirt, we mine, we grow great crops, we fish, we have great flocks of sheep and cattle, we try to conserve water as best we can, and we respect the environment.

Our track record is way better than any other nation I know.

I don't mean to be ad hominem , but reason has flown out the door.

I fully expect this post to be either 

1. Ignored or
2. Answered by a river of graphs.

Australia is a great country built on the efforts of hardworking men and women, not spoilers and whingers.

Can we close this thread now please., 

gg


----------



## rederob (21 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> .
> Show me one instance where a scientist predicted an event 50 years forward, and was correct.






Calliope said:


> Don't be sorry. You're on a winner.  The smug, arrogant climate change zealots have been hoist with their own petard and are now is disarray.




The science behind climate change is over 100 years old and was originally presented in Philosophical Magazine, 1896.
Svante Arrhenius works are the foundation stones of climate change, and his predictions about CO2 emissions and temperature are playing out as he predicted.
Arrhenius erred in determining the pace of climate change - he thought CO2 emissions would double in 3000 years - but has otherwise been pretty much on the money.
Trends, Rhythms and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to the Present (Ma is million years), by James Zachos, Mark Pagani, Lisa Sloan, Ellen Thomas and Katharina Billups is a good read for those that want some history that supports the predictability of future ice ages according to Milankovich cycles (100,000years).


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 December 2008)

Back to Smurf's point about this whole thing being substantially an exercise in misinformation and marketing...

I went to not one but _three_ hardware stores today trying to buy some pipe insulation. 

Now, with all the fuss about saving energy I though this was going to be easy. I mean, in theory at least, improving the insulation of water heaters and pipes will save more energy than switching every light in the house to a CFL so people will be into this to help the environment, right?

In short, no. Only one of the 3 stores had any at all, and they didn't have the size I needed. They did say they could get some in and are happy to do so, but made the comment that it's not every week they sell even one length of the stuff, hence they don't always have all sizes in stock. And this is a rather large and well known hardware store.

Meanwhile, in the same store there are CFL's everywhere and all manner of things claiming to save water. Insulating hot water pipes would help with both of those but it seems that nobody's doing it.

Why? Because it's not promoted. The public are doing only what they're told and nothing else. They didn't switch to CFL's until forced and it will be much the same with anything else that saves energy. People act only when government forces them. Thinking for yourself and actually doing something about a problem seems to be an almost extinct concept these days. It's a truly sad reflection of what we've come to - mass hysteria about an issue but nobody does a damn thing unless government tells them to. 

Meanwhile, I heard on the news today that there's a sudden rush to take advantage of cheaper petrol and go on a road trip. I guess people aren't so concerned about climate change after all - they were just saving money with all that fuel conservation.

I'll still be insulating my pipes but it seems I'd better not tell too many people or they'll think I'm the darkest green around. Truth is I'm doing it to keep the water hotter for longer - saving energy, money, CO2 etc being side benefits.


----------



## wayneL (21 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> People act only when government forces them. Thinking for yourself and actually doing something about a problem seems to be an almost extinct concept these days. It's a truly sad reflection of what we've come to - mass hysteria about an issue but nobody does a damn thing unless government tells them to.
> 
> Meanwhile, I heard on the news today that there's a sudden rush to take advantage of cheaper petrol and go on a road trip. I guess people aren't so concerned about climate change after all - they were just saving money with all that fuel conservation.




This includes a majority of climate alarmists. I've lost count of the number of people I know who preach about co2, but drive 4x4s or other large cars, live in houses larger than their needs, have every energy hungry utility known to man, regularly use jet aircraft for discretionary travel etc.


----------



## Julia (21 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> This includes a majority of climate alarmists. I've lost count of the number of people I know who preach about co2, but drive 4x4s or other large cars, live in houses larger than their needs, have every energy hungry utility known to man, regularly use jet aircraft for discretionary travel etc.



Exactly so.
A family I know were for ever on about the dreadful threat of climate change, how we humans were utterly irresponsible about caring for the planet etc etc.
Then they went on a driving holiday all around Australia, came home for a couple of weeks, and then went off for five months continuous around the world air travel.

Re Rederob's post above:   I'm somewhat reminded of a Seventh Day Adventist friend who earnestly tells us that the Bible has predicted the fall of the human race.   Problem is it's for ever imminent.  I've known her for about 15 years and it's always been "about to happen".


----------



## wayneL (21 December 2008)

The hypocrisy is not lost on Top Gear's Jeremy Clarkeson either, who had this to say in an article that is actually about the BMW 330d M Sport:



> ...Likewise, I should very much enjoy for George Clooney to drop by one day and explain why each spoonful of the Nespresso coffee he advertises so suavely needs to be wrapped in an individual container. I am no environmentalist, but he is, and I would love to hear his views on why such an enormous amount of packaging is a good idea when a patio heater is not...



and..


> ...Governments, of course, are fantastically uninterested in the people they are supposed to serve. Which is why you have Gordon Brown committing us all to a target of cutting CO2 emissions by 80%, which will cost about 2% of the nation’s GDP. And not work. While at the same time deciding that the navy’s new aircraft carriers will be powered by carbon-rich diesel, and not nuclear reactors, to save £3.50....




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article5371946.ece


----------



## Calliope (21 December 2008)

Julia said:


> Re Rederob's post above:   I'm somewhat reminded of a Seventh Day Adventist friend who earnestly tells us that the Bible has predicted the fall of the human race.   Problem is it's for ever imminent.  I've known her for about 15 years and it's always been "about to happen".




An illustration of a man holding up a placard saying *The End is Nigh* has been a popular cartoon character for as long as I can remember.

Down through the ages doomsayers have been predicting the end of mankind by famine, fire, flood, plague, pestilence, tidal waves, you name it. And we are still here. Present day doomsayers are putting a new spin on it. Man will be responsible for  his own extermination by not having the capability or the will to control the climate, and this will cause most of the above.

It's pretty ho-hum stuff. If perchance we do shuffle off this mortal coil _en masse_ I think the agents will be much smaller critters than man. While our elite scientists are busy worrying about the climate, we may be outsmarted by the viruses or bacteria. Or it might be something from left field like the disease which in the process of devastating the honey bee population. No bees. No pollination. No food.  Famine.


----------



## wayneL (21 December 2008)

Calliope said:


> While our elite scientists are busy worrying about the climate, we may be outsmarted by the viruses or bacteria. Or it might be something from left field like the disease which in the process of devastating the honey bee population. No bees. No pollination. No food.  Famine.




*Exactly Calliope!*

This where I bang on about more pressing, real and measurable environmental problems. Honeys bees are an absolute prime example.

CC scaremongering draws attention and funds away from all those sorts of issues. Trillions go on some potential and possibly spurious future threat, meanwhile....


----------



## wayneL (22 December 2008)

More Clarkeson:



> Happily, I have been giving the matter serious thought as well and I’ve come up with some ideas of my own. One of the reasons more people need the services of an ambulance driver is because of politically motivated weather forecasting.
> 
> The Met Office, which claims to know what the weather will be like in a hundred years but cannot tell what it will do tomorrow morning, now seems to be incapable of saying what it was like yesterday either.
> 
> ...




LOL - in typical JC style, the BS cut to the quick.


----------



## GumbyLearner (22 December 2008)

Actinic Keratosis

www.peplin.com

Hey WayneL, Im no scientist at all.
And I dont necessarily believe in GW.
But why do you think growths like this are becoming more prevelant in 
places like OZ, NZ, US and South America.

I know John McCain has had some surgery related to these kind of problems?

Is it our behaviour or is it just some unusual seasonal conditions?


----------



## rederob (22 December 2008)

It's always possible that debate on climate change could revert to actual climate change science, or proof of a contrary happening, rather than indulging in labelling exercises ("cc alarmists"), or biblical prophecies.

The self-called "realists" or "rationals" that invoke a business as usual approach because they are not convinced by the science, consider it unnecessary to "model" a contrary view because its just weather and always changes.  In any case you can make a model do what you want, so it's rather pointless!

Despite some robust defence of their anti-IPCC positions, the climate change detractors remain unable to explain the very observable and rapid changes of glacial volumes concurrently in north and south polar regions. And despite actual data since the keeping of reliable weather records around 150 years ago they indulge in cherry picking anomalies rather than explain underlying trends.

Their less clever acolytes add to the junk science by gleefully declaring that perverse weather vindicate their "just weather" and its unpredictable, stance.  Some keep reminding us that Greenland had a significant warm event around 1000 years ago, so what's new.

Nothing is new. The earth's obliquity in medieval times explains the warming that was experienced, and localised to the northern hemisphere.  

So how do IPCC detractors explain the present period of warming?
Answer: They don't have to and, anyway, its within the bounds of natural temperature variance.

How do IPCC detractors view the possible impact of increasing greenhouse gas levels?  Some good answers here.  Ignore it, because there are more pressing concerns.  Adopt an adaptive approach in case it gets colder instead of hotter. But, best of all, let's wait until there really is scientific evidence supporting warming.


----------



## basilio (22 December 2008)

> It's always possible that debate on climate change could revert to actual climate change science, or proof of a contrary happening, rather than indulging in labelling exercises ("cc alarmists"), or biblical prophecies.




And its equally possible that pigs might fly...

Probably the  most powerful piece of research I came across was the discovery that much of the anti GW material was co-ordinated  by lobbyists working for the fossil fuel industries and promoted through a range of trumped up organisations. All the drama about "junk science", the diatribe on GW "fanatics" and red herrings of the lifestyles of the GW's is pure emotional disinformation.

Crude, manipulative, very effective. We see the results everyday particularly with the dismissal of thousands of scientists work as just "self interested" and "junk science".

How do we know that what I'm am asserting is fundamentally true? Because it comes from original documentation from the perpetrators, it was explicitly detailed in the press and in books and  was never taken to court for libel.




> It's a challenge Wayne. The reality of global warming is that within our lifetime our world will become far hotter, far wilder and far less pleasant to live in. In fact in many areas uninhabitable.
> 
> You take the view that this is just not going to happen. That somehow 20-30 years of research, examination and finally physical evidence of warming cannot be compared to a relative handful of people who dispute the evidence.
> 
> ...


----------



## basilio (22 December 2008)

We now know who  will be leading President elect Obama's climate change team. The position will be held by Harvard physicist John Holdren. He outlined his position  on global warming as follows.



> Holdren, whose expertise runs from nuclear-weapons proliferation to global warming, recently warned in a speech at Harvard that he considered "global warming" to be a misnomer. "It implies something gradual, something uniform, something quite possibly benign, and what we're experiencing is none of those. There is already widespread harm ... occurring from climate change. This is not just a problem for our children and our grandchildren."
> 
> As he pointed out, new figures point to a rapid acceleration in the loss of Arctic sea ice, as well as dramatic acidification of the ocean.




Another critical appointment was Jane Lubchenco to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Her position on the issue is 



> She has warned that even if the world abruptly shifts away from fossil fuels, the oceans will continue to soak up carbon dioxide and become more acidic. She recommends protecting marine life by reducing overfishing, cutting back on nutrient run-off and creating marine reserves to protect marine eco-systems.
> 
> "The Bush administration has not been respectful of the science," she said earlier this year. "I am very much looking forward to a new administration that does respect scientific information and considers it very seriously in making environmental policies."




These are amongst the  top scientists in their field. These are the people whose work has been recognised as outstanding over 30 plus years. These are the people wayne and others would have us believe are using junk science. 

Go figger.

CV John Holdren http://www.whrc.org/about_us/whos_who/CV/jholdren.htm

Bio Jane Lubchenco http://www.motherjones.com/radio/2006/08/lubchenco_bio.html?welcome=true

Obama's speech introducing the new appointments

http://www.politicalbase.com/people/jane-lubchenco/31146/


----------



## spooly74 (22 December 2008)

Basilo,

So we are all on the same page, can you provide some links to this 'junk science' you keep referring to? The term seems contradictory to me.

No tobacco industry rants, no long winded opinionated articles....just 'junk science'.


----------



## Calliope (22 December 2008)

Basil, I admire the evangelical zeal you put into your efforts to convert the sinners to the gospel according to Monbiot. 

It's a shame that Obama does not share your abhorrence of *big tobacco*, but as he enjoys a cigarette he is compromised, and I guess he is one of the" immoral, lying bastards" you have no time for.


----------



## wayneL (22 December 2008)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3883550/Facts-melted-by-global-warming.html



> Facts melted by 'global warming'
> Something very odd had happened to the daily updated graph on the official Nansen website last weekend, writes Christopher Booker.
> 
> Christopher Booker
> ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2008)

GumbyLearner said:


> Actinic Keratosis
> 
> www.peplin.com
> 
> ...




Sorry I'm not WayneL, but I'll answer it anyway.

1.  John McCain

He was sat in a bamboo cage in the tropical sun for 3 or 4 years by his communist captors with high exposure to charlie's sun. 

2.   People in Oz, UK etc are more prosperous and can have intermittent high exposure to uv light on their holidays, it appears to be more cancer inducing than steady low exposure.

3.   People nowadays don't cover up. don't wear hats and get pissed and fall asleep in the sun.

4.  It has sfa do do with weather.

gg


----------



## wayneL (22 December 2008)

Thanks GG.

BTW, an update on Arctic Sea Ice compare to exactly 10 years ago (And another inconvenient fact is that Antarctic see ice is 20% greater than average for this time of year.

Those worried about melting polar regions have reason to take heart, the trend seems to be reversing... in fact never got started in the Antarctic.


----------



## explod (22 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> 3.   People nowadays don't cover up. don't wear hats and get pissed and fall asleep in the sun.
> 
> 
> gg




What figues back up this preposterous claim.   In the 60's on the beach there was never a hat to be seen.   Gentlemen used to wear hats as dress up till late 50's.   Look in any school yard and at the beach these days and there are hats everywhere.   Cancer is a proven problem due to thinning ozone layer, which also varies seasonally as do satellite photo's following snow storms, which in turn melt in a few weeks. 

and what is the anacronym "sfa" ?    if we a losing an argument we go down to the gutter, albeit: ratbag attention seeking


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2008)

explod said:


> What figues back up this preposterous claim.   In the 60's on the beach there was never a hat to be seen.   Gentlemen used to wear hats as dress up till late 50's.   Look in any school yard and at the beach these days and there are hats everywhere.   Cancer is a proven problem due to thinning ozone layer, which also varies seasonally as do satellite photo's following snow storms, which in turn melt in a few weeks.
> 
> and what is the anacronym "sfa" ?    if we a losing an argument we go down to the gutter, albeit: ratbag attention seeking




sfa comes from a particularly nice verse in Virgil from memory.

Sic fundit amitus.

What did you think it meant?, or am I on the way to the lock up already?

It is used quite frequently in pubs of low repute.

gg


----------



## wayneL (22 December 2008)

Let's not go down the ad hominem route again... nothing wrong with normal conversational language or acronyms thereof.


----------



## explod (22 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> sfa comes from a particularly nice verse in Virgil from memory.
> 
> Sic fundit amitus.
> 
> ...




What about the hats GG?


Never follow me as have been known to frequently follow the wrong path


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Let's not go down the ad hominem route again... nothing wrong with normal conversational language or acronyms thereof.




Rumex, pro meus ad hominem ineo.

En marias negras prodigo plures hora .

gg


----------



## wayneL (22 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Rumex, pro meus ad hominem ineo.
> 
> En marias negras prodigo plures hora .
> 
> gg



EGO eram magis sollicitus super ceterus vir , ut exsisto pia... Or something like that.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> EGO eram magis sollicitus super ceterus vir , ut exsisto pia... Or something like that.





haud sollicitus

non illigitamus carborundum

gg


----------



## basilio (22 December 2008)

> So we are all on the same page, can you provide some links to this 'junk science' you keep referring to? The term seems contradictory to me.




Hi Spooly,

It *is* hard to get everyone on the same page. If your prepared to follow the story I'll try to get it across.

It's fair to say that absolute certainties are going to be rare in science. There may be some obvious ones like the fact that arsenic will kill you, and falling off a high building is not going to be a good look. But what about trying to show some connection between say smoking and lung cancer?  how about problems associated with a new drug say Vioxx ?

In cases likes this independent scientists may start to find disturbing correlations which indicate that smoking and later on  second had smoke can increase the risk of respiratory disease. On that basis it seems like a good idea to warn the public, perhaps even see it as a public health issue.

Of course this is not what tobacco companies or drug companies want to hear. So given the commercial nature of the companies they have (and will) fund their own research and then, as history has proven. selectively release the best results that favour their product and then claim that this shows there isn't really a problem please go away.

This is now all on the public record Spooly. Internal documents from the companies, trials,  the whole lot.

Back to climate change.

I posted earlier some research which examined the beginning of the concerted anti GW push of the early 90's. ( _I'd like to remind readers again that if the following statements were untrue  the Guardian would have been sued for libel.)_

As you can see from the highlighted sections the original objective of the front group was to discredit the EPA's finding on secondary tobacco smoke. To make the story look better they decided to extend their target to a broader range of issues  so it didn't seem to be simply depending the tobacco industry. They picked on GW as a good example amongst others.

*The clever part was coming up with the all encompassing phrase Junk Science which could be used to denigrate  anything that didn't suit their client. *And of course Sound Science was the phrase for the industry research that, surprise surprise, didn't show the problems other research brought up.




> All this is now well known to climate scientists and environmentalists. But what I have discovered while researching this issue is that the corporate funding of lobby groups denying that manmade climate change is taking place was initiated not by Exxon, or by any other firm directly involved in the fossil fuel industry. It was started by the tobacco company Philip Morris.
> 
> *In December 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency published a 500-page report called Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking. It found that "the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact. In adults: ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in US non-smokers. In children: ETS exposure is causally associated with an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. This report estimates that 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to ETS."*
> 
> ...




*The key point about the whole issue ? Much of the discussion around public health issues as well as GW has been run by PR organisations funding  nominally independent groups and feeding them carefully constructed stories. Any  reasonably objective truth if it threatens the interests of the client is   rubbished as Junk Science.*

References, Further information

*Industry groups are fighting government regulation by formenting scientific uncertainty *
http://www.powerlinefacts.com/Sciam_article_on_lobbying.htm

*Definition of Junk Science according to website Junk Science *(this was one of the key bodies supported  by Exxon to create doubt about the cause of global warming. But hell they will attack anyone.

http://www.junkscience.com/define.html

Consumer Unions  definition of Junk Science


> The Consumers Union (US) wrote that "as far as we have been able to trace, the phrase "junk science" has been coined by those practicing public relations and lobbying activities on behalf of some companies in certain industries--particularly the plastics, chemical, biotechnology, and pesticide industries. While its coiners may have legitimate grounds for debate on some issues, the phrase has been used far too often to discredit honest public interest organizations and legitimate scientists who express concerns about consumer safety and environmental risks." [1]
> 
> While the phrase "junk science" is used by corporations, governments and front groups to discredit public interest and consumer activists, the phrase "sound science" is employed to describe the research said to back-up industry's own claims on safety and risk




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


----------



## slim pickins (22 December 2008)

after considering all the evidence I have concluded that there is no global warming as a result of human activity.

In the unlikely case there is, it's insignificant. 

Global warming is a good thing and we should strive toward that end. Within reason. 

Global warming fanatics should put their money where their mouth is and sell all waterfront property to us sceptics. I don't see that happening. In fact those properties just keep appreciating.

The Arabs are building artificial islands one metre above water knowing full well that the oceans won't rise for a very very very long time. They are betting trillions on it.


----------



## basilio (22 December 2008)

> after considering all the evidence I have concluded that there is no global warming as a result of human activity.
> 
> In the unlikely case there is, it's insignificant.
> 
> ...





Well that finalises the issue rather well doesn't it ? We can all go to sleep soundly  knowing that because the Arabs are building artificial islands a meter above sea level there can't possibly be more than an intsy, bitsy amount of sea level rise...

And yes I would be delighted to sell my waterfront apartments (if I had a few to spare.)


----------



## explod (22 December 2008)

> after considering all the evidence I have concluded that there is no global warming as a result of human activity.




What evidence, almost all concede the evidence is subjective.   Anyway we are talking about climate change.



> In the unlikely case there is, it's insignificant.




What evidence says that GW is unlikely.



> Global warming is a good thing and we should strive toward that end. Within reason.




Why do you say within reason? hesitation here, if you are uncertain should we not err on the side of caution and reduce emissions anyway.



> Global warming fanatics should put their money where their mouth is and sell all waterfront property to us sceptics. I don't see that happening. In fact those properties just keep appreciating.




Why the word "fanatic"  I respect the position of others and have never felt the need to denigrate to get my point across.   Another indication of uncertainty.   Remember the old "stick and stones..."



> The Arabs are building artificial islands one metre above water knowing full well that the oceans won't rise for a very very very long time. They are betting trillions on it.




Whilst their underclass starve and they use virtual slave labour from India.   Wonder why they are building them so tall.


----------



## slim pickins (22 December 2008)

Hehehe, well I'm just being light hearted about it. But still it's a valid point. The markets don't lie. Waterfront houses will continue to increase in price.

If I Wanted to be serious about it I would point toward the EU socialists, protectionsts, unions, and other dark and shady forces wanting to impose a justification for their protectionist policies especially against the developing world. 

Eg, unless you don't conform to our rules and buy our expensive technology we won't trade with you and will impose duties and taxes to offset your more competitive and lower cost production. 

The greens are reds In Disguise.


----------



## Calliope (22 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> Global warming is a good thing and we should strive toward that end. Within reason.




Certainly the Greenlanders are hoping it is not a hoax. They would like to see the mild climate return that existed up until the 1400s and the advent of the  Little Ice Age.(ie climate change)

Up to that time Southern Greenland supported trees, agriculture and livestock.


----------



## explod (22 December 2008)

> Hehehe, well I'm just being light hearted about it. But still it's a valid point. The markets don't lie. Waterfront houses will continue to increase in price.




Some Councils in Australia are refusing permits to land previously subdivided for residential based on the evidence of rising seas.  And as a side issue, you cant sell a beach side property at the moment on the Mornignton Pensisula in the $500,000 to 2 mill range.   But that is prolly just economics at the moment.



> If I Wanted to be serious about it I would point toward the EU socialists, protectionsts, unions, and other dark and shady forces wanting to impose a justification for their protectionist policies especially against the developing world.




The US have just gone solialist in a big way by buying all the banks etc.  Sweeden is Solialist and are going zero co2 by 2020.  Denmark also Socialist have a huge alternative industry going on. PB and Siemens are investing heavily and pofitably in alternate energy.   Wonder why they are getting on the bandwagon.  Big bucks.   Babcock and Brown wind paying 8% dividend.  Pretty good yield in this stuff.   THIS IS SERIOUS




> Eg, unless you don't conform to our rules and buy our expensive technology we won't trade with you and will impose duties and taxes to offset your more competitive and lower cost production.




Rules, that sounds like the good ole US of A or the old communist block.   Many cannot get the distinction between the commo and the socialist.



> The greens are reds In Disguise.




That was the old Sir Robert Menzies cry, pig ion bob, sold scrap metal to the Japanese who later bombed us with it at Perl Harbour.


----------



## Calliope (22 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> Hehehe, well I'm just being light hearted about it.




Careful Slim. Humour to an alarmist is like a red rag to a bull. They regard their mission to educate the heretics as sacred, and will not take kindly to anyone not taking them seriously.

The time may come (if not already here) when to criticise them will be regarded as politically incorrect


----------



## rederob (22 December 2008)

Booker's article quoted by Wayne, above, is a classic example of the type of distortions that are spruiked by junk scientists.
Sea ice was at its lowest recorded levels last year, and the areal extent this year was greater.
Had Booker quoted "perennial ice" or "land ice" instead, it would have been a totally different story.
Sea ice is a function of local climate and can form quickly in the right conditions - as indeed it did this year.  However, the sea ice was thinner this year than ever recorded, as proven by Russia's North Pole-35 station team who abandoned their ice floe a month earlier than usual.
Antarctic sea ice is a a much better story for those living in Wayne's world and they thought they had a more compelling story by adding it to their armoury.  
But alas, sea ice is transient - coming and going synchronously with the seasons, whereas Antarctic land ice is disappearing at a geologically frenetic pace.
Booker's attempt to twist the knife into "warmers" by quoting on butterflies is remarkable for its stupidity.  Several butterfly species are known to now flourish as warming has provided them a new environment where they are less prone to disease and predation.  In the specific case of the Small Tortoiseshell butterfly mentioned by Booker, it is found throughout Europe and Asia and would require a massive climate event to affect its survival.
Some meatier topics please....


----------



## explod (22 December 2008)

Calliope said:


> Careful Slim. Humour to an alarmist is like a red rag to a bull. They regard their mission to educate the heretics as sacred, and will not take kindly to anyone not taking them seriously.
> 
> The time may come (if not already here) when to criticise them will be regarded as politically incorrect




You cant educate those from the shallow end of the gene pool.  And nowhere have I observed evidence of greens supporting arms and aggression.   Sense of humour, well if the argument is being lost some resort to crap way off topic.   Stirring, love the motivation guys, go for it.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2008)

explod said:


> You cant educate those from the shallow end of the gene pool.  And nowhere have I observed evidence of greens supporting arms and aggression.   Sense of humour, well if the argument is being lost some resort to crap way off topic.   Stirring, love the motivation guys, go for it.




Firstly explod the shallow end is where one is most likely to spread ones genes, think back to your golden days, in the local swimming pool.

Secondly , I find greenies have an excess of testosterone and a deficiency of final commitment to either congress or nation building.

That bearded bloke chasing the japs in the Southern Ocean is a case in point.

Thirdly have a Happy Christmas mate.

gg


----------



## rederob (22 December 2008)

Calliope said:


> The time may come (if not already here) when to criticise them will be regarded as politically incorrect



Judging from the quality posts of heretics we are more likely to be brought before HREOC for mistreating the intellectually impaired.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Judging from the quality posts of heretics we are more likely to be brought before HREOC for mistreating the intellectually impaired.




Red mate you love quangos.

Imagine if there were none and we all had to make a quid without them.

gg


----------



## Calliope (22 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Secondly , I find greenies have an excess of testosterone and a deficiency of final commitment to either congress or nation building.
> 
> That bearded bloke chasing the japs in the Southern Ocean is a case in point.




That well fed bearded bloke is doing it because it's well funded and it's fun and it beats working for a living. As Ratty said in Wind in the Willows 







> there is nothing half so much worth doing as mucking about in boats.




There could also be some fringe benefits. When Daryl Hannah was asked  before she joined the boat for a few days for a publicity stunt, what she would do on the boat, she said she would do whatever the Captain asked her to. She didn't stay long.


----------



## explod (22 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Firstly explod the shallow end is where one is most likely to spread ones genes, think back to your golden days, in the local swimming pool.
> 
> Secondly , I find greenies have an excess of testosterone and a deficiency of final commitment to either congress or nation building.
> 
> ...




You and yours too for the festive.

Waiting for your final take on the hats though old pal.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2008)

explod said:


> You and yours too for the festive.
> 
> Waiting for your final take on the hats though old pal.




sorry mate missed the hats 

send me a pm

gg


----------



## explod (22 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Sorry I'm not WayneL, but I'll answer it anyway.
> 
> 1.  John McCain
> 
> ...




and my reply to the above, next post


----------



## explod (22 December 2008)

explod said:


> What figues back up this preposterous claim.   In the 60's on the beach there was never a hat to be seen.   Gentlemen used to wear hats as dress up till late 50's.   Look in any school yard and at the beach these days and there are hats everywhere.   Cancer is a proven problem due to thinning ozone layer, which also varies seasonally as do satellite photo's following snow storms, which in turn melt in a few weeks.
> 
> and what is the anacronym "sfa" ?    if we a losing an argument we go down to the gutter, albeit: ratbag attention seeking




I differ on your take of hats.   

Just cant' rest till I have your secret of the hats.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2008)

explod said:


> I differ on your take of hats.
> 
> Just cant' rest till I have your secret of the hats.




I accept your take on hats.

Perhaps though in the "good old days" folk went out more, less plasma screens., etc.

Point taken explod mate.

gg


----------



## Calliope (22 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Judging from the quality posts of heretics we are more likely to be brought before HREOC for mistreating the intellectually impaired.




I'm glad you brought up the quality of posts on this thread. The problem is that the alarmist's posts are so pretentious and boring that I can't see you getting any converts.

If you made them shorter and wittier you might do better. The post quoted above shows that you are trying, but I'm sure you can do better. Good luck. After all  'tis the season to be jolly.


----------



## wayneL (22 December 2008)

Rederob,

The climate optimists may sometimes distort data to present a case for non-warming or non-change. As a matter of fact I'm sure that this is occasionally the case.

However the remarkable fact is that you consider this to be a feature exclusive to the climate optimists argument. I believe you are cognitively biased in this regard, because the pessimist's case is absolutely chocka-block full of logical fallacies, distortions, exaggerations, junk science and downright lies.

We need look no further for evidence of this than the film detailing the Gospel According To St. Al - "An Inconvenient Truth".

Perhaps being faced with the most massive propaganda project in the history of mankind, climate optimists feel they must employ the same tactics as the pessimists. This, though maybe necessary to introduce some balance to the argument in the collective mind of the great unwashed masses, viz, political BS versus political BS, is unfortunate because we need only look objectively at all the available science.

The upshot of all this is that your criticisms of climate optimists, AKA the _ad hominem_ term "Wayne's World", smacks of a deep and disgusting hypocrisy, so obvious that only the most colourful and profane colloquialism could characterize.

As such, it should be disregarded as disingenuous... laughable even.

Cheers


----------



## slim pickins (22 December 2008)

Callipoe, 

The day that you can't question the green-red dogma has already come. You will be called an idiot and a threat to the planet. That's a very dangerous ideology that doesn't tolerate dissent. But who really expects much better from the looney left. 

Has anyone noticed that the water is getting closer to their beachside property? If they have I'll buy it right now. 

Antartic ice is breaking off but antartica ice shelf is 2km thick and gettiing thicker every day. But they forget to tell you that. It's -60 there in places and the sheet won't melt even if global temperatures increase by 50c which would be lethal.

Ice in antartica will be there long after humanity is gone.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 December 2008)

explod said:


> Sweeden is Solialist and are going zero co2 by 2020.



A classic example of how it can be done. All dependent on large scale generation and the grid, something those calling for action in this part of the world don't seem too keen on. Sweeden already has close to zero fossil fuel electricity so to get off the CO2 it's simply a matter of running everything from the grid rather than gas, petrol etc.


----------



## slim pickins (22 December 2008)

all the green-red theory on the world can't do a thing when the facts on the ground speak differently. 

And just like communist theory the green theory will be consigned to the dustbin when people look around them and realize they have been scamed and impoverished by people whonknow nothing about the real world.

When australia is bankrupt and uncompetitive just so we can reduce our carbon output by 30% and in one fell swoop a bushfire releases more carbon then 2 years combined, people will wake up. 

I still have faith that American conservatists will save us all from this menace just like they did in the 80's


----------



## rederob (23 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> The upshot of all this is that your criticisms of climate optimists, AKA the _ad hominem_ term "Wayne's World", smacks of a deep and disgusting hypocrisy, so obvious that only the most colourful and profane colloquialism could characterize.
> 
> As such, it should be disregarded as disingenuous... laughable even.
> 
> Cheers



You could always try to support your case with something that holds water.
Gore has never been on my radar (I haven't seen Gore's epic) and his actions are somewhat incidental to the underlying science.
The unpretentious Calliope will realise that scientists use observations, hypotheses, and deductions to arrive at conclusions.
Using Stefan's law. Arrhenius formulated his greenhouse law, "if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression; otherwise expressed in simplified form as:
ΔF = α ln(C/C0) 
When you next put your brain into gear and stay on topic, rather than launch into your typical rants that add nothing to the debate, we might get somewhere.

ps: a topical start might be to revisit your sea ice story and the science that underpinned it.


----------



## wayneL (23 December 2008)

rederob said:


> You could always try to support your case with something that holds water.
> Gore has never been on my radar (I haven't seen Gore's epic) and his actions are somewhat incidental to the underlying science.
> The unpretentious Calliope will realise that scientists use observations, hypotheses, and deductions to arrive at conclusions.
> Using Stefan's law. Arrhenius formulated his greenhouse law, "if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression; otherwise expressed in simplified form as:
> ...



I hold to my previous post, as the the conclusions therein, become even more self-evident following your response quoted above.

I will also point out that my post was in fair response to your criticisms and straw man characterizations. Rather than hold the debate to an adult level, you once again revert to that tactic. One questions your need to do this.

Peeps,

There is a fine line between criticizing actions and attitudes, and  _ad hominem_ slur and character assassination. I hope I haven't crossed it again, but as a group in this thread, we are once again heading down that road. Let's not.

Cheers


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (23 December 2008)

rederob,


> Using Stefan's law. Arrhenius formulated his greenhouse law, "if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression; otherwise expressed in simplified form as:
> ΔF = α ln(C/C0)




You have piqued my interest here. Is that formula a rock solid perfect theory which explains that which is in reality a very difficult study? 

Could you provide some more information as to its effectiveness in this case. Any links?

Cheers...


----------



## rederob (23 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> I hold to my previous post, as the the conclusions therein, become even more self-evident following your response quoted above.
> 
> I will also point out that my post was in fair response to your criticisms and straw man characterizations. Rather than hold the debate to an adult level, you once again revert to that tactic. One questions your need to do this.
> 
> ...



Wayne
Yet again you add nothing meaningful or novel to the topic.

Snake
No. It's a formula that expresses relationships and their effects in a perfect theoretical framework.
There is more than one greenhouse gas so in the real world each would need to be accounted for.


----------



## spooly74 (23 December 2008)

Warning: The following video may cause vomiting.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 December 2008)

Another beautiful morning in Townsville.

Weather unchanged.

A nice slow rain last night.

gg


----------



## Sean K (23 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Another beautiful morning in Townsville.
> 
> Weather unchanged.
> 
> ...



Yes, perfect day in Lima this morning and very nice in Cuzco this afternoon. Hopefully it stays dry on the Inca Trail but it's the wet season up here, so I'm hoping GW keeps it dry.


----------



## basilio (23 December 2008)

Calliope said:


> I'm glad you brought up the quality of posts on this thread. The problem is that the alarmist's posts are so pretentious and boring that I can't see you getting any converts.
> 
> If you made them shorter and wittier you might do better. The post quoted above shows that you are trying, but I'm sure you can do better. Good luck. After all  'tis the season to be jolly.




Shorter and wittier.... Look its not hard to throw up mass generalisations, a sweeping assertion that all scientists who believe the earth is getting rapidly warmer are simply self interested. And then you can top it off with the statement all the believers are evangelical god botherers.  On balance that seems to have been the gist of the arguments against global warming in this forum.

Outside  this topic in the real world, the business world I would take just as careful a line on the assertions of  grand new business deals, great new products and so on. I would imagine most other members would do likewise.  I'd want independent evidence, I'd want to look at the skills and background of the people telling the story (their integrity) , I'd want to know if what they were saying could actually work given basic rules of reality. For example when I'm offered an investment that is going to return 1% a day I know its a scam no matter how plausible or inviting it looks.

*The question of whether we are taking the biggest gamble of lives, our children and almost everything else on this planet seems important enough to be considered really carefully. * And when 99% plus of all the scientists who actually work in this field believe we are on the wrong track is it time to reconsider?

Have a great Christmas with your friends and family

Cheers


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 December 2008)

basilio said:


> Shorter and wittier.... Look its not hard to throw up mass generalisations, a sweeping assertion that all scientists who believe the earth is getting rapidly warmer are simply self interested. And then you can top it off with the statement all the believers are evangelical god botherers.  On balance that seems to have been the gist of the arguments against global warming in this forum.
> 
> Outside  this topic in the real world, the business world I would take just as careful a line on the assertions of  grand new business deals, great new products and so on. I would imagine most other members would do likewise.  I'd want independent evidence, I'd want to look at the skills and background of the people telling the story (their integrity) , I'd want to know if what they were saying could actually work given basic rules of reality. For example when I'm offered an investment that is going to return 1% a day I know its a scam no matter how plausible or inviting it looks.
> 
> ...




Basilio mate, you need to use shorter words, they have more punch, less pictures of the earth, less graphs and more argument. Argument is not throwing mountains of stats at those on the other side of the argument.

And this statement sounds more like godbothering than logical argument.

Quote

*The question of whether we are taking the biggest gamble of lives, our children and almost everything else on this planet seems important enough to be considered really carefully. *   Unquote

gg


----------



## Calliope (23 December 2008)

basilio;376090
[B said:
			
		

> The question of whether we are taking the biggest gamble of lives, our children and almost everything else on this planet seems important enough to be considered really carefully. [/B] And when 99% plus of all the scientists who actually work in this field believe we are on the wrong track is it time to reconsider?




99% plus :headshake. Now there's a generalisation for you, or is it the usual hyperbole. I am not criticising you for that though. If you want to make a story interesting or alarming you have to tweak the truth a little.

 The year is ending on a low note for the extreme environmentalists. Most people who know something about the economy now realise that this financial disaster has some time to run. Those who have been hit by the downturn, and that includes most of us, know where the greatest threat to our well being, and that of our children and grandchildren lies. And it is not climate change. 

Even those people who live in posh suburbs in large expensive houses and who drive Toorak Tractors and BMWs are now feeling the pinch. These are the people who have been funding the spoilt brats who invade power stations and cruise the seas making mischief. They fully expected the working class to bear the brunt of the costs of limiting emissions by losing jobs. Now that Rudd has disabused them of that notion they have to get back to reality and realise 







> it's the economy stupid




Sorry I was so longwinded.

I hope you have a happier New Year, Bas

Cheers, Kel


----------



## wayneL (23 December 2008)

Here is a meaningless and non-novel article on Gore's movie... 'specially for Rederob.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html


----------



## slim pickins (23 December 2008)

there is very little any of a can say to counter 20 years of indoctrination. Extremist environmentalism has all the hallmarks of a religion. It can't be disproved because if you show that proof it's not happening they just claim it's not happening yet! And I guess they are right, the world will eventually heat up. 

When and why is another issue entirely. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 

A global downturn will reveal who the true believers of GW are. I just don't think we should all pay for other peoples folly.

It will take a while for people to realize the true goals of the environmentalists, just as it did with communism. At least we won't have to worry about them getting nuclear weapons?  but even without nukes their claims that the world is overpopulated sends shivers down my spine!


----------



## wayneL (23 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> there is very little any of a can say to counter 20 years of indoctrination. *Extremist environmentalism has all the hallmarks of a religion*.




Yes I posted an article on this topic earlier in the thread

And as the last link I posted shows, folks have been subjected to the most despicable propaganda imaginable via "An Inconvenient Truth", which has been shown to just about every schoolkid in the world.

Absolute tosh, the whole thing. Proven in a court of law.

As a result people are unable to be subjective about the science, as the GW zealots show us time and time again in this thread and elsewhere.


----------



## Sean K (23 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Gore has never been on my radar (I haven't seen Gore's epic) and his actions are somewhat incidental to the underlying science.



Any thought of watching it Rob?

He won some sort of prize apparently, so must be some sort of champion or even an 'expert'.

'Incidental'? hmmm

I've seen in twice. Rivetting. Have the DVD which has been promoted by Intrepid Travel and inspired their CEO to take up the cause and aim to be carbon neutral etc... They are spending quite a lot on the project I think. Pretty much based on the movie. Hope it's right.....


----------



## wayneL (23 December 2008)

Good site that last link BTW:

eg

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html



> Proved: There is No Climate Crisis
> Written by Robert Ferguson
> Tuesday, 15 July 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## Calliope (23 December 2008)

Thanks Wayne for the Gore exposure.

What drove Gore to such lengths of absurdity? Is he mad, or is he a covert terrorist? The gullible warmers are still spouting his nonsense.

He should be declared public enemy No 1.


----------



## slim pickins (23 December 2008)

what would drive al gore to such actions.... I think personally..... He is mad. I think he lost his sanity in the weeks and months after he lost the election. His beard and subsequent seclusion are proof if insanity  hard to blame him. He lost it by a few hundred votes. 

Such a trauma is enough to send any normal person into the abyss of environmentalism.


----------



## explod (23 December 2008)

> Absolute tosh, the whole thing. Proven in a court of law.




Could you cite the legal finding on this Wayne and the specific relevant precedent.




> As a result people are unable to be subjective about the science, as the GW zealots show us time and time again in this thread and elsewhere.




Also the angle on the word "subjective" in this context.  The sentence makes little sense.


----------



## wayneL (23 December 2008)

Al Gore possesses perhaps the largest ego this side of the Crab Nebula.

This is a wonderful vehicle to be on front of people and have them fawn over him, collect prizes etc.  

He's loving it.


----------



## wayneL (23 December 2008)

explod said:


> Could you cite the legal finding on this Wayne and the specific relevant precedent.



Here is a MSM article which refers to it: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece




> Also the angle on the word "subjective" in this context.  The sentence makes little sense.



Apologies, I meant "objective".

Cheers


----------



## explod (23 December 2008)

However the right word for the finding is the word "subjective"



> Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.




"was braodly accurate...of the causes and effects of climate change"

"some of the claims were wrong"    in the context of alarmism and exaggeration.   Strange words for a court of law.   Sounds a bit like a political take to support business and government direction.  And of course published in a business document.  As with most Investor's "ASF" global warming theatens returns from conventional means.

So those of us who are genuinely concerned for global warming effects must expect your torrents of stones as the forward thinkers did in the middle ages when they contended that the eartch was round.


----------



## Julia (23 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> It will take a while for people to realize the true goals of the environmentalists, just as it did with communism. At least we won't have to worry about them getting nuclear weapons?  but even without nukes their claims that the world is overpopulated sends shivers down my spine!



I'd like to know what these goals are.  Can you elaborate on this?


----------



## Pat (23 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Al Gore possesses perhaps the largest ego this side of the Crab Nebula.



I was thinking you came a close 2nd. ::


----------



## basilio (23 December 2008)

Perhaps it would be useful to actually read and quote a bit more of the Judge Sir Michael Burtons statement regarding Al Gores presentation. For example



> Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.
> 
> *In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
> 
> The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts*.




Put that in your pipe and smoke it. 

Regarding the number of scientists ect who support the view that GW is real.
Good old WIKI took the trouble of researching this question. Short story is that 



> With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.[57]




You can all check the individual statements of the international scientific bodies for their comments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations

And yes you can also find on wiki the details of the individual, known dissenting scientists and what parts of the model they are querying.

*All comes back to same point. The vast majority of scientists in the field (and even the odd commercial law judge)  have been convinced by the evidence of global warming and are concerned about what is likely to happen.*

So what  further evidence will give you reason to reconsider?

___________________________________________________

Global Warming and Peak Oil - the right solutions right now


----------



## rederob (23 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Here is a meaningless and non-novel article on Gore's movie... 'specially for Rederob.
> 
> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html



I have no interest in Gore.
Monckton is Gore's antithesis.

Monckton epitomises junk science.  *His *article "Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered" was trashed by scientific peers.
First, it demonstrated he had little understanding of the concept (or science) of radiative forcing. 
He then goes on to fluff some basic science on modelling, and later draws _*prudent and conservative *_conclusions from his own calculations that in part use feedback data that he had just debunked.

Is there anything else you have that might warrant a second look?


----------



## basilio (23 December 2008)

> Proved: There is No Climate Crisis
> Written by Robert Ferguson
> Tuesday, 15 July 2008
> 
> ...




As Red Rob noted Christopher Moncktons paper was  dissected and trashed by scientific peers after its publication.

And by the way your source above *completely lied* about the peer reviewing of Moncktons paper. Go to the Journals website and you will read the following at the top of the article



> *Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered*
> 
> The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."




And for further interest the Science and Public Policy Institute that promoted the story with the lying comment about peer review is just another Exxon funded front established to spread disinformation about global warming. 

Exon ponied up $100,000 in 2002 to kick it off and $50 grand a year to keep it going.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Ferguson_(Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute)

 _______________________________________________________
_
Global Warming and Peak Oil - The right solutions , right now_


----------



## basilio (23 December 2008)

It's interesting isn't it.  It is hard to appreciate just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You have to climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in your palm. You must ignore an entire field of science, the statements of the world’s most important scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals. And  if you are someone like Christopher Monckton you have to do it all while calling yourself a scientist.

 ___________________________________________________________

_Global Warming and Peak Oil - The right solutions,  right now_


----------



## Calliope (23 December 2008)

explod said:


> So those of us who are genuinely concerned for global warming effects must expect your torrents of stones as the forward thinkers did in the middle ages when they contended that the eartch was round.




You're bit confused there explod. The forward thinkers who contended the earth was round were the sceptics. The vast majority believed otherwise. And of course sceptics will always get a torrent of stones and abuse. Witness Basilio's assault today


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> It will take a while for people to realize the true goals of the environmentalists



Took me a while to work it out too. But it's not about:

Wild rivers / dams

Uranium / nuclear power

One or even all forests

Pulp mills

Cars 

Coal

(items listed in the order the environmentalists raised them as major public issues in the Australian context).

It's about an entirely different way of thinking. One that's close to socialism but not quite. Equality and wealth redistribution certainly, but unlike pure socialism _economic_ wealth in itself is not an objective although certain products of it are.

It's a political ideology comparable to socialism or capitalism in scale of impact. Hence I've long acknowledged that there are 3 major political parties in Australia - Liberal (supposedly capitalist), Labor (supposedly socialist) and Green (certainly environmentalist).

Environmentalists themselves would argue there are only two major political movements in Australiam, Laborials and Greens, since Labor is capitalist as well as socialist and Liberal is socialist as well as capitalist - they're not that far apart on the Left - Right scale overall with the key differences being specific policies more than fundamental ideology.

My own ideology is actually somewhat toward that of the environmentalists but I acknowledge the validity of capitalism as well. So I'm somewhere a bit left of centre if the scale is environmentalist - capitalist. 

Main thing I don't like about the environmentalists is specific rather than general. All that protesting about dams and trees is missing the point in my view. We can reverse the damage from dams in a few decades at most (even Bob Brown admits that publicly) and forests can be regenerated eventually. But you can't put oil back in the ground - and yet environmentalists have essentially ignored that issue and largely still are despite the high profile CO2 issue. Right game but they've kicked the ball the wrong way.


----------



## rederob (23 December 2008)

Calliope said:


> You're bit confused there explod. The forward thinkers who contended the earth was round were the sceptics. The vast majority believed otherwise. And of course sceptics will always get a torrent of stones and abuse. Witness Basilio's assault today



Utterly wrong: Most people through the ages believed the earth was domed until some clever folk (mathmeticians and astronomers) a few thousand years ago worked out it was round.
I suspect you have confused a flat earth with an earth that was the centre of the universe.  Copernicus championed the heliocentric theory and appears to have been encouraged by the Church to progress his work at the time.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 December 2008)

It was a day like any other day here in Townsville.
The sun rose in the East.
It was pleasant until about 0750.
It became quite hot after that
No hotter than ever for 2 days before Christmas.
Then towards evening a glorious sunset.
The sun set in the West
Insects, birds, animals and humans went about their daily business.
So where is all this warmening ??????????????????????

gg


----------



## Calliope (23 December 2008)

Bas and Co. Just supposing your plethora of scientific bodies are right. So what are they doing to try to mitigate the effects of their doomsday predictions?  Don't tell me they are basing their faith on this increasingly industrialised world radically reducing carbon emissions.

Do you think these smart scientists can convince over half the world's population living in impoverished circumstances that they should deny themselves the material benefits that we have taken for granted for the past three or four generations. Just when they were getting close. 

Should the scientists pursue the line, as you do, that they must do it for *our* grandchildren. And they will say "well when you put it like that, we would be selfish not to oblige you." And pigs might fly. They care as little about our grandchildren as we do for their aspirations.

These scientists will either start working hard on mitigation, or be shown up as hypocrites.


----------



## rederob (23 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> So where is all this warmening ??????????????????????



If you had followed some of the issues raised you wouldn't need to ask.
Best you keep enjoying the weather and bathe yourself in a sea of ignorance.


----------



## Calliope (23 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Utterly wrong: Most people through the ages believed the earth was domed until some clever folk (mathmeticians and astronomers) a few thousand years ago worked out it was round.
> I suspect you have confused a flat earth with an earth that was the centre of the universe.  Copernicus championed the heliocentric theory and appears to have been encouraged by the Church to progress his work at the time.




It depended on what part of the world you lived in. At the time of the European middle ages most of the world's population believed the world was flat. Hence those who didn't believe were sceptics


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 December 2008)

rederob said:


> If you had followed some of the issues raised you wouldn't need to ask.
> Best you keep enjoying the weather and bathe yourself in a sea of ignorance.




I will mate , I will, 

Unlike all those poor bastards tortured over 2000 years for not quite believing in the correct dogma.

gg


----------



## rederob (23 December 2008)

Calliope said:


> These scientists will either start working hard on mitigation, or be shown up as hypocrites.



The IPCC published their first major report on "mitigation" in 1995, and followed it up again in 2001 and 2007.
Is it your practice to shoot first and ask questions later?


----------



## rederob (23 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I will mate , I will,
> 
> Unlike all those poor bastards tortured over 2000 years for not quite believing in the correct dogma.
> 
> gg



???
Are you meaning the Inquisitions that took place less than a thousand years ago?


----------



## Calliope (23 December 2008)

rederob said:


> The IPCC published their first major report on "mitigation" in 1995, and followed it up again in 2001 and 2007.
> Is it your practice to shoot first and ask questions later?




Yep. Make my day.You call that working hard?  It doesn't get much airing on this thread. I look forward to your change in direction towards mitigation.


----------



## wayneL (23 December 2008)

Pat said:


> I was thinking you came a close 2nd. ::



HAha, only because you don't like my opinion.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 December 2008)

rederob said:


> ???
> Are you meaning the Inquisitions that took place less than a thousand years ago?




No mate I'm talking 20, 10, 5 years ago.

Northern Ireland  "Say the Hail Mary"  A bullet if you did or a bullet if you didn't.

Kosovo, Rwanda, Palestine, Mumbai.

godbotherers once they get power follow a predictable route.

Not that GW will ever get there.

Because nobody believes it.

gg


----------



## wayneL (23 December 2008)

basilio said:


> It's interesting isn't it.  It is hard to appreciate just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You have to climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in your palm. You must ignore an entire field of science, the statements of the world’s most important scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals. And  if you are someone like Christopher Monckton you have to do it all while calling yourself a scientist.
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> 
> _Global Warming and Peak Oil - The right solutions,  right now_




This criticism would stick... if the climate pessimists had a shred of integrity themselves, but they don't. 

There is no debate about climate science because the warmers refuse to debate, preferring obfuscation and name calling. The warmers have the money, the political imperative and 99% of the press... even spin doctors like Monbiot.

We live in a political environment where public figures must continuously doff their cap to climate change or face political attack, hence the Judges comments in the Gore case. The judge knows it's all BS, but can't say so.

Public figures cannot afford to tell the whole truth, we all know that.

Hence no proper debate.

The mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb is a great analogy mate, but a) it's not accurate and b) it is perhaps one of the most ironic statements I have ever seen, climate scientists being the cherry pickers of data that they are.

Once more, I have a question, what are these "urgent action now" things we must do? We have seen the responses are largely BS, Smurf shows that. I have this awful feeling that they revolve around taxes and encroaching totalitarianism... politics and control, rather than real solutions... and not a bloody word on the other real and more imminent environmental problems we face, some of which are mentioned on this thread (bees, north pacific rubbish tip etc).

Yes, we need urgent action, but focused elsewhere, with the ultimate by-product of reduced CO2 emissions.

As I keep stating, if it was real, folks need a lead from their leaders. They need to see Al Bore on a pushbike and turning vego, not adding to the problem (and there is a problem, just not predominantly with co2) with his lifestyle.


----------



## prawn_86 (23 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> I have this awful feeling that they revolve around taxes and encroaching totalitarianism... politics and control, rather than real solutions... and not a bloody word on the other real and more imminent environmental problems we face, some of which are mentioned on this thread (bees, north pacific rubbish tip etc).




My thoughts exactly Wayne. Call me a skeptic, conspiracy theorist  etc, but i believe it is just a way for gov's to take more freedoms away from the common people.

It was 'terror' for a while, that allowed phone taps, privacy invasions, unlimited holding periods etc, and now CC is the next thing to reduce the freedoms of the mass, stupiefied sheeple public out there.


----------



## Julia (23 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> I have this awful feeling that they revolve around taxes and encroaching totalitarianism... politics and control, rather than real solutions...






prawn_86 said:


> My thoughts exactly Wayne. Call me a skeptic, conspiracy theorist  etc, but i believe it is just a way for gov's to take more freedoms away from the common people.
> 
> It was 'terror' for a while, that allowed phone taps, privacy invasions, unlimited holding periods etc, and now CC is the next thing to reduce the freedoms of the mass, stupiefied sheeple public out there.



My fear also.  The recently announced 5% - 15% scheme, which includes massive compensation for polluters give further weight to this.

And, when talking about government control, let's not forget the soon to be instituted internet blocking. Once this is in place, and the government is refusing to say what sites will be blocked, the population will have no knowledge of what is further being removed from our access as time goes on.

Perhaps even this discussion will in future only carry the remarks of the believers, whilst the comments of the sceptics will simply disappear.
How very convenient it would all be.

Maybe it didn't all happen in 1984 as Orwell proposed, but it might just have been his timing that was out.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 December 2008)

Julia said:


> My fear also.  The recently announced 5% - 15% scheme, which includes massive compensation for polluters give further weight to this.
> 
> And, when talking about government control, let's not forget the soon to be instituted internet blocking. Once this is in place, and the government is refusing to say what sites will be blocked, the population will have no knowledge of what is further being removed from our access as time goes on.
> 
> ...




Agree Julia, the warmeners are very powerful and their influence is pervasive.

gg


----------



## Calliope (23 December 2008)

Julia said:


> Perhaps even this discussion will in future only carry the remarks of the believers, whilst the comments of the sceptics will simply disappear.
> How very convenient it would all be.
> 
> Maybe it didn't all happen in 1984 as Orwell proposed, but it might just have been his timing that was out.




Even now man-made global warming is accepted dogma on the ABC and in the Age and the Sydney Morning  Herald. Any dissent will get short shrift. It's little wonder that those politically motivated people pushing it on this thread  see it as a _fait accompli._


----------



## slim pickins (23 December 2008)

julia,
as someone stated earlier, their true agenda is something similar to the communists. To control money, power, resources and thoughts. The net result will be an impoveished population an impoversihed country lack of freedom but their total control. 

Why would a group do such a thing? Well there is no logic to their actions. It's like asking why did the world have to live in fear of communism for 70 years. Why did the reds bankrupt their countries take away freedoms and try to impose their will on us? Hard to say. Maybe they didn't like proof that there were better systems of government.

Similarly, greens claim their will must be imposed on the world cause thevplanet is in danger. In danger from modernity, wealth, freedom and rising living standards. Don't forget their claim that the world is overpopulated. That's the really scarry bit. 

My parents lived in a commnist country. And I've heard all the stories of the creeping terror, government mandating that noone will have a fridge larger than 1 cubic metre, Noone except government officials will have a car larger then a certain number of horsepower. Noone to have a water heater over 50 liters in size. 

It's eerely similar to the current green proposals of forcing us drive lawnmowers to work and wanting us to share bathater. 

Oh no, the dams are empty in Sydney because we have an extra million people and haven't built a dam for 35 years. Oh no, it's the fault of global warming!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> julia,
> as someone stated earlier, their true agenda is something similar to the communists. To control money, power, resources and thoughts. The net result will be an impoveished population an impoversihed country lack of freedom but their total control.
> 
> Why would a group do such a thing? Well there is no logic to their actions. It's like asking why did the world have to live in fear of communism for 70 years. Why did the reds bankrupt their countries take away freedoms and try to impose their will on us? Hard to say. Maybe they didn't like proof that there were better systems of government.
> ...




Slim you have got it in one.

What a succinct expose of the green fallacy.

I dips me lid to you.

gg


----------



## wayneL (24 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> julia,
> as someone stated earlier, their true agenda is something similar to the communists. To control money, power, resources and thoughts. The net result will be an impoveished population an impoversihed country lack of freedom but their total control.
> 
> Why would a group do such a thing? Well there is no logic to their actions. It's like asking why did the world have to live in fear of communism for 70 years. Why did the reds bankrupt their countries take away freedoms and try to impose their will on us? Hard to say. Maybe they didn't like proof that there were better systems of government.
> ...




Then we have the astonishing duplicity of government. Here in the UK there are plans for an additional runway at Heathrow to handle more air traffic, an additional lane on the M25 London Orbital Motorway, government bailouts for LandRover/Jaguar (maker of co2 belching behemoths according to greenies).

Meanwhile, public transport is uneconomic; if you are transporting more than yourself, it is cheaper to use your car.

They talk the talk, but they are not serious. This presents a _prima faecia_ case for an ulterior agenda as you've outlined. Perhaps it is something as benign as energy security and self sufficiency, but I suspect more sinister motives, along with you.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (24 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Snake
> No. It's a formula that expresses relationships and their effects in a perfect theoretical framework.
> There is more than one greenhouse gas so in the real world each would need to be accounted for.




As I thought.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (24 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Then we have the astonishing duplicity of government. Here in the UK there are plans for an additional runway at Heathrow to handle more air traffic, an additional lane on the M25 London Orbital Motorway, government bailouts for LandRover/Jaguar (maker of co2 belching behemoths according to greenies).
> 
> Meanwhile, public transport is uneconomic; if you are transporting more than yourself, it is cheaper to use your car.
> 
> They talk the talk, but they are not serious. This presents a _prima faecia_ case for an ulterior agenda as you've outlined. Perhaps it is something as benign as energy security and self sufficiency, but I suspect more sinister motives, along with you.




Climate change another name for TAX?


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> My own ideology is actually somewhat toward that of the environmentalists but...



A point of clarification here. 

I'm not really into the whole consumerism thing. Given the choice, I'm quite happy to keep the car I bought in 2000, my old CRT computer monitor and the worn out 1980's chair I'm sitting on. I could pay cash and replace the whole lot tomorrow but I choose not to because I simply don't want to. It's not the money, I just don't need or want the latest and greatest everything - that's not what I want from life.

The car drives nicely, the monitor gives a good picture and the chair's keeping my bottom off the floor perfectly well so I just don't see the point in replacing them. I'm certainly not someone who'd ever buy a certain car or live at a particular address for the status associated with it. No thanks, I'd rather live my life than worry about what others think.

So in that sense I'm with the environmentalists - money and economic wealth isn't the sole objective. Money isn't the meaning of life and I'd rather be in the bush any day than messing about with whatever the latest gadget craze is.

So i get it as far as the rejection of over consumption is concerned. But don't take that to mean Smurf's about to be running around waving green triangles - the only way that'll happen is if the other side has another go at printing some (been done before).


----------



## slim pickins (24 December 2008)

thank you GG.

Wayne, yes. Energy security or self sufficiency will be the excuse. Self sufficiency is north Korea. They are sf sufficient. 

But don't forget UK labor is not the greens. Labour is not dangerous. Misguided yes, dangerous no. They just see taxes in these environmental measures. And a way to get the environmentalist vote.

As bad as the consequences of labors environmental policies are (australias economic collapse) they are nothing in comparison to what would happen if greens take power either overtly or my stealth, through the infiltration of a mainstream political party.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Perhaps it is something as benign as energy security and self sufficiency, but I suspect more sinister motives, along with you.



If energy security was the objective then nuclear, hydro and coal win out over oil or gas any day. It's generally the reverse with evironmentalists so I think we can say with reasonable confidence that it's not about energy security.


----------



## slim pickins (24 December 2008)

smurf, 

There is no problem in you wanting to drive an old car. I don't want to tellbyou what to do. The problem is in greens telling me what car I drive, how much water I spend, forcing me and then charging me for recycling. They should pay me to recyscle since I'm providind multinationals with resources. I want my aircon on with the windows open! My shower head to bucket down water on me. I don't want a water saving washing machine so my clothes are full of foam when I wear them. 

The greens want to stop me. To take our freedoms. In there lies the distinction between you and them. 

And if we are overpopulated the greens should lead by example and not have children. That would end this menace in 2 generations or so.


----------



## wayneL (24 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> t
> But don't forget UK labor is not the greens. Labour is not dangerous. Misguided yes, dangerous no.



I agree with your general thrust, but I must disagree with this statement. Normally the Labour party, though quaintly typical of the tax and spend mold, are fairly benign and good intentioned (and misguided).

This Labour party however, IS dangerous and the Tories have much work to do to restore England's historic liberties. Even the Liberals, typically the "greenest" of the three main parties are concerned about where these Stasi-like cretins are going with their agenda, using CC and terrorism as the excuse.


----------



## wayneL (24 December 2008)

Here's a good balanced read on the AGW controversy.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/i...se_Inside_the_Global_Warming_Controversey.pdf


----------



## GumbyLearner (24 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Here's a good balanced read on the AGW controversy.
> 
> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/i...se_Inside_the_Global_Warming_Controversey.pdf




“When the facts change, I change my mind? What do you do, sir?”

Until it hurts


----------



## wayneL (24 December 2008)

GumbyLearner said:


> “When the facts change, I change my mind? What do you do, sir?”
> 
> Until it hurts



Could you clarify your question?


----------



## wayneL (24 December 2008)

Guys, regarding the political angle of CC, read this most excellent speech from the President of the Czech Republic from earlier this year. Basically vindicating the sentiment expressed in recent posts.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/klaus_alarmism.html



> SNIP:
> 
> After having studied this issue for a couple of years, I am convinced that this panic doesn’t have a solid ground and that it demonstrates an apparent disregard for the past experience of mankind. I know that its propagandists have been using all possible obstructions to avoid exposure to rational arguments and *I know that the substance of their arguments is not science. It represents, on the contrary, an abuse of science by a non-liberal, extremely authoritarian, freedom and prosperity endangering ideology of environmentalism.*






> SNIP:
> 
> This shift seems to me dangerous. The new ambitions look more noble, more attractive and more appealing. They are also very shrewdly shifted towards the future and thus practically “immunized” from reality, from existing evidence, from available observations, and from standard testing of scientific hypotheses. That is the reason why they are loved by the politicians, the media and all their friends among public intellectuals.* For the same reason I consider environmentalism to be the most effective and, therefore, the most dangerous vehicle for advocating large scale government intervention and unprecedented suppression of human freedom at this very moment.*






> SNIP:
> 
> I am frustrated by the fact that many people, including some leading politicians, *who privately express similar views, are more or less publicly silent.* We keep hearing one-sided propaganda regarding the greenhouse hypothesis, but we are not introduced to serious counter-arguments, both inside climatology, and in the field of social sciences.


----------



## slim pickins (24 December 2008)

Hehehe, the good president exposes the "church of climetology" very well.


----------



## rederob (24 December 2008)

Calliope said:


> It depended on what part of the world you lived in. At the time of the European middle ages most of the world's population believed the world was flat. Hence those who didn't believe were sceptics



I guess you will offer up some proof.
The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.


----------



## rederob (24 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Here's a good balanced read on the AGW controversy.



So the skeptics public policy front funded by oil interests is presenting a "balanced read": And Lord Monckton is one of it's chief policy advisers.
The point of the article is to continuously sow the seeds of doubt, and quote selectively only from credentialled skeptics; hardly balanced!

Less controversial conclusions:


> But at least two more decades of satellite data are needed to establish long term climate trends.



This will add 20 years of additional data and do nothing more. 



> Climate sensitivity is based on many complex interactions that are not fully understood.



Undoubtedly true, although it does not of itself mean that the principal relationships are not understood.



> There is a high degree of correlation between these [ocean] oscillations and global temperature. According to climate specialist Joseph D’Aleo, this correlation has been known for years, but it is largely ignored by IPCC climate models.



D'Aleo and the IPCC have different views on causation.

To be fair, the author makes several extremely valid points, like:


> All climate scientists agree that the recent flattening and decline in global temperature over the last decade is due to natural variability.



.
He omits that it's within the context of the hottest period of recorded temperature history, before going on to present further seeds of doubt.

I won't go on because it's already getting a bit too long.  Suffice to say that the key issue missed by the skeptics is that the IPCC is proposing action now, based on the science.  IPCC modelling takes us to 2100.  Without any action, CO2 emissions in 2100 will be significantly greater and the probable impact on climate irreversible for the next century.  It appears the skeptics learned nothing from the scientific debate over chlorofluorocarbons.


----------



## wayneL (24 December 2008)

rederob said:


> The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.




http://www.dailytech.com/Princeton+Physicist+Calls+Global+Warming+Science+Mistaken/article13773c.htm



> Happer's latest remarks were made yesterday, as he asked to be included in a Senate Environment and Public Works report of scientists disputing global warming alarmism. Happer joins 650 other scientists on the list, many of whom have been interviewed previously by DailyTech.
> 
> *"Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility,"* Happer concluded.
> 
> In response to Happer's remarks, Senator James Inhofe, ranking minority member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said, *"The endless claims of a consensus on man-made global warming grow less and less credible every day"*.


----------



## Calliope (24 December 2008)

rederob said:


> I guess you will offer up some proof.
> The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.




It depends on how you tweak the figures and you're the expert in that game. I can't compete. However your whinge that you are the recipient of a torrent of stones because you are a forward thinker is pathetic.


----------



## wayneL (24 December 2008)

rederob said:


> So the skeptics public policy front funded by oil interests is presenting a "balanced read": And Lord Monckton is one of it's chief policy advisers.
> The point of the article is to continuously sow the seeds of doubt, and quote selectively only from credentialled skeptics; hardly balanced!
> 
> Less controversial conclusions:
> ...




So you agree with the bits that fit your hypothesis?

Great science there mate. LOL

The Czech President has it sussed and has the balls to say it, controversy sorted as far as I'm concerned. The fight now has been exposed as a political one (always has been).


----------



## mayk (24 December 2008)

I think one of the main agenda of CG is to curtail the world population to near 500Million. Right now we are way over crowded. A China like  one-child policy might be the solution to fix this problem. It is amazing how it can effect the population growth. Consider 1B can be reduced to .5B in over 70-80 years. A 2-Child policy might not work as it will keep the population kinda constant. 


Global warming can help the industry shift back to western nations. If a UN sanction (like inthe case of pre-Saddam Iraq) is imposed on all the nations not able to comply with strict GW standards, then we can limit the trade and hence have to grow/produce the things ourself. 


The main point ignored in the climate change debate is the impact of Sun on global warming. I believe Sun has more impact on global warming than mere humans. A crazy science fiction idea will be to use an umbrella like satellite to block the rays of sun reaching earth, so as to cool it down .


----------



## Pat (24 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> HAha, only because you don't like my opinion.



On the contrary-


> The assumption that underlies all of science is that everything in the material world is governed by scientific laws. Because even theories and laws are open to question when new evidence is found, hypotheses, theories and laws are continually re-examined. In fact, the key to scientific method is disprovability... Any theory that cannot, at least possibly, be disproved, is not scientific.




I love the GW/CC debate. Without the arguments for and against, there would be minimal scientific evolution. I suppose you could say it helps fire advancement.

I have not seen any evidence so far that dismisses the AGW hypothesis. Nor have I seen good reason not to change our pollutant ways, which includes releasing greenhouse gases into our fragile environment.


----------



## Calliope (24 December 2008)

Obama prefers the warming  to the cooling.


----------



## Calliope (24 December 2008)

And furthermore Red Rob your belief that that somebody on the loony left could be a forward thinker is an oxymoron. 

The last century threw up a lot of evil people claiming they were forward thinkers. Some who come to mind are Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Kim Jong.

Their forward thinking involved the extermination of millions of their fellow citizens in a crazy attempt to rid themselves of all dissent.

Slim Pickings, who seems aware of what these people are like, has good cause to feel scared about your brand of forward thinking.


----------



## explod (24 December 2008)

Calliope said:


> And furthermore Red Rob your belief that that somebody on the loony left could be a forward thinker is an oxymoron.
> 
> The last century threw up a lot of evil people claiming they were forward thinkers. Some who come to mind are Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Kim Jong.
> 
> ...




Yeh, and history will probably add, Greenspan, Cheney and the gopher Bush to that list as well.


----------



## rederob (24 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> So you agree with the bits that fit your hypothesis?
> 
> Great science there mate. LOL
> 
> The Czech President has it sussed and has the balls to say it, controversy sorted as far as I'm concerned. The fight now has been exposed as a political one (always has been).



Your arguments are getting more and more pathetic.
You keep attacking the man while simultaneously saying we should stop.
You keep invoking the "straw man" defence when your position is countered.
You keep quoting junk scientists and lay people to support your propositions.
You have not provided a shred of credible information in this thread that counters the recorded and visible evidence that is consistent with the theory underpinning global warming. 
You appear to rely on snippets of information that fit your mindset, and remain closed to a contrary view.
You quote credentialled scientists that are skeptics, but are unable to disprove AGW.
The most rational scientists in this debate are not those that hold to a pro or anti position, but remain uncertain that the evidence is presently definitive.  They do not dispute the science, but recognise much of the available data is conceivably within the bounds of statistical uncertainty.


----------



## wayneL (24 December 2008)

explod said:


> Yeh, and history will probably add, Greenspan, Cheney and the gopher Bush to that list as well.




Come now. History will no doubt be justifiably scathing, but not in the same class as the others.


----------



## rederob (24 December 2008)

Calliope said:


> And furthermore Red Rob your belief that that somebody on the loony left could be a forward thinker is an oxymoron.



I don't and never have had such beliefs. 
I simply asked you to prove you view on flat earth thinking and you did a Wayne on me.


----------



## wayneL (24 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Your arguments are getting more and more pathetic.
> You keep attacking the man while simultaneously saying we should stop.
> You keep invoking the "straw man" defence when your position is countered.
> You keep quoting junk scientists and lay people to support your propositions.
> ...




Sorry Red,

I don't find you credible enough anymore to take you seriously, some of the above points being demonstrably ludicrous.

I am satisfied with my position and at peace with my environmental actions, satisfied that they are superior to the alarmists.

Over and out.


----------



## glenn_r (24 December 2008)

I bet the people living in New York would enjoy some global warming right now....


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 December 2008)

wayneL said:
			
		

> But my consistent argument is that the AGWH religion draws attention from other "real" and urgent matters.
> 
> If you love your grandchildren, focus on the other myriad of environmental catastrophes and stop shadow boxing against the nonsense of co2 induced GW. If approached in this way, co2, if a factor in CC, will reduce as well. ...



and conversely 
if you look after the co2, the other pollutions will likewise reduce as well.


----------



## explod (24 December 2008)

glenn_r said:


> I bet the people living in New York would enjoy some global warming right now....




May be,  but it is the juxtaposition of extreme heat and cold that increases weather activities,  longer periods of heat lead at time to extreme (but shorter mind you) dashes of cold.   

I mean, snow down at Las Vagas.


----------



## glenn_r (24 December 2008)

explod said:


> May be,  but it is the juxtaposition of extreme heat and cold that increases weather activities,  longer periods of heat lead at time to extreme (but shorter mind you) dashes of cold.
> 
> I mean, snow down at Las Vagas.




It snows here in Geelong every 10 years or so, has done for 1000's of years I believe, so do you have research to back up your statement?


----------



## explod (24 December 2008)

glenn_r said:


> It snows here in Geelong every 10 years or so, has done for 1000's of years I believe, so do you have research to back up your statement?




Geelongs a bit far south,  we even get a bit at Mount Martha.  Las Vagas (northern hemesphere) is around about equal lattitude to Brisbane in our southern hemisphere.

Dont' need much science when we have clear observations.   The twisters across the USA over the last five years have been the worst since records kept.   Last year about 1000% up on 20 years ago.   Not science, just what is happenning.


----------



## slim pickins (24 December 2008)

just amazing, whatever occurs, whether it's floods, drought, heat, hail or snow it's the fault of global warming..... Oh hang on, it's been proven that it isn't getting warmer anymore, better take down our charts and just call it "climate change" we can't go wrong with that. 

The climate will always change..... They can't disprove that. 

The cynicism of the church of climatology is incredible


----------



## explod (24 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> just amazing, whatever occurs, whether it's floods, drought, heat, hail or snow it's the fault of global warming..... Oh hang on, it's been proven that it isn't getting warmer anymore, better take down our charts and just call it "climate change" we can't go wrong with that.
> 
> The climate will always change..... They can't disprove that.
> 
> The cynicism of the church of climatology is incredible




I did not say anything in my posts about global warming, just the strange weather we have been having.   And yes the thread is about climate change.

And just as amazing is the insistance that co2 emissions etc have nothing to do with some of the funny climate change.   Bit early to decide that on our observations and anectotal I agree but if we are wrong we could be sorry.


----------



## wayneL (24 December 2008)

explod said:


> The twisters across the USA over the last five years have been the worst since records kept.   Last year about 1000% up on 20 years ago.   Not science, just what is happenning.




MYTH ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!



> Are the number of tornadoes increasing?
> 
> The number of tornadoes that occur each year is not increasing, but the number of spotted and reported tornadoes is. The reason for this is that more people live in or travel through tornado prone areas than used to. This has led to better communication and reportings of severe weather.




from http://www.wunderground.com/tornadoFAQ.asp

and http://www.cdli.ca/CITE/tornadoes_stats.htm


----------



## slim pickins (24 December 2008)

explod, 
If climate changes that's fine by me. It's what's climates do. I live in London and it snowed 2 months ago. Surely we need more CO2 to heat things up a little. 

I don't need charts and doctored science to tell me what heats up the earth.


It's the sun! CO2 in the atmosphere has a miniscule effect. It's as clear as day to me. Try it on a cold winter night. Pump your house full of CO2 and see how you go. 

Alternatively, wait for the sun to rise in the morning, and compare the two.

The reason why the church is against CO2 is because it has connotations on the basis of our whole economy and way of life. Both of which the church wants to destroy. 

The truth is carbon is life, the more of it out there the better the trees and plankton will grow. 

All of our reductions will be wiped away with one bushfire. It's just a silly argument. 

Mind you I have nothing against a planet clean from things toxic to us.


----------



## rederob (24 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Sorry Red,
> 
> I don't find you credible enough anymore to take you seriously, some of the above points being demonstrably ludicrous.
> 
> ...



I have backed up my points.
You have backed out of any reasoned debate.
Yet again you fail to substantiate your view.
Perhaps there's a positive correlation between ego and gutless wonderment?


----------



## Pat (24 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> and conversely
> if you look after the co2, the other pollutions will likewise reduce as well.



Seems like this is a mute point. What’s more important is who's right and who's wrong. Also how much money we may lose if we take a giant leap...forward.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (24 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> I am satisfied with my position and at peace with my environmental actions, satisfied that they are superior to the alarmists.



I agree with you Wayne, are the alarmists actually changing their habits? 
How many are giving up their positions to help? 
How many are really doing something? 
It all stinks of TAX.


----------



## explod (24 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Sorry Red,
> 
> I don't find you credible enough anymore to take you seriously, some of the above points being demonstrably ludicrous.
> 
> ...




SUPERIOR, excuse us for for trying to compete with your space OL CHAP.

I am not satisfied with any position because there is cridible evidence that climatic conditions are changing measurable faster than at any time before.

Read the "sixth extinction", a book published about 2001 which covers this matter from many views angles and actual physical mesurements and analysis.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (24 December 2008)

rederob said:


> I have backed up my points.
> You have backed out of any reasoned debate.
> Yet again you fail to substantiate your view.
> Perhaps there's a positive correlation between ego and gutless wonderment?



You are attacking the man here.
What points have you added that may back up your stance?


----------



## slim pickins (24 December 2008)

if anyone notices, I have not attempted to argue science with anyone on Here. This because there is no point and the science is bogus. 

Science that leaves any doubt is not a very good science. Why base important decisions on bad science? ..... You do it cause of your political agenda. You failed with communism, so you are using environmentalism to achieve exactly the same thing.

No one here will agrue with good science. To don't see me questioning gravity or the properties of light. Or even the behaviour or sub atomic particles. That's good science. Easily proven. Even evolution is so well proven that it's becoming the norm for clergy to say that evolution is an act of god.

I can't say the same about GW science. That is just faith. Which makes you just another religion. Well there are better religions then yours that promise everything from virgins to free alcohol. You just can't compete


----------



## explod (24 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> You are attacking the man here.
> What points have you added that may back up your stance?




Not attacking the man at all, only the reasoning,

have another read of it.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (24 December 2008)

rederob said:


> I don't and never have had such beliefs.
> I simply asked you to prove you view on flat earth thinking and *you did a Wayne on me*.



This is a derogatory comment red. You are attacking the man not debating.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (24 December 2008)

explod said:


> Not attacking the man at all, only the reasoning,
> 
> have another read of it.




Oh, how silly of me. Please excuse me.
saying gutless is not an attack?


----------



## wayneL (24 December 2008)

rederob said:


> I have backed up my points.
> You have backed out of any reasoned debate.
> Yet again you fail to substantiate your view.
> Perhaps there's a positive correlation between ego and gutless wonderment?




I have substantiated and backed up my views right throughout this thread and I have provided links _ad nasaeum_ and debated extensively. But you ignore this and go on this petulant, puerile, petty and untruthful attack.

My previous post is entirely vindicated here. You have obviously lost control of your emotions and now to be taken even less seriously than before.

When in a hole stop digging.

Chill.


----------



## Calliope (24 December 2008)

rederob said:


> I have backed up my points.
> You have backed out of any reasoned debate.
> Yet again you fail to substantiate your view.
> Perhaps there's a positive correlation between ego and gutless wonderment?




Wayne, 

Why don't you do as you are told. The GWs will not tolerate disobedience. They will find ways of making you talk when they take over completely.


----------



## wayneL (24 December 2008)

Calliope said:


> Wayne,
> 
> Why don't you do as you are told. The GWs will not tolerate disobedience. They will find ways of making you talk when they take over completely.




we shall fight on the beaches, 
we shall fight on the landing grounds, 
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, 
we shall fight in the hills; 
we shall never surrender!


----------



## rederob (24 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> It's the sun! CO2 in the atmosphere has a miniscule effect. It's as clear as day to me. Try it on a cold winter night. Pump your house full of CO2 and see how you go.
> Alternatively, wait for the sun to rise in the morning, and compare the two.



If you pumped your house full of CO2 and the sun shone upon it (ie the CO2)you would be wise to not be there for breakfast as it will cook itself.
Even the climate change skeptics are aware of the physics of radiative forcing.
Moreover, without an atmosphere the sun would only transfer energy to the surface of the planet, and all other energy would be lost as it radiates back into "outer space".


----------



## slim pickins (24 December 2008)

indeed you will all submit to their ideology! Hehehehe.

I just realized the "cap & trade" proposal for industry is known as the "tax and trade system". But it also has the effect of rationing energy in practical terms. 

Now when you consider the GW movement wants to ration our bathwater etc it's easy to draw the comparison with their rationing cousins, the communists, who advocated the rationing of everything from eggs to toilet paper.

I suggest you look up "the red nightmare" part 1 to 6, on YouTube to just try and imagine life under an environmentalist dictatorship!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> we shall fight on the beaches,
> we shall fight on the landing grounds,
> we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
> we shall fight in the hills;
> we shall never surrender!




Just don't fart mate, 

You'll end up in a concentration camp.

gg


----------



## rederob (24 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> I have substantiated and backed up my views right throughout this thread and I have provided links _ad nasaeum_ and debated extensively. But you ignore this and go on this petulant, puerile, petty and untruthful attack.
> 
> My previous post is entirely vindicated here. You have obviously lost control of your emotions and now to be taken even less seriously than before.
> 
> ...



Rant all you like.

I asked you to examine the issue of land ice versus sea ice, after you trotted out one of your famously misleading quotes.
Result: No contest.

You are incapable of understanding how obliquity affected radiative forcings during the MWP, and love to trot out the visual bucolic of farms in Greenland to support your natural climate stance.  As global warming continues to severely impact Greenland you might see farms there again, in your lifetime, without the need for a change to the earth's axis.

You purport semblances of "balance" yet repeatedly fail to understand the underlying context or interests that suggest an opposite reality.

You are so poorly educated on the issues that you don't even know how well you have been conned.


----------



## Julia (24 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> julia,
> as someone stated earlier, their true agenda is something similar to the communists. To control money, power, resources and thoughts. The net result will be an impoveished population an impoversihed country lack of freedom but their total control.
> 
> Why would a group do such a thing? Well there is no logic to their actions. It's like asking why did the world have to live in fear of communism for 70 years. Why did the reds bankrupt their countries take away freedoms and try to impose their will on us? Hard to say. Maybe they didn't like proof that there were better systems of government.
> ...



Thanks for reply, Slim pickins.   
Your description of your parents' life in a communist country is scary.
This stuff is creeping in here.   e.g. Only x litres of water allowed per person per day in Brisbane (and maybe in other places?), mooted inspection of homes to ensure water saving devices fitted etc etc.

Presumably the hope is that the people will gradually forget that there are water shortages because of the lack of planning by successive incompetent governments.

I've removed the water saving device from the shower heads.  Don't necessarily want a long shower but I do want a decent flow of water.


----------



## Julia (24 December 2008)

rederob said:


> You keep quoting junk scientists and lay people to support your propositions.



Could you please supply a definition of a "junk scientist".
What makes one scientist's work "junk" and another's "worthy" or "valid"?


----------



## mayk (24 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Rant all you like.
> 
> I asked you to examine the issue of land ice versus sea ice, after you trotted out one of your famously misleading quotes.
> Result: No contest.
> ...




Sir,

Do you know that science based on data is not a universal truth as 2+2=4. 

When you say most of the scientific organizations (which are political entities) support CG theory, you seem to ignore the blatant truth that they are getting money for research from govt. Environmental scientist were largely ignored in recent history and they want to get maximum mileage out of this, just like any other entity would do.

Have you ever seen the research culture in universities? You have to understand the politics in Academia. If you go against the flow you won't get a tenure and most of these scientist depend on that. Free thinking is not that free in Academia, sadly. Most scientists, at the end of their career, start to publish some truth. But again most of their publications are written by young grad students who do not want to get their chances diminished by challenging the heavy weights in their field.   

Research has been turned in to an industry, and the same business models are running in Academia. Free thinkers are few and far between because they have to secure the next round of funding, which they can only get if their proposal include that they want to create "energy efficient" or "green" bu*l Sh*t. Don't believe me check the latest funding grants from Australian Research Council (ARC).


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (24 December 2008)

rederob,


> You are so poorly educated on the issues that you don't even know how well you have been conned.



I believe Wayne has an opinion much like I do which upsets some because it is not in line with the smooth redistribution of wealth. 

Mr Taleb has a good essay on prediction you should read. You can find it in his Black Swan book. I highly recommend the investigation of it. I too am interested in the answers to Julia's questions.


----------



## rederob (24 December 2008)

Julia said:


> Could you please supply a definition of a "junk scientist".
> What makes one scientist's work "junk" and another's "worthy" or "valid"?



There are ample links via google, and it was discussed earlier in this thread.
But a quick demonstration.
Lord Monckton: "Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered"  (2008) has a section on forcing that bypasses the accepted physics and instead focuses on temperature variations and the effects of feedback. He goes on to suggest that models need to use low value feedback parameters lest they become unstable, Yet his conservative conclusuions are derived from the highest value feedback parameters which he earlier argued against.


----------



## rederob (24 December 2008)

mayk said:


> Sir,
> 
> Do you know that science based on data is not a universal truth as 2+2=4.
> 
> When you say most of the scientific organizations (which are political entities) support CG theory, you seem to ignore the blatant truth that they are getting money for research from govt. Environmental scientist were largely ignored in recent history and they want to get maximum mileage out of this, just like any other entity would do.



These are not things you can attribute to me, so perhaps redirect.

However, to give you a fighting chance at understanding what is at issue with global warming, do some research on the debate that led to chlorofluorocarbons being banned.

I can get you started: In 1980, Du Pont instigated the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy, an anti-regulatory industry lobby group. When Ronald Reagan took office Du Pont suspended further research for alternatives to CFCs, knowing that there would be no political pressure for immediate action. As late as 1986, the Alliance was still arguing that the science was too uncertain to justify any action.


----------



## Calliope (24 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> Now when you consider the GW movement wants to ration our bathwater etc it's easy to draw the comparison with their rationing cousins, the communists, who advocated the rationing of everything from eggs to toilet paper.




The GW equivalent of the KGB will have a surveillance camera in your toilet. 
Use two squares and you will get a knock on your door at 2AM and dragged off for interrogation and political indoctrination.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 December 2008)

I've long argued on this forum that the big problem with environmentalists and this debate is that they won't accept the measures needed to actually reduce CO2. 

They say we must do it, survival depends on it etc then start a campaign against practically anything that actually provides a viable lower (or no) CO2 alternative. 

It's comparable to saying you want to cut down on binge drinking then starting a campaign to ban the sale of soft drinks and water in pubs. Anyone with even modest intelligence can see that you are directly opposing any workable measure, except outright shutting down of the entire industry, that would help deliver what you claim to want. 

But that's effectively what environmentalists have been doing with energy since the very inception of the mainstream environmental movement. They hate hydro and nuclear, the only two large scale clean energy sources actually in use, with a passion that has to be seen to be believed. They say gas is OK but then oppose attempts to find, extract or process it. They say wind is a good alternative but then protest the construction of wind farms. 

There's just no pleasing these people unless you are going to literally turn out the lights and stop the wheels turning. That situation reeks of an agenda far wider than a simple concern about emissions of CO2.  

Another classic example of this situation in the news today. They say it's better to use gas but then  oppose it being done in locations that would be economic. A nice backdoor way of simply shutting down the industry whilst claiming it would be OK if relocated - it's a bit hard to move a gas field just like it's rather hard to remove a uranium ore body or a river to somewhere the greens find more acceptable. Just like they claim to support pulp mills, but only in places remote from existing industry (seems a rather strange argument) with high infrastructure and transport costs. That is, places where it wouldn't be viable to build one anyway. All up, a nice way of saying you're not against everything when in practice you are. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/24/2454714.htm?section=australia


----------



## mayk (24 December 2008)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472164,00.html


> *Children's Books Use Christmas to Push Global Warming Agenda
> *
> 
> Global warming alarmists, picking up where the Grinch left off, are trying to steal Christmas, some critics say. From children's books to school plays, the climate change crowd is dreaming of a green Christmas, angering opponents who say 'tis NOT the season to be preachy.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 December 2008)

Nothing makes me cringe more than seeing young children forced into protest marches, blockades etc. They're not voicing a considered opinion, they don't even comprehend the issue. It's blatant use of children for political gain and it stinks in my opinion.

As for this particular example, there's only one way for Santa to go Green and that's to stop giving out presents. If you're going to tell the kids something then tell them the truth - the whole concept of giving kids toys etc isn't in the slightest way Green.


----------



## wayneL (24 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Rant all you like.
> 
> I asked you to examine the issue of land ice versus sea ice, after you trotted out one of your famously misleading quotes.
> Result: No contest.
> ...




Has the President of the Czech Republic also been conned, or is it like he says and it's the likes of you that have been conned?

Considering your utterly dogmatic approach, indicating indoctrination, perhaps even brainwashing, I think it likely the latter.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Just don't fart mate,
> 
> You'll end up in a concentration camp.
> 
> gg






wayneL said:


> Has the President of the Czech Republic also been conned, or is it like he says and it's the likes of you that have been conned?
> 
> Considering your utterly dogmatic approach, indicating indoctrination, perhaps even brainwashing, I think it likely the latter.




Dear Wayne,

I've always suspected you of being a farter.

All Czechs are of your ilk , from my experience , at least the young ladies I met some years ago on a trip through middle Europe..

Only Greens don't fart.

Constipation rules in their tiny dry world of ignored kak.

Happy Christmas mate.

gg


----------



## wayneL (24 December 2008)

mayk said:


> Sir,
> 
> Do you know that science based on data is not a universal truth as 2+2=4.
> 
> ...




This is such a huge factor in science nowadays.

I have a friend, a PhD who is in a position of oversight on any research conducted in a particular field (not climate science, but another controversial area*). She, with a flourishing roll of her eyes, will totally confirm what you have just said here.

Says 99% of most papers are total rubbish, even admits her PhD thesis was total rubbish. The process is:

1/ Determine conclusion that will get funding.

2/ Design research to support conclusion.

3/ Avoid  at all costs, data that contradicts conclusion.

4/ Publish paper with aim of getting further funding.

5/ NEVER, go against the prevailing thought process

6/ Rinse and repeat


*I won't say what as she will be easily identified.

I also used to get all the research on equine exercise physiology when I was a horse trainer. Most of the research was totally laughable based on how the experiments were set up and conducted.

One small example which was repeated with startling regularity and stupidity, is drawing conclusions on maximal performance based an sub-maximal exercise. ie doing tests at a canter and purporting the result to be applicable at a flat out gallop under whip... ludicrous. Aim: to flog some powder or something like that as a miracle performance enhancer to racehorse trainers at miraculous markups.

The ruse works, but the powder never does.

It's disgraceful, but that is the environment we're in.

I admire honest scientists, as it is often at the cost of advancement in their career.

Back to climate science; if someones wants to advance in that field, it would be suicide to draw any conclusions that did not support the IPCC hypothesis.


----------



## wayneL (24 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Dear Wayne,
> 
> I've always suspected you of being a farter.
> 
> ...




LOL

I believe it is referred to as "passing wind" here in Cheltenham, it's those folks in Gloucester who fart. 

..and Merry Christmas to you and yours.


----------



## rederob (24 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Has the President of the Czech Republic also been conned, or is it like he says and it's the likes of you that have been conned?
> 
> Considering your utterly dogmatic approach, indicating indoctrination, perhaps even brainwashing, I think it likely the latter.



Quoting from others and not supporting your or their cases is hardly the making of a reasoned debate.
On which part of the science did the President provide a rebuttal to climate change?


----------



## wayneL (24 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Quoting from others and not supporting your or their cases is hardly the making of a reasoned debate.
> On which part of the science did the President provide a rebuttal to climate change?




Mate, we are all quoting from others, unless doing the science ourselves. I don't think any ASFers are doing that. Think of another angle that won't leave you hoist by your own petard.

Oh, and Merry Christmas to you too.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 December 2008)

Interesting article from New Scientist. Maybe we are doing good??


Humans may have prevented super ice age 
18:00 12 November 2008 by Michael Le Page 


Our impact on Earth's climate might be even more profound than we realise. Before we started pumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the planet was on the brink of entering a semi-permanent ice age, two researchers have proposed.

Had we not radically altered the atmosphere, say Thomas Crowley of the University of Edinburgh, UK, and William Hyde of the University of Toronto in Canada, the current cycle of ice ages and interglacials would have given way in the not-too-distant future to an ice age lasting millions of years.

"It's not proven but it's more than just an interesting idea," says Crowley.

For much of the 500 million years or so since complex life evolved, Earth's climate has been much hotter than it is now, with no ice at the poles. During the last of these "hothouse Earth" phases, from around 100 to 50 million years ago, the Antarctic was covered by lush forests and shallow seas submerged vast areas of America, Europe and Africa.

Oscillating wildly
Since that time, though, CO2 levels have slowly fallen, possibly due to the rise of the Himalayas. As a result Earth has gradually cooled, with permanent ice sheets starting to form in Antarctica around 30 million years ago and later in the Arctic.

Then, 2.5 million years ago, the climate entered a curious new phase: it started oscillating wildly, see-sawing between interglacial periods with conditions similar to today's and ice ages during which the amount of permanent ice in the northern hemisphere expanded hugely.

At the peaks of these transient ice ages, much of northern Europe, northern Asia and North America were covered in ice sheets up to 4 kilometres thick, and sea levels were 120 metres lower than today.

From a "deep time" perspective, this ice age-interglacial cycle may be just another brief transitional phase. It has been becoming ever more variable, Crowley says.

Bigger swings
When the cycle began, the climate went from ice age to interglacial and back roughly every 41,000 years. More recently, it has been happening every 100,000 years.

The temperature swings have also become greater: the interglacials have been no warmer but the ice ages have become much colder. So the overall cooling trend was continuing - until the arrival of the Anthropocene, the period in which humans have started to have a major affect on Earth's climate and ecosystems.

According to a simple climate model developed by Crowley and Hyde, this increasing variability was a sign that the climate was about to flip into a new stable state - a semi-permanent ice age. This ice age might well have lasted for tens of millions of years or more, Crowley says.

In the model runs best resembling actual climate history, the switch to a long-lasting ice age happened as early as 10,000 to 100,000 years from now. However, Crowley stresses that not too much confidence can be placed on the results of single runs out of many.

Hello snowball
The idea of the world becoming locked in an ice age is certainly plausible, says James Zachos of the University of California, Santa Cruz, who studies past climate. It's not that rare for the climate to switch from one state into another, he says.

And there were extensive and long-lived ice ages during the Carboniferous period, around 300 million years, points out climate modeller Andy Ridgwell of the University of Bristol, UK.

Further back, around 700 million years ago, there was an even colder period known as "Snowball Earth", when the planet froze over nearly completely.

However, Crowley and Hyde are going to have to do a lot more work to convince their peers. Because of the vast lengths of time involved, they used a very basic model to simplify calculations. "It is not as complex as everyone wants it to be, but you can run it for a very long time," says Crowley.


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 December 2008)

Knobby22 said:


> Maybe we are doing good??




From an eternal viewpoint the (all things) evolutionary process is perfect.
From observation it `seems` we are on a path to self destruction but THAT is the evolutionary path for imbalance.

- feeling philosophical on the 24th Dec.


----------



## Julia (24 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Quoting from others and not supporting your or their cases is hardly the making of a reasoned debate.






rederob said:


> There are ample links via google, and it was discussed earlier in this thread.
> But a quick demonstration.
> Lord Monckton: "Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered"  (2008) has a section on forcing that bypasses the accepted physics and instead focuses on temperature variations and the effects of feedback. He goes on to suggest that models need to use low value feedback parameters lest they become unstable, Yet his conservative conclusuions are derived from the highest value feedback parameters which he earlier argued against.




Rederob:   why is it so difficult for you to simply provide your own analysis as I requested?

You are doing just as you have suggested is inappropriate.  I frankly couldn't care less what any Lord Monckton says.   

I've simply asked you for your own definition of what constitutes a "junk scientist" as opposed to a "valid scientist".

You know so much, surely this can't be too hard an ask for you?


----------



## rederob (24 December 2008)

Julia said:


> You know so much, surely this can't be too hard an ask for you?



Please don't bother me with what you already know.
Open a thread on junk science and see who you can trap.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Please don't bother me with what you already know.
> Open a thread on junk science and see who you can trap.






Rederob , when I was a lad I won a prize to a science fair on atomic energy.

It was the great hope for the future.

The warmeners seem more political than even that fair was.

As sixteen year olds we saw through it all.

You guys are like lemmings.

You can't see the other point of view.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> 1/ Determine conclusion that will get funding.
> 
> 2/ Design research to support conclusion.
> 
> ...



That is exactly how consultants engaged by management work. Tell them what to find - the consultant's job is simply to find some data that supports the decision already made.

If you are being funded to research climate change then, unless you want to put yourself out of business, you can't really come back and say there's no such thing as climate change. Nobody's going to fund something that doesn't exist.


----------



## Julia (24 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Please don't bother me with what you already know.
> Open a thread on junk science and see who you can trap.



That's a completely irrelevant answer.
You were the one who started using the term "junk science/junk scientists".
I am simply asking you to define this.


----------



## rederob (24 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Mate, we are all quoting from others, unless doing the science ourselves. I don't think any Askers are doing that. Think of another angle that won't leave you hoist by your own petard.
> 
> Oh, and Merry Christmas to you too.



You are mistaken on two counts.
First, an understanding of the science does not imply you are actually "doing" the science.
Secondly you are "foist" on your own petard.


----------



## wayneL (24 December 2008)

rederob said:


> You are mistaken on two counts.
> First, an understanding of the science does not imply you are actually "doing" the science.
> Secondly you are "foist" on your own petard.




This still leaves you "hoist" by your own petard.


----------



## rederob (25 December 2008)

Julia said:


> That's a completely irrelevant answer.
> You were the one who started using the term "junk science/junk scientists".
> I am simply asking you to define this.



Do you have a problem opening a new thread to appease your concerns?
I gave an example of junk science and you gleaned nothing from it?
"Valid" science or whatever you wish to call it would have used the known principles of forcings, applied these to climate models, and determined a range of responses depending on the variables, the most important (and uncertain) of which is "feedback".
My response was contexted to this thread's theme.
Simply put, junk science is *not *science.  It's a deliberate and calculated misuse of information or principles to reach conclusions that may convince people who are gullible, ill-informed or just too dumb or lazy to think for themselves.
If you were paying attention you might have noticed that we are presently repeating what was experienced by the scientists who worked out the effect of chlorofluorocarbons on the atmosphere.  The CO2 debate is deja vu.


----------



## slim pickins (25 December 2008)

It seems all very unfair, we are down to only one member of the church of climetology. The rest must be out whale watching, or tree hugging. 

You see like you I thought tree hugging was just a phrase. In London a month ago while jogging I saw lady acually hugging a tree at champion park. She wrapper her arms around it and held it for 10 minutes at least. Frightening stuff.

Redrob, if you think that CO2 is a problem could you outline a solution?
A solution that does not destroy our industry and econmic system and lead to wedespread poverty. Please take the liberty of a detailed response. And do follow up by providing solutions to problems youbwill create. 

Eg. If we all have 2 tonnes of batteries on our electric cars how will we deal with those toxic batteries.

Eg. If we all have solar pannels on homes what will we do to provide electricity to those for whom such tech will make electricity prohibitavely expensive. Don't forget even at todays prices a lot of the world can't afford it.

?????


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> It seems all very unfair, we are down to only one member of the church of climetology. The rest must be out whale watching, or tree hugging.
> 
> You see like you I thought tree hugging was just a phrase. In London a month ago while jogging I saw lady acually hugging a tree at champion park. She wrapper her arms around it and held it for 10 minutes at least. Frightening stuff.




It seems you experienced a brief moment of someone elses life whilst oblivious to your own.Selflessness ... a rare trait indeed.  from me and  from him.


----------



## wayneL (25 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Part A - "Valid" science or whatever you wish to call it would have used the known principles of forcings, applied these to climate *models*, and determined a *range of responses* *depending on the variables*, the most important (and uncertain) of which is "feedback".
> 
> 
> Part B - Simply put, junk science is *not *science.  It's a deliberate and calculated misuse of information or principles to reach conclusions that may convince people who are gullible, ill-informed or just too dumb or lazy to think for themselves.




Red,

I'm confused.

Part B of your argument could, indeed does, completely destroy your argument in Part A.

Climate modeling with the end in mind (a la the IPCC model) has indeed been a deliberate and calculated misuse of information or principles to reach conclusions that may convince people who are gullible, ill-informed or just too dumb or lazy to think for themselves. AKA junk science.

Worse is the religious zeal the perpetrators of this hoax have somehow managed to implant in it's acolytes, without furnishing them with any real solutions apart from some sort of Orwellian dystopia where the loyal followers would presumably be rewarded with Stasi-like positions of authority over the plebeians and heretics.

Clearly you believe you have a grasp of the science; but your statement as quoted clearly shows that you don't, and have difficulty grasping the difference between modeling and real world observation.

The unequivocal fact is that, real world observation is insolently at odds with the IPCC model, and has smacked DVD copies of "An Inconvenient Truth" into the isle next to "Mars Attacks", where it aways belonged. 

I model outcomes for a living, it's what I do. But I have been around models long enough to know that they are not reliable and notoriously inefficient at prediction of outcomes in chaotic systems. Despite many times more iterations at our fingertips that climate scientists will ever have available, the model is BS and everybody knows it. Hence anomalies such as skew.

In the end, that's all the IPCC has, a model and a hypothesis; one that in the real world has utterly failed to measure up.

That's why the politics are now involved and thats why climate pessimists must resort to petulant ad hominem attacks, perpetual surlyness and Goebbelesque propaganda.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (25 December 2008)

> Do you have a problem opening a new thread to appease your concerns?



Avoidance of the issue.


> "Valid" science or whatever you wish to call it would have used the known principles of forcings, applied these to climate models, and determined a range of responses depending on the variables, the most important (and uncertain) of which is "feedback".



Rederob are you saying this is real science that you are following to back up your opinions and facts?


> Simply put, junk science is *not *science.  It's a deliberate and calculated misuse of information or principles to reach conclusions that may convince people who are gullible, ill-informed or just too dumb or lazy to think for themselves.



So your view of junk science would be that of the charlatan or the fraudster if we were to somehow try to represent it with another concept, word, thing, whatever?


> If you were paying attention you might have noticed that we are presently repeating what was experienced by the scientists who worked out the effect of chlorofluorocarbons on the atmosphere.  The CO2 debate is deja vu.



I would like to see some info on that.

Just for the sea ice issue:
http://www.nsidc.org/seaice/intro.html


> Even though sea ice occurs primarily in the polar regions, *it influences our global climate*. Sea ice has a bright surface, so much of the sunlight that strikes it is reflected back into space. As a result, areas covered by sea ice don't absorb much solar energy, so temperatures in the polar regions remain relatively cool. If gradually warming temperatures melt sea ice over time, fewer bright surfaces are available to reflect sunlight back into space, more solar energy is absorbed at the surface, and temperatures rise further.



Now that increase in sea ice must be a good thing. But I wouldn't dare to hint that it is more imortant than land ice that ripped a hole in the Titanic. Perhaps you could help here.


----------



## rederob (25 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Red,
> I'm confused.



I can see that you have been for some time on this topic.
When you can work out the key difference between the models you personally are familiar with, and climate models, come back for some debate.
By the way, climate models are not "chaotic". They attempt to replicate known outcomes over decades, the results of which vary minutely year on year.


----------



## rederob (25 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Redrew are you saying this is real science that you are following to back up your opinions and facts?



Snake
I can see you are trying hard to keep up.
Here's a crash course on the "science": 
http://www.awi.de/fileadmin/user_up...al_carbon_cycle/pk_cc_02_ghgforce_handout.pdf


----------



## rederob (25 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> I would like to see some info on that.



A good summary: http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp

You will soon see there is nothing new in this thread.
A principal difference with climate change is that man's output of greenhouse gases is ubiquitous.  Crudely, every fart counts, as Garpal is only too aware.


----------



## wayneL (25 December 2008)

rederob said:


> I can see that you have been for some time on this topic.
> When you can work out the key difference between the models you personally are familiar with, and climate models, come back for some debate.
> By the way, climate models are not "chaotic". They attempt to replicate known outcomes over decades, the results of which vary minutely year on year.



Tsk Tsk so nasty... and on Christmas morning as well. 

The ghost of Christmas past hasn't dropped in has he?


----------



## rederob (25 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Part B of your argument could, indeed does, completely destroy your argument in Part A.



You are very quick to reproduce the straw man argument in *your *defence.

You think you have a case and suggest:


> Clearly you believe you have a grasp of the science; but your statement as quoted clearly shows that you don't, and have difficulty grasping the difference between modeling and real world observation.



Whereas, climate models attempt to replicate the known past (real world observations as you call them) and model the key drivers of change based on scientific principles.

Let's go back to the chlorofluorocarbon debate to demonstrate a difference.
Although the science of ozone depletion was understood by 1974, scientists had to develop deductive models to predict likely consequences.  Early models were fraught with massive variations of outcome, and were easy to debunk on those grounds alone.  This did not mean the original "science" was junk, but that the scientific process was running its course concurrent with "objections" from skeptics with powerful vested interests (Dupont in the main).

Climate models are principally inductive: We can use well established "laws" to establish the inputs, and we know a lot about most interrelationships so that we can replicate known outcomes. The world is not perfect, so nor will be models.  A range of factors will be constantly variable, and these are the areas where doubt will exist.

From a lay perspective the skeptics are able to suggest that the compounding effects of (what they would suggest are) arbitrary variables in the models makes them totally unreliable.  But in the case of climate models the ultimate arbiter of "temperature" will always be radiative forcing, not the variability of interrelationships.


----------



## Calliope (25 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> It seems all very unfair, we are down to only one member of the church of climetology. The rest must be out whale watching, or tree hugging




You are right...only one man standing, the dependable Red Rob. However, I  don't think he is as really committed to the cause as his fellow disciples. It is just that he is quarrelsome by nature and loves an argument.

I think that if it had been the conservatives who were pushing the GW barrow Red Rob would  oppose it and probably use similar unintelligible arguments. Well, maybe they are not unintelligible but that "I am incapable of understanding" or I am "so poorly educated," or I "need a crash course on the 'science'"

In other words I (and you too probably) haven't been suitably indoctrinated.


----------



## rederob (25 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> Redrob, if you think that CO2 is a problem could you outline a solution?



Wayne has outlined courses of action we could all follow, an Smurf has added his 2 cents regularly (I think we have a dollar from him already in this thread).
Wayne and Smurf and I might disagree on some things, but I suspect they realise that only fundamental changes at an individual level will ultimately drive global changes.
Your dilemma may be that in not accepting that CO2 is an issue (and it then turns out to be), you take no action at all.


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Crudely, every fart counts, as Garpal is only too aware.



"poisoned by their petards maybe?" (French for fart is almost identical) 

Some post back there challenged people who wish to take the cautious route on this matter to sell them their shoreside properties.  



slim pickins said:


> after considering all the evidence I have concluded that there is no global warming as a result of human activity....
> 
> ... Global warming is a good thing and we should strive toward that end. Within reason.
> 
> Global warming fanatics should put their money where their mouth is and sell all waterfront property to us sceptics. I don't see that happening. In fact those properties just keep appreciating.  ...




Already there have been cases in Aus, where the courts have ruled against developments.

http://www.domain.com.au/Public/Art...e=Coastal development all at sea over climate


> Coastal development all at sea over climate
> Date: September 15, 2008
> Publication:  The Age (subscribe)
> 
> ...




Vic Govt clarified their policy on this 2 weeks ago (12 dec 08) :-

Victorian Coastal Strategy apparently assumes 0.8m rise by 2100.  
http://www.vcc.vic.gov.au/2008vcs/VCS2008_FAQs.pdf

(part of this website - go to FAQ's)
http://www.vcc.vic.gov.au/vcs.htm

Hey, I have no idea how much it will rise - but sounds like the Law believes it will rise.  - and significantly.  

btw, those who wish to challenge "money where mouth" etc scoff etc.  

Why not put YOUR money where your mouth is ? - buy a big gasguzzling hummer - see what resale value you'll have in 10 years 

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12460


> GM, Utility Companies Team up to Improve Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
> Shane McGlaun (Blog) - July 23, 2008 11:05 AM
> 
> The Wall Street Journal reports that Congress is considering legislation that would set a price on carbon-dioxide emissions and that utility companies that prove their electricity is helping to replace gasoline could get special consideration.




This is the direction the innovative people are moving in. (correction - trying to move in). 
The progressives.
Those not in denial.


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 December 2008)

You blokes ever heard of Lloyds? 

http://www.domain.com.au/Public/Art...e=Coastal development all at sea over climate



> *A new report published by Lloyd's and Risk Management Solutions warns that without adaptation, insurance losses from coastal flooding for high-risk properties could double by 2030.*
> 
> Lloyd's chief executive Richard Ward says: "With over half the world's population expected to live within 100 kilometres of the coastline in 25 years' time, it is imperative that we address this risk now by starting to adapt.
> 
> ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> It seems all very unfair, we are down to only one member of the church of climetology. The rest must be out whale watching, or tree hugging.
> 
> 
> 
> ?????






Calliope said:


> You are right...only one man standing, the dependable Red Rob.




Slim and Calliope you spoke too soon.

The elves have returned from helping Santa.

More youtubes, graphs, pictures of earth and other demonic arts with which to torture us.

gg


----------



## Julia (25 December 2008)

Calliope said:


> However, I  don't think he is as really committed to the cause as his fellow disciples. It is just that he is quarrelsome by nature and loves an argument.


----------



## Calliope (25 December 2008)

I wish all contributors to this thread an enjoyable Xmas day.

I guess these guys will survive GW.


----------



## rederob (25 December 2008)

I am warned that a festive season (and visitors) have arrived.
I wish to add a "sanity clause" to this thread, for this day.
May you all be at peace and enjoy the company that keeps you.
Till the morrow.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (25 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Snake
> I can see you are trying hard to keep up.
> Here's a crash course on the "science":
> http://www.awi.de/fileadmin/user_up...al_carbon_cycle/pk_cc_02_ghgforce_handout.pdf



Sir,

Thanks for your opinion. 
I will graduate your crash course shortly. Any tax payers robbing job offers available if I successfully graduate? I can add my wikipedia knowledge to go with it so maybe there is a good posy out there for me. Hey if I get one I could use tax payers money and buy a big screen TV and say it is for work whilst pushing the global warming agenda too.

Life must be great for some. I must be dreaming. Slap. Slap. 

Merry, merry *Christ*mas!

Oh, and on the sea/land ice issue we are still waiting.


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Slim and Calliope you spoke too soon.
> 
> The elves have returned from helping Santa.




strange that gg

Ever since you bet me that McCain would beat Obama, I've been referring to you as Santa Claus 

btw, the closest thing to a bookie in this case would be the likes of the big insurance companies yes?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Slim and Calliope you spoke too soon.
> 
> The elves have returned from helping Santa.
> 
> ...






2020hindsight said:


> strange that gg
> 
> Ever since you bet me that McCain would beat Obama, I've been referring to you as Santa Claus
> 
> btw, the closest thing to a bookie in this case would be the likes of the big insurance companies yes?




Welcome back from the North Pole mate.

Volunteering is good for the soul.

Where do I send the money for the carton of beer? 

ps I refuse to subsidise South Australian beer.

gg


----------



## slim pickins (25 December 2008)

yes GG, we got another one, and he's a live one too. So there is am offer of a christmas truce hehe. Just like WW1. Is that how far we've come 

hindsight, of course a looney labor government in victoria will pass such development laws. They want votes from people like you doesn't change the fact that the worlds richest people are buying on the water. As close as possible! 

Loyds says insurance claims will double by 2030...... LOL of course they will. Primarily because the earths population will double too. 

Insurance companies offering insurance for something that won't happen.... Nothing unusual there. That's good business prectice! 

I'll offer anyone here insurance on their property against rising sea levels (not storm surge), just rising sea levels, at half the price of lloyds. Ill back it up with all my assets.

Has anyone actually seen the sea level rise anywhere in the world? Compare your childhood photos of walled European ports to pictures available now. (easier to compare then a sloped Aussie beach succeptible to erosion) and you will see the ocean is where it has been for 40 years. 

And if you look at paintings of seawalls etc in places like Istanbul or Malta you will see that the ocean is the same as 300-400 years ago. Merry x mass


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 December 2008)

yeah, I love the way Queenslanders steal the headwater runoff - then refuse to even consider recycled water.  

"I'm not drinking something that went through another person!!" said one old duck on TV after the Toowoomba referendum. 

Meanwhile Adelaide has to drink "water" (sic) that has been through 18 people, 35 cows, two of which were dead for a week, and a few dozen dogs. 

PS no probs - your humility is enough reward lol. (yeah right I hear you say).
PS here's to Xmas. and 2009.


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Welcome back from the North Pole mate.



actually I was given 3 days purgatory for daring to suggest that Calliope didn't know how to spell Boult 
mind you he doesn't have the integrity to admit it 

post #504 refers (note the little "removed" sign)  = "Calliope doesn't know how to spell Boult". 
Meanwhile he retorts with "2020 has blown his bolt etc .."  (after I'd told him how to spell it lol)- not deleted 


 amazing consistency with the  referrees around here


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> yes GG, we got another one, and he's a live one too.



hey slim,
would you put your money on this one then (already posted but you've ignored it I notice)   - buy a big hummer - confident that we ain't gonna go down the "discourage petrol guzzler" route ?


----------



## GumbyLearner (25 December 2008)

Hi all

I stumbled across this story of an energy conservation group in Europe who turn the lights off shopfronts in France to conserve energy. Apparently its not illegal for anyone to turn the exterior lights off, as long as the lights are turned off from the outside!!! 

What do you guys think of this? Vigilantes or concerned citizens?

http://knitting.thomaslaupstad.com/video-of-french-activists-turning-off-neon-signs-clan-du-neon/


----------



## Calliope (25 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> actually I was given 3 days purgatory for daring to suggest that Calliope didn't know how to spell Boult
> mind you he doesn't have the integrity to admit it




You poor old thing. I thought you were a protected species. So I spelt a name wrong, There's no need to throw a hissy fit. I am sure there will be plenty more trivial things for you to nitpick about.

There was a positive side though. At your rate of 10 a day we were spared 30 of your long boring posts. You are making us pay for it though with overload in spades.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 December 2008)

It was a beautiful day in Townsville today.

The sun rose in the East.

It was a dry day, very little cloud in the sky, though some quite high up.

Visibility was 10k at Townsville Airport and reported to be 31 degrees at 2pm, but I thought it was warmer.

It was a dry heat with little wind.

The heat out of the shade became uncomfortable at 0740.

The sun set in the West.

There are some beautiful stars in a clear night at present.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 December 2008)

GumbyLearner said:


> Hi all
> 
> I stumbled across this story of an energy conservation group in Europe who turn the lights off shopfronts in France to conserve energy. Apparently its not illegal for anyone to turn the exterior lights off, as long as the lights are turned off from the outside!!!
> 
> ...



Symbolism that only reinforces the "back to the dark ages" notion that surrounds the whole issue.

If I wanted to attract attention and raise some awareness of the overall energy issue then I'd go and put up, say, 1 million Christmas lights rather than running around turning off shop signs. Then admit just how trivial that 1 million lights is in terms of energy consumption and how massive the problems we face really are. 

1 million incandescent Christmas lights - using about as much power as one of the big six or V8 cars that drove past looking at them, a statistic that's absolutely true but which most would find hard to comprehend. When you realise that a million lights is nothing, you start to grasp just how much energy we use and how big this issue really is.

Yes I'm serious. One million lights. One trivial load. That's the point and the problem.


----------



## slim pickins (26 December 2008)

Hindsight, sure I'd buy a hummer. But a car is not an asset that I try make money on. It's an expense. I have 2 cars now both 200+ horsepower. 65+!litres. Gees, oil futures for january were 35$ they will hit $20 soon. So much for oil running out of course it won't stop labor taxing the life out of us. Butbthey will be a one term government I hope. 

My offer stands. I'll insure you against rising seas levels, alien invasion and you being stalked and harrassed by supermodels. All guaranteed not to happen by me personly. Backed up with all I have


----------



## slim pickins (26 December 2008)

www.thisisreality.org

Have a read! I knew it, I just knew it! "There is no such thing as clean coal"
Proof of their agenda. Co2 is not a problem at all. This was never about any science or charts or modules. It's about turnig our backs on our way of life.

It's about sharing our bath water and drinking our neighbours urine. About living in a communist utopia where the ministry of population control decides who will reproduce and who will have to die. 

We need a strong conservative movement in Australia to save of from these people. God help us all.


----------



## Calliope (26 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> www.thisisreality.org
> 
> Have a read! I knew it, I just knew it! "There is no such thing as clean coal"
> Proof of their agenda. Co2 is not a problem at all. This was never about any science or charts or modules. It's about turnig our backs on our way of life.
> ...




That's a nice Orwellian touch calling themselves *Reality*. Straight out of 1984.

Oops, spelt a word wrong there. Better fix it, otherwise I will attract the attention a certain self-appointed Big Brother spellchecker and nitpicker. Done.


----------



## rederob (26 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Oh, and on the sea/land ice issue we are still waiting.



So am I.
I asked Wayne if he could tell us the difference, and why it was so important in the context of this thread.  Perhaps he needs another year to think about it.... and luckily 2009 is another year.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> Hindsight, sure I'd buy a hummer. But a car is not an asset that I try make money on. It's an expense. I have 2 cars now both 200+ horsepower. 65+!litres.




slim pickins, And I believe you said back there, global warming is a good thing yes? 
... maybe we start with some comics - you might get the picture.



> Global warming is a good thing and we should strive toward that end. Within reason




(PS I believe you're tacitly admitting that you'll lose money on the hummers)


----------



## Calliope (26 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> slim pickins, And I believe you said back there, global warming is a good thing yes?
> ... maybe we start with some comics - you might get the picture.
> 
> (PS I believe you're tacitly admitting that you'll lose money on the hummers)






> 'vested interest' These are the people who depend on other people using a lot of fuel if they are to continue to make money.




And provide millions of jobs for people who actually work for a living. Not like theorists who idle away their days collecting cyber garbage and reading comics.


----------



## explod (26 December 2008)

Calliope said:


> And provide millions of jobs for people who actually work for a living. Not like theorists who idle away their days collecting cyber garbage and reading comics.




The technologies for practical alternatives have been developed.   Increased development in these directions have been shown (particularly in Denmark) to more that make up for the jobs lost on the fossil fuel side.   Add to that the huge subsidies for example in the USA where the real cost of a gallon of fuel at the pump is US$16 a gallon.

Change has always in the past provided new opportunities and expands our overall options in all technologies.

Some above also mentioned bush fires.   I understand that the emissions from wood fires is a good co2 used by plants to regenerate.  That from oil and coal are toxic.   In fact there is some argument that we would be better off warming our homes again with the good old wood fire.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 December 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/25/2455015.htm?section=justin


> Marshall Is declares emergency over floods
> Posted Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:00pm AEDT
> 
> A state of emergency has been declared in the Marshall Islands after huge waves forced hundreds of people to flee their homes.
> ...



.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/25/2455015.htm?section=justin
> .




Quote:
Marshall Is declares emergency over floods
Posted Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:00pm AEDT

A state of emergency has been declared in the Marshall Islands after huge waves forced hundreds of people to flee their homes.

The western Pacific islands have been hit three times in the past fortnight, swamping the capital, Majuro, which is less than one metre above sea level

endquote.


So what I'm hearing is that the world should stay just as it is so that The Church of Climatology can justify its existence.

Singapore and the Emirates are reclaiming land. Surely the Marshall Islanders can get off their butts and do as the Dutch did hundreds of years ago with dykes etc. ( no offence meant to anyone).

gg


----------



## rederob (26 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Singapore and the Emirates are reclaiming land. Surely the Marshall Islanders can get off their butts and do as the Dutch did hundreds of years ago with dykes etc. ( no offence meant to anyone).






> *Dutch government warned against rising sea levels
> *THE HAGUE, Sept 3 (AFP) Sep 03, 2008
> Low-lying Netherlands must spend more than 100 billion euros on dike upgrades and coastal expansion to avoid the ravages of rising sea levels due to global warming, experts warned Wednesday.
> The country, nearly two-thirds of which lies below sea level, must spend up to 1.5 billion euros (2.1 billion dollars) per year over the next century on additional safety measures, said a report compiled by a government appointed commission.
> ...



Make that *NOW *, for the Dutch, Garpal.
The "weather" men are not on the sunny side of this discussion.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 December 2008)

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/06/hurricane_modeling?currentPage=all#



> When Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in late August 2005 and the levees around the city broke, flooding the city and killing hundreds, Ed Link was as surprised as everyone else.
> 
> He shouldn't have been. As one of the nation's foremost hurricane experts, Link, a professor at the University of Maryland, had access to the government's most sophisticated mathematical models for predicting damage from big Gulf Coast storms. But those models weren't accurate because the data they were based on were incomplete, out of date or just plain wrong.
> 
> ...


----------



## MrBurns (26 December 2008)

I've been trying to unsubscribe from this thread for weeks and it just doesnt work when you click the unsubscribe link in the notification email, any ideas please let me know.


----------



## slim pickins (26 December 2008)

marshall island hit by a wave is not the same as rising sea levels. If something gets swallowed up by 1 metre of rising seas, everything on earth must experience the same rise. Such isbthe nature of the ocean.

The last I saw even Venice, less then a metre above the sea is just like is was 400 years ago.

Again does anybody actually believe the oceans have risen even a fractional amount?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/06/hurricane_modeling?currentPage=all#




More bloody graphs.
I think I appreciated your arguments better when you were an elf helping Santa Claus.

Its weather mate.

The Sahara was the foodbowl of the Mediterranean peoples for years.

Times and climate changes.

Chaos is the algorithm, not these silly short term graphs.

Any more graphs and I will Mandelbrot you.

gg


----------



## slim pickins (26 December 2008)

explod said:


> The technologies for practical alternatives have been developed.   Increased development in these directions have been shown (particularly in Denmark) to more that make up for the jobs lost on the fossil fuel side.   Add to that the huge subsidies for example in the USA where the real cost of a gallon of fuel at the pump is US$16 a gallon.
> 
> Change has always in the past provided new opportunities and expands our overall options in all technologies.
> 
> Some above also mentioned bush fires.   I understand that the emissions from wood fires is a good co2 used by plants to regenerate.  That from oil and coal are toxic.   In fact there is some argument that we would be better off warming our homes again with the good old wood fire.





Remakable! Have never heard such drivel in my life. Unsubsadised Unleaded is $16/barrel in USA! remarkable and false! Downright lie.

Crude is $1.50 per barrel to produce. The january contract was
$35/barrel recently. That's a nice markup that keeps friendly Arabs happy used to be 5 times more just 6 months ago. 

One in the USA petrol is about $2.90 or so and that's after a large tax. In fact oil is taxed every step of tv


----------



## basilio (26 December 2008)

> More bloody graphs.




Yes I can see what you mean Garpal. One simple graph shows how the intensity of hurricanes has steadily increased over the past 30 years as the ocean temperatures have increased. All totally predictable by global Warming model which shows increasing sea temperatures resulting in far stronger hurricanes which feed off the warm seas.


----------



## slim pickins (26 December 2008)

...........taxed every step of the way. And unleaded is still cheaper the Gatorade, and cheaper then milk. 

As for co2 that nature burns being g good for the planet whilst co2 that industry burns being bad for the planet..... Well that is like all of your arguments. Meaningless drivel and cynical Rotten lies. Just like your ideology.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 December 2008)

basilio said:


> Yes I can see what you mean Garpal. One simple graph shows how the intensity of hurricanes has steadily increased over the past 30 years as the ocean temperatures have increased. All totally predictable by global Warming model which shows increasing sea temperatures resulting in far stronger hurricanes which feed off the warm seas.



apologies bas - (you at least might appreciate this lol)
I forgot to add the link :-

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html



> Earth's oceans contain various dynamic circulation patterns that influence the distribution of warm and cold water in upper ocean depths. These patterns, or oscillations, last a period of years or even decades. The most well known is the El Niño Southern Oscillation in the Pacific Ocean. The atmospheric conditions described above (e.g., humidity, low wind shear), along with ocean oscillations, are factors that correlate with more intense storms over the short term. (19)
> 
> Over the long term, however, *study findings show that global warming is the overarching factor*; initial findings suggest that over the period 1970 to 2004 warmer sea surface temperature is the major factor in the increase in category 4 to 5 hurricanes globally.(19, 20) *A study examining the causes of above-average temperatures in the North Atlantic ocean in 2005 indicated about 0.3  °C of the increase arose from ocean oscillations, 0.2  °C from normal weather variations, and 0.45  °C from global warming. *(21)
> 
> ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 December 2008)

basilio said:


> Yes I can see what you mean Garpal. One simple graph shows how the intensity of hurricanes has steadily increased over the past 30 years as the ocean temperatures have increased. All totally predictable by global Warming model which shows increasing sea temperatures resulting in far stronger hurricanes which feed off the warm seas.




If you had said that to the Spanish Armada you would have been natchos mate.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 December 2008)

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



> Sea level measurements from 23 long tide gauge records in geologically stable environments show a rise of around 20 centimeters (8 inches) during the 20th century (2 millimeters/year).


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> Hindsight, sure I'd buy a hummer. But a car is not an asset that I try make money on. It's an expense. I have 2 cars now both 200+ horsepower. 65+!litres. Gees, oil futures for january were 35$ they will hit $20 soon. So much for oil running out



As a long term oil investor I think this price collapse is the best thing that could possibly happen. With so much new production now unviable and global output set for long term decline as a direct consequence, it can only lead to higher prices once falling production catches demand.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> The last I saw even Venice, less then a metre above the sea is just like is was 400 years ago.
> 
> Again does anybody actually believe the oceans have risen even a fractional amount?




bad guess there slim 
the place has sunk a heap for a start 
- due to pumping from artesian wells - acquifers etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice


> During the 20th century, when many artesian wells were sunk into the periphery of the lagoon to draw water for local industry, Venice began to subside. It was realized that extraction of the aquifer was the cause. This sinking process has slowed markedly since artesian wells were banned in the 1960s.
> 
> However, the city is still threatened by more frequent low-level floods (so-called Acqua alta, "high water") that creep to a height of several centimeters over its quays, regularly following certain tides. In many old houses the former staircases used by people to unload goods are now flooded, rendering the *former ground floor uninhabitable. Many Venetians have resorted to moving up to the upper floors and continuing with their lives*.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 December 2008)

A mate from Vostok in the Antarctica sent me this graph which out graphs any of 2020's short term scribbling.

The world is now cooler than it was millennia ago.

gg


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (26 December 2008)

rederob said:


> So am I.
> I asked Wayne if he could tell us the difference, and why it was so important in the context of this thread.  Perhaps he needs another year to think about it.... and luckily 2009 is another year.




Sir,
But, if sea ice controls the climate then how is land ice more of a problem in your eyes? According to you? You have pushed for some discussion on it and I am willing to listen to what you have to say but you refuse to talk about it.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (26 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> A mate from Vostok in the Antarctica sent me this graph which out graphs any of 2020's short term scribbling.
> 
> The world is now cooler than it was millennia ago.
> 
> gg



Interesting GG.

How can they get data for so long ago?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Interesting GG.
> 
> How can they get data for so long ago?




Buggered if I know.

I'm not an empiricist because of the lack of data.

I'm a rationalist.

So when he an eminent scientist emailed me this I posted it.

A Reasonable response in a sea of unpredictability 

Graphs are graphs.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 December 2008)

Notice where that graph ends gg

Bit like that Great Global Warming Swindle - that conveniently ignored recent years. 
http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/globalwarmingswindle/

Bernie Hobbs is an award-winning science writer and broadcaster with ABC Science.


> ... If the last 30 years' data were included in the graph, you'd see that thick blue line shoot abruptly skywards - like it does in the IPCC graph below - because northern hemisphere temperatures in the last two decades were way above those during Europe's Medieval Warm Period. *In fact, they're way above anything in the last 650,000 years*.




http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm
See the right hand end of your graph.  That should be in the positive by about 0.4degC (if you accept full hockey stick) or by about 0.2 or 0.3degC (if you discount it).    Surely no one is saying that it's cooler than the 61-90 average = the zero datum of all those graphs 

i.e. Even if you discount some of the hockey stick you still have current temp the same as if not hotter than the past 425,000 years (and more).  

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/challenge.htm


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 December 2008)

You are an elf 2020 mate

tap tap tap 
next 

tap tap tap
next

tap tap tap 
next 

tap tap tap
next

tap tap tap 
next 

tap tap tap
next

tap tap tap 
next 

tap tap tap
next

tap tap tap 
next 

tap tap tap
next

tap tap tap 
next 

tap tap tap
next

tap tap tap 
next 

tap tap tap
next

tap tap tap 
next 

tap tap tap
next

gg


----------



## slim pickins (26 December 2008)

Venice floods have nothing to do with rising seas, as the greens have admitted. Regardless, Venice is just fine. They are fixing it all up. You can still have a cuppa at st marks without getting your feet wet.

Oceans have NOT risen 20cm this century, that's just bogus. Who decided what a stable geological landmark is. Is Venice one of them?!?!??!

False science can trick people fir only so long. Sooner or later they will open their eyes and see that all the graphs simply don't match the situation on the ground.

Where will this water come from when every year the antartic ice sheet is getting thicker and thicker. Above 2km in places. The higher you get the colder it is. Right now we need a 50 degree Celsius warming to affect the Ice sheet.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 December 2008)

In any case, this is what it will look like if we get temp increases of 2 deg (with really strict reductions in CO2) or more probably 4 deg (because the inertia is massive)  -  and within a hundred years or so.


----------



## rederob (26 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Sir,
> But, if sea ice controls the climate then how is land ice more of a problem in your eyes? According to you? You have pushed for some discussion on it and I am willing to listen to what you have to say but you refuse to talk about it.



Wayne stuck up pictures of Arctic sea ice a while ago, showing there was no problem as there was more this year.
2007 was the record low point for Arctic sea ice, and it's getting thinner and not lasting as long as normal.
As a barometer of climate, sea ice is not as good an indicator as land ice.
A very simple reason is because we have different trends at each polar region.
Sea ice does not "control" climate. It does have an impact; and that's largely to reflect the sun's rays.
Arctic sea ice is on a sure course to melt completely during the summer months: And we are talking within the next decade or two.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> Venice floods have nothing to do with rising seas, as the greens have admitted. Regardless, Venice is just fine. They are fixing it all up. You can still have a cuppa at st marks without getting your feet wet.
> 
> Oceans have NOT risen 20cm this century, that's just bogus. Who decided what a stable geological landmark is. Is Venice one of them?!?!??!
> 
> False science can trick people fir only so long. Sooner or later they will open their eyes and see that all the graphs simply don't match the situation on the ground...



So let's get this straight slim
1. You've been to Venice, but you didn't know it was sinking.

2. They are engaging in drastic and massive engineering projects to try to turn this around - but you say all's "fine".

3. "Doesn't match the situation on the ground" - what about during high tides? (that photo I posted) - where there's damnall "ground" to check what the situation is. 

4. And you tell us that the tidal records are all about "tricking people for so long" ... 

Lemme guess, you're probably a fan of George Bush as well.  
As he would say,  "You can fool some of the people all the time ... and they're the people I'm talking to".  

Here are some of those "trivial" little corrections they are attempting in Venice. btw :-



> Some recent studies have suggested that the city is no longer sinking,[11][12] but this is not yet certain; therefore, a state of alert has not been revoked. In May 2003 the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi inaugurated the MOSE project (Modulo Sperimentale Elettromeccanico), an experimental model for evaluating the performance of inflatable gates; the idea is to lay a series of 79 inflatable pontoons across the sea bed at the three entrances to the lagoon. When tides are predicted to rise above 110 centimetres, the pontoons will be filled with air and block the incoming water from the Adriatic sea. This engineering work is due to be completed by 2011.
> 
> Some experts say that the best way to protect Venice is to physically lift the City to a greater height above sea level, by pumping water into the soil underneath the city.[13] This way, some hope, it could rise above sea levels, protecting it for hundreds of years, and eventually the MOSE project may not be necessary (it will, controversially, alter the tidal patterns in the lagoon, damaging some wildlife). A further point about the "lifting" system would be that it would be permanent; the MOSE Project is, by its very nature, a temporary system: it is expected to protect Venice for only 100 years.




PS "In any case they are fixing it up".

Yep - that's what should be happening (and will happen) about GW as well.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Wayne stuck up pictures of Arctic sea ice a while ago, showing there was no problem as there was more this year.
> 2007 was the record low point for Arctic sea ice, and it's getting thinner and not lasting as long as normal.
> As a barometer of climate, sea ice is not as good an indicator as land ice.
> A very simple reason is because we have different trends at each polar region.
> ...




The seas go up and down mate.

The vast majority of people turn on their fuel at night to cook their food.

They go to work or pleasure on the quickest available transport.

Even Al Gore cannot stick to the belief.

Nothing you can say or do will make any difference.

gg


----------



## explod (26 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> Remakable! Have never heard such drivel in my life. Unsubsadised Unleaded is $16/barrel in USA! remarkable and false! Downright lie.
> 
> Crude is $1.50 per barrel to produce. The january contract was
> $35/barrel recently. That's a nice markup that keeps friendly Arabs happy used to be 5 times more just 6 months ago.
> ...






> Estimates of the price of it all do, in fact exist.  A 1998 study by the International Centre for Technology Assessment in Washington entitled "The Real Price of Gasoline," for example, added up "the many external costs of using motor vehicles."  The study tallied up everything from the oil industrie's tax subsidies to the costs of protecting supply lines, to the environmental, health and social costs of running all those millions of internal combustion engines, and it came up with a cost----per year, in the United States alone----of between $558.7 billion and $1.69 trillion, which equates to $5.60 to $15.14 per gallon at the pump



pp.114 and 115 Turner C, The Geography of Hope, 2007

A downright lie you say.  A head for good business adds up all the costs of a product.   If the availalbe tecnology recieved the assistance of petrol and petrol guzzlers we would find the alternatives not only cheaper but cleaner and offerring more jobs.   Just look at what the internet has done and who would have concieved of that 20 years ago.   Some did, they are prolly some of your nut cases, oh thats right Climatologists.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 December 2008)

The sun rose in the East this morning.

It was a glorious day in Townsville.

I spent most of the day watching the Test on Ch 9 and listening to the commentary on ABC Radio.

The sun is now setting.

The third pair of hatchings from the sunbird nest are trying to get enough courage and energy to leave the nest.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The sun rose in the East this morning.
> 
> It was a glorious day in Townsville.
> 
> I spent most of the day watching the Test on Ch 9 and listening to the commentary on ABC Radio...



yep 
 ignorance is bliss


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> yep
> ignorance is bliss




and it is folly to be wise.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 December 2008)

as they used to say of Kung Fu.. "wise is simply the least foolish grasshopper".


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> as they used to say of Kung Fu.. "wise is simply the least foolish grasshopper".




so grasshopper how was the day today where you live.

describe it.

sunrise, wind, humans, animals , temperatur, birds ., insects etc. sunset


gg


----------



## wayneL (26 December 2008)

Al Bore's houseboat:


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> so grasshopper how was the day today where you live.
> 
> sunrise, animals, etc




Bought the dog a new reel-in extendable lead for Xmas - couple of walks (not that I saw sunrise) - works like a treat!

It's called a RUNNING DOG lead.  I'm guessing it was made in China. 
(inspired by Mao's Little Red Book maybe)

Apart from that, I was reminded of this thought ... 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=107013


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Bought the dog a new reel-in extendable lead for Xmas - couple of walks (not that I saw sunrise) - works like a treat!
> 
> It's called a RUNNING DOG lead.  I'm guessing it was made in China.
> 
> ...





a beautiful poem mate, good thoughts, you are higher in my esteem ( which was high )than ever before despite our differences

gg

A TOAST TO ABSENT FRIENDS

Suppose I'm feeling down depressed, the world's about to sink,
Or find myself a frowning mess, I only have to think
Of good men, better men than I, where I have outlived them,
I hear my thoughts first question why - then I seize this daily gem.

They left this world at fifty praps, suppose I'm fifty-five,
That represents five bonus laps that I have been alive,
I've had the chance these sixty moons, these eighteen hundred days,
To toast the sunrise, toast the noon, and toast the sunset rays.

And toast my friends alive and gone, and toast life's wondrous ways.
2020hindsight is online now Report Post   	Reply With Quote


Now to where do I send that cartoon of beer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 December 2008)

Maybe give it to charity m8 
Like poem #990 on poetry thread...

IF HENRY LAWSON POSTED POEMS ON THE INTERNET

I’m not into big noting this poetic passing phase,
words I've stuck into a stanza in a pisspoor passing phrase,
if you score these poems as parity with ones that make half sense,
then *just flick a buck to charity – I’ll score when they dispense  *


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Maybe give it to charity m8
> Like poem #990 on poetry thread...
> 
> IF HENRY LAWSON POSTED POEMS ON THE INTERNET
> ...




Ok mate I'll drop off a carton to some parkies downtown tomorrow.

If you don't mind I'll print out above poem and leave a card "from 2020"

gg


----------



## wayneL (26 December 2008)

IPCC scamster Stephen Schneider said:
			
		

> “to get some broader based support, to capture the public’s imagination…that, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have…each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.”






			
				E R Beadle said:
			
		

> “Half the work done in the world is to make things appear what they are not.”




Good article here in a site warmers love to dis:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7116


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 December 2008)

explod said:


> pp.114 and 115 Turner C, The Geography of Hope, 2007
> 
> A downright lie you say.  A head for good business adds up all the costs of a product.   If the availalbe tecnology recieved the assistance of petrol and petrol guzzlers we would find the alternatives not only cheaper but cleaner and offerring more jobs.   Just look at what the internet has done and who would have concieved of that 20 years ago.   Some did, they are prolly some of your nut cases, oh thats right Climatologists.



The internet created an entire new kind of economic activity whilst also increasing the productivity of just about every existing business from smelters to nightclubs.

But what we're conteplating with energy is making just about every human activity _less_ economically productive whilst creating no new kind of economic activity to offset that. 

The whole reason we use coal, oil and gas in the first place is due to the leverage of human labour they provide. Without that we wouldn't be using them and the economic system we have today couldn't function. Trouble is, apart from hydro, _well designed and run _nuclear plants and in limited situations biomass, the non-fossil energy sources don't offer the same leverage. That's a rather massive problem given that we can't simply ramp up the labour input to offset it easily.

Most of the work "man" does in Australia is done by fossil fuels, not humans. Actual human labour is trivial - all we really do is come up with the means of leveraging some other energy source.

Now, if we halve (for example) the productivity of energy due to using some other source then that's a rather large problem unless we've got some way to offset that. 

It's like saying you are using 50% borrowed money to invest. Then you decide to repay that loan in full. Now how, exactly, are you going to maintain the same level of investment performance and activity with the leverage removed? In short, you're not going to do it and that's the problem.


----------



## wayneL (26 December 2008)

Climate Catastrophe Canceled


PART ONE


PART TWO


PART THREE

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-uC4mwiRPks&feature=related


----------



## chops_a_must (26 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> yep
> ignorance is bliss



So long as it isn't of the globe's natural climate cycle? So long as it is not being aware of it coming out of one of the most stable climate periods the earth has experienced throughout time? So long as it isn't being aware of us being due an another ice age in a few thousand years? 

The earth is a self correcting environment. The earth warming cannot be separated from us being at the end of a warm cycle, nor can it be separated from the events that would happen prior to another ice age.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 December 2008)

Weather is wondrous, too much a wonder for science.

Robert Browning encapsulates it all

    The year's at the spring,
    And day's at the morn;
    Morning's at seven;
    The hill-side's dew-pearled;
    The lark's on the wing;
    The snail's on the thorn;
    God's in his Heaven -
    All's right with the world!

And that was my Christmas.

I'm off to bed and will leave it to godbotherers and the Church Of Climatology to grapple with the remaining vreses. 


    But at night, brother Howlet, far over the woods,
    Toll the world to thy chantry;
    Sing to the bats’ sleek sisterhoods
    Full complines with gallantry:
    Then, owls and bats, cowls and twats,
    Monks and nuns, in a cloister’s moods,
    Adjourn to the oak-stump pantry! 


gg


----------



## slim pickins (27 December 2008)

excellent video Wayne. Im glad we are having the climate change debate. It simply proves the global warming debate has been lost by the church of climetology. They have moved into their last line of defence.... "climate change" which they hope can't be debunked as easily, as after all, the climate is always changing.

Soon it will be proven that it's not changing because of us. And that carbon dioxide is essential and the basis of life.

No more non-solutions to non-problems please


----------



## wayneL (27 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> excellent video Wayne. Im glad we are having the climate change debate. It simply proves the global warming debate has been lost by the church of climetology. They have moved into their last line of defence.... "climate change" which they hope can't be debunked as easily, as after all, the climate is always changing.
> 
> Soon it will be proven that it's not changing because of us. And that carbon dioxide is essential and the basis of life.
> 
> No more non-solutions to non-problems please




I'm also glad it mentioned the role of Dihydrogen Oxide gas (H20) being more important than CO2


----------



## rederob (27 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> I'm also glad it mentioned the role of Dihydrogen Oxide gas (H20) being more important than CO2




The series of videos is almost laughable, and just confirms that a sucker is born every minute.
Let's just take one example; Beck's reworking of CO2:
The fluxes necessary to produce his vaunted CO2 variations are unbelievably huge. We measure modern fossil fuel emissions at about 7.5GT (giga tons) carbon per year (which would correspond to about 3.5ppm increase per year - noting that about half is absorbed by natural sinks in the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere). Beck’s proposed 150ppm source/sink in a decade corresponds therefore to a CO2 production/absorption about ten times stronger than the entire global industrial production of 2007 (putting aside any absorption issues). 

I tried hard to find something new. Alas, the same junk science dressed in occasionally different guises.

The clincher is always the how water vapour is promoted as the real cause of increasing temperatures, and not CO2.  And this is where the real science, which remains without an accepted peer rebuttal to this day, provides the answer.
Yes, it's the difference between "forcing" and "feedback".


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 December 2008)

so water's another GHG.  So what .
We are artificially taking CO2 to levels that haven't been exceeded for eons. 

and rather than admit that 
and do something about it
..
we change the subject and talk about water - which is not directly anthropogenic.   (until we use hydrogen cell cars I guess. - or other causes, trivial in the scheme of things)

PS Furthermore , one good downpour of rain sorts out a few tonnes of water vapour.  (or giga tonnes in some parts of the world)
 But CO2 just sticks around for ages.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> 1. "climate change" ... which they hope can't be debunked as easily  ...
> 2. after all, the climate is always changing.




1. so global warming's debunked, and hence the scientists change the topic. (?)  Try cause (GW) and effect (CC).

2. "climates always changing".   But are those changes heading down unhappy directions for the world?  That's when you pause and think.  (And spend a motza on trying to predict where this is going - not as much as they could mind you, given the consequences of failure / getting this wrong).


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 December 2008)

... and if we clean up our act here, we will directly help a stack of other polluting trends man is responsible for. (plus deforestation, removal of habitat etc)


----------



## wayneL (27 December 2008)

So we have Al Bore's nonsense, and you guys say this video is nonsense.

Where do we go from here?

My suggestion, as has been all along, is to address general pollution, rather than the purely political concept of CO2 caused CC, which is in deep dispute, no matter how much yoiu guys want to delude yourself that it isn't. 2020 ha sthe right idea, but the wrong way 'round; but carbon based "solutions" can only be totalitarian control and trashed economies with no real beneficial result excepting to the Alarmist Czars who are milking alarmism for personal gain. My solution would result in a more stable and sustainable economy with real environmental benefits.

Re water vapour: To assign H2O the roll of merely feedback, is in itself preposterous... laughable.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 December 2008)

from poetry #814 :-

THE IRISH PUB DISCUSSION ON GLOBAL WARMING

Some arguments are seconds long 
and some a bloody hour
some power on for generations
(generating power)
It’s rare I guess to change direction, 
then again, - perhaps 
if “uniformed” or isle marooned, we’d be 
ill inform-ed chaps.

Let English have their arguments 
where “for” can argue white
“against” can argue ebony black
and maybe they’ll find “right”
but whether truth is grey or blue 
or colours yet unseen
They’ll come on board to Irish ways
and future’s that are “green”.

Then there’s “Bloody Murphy” pubscenes
that are more like muddy blurr,
telescopic stellar topics
that are bigger than Ben Hur- 
*where we charge along in chariots 
and we splash mud at each other
though we share the same road, same direction,
and same fate , my brother.*


----------



## rederob (27 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> So we have Al Bore's nonsense, and you guys say this video is nonsense.
> Where do we go from here?



You could always try the science, and not the debunked nonsense that is recycled so often that it sticks like mud to the great unwashed.
"Warming" is about the additional radiative influence ascribed to more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Nobody is disputing that water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas. And,
it can be argued that it has "forcing" properties.  However, with a lifespan of less than 2 weeks in the atmosphere it would be impractical to "model" warming on the basis it was the preeminent factor.  Little wonder the skeptics *don't *model climate; their reputations would be in tatters.


----------



## wayneL (27 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Little wonder the skeptics *don't *model climate; their reputations would be in tatters.



Like the warmer's reputation is?

C'mon Red, they haven't got anything right with their model and ignore and cherry-pick to an extent that disqualifies it as science altogether, never mind junk science.

The video, scores some major punches in highlighting the true role of IPCC as a political lobby group, the ultimate agenda for which is not fully known, but can only be sinister.

I remain fully satisfied, without a skerick of doubt, that the IPCC model is utter nonsense and anthropogenic factors in macro climate change completely overblown.


----------



## rederob (27 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Like the warmer's reputation is?
> 
> C'mon Red, they haven't got anything right with their model and ignore and cherry-pick to an extent that disqualifies it as science altogether, never mind junk science.
> 
> ...



Scientific models are indicative, not perfect replications of past or future events.  I haven't yet read anything credible from a skeptic that debunks the science of forcing: They instead obscure the issue, or side-track it with their junk science.
In the cherry picking stakes the skeptics rule supreme.  Their masters are as dim witted as Gore in pandering to a general public that can be conned, bamboozled, and inculcated with the novelty of a newfound religious zeal.
In the lobby group stakes I agree that the IPCC has a significant role in representing the majority of world scientists that favour AGM.  The skeptics instead hide their true affiliations with major commercial vested interests under various cloaks of supposed credibility; adopting names that suggest the very opposite of what they are.
As I repeat, this same game was played out with CFCs. 
And which scientist spearheaded the notion that CFCs were not a problem? Dr. S. Fred Singer, of course, whos de facto home page is the Science and Environmental Policy Project. The same man who apologised for misleading (2005) the likes of David Bellamy into believing that most of the world's glaciers were expanding rathe than contracting.  His apology blamed an associate - Candace Crandall - who he seemed to forget was his wife!
Anyone for pillowtalk?


----------



## wayneL (27 December 2008)

This argument's like a circle;
Sunrise and sundown;
Moon rolls thru the nighttime;
Till the daybreak comes around.

This argument's like a circle;
But I can't tell you why;
Season's spinning round again;
The years keep rollin' by.

It seems like it's all been said before;
I can't remember when;
But I have this funny feeling;
That we'll all be saying it again.
No straight lines make up my life;
And all my roads have bends;
There's no clear-cut beginnings;
And so far no dead-ends.

-with apologies to Harry Chapin


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 December 2008)

rederob said:


> ...  And which scientist spearheaded the notion that CFCs were not a problem? Dr. S. Fred Singer, of course, whos de facto home page is the Science and Environmental Policy Project.



lol
or posting on "capitalism magazine" 
and claiming IPCC etc are driven by financial greed 

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=212


> Global Warming: Fact and Myth
> by Fred Singer  (December 25, 1998)
> ...  multimillion-dollar propaganda campaigns are underway by environmental activists, generously financed by compliant foundations and by government grants




The man should be on murder charges for preaching that cigarettes did not lead to lung cancer - in the pay of the cig companies (when he and the cig companies had evidence to the contrary).


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ... and if we clean up our act here, we will directly help a stack of other polluting trends man is responsible for. (plus deforestation, removal of habitat etc)



I've followed both sides until now but that one's lost me. How on earth did you come to that conclusion? 

By their very nature, non-fossil / nuclear energy sources are less dense and thus involve a far greater volume of physical resources and consequent impact on the environment. 

The reason we started using coal and oil in the first place was largely due to the huge impact the non-fossil alternatives were having on the trees, whales and so on.

And even with the CO2 issue, the mainstream environment movement is still largely about opposing anything other than oil and gas. Try and build a gas-fired power station and even the Greens help rush it through with no environmental assessments and so on. Try using _any_ renewable source and there's a lot more opposition.

Personally I would rather some more of the non-CO2 impacts and less fossil fuel use but even I would draw the line well short of damming, wind farming and logging the whole lot. Otherwise we'll end up with no rivers only lakes, no big birds other than in the museum and no native forests just monoculture plantations. 

All that would help a lot with the CO2 and it represents exactly what we'll likely try and do (viable renewable energy at this time being mostly wood, hydro and wind) but it's not going to help the planet in any other way.


----------



## rederob (27 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> This argument's like a circle;



Yes
You and your ilk can't substantiate a thing.
The theory that you say it often enough so must be true is well rehearsed.
Your put up a video, a report or a link or an article; it's full of holes, but that's ok coz there are plenty more the same, just different.
Garpal seems blind drunk to peripheral populations that are already suffering the small scale impacts of warming due to sea rises (like Bangladesh), or the massive cost the Dutch are facing to preserve their nation.
A few others chip in with irrelevances.
So long as you are comfortable with your beliefs, that seems fine.
And we can't change anything anyway.
So let's do nothing and not worry about anything else, ok?


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> 1. I've followed both sides until now but that one's lost me. How on earth did you come to that conclusion?
> 
> 2. By their very nature, non-fossil / nuclear energy sources are less dense and thus involve a far greater volume of physical resources and consequent impact on the environment.
> 
> ...



smurf
you haven't heard of paying third world countries for leaving forest standing etc?
maybe one of the options is your hydro?
as for CO2 emissions per capita, France is one third of ours - for the obvious reason that it's 75% nuclear.  (Australia 25.6 T,   France 8.8 T of CO2e per capita in 2000)

Quote I heard on ABC a few years back :-
"Compared to the many negative effects of Global Warming,  Chernyobel will be like a walk in the park" 

And as for the underwater (coral) environment - major damage in store (due temp) - 
and how dare we suggest to small Pacific islands (where mildly saline water is a luxury) that we aren't prepared to try.(i.e. to combat rising sea levels)

PS point 5.  Obviously no need to go to that degree with damming, wind farms etc.   

PS To be honest I even had a bit of a rethink about solar power when NASA's Mars Explorer ran out of power due to wind/dust etc.  

Most of those renewable options are toys.  If we want current lifestyle and its power requirements, no choice but nuclear in the long term if not in the medium. (imo)


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 December 2008)

PS Of course with more development - and encouragement for inventors rather than forcing them offshore - to California etc, - steering them to be more inventive by the monetary incentives that a carbon penalty would bring - we might make solar / tide / geothermal (etc) much more viable, who nose?


----------



## spooly74 (27 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> ... and not a bloody word on the other real and more imminent environmental problems we face, some of which are mentioned on this thread (bees, north pacific rubbish tip etc).
> 
> Yes, we need urgent action, but focused elsewhere, with the ultimate by-product of reduced CO2 emissions.



:topic ?

Came across an excellent talk on the disappearing bees. 16min
Alarming stuff.

*Where have the bees gone?*
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dennis_vanengelsdorp_a_plea_for_bees.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 December 2008)

spooly
there was a thread on this 18 months ago...
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7238



> 100million bees disappear from Taiwan - Hawaii going the same way
> "When I saw that mite ( on a bee in Hawaii) I knew exactly what it meant, and I fell to my knees and wept"




 Vanishing Bees - Voice of America

 Bees dying in Germany Now

come of the jargon :-
CCD Colony Collapse Disorder
poor nutrition, drought, pesticide, verona mites 
(and from the talk you posted :- ) NDD Nature Deficit Disorder = make meadows not lawn. = throw away the mower


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> PS To be honest I even had a bit of a rethink about solar power when NASA's Mars Explorer ran out of power due to wind/dust etc.
> 
> Most of those renewable options are toys.  If we want current lifestyle and its power requirements, no choice but nuclear in the long term if not in the medium. (imo)



I think scale is the thing most people really don't get.

I once had a discussion with someone about water that went something like this. Whilst the topic was urban water supply, the point that people just don't comprehend the scale of energy / water industries stands.

Conversation went something like this:

Them: It's disgusting. People watering their lawns have managed to drain the council's tank, which holds 1 million litres, in a matter of days.

Me: Yes, that's a problem. We need to get the pumps working and fill the tank up again as soon as possible.

Them: Are you crazy? We just can't keep wasting water like that. It's going to run out you know if we keep watering lawns.

Me: You do realise that we're just re-using water released by the Hydro and they'll keep releasing it as long as we keep using power?

Them: Yeah maybe. But it's such a waste to be watering the lawn.

Me: Look, it's like this. Sprinkler uses 1000 litres an hour at most. You run it for, what, 2 hours a day for 100 days a year. I think that would be about the limit of what you could reasonably use on a suburban block without flooding the place. Simple math here, that's two hundered thousand litres a year whereas the Hydro's letting out 15 million.

Them: 15 million let out and you're saying use 200,000 in one garden? No wonder things are bad if that's your logic. Do the maths!

Me: No, no, no. You don't understand. That's 15 million litres a year just to run one house, not the whole state. And that's assuming the house has a wood fire for heating.

Them: Stunned silence.

One average house. 15 million litres of water a year. Most people just can't comprehend those sort of numbers. It's even worse when you try and explain that total system throughput is 42 _trillion_ litres with 16 _trillion_ litres actual discharge every year. Most can't even write those numbers down properly let alone come to terms with them.

OK, that example only applies in Tasmania but it's the same with coal. Take someone to the Latrobe Valley (Vic) and they can see some huge holes in the ground. Try and explain that we're burning 165,000 tonnes of the stuff not every year but every day and they struggle to come to terms with that. It's just too big a number for most.

This misunderstanding of scale is what leads people to think that a solar panel here and a miniature wind turbine there are going to fix everything. If only it was that simple.

All I'm really calling for in all my posts here is a sober look at reality. All these PV panels, LED lights and so on are all well and good and are a useful thing in themselves. But they're nowhere near being a silver bullet that fixes the energy problem. 

Yes I could power my house with some PV panels. But what about the energy to build houses with in the first place? Or grow my food? Or make the metals that I use? Or run cars and aeroplanes? Or build the roads? Or...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 December 2008)

The sun came up in the East today.

I saw it but was pretty pist.

It was about 4.54 maybe a bit later.

I slept most of the day.

The sun set 

Life is good and it is now raining. 

The smells of the garden are wafting in , ginger especially.

Isn't life good.

Happy Christmas to all of the Church of Climatology.

Peace be with your short term graphs.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 December 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> That's 15 million litres a year just to run one house, not the whole state. And that's assuming the house has a wood fire for heating.
> ...
> One average house. 15 million litres of water a year. Most people just can't comprehend those sort of numbers. It's even worse when you try and explain that total system throughput is 42 _trillion_ litres with 16 _trillion_ litres actual discharge every year.



so one Syndey Harbour  = 500 GL = 33 houses for 1 year. (call it one street).  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Jackson

throughput = 42,000GL ;  presumably recycled a couple of times if only 16,000 GL discharge?

say, smurf  - in droughts, presumably you discharge less / almost none -  even if throughput is constant ?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (27 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The sun came up in the East today.
> 
> I saw it but was pretty pist.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the weather commentary. Good to see the weather is still normal as has been. 

Yes the short term thinking of the big scheme of things. GG it is very cold in Japan at the moment. No warming here at the moment. With a pleasant start to the month it is very cold now. 

Where is the direct evidence that warming of the globe is caused by humans?

Coincidental information? Symptoms are not fact for the cause. Perfect and imperfect theories are for numbskulls in a box world. 

Everything is fractal in nature and just like the markets so is WEATHER. It is all natural and people do not want to be taxed by communist goverments that got their weird theories when they grew up in the 60's and 70's at university inspired by chaos and left bent ideologies. 

What is the church of scientology's stance on the topic? Anyone know?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> so one Syndey Harbour  = 500 GL = 33 houses for 1 year. (call it one street).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Jackson
> 
> throughput = 42,000GL ;  presumably recycled a couple of times if only 16,000 GL discharge?
> ...





Once in transit between Australi many years ago  and the UK I developed the trots.

Fortunately I was travelling First Class.

As I contemplated my humanty an Indian dunny inspector poked his head around the cubicle and proferred a new roll of toilet paper.

He uttered some words which I have never forgot and which may apply to you 2020
*
"You are very Anal, Sir"*

gg


----------



## wayneL (28 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Yes
> You and your ilk can't substantiate a thing.
> The theory that you say it often enough so must be true is well rehearsed.
> Your put up a video, a report or a link or an article; it's full of holes, but that's ok coz there are plenty more the same, just different.
> ...



nonsense nonsense nonsense

:sleeping:

This is getting way past boring and ridiculous. You accuse the optimists of what the pessimists are absolutely guilty of. It's like arguing with a religious nutter... fun for a while, but fruitless.

I think I'll just leave you you your religion. 

Cheers


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 December 2008)

Thanks for your response. 


> Wayne stuck up pictures of Arctic sea ice a while ago, showing there was no problem as there was more this year.
> 2007 was the record low point for Arctic sea ice, and it's getting thinner and not lasting as long as normal.



Do you have a source for your comments on this?


> As a barometer of climate, sea ice is not as good an indicator as land ice.
> A very simple reason is because we have different trends at each polar region.



What does this really mean? Could you ellaborate please?


> Sea ice does not "control" climate. It does have an impact; and that's largely to reflect the sun's rays.



Which helps cool the environment. Perhaps it is a natural defence of warming and it is complicit in helping ice ages. 


> Arctic sea ice is on a sure course to melt completely during the summer months: And we are talking within the next decade or two.



Any source for this? I am amused at the prediction of this as prediction is rarely correct. 

The main point to remember there is no direct link to man made global warming. Just symptoms of what is yet perfectly unable to be explained.


----------



## rederob (28 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> The main point to remember there is no direct link to man made global warming. Just symptoms of what is yet perfectly unable to be explained.



Snake
If you did a little bit of reading you would find numerous links to every matter I have described.  I believe you know how to "google".  Show how wrong I am from your searches and we can debate it.
I note that the skeptics have not at all looked at the chlorofluorocarbon science that led to a hole in the ozone layer.
That unwillingness is symptomatic of the quoted remark above.
Show that the CFC science is/was wrong, that man had no role (it's just "weather), and that CFC manufactures acted responsibly.


----------



## rederob (28 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> This is getting way past boring and ridiculous. You accuse the optimists of what the pessimists are absolutely guilty of. It's like arguing with a religious nutter... fun for a while, but fruitless.



I'm interested in *you *being able to follow through on a line of argument, not on what others are doing.
So far there is no evidence that *you *understand what you are trotting out.
You certainly are placing a lot of credibility on totally discredited information passing itself off as "science".
Your position on modelling appears to be based statistical on models of probability, where randomness or chaos are the phenomena of concern: Not on the scientific method of model development to prove/disprove eventualities or arrive at principles and laws governing observable events.
And every time it gets too hard *you* get totally dismissive.

The zealots, like 2020, want to swamp you with so much information it just washes over and washes out.
I'm more interested in knowing why you believe what you do.  If you think you are right, you should be able to base that view on much more than a "belief".
Having seen all this before, and seeing the usual suspects again lining up with the same ploys, it gets easy to work out what is really on and why.  

Of course you are too smart to get sucked in.  But not smart enough to prove you haven't been.

I hope you don't return to this thread and waste more of your valuable time - and ours, with more junk science, irrelevances, and dismissive statements.


----------



## wayneL (28 December 2008)

rederob said:


> I'm interested in *you *being able to follow through on a line of argument, not on what others are doing.
> So far there is no evidence that *you *understand what you are trotting out.
> You certainly are placing a lot of credibility on totally discredited information passing itself off as "science".
> Your position on modelling appears to be based statistical on models of probability, where randomness or chaos are the phenomena of concern: Not on the scientific method of model development to prove/disprove eventualities or arrive at principles and laws governing observable events.
> ...



Rob,

I can only respond with dismissiveness, because that the above post deserves. Ironically, this is the exact tactic you use whenever I post links to relevant science, so there is no real point in continuing with the discussion.

For science, I defer to the scientists and use my common sense to determine what is political propaganda, lies, cherry picking and what are reasonable hypotheses.

I don't consider, based on reading both side's positions, that the AGW hypothesis is reasonable, because it is so easily refuted, if the protagonists allow it (which is not very bloody often); it's a one sided story.

Add to that the utter and complete failure of the pro-warmer's model to predict climate, and the non-warmers relative success in ascribing non CO2 factors to climate trends, and the optimists win hands down.

Perhaps the greatest factor is my well founded suspicion that the pro-warmers have a sinister political agenda, or at least that politicians are funding and using warming zealots for said agenda. This is partly evidenced by the particular tactic of attacking the credibility of dissenters using political means, rather than scientific means, exactly as you have done in the above , and other posts.

This is a particularly low strategy which I for one will no longer abide. Discussion over for me.

Cheers


----------



## rederob (28 December 2008)

> Science 3 December 1999:
> Vol. 286. no. 5446, pp. 1934 - 1937
> DOI: 10.1126/science.286.5446.1934
> 
> ...



Snake
Note the above is over 9 years old: The trend has accelerated since.  Garpal might note that the models indicated a trend, and it has remained as they showed it.
Unlike dyed in the wool skeptics, there are genuine scientists that have moved from their "conservative" positions on AGW to a more open view based on data and observations. You might not have an hour to spare but Mark Serreze gave a detailed presentation a year ago on Arctic sea ice. Click on  http://www.agu.org/webcast/fm07/ and scroll to *C24A Nye Lecture*.  This answers most of Snake's questions, and more.  To cut the video shorter you can quickly link to the graphic which show that the pace of Arctic warming has outstripped all models.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> This is getting way past boring and ridiculous. You accuse the optimists of what the pessimists are absolutely guilty of. ...



wayne,
You think this is about "optimists" vs "pessimists" ... (?)

Try the "crossed-finger-brigade" vs "realists-hoping-they-are-at-least-half-wrong". 

This is not a topic where you apply the normal tests. 

Pretend for a moment that it's a 50-50 call (whether to act on CO2 or not) ...  When the health of the planet at stake, arguably seriously in jeapardy,  you must respond accordingly - call it erring on the side of safety 

PS thinking back to some of your posts about hedonism "eat drink and be merry, and who cares if tomorrow we're stuffed" - I 'm not sure why you should be the only one around here to claim that it's useless to argue with people whose minds are set.


----------



## rederob (28 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Perhaps the greatest factor is my well founded suspicion that the pro-warmers have a sinister political agenda, or at least that politicians are funding and using warming zealots for said agenda. This is partly evidenced by the particular tactic of attacking the credibility of dissenters using political means, *rather than scientific means*, exactly as you have done in the above , and other posts.



I have repeatedly debunked the purported "science" that underpins many of your links.  You have never rebutted those aspects. 
You consistently taint your posted remarks with language that degrades any semblance of reasoned debate: Debate that time and time I challenge you to, and time and time you avoid.
I see from you occasional links that purport "peer" review, when no such review is supported by the facts.  
You mantra appears to be that Gore represents the "pro-warmers" and his lack of credibility is all that needs to be attacked to prove your point.
And you conclude any further discussion on a "well founded suspicion"
I let the facts speak for themselves.


----------



## wayneL (28 December 2008)

rederob said:


> I have repeatedly debunked the purported "science" that underpins many of your links.  You have never rebutted those aspects.
> You consistently taint your posted remarks with language that degrades any semblance of reasoned debate: Debate that time and time I challenge you to, and time and time you avoid.
> I see from you occasional links that purport "peer" review, when no such review is supported by the facts.
> You mantra appears to be that Gore represents the "pro-warmers" and his lack of credibility is all that needs to be attacked to prove your point.
> ...



Rob,

You are just so tiresome. Debunk this: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/greenhouse_warming_what_greenhouse_warming_.html


----------



## chops_a_must (28 December 2008)

Ahhh... the gold old, my scientific empirical correlation is better than your scientific empirical correlation argument.


----------



## wayneL (28 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> wayne,
> You think this is about "optimists" vs "pessimists" ... (?)
> 
> Try the "crossed-finger-brigade" vs "realists-hoping-they-are-at-least-half-wrong".
> ...



2020,

Your main approach seems to revolve around a variation Pascal's Wager.

I think you would be the first to reject the same.

Yes I continue to pursue a hedonistic lifestyle... perhaps more along the lines of Epicurus. But tomorrow we all die, whether there is GW or not. Therefore I will eat good and simple food, drink good European beer and wine and bloody well enjoy my life. Slow food...ever heard of it?

But you make the mistake of thinking my mind is set, rather than having made the best decision. That is wrong and strongly charactarizes CC pessimists rather than optimists. Also unintelligently ignores my and other optimist's total environmental view.


----------



## spooly74 (28 December 2008)

rederob said:


> I note that the skeptics have not at all looked at the chlorofluorocarbon science that led to a hole in the ozone layer.
> That unwillingness is symptomatic of the quoted remark above.
> Show that the CFC science is/was wrong, that man had no role (it's just "weather), and that CFC manufactures acted responsibly.




The only reason CFC's are bad for the ozone is due to a certain type of cloud that builds up above polar regions. This was not fully understood till 86/87.
That year the Montreal protocol was signed with the aim of completely eliminating CFC's. The treaty then underwent 7 revisions in ten years and been hailed as an example of exceptional international co-operation.
The ozone is expected to recover by 2050/2060.

Seems once the science was fully understood, Governments act.

Maybe the IPCC should meet annually to correlate their data with other operations? Nope, they refused. Next report out in 6 years


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 December 2008)

Several posts around here (both sides), want to compare this topic with religion.  

Those who believe the UN's data (ala IPCC) that says it's getting warmer on the one hand - those who prefer to ignore it, or believe alternative data on the other. (including Exxon of course).  

Just listening to Prof Robert Winston on TV - program on "The Story of God".  He asks :- "Where do we go and what happens when we die? Professor Robert Winston attempts to answer these and many other etc "

"Suppose you DON'T believe in Heaven and Hell  - and suppose you are wrong - and score Hell as a result."

Now I'm not about to believe in Heaven on these grounds (for myself personally) -  I could give a damn - and I'm not about to try to believe something that there is no evidence for - ....

But (imo) there are *some much closer and immediate parallels with the Global Warming theory*  (including the dire distress that the world will experience, temperature, deserts, storms, floods, locusts that dont die in winter, weevils, sea levels etc)  -  *that SHOULD be included as an added factor - to encourage us to err on the safe side - similar reasoning, i.e. "what if we are wrong?".* 

PS this is the only planet we've got folks. 

:topic  It goes on to say 
"by the time Galileo died, educated people were turning to scientists not priests.   ...  Nowadays, even the Vatican has its telescopes". Newton born the year that Galileo died. etc


----------



## rederob (28 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> wayne,
> You think this is about "optimists" vs "pessimists" ... (?)
> 
> Try the "crossed-finger-brigade" vs "realists-hoping-they-are-at-least-half-wrong".
> ...



2020
It's possible to move the debate forward, but not by dragging it back, as you keep doing.
The skeptics have a very simple remit: Show that radiative forcing from increased CO2 emissions dos not affect temperature.  When they can show that, we have a new ball game.


----------



## rederob (28 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Rob,
> 
> You are just so tiresome. Debunk this: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/greenhouse_warming_what_greenhouse_warming_.html



It's a long report with many aspects.
You pick one and I will debunk it.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 December 2008)

PS.  Here's one of the priests of my religion 

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
  Carl Sagan: Pale Blue Dot

... "there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. Like it or not, for the moment, the Earth is where we make our stand."

"There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the only home we've ever known: the pale blue dot."


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 December 2008)

rederob said:


> 2020
> 1. It's possible to move the debate forward, but not by dragging it back, as you keep doing.
> 2. The skeptics have a very simple remit: Show that radiative forcing from increased CO2 emissions dos not affect temperature.
> 3. When they can show that, we have a new ball game.




all true
1, 2, and 3. good luck in pursuing that logical sequence lol.  You have invited logical and specific points many times now.  

btw, readers will be aware of the argument that starts "even if" yes?  It advances a step in the opponents direction, towards an appeal to be reasonable - without admitting anything?

So, the point I was making or trying to make is that, EVEN IF it wasn't 100% absolute proven / guaranteed / known / locked in stone / perfectly modelled etc that the earth will or won't warm - we should surely have to play safe given the consequences of failure - we should use at least the same rules as say a bridge designer should use to decide on whether or not to strengthen a suspect beam. 

( let's face it the economic downturn will delay things marginally - certainly it has reduced CO2 emissions for a year or two, especially in China - and the next solar activity cycle or two might be milder etc. Might give us the breathing space we need - but I digress from where I wanted to go )  ..

But back to that bridge analogy...
Anyone remember the bridge in Minneapolis that collapsed about 16 months ago? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge

I have read that the biggest engineering error was this one :-


> The report also noted a concern about *lack of redundancy in the main truss system, which meant the bridge had a greater risk of collapse in the event of any single structural failure.*




There was no "fall back" - no place to retreat if any single structural element failed.   That is not unheard of in Engineering circles - BUT - you have to add a special factor of safety (load factor whatever) in such circumstances - according to Australian codes anyways.  (penalty for non-redundancy) 

Compare the way we treat the Earth - no fallback, no place to retreat etc .  Or as Carl Sagan would say ...


> there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. Like it or not, for the moment, the Earth is where we make our stand."
> 
> "There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the only home we've ever known: the pale blue dot."






> When the bridge fell, it was still the most recent river crossing built on a new site in Minneapolis


----------



## wayneL (28 December 2008)

rederob said:


> It's a long report with many aspects.
> You pick one and I will debunk it.




You'll have to do a better hatchet job than arch Fabian, George Manbiot, who was not only de-debunked, but suffered some debunking himself in a public slanging match. A humiliation.

Good luck Rederob


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 December 2008)

hey Spooly , 
I'm still waiting for you to post your opinion of whether or not monitoring the climate and trying to improve the models of its behaviour should (iyo) take prioity over spending on the LH Collider. 

I'd also ask you whether we have to have every 't' crossed in the modelling dept before we act on this one, to reduce CO2 - assuming you don't need to be reminded of the consequences of failure.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 December 2008)

rederob said:


> The skeptics have a very simple remit: Show that radiative forcing from *increased CO2 emissions dos not affect temperature*.  When they can show that, we have a new ball game.




hey rob - 
There was a debate hosted by Intelligence Squared (see post #215) - where all 6 participants concede that point 

So some posters here are "out on their own" in the scepticism stakes. 

You call some of these posters around here "sceptics" - I would define them as "denialists" 

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=rNttO8rAJNE 
embedded:-
 go to the 2m 20s mark and the 6m 20s mark



2020hindsight said:


> It’s interesting that in the final part 10, [XXX should be part 9 of 10 - apologies ]  all six speakers admit that “*more greenhouse gases will make the world warmer*”.
> 
> Furthermore (5.5) five and a half  admit that “energy conservation is a good thing”.


----------



## rederob (28 December 2008)

spooly74 said:


> The only reason CFC's are bad for the ozone is due to a certain type of cloud that builds up above polar regions. This was not fully understood till 86/87.
> That year the Montreal protocol was signed with the aim of completely eliminating CFC's. The treaty then underwent 7 revisions in ten years and been hailed as an example of exceptional international co-operation.
> The ozone is expected to recover by 2050/2060.
> 
> ...



The science of ozone decomposition was shown by Chapman in 1930. 
There was a bit of a gap in major advancements until in 1970 Crutzen showed that the nitrogen oxides NO and NO2 reacted catalytically (without themselves being consumed) with ozone, thereby accelerating the rate of reduction of the ozone content.  Molina and Rowland's 1974 paper completed the basic science, but not the "modelling" needed to determine actual CFC impacts.
DuPont rallied its industry colleagues into a defence of CFC use because the science was dodgy, and they could prove it; which they tried vigilantly until the Montreal Protocol.  Curiously they quickly changed tack, and DuPont have been strong supporters of the Montreal Protocol. 
It gets less curious when you realise that while the CFC debate was raging, DuPont were scrambling for replacements they could manufacture, and steal a march on their competitors.


----------



## spooly74 (28 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> hey Spooly ,
> I'm still waiting for you to post your opinion of whether or not monitoring the climate and trying to improve the models of its behaviour should (iyo) take prioity over spending on the LH Collider.
> 
> I'd also ask you whether we have to have every 't' crossed in the modelling dept before we act on this one, to reduce CO2 - assuming you don't need to be reminded of the consequences of failure.




The LHC has all the funding it needs from Governments so it's a mute point. Particle physics has reached a point where only experiment can show the way forward. This is a stunning reality that climate scientists can only dream of.
Perhaps climate modelers could take advantage of 'The Grid', a technology developed for the LHC to correlate their data and computing power but the IPCC seem to have it all sussed and refused that idea too (can't find the link atm).

As for every 't' crossed before we act ....... didn't we just act? 5% by 2020. Not enough? Too little to late?

Observed warming is at most 1.5C per doubling CO2, not 3C! I'm sure the models can/will improve. This missing heat is supposedly being absorbed by the oceans, which is hard to prove or disprove, given our limited understanding of the deep ocean currents and temperatures.

All scientific models have restricted applicability, they should be thought of as representations of reality and not reality itself!


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 December 2008)

spooly74 said:


> 1. As for every 't' crossed before we act ....... didn't we just act? 5% by 2020.
> 
> 2. Not enough? Too little to late?
> 
> ...



1. so we agree we did the right thing in making the first step  (btw that still has to get through the Senate) 
2. too little too late? very possibly - watch this space I guess. 
3. I'm sure models will improve as well
4. The models are the best we've got.  I would argue you could compare Winston Churchill :- "do what you can now with what you've got" 

PS perhaps if we hadn't attacked Iraq, we could have had a few dozen LHC's (and significantly less CO2 as well)


----------



## spooly74 (28 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> 1. so we agree we did the right thing in making the first step  (btw that still has to get through the Senate)



CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we've known that for 100 years.
I draw the line at alarmist projections and calls for 'tipping points' etc .... to assume humans are wholly responsible gives us way too much credit imo.


----------



## explod (28 December 2008)

rederob said:


> 2020
> It's possible to move the debate forward, but not by dragging it back, as you keep doing.
> The skeptics have a very simple remit: Show that radiative forcing from increased CO2 emissions dos not affect temperature.  When they can show that, we have a new ball game.




I think temperature is a very difficult area.   Higher temperature causes moisture to rise which in turn increases cloud cover which then decreases temperature.    Climite change is the thread topic and seems with my limited knowledge best means to observe.   No doubt as data collection time and quality improves a wider spread of effects will show the way more clearly.


----------



## rederob (28 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> You'll have to do a better hatchet job than arch Fabian, George Manbiot, who was not only de-debunked, but suffered some debunking himself in a public slanging match. A humiliation.
> 
> Good luck Rederob



I did ask for a specific aspect of your choice.

In its absence, an overview:
Monckton makes a case that climate sensitivity, the amount that the global average temperature increases if CO2 doubles is much less than the IPCC estimate of 3 °C. Monckton reckons sensitivity is just 0.58K. 
How does he come up with such a number?
He starts with an equation for forcing...so far so good.
Then he claims that the supposedly missing hotspot means that forcing has to be reduced by a factor of three. In doing this he misunderstands Lindzen (2007), But Lindzen (2007) does not say that CO2 radiative forcing is too high, "_we can reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed warming, leading to a climate sensitivity too small to offer any significant measure of alarm"._
Note that this is a statement about *sensitivity *not CO2 forcing.
Next Monckton turns his attention to sensitivity and argues it's too high as well.
Monckton proceeds to "prove" that sensitivity will  be less than the value implicit in IPCC (2007).
In his "proof" he assumes there is no delay in warming (unlikely!) and McKitrick's data is correct (although he confused degrees with radians and his paper is totally unreliable), to arrive at his low value of sensitivity.
If we also assume that the IPCC forcing and feedback values are correct, then their value of sensitivity must be too high; Monckton comes up with a number 20% less. But in a previous section Monckton argued that the IPCC forcing value was too high by a factor of three. Yet if we we use Monckton's number, the IPCC value of sensitivity is too low.

Put simply, Monckton's paper arrives at conclusions that are not supported by its own maths.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> hey Spooly ,
> I'm still waiting for you to post your opinion of whether or not monitoring the climate and trying to improve the models of its behaviour should (iyo) take prioity over spending on the LH Collider.
> 
> I'd also ask you whether we have to have every 't' crossed in the modelling dept before we act on this one, to reduce CO2 - assuming you don't need to be reminded of the consequences of failure.






rederob said:


> The science of ozone decomposition was shown by Chapman in 1930.
> There was a bit of a gap in major advancements until in 1970 Crutzen showed that the nitrogen oxides NO and NO2 reacted catalytically (without themselves being consumed) with ozone, thereby accelerating the rate of reduction of the ozone content.  Molina and Rowland's 1974 paper completed the basic science, but not the "modelling" needed to determine actual CFC impacts.
> DuPont rallied its industry colleagues into a defence of CFC use because the science was dodgy, and they could prove it; which they tried vigilantly until the Montreal Protocol.  Curiously they quickly changed tack, and DuPont have been strong supporters of the Montreal Protocol.
> It gets less curious when you realise that while the CFC debate was raging, DuPont were scrambling for replacements they could manufacture, and steal a march on their competitors.






spooly74 said:


> The LHC has all the funding it needs from Governments so it's a mute point. Particle physics has reached a point where only experiment can show the way forward. This is a stunning reality that climate scientists can only dream of.
> Perhaps climate modelers could take advantage of 'The Grid', a technology developed for the LHC to correlate their data and computing power but the IPCC seem to have it all sussed and refused that idea too (can't find the link atm).
> 
> As for every 't' crossed before we act ....... didn't we just act? 5% by 2020. Not enough? Too little to late?
> ...






explod said:


> I think temperature is a very difficult area.   Higher temperature causes moisture to rise which in turn increases cloud cover which then decreases temperature.    Climite change is the thread topic and seems with my limited knowledge best means to observe.   No doubt as data collection time and quality improves a wider spread of effects will show the way more clearly.






rederob said:


> I did ask for a specific aspect of your choice.
> 
> In its absence, an overview:
> Monckton makes a case that climate sensitivity, the amount that the global average temperature increases if CO2 doubles is much less than the IPCC estimate of 3 °C. Monckton reckons sensitivity is just 0.58K.
> ...





I am not a scientist, merely an ordinary person trying to make sense of the millions of words written daily on weather and warming.

Sometimes when one gets a headache from reading the arguments it is useful to pull back the ottoman and have a smoke. I find this solves many problems as smoke rings rising are finite.

This argument is similar to the ones the godbotherers of old had about how many angels would fit on the head of a needle.

Millions of words, valid arguments and all for nought.

Use reason not empirical arguments.

And no more bloody graphs.

gg


----------



## rederob (28 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Millions of words, valid arguments and all for nought.
> 
> Use reason not empirical arguments.
> 
> ...



You can always cut to the chase:


> Put simply, Monckton's paper arrives at conclusions that are not supported by its own maths.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Snake
> If you did a little bit of reading you would find numerous links to every matter I have described.  I believe you know how to "google".  Show how wrong I am from your searches and we can debate it.
> I note that the skeptics have not at all looked at the chlorofluorocarbon science that led to a hole in the ozone layer.
> That unwillingness is symptomatic of the quoted remark above.
> Show that the CFC science is/was wrong, that man had no role (it's just "weather), and that CFC manufactures acted responsibly.



Sorry nothing states that man has created climate change or global warming. And notheing ever will that is totally complete in both fact and reality. It is a fractal world and there are too many unknowns.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Snake
> Note the above is over 9 years old: The trend has accelerated since.  Garpal might note that the models indicated a trend, and it has remained as they showed it.
> Unlike dyed in the wool skeptics, there are genuine scientists that have moved from their "conservative" positions on AGW to a more open view based on data and observations. You might not have an hour to spare but Mark Serreze gave a detailed presentation a year ago on Arctic sea ice. Click on  http://www.agu.org/webcast/fm07/ and scroll to *C24A Nye Lecture*.  This answers most of Snake's questions, and more.  To cut the video shorter you can quickly link to the graphic which show that the pace of Arctic warming has outstripped all models.




Thanks for the link red and I'll have a look at it seriously and respond if I have the talent to do so.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Sorry nothing states that man has created climate change or global warming. And notheing ever will that is totally complete in both fact and reality. It is a fractal world and there are too many unknowns.




Now we are getting somewhere.

Weather is a chaotic system, not linear or graphic.

A wise observation Snake.

gg


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Now we are getting somewhere.
> 
> Weather is a chaotic system, not linear or graphic.
> 
> ...



It makes sense GG. Have you read Mandelbroit? Good read if you haven't. Taleb has some interesting stuff to say too.


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> A wise observation Snake.
> gg




LOL


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> It makes sense GG. Have you read Mandelbroit? Good read if you haven't. Taleb has some interesting stuff to say too.




Nick and I email frequently.

I've never met Mandelbrot, but have read all his books and articles.

The best of science.

The best of reason.

It leaves these jokers with their graphs for dead.

gg


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 December 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> LOL



LOL.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Nick and I email frequently.
> 
> I've never met Mandelbrot, but have read all his books and articles.
> 
> ...



That's good. I have only read their books and some articles. 
This is the real science.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> That's good. I have only read their books and some articles.
> This is the real science.




Agree mate.

The closest I've come in real life to the Church of Climatology is Texas Holdem.

May all your hands etc etc

gg


----------



## basilio (28 December 2008)

The dispute about global warming whether conducted here or anywhere else on the earth has very little interest in reality.

When I look around and look to history one can see how completely opposite points of view can be vehemently asserted as "right". In most cases proponents of each view have a special interest in making sure their argument wins, or is accepted or stays as the existing paradigm. Consider for example arguments abut the morality of slavery versus the rights of property owners and free enterprise. Perhaps the possibility ( probability..!) of smoking causing cancers versus the rights of individuals to do as they please and the rights of the market to freely sell their products.

Right now we have Israel launching wave after wave of attacks to protect or avenge itself against rockets fired into its territory. In Russia Stalin is being voted as one of the most important persons in their history and in fact is being rehabilitated.

So its no surprise that with one of the most critical issues that faces us and one that will require the most profound changes in behavior and consequences the desire to "win" is fierce. If we truly understand and accept that global warming is happening and in particular happening far quicker than we thought even a few years ago then the changes that need to be made are massive. 

So with this in mind how realistic is it for a very human population that wants to continue in its current lifestyle to really come to terms with an upheaval that cannot be compared to anything else in living memory? It's a hard ask isn't it?

The trouble with vehement denials of global warming, ridicule of scientists, comments about other agendas of "global warmeners" is that they cannot  change a physical reality that is taking place largely as a result of our actions. *Reality trumps politics *

My feeling is it would be far more constructive to open another conversation on how we might collectively tackle/adapt/survive what will be the biggest challenge facing our collective humanity. You don't actually have to be a "global warming believer" to have some sharp ideas on how we might reduce our impact on the planet, de carbonise the economy (if only to recognise that we* will * run out of fossil fuels and so on.  

Obviously people who wish to continue the debate on whether GW is just weather can continue to do so here.

Any thoughts?

Cheers
_______________________________________

_Global Warming and Peak oil - The right solutions, right now_


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

basilio said:


> The dispute about global warming whether conducted here or anywhere else on the earth has very little interest in reality.
> 
> When I look around and look to history one can see how completely opposite points of view can be vehemently asserted as "right". In most cases proponents of each view have a special interest in making sure their argument wins, or is accepted or stays as the existing paradigm. Consider for example arguments abut the morality of slavery versus the rights of property owners and free enterprise. Perhaps the possibility ( probability..!) of smoking causing cancers versus the rights of individuals to do as they please and the rights of the market to freely sell their products.
> 
> ...




As the person who started this thread I feel it is reasonable to reply to you Basilio.

You sound like a reasonable person and your arguments are moot.

Unfortunately many folk with less knowledge than you follow a political agenda which some would describe as fascist.It is all about weather.!!

I have many friends who are farmers who look at the sky as often as at their crops.

Many posters who share your opinions live in squalid terraces in cities.

Most country folk would resent you hijacking this thread to a citified base.

gg


----------



## wayneL (28 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Sorry nothing states that man has created climate change or global warming. And notheing ever will that is totally complete in both fact and reality. It is a fractal world and there are too many unknowns.






Garpal Gumnut said:


> Now we are getting somewhere.
> 
> Weather is a chaotic system, not linear or graphic.
> 
> ...




But, but, but... our rederob claims climate is not a chaotic system. 

I'll take Mandelbrot over Monbiot anyday. Point well made guys.


----------



## rederob (28 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Sorry nothing states that man has created climate change or global warming. And notheing ever will that is totally complete in both fact and reality. It is a fractal world and there are too many unknowns.



So man's emissions of CFCs had no impact on the ozone layer?
And the ozone layer can't impact on climate?
More to the point, man can never have an impact of climate, according to your reckoning, because we could never prove it factually or in reality. And that's because its a "fractal world" where there are too many unknowns.
Weather is complex.
It's a dynamic systems that defies statistically reliable predictability beyond about 5 days.
Does this mean we cannot predict the likely minimum and maximum temperature ranges for the weather you will experience where you live, on this day next year? For that matter, let's jump ahead 20 years:  Chances are that (with or without "climate change") we wouldn't have to change those values.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

Thanks Wayne.

The sun rose in the East today

I slept through it.

It was very hot mid 30's I'd reckon through the day.

It became very overcast just before suset.

The sun set in the west.

As I speak a soft rain is falling, giving wonderful smells to garpalhouse.

Garpaldog is chasing a possum along a fence with little hope of ever catching it.

Aint weather magnificent?

gg


----------



## wayneL (28 December 2008)

A fantastic article in today's telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

And to see the British publics's perceptions on the matter, check out the comments. The coffee is percolating and the olfactory prowess of the average Brit is in perfect working order.


----------



## rederob (28 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> A fantastic article in today's telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html



Yet again you link to an article that just proves weather patterns are dynamic and variable across the globe.
Tiresome, tedious, tripe.
No science.
No understanding (let alone mention) of the underlying concepts.
No idea.
Conviction and beliefs conceived in ignorance.
Keep up the excellent work.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 December 2008)

rederob said:


> So man's emissions of CFCs had no impact on the ozone layer?
> And the ozone layer can't impact on climate?
> More to the point, man can never have an impact of climate, according to your reckoning, because we could never prove it factually or in reality. And that's because its a "fractal world" where there are too many unknowns.
> Weather is complex.
> ...



Main difference with the CFC issue is the relative simplicity of implementing alternatives whereas the CO2 issue relates directly to _energy_ and thus to _everything_.

To my understanding, ozone doesn't really impact climate in a big way, at least not in terms of the likely ozone levels we'd realistically be contemplating. I think there's a lot of confusion with people thinking that ozone depletion and climate change are the same thing or at least closely related - apsrt from CFC's adding to both there's not much of a link in practice.

As to weather predictability, well I think you're fairly safe predicting that it will be warm in Brisbane during January and fairly cold in Canberra during July.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (29 December 2008)

rederob said:


> So man's emissions of CFCs had no impact on the ozone layer?
> And the ozone layer can't impact on climate?
> More to the point, man can never have an impact of climate, according to your reckoning, because we could never prove it factually or in reality. And that's because its a "fractal world" where there are too many unknowns.
> Weather is complex.
> ...



Red thanks for your thoughts. 
Aparantly the CFC's had an impact on the ozone layer. It seems we have found that in time to try to help the hole. 
When it is a sunny forecast I take an umbrella.
Cheers..


----------



## wayneL (29 December 2008)

rederob][QUOTE=wayneL said:


> A fantastic article in today's telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html



Yet again you link to an article that just proves weather patterns are dynamic and variable across the globe.
Tiresome, tedious, tripe.
No science.
No understanding (let alone mention) of the underlying concepts.
No idea.
Conviction and beliefs conceived in ignorance.
Keep up the excellent work.[/QUOTE]
You seem to believe yourself as the sole proprietor and adjudicator of all climate knowledge.

I submit that that is ridiculous and you prove yourself tediously biased (tedious being word of the day). 

The article, whether or not it has merit, is interesting because of the responses from the public. They're having none of this BS and will eventually vote down any government that goes too far down this path. 

A sa matter of fact, Obama will be marked as a failure largely because of his predilection with the AGW hoax, if he carries through with his rhetoric.


----------



## mayk (29 December 2008)

> 2020hindsight  View Post
> hey Spooly ,
> I'm still waiting for you to post your opinion of whether or not monitoring the climate and trying to improve the models of its behaviour should (iyo) take prioity over spending on the LH Collider.





Please try to understand the purpose of LHC. A main aspect of that work might even solve the mystery of climate change over centuries. Considering your habit of researching, I leave it to you to present the context of the problem to ASF viewers. 

Hint: Sun, Galaxies and cloud formation.


----------



## rederob (29 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> You seem to believe yourself as the sole proprietor and adjudicator of all climate knowledge.



I just ask for evidence that man has no impact on the measured temperature increases over the past 100 years. Or that the the skeptics can prove the science has no merit.


----------



## wayneL (29 December 2008)

rederob said:


> I just ask for evidence that man has no impact on the measured temperature increases over the past 100 years. Or that the the skeptics can prove the science has no merit.




Rob, it everywhere! It's smacking you in the face!

You just refuse to see it.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 December 2008)

mayk said:


> Please try to understand the purpose of LHC. A main aspect of that work might even solve the mystery of climate change over centuries. Considering your habit of researching, I leave it to you to present the context of the problem to ASF viewers.
> 
> Hint: Sun, Galaxies and cloud formation.



You've got me at a disadvantage may
I wasn't aware that "a main aspect of that work might solve the mystery of climate change".

hint : how about a link to that effect 

PS I'm not against pioneering research like LHC btw - just that I was trying to get spooly to agree that the model for the earth's climate is something that needs all the support and funding it can get - not be the the subject of scorn.


----------



## rederob (29 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Rob, it everywhere! It's smacking you in the face!
> 
> You just refuse to see it.



I think you have turned "denial" into an art form.

I ask for proof.
You say it's everywhere.

What is everywhere is a position contrary to yours.  Every time you turn on a switch.  Every time you jump in a car. Every time you fart.
Yes, climate change is literally coming out of your @rse.


----------



## Calliope (29 December 2008)

basilio said:


> The dispute about global warming whether conducted here or anywhere else on the earth has very little interest in reality.
> 
> When I look around and look to history one can see how completely opposite points of view can be vehemently asserted as "right". In most cases proponents of each view have a special interest in making sure their argument wins, or is accepted or stays as the existing paradigm. Consider for example arguments abut the morality of slavery versus the rights of property owners and free enterprise.
> 
> ...




Basilio want to inject more of his evangelism into the debate. He thinks the warmers and the dissenters should unite to save the world, To do this of course the dissenters have to admit they are wrong and and accept that the world is otherwise doomed unless we follow their script or *the science* as Rederob calls it. 

He is justified in feeling so self-righteous. The leaders of the Western world now accept *the science* as a GIVEN along the lines of Mr Rudd's statement back in September.



> We must prepare for a low carbon economy, to delay any longer, to stay in denial as the climate change skeptics... would have us do is reckless and irresponsible...for our generation, our kids and future generations we must act now.




I doubt if any of the Western leaders have any dissenting voices on their climate advisory panels They are all guided by *the science.* Basilio seeks to look at history to justify the warmers crusade.

To don't have to go back too far in history to find cases of where the dismissal of the dissenters arguments lead to tragedy.

The Vietnam war where a string of Presidents believed in the _domino theory_

The Iraq war where those opposing the _weapons of mass destruction_ theory were ignored.

And the worlds greatest tragedy where millions of well-meaning people all over the world in the 1930s saw Soviet Russia as the Promised Land.

Now that the warmers have have won politically why are they still trying to justify *the science*?

It took Bush eight years to admit he listened the the wrong advisors.


----------



## mayk (29 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> You've got me at a disadvantage may
> I wasn't aware that "a main aspect of that work might solve the mystery of climate change".
> 
> hint : how about a link to that effect
> ...




http://ngcblog.nationalgeographic.com/ngcblog/2007/10/solar_force_1.html



> Solar force, in essence, is a film about how natural variations in the sun’s magnetic fields affects our climate. Although this film isn’t about Global warming per se – it does cross over with aspects of it, making scientists a little nervous about speaking on the subject. Global warming is such a political ‘hot potato’ no one wants to burn their fingers, so to speak, if they can possibly help it.
> This was particularly true of the Danish team that we interviewed, who believe that cosmic rays may be a possible driving force behind global climate change; they had direct, and painful, experience of putting their heads above the scientific parapet and being shot at by most of the science community for their controversial views.
> 
> One scientist on a previous film I made about the Loch Ness monster, said how, after he had appeared in a previous film about the elusive creature, he had been pelted with breads rolls at the next scientific conference he attended – and his area of expertise was nematode worms!




http://www.veoh.com/videos/v15494829Z7WqqaJ4
(You might have to install their media player to watch the full version.)


----------



## wayneL (29 December 2008)

rederob said:


> I think you have turned "denial" into an art form.
> 
> I ask for proof.
> You say it's everywhere.
> ...




Rob,

You've managed to turn this into a dick measuring contest again :sleeping:

I don't really want to put mine anywhere near yours, so ah'm oot.

Ciao


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 December 2008)

mayk said:


> http://ngcblog.nationalgeographic.com/ngcblog/2007/10/solar_force_1.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



may
you sure this refers to the LH Collider?
be a bit more specific please.


----------



## rederob (29 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Rob,
> 
> You've managed to turn this into a dick measuring contest again :sleeping:
> 
> ...



No problem.
It's been a simple request.
Shame you *again *haven't the capacity to respond with anything meaningful.  
And that's after again debunking the nonsense that comes from Monckton.  Better that next time he submits his work to peer review rather than shoot himself in the foot with more failings of maths and logic.
I'll wait for Garpal to provide the weather report in Townsville for something meatier than you have put up.


----------



## mayk (29 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> may
> you sure this refers to the LH Collider?
> be a bit more specific please.




Have you watched the Docu? It explains it in layman's term mate.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 December 2008)

Click on this link mates, its a good summary of the debate this year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

I do like the UK Telegraph, its such a sensible publication.


Happy New Year.


gg


----------



## mayk (29 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Click on this link mates, its a good summary of the debate this year.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html
> I do like the UK Telegraph, its such a sensible publication.




Here is the myth of IPCC,
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....90b-bd9faf4dcdb7&CFID=716091&CFTOKEN=88704376


> Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007.  The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 December 2008)

mayk said:


> Have you watched the Docu? It explains it in layman's term mate.




No I haven't .
I did check the first link , and noted it was nothing to do with the LHC. 
So why would I go to the next link?

But in any case, what's your point?

My point is that funding into modelling climate is (at least) equally as important as the funding for the LHC.


----------



## mayk (29 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> No I haven't .
> I did check the first link , and noted it was nothing to do with the LHC.
> So why would I go to the next link?
> 
> ...




Watch it mate, It spends about 10-15 minutes explaining LHC and what they want to achieve from it.

I agree with your point of spending money on CG research, but not by fixing the conclusion first. A free spirited research is needed not bounded and controlled by dodge political-scientific organizations. Spend money on alternatives, like studying the impact of Sun, as shown in this documentary. 


P.S. veoh player is safe to install, don't be afraid.


----------



## explod (29 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Click on this link mates, its a good summary of the debate this year.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html
> 
> ...




An article big on rhetoric and very short on factual substance.   Statements prefaced with the word "may"

America has not adopted anything costly to combat global warming, in fact it has adopted nothing.

Large drops in temperature at times has been predicted.   Tracts of heat cause extra moisture to rise increasing cloud cover and the intensities of hot and cold air together inceases storms.

The arctic has in fact cleared so much that as recently as a few months ago it is being considered as a new passage for freight tankers. 

The only scientists able to get thier grants to publish are those that play the game to big Government.   Say what big business wants or no grants pal.
]
The article rounds off by appealing to the hip pocket.  The global warming idea is going to send us broke.   What is sending us broke are freeway carparks, over indulgence in borrowed money and baby bonuses for unwanted children.

GG, you have to look closer at the content before posting stuff.   That was just a load of crap from someone who probably produces oil.


----------



## mayk (29 December 2008)

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....90b-bd9faf4dcdb7&CFID=716091&CFTOKEN=88704376


> Highlights of the Updated 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:
> 
> “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
> 
> ...





Are all of these scientists "crap" rederob?


----------



## explod (29 December 2008)

mayk said:


> http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....90b-bd9faf4dcdb7&CFID=716091&CFTOKEN=88704376
> 
> 
> 
> Are all of these scientists "crap" rederob?




For him I will say yep.    Anything out of the UN is suspect for a start, controlled by the US.   Japan, again maintains the oil status quo with the US.  Some of the statements are segments that are taken out of context.

The is doubt over the whole question, therefore we should be skeptical and err on the side of being prepared for global warming.   Alternative measures provide new and exciting opportunities for business.   Big change also brings about new and exciting business revolutions.   And lets face it fossil fuels are running out or getting too expensive to reach.

Why the fanatical opposition.   How about a reasonable approach to new technologies.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Click on this link mates, its a good summary of the debate this year.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html
> 
> ...






mayk said:


> Here is the myth of IPCC,
> http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....90b-bd9faf4dcdb7&CFID=716091&CFTOKEN=88704376






2020hindsight said:


> No I haven't .
> I did check the first link , and noted it was nothing to do with the LHC.
> So why would I go to the next link?
> 
> ...






mayk said:


> Watch it mate, It spends about 10-15 minutes explaining LHC and what they want to achieve from it.
> 
> I agree with your point of spending money on CG research, but not by fixing the conclusion first. A free spirited research is needed not bounded and controlled by dodge political-scientific organizations. Spend money on alternatives, like studying the impact of Sun, as shown in this documentary.
> 
> ...






mayk said:


> http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....90b-bd9faf4dcdb7&CFID=716091&CFTOKEN=88704376
> 
> 
> 
> Are all of these scientists "crap" rederob?




There is so much publication bias out there that I wouldn't have the time to sift through it all.

Reason is the first filter I use.

I then discount all normal curves and graphs. They are crap, not enough info.

Mandelbrot and Taleb I listen to.

This guy in the UK Daily Telegraph is as believable as anything else I've seen.

My lighting up a Cohiba in my Monaro is less danger to the earth than these jokers with their particle colliders in Switzerland.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 December 2008)

Incidentally, here's IPCC's website of FAQ's :-
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faqIndex.html

example :-
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-6.1.html 
Frequently Asked Question 6.1
    What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate 
   Changes Before the Industrial Era?

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-8.1.html
Frequently Asked Question 8.1
    How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections 
   of Future Climate Change?



> There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation).
> 
> Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.
> 
> ... Models are routinely and extensively assessed by comparing their simulations with observations of the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and land surface. Unprecedented levels of evaluation have taken place over the last decade in the form of organised multi-model ‘intercomparisons’. Models show significant and increasing skill in representing many important mean climate features, such as the large-scale distributions of atmospheric temperature, precipitation, radiation and wind, and of oceanic temperatures, currents and sea ice cover.    etc


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 December 2008)

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-5.1.html



> Frequently Asked Question 5.1
> Is Sea Level Rising?
> 
> Yes, there is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, after a period of little change between AD 0 and AD 1900. Sea level is projected to rise at an even greater rate in this century. The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion of the oceans (water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice due to increased melting.
> ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> There is so much publication bias out there that I wouldn't have the time to sift through it all.
> 
> Reason is the first filter I use.
> 
> ...






2020hindsight said:


> Incidentally, here's IPCC's website of FAQ's :-
> http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faqIndex.html
> 
> example :-
> ...






2020hindsight said:


> http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-5.1.html




Because you are part of my NY resolutions I'll go through these.

Graphs !!

gg


----------



## roland (29 December 2008)

I reckon some of the ocean rise is due to all the additional inbound cosmic debris, cosmic dust, meteor showers etc - if this all gets washed into the sea it's going to cause it to rise.

Also the additional Sun Spot activity that's been going on is like we've been placed in the path of a microwave oven with the door open. All that sub atomic radiation and photons pouring in are going to heat up our oceans like a tin of soup.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 December 2008)

roland said:


> I reckon some of the ocean rise is due to all the additional inbound cosmic debris, cosmic dust, meteor showers etc - if this all gets washed into the sea it's going to cause it to rise.
> 
> Also the additional Sun Spot activity that's been going on is like we've been placed in the path of a microwave oven with the door open. All that sub atomic radiation and photons pouring in are going to heat up our oceans like a tin of soup.




agree mate.

gg


----------



## Knobby22 (30 December 2008)

roland said:


> I reckon some of the ocean rise is due to all the additional inbound cosmic debris, cosmic dust, meteor showers etc - if this all gets washed into the sea it's going to cause it to rise.
> 
> Also the additional Sun Spot activity that's been going on is like we've been placed in the path of a microwave oven with the door open. All that sub atomic radiation and photons pouring in are going to heat up our oceans like a tin of soup.




Except the amount of cosmic dust etc. is miniscule and we are in a phase at present where the sunspot activity is very low meaning the earth should be cooling.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7824


----------



## wayneL (30 December 2008)

rederob said:


> And that's after again debunking the nonsense that comes from Monckton.




You what? LOL 

If Monckton is debunked, and I accept there may be some small parts of his case which may need work, then the IPCC case is rendered as fairytale... religion, as the entire thing is pure fantasy with some few part truths thrown in to confuse the plebs and politicians.

Ah'm oot.


----------



## wayneL (30 December 2008)

explod said:


> Anything out of the UN is suspect for a start,




Explod,

You just trashed your own argument. The IPCC is part of the UN. 

Are you now going to be cognitively biased and believe one part of the UN is suspect, while the other isn't?

Hmmmmmmmm

LOL


----------



## wayneL (30 December 2008)

Please read this article http://newsbusters.org/node/13698


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2008)

I'll finish reading this first if you don't mind. 

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/

ok - your post is relevant - I'll check it out as well.



> 1.1 mm per year? That means that if this were to continue for 1000 years, sea levels would be 1.1 meters higher. *Doesn’t sound very catastrophic*, does it?



ok - let's look at 1m rise :-
To say that 1m is not catastrophic is a nonsense. 
(EVEN IF it's not accelerating , possibly 3mm per year at the moment) 

I dare someone to say that to people who are barely getting enough fresh water now on some small Pacific Island. - throw in a storm surge every now and then because the water temp is increasing - sheesh


----------



## Calliope (30 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Please read this article http://newsbusters.org/node/13698




The IPCC "science" is under attack from many quarters for their use of suspect modelling and ignoring observation. However attacks on the validity of their findings are largely unreported in the media.

The alarmists feel they are ahead while they have the hearts and minds of  liberal politicians and the mainly liberal media, especially in America.

Likewise the alarmists on this thread are trying to convert nonbelievers  by a combination of sheer volume and browbeating. 

They have done this for 45 pages. Have they made any conversions? What is their political agenda?


----------



## wayneL (30 December 2008)

2020

Firstly, I can say with certainty that you cannot take a 200 year trend and extrapolate it out for the next 1000. AGW or not, natural CC factors will change this trend. Seal levels may accelerate due to natural factors, or they may indeed even fall.

We don't know.

There is some evidence that the sea level was higher than now, during the medieval warm period.

Furthermore, there are tectonic plate movements to consider. eg Great Britain is tipping. Southern England is sinking giving the impression of rising sea levels whilst Northern Scotland is rising, giving the impression of falling sea levels.

This is indeed the type of factor responsible for the low island inundation that alarmist try to foist on a trusting an naive public as anthropogenic sea level rises. (dishonest bastards!)

In 1000 years a whole bunch of things cold change. 

The whole thing with sea level changes as indicated is that it is manageable because of the long time frames, as opposed to the ludicrous and fictitious prognostications of unmanageable sea level changes in decades of the climate alarmists.

Hence, your alarm over an extrapolated 1 meter rise over a millennium is kind of amusing.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2008)

ok wayne
the arctic ice isn't melting (as you've posted many times)
the polar bears aren't in distress ( ditto)
the seas aren't rising to any significant degree (ditto)
nor are they warming ( ditto)

the IPCC are a mob of lying bastards, 

and the representatives of Exxon etc who proclaim "all's well folks" - "don't bother to invent new technologies - you're happy with petrol guzzlers right ?"  - are all honourable men .. 

and btw, David Suzuki is obviously an idiot , because he wants politicians who ignore global warming to be held legally responsible. - and btw also - he's a bit closer to the polar bears than you are.


----------



## wayneL (30 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ok wayne
> the arctic ice isn't melting (as you've posted many times)



I've never said that. I've said that it probably is not anthropogenic. But the warming trend may be reversing.



> the polar bears aren't in distress ( ditto)



Correct



> the seas aren't rising to any significant degree (ditto)



They have been rising since the little ice age but show no acceleration due to A. factors



> nor are they warming ( ditto)



el nino/el nina



> the IPCC are a mob of lying bastards,



Absolutely



> and the representatives of Exxon etc who proclaim "all's well folks" - "don't bother to invent new technologies - you're happy with petrol guzzlers right ?"  - are all honourable men ..



Back to your disgusting misrepresentation of my views again. You are a lying **** over this. Time to stop that and grow up.



> and btw, David Suzuki is obviously an idiot , because he wants politicians who ignore global warming to be held legally responsible.



Yes


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2008)

well the good news wayne is that what I believe doesn't matter
and the way things are trending
what you believe matters even less.


----------



## wayneL (30 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well the good news wayne is that what I believe doesn't matter
> and the way things are trending
> what you believe matters even less.




Another trivial and puerile statement. Honestly, I can have a more mature conversation with my 13 year old nephew. 

Unbelievable! 

The real good news is that there are folks interested in sustainability who have the intelligence to look past the false AGW political ruse and focus on current, real and measurable issues.

The bad news is that there are not enough of us at this point, folks having been distracted by the UN IPCC brownshirts.


----------



## rederob (30 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Please read this article http://newsbusters.org/node/13698



And your point is?

By the way, Morner appears to have only ever presented his Maldives findings at a 2003 INQUA Conference, where  many hundreds of scholarly papers were presented.  Several papers covering sea levels in much broader detail arrived at conclusions indicating sea levels were increasing both in quantum and rate in the 20th century.  It's difficult to find any recent peer reviewed papers from Morner on sea levels.
Although there is debate on the levels and rates of sea levels changes in the scientific community, the consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of rises carrying through for decades to come.

Oh, I forgot to add, satellites that ultimately confirmed the hole in the ozone layer had "missed" the data for about 10 years - because the software appears to have overriden the information as anomalous.  The data was always there: Just nobody expected it to be accurate.


----------



## ColB (30 December 2008)

> Originally posted by *Calliope*:
> 
> "The IPCC "science" is under attack from many quarters for their use of suspect modelling and ignoring observation. However attacks on the validity of their findings are largely unreported in the media.
> 
> ...




*45 pages of dialogue – WayneL Vs 2020 Hindsight & Rederob and where are we at?* 

I believe that whilst mankind may obviously contribute to climate change, global warming or whatever title you want to give it, it would be interesting to know how much in terms of percentage we are actually responsible for and how much is simply the phenomenon of changing weather patterns.   

Given the extremes of climate change over thousands of years, I’d think whatever is coming our way in the next thousand years will be rather difficult to have much influence over.

It is obvious that there is so much contradiction in scientific studies/reports as to what if any climate changes are taking place as a result of direct human cause.  And as has been said before on this thread, depending on the bonafides of who conducts the study, who reports the study, what is left out of the study, most of us would not know what is possibly factually correct anyway.

My view could be considered rather simplistic but at the same time I would be very interested to hear what the likes of 2020 & Rederob believe can be done to avert this alleged looming problem without impacting to any great extent on the global economy.

Maybe those suggestions should be the topic of another thread but this thread appears to be a in a bit of a stalemate.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 December 2008)

It has been a very humid day in Townsville, its been bucketing down rain for the past few hours and getting humid again now its stopped.

I can hear thunder in the distance.

I've never seen so many geckos in my life.

They  like this weather!!

gg


----------



## wayneL (30 December 2008)

ColB said:


> Maybe those suggestions should be the topic of another thread but this thread appears to be a in a bit of a stalemate.




We just like a blue. :



			
				ColB said:
			
		

> I would be very interested to hear what the likes of 2020 & Rederob believe can be done to avert this alleged looming problem without impacting to any great extent on the global economy.




I await will baited breath for the answer to this one.


----------



## wayneL (30 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It has been a very humid day in Townsville, its been bucketing down rain for the past few hours and getting humid again now its stopped.
> 
> I can hear thunder in the distance.
> 
> ...




It's overcast and bracingly cold here in Blighty... normal.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> It's overcast and bracingly cold here in Blighty... normal.




The local pub closed because the rain came in through the roof and buggered up the keno and the pokies.

All that sit down money gone to waste.

I remember a Christmas in Bedfordshire, close to where you are I think, comely warm lasses, cider and a warm fire.

gg


----------



## wayneL (30 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I remember a Christmas in Bedfordshire, close to where you are I think, comely warm lasses, cider and a warm fire.
> 
> gg




There is nothing in the world like the good old fashioned English pub. I pray that Gordo's gaggle of goons and Stalinists doesn't mess that up too, before we kick his disgraceful @ss out of number 10 at the next election.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2008)

ColB said:


> My view could be considered rather simplistic but at the same time I would be very interested to hear what the likes of 2020 & Rederob believe can be done to avert this alleged looming problem without impacting to any great extent on the global economy.



so does anyone believe that that famous left wing politician Arnie Schwarzenegger has made a major blunder in backing the new "low emissions" philosophy? 

Or perhaps California will take more of our inventions - maybe twenty or thirty more - before the penny drops 

http://news.smh.com.au/world/schwarzenegger-opens-aussie-solar-plant-20081024-57o0.html


> Schwarzenegger opens Aussie solar plant
> October 24, 2008 - 8:26AM
> 
> Australian solar company Ausra and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger have joined forces Thursday to make history.
> ...






> Ausra was founded by Australian researcher Dr David Mills who developed the solar technology at a University of Sydney lab.
> 
> The company, now headquartered in Palo Alto near San Francisco, plans a larger solar-thermal plant at California's Carrizo Plain to power 120,000 homes


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2008)

2020 said:
			
		

> and the representatives of Exxon etc who proclaim "all's well folks" - "don't bother to invent new technologies - you're happy with petrol guzzlers right ?" - are all honourable men ..






			
				wayne said:
			
		

> Back to your disgusting misrepresentation of my views again. You are a lying **** over this. Time to stop that and grow up.




wayne
 if you cheer with the Exxon team , you run the risk of being labelled with them . 

"tell me a man's company , and I'll tell you his name"


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The local pub closed because the rain came in through the roof and buggered up the keno and the pokies



shame you don't scuba dive gg
You might appreciate the imminent threat to the Grt Barrier Reef.
And the odd tourist dollar to your part of the world 

but wtf, the pubs will still stick around for a while - the locals will keep them  going - who needs those flaming tourists anyways , hick.


----------



## wayneL (31 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> wayne
> if you cheer with the Exxon team , you run the risk of being labelled with them .
> 
> "tell me a man's company , and I'll tell you his name"




A pathetic and lowly straw man argument exposing your intellectual diminutiveness. 

1/ The above implies that all research disproving AGW is financed by Exxon. Not so, not even close. A plain stupid implication.

2/ It also implies that all research that is financed by Exxon is automatically  biased and corrupt. But it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt that much of the IPCC's research is biased, corrupt and politically motivated. A Hypocritical implication.

3/ It implies that I support Exxon and unrestricted use of fossil fuels. Bearing in mind my frequent postings on my full environmental position this is a most disgraceful, childish and slanderous statement, exposing an utterly and habitually mendacious character not worthy of spitting on.

In demonstrably failing to tag me with with the perjurous "fossil fuel lobby" label, you have successfully labeled your own self as an idiot.

I take no joy in pointing out the bleeding obvious, so please, grow a brain and join the ranks of adulthood or something.


----------



## wayneL (31 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> shame you don't scuba dive gg
> You might appreciate the imminent threat to the Grt Barrier Reef.
> And the odd tourist dollar to your part of the world
> 
> but wtf, the pubs will still stick around for a while - the locals will keep them  going - who needs those flaming tourists anyways , hick.




The GBR is emblematic of the AGW swindle and a great case in point for my more common sense approach. You need to do a lot more research on the GBR before drawing erroneous conclusions.

The health of the reef is far more threatened by nutrient, sediment and pesticide pollution. All things that can be addressed NOW. The heat stress bleaching episodes observed in the last couple of decades coincide with El Niño warming and have nothing whatever to with AGW.

In fact coral reefs are more tolerant to temperature variations that the AGW fantasists would like us to believe http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22065659-5006786,00.html 

The reef has survived much wilder temp variations than any pissy El Niño can chuck at it and has survived much warmer... and colder episodes in the past.

AGW losers strike out again.


----------



## GumbyLearner (31 December 2008)

Climate change is just another made up word.

How people treat the planet and its resources is what matters.

 

I pack 30 SPF+ so dont any of you ***** try and tell me otherwise


----------



## explod (31 December 2008)

> The reef has survived much wilder temp variations than any pissy El Niño can chuck at it and has survived much warmer... and colder episodes in the past.




Waynel, could you detail these other times and cite your sources?

I dived the reef in the 1960s, when the coral had full colour, today the same places are a dead grey colour and you can literally see it breaking up, certainly no regeneration. 

I also understand that it took millions of years of evolution to get to that stage but looks like breaking up in couple of generations.


----------



## wayneL (31 December 2008)

explod said:


> I dived the reef in the 1960s, when the coral had full colour, today the same places are a dead grey colour and you can literally see it breaking up, certainly no regeneration.
> 
> I also understand that it took millions of years of evolution to get to that stage but looks like breaking up in couple of generations.




More regular visitors disagree with you and AGWers.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story /0,25197,24811996-11949,00.html also try clicking on my previous link



> *Friends of the Reef not worried about global warming
> *
> 
> Padraic Murphy and Andrew Fraser | December 17, 2008
> ...




The reef is 18000 years old and has survived ice ages and warm periods. Those bits that are damaged are damaged from tourism and agricultural runoff. DYOR I'm not doing all the work for you to have it ignored.


----------



## rederob (31 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Please read this article http://newsbusters.org/node/13698



Seeing you added no commentary:
The article is a typical beat up from the loony skeptic camp.  If it weren't for Morner's professional background, which he is on the record as having misrepresented, the skeptic camp would disown him.
Even the skeptics don't claim that sea levels haven't risen - only that they suggest not as much as the IPCC.
Try and find something that's actually worth reading next time, or make your points with some semblance of credibility.


----------



## wayneL (31 December 2008)

rederob said:


> Seeing you added no commentary:
> The article is a typical beat up from the loony skeptic camp.  If it weren't for Morner's professional background, which he is on the record as having misrepresented, the skeptic camp would disown him.
> Even the skeptics don't claim that sea levels haven't risen - only that they suggest not as much as the IPCC.
> Try and find something that's actually worth reading next time, or make your points with some semblance of credibility.




Rob,

An amazing comment for someone with absolutely zero credibility.

As usual you have absolutely nothing to add except to try and debase proper debate. Next time, try practicing what you preach.


----------



## explod (31 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> More regular visitors disagree with you and AGWers.
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story /0,25197,24811996-11949,00.html also try clicking on my previous link
> 
> Very much a Howard Government research team beat up.  How can you rpove they are more regular visitors.   With all this bodgey scientific stuff (your take) then is not own experience most reliable  ???
> ...




And are they not part of the matters creating climate change.   Tourism, aircraft one of the greatest air polluters.   Chemicals a phosphate poisoning the system, yes, not climate change.


----------



## wayneL (31 December 2008)

explod said:


> And are they not part of the matters creating climate change.   Tourism, aircraft one of the greatest air polluters.   Chemicals a phosphate poisoning the system, yes, not climate change.



You are dead right about pollution.

But no, pollution and world wide anthropogenic climate change are not related.


----------



## rederob (31 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Rob,
> 
> An amazing comment for someone with absolutely zero credibility.
> 
> As usual you have absolutely nothing to add except to try and debase proper debate. Next time, try practicing what you preach.



lol
That's got to be the funniest thing I have seen you write.
You trot out an ancient piece from a discredited professional, and I lack credibility.
At the same conference that Morner presented on the Maldives, he also presented on *"Holocene Sea Level Changes, Coastal Evolution
and Future Prospects*".  His theme went along the lines (from his abstract), "_Both the glacial loading models and the ICPP scenarios are
strongly contradicted by observational data for the last 100-150 years that cannot have exceeded a mean rate of 1.0-1.1 mm/year. In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillation close to the present with peak rates in the period 1890-1930. Sea level fell between 1930 and 1950. The late
20th century lacks any sign of acceleration_."
He was so far out of whack with his peers at INQUA that his role was "restructured".  On the issue of sea levels, Morner's contribution to science now hold as much credibility as a bilge pump on the Titanic.


----------



## wayneL (31 December 2008)

Rob,

You have zero credibility because you are beholden to a politico/religious position masquerading as science and presenting it as the inalterable gospel.

This is analogous to young earth creationists masquerading intelligent design as science.

Laughable and disturbing, in equal measure.


----------



## Calliope (31 December 2008)

On the last day of the year I think it is interesting to review the outcomes of this thread since GG kicked it off back in September. It took about two months before 2020 and rederob realised things were getting out of hand, so they had to jump in to try to stem the tide of common sense.

Since then, they and their disciples have produced a constant and voluminous torrent of hot air mainly in support of the IPCC and it's dodgy scientists.

The main debate has been between 2020 and Wayne. 2020 has been punching above his weight and has been clearly outpointed.

This does not worry 2020 too much. He joins threads, not to contribute anything useful, but to muddy the waters and create mischief. So in his way he has succeeded.

As for the other alarmists, if you take away their leftist bias, they have nothing useful to contribute.

Thanks GG for starting this  provocative thread.  It has flushed out the climate extremists, and Wayne has expertly taken them apart.


----------



## roland (31 December 2008)

Sydney's New Years fireworks are touted as being in the order of 5,000Kgs - and I was worried about the backyard barby:



> Celebrations and parades worldwide are capped off with fireworks, a bursting display of reds, blues, yellows and purples littered amorously across the night sky. With each blast, chemicals are released into the air that are damaging to our health and environment.
> 
> These chemicals include barium, an extremely poisonous acid that can affect the nervous system, antimony, a toxic compound that can cause dizziness and lead, which can make its way into drinking water and cause potential irregularities in nervous connections.
> 
> The colours that each firework so brilliantly exhibits are added using these highly noxious metal salts. All of these chemicals linger in the air long after the show has faded and have been listed as potential causes for cancer, according to the environment.about.com article, "Declare Your Independence From Toxic Fireworks Pollution."


----------



## Happy (31 December 2008)

roland said:


> Sydney's New Years fireworks are touted as being in the order of 5,000Kgs - and I was worried about the backyard barby:




Waste of money, could be better used to help some folks:

homeless
about to become homeless
hospitals
roads
education

to name the few, or anything else as everything or almost everything does not have enough funds.


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 December 2008)

Happy said:


> Waste of money, could be better used to help some folks:
> ...
> roads
> education
> ...



:topic
could be used to help people who are hit by falling fireworks for a start. 

PS (hey happy - I think they used 3T last year yes?
As I recall that was pretty good. 
This year 5T.
You'd think they could draw the line somewhere yes? lol - 
 or next year we will have  8T maybe? )


----------



## Happy (31 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> :topic
> could be used to help people who are hit by falling fireworks for a start.
> 
> You'd think they could draw the line somewhere yes? lol -
> or next year we will have  8T maybe? )





They just seem to be bent on idea that every year fireworks have to be bigger and better.

Our CO2 emissions reduction could start here, but our Sydney’s Lord Mayor Clover Moore seems to go the MORE way instead of CLEVER.


----------



## skint (31 December 2008)

Happy said:


> They just seem to be bent on idea that every year fireworks have to be bigger and better.
> 
> Our CO2 emissions reduction could start here, but our Sydney’s Lord Mayor Clover Moore seems to go the MORE way instead of CLEVER.




If you think about it, there are about 1 000 000 people watching 5 000 000 gms of fireworks. That works out at about 5gms per person. If those people were engaged elsewhere, I would have expected them to produce more greenhouse gases than 5gms per person. If you include the millions around the world watching it on the telly, it's really a very CO2 efficient form of entertainment. Lets crank it up to 100 tonnes! BTW, does anyone know what the chemicals in fireworks produce in terms of CO2? Please don't disillusion me. When it comes to fireworks, I never really grew up. See what being blooded on bungers in the neighbours letterboxes as a kid does to your personal development!


----------



## rederob (31 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Rob,
> 
> You have zero credibility because you are beholden to a politico/religious position masquerading as science and presenting it as the inalterable gospel.
> 
> ...



To date in this thread you have not been able to provide a counter to any of my assertions.
Monckton's work is a classic.
You wanted me to debunk it and I did (although I did ask if there was a particular aspect you would have preferred, rather than the whole paper).
But my views pale into insignificance compared to those of the organisation that were originally conned to publish it:


> The Council of the American Physical Society quickly responded to the uproar over this disinformation by adding a new disclaimer to the Monckton article:
> 
> This article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.




You *never * debate the issues I raise, are incapable of defending the ones you raise, and keep trotting out the same tired lines which totally avoid the topic.
Choose your cut and pastes more carefully, or at least do some background checking before you again shoot yourself in the foot.
While you pander to the tabloids, and the junk science, I merrily continue to read the scientific papers.
Little wonder your position on this topic substantiated through a "suspicion".


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (31 December 2008)

Melbournians felt the cold in December according ot the article.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/m...-coldest-december-in-years-20081231-77ru.html


----------



## wayneL (31 December 2008)

Rob

Your getting shrill now. The debate's over here. The challenge now is for most of the poor scared people fooled by only getting their info from politicians and the main news (propaganda) networks, to find these things out.

I'm heartened that a great proportion of the British public at least, are fully awake and aware of the ruse. Even my fellow Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust Members are aware that it's a con. So we'll go on saving critters rather than freaking about a non event.

Cheers


----------



## explod (31 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Rob
> 
> Your getting shrill now. The debate's over here. The challenge now is for most of the poor scared people fooled by only getting their info from politicians and the main news (propaganda) networks, to find these things out.
> 
> ...





What are you saying here.  Just logged in and read your post cold and it says and contributes nothing one way or another to the debate.

Then after a read of a few recent post see that you address nothing.  If you think something you need to give reasons that will stick with meaning.   You do not hit the nail at all waynel and your lack of depth makes for uncertainty.  You are out of your depth pal, leave it to the experts.


----------



## wayneL (31 December 2008)

explod said:


> What are you saying here.  Just logged in and read your post cold and it says and contributes nothing one way or another to the debate.
> 
> Then after a read of a few recent post see that you address nothing.  If you think something you need to give reasons that will stick with meaning.   You do not hit the nail at all waynel and your lack of depth makes for uncertainty.  You are out of your depth pal, leave it to the experts.




Thanks for also adding nothing to the debate. An amazing comment considering that every single one of your points have been pathetically off base and showing zero knowledge and full absorption of the propaganda.

It seems obvious that you're just having a pot shot at someone who has blown your arguments away and you don't like it... childish.

Only the Non-AGW denialists seem to claim that I've added nothing to the debate. I've posted dozens of links and pages of argument, but you lot persist in this petty agenda of playing the man and not the ball.

I suppose you are just following the example of the high priests of your religion who ignore all countering science and continuously attempt to degrade those who speak out with truth. That only works on muppets.

Intelligent people actually read both sides and come to their own logical conclusion, not those based on propaganda, psychology and fear, as you so obviously have done.

Please explod, don't embarrass yourself further with this kindergarten agenda of "my Dad is richer than your Dad" type thinking. It's all getting so tiresome  and petty and I'm spending way too much space defending myself from yours and Rederobs spurious attempts to discredit all people and argument with the cheek to post the obvious truth.


----------



## wayneL (31 December 2008)

The Hypocrisy not lost on The Daily Mash



> HIPPIES ANNOYING
> HIPPIES were today banging on about petrol again even though we already get it and would just like to go skiing.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ColB (1 January 2009)

> *Originally posted by Explod:*
> 
> “What are you saying here. Just logged in and read your post cold and it says and contributes nothing one way or another to the debate.
> 
> Then after a read of a few recent post see that you address nothing. If you think something you need to give reasons that will stick with meaning. You do not hit the nail at all waynel and your lack of depth makes for uncertainty. You are out of your depth pal, leave it to the experts.




“Explod it sounds like you are stooping to the same lows as 2020 and Rederob with personal attacks that don’t contribute any substance to the ‘climate change’ debate either.  If you had ventured back more than a couple of pages you will see that WayneL has ‘contributed’ a great deal more to the thread than most including you. 

And if you think I just happen to be part of the WayneL fanclub you can take this assessment below on board….



> *Originally posted by Calliope:*
> 
> “…The main debate has been between 2020 and Wayne. *2020 has been punching above his weight and has been clearly outpointed.*
> 
> ...






> *Originally posted by Explod:*
> 
> Waynel, could you detail these other times and cite your sources?
> 
> ...




Your post about diving the Barrier Reef and ‘your assessment’ that it *looks like breaking up in a couple of generations* is simply farcical.  Not only has WayneL promptly replied to your concern with a media article quoting an ‘environment group’ who have no such concerns but I am at a loss as to how ‘you’ can assert that the reef will break up in a couple of generations!!  On what basis can you support such a claim?

Think you’ve been to too many nightshift barbies Explod!!


----------



## rederob (1 January 2009)

ColB said:


> “Explod it sounds like you are stooping to the same lows as 2020 and Rederob with personal attacks that don’t contribute any substance to the ‘climate change’ debate either.  If you had ventured back more than a couple of pages you will see that WayneL has ‘contributed’ a great deal more to the thread than most including you.



I have contributed substantial substance to this debate, and my posts that specifically address the issues and debunk much of the skeptics nonsense prove it.
I don't advocate the tactics of 2020 - bury them in information overload - preferring instead to respond to posts that are devoid of value.
Wayne defence is that: 







> I've posted dozens of links and pages of argument, but you lot persist in this petty agenda of playing the man and not the ball.



How many times have I asked Wayne to respond to his "sea ice" post?
He simply refuses to address it or the underlying science.
Time and time again I ask, and I just get replies like:


> Rob
> Your getting shrill now. The debate's over here. The challenge now is for most of the poor scared people fooled by only getting their info from politicians and the main news (propaganda) networks, to find these things out.





> Rob,
> You have zero credibility because you are beholden to a politico/religious position masquerading as science and presenting it as the inalterable gospel.
> This is analogous to young earth creationists masquerading intelligent design as science.
> Laughable and disturbing, in equal measure.



Wayne in an earlier post asked that we "read this", being an article about Morner and destruction of evidence on sea levels.  His response to my assertions was more dismissiveness.
If he wants debate, I offer it.
Wayne stoops to regular name calling and adopts the typical ploy of a person who lacks a proper understanding of a topic yet wants to give a semblance of "being on top of it". 
If Wayne wants to promote Morner as credible, he can come up with some peer support for his contentions (presented an an INQUA conference session in 2003) that, "Sea levels fell between 1930 and 1950. The late 20th century lacks any sign of acceleration".
I'll leave that challenge open to him.

Wayne reckons "the debate's over here" (post 379023).

If he thinks his contributions represent a debate then it's not difficult to understand why it's over; it never started!


----------



## rederob (1 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> The Hypocrisy not lost on The Daily Mash



Would you like to comment on how such a ridiculous article has anything to do with this thread?
A few hippies have had the brains to work out that: 







> airports are increasingly being used for air travel.



And that planes run on petrol!!!!
And then there's a link to trees dying and no water.
Yet another question of relevance, Wayne?
Is this your tactic to counter 2020 in 2009?


----------



## Happy (1 January 2009)

skint said:


> If you think about it, there are about 1 000 000 people watching 5 000 000 gms of fireworks. That works out at about 5gms per person. If those people were engaged elsewhere, I would have expected them to produce more greenhouse gases than 5gms per person. If you include the millions around the world watching it on the telly, it's really a very CO2 efficient form of entertainment. ...




1. Money could be used for something else, on longer lasting activity.
($5,000,000 could be spent on 5,000 dentures for poor people, 20 budget accomodation places - in line with Kevin 07 war on homelessness, 5,000 computers for disadvantaged adults [as kids will get computers in education revolution] or many other, better value possible longer lasting money spending activities.)

2. People could engage elsewhere in CO2 neutral/reducing activity.


But you are right, it could be much worse.
We have to thank heavens that we are so CO2 self modestly restrained, only 5 grams per person, what an achievement!


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 January 2009)

Happy said:


> But you are right, it could be much worse.



and the fireworks rockets don't explode on landing as they do in Gaza


----------



## mayk (1 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> and the fireworks rockets don't explode on landing as they do in Gaza




Now you are not suggesting to have carbon-neutral warheads, that would be classy.:


----------



## Happy (1 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> and the fireworks rockets don't explode on landing as they do in Gaza




But, every person killed contributes to CO2 emission reduction


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 January 2009)

mayk said:


> Now you are not suggesting to have carbon-neutral warheads, that would be classy.



actually the metal left over is / used to be frequently radioactive 

As for the CO2 "bootprint" of the US military - 

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/07/28/us-army-seeking-to-cut-its-co2-emissions/



> The US Army has begun taking steps to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent by 2015 to comply with a 2007 order by President Bush.
> 
> Reuters reports that the Army’s push to reduce its carbon “bootprint” is not just about protecting the climate. Using less fuel makes troops safer, Tad Davis, the Army’s deputy assistant secretary for environment, safety, and occupational health told the news agency




I never realised that the US military had a "deputy assistant secretary for environment" 

mind the trees fellas - watch out for those native animals


----------



## rederob (2 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Wayne in an earlier post asked that we "read this", being an article about Morner and destruction of evidence on sea levels.  His response to my assertions was more dismissiveness.
> If he wants debate, I offer it.




*More on Wayne's junk science links:*
The article linked was uplifted from an interview of Morner in the June 2007 "Executive Intelligence Review":


> Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud
> Dr. Nils-Axel MÃ¶rner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and
> Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden.



Unfortunately it starts with a lie: Morner had left that role 2 years earlier.
But let's go straight to the junk science:


> There’s another way of checking it [ie if the sea level is rising], because if the radius of the Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth’s rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right?



Yes, he's right.  But he's so dumb that he forgot about the fact that the earth is thinning at the equator due to polar ice sheets decreasing, thereby reducing the "flattening" effect on the earth (which is ellipsoid in shape - not "round"), Accordingly, this physical law actually *increases *the earth's rotation by 0.6milliseconds/century.
Again, if Morner was blessed with any proper knowledge of his field, he would instead have hit a winner by talking about "tidal acceleration", as it decreases the earth's rotational speed and has a scintilla of credibility.
Alas, the great unwashed are again duped by a discredited skeptic who is not even who the article claims.

Still waiting for Wayne?
Or shall I debunk some more?


----------



## wayneL (2 January 2009)

rederob said:


> *More on Wayne's junk science links:*
> The article linked was uplifted from an interview of Morner in the June 2007 "Executive Intelligence Review":
> Unfortunately it starts with a lie: Morner had left that role 2 years earlier.
> But let's go straight to the junk science:
> ...



Only to immediately hoist yourself on another one of your ineffectual petards.

Antarctic ice sheet and sea ice is INCREASING.

Try another one


----------



## rederob (2 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Only to immediately hoist yourself on another one of your ineffectual petards.
> 
> Antarctic ice sheet and sea ice is INCREASING.
> 
> Try another one



Just because you say so...really.
How about some evidence?

By the way, I never said that Antarctic sea ice was decreasing, instead the opposite.  Your comprehension skills are very poor.
And more to the point, I raised the issue of sea ice versus land ice, globally, as the topic of significance.

Last point, areal extent of ice masses is often dissimilar to volumetrics.


----------



## Sean K (2 January 2009)

rederob said:


> By the way, I never said that Antarctic sea ice was decreasing, instead the opposite.



Didn't you say 'polar ice sheets decreasing'.



Maybe just an error.


----------



## Happy (2 January 2009)

Just extending on this thought, could families of killed persons get carbon credit for the deceased?
There were 50 fatalities so far this Christmas - New Year break.
So every person is not going to live to their life expectancy age, hence carbon dioxide emission reduction, quite substantial so many years – will not use petrol, food, clothing, water, will not produce waste.
Same with stillborn or swimming pool drowning and if kid is 2 imagine 80 years of credits worth in case of a girl.

Sorry for being off topic and not sensitive enough, just extended concept of getting credit for not cutting trees in Indonesia.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 January 2009)

Ignoring the sadness of the untimely deaths you refer to , but in general :-

are we talking cremated or buried / sequestered ? 

ABC had a discussion about burying people vertical - easier to drill holes with a posthole digger etc. 

Some bushie rang up - complaining he didn't want to end up a stick in the mud


----------



## basilio (2 January 2009)

This is a real waste of time here. It has become clear to me that the reason for starting the thread was to simply reinforce the views of Garpal and Wayne and others that there was *absolutely  NO possibility* that Global Warming was happening, that the current general scientific model on CO2 induced  GW  *was completely wrong* and that the thousands of scientists who somehow believed this were simply looking for grants to continue their misleading efforts.

In that perspective it is also clear that there is simply *no significant increase in temperatures * around the world and obviously any suggestions that the Arctic is warming rapidly and arctic sea ice is disappearing *is simply a figment of the deluded scientists and their deluded equipment and part of the global liberal commie propaganda that is trying to undo our way of life.*

Given this position, I cannot see how any conversation which relates to any scientific theory which comes from the 99.9% of current climate scientists or any observations which comes their equally mistaken equipment will make any impact on the closed wagon train of  Waye, Garpal et al.

Lets stop wasting our time shall we?

And by the way Garpal; I'm sure we all appreciate the daily beauties of Townsville and its excellent friendly climate. Do you ever take seriously those pesky cyclone warnings that may punctuate your day while you are still basking in the dreamy daze of summer?


----------



## wayneL (2 January 2009)

Top dummy spit there basilio.

But that is not what is being said.


----------



## rederob (2 January 2009)

kennas said:


> Didn't you say 'polar ice sheets decreasing'.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just an error.




Stick to something you know about, or prove my statement wrong?
Your choice.


----------



## wayneL (2 January 2009)

Rederob has now become so shrill, as to become irrelevant.

Anyway, here's an interesting link, concluding with a revealing indictment of the disgraceful politically motivated UN IPCC:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966



> SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS
> 
> Michael Asher
> August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
> ...




This is a stunning finding, considering that a pro AGW conclusion is the only one which ensures funding.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 January 2009)

on the question of "optimists" vs "pessimists"
sure I'm optimistic. 
Especially when I read reports like this (from a CSIRO publication by Paul Holper and Simon Torok) :-

[ also a brief poem:- ]
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=379547


----------



## rederob (2 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Rederob has now become so shrill, as to become irrelevant.
> Anyway, here's an interesting link, concluding with a revealing indictment of the disgraceful politically motivated UN IPCC:
> 
> This is a stunning finding, considering that a pro AGW conclusion is the only one which ensures funding.



Tilting at more windmills I see.
How about you address the issues I have raised.
I am barely interested in your sideshows of irrelevance.
If you aren't up to a reasoned debate, just say so.
As for the linked article, it's very old news and carries the usual lack of credibility that accompanies most skeptics.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 January 2009)

kennas said:


> Didn't you say 'polar ice sheets decreasing'.



kennas, didn't you say you just read Weather Makers?
So what's your opinion ?


----------



## rederob (2 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> This is a stunning finding, considering that a pro AGW conclusion is the only one which ensures funding.



Oh dear, the botched research from Wayne gets better and better.
Let's look at what a proper review of the material  throws up:


> Results From Dr Benny J Peiser's study contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her work: Of all 1117 abstracts (using the same keywords "global climate change"), only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'.
> 
> 322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change.
> 
> ...


----------



## basilio (2 January 2009)

> This is a real waste of time here. It has become clear to me that the reason for starting the thread was to simply reinforce the views of Garpal and Wayne and others *that there was absolutely NO possibility that Global Warming was happening,* that the current general scientific model on CO2 induced GW was completely wrong and t*hat the thousands of scientists who somehow believed this were simply looking for grants to continue their misleading efforts.*
> 
> In that perspective it is also clear that there is simply no significant increase in temperatures around the world and obviously any suggestions that the Arctic is warming rapidly and arctic sea ice is disappearing is simply a figment of the deluded scientists and their deluded equipment and part of the global liberal commie propaganda that is trying to undo our way of life.
> 
> Given this position, *I cannot see how any conversation which relates to any scientific theory which comes from the 99.9% of current climate scientists *or any observations which comes their equally mistaken equipment will make any impact on the closed wagon train of Waye, Garpal et al.





> Top dummy spit there basilio.
> 
> But that is not what is being said.



Wayne.


Really ??



> Anthropogenic Climate Change Hypothesis in the same paragraph as Modern Economic Hypothesis; how apt.
> 
> Both arbitrary input sensitive.
> 
> ...



 Wayne
__________________




> It's all politics. The sooner the the mainstream wakes up to that fact, we can concentrate on things that matter. To repeat for the millionth time, co2 is just a sideshow, the main game is other forms of pollution the effects of which are real and measured.



 Wayne



> The New Scientist eschews any evidence to the contrary and disseminates junk science as it's core mission.



 Wayne





> The cleverest and probably most dishonest part of the discussion about the uncertainty of global warming has been the cherry picking of evidence. ... Disappear a few results, disappear a few studies, alter a couple of givens and what is left can be made to sing your tune. In fact the basis of good science is replicability. A scientist has to outline all the details of his/hers research so that it can be replicated and proven (or disproven).
> 
> For example Wayne recently highlighted out some research that suggested
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (2 January 2009)

basil

What a lovely example of dishonest cherry-picking so typical of your whole doomsday cult. 

Apart from your lack of English comprehension, obviously drawing incorrect conclusions (as is done from the science), my comments must be taken in context with the whole thread. This where you fail in debate and indeed as a human being. Disgraceful.


----------



## Sean K (3 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Stick to something you know about, or prove my statement wrong?
> Your choice.



Rob, Rob, Rob....why do you need to go on the attack over such a simple question? 

I wasn't questioning whether sea ice or ice sheets were increasing or decreasing, but trying to establish your position. That's all.

And what has that got to do with sticking to something I know about, and trying to prove whatever you said to be wrong? Why would I need to do that?


----------



## rederob (3 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Top dummy spit there basilio.
> 
> But that is not what is being said.



Basilio
I tend to agree with Wayne.
He is "suspicious" about the motivations of those advancing the AGW/CC debate, and places Al Gore at the top of his *hate *list.
The rest of what he says really relates to a stream of cut and paste articles and links that he believes to be true, and/or thinks he understands.
But when push comes to shove, his links are shown to be mostly trivial, off topic or garbage.  
Furthermore, Wayne has little capacity to support his articles or links, and certainly has been conspicuous in his efforts to avoid any reasoned debate.

For all that, I do enjoy the peanut gallery.  Their occasional fishing expeditions show the disingenuous spirit that characterises their hidden opinions.


----------



## rederob (3 January 2009)

kennas said:


> Rob, Rob, Rob....why do you need to go on the attack over such a simple question?
> 
> I wasn't questioning whether sea ice or ice sheets were increasing or decreasing, but trying to establish your position. That's all.
> 
> And what has that got to do with sticking to something I know about, and trying to prove whatever you said to be wrong? Why would I need to do that?



If you were keeping up with the thread you would know my position.

And last time I checked, a question actually _asked _something. You didn't do that; you made a statement, and it closed thus:


> Maybe just an error.



I'm happy to debate this theme, or respond to your questions.
However, if you are going to make claims about my position I ask that you back them up.
I trust this is clear.


----------



## wayneL (3 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Basilio
> I tend to agree with Wayne.
> He is "suspicious" about the motivations of those advancing the AGW/CC debate, and places Al Gore at the top of his *hate *list.
> The rest of what he says really relates to a stream of cut and paste articles and links that he believes to be true, and/or thinks he understands.
> ...




You're still playing the man boyo. You're still shrill. You're still full of BS. Still irrelevant.

This is the only argument you are capable of, to try and belittle and deny. It says much of the size of your character... small, bitter.

I have more intellectually stimulating discussions elsewhere.

Ciao


----------



## rederob (3 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> You're still playing the man boyo. You're still shrill. You're still full of BS. Still irrelevant.
> 
> This is the only argument you are capable of, to try and belittle and deny. It says much of the size of your character... small, bitter.
> 
> ...



No response to my assertions about Morner.
No capacity to explain your understanding of the differences between sea ice and land ice, relative to a warming earth.
No rebuttal of my counter claims on Naomi Oreskes's findings.
No debate.
No idea.
Just more avoidance.
I trust you might add more elsewhere, because here you continue to be a total nonevent.


----------



## basilio (3 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> basil
> 
> What a lovely example of dishonest cherry-picking so typical of your whole doomsday cult.
> 
> Apart from your lack of English comprehension, obviously drawing incorrect conclusions (as is done from the science), my comments must be taken in context with the whole thread. This where you fail in debate and indeed as a human being. Disgraceful.




Ahh. Finally blinded by the right!!  I think I have grasped how this thread operates.

When in doubt, deny. When your wrong, simply STATE that your right. When the evidence is too tough,  insist it is coming from self interested, conspiratorial UN dominated  cabals - or simply ignore it.

*But above all keep the BS going so that everyone is too busy "debating" this topic to actually do something about it.*

*Excellent work Wayne. A plus and High Distinction. *


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 January 2009)

There are a lot of stirrers from the Warmening side attacking those of us who do not believe in Global Warmening , but who honestly believe it is weather.

One of my grannies used stir porridge and was a terrific stirrer.

She is now dead, died during a cold snap in Madrid of all places.

Let this be a warning to all the warmening stirrers.

Porridge is best supped cool, as is truth. 

The truth about this fallacy will only out after we have spent billions trying to avoid something that was never going to happen.

A bit like the Year 2000 Bug.

So be more kind to those of use who use reason as well as empiricism, and do not denigrate those who question your science.

After all science depends on philosophy as much as it does on empiricism.

Have a Popper next time you eat your porridge hot.

gg


----------



## rederob (3 January 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> So be more kind to those of use who use reason as well as empiricism, and do not denigrate those who question your science.
> 
> After all science depends on philosophy as much as it does on empiricism.



One would need to find reason or empericism in your contributions to give your position substance.
By all means question the science.
But don't proclaim to empericist principles lest you have some evidence that tells us that the earth is on a cooling trend for the foreseeable future.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 January 2009)

kennas said:


> Wayne, I'm currently reading a Flannery book called The Weathermakers that is HIGHLY recommended by Intrepid Travel who are big supporters of GW dogmatists. Intrepid are leading the travel industry in carbon offsetting etc etc.
> 
> I've found some of his stuff has some foundation based on some seemingly facts but then at other times leaps to hard conclusions not based on anything other than his own preamble. Sometimes those conclusions are the most significant in a chapter. Troubling. However, overall, so far, seems to have some merit.
> 
> ...






			
				wayneL said:
			
		

> When he thought filling the upper atmosphere with so2 was a good idea.




kennas, 
I think it's fairly obvious that Wayne hasn't read Tim Flannery's book. 

But, as you will know, here are the opinions of some others (of many rave reviews) about "The Weather Makers" :-

"It would be hard to imagine a better or more important book" Bill Bryson

"This is the story of global warming. And no one tells it better than Tim Flannery"  David Suzuki

"An overwhelming account ... The Weather Makers shows clearly that decisive action is needed now"  Chief Emaka Anyaoku, President, WWF International

imo, this entire thread is not equal to one paragraph of that book


----------



## Calliope (3 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> on the question of "optimists" vs "pessimists"
> sure I'm optimistic.
> Especially when I read reports like this (from a CSIRO publication by Paul Holper and Simon Torok)




This report mentions an English survey in 2006 of 750 11 to 17 year olds. It showed that while they were concerned about climate change, they were optimistic they could do something about it.

Having grandchildren in that age bracket I can assure you that a similar situation applies here. From their indoctrination in state schools children accept as a universal truth that global warming is here and is caused by us.

Are they prepared to something about it.
Yes.
What?
Switching off lights and stuff like that. 

But they have an inbuilt much more powerful universal truth; 

*They were put on this earth to enjoy themselves*

Two incompatible *truths.*  Which one should they follow?

_Dum loquimur, fugerit invida Aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero_

Or as the kids would say "stop wasting time, let's party.'

I feel that this thread is an exercise in futility.


----------



## rederob (4 January 2009)

Calliope said:


> I feel that this thread is an exercise in futility.



It can seem that way.
There is a chance that those skeptical of climate change could substantiate why they believe what they do.
But evidence on this thread suggests they are happy to believe what they do because they are happy with what they know.
I don't see climate change having a more pressing claim to action than saving sharks, Tibet, or wetlands.
We can believe in them all, and act on each as we see fit at the time.
No doubt many believe in "saving" something else, and have good reason or cause.
In this thread I have raised the "science" as a key issue, and hoped that those that post a different view have a grasp of its basics, and/or can defend what they propose.
In separately alluding to the CFC science, I was attempting to show how vested interests attempted to obfuscate what had the potential to become a serious climatic issue.  The science tells us that holes in the ozone layer may last for many decades to come, despite total bans already in place on CFC.
CO2 has a more immediate impact on climate than CFCs, and possibly a less lasting one.
The problem we have is that CO2 emissions continue to rise, along with many other greenhouse gases, and we are at levels which represent "bluesky" for climatologists.   
Although we understand the science of "forcing", the pace of climate change in the Arctic shows that global models may be severely underestimating regional impacts.
Townsville weather update are not instructive to this thread's theme, and nor are hyped-up pro or anti warming media reports. 
And a reasoned debate here is not likely.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 January 2009)

Calliope said:


> But they have an inbuilt much more powerful universal truth;
> 
> *They were put on this earth to enjoy themselves*
> 
> Two incompatible *truths.*  Which one should they follow?



What do you think is going to happen when they start driving?

Economical four cylinder used only when necessary, preferring to catch the bus when practical?

Or an import performance car constantly tweaked to boost not economy, but performance and fuel consumption?

That will answer the question as to whether or not the concern is genuine.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 January 2009)

rederob said:


> And a reasoned debate here is not likely.



I'd love a reasoned debate but emotion seems to dominate this subject to an incredible extent and both sides rely almost exclusively on it in the mainstream public debate.

Polar bears drowning etc - that's an emotional argument unless there's a real prospect of extinction and we're also addressing the non-climate related causes of their demise.

Job losses etc - also an emotional argument as long as we maintain an economic system where having a "job" is a social and economic must.

It's been this way ever since we started having mainstream environmental debates. It was known and understood very well back then by environmentalists that no matter what the maths and engineering of the other side said, a simple photograph could sway public opinion in the opposite direction. That works even with a generic nature photograph unrelated to the subject of the debate (this was actually done during one high profile environmental debate).

That point was not at all understood by developers at the time, convinced that their calculations were right and that the public would vote accordingly. The public did grasp the numbers but as is generally the case the heart wins over the head when its decision time.

And so emotion has become the standard tactic. Engineering, science and hard facts are no match for photos and all sorts of other emotional things. Emotion almost always wins.

The trouble with this debate from a political perspective is that the situation is now reversed. It's largely environmentalists armed with calculators proposing massive engineering works to fix the CO2 problem whilst the other side is essentially an emotional argument about economic wellbeing. That's a reversal of the traditional position of environmentalists and one they apparently struggle with in much the same way as developers once struggled with "fuzzy" concepts about scenery and wilderness. They may be close, but they don't quite get it and that makes life rather difficult.

As the history of environmental debates has shown, it's rather hard to win when your argument relies on numbers and even moreso when it relies upon some sort of forecast. The climate change debate relies absolutely on both for its very existence and that's the problem.

...


Back to the rational debate, I note that once again Russia has managed to find a gas dispute amidst cold weather and consequent gas demand. Funny how these things never seem to happen when demand is lower - a cynical person could be lead to believe that the Russians simply can't ramp production up high enough to meet demand and that disputes are simply a cover.

I maintain my view that we won't see emissions rise anywhere near as high as the worst case scenarios simply because we're not going to be able to extract enough fuel to burn.   

So, how about a rational debate where the reasonable limits to emissions growth due to fuel availability are included? Even Garnaut glossed over that one, choosing to accept an unverified political claim as a key fact which forms a substantial part of the basis of this rather lengthy report. That ain't good science, but it does speak volumes about the problem of even attempting a truly objective debate on this issue.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (4 January 2009)

rederob said:


> I just ask for evidence that man has no impact on the measured temperature increases over the past 100 years. Or that the the skeptics can prove *the science has no merit*.




I think the expectation of evidence that man is directly, or not, linked to GW or CC is absurd.

Mandelbrot and Taleb present the paradigm worth pursuing to start new studies on the topic. 

I _*may*_ lack talent and epistemic arrogance to discuss this topic. 

Peace


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (4 January 2009)

rederob said:


> The problem we have is that CO2 emissions continue to rise, along with many other greenhouse gases, and we are at levels which represent "bluesky" for climatologists.
> *Although we understand the science of "forcing", the pace of climate change in the Arctic shows that global models may be severely underestimating regional impacts.*



Regarding the role of the oceans in the process what do you see as the main difference between the artic and the antarctic and how they are different with the effects of GW, CC from man?


----------



## rederob (4 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> I think the expectation of evidence that man is directly, or not, linked to GW or CC is absurd.
> 
> Mandelbrot and Taleb present the paradigm worth pursuing to start new studies on the topic.
> 
> ...



Thus, you would logically conclude that "evidence" proves nothing?
Then there is no debate worth having.


----------



## rederob (4 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Regarding the role of the oceans in the process what do you see as the main difference between the artic and the antarctic and how they are different with the effects of GW, CC from man?



In simple terms the difference is self evident when looking at a globe of the earth: Antarctica is totally surrounded by three great oceans.  The Artic is almost landlocked - surrounded by Europe, Asia and North America.
Antarctica is a land mass covered with massive ice sheets.  The Arctic is just water and ice - you plant a flag on the ocean floor when you reach the north pole!
The Arctic tends to act as a barometer of change as its geography and climatology "amplifies" weather events.  However, unless a similar trend (albeit latent) is shown to correspondingly affect Antarctica we can hardly talk about "global climate change".
The issue on manmade climate change is incidental to the above.  How we measure it is clearly debatable.


----------



## rederob (4 January 2009)

rederob said:


> One would need to find reason or empericism in your contributions to give your position substance.
> By all means question the science.
> But don't proclaim to empericist principles lest you have some evidence that tells us that the earth is on a cooling trend for the foreseeable future.



Furthermore, I regard the majority of your contributions to this thread as having little value, to the point of being meaningless.
I have no difficulty with the daily "weather" that we experience, wherever we may be.
However, in opening this thread you remarked on Gore's knowledge of climate, somewhat disparagingly.
Climate is simply an "average" of weather events at particular locations.
Gore contends that the science is pointing to a probable significant change in climate - which clearly means weather patterns will change.
Apart from your Townsville weather reports, what meaningful contributions do you propose making in this thread that support your views.


----------



## rederob (4 January 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> I maintain my view that we won't see emissions rise anywhere near as high as the worst case scenarios simply because we're not going to be able to extract enough fuel to burn.
> 
> So, how about a rational debate where the reasonable limits to emissions growth due to fuel availability are included? Even Garnaut glossed over that one, choosing to accept an unverified political claim as a key fact which forms a substantial part of the basis of this rather lengthy report. That ain't good science, but it does speak volumes about the problem of even attempting a truly objective debate on this issue.



Smurf
I tend to agree that in the long run, increased levels of carbon-fuel based emissions have a generational life span or two, but will naturally curb toward century's end.
Peak oil should see transport alternatives well in place by 2050.  But it does not imply that oil will not be consumed at all; just that there will be less available and it will probably be too expensive to burn.
Coal powered electricity generation is a different matter.  We have global reserves of coal for centuries ahead, and China has shown that it's the cheapest and fastest form of electricity generation to put in place for developing nations.  I wish the scientist luck with "clean coal" technology: My suspicion is that funding would be better placed in renewable alternatives.
Your argument then has three points: First, when (what year) will see emissions plateau?  Will subsequent emissions reductions stem the impact of "forcing"? And finally, when will emissions reductions return us to levels where "forcings" are less of a concern than they are today?


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 January 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> I maintain my view that we won't see emissions rise anywhere near as high as the worst case scenarios simply because we're not going to be able to extract enough fuel to burn. ..



Well if that's what we're relying on to save us, heaven help us.  

Remember Sarah Palin's only contribution to this debate?   "Drill Baby Drill?


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Well if that's what we're relying on to save us, heaven help us.
> 
> Remember Sarah Palin's only contribution to this debate?   "Drill Baby Drill?



This is what I just can't agree with as far as those calling for action are concerned.

If I am right about an inability to increase the fossil fuel extraction rate, and there is mounting evidence that this is indeed the case, then that is a 100% effective solution to the CO2 problem and one that those calling for emission cuts ought to be incredibly happy about.

So why the negativity when someone suggests that maybe it's "mission accomplished" on the emisions issue and that nothing further may need to be done? 

Is it perhaps something to do with the huge financial losses that would cause for all those employed or otherwise profiting from the issue? If not then what is the problem?

Environmentalists fight nuclear. They fight hydro. They fight wind. They claim there's no water, thus laying the groundwork to oppose the geothermal industry in the future. The only things they do support are those, such as PV, that don't seriously threaten to reduce CO2 emissions by a meaningful amount. All up, it looks like a classic case of becoming so involved in the issue as to not want it solved. 

It's a bit like how various medical companies would likely go broke if anyone did find an easy cure for cancer etc. So involved in the problem that a solution would have a devastating impact since limited "solutions" involving treatment, not cure, are far more profitable due to the ongoing demand they generate. A situation where what started out as the aim and intention must now be avoided for financial reasons.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 January 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> If I am right about an inability to increase the fossil fuel extraction rate, and there is mounting evidence that this is indeed the case, then that is a 100% effective solution to the CO2 problem ...



smurf if you're saying that we will not have a problem purely because we can't extract coal etc fast enough, then I would say you're smoking something pretty damned strong. 

We need to reduce the rate of extraction of coal etc, not accelerate it to the fastest rate we are physically capable of ( as you imply) 

Here's what Flannery would say :-



> Researchers at Hadley Centre talk of a “physical commitment to climate change”
> This refers to the fact that the full impact of the GHGs already in the atmosphere will not be felt until 2050  etc .
> 
> factors :-
> ...






> *The European nations are talking of emission cuts to this scale*, *but given the intransigence of the coal industry and the policies of the current US administration*, this may be unachievable as a global target.   ... More realistic might be stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 at 550 ppm - double the pre-industrial level.






> In other words it's too late to avoid changing our world, but we still have time, if good policy is implemented, to avoid disaster.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (4 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Thus, you would logically conclude that "evidence" proves nothing?
> Then there is no debate worth having.



Unfortunately with this one current science is lacking in creativity. It is good as a tool for wielding power though. 

Do we have evidence that things are happening? Yes we do.

Do we have evidence that it is bad what is happening? No. Why? Because we don't know the boundaries of the universe.

And we surely do not know that man is causing GW, CC.

Red in the link video you provided me with even that guy stated there are lots of things we do not know. And what role the oceans play in the process of sea ice melting is still unknown. Sounds like a living planet to me.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 January 2009)

snake said:
			
		

> And we surely do not know that man is causing GW, CC.



some of these posts .. seriously ...
As Menzies used to say when the hecklers piped up in the back of the audience ...
"shame we didn't spend more on education"


----------



## Calliope (4 January 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'd love a reasoned debate but emotion seems to dominate this subject to an incredible extent and both sides rely almost exclusively on it in the mainstream public debate.
> 
> Polar bears drowning etc - that's an emotional argument unless there's a real prospect of extinction and we're also addressing the non-climate related causes of their demise.
> 
> ...




I enjoy your commonsense posts on this thread and your command of the language. The debate now seems to have fallen on the shoulders of you and Rederob and I think you both enjoy the debate and acquit yourselves well. Sometimes you are not far apart.

I do not join the debate because I am no good at debating for it own sake, and where there can be no winners. From time to time I like to comment.

I think the majority pay lip service to the concept of GW, or at least they tell the pollsters that they do. But as for making real sacrifice. It probably won't happen. The idealists talk about leaving a better world for their children and grandchildren, but we can't help noticing that our children and grandchildren are often leading hedonistic lives, and having a lot more fun than we had. Who should sacrifice for whom?

The attitude is let tomorrow look after itself. I live for today. Or as Byron put it;

Did ye not hear it?--No; 'twas but the wind,
Or the car rattling o'er the stony street;
On with the dance! let joy be unconfin'd;
No sleep till morn, when Youth and Pleasure meet
To chase the glowing Hours with flying feet--
But hark!--that heavy sound breaks in once more,
As if the clouds its echo would repeat;
And nearer, clearer, deadlier than before!
Arm! Arm! it is--it is--the cannon's opening roar!


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (5 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> some of these posts .. seriously ...
> As Menzies used to say when the hecklers piped up in the back of the audience ...
> "shame we didn't spend more on education"




I am happy to see your proof.

Cheers..


----------



## wayneL (5 January 2009)

I've sworn off arguing in this thread and will just post interesting titbits and articles from time to time.

This, a poll from today's Sunday Mail FWIW


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> I am happy to see your proof.
> 
> Cheers..



back there I posted a debate sponsored by intelligence squared. - that the matter was a crisis or not.

Even the team arguing that this was not a crisis agreed that man causes global warming. 
(as do other natural factors of course)


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 January 2009)

btw snake 
 read Flannery's book, the Weather Makers - or read any flaming book for that matter.  I'd be interested to see evidence that you've researched this in the slightest.

That invitation goes for Wayne as well - especially as he proclaims an interest in saving wildlife.   Read about the number of species of critters that have died / become extinct and are gonna die in the next 50 years or so.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> back there I posted a debate sponsored by intelligence squared. - that the matter was a crisis or not.
> 
> Even the team arguing that this was not a crisis agreed that man causes global warming.
> (as do other natural factors of course)




post #215 refers :-


> Michael Crichton (for the non-crisis team) :-
> “Is the globe warming .. yes
> Is the greenhouse effect real? yes
> Is CO2 a greenhouse gas and is it being increased by man? Y
> ...




and not only CO2 but albedo of course


----------



## rederob (5 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> I've sworn off arguing in this thread and will just post interesting titbits and articles from time to time.
> 
> This, a poll from today's Sunday Mail FWIW



Global warming (or not), by consensus.
Now that's compelling.
As I have repeated so often, you have demonstrated no understanding of the science, continue to post irrelevances, and now don't have the guts to "argue" this matter.

But to be fair, lets put your straw poll into perspective. Below is a selection of what *Mail *readers could vote on: 


> Top 20 Recent Polls
> 1 Do you think Vince Cable would make a good chancellor of the exchequer?
> 2 Does Ulrika deserve more money than other BB stars?
> 3 Would you reprimand unruly youngsters in the street?
> ...



It's wonderfully scientific, and the results are a hoot.  Like over 90% of readers want hospital parking fees scrapped- what a surprise!!!

And yet you, Wayne, accuse me of lacking "credibility".
What a hoot.


----------



## explod (5 January 2009)

This has probably been covered and nuked by the skeptics but thought the following letter published in the Weekend Australian 3-4thjan is worth noting by the faithful.



> High school physics gives a simple explanation to the question why it is getting colder if the planet is overheating...(quote of previous letter)   ...the polar icecap is melting.    When ice melts, it absorbs an enourmous amount of heat from the environment (the latent heat of fusion ice) and the atmosphere in the polar regions becomes cold.   The wind from the polar regions carries this "coldness" to the rest of the world.   Once all the ice is melted, warming will set in and we will really feel the heat.   By that time, it will be too late to save the world.   We must act now.   Bill of Parkville, Vic


----------



## wayneL (5 January 2009)

Rob

It was posted to demonstrate the public's perceptions FWIW, without any scientific connotations.

It shows that the alarmists are losing the PR war, that's all.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Sean K (5 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Global warming (or not), by consensus.
> Now that's compelling.
> As I have repeated so often, you have demonstrated no understanding of the science, continue to post irrelevances, and now don't have the guts to "argue" this matter.
> 
> ...



Crikey!!!

What an attack over a simple poll of the public's perception.

Can you say anything in this thread without someone wanting to 'put you to the question'?


----------



## rederob (5 January 2009)

kennas said:


> Crikey!!!
> 
> What an attack over a simple poll of the public's perception.
> 
> Can you say anything in this thread without someone wanting to 'put you to the question'?



Can't help yourself kennas?
I voted "no" in that poll.
What does that say about its credibility?

I'm happy to debate the topic meaningfully.
Do you have anything worthwhile to add?


----------



## Stormin_Norman (5 January 2009)

im thinking of heading over to a science board to get an opinion on the stability of the australian housing market.


----------



## rederob (5 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Rob
> 
> It was posted to demonstrate the public's perceptions FWIW, without any scientific connotations.
> 
> ...



There are more meaningful polls that could be quoted, especially if they use sampling techniques that allow consistency of tracking attitudes over time:


----------



## wayneL (5 January 2009)

rederob said:


> There are more meaningful polls that could be quoted, especially if they use sampling techniques that allow consistency of tracking attitudes over time:




Of course, much is in the phrasing of the questions. 

The Daily Mail poll, though unintelligently simplistic, not allowing for more complex and accurate attitutes, is absolutely unambiguous and posted with the qualification "FWIW". It should also be pointed out that it is UK centric.

This is in a country where we are assaulted daily with AGW rhetoric from all parties as well as Socialist think tanks like the Fabian Society, via their mouthpiece, a certain Mr Monbiot.

I'm sorry you saw that as a platform to launch yet another malicious straw man assault when you could use the information for your own benefit.

Clearly, with all the preposterous junk science and obvious spinmeistering of any weather event as GW, has almost completely destroyed the credibility of the IPCC political movement. 

The public, quite rightly, doesn't believe you any more. 

To win the PR war, you have to be believable. To be believable, you have to tell the truth. But then there would be no scare if the truth be known.

Pretty soon, politicians in this country will have to drop their cynical green tax agenda as it is going to cost them votes.

On BBC radio4 last night, a scientist was asking for a measly £7mil for research into the drop in honey bee populations, potentially a devastating and imminent problem that can precipitate mass starvation... SOON.

They can't get it while the alarmists are monopolizing billions in funding for a covert political agenda.

Cheers


----------



## rederob (5 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Of course, much is in the phrasing of the questions.
> 
> The Daily Mail poll, though unintelligently simplistic, not allowing for more complex and accurate attitutes, is absolutely unambiguous and posted with the qualification "FWIW". It should also be pointed out that it is UK centric.
> 
> ...



There remains a deep gulf between us.
If you want UK-centric, and a reliable poll, how about reading this:
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/_assets/pdfs/public attitudes to climate change - for website - final.pdf
With over 75% of respondents either "fairly" or "very" concerned about climate change, it challenges the tripe you keep dishing up.
As you say:







> To win the PR war, you have to be believable. To be believable, you have to tell the truth.


----------



## wayneL (5 January 2009)

rederob said:


> There remains a deep gulf between us.



This makes me very happy...



> ...it challenges the tripe you keep dishing up.



...because I would hate to be singularly unable to have a reasonable debate without some sort of ad hominem insult included in nearly every post 

Unbelievable!


----------



## wayneL (5 January 2009)

The ...Mori.com is probably a fair reflection of people's attitudes. But there are some interesting observations to take away from it.

* Newspaper readership is most interesting and quite proportional to that papers bias in GW reporting.

* The public is still overwhelmingly skeptical, suspicious, or believe GW is exaggerated.

* It still shows alarmists losing the PR war, particularly with green taxes.


----------



## Stormin_Norman (5 January 2009)

public opinion will stop global warming.


----------



## wayneL (5 January 2009)

Stormin_Norman said:


> public opinion will stop global warming.




That's not the point here Norman. We are talking about public attitude at the moment. This is independent of whether or not there is warming, cooling, and the apportionment of human causes of such.


----------



## rederob (5 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> ...because I would hate to be singularly unable to have a reasonable debate without some sort of ad hominem insult included in nearly every post
> 
> Unbelievable!



Cut out the the crap and get involved in some reasoned debate.
Posting more and more articles from the mainstream media adds nothing to this thread.
However, if you want to keep it up, I'll keep pulling it apart.

Ultimately this whole matter hinges on the science - which will be proven one way or another in the fullness of time, to the masses.

ps. an _ad hominem _insult is an attack on you, personally.  I am more concerned with the material you put up, which is mostly rubbish.  If you want to insinuate an extension to yourself, that's your call.  I haven't met you, I don't know you.  I simply read your posts.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (5 January 2009)

rederob said:


> I'm happy to debate the topic meaningfully.
> Do you have anything worthwhile to add?




Perhaps you could explain why the scientists still do not know everything with regard to this topic. 

Something to read:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/100434.shtml


----------



## Stormin_Norman (5 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Perhaps you could explain why the scientists still do not know everything with regard to this topic.
> 
> Something to read:
> http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/100434.shtml




does that explain how non scientists know everything though?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (5 January 2009)

Red Sir,


> However, if you want to keep it up, I'll keep pulling it apart.



Please try your hardest because it is a hard hilll to climb pushing a storyline that can be countered by other science. 


> Ultimately this whole matter hinges on the science - which will be proven one way or another in the fullness of time, to the masses.



Impossible. The universe is infinite and the boundaries are not known. Mistakes will continue to be made so proving will be harder than disproving.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (5 January 2009)

Stormin_Norman said:


> im thinking of heading over to a science board to get an opinion on the stability of the australian housing market.



I'm sure many scientists would own houses so that may be a good thing to do. It is a good thing to not fall into the trap of believing in epistemic arrogance. 
Let us know what you hear from them.
Cheers..


----------



## wayneL (5 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Cut out the the crap and get involved in some reasoned debate.
> Posting more and more articles from the mainstream media adds nothing to this thread.
> However, if you want to keep it up, I'll keep pulling it apart.
> 
> ...




Rob,

I must point out that "reasoned" debate includes the admission of reasonable points from your opposition, otherwise it becomes a polarized sh!tfight.

So far you have shown no capability of such reason, choosing to refute all sensible evidence countering your viewpoint. It seems reason is only that which agrees with your narrow and indoctrinated view.

I fully accept the desirability of having the debate on AGW. Unfortunately, when you alarmists have petulantly closed the door on any dissenting science, it is no longer a discussion and polarization occurs. In fact, it disqualifies itself as true science.

This is an extreme negative and the reason you are losing the public on this issue.

In the meantime, real (and junk) science continues with a case being made for a number of scenarios. In other words, there is *no* consensus, the science is *not* settled, AGW remains as hypothesis, there is junk science on both sides of the debate, and Climate Change has become heavily politicized.

If you were prepared to concede the above five points, then we may have the possibility of a reasonable discussion. It's up to you.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (5 January 2009)

rederob said:


> In simple terms the difference is self evident when looking at a globe of the earth: Antarctica is totally surrounded by three great oceans.  The Artic is almost landlocked - surrounded by Europe, Asia and North America.
> Antarctica is a land mass covered with massive ice sheets.  The Arctic is just water and ice - you plant a flag on the ocean floor when you reach the north pole!
> The Arctic tends to act as a barometer of change as its geography and climatology "amplifies" weather events.  However, unless a similar trend (albeit latent) is shown to correspondingly affect Antarctica we can hardly talk about "global climate change".
> *The issue on manmade climate change is incidental to the above.  How we measure it is clearly debatable.*



Hence the uphill battle of proving versus disproving.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (5 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> btw snake
> read Flannery's book, the Weather Makers - or read any flaming book for that matter.  I'd be interested to see evidence that you've researched this in the slightest.
> 
> That invitation goes for Wayne as well - especially as he proclaims an interest in saving wildlife.   Read about the number of species of critters that have died / become extinct and are gonna die in the next 50 years or so.



Blunders by governments and scientists are common and the role is to prove what is not disprovable. It is a big hill to climb.

Cheers..


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (5 January 2009)

explod said:


> This has probably been covered and nuked by the skeptics but thought the following letter published in the Weekend Australian 3-4thjan is worth noting by the faithful.



Explod,

What are you saying this actually means?


----------



## explod (5 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Explod,
> 
> What are you saying this actually means?





In the past the ice remained inert.   In more recent times the ice has begun to melt (a change) and is therefore absorbing heat which inturn is cooling the planet down.  Of course the more heat the ice absorbs the more it is going to melt till no more ice.    When there is no more ice to cool the warming it is going to get very hot.   So teach you Grandchilden, (better make that children) to run high into the hills to cool down and avoid the flood. 

Talking of your surveys above.   Socialogists will tell you that a 10% change of attitude is all that is required to bring about a total change in that direction.  With climate change we a well past that and there is plenty of anectotal to show that it is all just quetly but surely happening.   It is why you of the traditional power lobby are so desperate with your unqualified pure crappola


----------



## rederob (5 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Rob,
> 
> I must point out that "reasoned" debate includes the admission of reasonable points from your opposition, otherwise it becomes a polarized sh!tfight.
> 
> ...



I consider the temperature changes over the past 150 to be within the bounds of "natural" influences.
I know man has impacted on emissions in many areas, and would consider there is a reasonable chance that his impact has a measurable effect.
I understand the principle of "forcing".
I realise that climate models will do nothing more than "model", based on inputs, their parameters and interrelationships: I don't expect they will ever accurately predict climate as the dynamics of weather has too many variables.  Models, nevertheless, can serve a useful purpose in assisting us better understand the complexities of the world.
I have certainly "questioned" many of your links, and sought subsequent defences from you.
I don't expect any of us here are equipped to understand the complexities of the science that underpins the debate at large.
However, there many sites that give us a lay understanding of what's what, and why.
I'm not sure what "label" you want to put on me: I don't ascribe to the Gore camp, and am not "alarmed" (yet) at the state of our global climate.  My concern if the science proves right relates to our lack of knowledge about how long it will take for CO2 rates to diminish.
In the meantime there is a growing body of evidence that, with more, and more recent data, suggests man influence has created a pace of climate change that may be unprecedented (except for cataclysmic events, such as volcanic eruptions).
On the other hand, there are some scientists that offer a contrary view.  I am by nature contrarian, and therefore not inclined to swallow mainstream thought.  In examining the contrary evidence to date I have found some appalling "science", and an incredible amount of material that purports "peer review" when none exists.
I might have a head start on some, having followed climate change issues for over 30 years.
I would dearly love for someone - anyone - to show that the earth is again cooling, and their material was credible.  Indeed, I'd be happy for the status quo to be proven.
Do that for me, Wayne.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (6 January 2009)

explod said:


> In the past the ice remained inert.   In more recent times the ice has begun to melt (a change) and is therefore absorbing heat which inturn is cooling the planet down.  Of course the more heat the ice absorbs the more it is going to melt till no more ice.    When there is no more ice to cool the warming it is going to get very hot.   So teach you Grandchilden, (better make that children) to run high into the hills to cool down and avoid the flood.
> 
> Talking of your surveys above.   Socialogists will tell you that a 10% change of attitude is all that is required to bring about a total change in that direction.  With climate change we a well past that and there is plenty of anectotal to show that it is all just quetly but surely happening.   *It is why you of the traditional power lobby are so desperate with your unqualified pure crappola*



What are you saying this actually means?


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 January 2009)

Snake - questions for you.
On a related matter - namely action on man's effect on climate:-

1. Did man cause the hole in the ozone layer?
2. When we acted against CFC's was it a good thing?
3. Were denialists complaining to the end?
4. Were we just lucky that it wasn't bromine we were causing - which could have been hundreds of times worse?


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 January 2009)

rederob said:
			
		

> Ultimately this whole matter hinges on the science - which will be proven one way or another in the fullness of time, to the masses.






			
				snake said:
			
		

> Impossible. The universe is infinite and the boundaries are not known. Mistakes will continue to be made so proving will be harder than disproving.



While you're at it snake , 
What are you saying that quote of yours actually means?


----------



## explod (6 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> What are you saying this actually means?




Crap or sh-t for short.

Seems everyone is lost for words regarding the physics of current global cold spell.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> smurf if you're saying that we will not have a problem purely because we can't extract coal etc fast enough, then I would say you're smoking something pretty damned strong.
> 
> We need to reduce the rate of extraction of coal etc, not accelerate it to the fastest rate we are physically capable of ( as you imply)



What I'm saying is that:

Oil looks to have peaked already

Gas production seems likely to rise for another 20 years or so, but not rapidly enough to offset declining oil production beyond the next few years.

That leaves coal as the only realistic source of sufficient CO2 to meet the emissions growth assumed in virtually all climate change modelling.

In short, we'd need truly massive growth in coal use to lead to the "business as usual" scenarios for CO2 emissions that many accept as given in a scenario of diminishing emissions from oil and gas.

So what I'm saying is that there's very little prospect of emissions rising to the point used in most of the models. Rise maybe, but not as high as is being assumed. Inability to get the stuff out of the ground seems likely to make sure of that whether we care about the CO2 issue or not.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 January 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> What I'm saying is that:
> 
> Oil looks to have peaked already
> 
> ...



so smurf, are you saying ...
"don't worry , be happy"
"we just can't take it out fast enough to be a problem"?


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> so smurf, are you saying ...
> "don't worry , be happy"
> "we just can't take it out fast enough to be a problem"?



Not quite...

What I'm saying is that we have non-CO2 problems (maintaining an energy supply) due to the oil and then gas situation. A by-product of this is that it will limit our CO2 emissions.

That suggests that we need more focus on the overall energy problem and that whilst CO2 may be important, the worst case scenarios or even business as usual are unlikely outcomes. We might still have a problem, but not one as serious as most projections of future CO2 emissions would lead one to assume.

It's a bit like pondering whether or not the party across the road is getting out of hand. At this rate, it seems there will be a riot within the hour. But then you find they've just run out of everything top shelf, are running very low on full stength beer but still have plenty of light beer that's been sitting in the sun. All the bottle shops are shut and whilst they have a fridge to cool the beer, they don't have a freezer to do it quickly.

So you might still have a problem with drunks across the road, and it may still be enough to warrant some action, but your worst fears of riots in the street won't be realised. All they've got left is lower grade alcohol and they can't get it into themselves sufficiently fast to get drunk enough to cause that much trouble.

The situation with fossil fuels is rather similar to that alcohol analogy. Still quite a bit of it, but it's lower grade and much harder to get at which is very likely to stop us using as much as we otherwise would. Those assuming major increases in CO2 emissions are missing that point.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 January 2009)

btw smurf, 
I'm not convinced your theory that nuclear plants cannot be adjusted / powered down for off peak periods ...  just as nuclear batteships do for instance.


----------



## wayneL (6 January 2009)

explod said:


> Crap or sh-t for short.
> 
> Seems everyone is lost for words regarding the physics of current global cold spell.




explod

You may have noticed that we're all trying to be a bit nicer to each other, I t would help if you did the same.

Cheers


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (7 January 2009)

explod said:


> Crap or sh-t for short.
> 
> Seems everyone is lost for words regarding the physics of current global cold spell.



Thanks.


----------



## wayneL (7 January 2009)

Since Before New Years eve, the temperature here in Cheltenham has not been above one degree. There has been snow on the ground for the last three days, Pittville lake has frozen over and kids have built a snowman on the ice right in the middle.

...and it is exceptionally beautiful, I love it. Walking through the regency buildings with snow everywhere is a sight to behold. 

Now that is just a comment on the weather, so please no assaults or inferences.

However, it is undeniable that all over the world, countries are experiencing cold weather not experienced for decades. The proposition that it is caused by the melting ice cap doesn't hold water because arctic ice has increased markedly over the low point of two seasons ago. I have posted sat images demonstrating this.

What has changed is solar output. Sunspot activity is at a low point "eerily calm" according to scientists.

This is undoubtedly the cause of the recent cold spell and further conclusions may be reached from this.

DYOR


----------



## wayneL (7 January 2009)

Sorry, links

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencea...The-Lab-Where-have-all-the-sunspots-gone.html

http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=981


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> btw smurf,
> I'm not convinced your theory that nuclear plants cannot be adjusted / powered down for off peak periods ...  just as nuclear batteships do for instance.



smurf, I concede they (nuclear plants) are more expensive / less efficient without hydro in parallel. - Then again if hydro is not feasible, - land just isn't available for instance -  then you just have nuclear / stand alone, and/or in conjunction with other cleaner power.  (or reduced amount of dirty power)


----------



## rederob (7 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> What has changed is solar output. Sunspot activity is at a low point "eerily calm" according to scientists.
> 
> This is *undoubtedly *the cause of the recent cold spell and further conclusions may be reached from this.
> 
> ...



There are no surprises here.
Solar irradiance has a known impact on temperature.
We are presently at the weakest point of the solar (11 year) cycle, viz:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm

I the climate models and hemispheric variations run true, the northern hemisphere's weather is likely to run to greater extremes.  

The reason there has been a name shift from AGW to CC is largely due to the fact that anomalies can give an appearance that "warming" has disappeared.  The warming trend is global and decadal.
One cold winter does not mean there will also be a cool summer.  In the northern hemisphere the temperature ranges should increase.


----------



## wayneL (7 January 2009)

For interest:

While you guys are down there sweltering in the Aussie summer, spare a thought for us expats shivering our @sses off up here in England.

At the moment it is -11 degrees according to the weather station about 1.5 miles up the road, which is extraordinarily cold for around here.


----------



## Aussiejeff (7 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> For interest:
> 
> While you guys are down there sweltering in the Aussie summer, spare a thought for us expats shivering our @sses off up here in England.
> 
> At the moment it is -11 degrees according to the weather station about 1.5 miles up the road, which is extraordinarily cold for around here.




Bah, humbug!

It's *only* 39C today in Albury-Wodonga. Thongs 'n stubbies weather, mate. 

Chiz,


aj


----------



## wayneL (7 January 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> Bah, humbug!
> 
> It's *only* 39C today in Albury-Wodonga. Thongs 'n stubbies weather, mate.
> 
> ...




When you think about it, it's *only* 50 ° difference.


----------



## Knobby22 (7 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> For interest:
> 
> While you guys are down there sweltering in the Aussie summer, spare a thought for us expats shivering our @sses off up here in England.
> 
> At the moment it is -11 degrees according to the weather station about 1.5 miles up the road, which is extraordinarily cold for around here.




No wonder the English and Irish left to populate the world.
I was an expat. once and was amazed how many pommies work in places like Indonesia and Hong Kong. Now i understand why!


----------



## wayneL (7 January 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> No wonder the English and Irish left to populate the world.
> I was an expat. once and was amazed how many pommies work in places like Indonesia and Hong Kong. Now i understand why!




Well there are warm weather people and there are cold weather people. I hate the heat.

> 18 ° and I'm whingeing like billyo. LOL

-11 ° is a tad chilly though.


----------



## Bushman (7 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> For interest:
> 
> While you guys are down there sweltering in the Aussie summer, spare a thought for us expats shivering our @sses off up here in England.
> 
> At the moment it is -11 degrees according to the weather station about 1.5 miles up the road, which is extraordinarily cold for around here.




Maybe all the boffins have it wrong and it is actually the dawning of a new Ice Age? Wooly mammoths anyone?


----------



## rederob (7 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Well there are warm weather people and there are cold weather people. I hate the heat.
> 
> > 18 ° and I'm whingeing like billyo. LOL
> 
> -11 ° is a tad chilly though.



Cold?
You don't know cold!
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/education/secondary/students/winter.html#key


----------



## explod (7 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> explod
> 
> You may have noticed that we're all trying to be a bit nicer to each other, I t would help if you did the same.
> 
> Cheers




In a serious matter, being nice may be too high a price to pay if it dilutes the facts.

And if all else fails I have noticed that those opposing action to curb global warming are fast to change the subject or get some posts up to dilute the scrutiny of material with substance.


----------



## wayneL (7 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Cold?
> You don't know cold!
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/education/secondary/students/winter.html#key




Yep. My folks are from the North and told me stories of walking 20 miles to school, with no shoes and no warm clothes, in hurricane force winds, -50 °, snow up to their eyeballs etc.

Of course I passed this off as Four Yorkshiremenesque storytelling.

Maybe they weren't exaggerating after all.


----------



## wayneL (7 January 2009)

explod said:


> In a serious matter, being nice may be too high a price to pay if it dilutes the facts.
> 
> And if all else fails I have noticed that those opposing action to curb global warming are fast to change the subject or get some posts up to dilute the scrutiny of material with substance.




So being a rude tosspot is going to solve the alleged problem?

Mate, you're behind the curve and been consistently and laughingly off pat with the science. Leave the rebuttals to Red, at least it is done with intelligence.

Or maybe you can tell us how you are reducing your impact on this planet?

Unbelievable.


----------



## Knobby22 (7 January 2009)

explod said:


> In a serious matter, being nice may be too high a price to pay if it dilutes the facts.
> 
> And if all else fails I have noticed that those opposing action to curb global warming are fast to change the subject or get some posts up to dilute the scrutiny of material with substance.




You get a lot further if you are diplomatic.


----------



## explod (7 January 2009)

This has probably been covered and nuked by the skeptics but thought the following letter published in the Weekend Australian 3-4thjan is worth noting by the faithful.



Quote:
High school physics gives a simple explanation to the question why it is getting colder if the planet is overheating...(quote of previous letter) ...the polar icecap is melting. When ice melts, it absorbs an enourmous amount of heat from the environment (the latent heat of fusion ice) and the atmosphere in the polar regions becomes cold. The wind from the polar regions carries this "coldness" to the rest of the world. Once all the ice is melted, warming will set in and we will really feel the heat. By that time, it will be too late to save the world. We must act now. Bill of Parkville, Vic 



No one has countered this post that I put up a few days ago.



> So being a rude tosspot is going to solve the alleged problem?
> 
> Mate, you're behind the curve and been consistently and laughingly off pat with the science. Leave the rebuttals to Red, at least it is done with intelligence.
> 
> ...





What is unbelievable?

The science, you yourself have said many times that it is hokus pokus. 

Grow most of my own vegitables, using water from the roof, which also saves on plastic rapping, transport  to market, unclogging the roads etc., and etc.  And  working on a few ideas.   Stirring you up prolly creating a bit more attention to the subject must help.

And who says this thread is only for the GW scientifically savvy


----------



## wayneL (7 January 2009)

explod said:


> This has probably been covered and nuked by the skeptics but thought the following letter published in the Weekend Australian 3-4thjan is worth noting by the faithful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes they have. You must try reading the posts.

The problem with that hypothesis (if it had any validity in the first place) is that the arctic ice has been increasing since it's low point of two seasons ago. I have shown this, and you can see for yourself by bringing up comparative satellite images. 

Anyone following along, will accept that it is more to do with dropping solar output, whether an AGWer or not.

See the links I posted further up.




> What is unbelievable?
> 
> The science, you yourself have said many times that it is hokus pokus.
> 
> Grow most of my own vegitables, using water from the roof, which also saves on plastic rapping, transport  to market, unclogging the roads etc., and etc.  And  working on a few ideas.   Stirring you up prolly creating a bit more attention to the subject must help.



That's good to hear. Your concern is commendable and is probably better directed at those things which your actions actually benifit



> And who says this thread is only for the GW scientifically savvy



The thing is, if your going to comment on the science, you must be reasonably _au fait_ with it, otherwise you will be fooled by junk science (which there is on both sides of the debate).

Frankly, the melting ice hypothesis causing this cold spell is real junk.


----------



## Happy (7 January 2009)

Moving away from non-renewable fossil fuels as much as possible makes sense as it is finite resource.

Melting Polar Regions and freezing up whole planet is nothing new, problem is never before planet had to support so many humans, and hence moving toward any extreme will prove catastrophic.


----------



## explod (7 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Frankly, the melting ice hypothesis causing this cold spell is real junk.





I am more than willing to learn, so please tell me how or why the cold theory is junk?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (7 January 2009)

rederob said:


> There is no credible science that supports this.
> Link to here for areal extents:
> http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
> Arctic sea ice remains well below *median extents* and continues on a dramatic long term trend of decline.
> ...



What statitics are used, and where are they gathered from, to form the medium?

30 years ago? That is hardly reliable considering the life of the planet. Satellite records go back to 1979 according to the video link you provided previously. Do we know the sea ice coverage back over one hundred years or for that matter over a thousand years?


----------



## rederob (7 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> What statitics are used, and where are they gathered from, to form the medium?
> 
> 30 years ago? That is hardly reliable considering the life of the planet. Satellite records go back to 1979 according to the video link you provided previously. Do we know the sea ice coverage back over one hundred years or for that matter over a thousand years?



As the Arctic Ocean is almost 100% covered with sea ice during coldest periods, the areal extents are determined at the margins, ie into the North Atlantic and Pacific Oceans until melt periods again take over. Mapping reductions below 100% coverage, when they occur, provides an exceptionally reliable data record.
What about records 100 years ago, or one thousand years ago?
What would they prove if they were available?
We are talking about contemporary matters of climate change that are occurring at an unprecedented rate.


----------



## spooly74 (7 January 2009)

Current data set on sea ice.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 January 2009)

I believe I've read in recent posts that icecaps (Arctic) are ok - I seem to recall a photo which showed less ice in Gulf of Finland this year, which is consistent to a previous post I'm made (twice I believe) that, due to a 300 year return period event, - absense of sea ice etc - the seal pups born to that date will almost certainly not survive.  

Also that the polar bears and (presumably the other arctic animals) are not in any distress.  

Here's what Tim Flannery would say on a number of arctic species  ...

general


> The Arctic as a region is almost a mirror image of the south, for while the Antarctic is a frozen continent surrounded by an immensely rich ocean, the Arctic is a frozen ocean almost surrounded by land.   Most of its 4 million inhabitants live on the fringe, and it’s there, in places like southern Alaska, that winters are 2 – 3degC warmer than they were just 30 years ago.



spruce beetle etc


> Among the most visible impacts of climate change anywhere on Earth are those wrought by the spruce bark beetle. Over the past 15 years, it has killed some 40 million trees in southern Alaska, more than any other insect in Nth America’s recorded history.  Two hard winters are usually enough to control beetle numbers, but a run of mild winters in recent years has seen them rage out of control.



migrating birds


> The Arctic ecosystem is extremely fragile, and subtle changes such as a season with less snow but more rain can have enormous impacts.  In 2004 the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment was published.  It documents many changes, as well as projecting more to come … If warming trends persist, forests will expand northwards destroying the tundra. Several hundred million birds migrate to these treeless regions to breed .. the birds look set to lose more than 50% of heir nesting habitat this century alone. … (PS and dark forests will absorb heat compared to the snow covered tundra – albedo).



lemmings


> Collared lemmings are superbly adapted to life in the cryosphere – coats turn white in the winter etc
> 
> The report states that the collared lemming will be extinct before the end of the century. Perhaps all that will be left then will be a folk memory of the small suicidal rodent.  But the real tragedy will be that the lemmings didn’t jump, they were pushed.



caribou / reindeer


> The number of (small) Pery caribou dropped from 26,000 in 1961 to 1000 in 1997.  In 1991 it was classified as endangered – no longer can be hunted by the Inuit.   Similar problems observed in Finland.  “During Autumn, weather fluctuates so much there is rain and mild weather.  As the water freezes, reindeer cannot access the lichen and - different to previous years - the reindeer has to claw to force the lichen out, and the whole plant comes out complete with bases.  – takes extremely long to regenerate.
> 
> Also flooding rivers kill thousands of calves as they migrate.  In short, as climate change advances, it seems that the Arctic will no longer be suitable habitat for caribou.



seals


> The plight of the harp seals in the Gulf of St Lawrence gives a clear idea of the shape of things to come.  Like the ringed seals, they can raise no pups when there is little or no sea ice present – which happened to them in 1967, 1981, 2000, 2001 and 2003.  The run of pupless years that opened this century is worrying . When the run of ice-free years exceeds the reproductive lifre of a female  (perhaps a dozen years at most), the species will become extinct.
> 
> Likewise ringed, ribbon and bearded seals which also give birth and nurse on the sea ice. Likewise walruses.



polar bears / nanuk


> For polar bears, having sufficient food to live means lots of sea ice.  [Polar bears cannot generally catch seals in open water - although one was seen doing so in 1978.]    A study of 1200 living in the south of their range - around Hudson Bay - reveals that they are 15% skinnier on average  than they were a few decades ago. The feeding season has become just too short for the bears to find enough food, and 15% is a lot of body fat to lose before hibernation.
> 
> With each year, starving females give birth to fewer cubs – some decades ago, triplets were common, they are now unheard of.  Back then about half the cubs were weaned and feeding themselves at 18 months – whilst today that number is less than one in twenty.   … Early break up of ice can separate denning and feeding areas; as young cubs cannot swim the distances required to find food, when this happens they will simply starve to death.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 January 2009)

also there are reent posts that suggest that all's just going swimmingly in the Antarctic ... (where there has been massive loss of sea ice) 

mind you people who care about the long term health /survival of whales, Emporer penguins, etc might read this ... 



> 2004 : it was found that the northern tip of Antartica was growing grass – (hitherto sparse tussocks). Over the summer of 2004, great meadows of the stuff. – Hard to imagine anything more emblematic of transformations at the poles.
> 
> The subantarctic seas are rich in plankton and hence krill which grow despite low iron.   The presence of sea ice compensates for this. The semi-frozen edge between salt water and floating ice promotes remarkable growth of microscopic plankton that is the base of the food chain.  -  and hence penguins seals and great whales.  The seaice has a massive influence on plankton.
> 
> ...






> To gain a sense of magnitude and rate of change involved, imagine what it would mean  for the animals of the Serengeti if their grasslands grasslands had been reduced by 40% per decade since 1976.  Already there are signs that some Antarctic fauna are already feeling the pinch.  The emperor penguin is half what it was 30 years ago, while the number of Adelie penguins has declined by 70%.
> 
> Such studies suggest that in the near future a point will be reached where, one after another, krill-dependent species will be unable to feed.  If so, the southern right whales that have only recently begun to return to Australia and NZ shores will no longer come.  The humpback whales that traverse the world’s oceans likewise will no longer be able to fill their capacious bellies, nor will the innumerable seals and penguins that cavort in southern seas.  Instead we’ll have an ocean full of (useless) jelly-like salps, the ultimate inheritors of a defrosted cryosphere.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> btw smurf,
> I'm not convinced your theory that nuclear plants cannot be adjusted / powered down for off peak periods ...  just as nuclear batteships do for instance.



I don't recall arguing that nuclear (or any other) power plant _can't_ operate at reduced output. 

What I have argued is that we need storage, and realistically that would be hydro, to make intermittent renewable energy work as more than a mere supplement to the grid.

If you're going to build nuclear, geothermal or coal to supply the electricity then there's no point technically or economically in adding wind, solar etc too it. All you're doing is lowering plant efficiency and adding massive costs. But add some decent storage, either natural flow as baseload or pumped storage as peak / intermediate load, and that changes radically. Now the intermittent sources actually avoid the need to build other forms of generation thus massively improving their economics.

So it comes down to economics. Yes you could have 12GW of nuclear to run Victoria. But with load typically 5 - 6 GW and rarely over 7GW, it's going to be rather expensive with all that plant sitting there running inefficiently at way below capacity to meet the peaks and as spinning reserve (essential in case of sudden plant failure). Build 4GW of hydro, reduce the nuclear to 8GW and it's going to be an awful lot more efficient (less fuel used) and more economic as well. (Those figures are approximate due to rounding etc). 

Same applies with coal - hence the Snowy and the gas-fired plants to make the whole system more efficient and economic.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> smurf, I concede they (nuclear plants) are more expensive / less efficient without hydro in parallel. - Then again if hydro is not feasible, - land just isn't available for instance -  then you just have nuclear / stand alone, and/or in conjunction with other cleaner power.  (or reduced amount of dirty power)



Just compiling some data to show how it actually worked yesterday. This might take a while as there's LOTS of numbers...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> btw smurf,
> I'm not convinced your theory that nuclear plants cannot be adjusted / powered down for off peak periods ...  just as nuclear batteships do for instance.





2020 

I have a leftie old aunt, Auntie Phoebe who goes on those marches with dirty old geezers and hairy legged young ladies.

Would a nuclear plant be a suitable present for her for her birthday which is imminent.

Do they need much looking after?

Are they cold tolerant, the poor old darling lives in the high country in Victoria?

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 January 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> I don't recall arguing that nuclear (or any other) power plant _can't_ operate at reduced output.



I was thinking of #1033 on "global warming - how valid and serious" thread ;
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=314977

and i concede I may have misquoted you to some extent .  Still, you do infer that it would be "a lot of trouble with nuclear". 

PS you'll note I followed up that post (with #1020 back 20 or so) with more emphasis on efficiency.  Still I would argue that what goes for Tasmania sure as heck doesn't apply to most of Australia ( in terms of hydro) - especially with damn all rain in Sydney (or Perth) these days.  etc 



Smurf1976 said:


> Nuclear is certainly viable without hydro. But running a 100% nuclear grid would be incredibly inefficient at best.
> 
> The problem relates to demand variation. If you have 13,000 MW at the daily peak and 7500 MW at the daily minimum (rough figures for NSW) then you'll have a lot of trouble doing that all with nuclear.
> 
> Nuclear plants run nicely at constant load. Having 13,000 MW running like that would be inefficient technically and financially - lots of wasted heat and a fortune spent building rarely used peaking plant...


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 January 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Would a nuclear plant be a suitable present for her for her birthday which is imminent.   Do they need much looking after?



gg - not sure how to answer. 
Is she keen on Australia keeping up (industrially) with the Chinese and the Indians and the Europeans, all of whom have and/or are building nuclear power stations at a great rate.

Or should we just become an irrelevancy in the future. 

As I've said more times than I can remember - it was the main thing I agreed with Johnny Howard in the end (i.e. look seriously into nuclear)  - although he was a bit too prone to make non-core promises for my liking.  Talk about a born-again clean power convert.


----------



## rederob (7 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> I believe I've read in recent posts that icecaps (Arctic) are ok - I seem to recall a photo which showed less ice in Gulf of Finland this year, which is consistent to a previous post I'm made (twice I believe) that, due to a 300 year return period event, - absense of sea ice etc - the seal pups born to that date will almost certainly not survive.



Just to put you out of your misery: Arctic ice is receding overall, and quickly.
Antarctic sea ice is increasing, firmly.
West Antarctic sheet ice is decreasing, East Antarctic sheet ice may be in balance, or increasing slightly - depends who you read and their methodology.

Trends in Antarctic sea ice are explained by the "buffering' effect of ocean currents that tend to carry warmer waters away from the continent.  The opposite is the case in the Arctic.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 January 2009)

On the question of damage to the Gt Barrier Reef ...  (Tim Flannery again) :- 



> Coral :-  (apart from pollution ) ….
> 
> It’s the direct impact of higher temperatures however, that is proving to be the most threatening aspect of climate change to coral reefs.  High temperatures lead to coral bleaching, and to understand that phenomenon we need to examine a reef far from human interference, where warm water alone is causing change.  There are thankfully some reefs protected by remoteness and size, with no pollution, fishermen or tourists.  Myrmidon Reef, lying off the coast of Qld, sees almost nothing of humans.  Every three years, scientists from the Aust Institute of Marine Science in Townsville survey it, and when they did so in 2004, they took along environmental writer James Woodford.  He described Myrmidon as looking “as though it’s been bombed”.   This was the result of the reef crest being severely bleached, leaving a forest of dead white coral.  Only on the deeper slopes did life survive.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Just to put you out of your misery: Arctic ice is receding overall, and quickly.
> Antarctic sea ice is increasing, firmly.
> West Antarctic sheet ice is decreasing, East Antarctic sheet ice may be in balance, or increasing slightly - depends who you read and their methodology.
> 
> Trends in Antarctic sea ice are explained by the "buffering' effect of ocean currents that tend to carry warmer waters away from the continent.  The opposite is the case in the Arctic.



Rob
I'll only concede (at this stage) that snowfalls over the landmass of Antarctica are possibly increasing - to marginally offset the trend with sea ice.

PS are you aware that krill is reducing fast as well (40% per decade - as at 2005 I believe it was that the Weather Makers was written)?  - that emperor penguins are severely reduced in numbers?

btw, there is a factor that has been totally underestimated - when sea ice shelves break up  - as they have , then the glaciers that were leaning on them flow much faster.   The plug in the bath has been pulled out if you wish.  .    So it's far from "hunky dory"


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 January 2009)

Rob, Tell you something - I find it amazing that people around here (not you) admit that the current "cool" period (alleged – i.e. 2008 is the coolest since 2000 – but the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880.   ) is due to an aberration of low solar activity - and yet there is no long-term danger 

It could be why I've said before that I'm betting that we'll have a hot year in the future - say in the next 5 or 6 years (since solar cycle will peak in about 2012 etc) .    So that 1998 (out on it's own in terms of the hottest year on record to that point in time) will be bettered. 

2012 may possibly not be a severe cycle at that - a great chance to get our act together yes?

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=374663&highlight=2008#post374663



> The meteorological year, December 2007 through November 2008, was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis of surface air temperature measurements.
> 
> It was the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880.
> 
> The nine warmest years all occur within the eleven-year period 1998-2008.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Rob
> I'll only concede (at this stage) that snowfalls over the landmass of Antarctica are possibly increasing ...



which is the same as saying that "rainfall" is increasing in that neck of the woods - big deal.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 January 2009)

Quadrant Magazine, a conservative journal has some quite good articles over the last few months refuting many of your arguments 2020.

You should give it a read.

Its at most enlightened newsagents and libraries.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 January 2009)

yeah sure gg
then there are facts being presented (and ignored by those who choose to remain blinkered) almost daily ....



2020hindsight said:


> I believe I've read in recent posts that icecaps (Arctic) are ok - I seem to recall a photo which showed less ice in Gulf of Finland this year, which is consistent to a previous post I'm made (twice I believe) that, due to a 300 year return period event, - absense of sea ice etc - the seal pups born to that date will almost certainly not survive.




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=371515&highlight=finland#post371515

Hundreds of Baby Seals Could Starve to Death
03/11/2008



> Rising temperatures could spell disaster for seals living in the Baltic Sea in northern Europe. An environment group is warning that hundreds of baby seals are now facing a painful death.
> 
> "The situation is dramatic," Cathrin MÃ¼nster, of the WWF's Baltic office, warned Monday in a statement. "It could turn out that not one of the seal babies born in the last few weeks will survive."
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 January 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Quadrant Magazine, a conservative journal has some quite good articles over the last few months refuting many of your arguments 2020.
> 
> You should give it a read.
> 
> Its at most enlightened newsagents and libraries.




Example of the accuracy of your magazine gg :-
Now I wonder if the Snowy Mountains Scheme was around in 1902? 

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2008/10/illusions-of-climate-science



> There is currently a focus on the state of the Murray-Darling Basin and the condition of the lower Murray River, as if the current low river flows had not happened before. *However, during the Federation Drought the basin suffered significant rainfall deficiency and by late 1902 the Darling and Murray Rivers had virtually run dry. .*..


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> PS you'll note I followed up that post (with #1020 back 20 or so) with more emphasis on efficiency.  Still I would argue that what goes for Tasmania sure as heck doesn't apply to most of Australia ( in terms of hydro) - especially with damn all rain in Sydney (or Perth) these days.  etc



Sydney has roughly double the annual rainfall of Hobart...

Anyway, you don't need high rainfall to make this work since I'm talking about running the plants at low average output. Pumped storage works nicely.

Anyway, here's some real figures from the real grid. I decided to cut the detail and just do 5am and 3pm yesterday (ie low and high demand) rather than hour by hour which seemed a bit pointless.

As you will see, yes we vary the coal-fired plant output but to nowhere near the extent that we vary the gas and hydro output.

At 5 AM:
Brown coal 5687 MW (30%) 
Black coal 11341 MW (60%)
Gas - combined cycle 819 MW (4%)
Gas - steam 207 MW (1%)
Gas - open cycle 33 MW 
Oil - 0 MW 
Hydro - 552 MW (3%)
Wind - 117 MW 
Other - 27 MW

At 3PM:
Brown coal - 6448 MW (21%)
Black coal - 16120 MW (52%)
Gas - combined cycle - 1363 MW (4%)
Gas - steam - 1136 MW (4%)
Gas - open cycle - 1758 MW (6%)
Oil - 0 MW
Hydro - 3675 MW (12%)
Wind - 173 MW (1%)
Other - 56 MW 

The numbers tell the story. Whilst we do get the majority of total generation from baseload coal-fired plants, we rely heavily on gas and hydro to meet fluctuations in demand.

In a post-fossil fuel world, changing coal for nuclear is easy enough but what about the load variations handled by gas? That's the load that needs to go to pumped storage if we're to get off fossil fuels.

That data isn't for anything extreme. Give us a truly hot day across all states and you'll see a whole lot more gas, hydro and even a bit of oil-fired generation than we did yesterday. That's the issue if we tried to rely totally on nuclear. 

Even France hasn't sorted that one out - they went to 80% nuclear for the same reasons Victoria historically had 85% brown coal power. Technically it's doable but going to 100% isn't cheap, efficient or easy when you're dealing with these fuel sources.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 January 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> 1.  Sydney has roughly double the annual rainfall of Hobart...
> 
> 2. In a post-fossil fuel world, changing coal for nuclear is easy enough but what about the load variations handled by gas? That's the load that needs to go to pumped storage if we're to get off fossil fuels.
> 
> ...



1. yep, and we need that and some for the population - storage levels trending down etc.

2. and 3. Sure, I'd accept gas for top up.

4.  yep - 80% nuclear sounds bludy brilliant.   Mind you (as I mentioned) there are submarines / warships etc that rely on 100% nuclear. 

btw - :topic
I was talking to some SES volunteers yesterday - they were clearing a tree that had fallen on a house.  I said - "weird , I was watching a tree myself just now, and a limb just split off and fell - and yet there was not a hint of wind."  - 

he said " yep - heat will do it every time - last summer we had 42 deg one day - there were branches coming down all over the place."


----------



## wayneL (8 January 2009)

The day the sea froze: Temperatures plunge to MINUS 12C and forecasters say it won't warm up until Sunday
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 5:38 PM on 07th January 2009


Temperatures plunged so low today that the sea actually began to freeze as Arctic conditions continued to grip the UK.

In the exclusive enclave of Sandbanks in Poole, Dorset, a half-mile stretch along the shoreline reaching about 20 yards out to sea is covered in ice.


----------



## Julia (8 January 2009)

Good heavens, minus 12!!  Quite apart from your obvious point with respect to the argument here, how miserable is that!  Sure you don't want to come back to sunny Oz, Wayne?


----------



## wayneL (8 January 2009)

Julia said:


> Good heavens, minus 12!!  Quite apart from your obvious point with respect to the argument here, how miserable is that!  Sure you don't want to come back to sunny Oz, Wayne?



It's actually been quite sunny here too, on and off, just extraordinarily cold.

It's been a bit extreme, but still prefer it to >35C. The snow is beautiful.


----------



## explod (8 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> The day the sea froze: Temperatures plunge to MINUS 12C and forecasters say it won't warm up until Sunday
> By Daily Mail Reporter
> Last updated at 5:38 PM on 07th January 2009
> 
> ...




Yep, the melting ice is absorbing all the heat.

You have not responded to my last post to you for some enlightenment?


----------



## wayneL (8 January 2009)

explod said:


> Yep, the melting ice is absorbing all the heat.
> 
> You have not responded to my last post to you for some enlightenment?



Yes I have. Read it.


----------



## rederob (8 January 2009)

Looks like it's hotter somewhere, then colder somewhere else, for what it's Worth:







> Record high temperature hit on day after Christmas
> By MIKE LEEmikelee@star-telegram.com
> Posted on Fri, Dec. 26, 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## Aussiejeff (8 January 2009)

> *CHINA is aiming to increase its coal production by about 30 per cent by 2015 to meet its energy needs, the Government has announced, in a move likely to fuel concerns over global warming*.
> 
> Beijing plans to increase annual output to more than 3.3 billion tonnes by 2015, said Hu Cunzhi, chief planner of the land and resources ministry.
> 
> ...



http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24887816-5005961,00.html

While we yap, yap - China makes a predictable move - Checkmate.

Wonder where this leaves KRudd, PWong & SoopaGarret's plans?


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 January 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Current data set on sea ice.
> 
> http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm



spooly (oops),
I believe that graph can be summarised that 2007 is the worst (least) extent of summer sea ice on (satellite) record,  and 2008 is the second worst. agreed?

btw, Here's an animation of Polar Sea Ice in the 1990s... (takes a while to load, nothing particularly quantitative but sorta interesting in the range of the extent , both north and south poles)



> This animation depicts sea ice extent in each polar region from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1999. Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio




http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/ReleaseImages/20031112/a002738.mpg

from this website...
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=2003111016173

Also here is NSIDC's bet for 2009 :- 
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


> Ultimately, *summer 2008 finished with the second-lowest minimum extent in the satellite record, 9% above the 2007 minimum and 34% below average*. A more diffuse ice cover and a thinner pack nevertheless suggested a record-low ice volume (ice area multiplied by thickness) at the end of summer.
> 
> As the sun set in the Arctic with the advent of autumn, seasonal ice growth was initially quite rapid, but slowed during early November. Average ice extent in December was well below average and very close to that measured in 2007. Heading into 2009, the Arctic sea ice cover is again young and thin; given this set-up, *a continuation of well-below-average sea ice extent in 2009 is a near certainty*.




Two ways to compare 2008 with the past :-


----------



## Calliope (8 January 2009)

2020.
Do you honestly think that anybody reads or looks at your overload of cyber- garbage? Or don't you care, and you just get your satisfaction from muddying the waters?


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 January 2009)

Calliope said:


> 2020.
> Do you honestly think that anybody reads or looks at your overload of cyber- garbage? Or don't you care, and you just get your satisfaction from muddying the waters?



Calliope
I'm just hoping you write a letter to your grandkids - along the lines of one of your recent posts ...

"Dear kids and grandkids
I suspect - no , I am absolutley sure , that there is no merit in these claims that the globe is warming, and that climate will change significantly as a result based on alleged models in various stages of development...

please thank me for avoiding a lot of bull**** spread by those scientific buffoons - thus avoiding the distress that they said you would end up experiencing - even avoid trying to understand climate and weather - even try to do something irrespective of whether or not man is responsible  ...  

signed  
grandpa Calliope"

just keep nailing your colours to the mast fellas ...
I will enjoy (not) reading these posts in 10 years ...



Calliope said:


> This report mentions an English survey in 2006 of 750 11 to 17 year olds. It showed that while they were concerned about climate change, they were optimistic they could do something about it.
> 
> Having grandchildren in that age bracket I can assure you that a similar situation applies here. From their indoctrination in state schools children accept as a universal truth that global warming is here and is caused by us.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 January 2009)

mind you, after the threads on Hicks, the Ab apology, Obama etc , I'm getting a bit tired of stating the obvious


----------



## wayneL (8 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Calliope
> I'm just hoping you write a letter to your grandkids - along the lines of one of your recent posts ...
> 
> "Dear kids and grandkids
> ...




You'll have to write one to yours then too, because I doubt that your carbon footprint is any different to Calliopes... 'cept you'll have to explain the hypocrisy of the warm lobby.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 January 2009)

Interesting article in the Australian today. A survey of how people think we will actually be generating "most" of our electricity in 20 years time.

26% said solar

23% coal

20% nuclear

10% wind

9% gas

1% other

Apart from the missing 11% (geothermal? tidal? hydro? oil?) there's the rather obvious point that 36% of Australians think that something that is impractical to do, use predominantly solar or wind, is actually going to happen. 

A further 20% are expecting a crash course in nuclear plant construction and the subsequent decommissioning of virtually new coal and gas-fired plants. A possibility but one that seems highly unlikely in the same way as it would not be impossible to rebuild literally all the country's roads in the same time - but it's highly unlikely to actually happen given the cost.

I'd say that only 32% of Australians have any real idea about the electricity industry from that survey. Coal is what will happen by default, indeed the single largest source of our electricity in 20 years time will be plants already built and they are predominantly coal-fired. Gas could be done if we went crazy building pipelines, halted exports and converting coal-fired plants to gas - possible but not likely in view of the rising (trend) export value of gas.

So I'm thinking that basically one third of Australians have some idea about the scale of this from those figures. And perhaps 40% understand how difficult it will be to achieve large emissions cuts. The rest are clutching at straws, confused as to why unworkable ideas aren't being implemented and looking for someone to blame.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 January 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Coal is what will happen by default, indeed the single largest source of our electricity in 20 years time will be plants already built and they are predominantly coal-fired. ...



yep - 20 years time they'll be inheriting our decisions of today. 

But 50 years - that might be a different story (maybe) 

Flannery :-



> The majority of new nuclear power plants are being built in the developing world, where a less tight-laced bureaucracy and greater central control makes things easier.
> 
> *China will commission two new nuclear power stations per year for the next 20 years*, which from a global perspective is highly desirable, for 80% of China's power comes from coal.
> 
> India Russia Japan *and Canada *also have power stations under construction, while approvals are in place for 37 more in Brazil, Iran, India, Pakistan, South Korea, Finland and Japan.




Hey does this one give you a smile maybe  :-



> At the moment around a quarter of the world's demand for uranium is being met by reprocessing redundant nuclear weapons


----------



## mayk (8 January 2009)

I don't know why in 50 years china will need all that extra electricity. Remember, in 50 years time China's population will be less than the current population, unless their one child policy is repealed. 

While it is against human rights, China is doing its bit for environment. But no one talks about this ...

In fact India will be a bigger problem in a few decades.


----------



## rederob (8 January 2009)

Calliope said:


> 2020.
> Do you honestly think that anybody reads or looks at your overload of cyber- garbage? Or don't you care, and you just get your satisfaction from muddying the waters?




I seldom read it.
Making the same point 100 ways is still the same point.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> yep - 20 years time they'll be inheriting our decisions of today.
> 
> But 50 years - that might be a different story (maybe)



Situation today is as follows. The key point is that we are very heavily reliant on the previous generation's spending on infrastructure in an industry where project lifetimes can span multiple generations.

Another key point is the timeframe as it relates to technology. Interestingly, it's a similar relationship in every way - time to build, time it will last, lifespan of the resource base. Longest being hydro, then brown coal, then black coal with natural gas being relatively short. 

A nuclear plant is comprable to brown coal in this sense - if we'd been in nuclear right from the start instead of coal then we'd be heavily reliant on 1960's and 70's plant designs today.

NSW - most power is from decisions made in the 1970's, 60's, and 40's.

Vic - most power is from decisions made in the 1970's, 60's and 50's.

SA - most power is from decisions made in the 1990's and 70's.

Tas - most power is from decisions made in the period 1934 - 1983 although the oldest working plant still in permanent use dates back more than a century.

NT - mostly from decisions made in the early 1980's.

WA and Qld - with higher growth rates, recent decisions are more relevant in the total supply mix but there is still a substantial reliance on generation decisions made decades ago (since the 1960's). 

In short, things don't change that quickly in the energy industry. The huge physical constructions and the capital involved in them are largely the reason why.


----------



## wayneL (9 January 2009)

An interesting article fro Von Mises Blog:

The Dangers of Disputing Warming Orthodoxy


----------



## rederob (9 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> An interesting article fro Von Mises Blog:
> 
> The Dangers of Disputing Warming Orthodoxy



More of the same from the camp of CC disbelievers.
This is not credible: Source information has been twisted by those contending it's the other camp doing it.  Proof is here: http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/08/climate_scientists_views_on_cl_1.html
While the detailed survey results are here: http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf

The "scientific" camp is continuing with its (funded) business; For many it's along the lines of their research stretching beyond IPCC and the snout in trough snipes of CC deniers.
The CC deniers continue to trot out obfuscation and junk science.
Here's yet another recent example of their spin: http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
The linked report contains no analysis and readers might get the impression that nothing has changed.
Yet anyone following this thread will know that the situation in North and South Poles is very, very different.


----------



## Calliope (9 January 2009)

2020,

Okay, you fall back on the old cliche that your grandchildren will be forever grateful because grand-dad helped save the world.

This still doesn't explain how you expect your long, boring, repetitious posts will help bring this about.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 January 2009)

calliope I have the choice of listening to Walter H Thompson, or reading your posts ...
sorry, you lose again

...

ok it's finished (Churchill's Bodguard)

Hey man, what you write to your grandkids is for you to sort out - I can't help you...
btw, If I've misunderstood your post to me, it's probably because I can't really be bothered reading it in its entirety


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> calliope I have the choice of listening to Walter H Thompson, or reading your posts ...
> sorry, you lose again
> 
> ...
> ...




2020 you should submit an article to Quadrant Magazine, the editor Keith Windschuttle is quite open to publishing articles from both the left and the right on Global Warming.

He pays $200 an article and you might , with one article recoup some of the energy that you have expended on this thread , making silage out of a very complex argument.

gg


----------



## Calliope (9 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> If I've misunderstood your post to me, it's probably because I can't really be bothered reading it in its entirety




Exactly. If three lines is a little long for your attention span, at least you can understand why long winded, boring posts like yours are an object of amusement and not edification.

But keep them coming. Your short posts are juvenile.


----------



## Julia (9 January 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> 2020 you should submit an article to Quadrant Magazine, the editor Keith Windschuttle is quite open to publishing articles from both the left and the right on Global Warming.
> 
> He pays $200 an article and you might , with one article recoup some of the energy that you have expended on this thread , making silage out of a very complex argument.
> 
> gg



You must have read the Crikey.com article about Windschuttle, g.g.  Made him look just a little silly, did it not?
When reading it, I thought of this thread.  So easy to prey on people's vulnerability to be seen to be embracing the most popular whim of the times.


----------



## Julia (9 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Hey man, what you write to your grandkids is for you to sort out - I can't help you...
> btw, If I've misunderstood your post to me, it's probably because I can't really be bothered reading it in its entirety




I doubt that Calliope has any difficulty in communicating with his grandchildren.  And if he did, it's probably further doubtful he'd be seeking your assistance.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 January 2009)

Julia said:


> You must have read the Crikey.com article about Windschuttle, g.g.  Made him look just a little silly, did it not?
> When reading it, I thought of this thread.  So easy to prey on people's vulnerability to be seen to be embracing the most popular whim of the times.




Yes Julia, I'm a Quadrant reader and dreaded when the windbag took over. 

He is a man on a mission.

I avoid men on a mission.

Having said that 2020 would keep Windschuttle  busy for a year or so checking all his footnotes and youtubes with just one article !!

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 January 2009)

Julia said:


> I doubt that Calliope has any difficulty in communicating with his grandchildren.  And if he did, it's probably further doubtful he'd be seeking your assistance.



lol
likewise Julia
I dont really need your assistance in that matter either


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (10 January 2009)

rederob said:


> The CC deniers continue to trot out obfuscation and junk science.
> Here's yet another recent example of their spin: http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
> The linked report contains no analysis and readers might get the impression that nothing has changed.
> Yet anyone following this thread will know that the situation in North and South Poles is very, very different.




Red,
Your scrutiny is as strong as ever. But here is what I have a problem with from the link above and below:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834


> the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000


----------



## rederob (10 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Red,
> Your scrutiny is as strong as ever. But here is what I have a problem with from the link above and below:
> http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834



An explanation of the difference between the regions is here: http://www.nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/difference.html
Cherry picking in this article is a high art form.
Look carefully at the chart of the "anomaly"; bet you didn't before you posted to me.  Notice that the annual trend in 2008 was for the anomaly to be negative for a significant period, while in 1979 the anomaly was mostly positive: Clear an distinctive differences between the data sets.   Statistical "coincidence" might fool some people, but don't let it fool you.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Just to put you out of your misery: Arctic ice is receding overall, and quickly.
> Antarctic sea ice is increasing, firmly.
> West Antarctic sheet ice is decreasing, East Antarctic sheet ice may be in balance, or increasing slightly - depends who you read and their methodology.



Rob
Whilst I suspect your caveat "depends who you read etc" is relevant, I would disagree with your claim (I think) that there's no doubt that Antarctic seaice is increasing "firmly" ...  (I assume you mean significantly).

Here's what NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center) say about the alleged trend (see the graph btw, the mean of years 2001-2008 are below average for instance).  "not statistically significant" :-

http://www.nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/difference.html



> Both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent are characterized by fairly large variations from year to year. The monthly average extent can vary by as much as 1 million square kilometers (386,102 square miles) from the year-to-year monthly average. *The area covered by antarctic sea ice has shown a small (not statistically significant) increasing trend*.




Of course there is no doubt about the Arctic :-



> The annual average extent of arctic sea ice has slightly decreased by approximately 3 percent per decade over the last 25 years, which corresponds to an area of approximately 750,000 square kilometers (289,576 square miles). ... The Septembers of 2002 to 2004 showed dramatically lower arctic ice extent. *This trend is a major sign of climate change in the polar regions* and may be an indicator of the effects of global warming.




The other comment you make about the WAIS decreasing also highlights the fact that some areas are potentially very relevant indeed. 

This from wiki :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet


> Potential collapse of the WAIS
> Large parts of the WAIS sit on a reverse-sloping bed below sea level. The reverse slope, and the low isostatic head, means that the ice sheet is theoretically unstable: a small retreat could in theory destabilize the entire WAIS leading to rapid disintegration. Current computer models do not include the physics necessary to simulate this process, and observations do not provide guidance, so predictions as to its rate of retreat remain uncertain. This has been known for decades.
> 
> In January 2006, in a UK government-commissioned report, *the head of the British Antarctic Survey, Chris Rapley, warned that this huge west Antarctic ice sheet may be starting to disintegrate*, an event that could raise sea levels by at least 5 metres (16 ft). Estimates by others have ranged from 6 to 15 m (20–50 ft).
> ...




Note that he (Rapley)  believes the IPCC should be more concerned ( not less) :-


> *Rapley said a previous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report playing down worries about the ice sheet's stability should be revised. "The last IPCC report characterized Antarctica as a slumbering giant in terms of climate change," he wrote. "I would say it is now an awakened giant. There is real concern." *[4]. Note that the IPCC report did not use the words "slumbering giant".


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 January 2009)

snake said:
			
		

> here is what I have a problem with from the link above and below:
> ...
> "the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000"



Why would that be a problem snake? (assuming I understand that you have a problem with the datum of 1979-2000).

Sure they have the option to change the datum from 1979-2000 to 1979-2008 (to give a 30 year period), but the data would potentially become confused (two alternative reference points) , and in any case recent changes in Arctic ice extent appear to be accelerating.  

http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#1979average



> Why do you use the 1979–2000 average for comparisons?
> 
> *NSIDC scientists use the 1979 to 2000 average because it provides a consistent baseline for year-to-year comparisons of sea ice extent.* Scientists call this long-term average over a data series a “climatology.” If we were to recalculate the climatology every year to incorporate the most recent year of data, we couldn’t meaningfully compare between recent years. To borrow a common phrase, we would be comparing apples and oranges.
> 
> ...




For another graphical presentation :-


> For those who are interested in comparing the thirty-year decline in Arctic sea ice extent to something different than the 1979 to 2000 average, the NOAA Arctic Report Card 2008: Sea Ice offers a graph showing groups of five-year averages from 1979 to 2008.  What one immediately notices is that the overarching story remains the same:  *Arctic sea ice is rapidly declining over the satellite record, no matter how you calculate the averages*.




To give you an idea of how fast it is changing - how's this for a near-perfect "rainbow" (upside down whatever).

Note how the change "per set of 5 years" a couple of decades ago is now sometimes swamped by the change per year.  
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html


----------



## wayneL (10 January 2009)

5 year averages. 

Traders know better. Raw data is what's important.

Take a trip up to ice today matey.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 January 2009)

I repeat 
"Arctic sea ice is rapidly declining over the satellite record, no matter how you calculate the averages."


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> 5 year averages.
> 
> Traders know better. Raw data is what's important.
> 
> Take a trip up to ice today matey.






2020hindsight said:


> I repeat
> "Arctic sea ice is rapidly declining over the satellite record, no matter how you calculate the averages."




I'd agree Wayne, any TA knows that the raw data is the essential element in these calculations.

gg


----------



## wayneL (10 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> I repeat
> "Arctic sea ice is rapidly declining over the satellite record, no matter how you calculate the averages."




Averages are very average at spotting turns in trend... no matter how you calculate them.

I repeat, take a trip up to ice today matey.


----------



## spooly74 (10 January 2009)

Mitigation or Adaption?

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml



> Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously.
> 
> Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 January 2009)

> Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74  ± 0.16 mm/yr.



pretty much in agreement with what's been posted already. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
PS Lately there appears to be an acceleration (almost 3mm/year).


----------



## spooly74 (10 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> pretty much in agreement with what's been posted already.
> 
> PS Lately there appears to be an acceleration (almost 3mm/year).




I was more interested in the fact that sea levels had risen further in the earlier part of the century 

PS: Lately there has been *no* acceleration.
1993-2003 (3.1mm/y)
2003-2008 (2.5mm/y) - that's ~20% lower.

http://climatesci.org/2009/01/07/se...te-altimetry-and-argo-by-cazenave-et-al-2008/


----------



## wayneL (10 January 2009)

spooly74 said:


> I was more interested in the fact that sea levels had risen further in the earlier part of the century
> 
> PS: Lately there has been *no* acceleration.
> 1993-2003 (3.1mm/y)
> ...




Good site there spooly. Smart guy, honest, someone with integrity.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Good site there spooly. Smart guy, honest, someone with integrity.




Ah integrity.

Integers.

Mathematics.

One of the few sense experiences one can trust, not totally. I jest.

At least if we ain't going to use reason we can use mathematics.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 January 2009)

spooly74 said:


> I was more interested in the fact that sea levels had risen further in the earlier part of the century
> 
> PS: Lately there has been *no* acceleration.
> 1993-2003 (3.1mm/y)
> ...



hey spooly , you just said the average for the century is 1.7mm / yr. 
I would say it's a fair comment that  3mm / year,  (and 2.5 for that matter) are an acceleration. 

Unless of course we're pretending it's monotonic (which is ridiculous)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonic

I have always enjoyed this analogy to chaotic-behaviour–but-still-predictable-to-an-extent as it applies to weather.  (There was a great website linked to NewScientist, but it seems to have expired somehow).  Here by the way is a similar youtube of this behaviour.  Note how the pendulum tends to end up balanced by forces around the central magnets. - but still varies from "diceroll" to "diceroill" (hanging close to vertical). :-
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=PznoBqEmU4M&feature=related
embedded:-
 magnetic pendulum

Whilst they don’t show what would happen if you add changing conditions / forcing functions etc, it  is equivalent to tilting the table.  Dead simple to imagine.  Obviously the pendulum would then end up centred on magnets further down the slope. 

Here's NewScientist on this :-

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11641


> Climate myths: Chaotic systems are not predictable
> 
> You cannot predict the exact path a ball will take as it bounces through a pinball machine. But you can predict that the average score will change if the entire machine is tilted.
> 
> ...




It goes on to say "as this demonstration neatly illustrates." - but the link ( as I mentioned) seems to have expired.  It was better than this youtube, and included the effect of tilting.

PS One of the comments attached to that NewScientist article tries to argue that it's like coinflips .  The question is, what is the effect of adding a bit of lead to the "head" side of the coin?


----------



## Knobby22 (10 January 2009)

There is a theory, I think I read it in New Scientist, that Carbon Dioxide is very ineffective as a global warming gas and the effect from C02 is already tapering off. The real cause of global warming is methane.

Supporting facts to this theory are the mini ice age which occurred after the plague and depopulated the earth and the fact as shown by your global warming graph that sea levels rose as farming became more intensive.

Anyone else seen this article:? It makes a lot of sense to me.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 January 2009)

Knobby - here's NewScientist on the relative importance of GHG's.:-

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652


> *Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas*
> 
> Of course, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas emitted by humans. And many, such as methane, are far more powerful greenhouse gases in terms of infrared absorption per molecule.
> 
> ...






> What is certain is that, in the jargon of climate science, water vapour is a feedback, but not a forcing.




other myths addressed here :-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html


----------



## mayk (10 January 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> There is a theory, I think I read it in New Scientist, that Carbon Dioxide is very ineffective as a global warming gas and the effect from C02 is already tapering off. The real cause of global warming is methane.
> 
> Supporting facts to this theory are the mini ice age which occurred after the plague and depopulated the earth and the fact as shown by your global warming graph that sea levels rose as farming became more intensive.
> 
> Anyone else seen this article:? It makes a lot of sense to me.




I am again amused, it seemed, first it was global warming, then it changed into climate change, now it must be Methane. I wonder what is next.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 January 2009)

mayk said:


> I am again amused, it seemed, first it was global warming, then it changed into climate change, now it must be Methane. I wonder what is next.



mayk
what comes next is that people will actually read up on it


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 January 2009)

mayk said:


> 1. I don't know why in 50 years china will need all that extra electricity. Remember, in 50 years time China's population will be less than the current population, unless their one child policy is repealed.
> 
> 2. ... China is doing its bit for environment.
> 3. But no one talks about this ...
> 4. In fact India will be a bigger problem in a few decades.



1 and 2.  I agree that China is doing its bit ...  but the population hasn't finished expanding yet - maybe 2040 or 2050, when it hits 1.6 billion (currently about 1.35 billion) 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/66232.stm


> Monday, 16 March, 1998, 21:19 GMT
> China population prediction
> 
> The State Family Planning Commission in China says the country's population will hit a peak of one-point-six billion before beginning to decline in the middle of the 21st century.  [say 2050?]
> ...




3. There's a thread around here somewhere on this topic. 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4389
No siblings, no aunts or uncles, no cousins 
PS Mind you, the one-child policy has been relaxed somewht I believe - at least in the cities. 

From another website...



> Moreover, a traditional preference for male offspring, especially in the countryside, appears to have intensified as parents have fewer children over all. Selective-sex abortions are illegal but widespread. China today has the most sexually skewed adolescent and young adult populations in the world; *boys outnumber girls at birth by a ratio of 118 to 100*, according to China's 2000 census. The normal rate is 103 to 105 males for every 100 females.






> "We're going to have a situation in which *every young man has to worry about caring for two parents and four grandparents*"




4. India? - you could be right. 
This thread says India will overtake China in 2050 (mind you they say China will reach only 1.44 billion)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3575994.stm


> India population 'to be biggest'
> 
> By 2050 there will be 1.63bn Indians, the study shows
> *India is set to overtake China as the world's most populous nation by 2050, while some countries will shrink by nearly 40%, according to new research.
> ...


----------



## spooly74 (10 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> > Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
> >
> > But the overall quantities of these other gases are tiny. Even allowing for the relative strength of the effects, *CO2 is still responsible for two-thirds of the additional warming caused by all the greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activity.*




How much of the observed ~0.74C warming in 100 years does this represent?


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 January 2009)

spooly74 said:


> How much of the observed ~0.74C warming in 100 years does this represent?



two thirds I guess - 
hang around and be patient, you'll see the rest.
PS (you're admitting it's getting hotter ?- and due to CO2?)


----------



## rederob (10 January 2009)

spooly74 said:


> I was more interested in the fact that sea levels had risen further in the earlier part of the century
> 
> PS: Lately there has been *no* acceleration.
> 1993-2003 (3.1mm/y)
> ...



If the rate last century was 1.7mm/y and the present rate is 2.5mm, surely the current rate is accelerating over the rate for last century!
More silly cherrypicking of figures to prove what, exactly?


----------



## spooly74 (10 January 2009)

rederob said:


> If the rate last century was 1.7mm/y and the present rate is 2.5mm, surely the current rate is accelerating over the rate for last century!
> More silly cherrypicking of figures to prove what, exactly?




Exactly what I said, that lately we have not seen an acceleration in the last 5 v's the 10 before 2003 . . nothing more, a simple observation.
Lately to me is not the last 100 years.


----------



## rederob (10 January 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Exactly what I said, that lately we have not seen an acceleration in the last 5 v's the 10 before 2003 . . nothing more, a simple observation.
> Lately to me is not the last 100 years.



Climate scientists prefer a 30 year time frame to determine trends as lesser periods succumb to other variables.
Comparing a 5 year trend (average) to a 10 year trend is not particularly clever and, as I said, is tantamount to cherrypicking.
It's one thing to make a "simple observation".
It's another to make a valid one.


----------



## spooly74 (10 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Climate scientists prefer a 30 year time frame to determine trends as lesser periods succumb to other variables.
> Comparing a 5 year trend (average) to a 10 year trend is not particularly clever and, as I said, is tantamount to cherrypicking.
> It's one thing to make a "simple observation".
> It's another to make a valid one.




It`s still valid, not intended to be clever, and was initially a response to 2020's comment.

Lets not make a mountain out of a millimeter.


----------



## rederob (11 January 2009)

spooly74 said:


> It`s still valid, not intended to be clever, and was initially a response to 2020's comment.
> 
> Lets not make a mountain out of a millimeter.



I have no problem with the odd millimeter.  But you introduced a 20% change in rates:


spooly74 said:


> I was more interested in the fact that sea levels had risen further in the earlier part of the century
> 
> PS: Lately there has been *no* acceleration.
> 1993-2003 (3.1mm/y)
> 2003-2008 (2.5mm/y) - *that's ~20% lower* [my emphasis].




And for any stats junkies:


> *Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records *
> S. Jevrejeva, A. Grinsted, J. C. Moore, and S. Holgate
> published 12 September 2006.
> We analyze the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) database of sea level time series using a method based on Monte Carlo Singular Spectrum Analysis (MC-SSA). We remove 2–30 year quasi-periodic oscillations and determine the nonlinear long-term trends for 12 large ocean regions. Our global sea level trend estimate of 2.4  ± 1.0 mm/yr for the period from 1993 to 2000 is comparable with the 2.6  ± 0.7 mm/yr sea level rise calculated from TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter measurements. However, we show that over the last 100 years the rate of 2.5  ± 1.0 mm/yr occurred between 1920 and 1945, is likely to be as large as the 1990s, and resulted in a mean sea level rise of 48 mm.We evaluate errors in sea level using two independent approaches, the robust bi-weight mean and variance, and a novel ‘‘virtual station’’ approach that utilizes geographic locations of stations. Results suggest that a region cannot be adequately represented by a simple mean curve with standard error, assuming all stations are independent, as multiyear cycles within regions are very significant. Additionally, much of the between-region mismatch errors are due to multiyear cycles in the global sea level that limit the ability of simple means to capture sea level accurately. _*We demonstrate that variability in sea level records over periods 2–30 years has increased during the past 50 years in most ocean basins*_.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> ... Unless of course we're pretending it's monotonic (which is ridiculous)
> 
> Here's NewScientist on this :-
> 
> ...



Sorry, that link seems to be ok today ...
http://www.clivar.org/science/magnets.php



> Imagine this system as an analogy for climate. For the sake of argument, suppose the magnets correspond to different climatic regimes: *the yellow magnet to an anomalously mild winter*, the white magnet to an especially cold winter, the red and blue magnets to other winter states having more-or-less normal temperatures.






> The second animation shows the same pendulum system, but with a wedge moved in underneath the base. *The wedge represents an external perturbation to the system, here the perturbation associated with anthropogenic increases in carbon dioxide.* With the wedge firmly in place - representing, let's say, late 21st century levels of carbon dioxide - let's see how the system evolves. The motion is still chaotic, so that late 21st century weather variations are still irregular and therefore impossible to predict in detail. *However, one can clearly see that the probabilities of occurrence of the four winter regimes are no longer equal *- the mild winter is now significantly more likely that the cold winter, even though the system does make occasional unpredictable excursions to the cold winter regime






> These animations [courtesy of Rob Hine (ECMWF)] illustrate a number of climate issues which have caused conceptual difficulties from time to time:
> 
> 1. Even though climate is chaotic, with weather states impossible to predict in detail more than a few days ahead, there is a predictable impact of anthropogenic forcing on the probability of occurrence of the naturally-occurring climatic regimes. This lies at the heart of the CLIVAR perspective on climate change - *how anthropogenic forcing will affect the natural modes of climate variability. *
> 
> ...




I post jpegs - if you want the animations they are on that link. 
But obviously the chance of ending up on the yellow magnet are higher with the tilt ( = anthropogenic effects)


----------



## Sean K (11 January 2009)

rederob said:


> I have no problem with the odd millimeter.  But you introduced a 20% change in rates:
> 
> And for any stats junkies:



Rob, 

Don't the stats that you produced say that the variance in 20-45 ish was the same as just recently?



> Our global sea level trend estimate of 2.4  ± 1.0 mm/yr for the period from 1993 to 2000 is comparable with the 2.6  ± 0.7 mm/yr sea level rise calculated from TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter measurements. However, we show that *over the last 100 years the rate of 2.5  ± 1.0 mm/yr occurred between 1920 and 1945, is likely to be as large as the 1990s, and resulted in a mean sea level rise of 48 mm.*




And,


> We demonstrate that variability in sea level records over periods 2–30 years has increased during the past 50 years in most ocean basins.



Isn't this just saying _variance_, not increase or decrease?

Maybe that is the point, but I thought it was about _increases_.

Perhpas variances are worse?


----------



## wayneL (11 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Sorry, that link seems to be ok today ...
> http://www.clivar.org/science/magnets.php
> 
> 
> ...




It's a great depiction of a chaotic system, but as an analogy for climate, a joke.


----------



## rederob (11 January 2009)

kennas said:


> Rob,
> Don't the stats that you produced say that the variance in 20-45 ish was the same as just recently?
> And,
> Isn't this just saying _variance_, not increase or decrease?
> ...



The periods quoted by spooly are within a highly probable range of large variability.
That variability may render any conclusions as meaningless.
Over and above that, the reliability of the data is subject to standard error.
Again, the standard error can account for entire difference in sea level rate changes quoted by spooly.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 January 2009)

rederob said:


> The periods quoted by spooly are within a highly probable range of large variability.
> That variability may render any conclusions as meaningless.
> Over and above that, the reliabilty of the data is subject to standard error.
> Again, the standard error can account for entire diference in sea level rate changes quoted by spooly.




On at least 2 occasions from memory a variability in periods has buggered up a sea change for me, if its any help to you guys.

Chaos rules imho.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 January 2009)

rederob said:


> If the rate last century was 1.7mm/y and the present rate is 2.5mm, surely the current rate is accelerating over the rate for last century!
> More silly cherrypicking of figures to prove what, exactly?



How much of the sea level change is due to man-made non-warming related factors? It wouldn't be zero and if this hasn't been included in the models then that ensures they aren't accurate.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 January 2009)

A few posts here have implied that the temperature increase should almost instantaneously go up with GHG's. 

Here's Flannery on the question - excerpts from the intro to "The Weather Makers":-

also an amateur poem ...
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=383921


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 January 2009)

A few posts here suggest that the wildlife of Antarctica (and even the Arctic) are not in any distress. 

I'm guessing people associated with WWF will already know what WWF would say (i.e. would know better)  … 
but here are some excerpts from WWF’s website, plus a (further) comment from Flannery quoting WWF’s director /arctic. 

Arctic  (threats to wildlife, including polar bears, caribou reindeer, seals, birdlife etc already posted)  :-
“So advanced is the ice loss (Arctic ice cap summer melt) that Neil Hamilton, Director of WWF (World Wildlife Fund)   International Arctic Program, recently admitted that ‘We the WWF are no longer trying to protect the Arctic’: [i.e.] it is simply too late.”

Antarctic (threats to wildlife, including emperor penguins, seals, whales etc;  and Sea Ice , as already posted)  :-
extra comments and jpegs from WWF website :- 
“Few places in the world, if any, support greater numbers of large animals.”

http://www.wwf.org.au/

Incidentally, I notice this show on ABC at 7.30tonight :-


> Penguins Of The Antarctic
> Time: Sunday, January 11, 7.30pm
> Channel: ABC1
> Duration: 55 minutes
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 January 2009)

> The Scottish Government has committed to an 80 per cent cut in emissions by 2050




http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/antarcticasenvironment/The-last-emperor-Penguin-numbers.3589046.jp



> The last emperor? Penguin numbers plunge
> 11 December 2007
> By IAN JOHNSTON
> ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT
> ...






> But he added: "*In order not to lose penguins, we have got to have major cuts [in emissions*]. We are calling for an 80 per cent by 2050 and 40 per cent by 2020. Hopefully that will keep it under the magic two degrees.
> 
> "We should be looking at carbon-dioxide cuts to reflect how dangerous this is. If this gets worse, the situation [for the penguins] is bound to get worse."
> 
> The *Scottish Government has committed to an 80 per cent cut in emissions by 2050*, but the UK target is 60 per cent.


----------



## rederob (11 January 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> How much of the sea level change is due to man-made non-warming related factors? It wouldn't be zero and if this hasn't been included in the models then that ensures they aren't accurate.



Smurf, this doesn't answer that question, but adds a variable that most forget about:


> *Impact of Artificial Reservoir Water Impoundment on Global Sea Level*
> Originally published in Science Express on 13 March 2008
> B. F. Chao,* Y. H. Wu, Y. S. Li
> By reconstructing the history of water impoundment in the world's artificial reservoirs, we show that a total of 10,800 cubic kilometers of water has been impounded on land to date, reducing the magnitude of global sea level (GSL) rise by –30.0 millimeters, at an average rate of –0.55 millimeters per year during the past half century. This demands a considerably larger contribution to GSL rise from other (natural and anthropogenic) causes than otherwise required. The reconstructed GSL history, accounting for the impact of reservoirs by adding back the impounded water volume, shows an essentially constant rate of rise at +2.46 millimeters per year over at least the past 80 years. This value is contrary to the conventional view of apparently variable GSL rise, which is based on face values of observation.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 January 2009)

wassies, you gotta watch that show on ABC about penguins (7.30pm) Natural World , BBC production , excellent. assuming you have doubts about what's happening in the antarctic - as a few round here seem to have 

"Climatologists see a world in turmoil, politicians talk about it ... perhaps the penguins can adapt to this future" 

"The peninsula has reduced dramatically ...whilst the icecap is thickening, the seaice is breaking up ...change is happening 5 times faster than the world average ... "

rederob et al, hope you watched that show ...... just to clarify the matter and / or answer any questions or doubt


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Rob
> I'll only concede (at this stage) that snowfalls over the landmass of Antarctica are possibly increasing - to marginally offset the trend with sea ice...  krill is reducing fast etc ... emperor penguins are severely reduced



http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200901/programs/ZY8591A001D11012009T193000.htm

"Emperor penguins ... not even their survival skills may save them ...  As more ice melts, their colonies are literally disappearing into the sea" 

PS throw in the major factor of greater intensity of storms at sea


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Smurf, this doesn't answer that question, but adds a variable that most forget about:



What I'm thinking of is:

These things all add to the amount of water in the ocean:

*Unlocking water via mining etc

*Loss of water "locked up" in forests when land is cleared

*Fossil fuel combustion

*Draining of aquifers

*Dumping of literally anything at sea, including land reclamation, isn't adding water but it's adding mass and having the same effect of pushing up the sea level. Rubbish, land reclamation, mine tailings, silt... I'd say the total volume here is not insignificant.

*All the boats, pipelines, cables, bridge piers and so on that we've put in the water. They may individually be trivial (which they are) but there's rather a lot of them worldwide so the total impact may not be so trivial.

On the other hand, the construction of impoundments (dams) does the opposite and takes water OUT of the sea thus dropping its level. I don't have figures, but once you've seen a few decent size man-made "inland seas" you do start to realise that there's rather a lot of water locked up this way. And that's water that would otherwise be in the oceans.

A theory I'll put forward here is that we'll see a reduction in sea level rise (compared to whatever the trend is) over the next couple of years. My reasoning being nothing to do with the science of the isssue but rather, simple economics. With the economy seemingly falling off a cliff, we ought to see a slowdown in us adding things to the ocean and at the same time a likely rise in the total volume of stored water as energy and agricultural demands drop. 

As I've noted previously, there's an inverse correlation between ecomomic cycles and dam storage levles. Right now we seem to be just over the economic peak and just over the water storage bottom - the cycle is holding up thus far. Obviously not in every place on earth, but it's happened enough times now to be worth thinking about.


----------



## wayneL (11 January 2009)

It turns out that 2020's carbon footprint is massively larger than the lot of us, what with all the google searches to acquire so much nonsinse. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencea...hes-produce-same-CO2-as-boiling-a-kettle.html

HAHA


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (12 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> It turns out that 2020's carbon footprint is massively larger than the lot of us, what with all the google searches to acquire so much nonsinse. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencea...hes-produce-same-CO2-as-boiling-a-kettle.html
> 
> HAHA




Ha, ha what a total kick up the ass. Thanks Wayne for posting it.


----------



## GumbyLearner (12 January 2009)

Just thought I would add this to the discussion 

Greenland melting may be a temporary phenomenon say Scientists 
from AFP Jan 12 2009

The recent acceleration of glacier melt-off in Greenland, which some scientists fear could dramatically raise sea levels, may only be a temporary phenomenon, according to a study published Sunday.

http://news.theage.com.au/world/mas...not-so-fast-say-scientists-20090112-7egz.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 January 2009)

WWF (apart from having diametrically different opinions to many around here ) also has this calculator ...
http://wwf.org.au/footprint/calculator/

btw I gave up coffee 12 months ago 



> A typical search through the online giant's website is thought to generate about 7g of carbon dioxide. Boiling a kettle produces about 15g.


----------



## Aussiejeff (12 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> It's a great depiction of a chaotic system, but as an analogy for climate, a joke.




Another "joke" for ya Wayno... 



> *Albury/Wodonga 7 Day Forecast* Issued at 5:30 am EDT on Monday 12 January 2009 for the period until midnight EDT Sunday 18 January 2009.
> 
> Forecast for the rest of Monday
> Sunny. Winds southeasterly averaging 10 to 15 km/h, reaching 20 km/h at times.
> ...




Enjoy the coolroom.... 

aj


----------



## rederob (12 January 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Just thought I would add this to the discussion
> 
> Greenland melting may be a temporary phenomenon say Scientists
> from AFP Jan 12 2009
> ...



It's an interesting headline.
The storyline reveals a more balanced position.
A less dramatic read on the Greenland position is at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417142507.htm


----------



## Aussiejeff (12 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> It turns out that 2020's carbon footprint is massively larger than the lot of us, what with all the google searches to acquire so much nonsinse. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencea...hes-produce-same-CO2-as-boiling-a-kettle.html
> 
> HAHA




If 10grams = 1 Google

does 100grams = 1 Googley?


----------



## Aussiejeff (12 January 2009)

LOL

1,000 grams CO2 = KiloGoogle?
1 tonne CO2 = MegaGoogle?

:silly:


----------



## wayneL (12 January 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> LOL
> 
> 
> 1 tonne CO2 = MegaGoogle?
> ...




All in a days work for 2020 :


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 January 2009)

I take it people didn't see that program - or if they did, they reckon it's a lot of overkill over krill.


----------



## ghotib (12 January 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> What I'm thinking of is:
> <SNIP>
> A theory I'll put forward here is that we'll see a reduction in sea level rise (compared to whatever the trend is) over the next couple of years. My reasoning being nothing to do with the science of the isssue but rather, simple economics. With the economy seemingly falling off a cliff, we ought to see a slowdown in us adding things to the ocean and at the same time a likely rise in the total volume of stored water as energy and agricultural demands drop.
> 
> As I've noted previously, there's an inverse correlation between ecomomic cycles and dam storage levles. Right now we seem to be just over the economic peak and just over the water storage bottom - the cycle is holding up thus far. Obviously not in every place on earth, but it's happened enough times now to be worth thinking about.



Hi Smurf,

The attached table is from the 2007 IPCC summary for policymakers. I can't say that its meaning is instantly obvious to me, but two things seem clear. One is that the greatest contributor to sea level rise to date is thermal expansion - warmer water takes up more space. The other is that the contribution of melting ice has increased in recent years. 

The report FAQ comments that: 


> The reasonable agreement in recent years between the observed rate of sea level rise and the sum of thermal expansion and loss of land ice suggests an upper limit for the magnitude of change in land-based water storage, which is relatively poorly known. Model results suggest no net trend in the storage of water over land due to climate-driven changes but there are large interannual and decadal fluctuations. However, for the recent period 1993 to 2003, the small discrepancy between observed sea level rise and the sum of known contributions might be due to unquantified human-induced processes (e.g., groundwater extraction, impoundment in reservoirs, wetland drainage and deforestation).



I haven't looked for more recent work on the effect of unlocking land-based water storage. 

Interesting.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 January 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Just thought I would add this to the discussion
> 
> Greenland melting may be a temporary phenomenon say Scientists
> from AFP Jan 12 2009
> ...



gumby , howdy

On the one hand, the spokesman for this theory says this ...



> Whatever happens at the terminus provokes a strong and rapid reaction in the rest of the glacier. The result has been a significant loss of mass" as huge chunks of ice drop into the ocean, a process known as calving, Vieli explained.
> 
> These changes are also set in motion by global warming, but are not likely to last, he said.




But he goes on to say this ...



> Vieli cautioned that his findings, published in Nature Geoscience, are narrowly focused on one glacier, and that sea levels could still rise higher than the IPCC's original projections. [18 to 59 centimetres by 2100 due to thermal expansion].
> 
> Other Greenland glaciers behave differently, and the dynamics of the Antarctic ice sheet are still poorly understood, he noted.
> 
> *Nor should the new study "be taken out of context to suggest that climate change is not a serious threat -- it is," he added*.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> It turns out that 2020's carbon footprint is massively larger than the lot of us, what with all the google searches to acquire so much nonsinse. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencea...hes-produce-same-CO2-as-boiling-a-kettle.html
> 
> HAHA




What is the carbon cost of posting one youtube on the net?

Greater than boiling a kettle I reckon.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 January 2009)

A post here is equivalent to three internet links is it not? – one to find ASF home, one to find the thread, and one to post.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 January 2009)

2020hindsight post #1126 said:
			
		

> WWF (apart from having diametrically different opinions to many around here ) also has this calculator ...
> [ of carbon footprint]



you have to be a bit suspicious of some of these carbon footprint calculations ...

If you take that test for instance, and take it to the least possible footprint (obviously hypothetical) ... 


> Q "how much meat do you eat?"  A "none, I'm a vegan"
> - none, or the bare minimum of which, is processed or packaged or tranported more than 325km
> - much less rubbish than average
> - live in a free-standing house without running water
> ...




Conclusion  (according to that WWF calculator)..
"If everyone lived like you, you'd need 1.7 Planet Earths to provide enough resources." !!  

So my conclusion from that is that we need a cleaner source of power. 
- and stop worrying whether we leave the bathroom light on at nights.  

PS  and you'd make 4.6T of carbon / yr.  (and more than 50% of that due to "food"). (??)
So if vegan's aren't good enough for this new world, we're in serious trouble .


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> you have to be a bit suspicious of some of these carbon footprint calculations ...
> 
> If you take that test for instance, and take it to the least possible footprint (obviously hypothetical) ...
> 
> ...




Jeez, 2020,

If you are coming clean on your footprint, imagine what a confession Al Gore 
would have to make.

Which brings us all the way back to the first entry I posted on this thread.

So can we now end it where we began?

gg


----------



## rederob (12 January 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Jeez, 2020,
> 
> If you are coming clean on your footprint, imagine what a confession Al Gore
> would have to make.
> ...



In the real world I am suspicious of people who talk to themselves.
In cyberspace I share that with people who respond to their own posts.


----------



## Happy (12 January 2009)

> Originally Posted by Smurf1976 showthread.php?p=384155 - post384155showthread.php?p=384155 - post384155
> What I'm thinking of is:
> <SNIP>
> A theory I'll put forward here is that we'll see a reduction in sea level rise (compared to whatever the trend is) over the next couple of years. My reasoning being nothing to do with the science of the isssue but rather, simple economics. With the economy seemingly falling off a cliff, we ought to see a slowdown in us adding things to the ocean and at the same time a likely rise in the total volume of stored water as energy and agricultural demands drop.




Quite interesting, we could try to store water as much as possible and dredge the seabed to reduce sea level.

Task almost as big as to reduce the CO2 emission, but if every person just stored 1 litre bottle per day we could store 6 billion litres a day 42 billion per week .. and so on.

Instead of recycling plastic bottles we could just fill them up with water and store.
But in the end almost as impossible as replace electricity base load with alternative energy.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 January 2009)

rederob said:


> In the real world I am suspicious of people who talk to themselves.
> In cyberspace I share that with people who respond to their own posts.




then again, you are allowed (I trust) to reason something out in public.

anyone ever tell you that you have a nasty streak rob


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 January 2009)

so lemme get this straight, wayne

you’re pro-saving whales, but the fact that their feeding areas are becoming significantly  depleted partly due to reduced extent of sea-ice, (and posts that point this out, quotes typed out from Flannery’s book in many cases) are nonsense (/ nonsinse )  

you feign a concern about critters doing it tough, but the fact that heaps are becoming extinct due to global warming, (and posts that point this out, ditto) are nonsense.   

You continue to amaze me with the range of your opinions …


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 January 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Jeez, 2020,
> 
> If you are coming clean on your footprint, imagine what a confession Al Gore
> would have to make.
> ...




gg
I see that Townsville and Cairns are copping both flooding and king tides ...

... some lady saying today that cyclone Charlotte (having cut the Barkley Highway) was all over the place like a kid on red cordial  

people stuck in Nadi in Fiji etc


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> WWF (apart from having diametrically different opinions to many around here ) also has this calculator ...
> http://wwf.org.au/footprint/calculator/



I'm giving up on this calculator. All it's done so far is download ridiculous amoutns of data, something that is directly adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and ask irrelevant questions about my hairstyle.

I do note however what looks very much like a photo of Gordon Dam in one of the images on that site. Maybe not, but it sure looks like the classic photo looking down on that dam.

How ironic, an environmental organization using a photo of the ultimate engineering icon of the Hydro, a dam in S.W. Tas,  and saying that's where the future is.   

What next? Midnight Oil get back together and sing in support of uranium mining? John Howard returns to public life as a union leader? :

I do note though that they seem to understand very well that it takes rather a long time to cut CO2 and that we need an integrated mix of technologies to do it. Being somewhat brave for an environmental organisation, they seem willing to acknowledge that large scale hydro is part of the future, solar and wind are a long way short of total solutions and we'll still be using some coal in 30 years' time too. Right on all points in my opinion.

The calculator's still sending ridiculous amounts of data to my computer and belching CO2 in doing so by the way.


----------



## wayneL (12 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> so lemme get this straight, wayne
> 
> you’re pro-saving whales, but the fact that their feeding areas are becoming significantly  depleted partly due to reduced extent of sea-ice, (and posts that point this out, quotes typed out from Flannery’s book in many cases) are nonsense (/ nonsinse )
> 
> ...




Oh how tiresome.

My opinion is utterly consistent. Yes there are species such as whale under pressure from man's activities on this planet, but it is nothing to do with cc.

The fact that you cannot grasp, or seek to distort this very simple point, is a damning indictment. I've stated the same thing 1000 different ways yet you play the "malicious idiot" game. It reminds me of the diplomatic tactics of various despotic dictators, invent a lie and just keep spouting it.

It is totally low.


----------



## GumbyLearner (12 January 2009)

Did the WWF have a history of trying to maintain Apartheid in South Africa while using the cloak of environmentalism at the same time? 

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

In 1995, Nelson Mandela called upon the Kumleben Commission to investigate, among other things, the role of the WWF in apartheid South Africa. In the report that followed, it was suggested that mercenaries from Project Lock had planned assassinations of ANC members and that mercenaries had been running training camps in the wildlife reserves, training fighters from the anti-communist groups UNITA and Renamo. Although Prince Bernhard was never accused of any crime in its context, the Project Lock scandal dealt another damaging blow to the Prince's name.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> gg
> I see that Townsville and Cairns are copping both flooding and king tides ...
> 
> ... some lady saying today that cyclone Charlotte (having cut the Barkley Highway) was all over the place like a kid on red cordial
> ...




Most folk up here would say we are going back to the old wet seasons. 

Then again they are just plain folk who measure rainfall in a gauge, watch the skies for clues to weather, fish  and grow crops for you guys down south to eat.

They don't have the luxury of all the graphs and youtubes.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 January 2009)

Done the quiz. 2.8 Earths, most of it due to food and the house.

I'd say it's fairly reasonable overall - I've tried putting in some typical socialist-type answers (eg using more public transport) and it correctly shows that this increases overall environmental impact if all other things are equal.

Looks like I'd better stop eating and camp out in the backyard. I can still use the computer, power etc though since it correctly calculates that, for my location, that's not really an issue.

So, one centrally heated tent with broadband and a vegie garden out the back coming up...


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 January 2009)

PS btw rob, you posted 


> "Just to put you out of your misery …
> Antarctic sea ice is increasing, firmly.”




I posted 


> Rob
> Whilst I suspect your caveat "depends who you read etc" is relevant, I would disagree with your claim (I think) that there's no doubt that Antarctic seaice is increasing "firmly" ... (I assume you mean significantly).
> 
> Here's what NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center) say about the alleged trend (see the graph btw, the mean of years 2001-2008 are below average for instance). "not statistically significant"




In the subsequent posts you go on to discuss stats and variability concerning rate of increase of sea level.  (where incidentally no-one except perhaps wayne is arguing that it’s not increasing, just that there’s a dispute about a possible acceleration). 



rederob said:


> Again, the standard error can account for entire difference in sea level rate changes quoted by spooly.
> ...
> I have no problem with the odd millimeter. But (spooly) you introduced a 20% change in rates
> ...
> ...




In summary, You are the one who introduced the “Antarctic sea ice is increasing, firmly” bit. 

and I would agree with NSIDC that your observation that the extent of arctic sea-ice is increasing firmly is not a valid one.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 January 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Done the quiz. 2.8 Earths, most of it due to food and the house.
> 
> I'd say it's fairly reasonable overall - I've tried putting in some typical socialist-type answers (eg using more public transport) and it correctly shows that this increases overall environmental impact if all other things are equal.
> 
> ...




Its not as if we haven't been trying to tell you.

Your warmening data is dodgy, the calculations are dodgy and you do not bring reason into it.

If you guys hadn't been so busy burning carbon with links and youtubes this thread would have been over and done with, two cyclones ago.

gg


----------



## wayneL (12 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> (where incidentally no-one except perhaps wayne is arguing that it’s not increasing,




Another outright lie. Please reread the thread.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (12 January 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> They don't have the luxury of all the graphs and youtubes.gg



The ones that only go to year 2000 or from year 1979


----------



## Julia (12 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> then again, you are allowed (I trust) to reason something out in public.
> 
> anyone ever tell you that you have a nasty streak rob






2020hindsight said:


> PS btw rob, you posted
> 
> 
> I posted
> ...



Oh my goodness, surely we don't have the Believers squabbling amongst themselves?

Btw, 2020, on the previous page you declared you had given up coffee.
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain the relevance of this very exciting declaration to the thread?


----------



## rederob (13 January 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> PS btw rob, you posted...
> In summary, You are the one who introduced the “Antarctic sea ice is increasing, firmly” bit.
> 
> and I would agree with NSIDC that your observation that the extent of arctic (sic) sea-ice is increasing firmly is not a valid one.



I am careful in what I say.
A 30 year trend of increasing (albeit not statistically significant) sea ice extent remains in place, and is corroborated by the below table:


----------



## Calliope (13 January 2009)

Julia said:


> Oh my goodness, surely we don't have the Believers squabbling amongst themselves?




The difference between Rederob and 2020 lies in Rob's statement "I am careful in what I say."

2020's mission in life is to spread his wisdom over as many threads as possible. There aren't enough hours in the day for  him to verify all his stuff. So he uses the scattergun approach, sacrificing accuracy for volume. On this thread he is essentially an alarmist.

Rederob on the other hand is much more methodical in his approach.


----------



## wayneL (15 January 2009)

http://climatesci.org/2009/01/13/protecting-the-ipcc-turf/

Conclusion at the bottom.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 January 2009)

The usual games went on in the Australian power industry with the recent hot weather. Inefficient running, burning up oil (literally) and belching out CO2. All done in order to send prices to the moon during the warm weather and thus make a profit.

Meanwhile, the government keeps reminding me to not waste the power being so inefficiently produced. Hmm...


----------



## wayneL (16 January 2009)

More record cold in the US.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...ffer-record-cold-temperatures-plunge-40C.html


----------



## noirua (20 January 2009)

Calliope said:


> The difference between Rederob and 2020 lies in Rob's statement "I am careful in what I say."
> 
> 2020's mission in life is to spread his wisdom over as many threads as possible. There aren't enough hours in the day for  him to verify all his stuff. So he uses the scattergun approach, sacrificing accuracy for volume. On this thread he is essentially an alarmist.
> 
> Rederob on the other hand is much more methodical in his approach.



Ah yes maybe, but, 2020 is still Premier Division and most of the rest  are good sides indeed, however, all Division 3.


----------



## explod (20 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> More record cold in the US.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...ffer-record-cold-temperatures-plunge-40C.html




Yep, sure sign the polar ice cap is breaking up faster and absorbing too much of the warmth.


----------



## wayneL (20 January 2009)

explod said:


> Yep, sure sign the polar ice cap is breaking up faster and absorbing too much of the warmth.




ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

Pull up a current sat image of the polar regions. http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh _t's only slightly less than 20 years ago_. Compare any period you want

The northern polar ice cap summer minimum was on a declining trend from 1979 until 2007, that's indisputable by anybody. If there was going to be a cold effect, it would have been in the middle of this decade in the summer season.

But the last two seasons have seen a significant INCREASE in polar ice, compared to 2007.

The cold weather CANNOT be caused by melting ice when it is in fact freezing. Look to the Sun!!!!!!

As a matter of fact, look to real science not some zealot nutters talking out of their @ss.

Think what your saying explod, that's just ridiculous. There are no credible scientists talking about anything except solar activity.


----------



## rederob (20 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
> 
> Pull up a current sat image of the polar regions. http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh _t's only slightly less than 20 years ago_. Compare any period you want
> to 2007.



Explod is correct.
Areal extent is a small part of the equation.
Go to climate scientists specialising in polar regions for more detailed answers.
Arctic sea ice is thinner and "newer" than it has been, and the "freezing" periods are getting shorter.
The satellite image analogy is comparable to one of dining at a fine restaurant with 5 chefs 20 years ago, and today dining at McDonalds with as many short-order cooks, and not being able to tell the difference!


----------



## wayneL (20 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Explod is correct.
> Areal extent is a small part of the equation.
> Go to climate scientists specialising in polar regions for more detailed answers.
> Arctic sea ice is thinner and "newer" than it has been, and the "freezing" periods are getting shorter.
> The satellite image analogy is comparable to one of dining at a fine restaurant with 5 chefs 20 years ago, and today dining at McDonalds with as many short-order cooks, and not being able to tell the difference!




Rubbish, show me where this ice is breaking up in excess of the last 20 years of warmer trends.


----------



## wayneL (21 January 2009)

Rob,

All I can find is the most ridiculous propaganda and/or the most preposterously tenuous science linking the breakup of the ice cap (which is actually recovering at this point) with cold weather.

There is however a preponderance of credible science linking the recent cold with lower solar activity. 

Occam's razor would seem to apply here... with some conclusions to be drawn about the whole field of CC "science"/propaganda.


----------



## rederob (21 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Rob,
> 
> All I can find is the most ridiculous propaganda and/or the most preposterously tenuous science linking the breakup of the ice cap (which is actually recovering at this point) with cold weather.
> 
> ...



You could try reading about Arctic sea ice from the most credible source: http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Here's a snippet:


> Would 2008 break the 2007 record low summer minimum extent? Would the geographic North Pole be ice free for the first time in the satellite era?  From May through July, cooler temperatures and winds less favorable to ice loss slowed the decline in ice extent. Nevertheless, by August the rate of ice loss was much faster than average””even faster than in 2007””as the effects of a warm Arctic Ocean worked against the thin ice cover. The melt season became a race:  waning sunlight versus rapid ice loss.
> 
> Ultimately, summer 2008 finished with the second-lowest minimum extent in the satellite record, 9% above the 2007 minimum and 34% below average. A more diffuse ice cover and a thinner pack nevertheless suggested a record-low ice volume (ice area multiplied by thickness) at the end of summer.



We are now into the 2009 season and sea ice coverage is clearly doing well.  From a climate change perspective we will see if the tide is indeed turning in another 6 months - when the season is over and we can review the full data and not just areal extent.


----------



## wayneL (21 January 2009)

rederob said:


> You could try reading about Arctic sea ice from the most credible source: http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
> Here's a snippet:
> 
> We are now into the 2009 season and sea ice coverage is clearly doing well.  From a climate change perspective we will see if the tide is indeed turning in another 6 months - when the season is over and we can review the full data and not just areal extent.




Clearly then, explod's and your contention that break up of the Arctic ice cap being responsible for the recent very cold weather in the last couple of northern winters, is utter tosh.

Solar activity is where it's at, not CO2.

Now we've got this global warming hoax out of the way, let us start work on real environmental problems.


----------



## wayneL (21 January 2009)

Anthony Watts on Solar avtivity:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/13/where-have-all-the-sunspots-gone/


----------



## rederob (21 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Clearly then, explod's and your contention that break up of the Arctic ice cap being responsible for the recent very cold weather in the last couple of northern winters, is utter tosh.



I love the way you choose conclusions.
Arctic sea ice extents are likely to peak in the next month or two.
A principal of global warming is that warmer oceans give rise to greater precipitation. 
In northern climates, in winter, it is therefore most likely that snow events become more severe. 
We can corroborate this with proven increases in glacial masses in northern Europe.
There are no surprises for climate scientists with what is now happening.


----------



## wayneL (21 January 2009)

rederob said:


> I love the way you choose conclusions.
> Arctic sea ice extents are likely to peak in the next month or two.
> A principal of global warming is that warmer oceans give rise to greater precipitation.
> In northern climates, in winter, it is therefore most likely that snow events become more severe.
> ...




That's nonsense Rob. Pro AGW climate scientists are attempting to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds, with a nifty (though nonsensical) AGW causation argument for any extreme weather event.

Hotter than normal - Global warming.
Colder than normal - Global warming.
Wetter than normal - Global warming.
Drier than normal - Global warming.
More stormy than normal - Global warming.
Calmer than normal - Global warming.
Mmore hurricanes and tornadoes - Global warming.
Less hurricanes and tornadoes - Global warming.
It's just normal - Oh that's global warming too.

All the while completely ignoring natural "forcings" such as solar activity and the El Niño - La NiÃ±a cycle. 

The genuinely pleasing thing is that people are catching on to the ruse in there millions and only the committed left wing ideologues hell bent on control freakery still believe it, or at least don't have some doubts.

The game, fortunately, is up.

The genuine tragedy is, as I have predicted, that genuine cases of anthropogenic environmental damage is completely ignored and folks now doubt ALL environmental concerns.


----------



## rederob (21 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> That's nonsense Rob.



You and ducati should get together.
There will continue to be "extreme" weather events, irrespective of global warming.
However, the present northern winter is breaking very few historical records (I'm not aware of any, but I haven't searched deeply yet).
As for "natural forcings" you refer to, they are locked into established data for what they are worth. Unfortunately they are "ephemeral" from a long term climate perspective.  Unlike the pent up effects of many man-emitted greenhouse gases which take years to decades before any observable impact is apparent. And then remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries: Accumulating steadily until action to change the balance is in place.

On the environmental front I am in 100% agreement with you. 
Here also we are experiencing the effect of inaction on known impending disasters on dozens of fronts.  And here also we have powerful vested interests stamping on "environmentalists" at every opportunity.
Taking the world's oceans as a case in point, find a country that has a government agency out there helping clean them up?  Typically it's left to a few NGOs or concerned individuals to spring into action, but to little avail given the scale of the problem and the limit of their resources.


----------



## SBH (21 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Hotter than normal - Global warming.
> Colder than normal - Global warming.
> Wetter than normal - Global warming.
> Drier than normal - Global warming.
> ...


----------



## wayneL (21 January 2009)

SBH said:


> Yeah thats why its climate change. Not global warming...global warming being the term preferred by big oil and coal because it sounds so nice. Ahhhhhh warming what could be wrong with that!
> 
> It still amazes me how many sceptics are out there. People with their head up their arrse with no idea what they are talking about. To think you know more than the 1000s of scientists all over the world who have studied this and tracked the unfolding disaster for decades.
> 
> ...




Jesus!

It that the best quality straw man argument + ad hominem slur you can come up with. 

Seriously sub-standard  both intellectually a argumentatively there SBH. 

You will have to lift your game if you want to be regarded as a true GW junk science klaxon.

LOL


----------



## explod (21 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
> 
> Pull up a current sat image of the polar regions. http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh _t's only slightly less than 20 years ago_. Compare any period you want
> 
> ...




Satellite images do not show the underlying, only the recent surface snow, as you say "WHAT CAN BE SEEN".  And selective shots at stratiegic times can distort the appearence even further.    

And the only credible scientists are the ones that agree with your hypothesis.   Have a read of "The fifth extinction" the physical evidence from actual ice samples going back millions of years has been well documented and substantiated the effects of the current ice sheet melting since mid 20th century.


----------



## wayneL (21 January 2009)

explod said:


> Satellite images do not show the underlying, only the recent surface snow, as you say "WHAT CAN BE SEEN".  And selective shots at stratiegic times can distort the appearence even further.
> 
> And the only credible scientists are the ones that agree with your hypothesis.   Have a read of "The fifth extinction" the physical evidence from actual ice samples going back millions of years has been well documented and substantiated the effects of the current ice sheet melting since mid 20th century.




There is one thing missing from your hypothesis... THE SCIENCE.

Where's the science linking recent cold weather with melting ice and not solar activity and/or La NiÃ±a. 

Let's get real eh?


----------



## basilio (22 January 2009)

Just a brief foray to enter some factual information into this discussion.




> *Scientists solve enigma of Antarctic 'cooling'*
> Research 'kills off' climate sceptic argument by showing average temperature across the continent has risen over the last 50 years
> 
> * Damian Carrington
> ...




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/21/global-warming-antarctica


----------



## Pat (22 January 2009)

basilio said:


> Just a brief foray to enter some factual information into this discussion.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/21/global-warming-antarctica



And more...
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24946650-401,00.html

The blah blah blah in this thread reinforces the FACT that we just don't know.


----------



## wayneL (22 January 2009)

Pat said:


> And more...
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24946650-401,00.html
> 
> The blah blah blah in this thread reinforces the FACT that we just don't know.



From the article:



> Aussie house prices under threat










I expect this will be shot down in flames once it is analyzed. I already see some gaping holes in logic.


----------



## wayneL (22 January 2009)

Bloggers are already poking holes through the wafer thin credibility of this

http://australianclimatemadness.blogspot.com/2009/01/another-antarctic-scare-story.html

It's :bs:


----------



## spooly74 (22 January 2009)

Pat said:


> And more...
> 
> The blah blah blah in this thread reinforces the FACT that we just don't know.



Of course we do. 

Here is an story last year from RealClimate.org ... Climate Science from Climate Scientists.



> Antarctica is Cold? Yeah, We Knew That
> 
> Despite the recent announcement that the discharge from some Antarctic glaciers is accelerating, we often hear people remarking that parts of Antarctica are getting colder, and indeed the ice pack in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica has actually been getting bigger. Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? *Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict… and have predicted for the past quarter century*.




http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold/



wayneL said:


> I expect this will be shot down in flames once it is analyzed. I already see some gaping holes in logic.






> Hockey Team Plays in Antarctica
> 
> Some names to conjure with there, including Rutherford and Mann who are part of the ‘Hockey Team’ involved in the infamous ‘Hockey Stick’ graph saga. So who better to call on when much of Antarctica isn’t playing ball with global warming. But wait! There is more fun to be had here - Real Climate, which includes Michael Mann, have previously said, “A cold Antarctica and Southern Ocean do not contradict our models of global warming.” You just can’t lose when playing the ‘consistent with climate models’ game can you!? Presumably, the findings of this new paper don’t contradict climate models either.




http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/01/hockey-team-plays-in-antarctica/


----------



## Pat (22 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Bloggers are already poking holes through the wafer thin credibility of this
> 
> http://australianclimatemadness.blogspot.com/2009/01/another-antarctic-scare-story.html
> 
> It's :bs:



Wafer thin? I assume this is your professional opinion?


----------



## basilio (22 January 2009)

Re New Evidence of warming in the Antartic 



> Bloggers are already poking holes through the wafer thin credibility of this
> 
> http://australianclimatemadness.blog...are-story.html
> 
> It's




One  derisory blogger from a skeptical website overcomes the analysis of a scientific team  whose whole expertise is examining and measuring temperatures.

Well done Wayne. Up to your usual standards.


----------



## Pat (22 January 2009)

basilio said:


> Re New Evidence of warming in the Antartic
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We're all experts Basilio


----------



## explod (22 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> There is one thing missing from your hypothesis... THE SCIENCE.
> 
> Where's the science linking recent cold weather with melting ice and not solar activity and/or La NiÃ±a.
> 
> Let's get real eh?




The science is in the actual examination of core samples of Antartic ice which show that the ice level has melted to areas that have been covered for many millions of years.   Actual scientifically examined and handled from location to laboritory.   And did you read the authentic notes to it in the book quoted.  Unfortunately my own copy has been lent on and not returned.   Library should have it.   Or s/h on google. 

The science to recent activitiy is not yet available as you would well know.   And La nina is a right wing description of global warming efffects, created to confuse the sheeple, and it does.   

Used to be right into this stuff years ago, too busy now stirring up sketptics to reality.


----------



## wayneL (22 January 2009)

explod said:


> The science is in the actual examination of core samples of Antartic ice which show that the ice level has melted to areas that have been covered for many millions of years.   Actual scientifically examined and handled from location to laboritory.   And did you read the authentic notes to it in the book quoted.  Unfortunately my own copy has been lent on and not returned.   Library should have it.   Or s/h on google.
> 
> The science to recent activitiy is not yet available as you would well know.   And La nina is a right wing description of global warming efffects, created to confuse the sheeple, and it does.
> 
> Used to be right into this stuff years ago, too busy now stirring up sketptics to reality.



In other words - pure speculation based on.... nothing.

...and la nina is a right wing invention? WAHAHAHAHAHAHA Google it.


----------



## wayneL (22 January 2009)

basilio said:


> Re New Evidence of warming in the Antartic
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes, and that standard is requiring evidence that hasn't been "modeled" to obtain a specific result. But I note that you can not dis his analysis. 

There are teams of scientists trying to prove young earth creation too. They release research "proving" it all the time. That doesn't mean some intelligent person can't come along and rightfully punch holes through the faulted logic and fraudulent science.

My standards are apparently... in fact are, higher than your standards, on a number of levels.


----------



## wayneL (22 January 2009)

OK I thought Roger Pielke (an honest broker and real scientist) would comment on this matter sooner or later.

Pielke is in the pro AGW camp, but but does not abide by the junk science spewed forth by muppets on the funding gravy train. He has my full respect.

http://climatesci.org/2009/01/21/fo...dy-antarctica-joins-rest-of-globe-in-warming/



> An AP article was released today which reports on a Nature paper on a finding of warming over much of Antarctica. I was asked by Seth Borenstein to comment on the paper (which he sent to me). I have been critical of his reporting in the past, but except for the title of the article (which as I understand is created by others), he presented a balanced summary of the study.
> 
> My reply to Seth is given below.
> 
> ...


----------



## basilio (23 January 2009)

There is more discussion on the the Nature report on the warming of Antarctica.

A couple of the co-authors have addressed some of the interpretations that have been made  by Roger and others.

Main points are quoted below. The remainder of the discussion is at Real climate. 



> A couple of us (Eric and Mike) are co-authors on a paper coming out in Nature this week (Jan. 22, 09). We have already seen misleading interpretations of our results in the popular press and the blogosphere, and so we thought we would nip such speculation in the bud.
> 
> The paper shows that Antarctica has been warming for the last 50 years, and that it has been warming especially in West Antarctica (see the figure). The results are based on a statistical blending of satellite data and temperature data from weather stations. The results don't depend on the statistics alone. They are backed up by independent data from automatic weather stations, as shown in our paper as well as in updated work by Bromwich, Monaghan and others (see their AGU abstract, here), whose earlier work in JGR was taken as contradicting ours. There is also a paper in press in Climate Dynamics (Goosse et al.) that uses a GCM with data assimilation (and without the satellite data we use) and gets the same result. *Furthermore, speculation that our results somehow simply reflect changes in the near-surface inversion is ruled out by completely independent results showing that significant warming in West Antarctica extends well into the troposphere.* *And finally, our results have already been validated by borehole thermometery ”” a completely independent method ”” at at least one site in West Antarctica (Barrett et al. report the same rate of warming as we do, but going back to 1930 rather than 1957; see the paper in press in GRL).*
> 
> ...




http://www.realclimate.org/


----------



## explod (23 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> In other words - pure speculation based on




Cunningly you continue to ignore the solid facts and attack the asides.   The results of the core sample testing were concluded (and documented) back in the mid 1990s.    They prove that the effect/impact of co2 on the icepacks has been unprecedented in millions of years.   And I have quoted the source and anyone earnestly interested would check it out.   

I get the feeling that you are not.  But unless you do, you cannot rubbish the research in this instance.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
> 
> Pull up a current sat image of the polar regions. http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh _t's only slightly less than 20 years ago_. Compare any period you want
> 
> ...




The warmeners in ABC Radio have now gone so far as to censor any expert who dares to question the GW "science".

Bill Kinnimoth from the CSIRO had parts of the transcript and a podcast censored by the ABC following an interview on ABC Radio.

He disagreed with the godbothering like orthodoxy as delivered via scientists and aunty, so they censor him.

What a great democracy we live in.

http://www.blogotariat.com/item/mod...ng-and-editor-removes-comment-climate-sceptic


gg


----------



## ghotib (23 January 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The warmeners in ABC Radio have now gone so far as to censor any expert who dares to question the GW "science".
> 
> Bill Kinnimoth from the CSIRO had parts of the transcript and a podcast censored by the ABC following an interview on ABC Radio.
> 
> ...



Except that the audio of the interview with Kininmonth is now available on the ABC AM website http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2471659.htm, and Kininmonth says that he hasn't read the Nature paper in detail. The AM piece is about the paper and it's entirely appropriate to exclude comments from someone, even an expert, who hasn't read it. I should think Kininmonth himself would have preferred to wait till he'd done a detailed analysis. 

Ghoti


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 January 2009)

ghotib said:


> Except that the audio of the interview with Kininmonth is now available on the ABC AM website http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2471659.htm, and Kininmonth says that he hasn't read the Nature paper in detail. The AM piece is about the paper and it's entirely appropriate to exclude comments from someone, even an expert, who hasn't read it. I should think Kininmonth himself would have preferred to wait till he'd done a detailed analysis.
> 
> Ghoti




Its heartening to know that the ABC monitor ASF and respond quickly when they are caught out.

A good outcome.

gg


----------



## wayneL (24 January 2009)

From the US Senate committee on Environment and Public works:

Scientists, Data Challenge New Antarctic ‘Warming’ Study 

_‘It is hard to make data where none exist’ _

Comprehensive Data Round Up Debunks New Antarctic ‘Estimate of Temperature Trends’ 

*MR EXPLOD,*



> Cunningly you continue to ignore the solid facts and attack the asides. The results of the core sample testing were concluded (and documented) back in the mid 1990s. They prove that the effect/impact of co2 on the icepacks has been unprecedented in millions of years. And I have quoted the source and anyone earnestly interested would check it out.
> 
> I get the feeling that you are not. But unless you do, you cannot rubbish the research in this instance.




All I want is some science, where is this source you speak of?... provide a flipping link that supports your hypothesis and how it relates to recent cold weather.Then you can stop the revolting attempted character assassination.

It seems you warmers can't debate anything without playing the man. It's vile. (actually it usually means the hypothesis is collapsing, which in this case, it most certainly is)


----------



## lucas (24 January 2009)

Wow! You guys really don't believe in global warming! This is amazing!

Aussie Stocks Forums - meet - Fox News! Hannity wins! OMG it's worse than I thought.

Are you all seriously contending that the major world countries are deluding themselves, wasting billions of dollars no-one has any more, to right a crisis that doesn't exist?


----------



## basilio (25 January 2009)

> Wow! You guys really don't believe in global warming! This is amazing!
> 
> Aussie Stocks Forums - meet - Fox News! Hannity wins! OMG it's worse than I thought.
> 
> Are you all seriously contending that the major world countries are deluding themselves, wasting billions of dollars no-one has any more, to right a crisis that doesn't exist?




*And exactly what is wrong with choosing to believe exactly what you want to believe Lucas ???*  Lots of Very Important People,  businessmen ( funnily enough many in coal and oil) , many politicians,  Fox reporters, just believe - with every dollar in their pocket- that we can grow our way out of everything. They believe that Global warming is a self serving myth of thousands of scientists with their snouts in the public trough. That the  ice is not melting (that much ) and anyway whatever is happening *we are not responsible *.

This was particularly well summed up by a senior Bush advisor who noted that a  particular writer belonged to the "reality-based community" which the advisor said "believed that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality ".

But that was no longer true because "we're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality"

This is the real, delusional world Lucas. And yes Aussie Stock Forum proudly has its own intellectual giants who will insist to the last post on the centerpiece of creating a more comfortable reality - global warming denial.

By the way did you see the story from Jonathan Schell on Barack Obama in The Age ? I pinched the above excerpt re the Bush advisor from the article. The rest is just the ravings of a madman who wants Barack to tackle real problems with real solutions..... 

http://www.theage.com.au/world/cometh-the-man-of-hope-20090123-7ood.html?page=-1


----------



## wayneL (25 January 2009)

*Basilio,*

Actually, the group deepest into denial, are the global warming alarmists.

What have the AGWers got? A computer model that doesn't work. That's it. It's OK to have a model and to hypothesize over scenarios, but where they fall down is that they preach it as fact. 

Sorry mate, real world observation, AKA "fact", trumps a computer model every time. The observable facts are that the IPCC model is not working, it has failed, miserably and utterly to be predictive of anything it is attempting to model; from air temperatures at various atmospheric levels, ice levels at the poles, ocean temps... everything.

AGWers have even taken to destruction of their own model via fiascos such as the current Antarctic temperature farce. It's laughable.

Take for instance the denial of the warmers that solar activity has nothing to do with warming/colling trends, but when activity decreases.... SHAZAM! The world goes into a cool phase just like now. They then try to say that melting ice caps are causing the cooling, 'cept the arctic ice cap is having an uptick at the moment, ice is *increasing* since 2007. Antarctic ice has always been increasing since satellite records have been taken. Haha, scratch that theory.  

The problem with the warmers is that they don't like reading ALL the science. I will readily accept that non-warmers do the same, but there are a few who do, such as Roger Pielke(a pro warmer) - and they have serious challenges with how junk science is being used by Al bore and the IPCC.

In other words in the real world, anthropogenic CO2 increasesmay have some affect on climate, but if it does, it is minor and other natural forcings are more influential.

As it stands AGW is not a proven fact.

It is not even a theory.

It is a hypothesis only.

The world is right to study it and should reduce fossil fuel use anyway for other reasons such as hydrocarbon  and soot pollution etc and energy security. 

But to convert it to a neat little political tool of fear and control is quite another matter. This will in the long term will be counterproductive for the environment. Folks are waking up to the fraud/ruse and are rejecting all environmental arguments as a consequence (as I predicted).

*Lucas,*

That is the truth of the matter and if you take notice the warmers, because of a dearth of credible scientific argument, must resort to ad hominem insults, straw man arguments, appeal to authority and other glaring logical fallacies that in the cold light of day, just don't stand up scientifically.

There are straight out "deniers" but these are no worse than the farcical Al Bore movie that is about as scientifically accurate as Bruce Willis' "Armageddon". Both movies are great entertainment, but nothing more.


----------



## basilio (26 January 2009)

I originally entered this debate with a constructive approach to the discussion. I took a lot of care to research and explain how CO2 warms the atmosphere and that increasing the amount of CO2 will hold more and more heat.

Moving on we now have 40 years of clear evidence that the earth is warming. This is the proof of the theory. This evidence has been sufficient to convince the vast majority of scientists working in the field that we face a situation that requires  immediate, huge reductions in CO2 emissions if we are to have any chance of of avoiding changes to our climate that would destroy  the habits of millions of species - and obviously us as well.

One of the other critical conversations was examining the background of the people who posed the most critical responses to the work of scientists. I showed that a substantial part of this criticism was simply created by advertising agencies on behalf of firstly tobacco and then fossil fuel companies. So why would you give such sources any credence?

The response has been short and swift. All these scientists are on a GW gravy train. The world is not warming, the ice is not melting, and if there is any climate change it certainly isn't caused by  human produced CO2. 

*And anything that is written on the topic by The Guardian, New Scientist, or god forbid George Monbiot, is rubbish. *(Somehow the fact that all the information on the source of GW criticism came from the perpetrators was overlooked..)

And for God's sake stop taking up so much space....

I don't think it's possible to rationally discuss this topic with that range of responses.

There is no suggestion that the whole story of GW is simple. There are many factors. *But what is certain is that one factor, the extra CO2 emission  which we are largely responsible for,  is currently destroying the habitability of our earth. *Ignoring it or denying it or rubbishing the messengers won't change the reality. That's why I brought up Jonathan Schells extremely powerful argument on the delusions our current political system  accepts particularly during the recent 8 years of Bush presidency.

The science on GW is nuanced. If anyone takes the trouble to go to RealClimate.org the can judge for themselves the toing and froing that takes place on each piece of research. I've posted a simple example in relation to the discussion of the paper which examined warming in the Antarctic. 



> *On many occasions on this site it’s been said that cooling in Antartica is consistent with AGW, as the models show etc…. Now it appears that a warming Antarctica is also consistent with AGW. I am curious to know, is there any kind of change in temperature down there which would invalidate the AGW thesis?*
> 
> [Response:*Why do the critics think that everything is so simple and binary, for example that we can lump all anthropogenic forcings into a simple “AGW” forcing. Guess what, its not that simple.* There are multiple anthropogenic forcings that have quite different impacts (e.g. anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases, aerosols, land-use changes and, yes, stratospheric ozone depletion). Anyone who follows the science is of course aware of this.
> 
> ...


----------



## rederob (26 January 2009)

I've challenged Wayne numerous times to support some of the links he posts, to no avail.
Roger Pielke who is a good scientist, is also a not picker - which has merit in some instances.  However, he's not enamored by CO2 forcing arguments and puts more faith in sea temperature and other anthropogenic factors.  Pielke also argues strongly in favour of more localised forecasting needs, and more localised climate change responses.
Pielke's approach has some interesting pitfalls.  First, he knows that IPCC models are not predictive of local climate, but he has no solution: Knowing full well that only meteorological models have a predictive capacity for the very near term.  In other words, the probability of a weather prediction being significantly different than forecast a week in advance, is high. 
While ocean temperatures clearly have an important role to play in weather, and in climate for several years ahead, radiative forcings from greenhouse gases have a long term "magnifying" effect.  That is, irrespective of any other influences, if the proportion of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere continues to increase, the troposphere will, on average, continue to get hotter.
Climate change deniers who hark on about the shortcomings of IPCC models, or modelling per se, are simply clutching at straws on the "forcings" front.  
And Wayne, who places great faith on the area of sea ice at the poles, continues to overlook the importance of ice volumes.
I won't get into the Antarctic debate. I understand how the scientists proxied data to arrive at their conclusions.  The fact is that without actual temperature records (which some would want to challenge anyway) at the locations they proxied, we will never know if they were right or wrong.


----------



## wayneL (26 January 2009)

Rederob,

Why should I support the links *I* post. You don't, and nor should you. Science should support itself and be able to counter objections on its own merit.

The problem is that warmers don't appreciate *valid* objections nor countering science (appreciating that some objection is rubbish). Instead warmers as a group resort to tearing down personal credibility of dissenters via the tactics in my post immediately prior to this one.

E.g. Basilio, while taking on a thin veneer of reasonableness, subtly continues with this same logically fallacious agenda of dodging the big science picture and focuses on character assassination. Meanwhile, the vested interests of his own lobby is glossed over and ignored. If you look closely, he even contradicts his own logic

In the end, what's real is real. The reality is not conforming to the model, therefore the model should be discarded. It's rubbish.


----------



## rederob (26 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> In the end, what's real is real. The reality is not conforming to the model, therefore the model should be discarded. It's rubbish.



In the end, what is real is a warming earth.
To which climate change deniers find more and more creative ways of obfuscating.
In the end, I support the links I post.
Your denial of that is unsurprising given the lack of credibility of much you post.


----------



## Calliope (26 January 2009)

Greenies do crazy things, but I don't think even Bob Brown would do this;

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...22_woman_bites_driver_over_nonhybrid_bus.html


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> *Basilio,*
> The world is right to study it and should reduce fossil fuel use anyway for other reasons such as hydrocarbon  and soot pollution etc and *energy security*.



One of my primary concerns with the response to climate change (ignoring the "does it exist" arguments) is the widespread call for a shift from coal to natural gas. 

With just 3 countries, Russia, Iran and Qatar, dominating world reserves whilst UK, US etc production is in decline that rings more than a few alarm bells for me. At best, the OECD countries will end up in the dark with wrecked economies. At worst, here comes WW3 when someone cuts off supply or sends the price to the moon.

The situation with gas, in the long term, is one of greater geographic concentration than even oil. The Saudi's claim about a quarter of world oil reserves and about 10% of production. The Russians have over 40% of the world's gas. There's a rather large geopolitical risk if we try and run just about everything on it. 

If the calls were for nuclear, geothermal and, where available, hydro and other renewables to replace coal then I'd be far more comfortable with the whole argument. Trouble is, environmentalists have spent a few decades violently opposing two of those so don't have too much room to move.


----------



## spooly74 (26 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Climate change deniers who hark on about the shortcomings of IPCC models, or modelling per se, are simply clutching at straws on the "forcings" front.



Firstly, what is a climate change denier so we all understand who/what you are referring to?

Secondly, don't the current IPCC models already include radiative forcings with their current predicted temperature increases (2C century/0.2C decade)?

Considering we've observed less than half the predicted warming, I'd hardly say climate change deniers (whatever the hell that is) are clutching at straws.


----------



## wayneL (26 January 2009)

rederob said:


> In the end, what is real is a warming earth.
> To which climate change deniers find more and more creative ways of obfuscating.
> In the end, I support the links I post.
> Your denial of that is unsurprising given the lack of credibility of much you post.



This line of argument is bizarre. I really don't know what your point is.

I could give a flying **** whether you or I support any links posted.

What I care about are facts and this is where models come unstuck... when facts fail to support the model. The incontrovertible truth is that the IPCC model doesn't work. Therefore, the entire AGW hypothesis is in trouble.

There is no requirement for obfuscation from climate realists to point this out, in fact what we are doing is eschewing obfuscation to bring forth the apolitical truth.


----------



## ghotib (26 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> What I care about are facts and this is where models come unstuck... when facts fail to support the model. The incontrovertible truth is that the IPCC model doesn't work. Therefore, the entire AGW hypothesis is in trouble.



The IPCC data distribution centre provides links to the outputs from 23 climate models used in the 2007 report. Which one do you mean?

Ghoti (puzzled)


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> There is no requirement for obfuscation from climate realists to point this out, in fact what we are doing is eschewing obfuscation to bring forth the *apolitical* truth.



This is a political debate just like taxation, health and fixing the roads are political debates. Science has very, very little to do with it and that's the problem.


----------



## rederob (26 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> What I care about are facts and this is where models come unstuck... when facts fail to support the model. The incontrovertible truth is that the IPCC model doesn't work. Therefore, the entire AGW hypothesis is in trouble.



It's a "model".
Actually, there are many versions of the model.
They attempt to replicate the affects of a wide range of parameters.
The model does not change observed data.
The long term trends are well established.
The models "fit" historical trends reasonably well, and are getting more sophisticated.
They make no attempt to provide "weather" forecasts.
Make of the models what you will.  The underpinning science is not likely to change.


----------



## Largesse (26 January 2009)

potentially hottest week in the last 107 years this week

must be global warming...... 


or it could just be a hot week...... 

i'm going to move to New Zealand, i heard they don't have global warming as badly over there


----------



## wayneL (26 January 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> This is a political debate just like taxation, health and fixing the roads are political debates. Science has very, very little to do with it and that's the problem.




Amen Smurf.

But somewhere in between all the rhetoric, hyberbole, misinformation, lies and distortions, is the the scientific truth, or some facsimile of it anyway.

ghoti and rederob,

"The model" is a generic term for the IPCC's apocalyptic, cash generating scaremongering, AGW hypothesis. It is analogous the way I use the term model in relation to options. It serves as a proxy for all models when talking generically.

The fact that there is 5, 27, or 127 of them only serves to illustrate the nonsense of "tipping points", predictions of sea level rises that just aren't happening (in excess of the linear trend of the last two centuries) and other scaremongering predictions that IPCC scientists purport as fact and inevitable.

FFS what is wrong with the common sense approach of cleaning up our act on a host of other real, measurable and imminently damaging environmental issues, with the reduction of co2 as a by product? 

Ah yes.... the politics... the politics


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> FFS what is wrong with the common sense approach of cleaning up our act on a host of other real, measurable and imminently damaging environmental issues, with the reduction of co2 as a by product?
> 
> Ah yes.... the politics... the politics



The other issues can, in most cases, be addressed without a paradigm shift in the global economic and political order. Not so with CO2, hence it offers political and economic potential (for some) that no other issue offers.


----------



## ghotib (26 January 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> This is a political debate just like taxation, health and fixing the roads are political debates. Science has very, very little to do with it and that's the problem.



Certainly this thread has very little to do with science. That's obvious from the title. There are real scientific disciplines of meteorology and climatology and the real scientists - including those who dispute the details of anthropogenic global warming - seem find the distinction useful. Probably political debate would find it useful too <sigh>

Ghoti


----------



## Julia (26 January 2009)

Largesse said:


> i'm going to move to New Zealand, i heard they don't have global warming as badly over there



Then you will be miserable with the cold.  If we were to ever genuinely have global warming and NZ were to participate in it, then I could go back there to live.  Meantime, it's far more cold than when I was a kid there.


----------



## ghotib (27 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> "The model" is a generic term for the IPCC's apocalyptic, cash generating scaremongering, AGW hypothesis. It is analogous the way I use the term model in relation to options. It serves as a proxy for all models when talking generically.



Yabbut Wayne, a proxy generic term is not the science. The science of the IPCC report is 23 different models of different parts of the climate system, what differences in their results indicate about where better data is needed, what further work is needed to improve the models themselves, whether and where different models yield the same outcomes, and so on. 


> The fact that there is 5, 27, or 127 of them only serves to illustrate the nonsense of "tipping points", predictions of sea level rises that just aren't happening (in excess of the linear trend of the last two centuries) and other scaremongering predictions that IPCC scientists purport as fact and inevitable.



I think it serves to illustrate that understanding the climate system of the entire planet is a very hard problem that is being tackled in many different ways. Reconciling them is part of finding the answers, and publishing the failures and the differences is part of normal scientific process. 


> FFS what is wrong with the common sense approach of cleaning up our act on a host of other real, measurable and imminently damaging environmental issues, with the reduction of co2 as a by product?



Completely agree. Also that reducing CO2 emissions should have the highly desirable by product of cleaning up a host of other real, measurable and imminently damaging environmental issues. 

Wayne, I started seriously reading about climate and climate change after you posted the link to The Great Global Warming Swindle. I watched that and then I started researching as best I could within the limits of my small and amateur scientific training. I wish very much that my investigations had turned up evidence that nothing much has changed in the last hundred years or so, or that the changes are within normal variability. But they haven't. Instead it seems that evidence from many different directions - not just climatology but plant and animal behaviour, disease patterns, ocean chemistry, and more - indicates that human activity is making the planet unable to support human civilisation as we have known it. I don't really care if why we change the way we live as long as we do it.

So I'm going to switch off my computer and all the lights and go to bed.


----------



## wayneL (27 January 2009)

ghotib said:


> Yabbut Wayne, a proxy generic term is not the science. The science of the IPCC report is 23 different models of different parts of the climate system, what differences in their results indicate about where better data is needed, what further work is needed to improve the models themselves, whether and where different models yield the same outcomes, and so on.




Semantical arguments aside, which are a waste of time, there must be a theme or scientific narrative that draws all these models together into a cohesive  hypothesis. That narrative is that MM industrial gases, particularly co2, are causing the climate to gradually heat up.



> I think it serves to illustrate that understanding the climate system of the entire planet is a very hard problem that is being tackled in many different ways. Reconciling them is part of finding the answers, and publishing the failures and the differences is part of normal scientific process.



Your statement here underlines why the AGW hypothesis is still only a hypothesis... not even a valid theory. Furthermore, it underlines the idiocy of Al Bore and his cohorts in claiming AGW as irrefutable fact... tipping points and other such scaremongering nonsense.

Look! As I've stated a hundred times; it is a valid hypothesis, we should be aware/concerned that human industrial activity may be having an impact on global climate. Let's get to the bottom of it.

But the sad truth is that only theses that promote the idea of anthropogenic CC are encouraged and funded and those that go against the hypothesis are rejected, unfunded, ignored, attacked and politically marginalized.

THIS IS NOT SCIENCE. 

The truth is that despite the disadvantage that dissenting science suffers, observations are coming from everywhere that refute the IPCC hypothesis. But instead of changing the hypothesis to suit new data. new data is changed or ignored to suit the hypothesis.

THIS IS NOT SCIENCE EITHER.

More and more people are becoming aware of the ruse, but instead of isolating the IPCC ruse and accepting more valid concerns, the great unwashed has learned to mistrust the entire environmental movement.

People no-longer just bag the Al Bore fraud, they don't trust us Great Blue Tit savers either



> Completely agree. Also that reducing CO2 emissions should have the highly desirable by product of cleaning up a host of other real, measurable and imminently damaging environmental issues.



That's true, but the effect is only partial. Only pollution involving co2 is reduced. The other way round, all pollution is attacked, including those involving co2 (itself not a pollution).



> Wayne, I started seriously reading about climate and climate change after you posted the link to The Great Global Warming Swindle. I watched that and then I started researching as best I could within the limits of my small and amateur scientific training. I wish very much that my investigations had turned up evidence that nothing much has changed in the last hundred years or so, or that the changes are within normal variability. But they haven't. Instead it seems that evidence from many different directions - not just climatology but plant and animal behaviour, disease patterns, ocean chemistry, and more - indicates that human activity is making the planet unable to support human civilisation as we have known it. I don't really care if why we change the way we live as long as we do it.
> 
> So I'm going to switch off my computer and all the lights and go to bed.




Yes well, everything depends on where you source your information. To get a truly balanced view, you have to at least take in the opposing argument.

Nobody is questioning the trend of warming that has been in place since the last ice age, but the argument as to the reason for it is by no means settled, as is claimed by the pro lobby.


----------



## rederob (27 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Yes well, everything depends on where you source your information. To get a truly balanced view, you have to at least take in the opposing argument.



I've carefully looked at the opposing arguments.  They seldom measure up.
For example, last December (2008) a paper was to be presented at the AGU's fall meeting which looked like providing a dissenting view on climate change.  The paper was withdrawn, so I followed the links back from the abstract to see why.  In very simple terms there was no rigor to the science.  There was "science" within the paper, but nothing particularly coherent when linked to its conclusions.
Despite the above, climate denying media and websites trot out his work as yet another example of why the IPCC have got it wrong.  Remember, this was just over a month ago!  
There is also a view that money only goes to pro-climate change science.  In fact, some astonishing figures are bandied about.  Governments do fund science, and have done for a very long time.  So does the private sector.  In fact, the best paid jobs are in the private sector.
Given the profitability of oil/gas/coal companies you might think they would be out there funding scientific research that demonstrably refuted the IPCC's findings, and were submitting these papers to regular and rigorous peer review.  You might think that.
Instead, the wealthy CO2 emitting substance producers are involved in the very same tactics that let them battle on ozone depletion many years back.
Little surprise, some key scientists for the chlorofluorocarbon camp are today engaged in the "science" of climate change denial.  Maybe they think they are on a winner this time.


----------



## wayneL (27 January 2009)

rederob said:


> I've carefully looked at the opposing arguments.  They seldom measure up.
> For example, last December (2008) a paper was to be presented at the AGU's fall meeting which looked like providing a dissenting view on climate change.  The paper was withdrawn, so I followed the links back from the abstract to see why.  In very simple terms there was no rigor to the science.  There was "science" within the paper, but nothing particularly coherent when linked to its conclusions.




Oh Rob,

Your whole premise is that therefore the pro argument does measure up... LOL.... it doesn't.

I can give an even more recent example.. the Antarctic temperature extrapolation of only last week. It should never have seen the light of day and only survives because the pro AGW forces (eg The Guardian - AKA the Labour Party News) refuse to publish the embarrassing deconstructions of the (non) science.

Heck, they are even still using the discredited hockey stick graph.


----------



## rederob (27 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Oh Rob,
> 
> Your whole premise is that therefore the pro argument does measure up... LOL.... it doesn't.
> 
> ...



I think the above response reflects your inadequacy in this whole saga.
The Antarctic temperature "interpolation" has not been debunked.
Certainly, many are questioning its veracity.
And it got more attention than this paper 8years ago:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/....1175/1520-0442(2001)014<1977:DLCIWA>2.0.CO;2
Even the "hockey stick" holds true at many levels, despite climate change deniers using this attack at every opportunity in the hope that unthinking people will jump on their bandwagon.

When you show me which of the "Antarctic" data are erroneous or fabricated, we might have something more to discuss.  In the meantime their results are "out there" for the scientific world to ponder or fault.  
I'll take that community's opinion a bit more seriously than any tribe of cretins that shoot first and ask questions later.


----------



## basilio (27 January 2009)

What are the main arguments that skeptics bring up against the climate change being real? And what is the response to these queries? It seems really easy to make a  confident, sweeping generalisation that "Al Gore got it wrong" or "The models don't work" and then expect the audience to accept that 99.9% of scientists who are studying global warming  are barking up the wrong planet (let alone tree.)

As usual there is an excellent website which details each and every objection and explains why it is either misleading, inappropriate or just plain stupid. FYI I have attached part of the list and the site.

Cheers

PS I am quite heartened that this discussion has become more thoughtful in past few posts

*Skeptic Arguments*

This is a list of every skeptic argument encountered online as well as how often each argument is used. How this is calculated...

1 		It's the sun 			7.8% 				
2 		Climate's changed before 	7.0% 				
3 		There is no consensus 		6.1% 				
4 		It's cooling 			        5.1% 				
5 		Models are unreliable 		4.6% 				
6 		Surface temp is unreliable 	4.5% 				
7 		Ice age predicted in the 70s 	3.8% 				
8 		We're heading into an ice age 3.6% 			
9 		It hasn't warmed since 1998 	3.5% 				
10 		Al Gore got it wrong 		3.2% 				
11 		CO2 lags temperature 		3.2% 				
12 		Global warming is good 		3.1% 				
13 		Antarctica is cooling/gaining ice 		3.0% 				
14 		Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming 2.7% 				
15 		It's freaking cold! 			2.6% 			
16 		Mars is warming 			2.5% 				
17 		1934 - hottest year on record 		2.4% 			
18 		It's cosmic rays 			2.3% 				
19 		Urban Heat Island effect exaggerates warming  				
20 		Greenland was green 			1.8% 			
21 		Other planets are warming 			1.8% 			
22 		Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas  	

http://www.skepticalscience.com/


----------



## wayneL (28 January 2009)

basilio said:


> What are the main arguments that skeptics bring up against the climate change being real? And what is the response to these queries? It seems really easy to make a  confident, sweeping generalisation that "Al Gore got it wrong" or "The models don't work" and then expect the audience to accept that 99.9% of scientists who are studying global warming  are barking up the wrong planet (let alone tree.)
> 
> As usual there is an excellent website which details each and every objection and explains why it is either misleading, inappropriate or just plain stupid. FYI I have attached part of the list and the site.
> 
> ...




[sigh] 

Ask a bunch of people in a pub and you'll get these sorts of satirical contructs easily. I could easily ask a bunch of people in a pub and get equally asinine answers why we'll all be swimming in boiling seas in about 3 1/2 weeks if we don't stop driving our cars.

LOL Ridiculous.

I give up. I give a little in the debate to approach the real truth of either anthropogenic or natural climate change, but you lot in your zealotry refuse to reciprocate. Therefore the chance of an intelligent debate here is zero. It's like arguing politics with revolutionaries. 

Look! Good luck to you, buy a house on high ground, bid for government funding, lecture your colleagues on why you driving your car has less impact than them driving their car... whatever.

I'll live in the real world and so will the majority of us who do our best while observing the gross hypocrisy of the pro AGW lobby. I'll take concrete steps to try and change the world we live in for the better, while your lot just provokes depression in the youth of this world.

I'll give hope, while you lot take it away in zombie fashion, for your political thought police masters.

Good luck, you'll need it. The plebs are catching on.


----------



## GumbyLearner (28 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> [sigh]
> 
> Ask a bunch of people in a pub and you'll get these sorts of satirical contructs easily. I could easily ask a bunch of people in a pub and get equally asinine answers why we'll all be swimming in boiling seas in about 3 1/2 weeks if we don't stop driving our cars.
> 
> ...




LMAO Now that's a retort!


----------



## rederob (28 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> I give up. I give a little in the debate to approach the real truth of either anthropogenic or natural climate change, but you lot in your zealotry refuse to reciprocate. Therefore the chance of an intelligent debate here is zero. It's like arguing politics with revolutionaries.



Not a scintilla of "intelligent debate" from you.
You have consistently avoided debating matters I have asked about.
You just trot out the same old tripe.
How, for example are the latest West Antarctica findings "debunked"?
The truth is you just blindly followed a lost leader.
Had you explored the article in Nature you would have been quite pleased with the findings.
But rest peacefully in ignorance if that's your pleasure.


----------



## basilio (28 January 2009)

> Ask a bunch of people in a pub and you'll get these sorts of satirical contructs easily. I could easily ask a bunch of people in a pub and get equally asinine answers why we'll all be swimming in boiling seas in about 3 1/2 weeks if we don't stop driving our cars




Certainly the average bunch of people in a pub- particularly after a few beers - could give you plenty of asine answers. But the analysis on issues I posted comes from the scientists who actually know something about the topic.



> I'll take concrete steps to try and change the world we live in for the better, while your lot just provokes depression in the youth of this world



.

Taking concrete steps to improve the world is absolutely critical. In fact it is one of the real antidotes to the depression that could/would overtake most people if they faced what is coming up. The focus on GW is just a recognition that this is the biggest problem we face and that  when we are working out how to redirect our energies most effectively *reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere has to a critical factor*.

There is an excellent book called The Geography of Hope by Chris Turner. Worth a read for inspiration and action.




> After the fierce warnings and grim predictions of The Weather Makers and An Inconvenient Truth, acclaimed journalist and national bestselling author Chris Turner finds hope in the search for a sustainable future.
> 
> Point of no return: The chilling phrase has become the ubiquitous mantra of ecological doomsayers, a troubling headline above stories of melting permafrost and receding ice caps, visions of catastrophe and fears of a problem with no solution. Daring to step beyond the rhetoric of panic and despair, The Geography of Hope points to the bright light at the end of this very dark tunnel.
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (28 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Not a scintilla of "intelligent debate" from you.
> You have consistently avoided debating matters I have asked about.
> You just trot out the same old tripe.
> How, for example are the latest West Antarctica findings "debunked"?
> ...




[sigh]

Well that would all be really hurtful Rob... if it were true.

But as it's the intellectual equivalent of a five year old stamping his feet, it's a bit of a laugh. Just because you keep repeating something, doesn't make it true.

Now, please go pester somebody else with your lies, distortions and BS. I've had enough... and I'm 100% satisfied of my opinion on this matter. So until new data comes up for me to consider, it's over and out.


----------



## Terry Dactil (28 January 2009)

Stick with it WaynL. The tide is turning and there is some pretty impressive support now on your side.


> Washington DC: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.
> 
> Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.”  Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.






> The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus."
> 
> On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears.  Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming;  a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.




Full text here http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320


----------



## spooly74 (28 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> [sigh]
> 
> ... and I'm 100% satisfied of my opinion on this matter. So until new data comes up for me to consider, it's over and out.




Consider this  to be sure!




> Leprechauns cause Global Warming
> 
> Now, we all know that Leprechauns are Irish, and it’s logical that the Irish population should make a good proxy for the population of Leprechauns (as you yourself suggested), given that Leprechauns are invisible thus and we cannot count them accurately.
> 
> ...




On a serious note.

This site dares to do the unthinkable, and compare real world observations to predictions 

http://rankexploits.com/musings/


----------



## rederob (28 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Well that would all be really hurtful Rob... if it were true.



I find avoidance is the usual ploy of people who profess one thing, and are incapable of matching it with substantive action.
You have not proven yourself capable of debating this topic at all.
I won't repeat the challenges I have put to you as it's clearly a waste of your valuable time.
As for the rest of the gallery of skeptics, deniers, or whatever label you want to wear, if there is anything meaningful you want to debate, I'll be watching for it.
Regrettably Wayne proved not to be a challenge at all.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (29 January 2009)

rederob said:


> I find avoidance is the usual ploy of people who profess one thing, and are incapable of matching it with substantive action.
> You have not proven yourself capable of debating this topic at all.
> I won't repeat the challenges I have put to you as it's clearly a waste of your valuable time.
> As for the rest of the gallery of skeptics, deniers, or whatever label you want to wear, if there is anything meaningful you want to debate, I'll be watching for it.
> Regrettably Wayne proved not to be a challenge at all.




Red,
What are your thoughts on bifurcations?

Just on the challenge part, what challenge are you looking for? If a thousand scientists debated you and you had different opinions would that be a challenge? What do you mean by challenge in your context?


----------



## rederob (29 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Red,
> What are your thoughts on bifurcations?
> 
> Just on the challenge part, what challenge are you looking for? If a thousand scientists debated you and you had different opinions would that be a challenge? What do you mean by challenge in your context?



I'm not a systems theorist, nor a mathematician, so bifurcations are  not in my thoughts.
A "challenge" would be a debate where one or more points could be put to the test.
If  any scientists had a different opinion to me, they would be most welcome to it.  I'm interested in how opinions are formed, however, and this might become the basis for some debate.
In the context of this thread, a "challenge" would be where someone was actually interested in following through with a particular line of discussion on climate, ideally to a conclusion.
To say something is "debunked", for example, without showing how or why, is not a challenge.


----------



## Calliope (29 January 2009)

The debate is over. Penny Wong has decreed that the heat wave in SA and Vic. is a result of man-made global warming. QED.


----------



## long$$ (29 January 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Consider this  to be sure!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Perhaps the cause and effect are in fact reversed .....  more balmy summer nights...perishing prophelactics?


----------



## Pat (30 January 2009)

rederob said:


> How, for example are the latest West Antarctica findings "debunked"?






wayneL said:


> [sigh]
> 
> Well that would all be really hurtful Rob... if it were true.
> 
> ...




Come on Wayne, at least answer rederob's question above.


----------



## wayneL (30 January 2009)

Pat said:


> Come on Wayne, at least answer rederob's question above.




I'm going to suggest something really novel... read the links I've provided.

BTW it was nothing to do with West Antarctica, which has some other studies involved. Mine was about the recent continent-wide extrapolation, which was thoroughly trashed.

Read up.


----------



## explod (30 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> I'm going to suggest something really novel... read the links I've provided.
> 
> BTW it was nothing to do with West Antarctica, which has some other studies involved. Mine was about the recent continent-wide extrapolation, which was thoroughly trashed.
> 
> Read up.




"Read up",  you are a joke waynel.   You have been given some good authentic references in the past month or so and you dismiss it all without any examination or desertation; or alternatively, as we were taught at media school, you change the subject or answer a quetion of your own making to achieve your own point.  Its classic, have you ever seen Peter Costello in full force, brilliant at saying nothing.

Anyway for me, Global Warming or Climate change, whatever it is labelled, this planet has far too many wastfull humans on it.   It is unsustainable and no science is required to see the bleeding obvious with our own eyes.


----------



## rederob (30 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> I'm going to suggest something really novel... read the links I've provided.
> 
> BTW *it was nothing to do with West Antarctica*, which has some other studies involved. Mine was about the recent continent-wide extrapolation, which was thoroughly trashed.
> 
> Read up.



*It was always about West Antarctica*:







> *Significant warming of continental  West Antarctica  in the last 50 years*
> Authors: Steig E.J, Schneider, D P,
> Abstract:  We use statistical climate field reconstruction techniques to determine monthly temperature anomalies for the near-surface of the Antarctic ice sheet since 1957. Two independent data sets are used to provide estimates of the spatial covariance patterns of temperature: automatic weather stations and thermal infrared satellite observations. Quality-controlled data from occupied instrumental weather stations are used to determine the amplitude of changes in those covariance patterns through time. We use a modified principal component analyses technique (Steig et al., in review, Nature) to optimize the combination of spatial and temporal information. Verification statistics obtained from subsets of the data demonstrate the resulting reconstructions represent improvements relative to climatological mean values. We find that significant warming has occurred over most of continental  West Antarctica.  This is an area much larger than previously reported; most studies have concluded that warming is limited to the Antarctic Peninsula. An updated version of the recent temperature reconstruction of Monaghan et al. (2008, JGR) independently confirms our results. Warming in continental  West Antarctica  in the last 50 years exceeds 0.1  °C/decade, and is strongest in Spring. A possible explanation is an increase in storms in the Amundsen-Bellinghausen sea, resulting in enhanced warm air fluxes to the continent. Increased storminess in this sector is associated with the positive phase of the zonal wave-3 pattern, which independent observations suggest has increased since the 1970s (Raphael, GRL, 2004). The substantial negative sea ice anomalies in the Amundsen-Bellinghausen sea may also play a role. Our results suggest that changes in the wave-3 pattern dominates over (possibly anthropogenic) changes in the Southern Annular Mode in explaining recent Antarctic temperature variability.



 The article in Nature borrows significantly from this paper.
And for those concerned about "balance", read the last sentence of the abstract again.  It suggests that *natural *climate patterns may be having the greater impact on Antarctic temperature variability.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 January 2009)

Nice rain in Townsville, more like the old wet seasons but bloody hot they say in southern cities.

I hope we don't end up with all the basket weavers fleeing north to avoid the heat.

gg


----------



## Pat (30 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> I'm going to suggest something really novel... read the links I've provided.



I was hoping you could elaborate, so I didn't have to read a novel.  

Contradictory evidence does not disprove nor "de-bunk" a hypothesis.


----------



## Pat (30 January 2009)

explod said:


> Anyway for me, Global Warming or Climate change, whatever it is labelled, this planet has far too many wastfull humans on it.   It is unsustainable and no science is required to see the bleeding obvious with our own eyes.



Agree explode, It just comes down to the fact efficency is not profitable. An example... the bank I work for does not recycle paper, It is much much cheaper to throw it out... for the time being anyway.

I saw a doco on Nikola Tesla, apparently he was one step away from wireless electricity transmission. It was scrapped by JP Morgan as they had no way of charging the users... (not sure how accurate this is, haven't looked into it, still it's interesting)

good site anyway-   http://www.onlinedocumentaries4u.com/


----------



## explod (30 January 2009)

Pat said:


> I saw a doco on Nikola Tesla, apparently he was one step away from wireless electricity transmission. It was scrapped by JP Morgan as they had no way of charging the users... (not sure how accurate this is, haven't looked into it, still it's interesting)
> 
> good site anyway-   http://www.onlinedocumentaries4u.com/




Amazing you bring this up.    My Father many years ago marvelled at this, lit up a light globe some 50 miles away but it got buried very quickly.


----------



## Aussiejeff (31 January 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Nice rain in Townsville, more like the old wet seasons but bloody hot they say in southern cities.
> 
> I hope we don't end up with all the basket weavers fleeing north to avoid the heat.
> 
> gg




No chance GG.

Best we stay here and avoid the mass Dengue Fever outbreak afflicting our poor northern folk.


----------



## wayneL (31 January 2009)

explod said:


> "Read up",  you are a joke waynel.   You have been given some good authentic references in the past month or so and you dismiss it all without any examination or desertation; or alternatively, as we were taught at media school, you change the subject or answer a quetion of your own making to achieve your own point.  Its classic, have you ever seen Peter Costello in full force, brilliant at saying nothing.
> 
> Anyway for me, Global Warming or Climate change, whatever it is labelled, this planet has far too many wastfull humans on it.   It is unsustainable and no science is required to see the bleeding obvious with our own eyes.




:sleeping:

More ad hominem and fallacious argument.

When you have something other than bluster, post it, as contrary to your assertions, you have nothing.

Re the "too many humans argument". I have long held this view and we chose not to have children. You however, seem to have added to the problem. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. What do you intend to do about this?

I have some suggestions, but I suspect you would take offense.


----------



## rederob (31 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> :sleeping:
> 
> More ad hominem and fallacious argument.
> 
> ...



Replying with ad hominem insults and no argument is an excellent tactic!

But, on topic, yet again you tread the avoidance path: Saying something is "debunked", then say its not about "x" although it's actually based on "x".  Saying you want "intelligent debate", and offering tripe.
Why not just stay true to your word and return when there's some new data to ponder. Maybe then you can come with some half decent ad hominem insults to bandy about when you lose your way again.


----------



## wayneL (31 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Replying with ad hominem insults and no argument is an excellent tactic!
> 
> But, on topic, yet again you tread the avoidance path: Saying something is "debunked", then say its not about "x" although it's actually based on "x".  Saying you want "intelligent debate", and offering tripe.
> Why not just stay true to your word and return when there's some new data to ponder. Maybe then you can come with some half decent ad hominem insults to bandy about when you lose your way again.




:sleeping:


----------



## numbercruncher (31 January 2009)

> Victorian Premier John Brumby defended the state's power systems, saying the blackout was the result of catastrophic events during a record heatwave, the likes of which only occurred every 100 or 200 years.




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/735999/power-outages-cause-chaos-across-vic


Lots of "rare" weather events these days ....


----------



## Pat (1 February 2009)

wayneL said:


> :sleeping:



You got nothing on that one.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (2 February 2009)

An interesting article regarding the Czech president.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/czech-president-a-climate-change-denier-20090201-7urq.html


----------



## spooly74 (3 February 2009)

basilio said:


> Re New Evidence of warming in the Antartic
> 
> One  derisory blogger from a skeptical website *overcomes the analysis of a scientific team*  whose whole expertise is examining and measuring temperatures.
> 
> Well done Wayne. Up to your usual standards.




Certainly seems that way now Basilo.

Serious questions are now being raised over the credibility of the data.



> *Significant warming of continental West Antarctica in the last 50 years*
> Authors: Steig E.J, Schneider, D P,
> 
> Abstract: We use statistical climate field reconstruction techniques to determine monthly temperature anomalies for the near-surface of the Antarctic ice sheet since 1957. Two independent data sets are used to provide estimates of the spatial covariance patterns of temperature: automatic weather stations and thermal infrared satellite observations. Quality-controlled data from occupied instrumental weather stations are used to determine the amplitude of changes in those covariance patterns through time. We use a modified principal component analyses technique (Steig et al., in review, Nature) to optimize the combination of spatial and temporal information. Verification statistics obtained from subsets of the data demonstrate the resulting reconstructions represent improvements relative to climatological mean values. We find that significant warming has occurred over most of continental West Antarctica. This is an area much larger than previously reported; most studies have concluded that warming is limited to the Antarctic Peninsula. An updated version of the recent temperature reconstruction of Monaghan et al. (2008, JGR) independently confirms our results. Warming in continental West Antarctica in the last 50 years exceeds 0.1  °C/decade, and is strongest in Spring. A possible explanation is an increase in storms in the Amundsen-Bellinghausen sea, resulting in enhanced warm air fluxes to the continent. Increased storminess in this sector is associated with the positive phase of the zonal wave-3 pattern, which independent observations suggest has increased since the 1970s (Raphael, GRL, 2004). The substantial negative sea ice anomalies in the Amundsen-Bellinghausen sea may also play a role. Our results suggest that changes in the wave-3 pattern dominates over (possibly anthropogenic) changes in the Southern Annular Mode in explaining recent Antarctic temperature variability.




The above quoted paper by Monaghan et al. (http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/antarctica.jsp) only agrees with warming in West Antartic, and is clear about cooling in the East, and very clear about their models fallibility.

This paper by Steig, introduces new data from 4 weather stations in West Antartic, with the significant warming coming from a station named 'Harry'.

As it now turns out, because of one derisory blogger , the new data from this station is actually a splice of recent 'Harry' data, plus data from another station 'Gill', completly unrelated, and for a time buried in snow!

What a joke.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5054#comments



basilio said:


> There is more discussion on the the Nature report on the warming of Antarctica.
> 
> The remainder of the discussion is at Real climate.




Unfortunately not anymore Basilo.

Comments have now been closed over at Real Climate, where Eric Steig is a contributor.

Fancy that.


----------



## spooly74 (3 February 2009)

> How many times have you heard or read words to the effect that 4000 scientists from the Intergovernmental
> Panel on Climate change (IPCC) supported the claims about a significant human influence on climate? I think
> I've seen it on television, radio and the Internet and I know that politicians at national levels have quoted such
> figures. There's no question whatsoever. It's utterly wrong.
> ...




http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf


----------



## Pat (6 February 2009)

Perhaps it is wishful thinking humans contribute to CC.
Might give us some sort of sense of control...


----------



## Buddy (6 February 2009)

wayneL said:


> :sleeping:






Pat said:


> You got nothing on that one.




I was listening to a talk show on the radio yesterday, and the interviewee said, in answer to either a question or statement by the interviewer, something like "What can I say". Now that makes for really good radio, eh? Ha Ha


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 February 2009)

Buddy said:


> I was listening to a talk show on the radio yesterday, and the interviewee said, in answer to either a question or statement by the interviewer, something like "What can I say". Now that makes for really good radio, eh? Ha Ha




Once you hear this mate, the argument is close to overload.

Its started raining again here just now.

gg


----------



## Buddy (6 February 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Once you hear this mate, the argument is close to overload.
> 
> Its started raining again here just now.
> 
> gg




I have heard that 9 out of 10 university controlled experiments prove that boats put out less greenhouse gases than cars. I trust you are doing your bit to save the planet.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 February 2009)

Excellent article relating to Adelaides harsh weather conditions that are being experienced and the probability it is due to climate change. And as we have broken the record for the top temperature in Melbourne and had horrid bushfires and tend to get Adelaides weather a day after, this is very relevant.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/03/is-there-a-link-between-adelaides-heatwave-and-global-warming/


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (12 February 2009)

CC or GW are not the cause of the bushfires as some idiots have said.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (12 February 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> CC or GW are not the cause of the bushfires as some idiots have said.



Just like to add that the weather conditions back in 1938 were worse than this year according to the media.


----------



## rederob (12 February 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Just like to add that the weather conditions back in 1938 were worse than this year according to the media.



Neither the "media" nor the weather bureau would agree with you:


> Temperature records smashed across the state
> MARIAN WILKINSON ENVIRONMENT EDITOR
> 10/02/2009 1:00:01 AM
> 
> ...


----------



## spooly74 (12 February 2009)

Agreed, I think blaming CO2 for this disaster is stretching it a bit.

A couple of articles below point the finger elsewhere.



> Council ignored warning over trees before Victoria bushfires
> 
> THE shire council covering some of the areas hit hardest by the bushfires was warned five years ago that its policy of encouraging people to grow trees near their homes to give the appearance of a forest would lead to disaster.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25038717-5006785,00.html






> Green ideas must take blame for deaths
> 
> It wasn't climate change which killed as many as 300 people  in Victoria last weekend. It wasn't arsonists. It was the unstoppable intensity of a bushfire, turbo-charged by huge quantities of ground fuel which had been allowed to accumulate over years of drought. It was the power of green ideology over government to oppose attempts to reduce fuel hazards before a megafire erupts, and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation to protect themselves.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/green-ideas-must-take-blame-for-deaths-20090211-84mk.html




And this from 2003!

http://www.aph.gov.au/HOUSE/committee/bushfires/inquiry/subs/sub290.pdf


----------



## So_Cynical (12 February 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Agreed, I think blaming CO2 for this disaster is stretching it a bit.
> 
> A couple of articles below point the finger elsewhere.




So the local council and the greens are responsible for the extreme weather conditions....yer right.  

So does anyone here know what a fire danger indices/rating is?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25027847-2,00.html



			
				http://www.news.com.au said:
			
		

> UNPRECEDENTED weather conditions made it impossible for authorities to
> predict the extent of Victoria's horrific bushfires, experts say.
> 
> *The fire danger indices*, based on a range of variables and used by authorities
> ...




While fuel loads are a part of the fire danger rating system...without the unprecedented 
weather conditions the fire tsunami just couldn't of happened.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (13 February 2009)

rederob said:


> Neither the "media" nor the weather bureau would agree with you:




Hello Red,

Nice to have you comment.

There is no doubt recent records have been broken at the same time of the recent fires. 46.8 at Melbourne airport actually. But we only have to go on what we have. In 1851 there were reports of higher temperatures in the state some sources say Melbourne at 47 degrees. 

But what you have failed to realise is that weather conditions do not just inlclude temperature, though convenient when pushing a line of thought. Nothing has been considered of the wind, nor humidity. Higher temperatures may be achievable through lower humidity, so we are comparing apples and pineapples when it comes to one day to the next. 

Some sources:

http://www.abc.net.au/blackfriday/royalcommission/index_findings.htm
From the above link on the 1938-39 fires:


> Such was the force of the wind that, in many places, hundreds of trees of great size were blown clear of the earth, tons of soil, with embedded masses of rock, still adhering to the roots; for mile upon mile the former forest monarchs were laid in confusion, burnt, torn from the earth, and piled one upon another as matches strewn by a giant hand.




http://www.abc.net.au/blackfriday/aftermath/bwright.htm
From the above link:


> On the day of the worst of the bush fires, Black Friday itself - 13th January - the Melbourne temperature reached 45.6 degrees which remains the highest temperature Melbourne has ever had, but there were other very hot days in the preceding week.
> 
> There was 43.8 on the 8th of January and then 44.7 on the 10th of January, and just by comparison, Melbourne in the summer of 2002/03 had 44.1 which is the hottest temperature that has occurred since the Black Friday fires.




http://www.chig.asn.au/black_thursday_bushfires_1851.htm
From the above link on the *1851*fires:


> The 1851 Black Thursday bush fires were when the hills were alight to the Alps themselves - a frightful day as the temperature in Melbourne rose to 47degrees centigrade (110 degrees on the old scale) at 11 am.




So the question is are conditions any different to what has already been experienced in the past?

Clearly they are not. Extended droughts, high temperatures in the 40's and strong winds have been around in the past and will be around in the future.

If anyone has better sources I'd love to see them.
Thanks.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (13 February 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> So the local council and the greens are responsible for the extreme weather conditions....yer right.
> 
> So does anyone here know what a fire danger indices/rating is?
> 
> ...



It's have.

Yes that is true, but fuel is part of the triangle. So take away the fuel and there is nothing to burn.


----------



## ghotib (13 February 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> There is no doubt recent records have been broken at the same time of the recent fires. 46.8 at Melbourne airport actually. But we only have to go on what we have. In 1851 there were reports of higher temperatures in the state some sources say Melbourne at 47 degrees.
> 
> But what you have failed to realise is that weather conditions do not just inlclude temperature, though convenient when pushing a line of thought. Nothing has been considered of the wind, nor humidity. Higher temperatures may be achievable through lower humidity, so we are comparing apples and pineapples when it comes to one day to the next.
> 
> ...



This is a great illustration of why the title of this whole thread is nonsense, however much fun the argument might be. Weather is not climate. Global warming does not mean that every year will be warmer than the last or that every place in the world will get warmer at the same rate.  

One extreme weather event cannot prove or disprove that the climate is changing. Short-term for climate is 10 years. It's a trend thing, and it beats me why trend traders find that so hard to understand. We're not all day traders after all. 

The climate prediction for south eastern Australia is that it will become on average hotter and drier. One predicted effect of a warmer global climate is that extreme events will become both more common and more extreme. Put those predictions together and you can expect more bad fire seasons. In between the bad fire seasons, you can expect fewer opportunities for hazard reduction burning, so when the bad seasons comes the fires will be bigger. 

Ghoti


----------



## Knobby22 (13 February 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Hello Red,
> 
> 
> If anyone has better sources I'd love to see them.
> Thanks.




I suggest you read the link I posted yesterday, Snake.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 February 2009)

ghotib said:


> *The climate prediction for south eastern Australia is that it will become on average hotter and drier.* One predicted effect of a warmer global climate is that extreme events will become both more common and more extreme. Put those predictions together and you can expect more bad fire seasons. In between the bad fire seasons, you can expect fewer opportunities for hazard reduction burning, so when the bad seasons comes the fires will be bigger.
> 
> Ghoti




And the same CSIRO "climate" prediction for NW WA is for cooler & wetter "weather" in coming years.

The media (hooked on the Global Warming by CO2 mantra) seems to overlook the fact that LOCALISED climate change is what people on the ground are very much going to experience in the near and medium term foreseeable future. Some will ON AVERAGE experience wetter, cooler conditions while others will experience ON AVERAGE drier, hotter conditions. 

Naturally, those folk who will be experiencing wetter, cooler conditions are going to be mighty suspicious of Global Warming pundits, whereas those experiencing drier, hotter conditions might be more inclined to believe that line.

In any case, over a MUCH longer time frame, overall climate trends (both localised and worldwide) will become obvious to all. 

Unfortunately, since I'm already approaching 60, I won't be around to gloat or fume at the results. 

Could someone kindly pass them on to my elderly grand-daughter in 2050?

Thanks.

Ye Olde Farte.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (13 February 2009)

> One extreme weather event cannot prove or disprove that the climate is changing. Short-term for climate is 10 years. It's a trend thing, and it beats me why trend traders find that so hard to understand. We're not all day traders after all.



That is correct. But since we had extreme temperatures back over 100 years ago, over 150 to be exact it is hardly a new thing associated with CC or GW. And it suggests that trend we are following is much like the Japanese market. No? But we will call it climate.



> The climate *prediction *for south eastern Australia is that it will become on average hotter and drier. One *predicted *effect of a warmer global climate is that extreme events will become both more common and more extreme. Put those *predictions* together and you can expect more bad fire seasons. In between the bad fire seasons, you can expect fewer opportunities for hazard reduction burning, so when the bad seasons comes the fires will be bigger.



You've used that dreaded P word three times. Nothing is predictable, and it has been proven that climate or weather can not be predicted,  as is the case in the past. We have had bad fire seasons for hundreds and thousands of years. Nothing is new here. As for extreme temperatures, the on record ones - a limited sample - used to push the CC agenda, prove nothing.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (13 February 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> I suggest you read the link I posted yesterday, Snake.




Thanks Knobby. Interesting that Adelaide has extreme temperatures much like most of the country. I enjoyed reading the link you posted. But the trouble with it is it used words like "on record" or "recorded temperature" exposing its limitations. Climate and weather conditions are cyclicle. So heat waves do happen from time to time. The heat doesn't come from the planet, it comes from the sun. The sun's conditions are cyclicle too which affect the Earth's climate. 

Cheers..


----------



## rederob (13 February 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> You've used that dreaded P word three times. Nothing is predictable, and it has been proven that climate or weather can not be predicted,  as is the case in the past. We have had bad fire seasons for hundreds and thousands of years. Nothing is new here. As for extreme temperatures, the on record ones - a limited sample - used to push the CC agenda, prove nothing.



Everything is "predictable".
The chance of a prediction coming to light is usually quantifiable and we call it a "probability".
Weather is certainly predictable.
The chance of a local weather prediction being correct decreases over time.
Weather predictions in the short term would be quite accurate if full information was continuously available at hundreds of locations within a local area.  But that's costly, and still wouldn't tell you much of value a week out.

"Extreme" temperatures result whenever a confuence of factors are simultanously present and, of themselves, have nothing to do with climate change.  However "extremes" are predicated on "averages", so as it gets hotter what today may be considered extreme may become commonplace.

I find it amusing that climate change deniers continue to disbelieve evidence before their eyes.  The tactics of denial are equally funny, as proven by Bolt's online debate last week after a 4 Corners show on the Barrier Reef.

Then there's always the Aussiejeff factor, which points to some local climates actually cooling.  It epitomises the ignorance of the common person.  Seen in perspctive, the NW WA " predicted cooling" is no different to the local climate of Brisbane being cooler than that of southern Australia during the recent heatwave: High humidity prevents high temperatures being reached.


----------



## So_Cynical (13 February 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> http://www.chig.asn.au/black_thursday_bushfires_1851.htm
> From the above link on the *1851*fires:
> 
> If anyone has better sources I'd love to see them.
> Thanks.




So snake your seriously comfortable quoting scientific measurements form 1851.

Seriously....u cant be serious.

Unfortunately this thread has moved to the totally ridiculous end of the spectrum, where
scientific measurements from last century are taken seriously....that's it for me.

Just to silly now.


----------



## Julia (13 February 2009)

rederob said:


> Everything is "predictable".
> The chance of a prediction coming to light is usually quantifiable and we call it a "probability".
> Weather is certainly predictable.
> The chance of a local weather prediction being correct decreases over time.
> ...




Rederob, it must be terrific to be so absolutely sure of yourself and your superior opinions, to be able to so categorically dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as representing "the ignorance of the common person".

Truly awesome.


----------



## rederob (13 February 2009)

Julia said:


> Rederob, it must be terrific to be so absolutely sure of yourself and your superior opinions, to be able to so categorically dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as representing "the ignorance of the common person".
> 
> Truly awesome.



You are welcome to provide constructive commentary relating to the thread title.
Or, you might prefer to keep your social commentary to yourself.
I tend to post on topics I have some idea about.  This is one of them.
Unfortunately there are many in the skeptics camp that latch on to media nonsense and hype that has no basis in the science that underpins climate change.
There are also many that can't reconcile record low temperatures in a world confronting global warming. Or hot areas getting cooler, and vice versa
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, and if they can show their view has merit, good on them.  But too few here have any substantive argument to put and clearly are out of their depth in what can be a confronting and complex topic.  Your contributions reflect that sentiment ideally.


----------



## wayneL (13 February 2009)

rederob said:


> But too few here have any substantive argument to put and clearly are out of their depth in what can be a confronting and complex topic.  Your contributions reflect that sentiment ideally.




Incorrect.

You just refuse to consider evidence to the contrary, and then claim there is none, adding an obnoxious dose of _ad hominem_ slur along the way.


----------



## Julia (13 February 2009)

rederob said:


> You are welcome to provide constructive commentary relating to the thread title.
> Or, you might prefer to keep your social commentary to yourself.
> I tend to post on topics I have some idea about.  This is one of them.
> Unfortunately there are many in the skeptics camp that latch on to media nonsense and hype that has no basis in the science that underpins climate change.
> ...



And many would say the same about you.  I'm still, however, in complete awe of such total authority.   I'd love to have just a tiny percentage of such certainty about anything at all.  I really mean that.   Unfortunately, I simply don't know who is right or wrong about this whole matter.


----------



## rederob (14 February 2009)

wayneL said:


> Incorrect.
> You just refuse to consider evidence to the contrary, and then claim there is none, adding an obnoxious dose of _ad hominem_ slur along the way.



Not only do I consider, but I comment on contrary views, as evidenced in my challenges to you on numerous issues.
I welcome a reasoned debate.


----------



## rederob (14 February 2009)

Julia said:


> Unfortunately, I simply don't know who is right or wrong about this whole matter.



This is not a matter of right and wrong.
It's about being informed on what is happening, and choosing to prefer information that is most credible.
The rights or wrongs reveal themselves in time.


----------



## wayneL (14 February 2009)

rederob said:


> Not only do I consider, but I comment on contrary views, as evidenced in my challenges to you on numerous issues.
> I welcome a reasoned debate.




No you don't.

Those challenges entailed disregarding substantive evidence contained in links provided by myself. In the end I decided it's not worth debating with irrational zealots... which makes me wonder why I'm doing it again. 

Over and out.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (14 February 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> So snake your seriously comfortable quoting scientific measurements form 1851.
> 
> Seriously....u cant be serious.
> 
> ...



Seriously......... .....u cant be serious.

Unfortunately this thread has moved to the totally ridiculous peanut brigade.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (14 February 2009)

rederob said:


> Everything is "predictable".
> The chance of a prediction coming to light is usually quantifiable and we call it a "probability".
> Weather is certainly predictable.
> The chance of a local weather prediction being correct decreases over time.
> ...



Thanks for the commentary. Anything novel to add?


----------



## Julia (14 February 2009)

rederob said:


> This is not a matter of right and wrong.
> It's about being informed on what is happening, and choosing to prefer information that is most credible.
> The rights or wrongs reveal themselves in time.



Oh, I see.   I'll avoid a discussion about individual assessments of what is or is not credible.
Whatever you say, Rederob.   
Thank you.


----------



## ghotib (14 February 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> That is correct. But since we had extreme temperatures back over 100 years ago, over 150 to be exact it is hardly a new thing associated with CC or GW. And it suggests that trend we are following is much like the Japanese market. No? But we will call it climate.
> 
> 
> You've used that dreaded P word three times. Nothing is predictable, and it has been proven that climate or weather can not be predicted,  as is the case in the past. We have had bad fire seasons for hundreds and thousands of years. Nothing is new here. As for extreme temperatures, the on record ones - a limited sample - used to push the CC agenda, prove nothing.



You're right of course, but we all live by prediction. I predict the sun will rise tomorrow. I predict the trains will be crowded on Monday morning. I predict that the stock market will recover some time... hmmm 

The analogy between stock charts and climate charts seems quite strong to me. Daily weather records are equivalent to individual trades; climate graphs are equivalent to trend lines. And people interpret the charts differently. To me, the climate record shows higher highs and has begun to show higher lows. I see a Breakout Alert, and not in a good way. 

Ghoti


----------



## rederob (14 February 2009)

wayneL said:


> No you don't.
> Those challenges entailed disregarding substantive evidence contained in links provided by myself. In the end I decided it's not worth debating with irrational zealots... which makes me wonder why I'm doing it again.
> Over and out.



You had a habit of posting numerous links, without commentary.
I read most of your links.
Some contained useful information.
Many had little scientific merit, although first impressions might have suggested otherwise.
Your biggest problem seems to be that of not wanting to see the big picture.  Lots of little pictures in isolation of overriding trends, influences, or factors does not disprove AGW.
Another point, focusing on Al Gore as you did hardly constituted the basis of robust discussion.
Nor was it handy to keep linking to scientists who time and again had their work trashed by peers, if ever it was considered by them in the first place.
The web is full of links to the pro-CC and anti-CC camps, and their respective musings.  I visit them occasionally, but mostly read the actual work of climate scientists rather than media/web commentaries.  Better still are some blogs where the scientists discuss/debate with each other and Joe Public.
Perhaps my biggest gripe with your postings relate to those carrying the notion that the anti-CC camp is growing in number all the time.  There are no reputable polls that support this view.  What is tending to happen is a greater polarisation of views at each end of spectrum.  Amongst the scientific community a continuing trend towards agreement about climate change and its influences is apparent.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 February 2009)

It has rained all night here in Townsville, the creeks are rising and some bridges are going over. 430 points in all. We planted some Cape Thatch in a wetter part of the gumnut demesne yesterday.

Is it weather or climate change?

http://mirror.bom.gov.au/products/IDR213.loop.shtml#skip

gg


----------



## Julia (22 February 2009)

gg is the 430 points = 430 mls?    That's a lot of rain!
Had the previous water drained away?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 February 2009)

Julia said:


> gg is the 430 points = 430 mls?    That's a lot of rain!
> Had the previous water drained away?




Mrs Gumnut and I had a similar conversation over breakfast just an hour ago.

A point is one hundredth ( 1/100 ) of an inch, so that is 4.3 inches.

It is such a beautiful steady rain now but has been heavier through the night.

The previous floods had drained away, we took the Rolls down to Giru last weekend and the town, though drenched the previous 3 weeks , was dry. I'd say its up again, down there, this morning. 

gg


----------



## Calliope (22 February 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Mrs Gumnut and I had a similar conversation over breakfast just an hour ago.
> 
> A point is one hundredth ( 1/100 ) of an inch, so that is 4.3 inches.




In *South* Qld we switched to metric some years ago.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> In *South* Qld we switched to metric some years ago.




Didn't know you were from Lismore.

gg


----------



## numbercruncher (23 February 2009)

Australian politics cracks me up, once the great climate change deniers the Liberals now plan to champion the good fight .....

That Green vote is mighty huh ??



> Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has indicated he'll advocate a far more ambitious greenhouse gas reduction target than the government




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=755647

(and Labor has massively toned theirs down since election)


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (23 February 2009)

numbercruncher said:


> Australian politics cracks me up, once the great climate change deniers the Liberals now plan to champion the good fight .....
> 
> That Green vote is mighty huh ??
> 
> ...




Here's what a recent *demoted* senator has said previously:

http://www.senatorbernardi.com/climate_change/


> Strangely, it is only those that dare question the orthodoxy of the new religion who are exposed to ridicule. The preachers in this new church seem immune from mainstream criticism no matter how grievous their errors.
> 
> The famous hockey stick graph used by the IPCC to support their claims has been proved false and the Kyoto protocol has proved to be largely symbolic.
> .........
> ...


----------



## Aussiejeff (25 February 2009)

Here's a link worth following for anyone interested in global scientific measurement...

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2009/02/20090209_ibuki_e.html

Be interesting to see what they come up with over coming months & years. The initial CO2-Methane observations they show on the website look pretty close to simulation data.


----------



## spooly74 (25 February 2009)

Good for them. It seems the Yanks didn't have much success with their effort.



> Satellite to Study Global-Warming Gases Lost in Space
> 
> A satellite launched from California failed to reach orbit today, crashing into the sea near Antarctica and dooming a $273 million mission to study global- warming gases.
> 
> ...


----------



## numbercruncher (25 February 2009)

> A satellite launched from California failed to reach orbit today, crashing into the sea near Antarctica and dooming a $273 million mission to study global- warming gases.
> 
> “The mission is lost,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration spokesman Steve Cole said in a telephone interview from the launch site at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.





Suspicious


----------



## Aussiejeff (25 February 2009)

numbercruncher said:


> Suspicious




An omen?


----------



## Pat (25 February 2009)

numbercruncher said:


> Suspicious



Exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## spooly74 (25 February 2009)

numbercruncher said:


> Suspicious






Pat said:


> Exactly what I was thinking.




Get metric on the case


----------



## Calliope (26 February 2009)

*Emission Impossible*


http://business.smh.com.au/business/emission-impossible-the-sad-truth-20090224-8gsv.html


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> *Emission Impossible*
> 
> 
> http://business.smh.com.au/business/emission-impossible-the-sad-truth-20090224-8gsv.html



Glad to see others are working it out...


----------



## Pat (27 February 2009)

> that total emissions would stay the same.



That would be a good thing.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 February 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It has been raining solidly in N.Queensland for the last few days. Most dams are full. It dropped to 16 last night. I have to wear a jumper from about 4pm onwards.
> 
> If you want to know what the weather is like stick your head out the window.
> 
> ...




Lest we forget from the first entry on this thread.

The godbothering warmeners are stumped by recent climate change.

More graphs resemble the medieval practice of counting angels on pins.

Its still pissing rain here in Townsville, just like the old wet seasons.

gg


----------



## rederob (27 February 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The godbothering warmeners are stumped by recent climate change.



As the earth is getting warmer, and climate continues to change, it's hard to fathom such nonsense.
And as the earth gets warmer, more moisture is pumped into the atmosphere, ensuring many parts of the world will get wetter.
The deniers of climate change don't want to admit to the climate swings that will exacerbate both drought and flood conditions in Australia.
Indeed, what is logical and predictable to climate scientists continues to baffle the smallminded.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (27 February 2009)

rederob said:


> As the earth is getting warmer, and climate continues to change, it's hard to fathom such nonsense.
> And as the earth gets warmer, more moisture is pumped into the atmosphere, ensuring many parts of the world will get wetter.
> The deniers of climate change don't want to admit to the climate swings that will exacerbate both drought and flood conditions in Australia.
> Indeed, *what is logical and predictable to climate scientists* continues to baffle the smallminded.




No, what baffles is the inability to link global warming to human settlement on the planet despite the propaganda such as the bore film.


Here is a good article from that senator guy in the news recently:
http://www.senatorbernardi.com/climate_change/page/3/ 


> Dr Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace, states:
> 
> “Climate change is a wonderful example to demonstrate the limitations of science. There are two fundamental characteristics of climate change that make it very difficult to use the empirical (scientific) method to predict the future. First there are simply too many uncontrollable variables … Second…is the fact that we have only one planet to observe … With only one Earth, we are reduced to complex computer models of questionable value, and a lot of guesswork.”


----------



## spooly74 (27 February 2009)

rederob said:


> The deniers of climate change don't want to admit to the climate swings that will exacerbate both drought and flood conditions in Australia. source?
> Indeed, what is logical and predictable to climate scientists continues to baffle the smallminded.




Such absolutism has no place or value within the science of climate or the scientific method.

Climate is predictable and follows some logical path?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 February 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Such absolutism has no place or value within the science of climate or the scientific method.
> 
> Climate is predictable and follows some logical path?




Indeed .

the Scientific Method.

Popper.

Down with godbothering and warmening.

Let us not predict the future.

gg


----------



## rederob (27 February 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> No, what baffles is the inability to link global warming to human settlement on the planet despite the propaganda such as the bore film.
> Here is a good article from that senator guy in the news recently:
> http://www.senatorbernardi.com/climate_change/page/3/



If you don't read the scientific literature, and prefer to believe those that want to interpret information as they see fit, then I can understand why you are baffled.


----------



## rederob (27 February 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Such absolutism has no place or value within the science of climate or the scientific method.
> 
> Climate is predictable and follows some logical path?



Weather is immediately predictable: Look out the window.
Seasonal climate is predictable: I forecast average temperatures this winter in Sydney will be significantly cooler than for any of the summer months.
Please return to this post in October and prove me wrong.
Increase the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb moisture, as is now happening, and you can expect rainfall averages to also increase.
Conversely, where wind patterns are not favourable to rainfall events, radiative forcings will increase average (minimum and maximum) temperatures.
As there are more sources to what I have written than you could poke a stick at, it is amusing that you would even ask.


----------



## spooly74 (27 February 2009)

rederob said:


> Weather is immediately predictable: Look out the window.
> Seasonal climate is predictable: I forecast average temperatures this winter in Sydney will be significantly cooler than for any of the summer months.
> Please return to this post in October and prove me wrong.
> Increase the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb moisture, as is now happening, and you can expect rainfall averages to also increase.
> ...




I think you know I wasn't referring to the seasons or some dark clouds on the horizon with my reply. Are these swings and forcings a direct result of CO2 or other patterns like ENSO?

And as for your amusement, why don't you just humour us from now on. A link or reference will be fine. Nobody else seems to have a problem with it. 
It would help the smallminded folk.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (27 February 2009)

rederob said:


> If you don't read the *scientific literature*, and prefer to believe those that want to interpret information as they see fit, then I can understand why you are baffled.




The facts are out red and you choose to ignore the debate, again. Perhaps we can talk about the world of politics and global warming religions and the many who derive incomes from the propaganda. You mention scientific literature, is that anthropogenic only? Anyway, here is a lengthy and objective article that you may not bother to read but it does raise some serious facts and concerns that many of us have, references and all.

Nine facts about climate change:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/evans2007-4.php


> On one side of that debate we have those prominent scientists who preach the gospel of anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide-generated global warming. Without exception, their careers have been made in the shadowy world where science and politics intersect;






> The most recent example of devastating critique of the anthropogenist carbon dioxide school comes from William Gray, the doyen of American hurricane scientists. [2] Commenting on the apparent one-sidedness of the debate Gray said:
> Most of the strong advocates of human-induced global warming appear to be too personally invested in global warming both from a scientific and a career perspective. They cannot (and will not) back away from their unrealistic warming ideas. It appears that only a new set of climate researchers who are not already committed to the warming straight-jacket will be able to render an objective assessment of human influence on climate.


----------



## rederob (27 February 2009)

spooly74 said:


> I think you know I wasn't referring to the seasons or some dark clouds on the horizon with my reply. Are these swings and forcings a direct result of CO2 or other patterns like ENSO?
> 
> And as for your amusement, why don't you just humour us from now on. A link or reference will be fine. Nobody else seems to have a problem with it.
> It would help the smallminded folk.




Your charge related to a doubt about climate predictabilty.
If seasons can be predicted, as you seem to agree, is it not possible that other aspects can also be predicted?
If you have not read the last IPCC report, you might have missed refences to probable impacts.
If you are into mainstream media, here's a link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29123521/


----------



## rederob (27 February 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> The facts are out red and you choose to ignore the debate, again. Perhaps we can talk about the world of politics and global warming religions and the many who derive incomes from the propaganda. You mention scientific literature, is that anthropogenic only? Anyway, here is a lengthy and objective article that you may not bother to read but it does raise some serious facts and concerns that many of us have, references and all.
> 
> Nine facts about climate change:
> http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/evans2007-4.php




Ray Evans is an office-holder - and apparent creator - of a string of Australian front groups. He is President of the HR Nicholls Society, Secretary of the Bennelong Society, Treasurer of the Samuel Griffith Society and Secretary of, and main contact for, the Lavoisier Group. 

Evans was Executive Officer at Western Mining Corporation (WMC) from 1982 until 2001, during which time he was a close associate of WMC CEO Hugh Morgan. "My role was to engage in the culture wars and provide him with feedback," Evans says of his work for Morgan. 

Together with Morgan, he helped found the HR Nicholls Society in 1985. 
His climate science credentials are not immediately obvious.

How about you choose one of the points Ray has raised, and I will show you his folly.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 February 2009)

> Second…is the fact that we have only one planet to observe … With only one Earth



I've heard it stated that other planets have also been warming. Assuming that we actually can measure their temperature (?), that would discredit the notion that we can only look at what's happening on Earth.

There is, of course, a very obvious reason why they'd like people to belive that we can only consider what's happening on Earth and ignore what's happening elsewhere _if_ the other planets are indeed warming. That would discredit the everything surrounding AGW, unless someone can show that the Martians have been burning a lot of coal and oil lately or have for some other reason experienced a significant rise in CO2 concentration.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 February 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> I've heard it stated that other planets have also been warming. Assuming that we actually can measure their temperature (?), that would discredit the notion that we can only look at what's happening on Earth.
> 
> There is, of course, a very obvious reason why they'd like people to belive that we can only consider what's happening on Earth and ignore what's happening elsewhere _if_ the other planets are indeed warming. That would discredit the everything surrounding AGW, unless someone can show that the Martians have been burning a lot of coal and oil lately or have for some other reason experienced a significant rise in CO2 concentration.




lol 

Does Kev07 know?

jayzoo, how much is this going to cost Australia.

gg


----------



## explod (27 February 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> I've heard it stated that other planets have also been warming. .





Where did you hear that?   from another planet I suppose.


I know that the weather conditions in southern Australia are exceedingly bad and dry.   Native plants and wildlife are dying from the drought.  I live amongst bush and see it with my own eyes.   Grew up down south but worked as a youth in Queensland west of Longreach.  I know what dry is and it is that dry now in southern Victoria beyond what could ever have been imagined a few years back.   
It looks like west Queensland in thier first bad dry in 1969, I was there.   I also HEARD (HEARD) THAT IT HAS NEVER BEEN AS BAD AS THIS IN MILLIONS OF YEARS.

The twisting of facts by the oil, coal and motor vehicle lobbyists crack me up and are being seen through by the wider community.   They are even talking carbon credits in the US now that the ice sheets are sliding off the Antarctic land mass and it is probably too late. 

I suppose we could say, just party, or we could conceed that we may have a problem, admit to it and work together peacefully to resolve it.


----------



## explod (27 February 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> lol
> 
> Does Kev07 know?
> 
> ...






The way things are heading of late in the financials, money wont be a consideration of any sort soon.

Just getting a feed and protecting yourself from the marauding packs of the deperate and starving unemployed will be the game.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 February 2009)

explod said:


> Where did you hear that?   from another planet I suppose.
> 
> The twisting of facts by the oil, coal and motor vehicle lobbyists crack me up and are being seen through by the wider community.



I belive it is credible NASA research. I'm no expert on it, but to my understanding it's possible to measure the temperature on other planets via some means (no idea how) and it's been warming. That's the claim I've seen in various places - no idea if it's true I'm just posting it as a possibility that it may be true.

As for the drought, yes I'm VERY well aware of that and have been for years. See all my hydro and water posts and you'll get the idea that I do know a bit about water.  I sure wasn't expecting to see the day when we had dust storms in Tassie that's for sure, but it's a fact now that it happened. It's dry, very dry, compared to recent decades in SE Australia that is something nobody could dispute. Whether it's man-made or natural, and whether it has ever been this dry before, is something we can't prove either way.

As for the politics of that, I could point out that a very high profile Australian Green politician sure wasn't predicting a drought back when it started in the 1990's, indeed the "dams will be flowing over by the year 2000". Liberal much the same thinking by the way, there's plenty of water, just a couple of years later so I'm not being one-sided there. Labor I don't recall predicting an imminent drought, but they did acknowledge that droughts happen and we'd get a serious one at some point in the future - little did they know it was starting just as those comments were made.

As for the coal, oil etc lobbyists, indeed there certainly are. Just as there are lobbyists on every subject that is in any way political. Usually, if you take two opposing groups of lobbyists then do some proper independent research, you'll find that the facts are somewhere between the two extremes. 

Most people, when making any sort of claim (about anything) do tend to go a bit beyond a neutral position since doing so suits their objectives. That is the nature of being a lobbyist. On the subject of climate change, there are clearly two opposing sides and both have an interest in the outcome so they are unlikely to be totally objective in their arguments.

Personally, I do think the climate is changing and I'm very much in favour of non-carbon energy sources (for both CO2 and other reasons) which just happen to be the solution to the problem if it exists. But that obvious bias on my part is no reason to not be looking at ALL the available information whether it supports the man-made climate change argument or not. 

If other planets are warming then that does raise the question as to why and whether or not the cause of that warming would also be influencing temperatures on Earth. It's a very relevant point no matter what the outcome.


----------



## rederob (27 February 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> On the subject of climate change, there are clearly two opposing sides and both have an interest in the outcome so they are unlikely to be totally objective in their arguments.



The outcome won't be affected by our discussion.
I'm more interested in the beliefs of many, and why they hold them.
A majority of climate scientists understand "forcings", and are aware that CO2 levels have never been higher.  Man's influence in this latter regard are undeniable.
The probable consequence of elevated atmospheric CO2 levels were postulated over a century ago.
Yet an overriding theme of climate change deniers is that the IPCC cohort has turned climate change into a sinecure over recent years.
The logical failings of the climate change deniers are manifold.  However it is their regular regurgitation of discredited claims that is most problematic.
Various mantras have attract a tribe of rote believers: Science is secondary to populist sensibilities... "it's just weather".
So it is.
And with probable dire consequences in the longer term.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 February 2009)

rederob said:


> Ray Evans is an office-holder - and apparent creator - of a string of Australian front groups. He is President of the HR Nicholls Society, Secretary of the Bennelong Society, Treasurer of the Samuel Griffith Society and Secretary of, and main contact for, the Lavoisier Group.
> 
> Evans was Executive Officer at Western Mining Corporation (WMC) from 1982 until 2001, during which time he was a close associate of WMC CEO Hugh Morgan. "My role was to engage in the culture wars and provide him with feedback," Evans says of his work for Morgan.
> 
> ...




I'll start with reference no 1. http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/evans2007-4.php#anchor1259055


> Paul Collins quoting Cardinal Pell in The Australian 10 May 2006:
> 
> 'pagan emptiness and fears about nature have led to hysteric and extreme claims about global warming. In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.'


----------



## rederob (28 February 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> I'll start with reference no 1. http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/evans2007-4.php#anchor1259055






> pagan emptiness and fears about nature have led to hysteric and extreme claims about global warming. In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.'



First, equating scientists to pagans who made human sacrifices is far fetched.
Climate scientists have presented evidence that the earth is warming, and their claims are not extreme:  Most claims are well within the bounds of past known events. 
The IPCC has documented the likely effects of less than extreme global warming.  The social and economic consequences of a rapidly changing globe are not pretty.
Not surprisingly, climate scientists are trying to send a message to the public that, because we have already gone past the highest previously calculated CO2 levels, the earth is likely to experience rapid climate change (geologically speaking).  Indeed, the probability is that the present generation will need to adapt to a markedly different world in their lifetime.
This link maps why there is a global push to limit CO2 emissions: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/co2-acceleration/#more-1405


----------



## basilio (2 March 2009)

Thanks Red rob for the link to the Tamino blog. Really excellent set of resources on the figures and reality behind Global Warming.

Hope they are appreciated by other readers of this forum.


----------



## basilio (2 March 2009)

> *Polar research reveals new evidence of global environmental change*
> Press release, International Council for Science
> 
> *Multidisciplinary research from the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-2008 provides new evidence of the widespread effects of global warming in the polar regions. Snow and ice are declining in both polar regions, affecting human livelihoods as well as local plant and animal life in the Arctic, as well as global ocean and atmospheric circulation and sea level. *These are but a few findings reported in “State of Polar Research”, released today by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the International Council for Science (ICSU). In addition to lending insight into climate change, IPY has aided our understanding of pollutant transport, species’ evolution, and storm formation, among many other areas.
> ...




http://www.icsu.org/3_mediacentre/RELEASES/IPY_PR_839_en.pdf


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (4 March 2009)

rederob said:


> Evans was Executive Officer at Western Mining Corporation (WMC) from 1982 until 2001, during which time he was a close associate of WMC CEO Hugh Morgan. "My role was to engage in the culture wars and provide him with feedback," Evans says of his work for Morgan.



Source please.



> First, equating scientists to pagans who made human sacrifices is far fetched.
> Climate scientists have presented evidence that the earth is warming, and their claims are not extreme: Most claims are well within the bounds of past known events.
> The IPCC has documented the likely effects of less than extreme global warming. The social and economic consequences of a rapidly changing globe are not pretty.
> Not surprisingly, climate scientists are trying to send a message to the public that, because we have already gone past the highest previously calculated CO2 levels, the earth is likely to experience rapid climate change (geologically speaking). Indeed, the probability is that the present generation will need to adapt to a markedly different world in their lifetime.
> This link maps why there is a global push to limit CO2 emissions



Red are you saying humans have warmed the earth?


----------



## spooly74 (4 March 2009)

rederob said:


> Your charge related to a doubt about climate predictabilty.
> If seasons can be predicted, as you seem to agree, is it not possible that other aspects can also be predicted?
> If you have not read the last IPCC report, you might have missed refences to probable impacts.
> If you are into mainstream media, here's a link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29123521/




We are not trying to predict seasons, they are fully understood.
ENSO cycles, PDO etc, have effects on floods and drought in areas around the globe, but even predicting these events is tough.

As far as the IPCC is concerned, based on current emissions scenarios we should see a minimum increase of 0.2C decade, specifically for the first 2 to 3 decades this century. 
We have been flat for the last 10 years.

Here is a link to some more mainstream media: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/wid/18298287/


----------



## rederob (4 March 2009)

spooly74 said:


> As far as the IPCC is concerned, based on current emissions scenarios we should see a minimum increase of 0.2C decade, specifically for the first 2 to 3 decades this century.
> We have been flat for the last 10 years.[/url]



This is how the WMO summarised last year:


> 2008 AMONG THE TEN WARMEST YEARS; MARKED BY WEATHER EXTREMES AND SECOND-LOWEST LEVEL OF ARCTIC ICE COVER
> 
> Geneva, 16 December 2008 (WMO) – The year 2008 is likely to rank as the 10th warmest year on record since the beginning of the instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global combined sea-surface and land-surface air temperature for 2008 is currently estimated at 0.31 °C/0.56 °F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00 °C/57.2 °F. The global average temperature in 2008 was slightly lower than that for the previous years of the 21st century due in particular, to the moderate to strong La NiÃ±a that developed in the latter half of 2007.



Given that most of the hottest years recored since 1850 occurred in the last 20 years, it comes as no surprise that the chart might level off or even decline for a period.
The IPCC never claimed temperature increases would be linear.


----------



## spooly74 (4 March 2009)

rederob said:


> This is how the WMO summarised last year:
> Given that most of the hottest years recored since 1850 occurred in the last 20 years, it comes as no surprise that the chart might level off or even decline for a period.
> The IPCC never claimed temperature increases would be linear.




Nobody should be in denial about the fact that the Earth has warmed, but the stats from the WMO are irrelevant with respect to the IPCC's projections.

The IPCC's last report based their projections on current emissions. Earlier reports predicted much higher trends, but it has been flat or slightly negative so far this decade.


> About twice as much warming (0.2C per decade) would be expected if emissions were to fall within the range of the SRES marker scenarios. This result is insensitive to the choice among SRES initiatives.


----------



## quinny (4 March 2009)

rederob said:


> A majority of climate scientists understand "forcings", and are aware that *CO2 levels have never been higher*.  Man's influence in this latter regard are undeniable.




I found some links that state that CO2 levels were a lot higher in prehistoric times than they are now. That's not to say whether it effects the temperature or not, just that it was higher.

http://www.expresswaysonline.com/expwys/greening_earth.html

"Due probably to volcanic and oceanic releases, CO2 concentrations in distant prehistoric eras were vastly higher than today's levels. These include the great carboniferous periods -- some 250 million to 365 million years ago -- when lush forests absorbed the CO2 from the air, and fixed the carbon in their biomass, later to be recycled in our era as coal and petroleum."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060928-hot-earth.html
(quote from page 2)

"They report that the Eocene's atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was greater than 1,125 parts per million (ppm) by volume. Today's levels are only about 380 ppm, but that number is up from an estimated 280 parts per million before the industrial revolution."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/313/5795/1928

"Coprecipitation of nahcolite (NaHCO3) and halite (NaCl) from surface waters in contact with the atmosphere indicates [CO2]atm > 1125 ppm (four times preindustrial concentrations), which confirms that high [CO2]atm coincided with Eocene warmth."


----------



## rederob (4 March 2009)

quinny said:


> I found some links that state that CO2 levels were a lot higher in prehistoric times than they are now. That's not to say whether it effects the temperature or not, just that it was higher.



Very true. Estimates of up to 7000 ppm atmospheric CO2 are made for the early paleozoic period.
I was intending my sense to relate to man's period on earth, which is significantly less than 5 million years ago.  Clearly we were never going to have anthropogenic global warming influences without man in attendance.


----------



## Julia (5 March 2009)

Radio National's programme "Fora" had an interesting lecture plus Q & A.
on "Science and the Role of the Sceptic".

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/foraradio/


----------



## spooly74 (7 March 2009)

ROFL

Those who are 'in denial' of climate change have a mental disorder.



> Ahead of a conference on the psychology of climate change denial, Brendan O’Neill says green authoritarians are treating debate as a disorder.
> 
> 
> The idea that ‘climate change denial’ is a psychological disorder – the product of a spiteful, wilful or simply in-built neural inability to face up to the catastrophe of global warming – is becoming more and more popular amongst green-leaning activists and academics. And nothing better sums up the elitism and authoritarianism of the environmentalist lobby than its psychologisation of dissent. The labelling of any criticism of the politics of global warming, first as ‘denial’, and now as evidence of mass psychological instability, is an attempt to write off all critics and sceptics as deranged, and to lay the ground for inevitable authoritarian solutions to the problem of climate change. Historically, only the most illiberal and misanthropic regimes have treated disagreement and debate as signs of mental ill-health.
> ...


----------



## basilio (9 March 2009)

> *Climates 11th Hour*
> 
> ......UNSW Climate Change Research Centre co-director Matthew England, one of the summit's key backers, says it is likely to find that the raw measures of climate change ”” global average air temperature, global sea-level rise and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations ”” are all happening at or above the worst-case IPCC scenario.
> 
> ...




http://www.theage.com.au/national/climates-11th-hour-20090308-8sg9.html?page=-1

2000 scientists are going Coppenhagen tomorrow to review the latest evidence on the rate at which climate change is occurring and the outcome for our civilisation if this comes to pass.

The above extract from The Age gives a small indication of where we stand.

And yet, and yet....Around the world millions of people many of high intelligence and well placed in business and politics insist vehemently that the observations of the overwhelming  majority of the scientific community are simply wrong and that these events will either not happen, be acceptably small in size or whatever.

The reality of climate change is terrifying. It always was. It is far more psychologically comforting to deny its possibility or reality. There is nothing surprising about that. But as King Canute aptly proved all the denial in the world cannot stop the tides.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (10 March 2009)

basilio said:


> http://www.theage.com.au/national/climates-11th-hour-20090308-8sg9.html?page=-1
> 
> And yet, and yet....Around the world millions of people many of high intelligence and well placed in business and politics insist vehemently that the observations of the overwhelming  majority of the scientific community are simply wrong and that these events will either not happen, be acceptably small in size or whatever.
> 
> The reality of climate change is terrifying. It always was. It is far more psychologically comforting to deny its possibility or reality. There is nothing surprising about that. But as King Canute aptly proved all the denial in the world cannot stop the tides.



Climate change is not deniable because it happens and has happened for thousands of years, perhaps billions. 

But to deny debate on the topic and to insist that any scepticism of man made global warming is VALID without proper debate with SCIENTISTS, that denial of debate is pathetic.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 March 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Climate change is not deniable because it happens and has happened for thousands of years, perhaps billions.
> 
> But to deny debate on the topic and to insist that any scepticism of man made global warming is VALID without proper debate with SCIENTISTS, that denial of debate is pathetic.




There is *no educated argument* that ocean acidification is caused by anything other than humanity. 
Ocean acidification is caused by increased levels of Carbon Dioxide being absorbed by the sea which is directly due to man's activity.


----------



## spooly74 (10 March 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> There is *no educated argument* that ocean acidification is caused by anything other than humanity.
> Ocean acidification is caused by increased levels of Carbon Dioxide being absorbed by the sea which is directly due to man's activity.




The oceans currently have a ph of just over 8, which is alkaline.
So you could just say they are possibly becoming less alkaline due to CO2 (only anthropogenic I presume), but that just isn't scary enough.

How long till the oceans actually become acidic?


----------



## Knobby22 (10 March 2009)

spooly74 said:


> The oceans currently have a ph of just over 8, which is alkaline.
> So you could just say they are possibly becoming less alkaline due to CO2 (only anthropogenic I presume), but that just isn't scary enough.
> 
> How long till the oceans actually become acidic?




Answering that question would mean modelling and we can't have any of that!
The real problem is that as the oceans become more acidic, the harder it is for sea creatures to form shells and corals. Obviously if the oceam became acidic it would be impossible. Limestone (Calcium carbonate) will dissolve in acidic conditions.


----------



## spooly74 (10 March 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Answering that question would mean modelling and we can't have any of that!
> The real problem is that as the oceans become more acidic, the harder it is for sea creatures to form shells and corals. Obviously if the oceam became acidic it would be impossible. Limestone (Calcium carbonate) will dissolve in acidic conditions.




Of course you can have models. You just need to understand their limits.

Do you have a souce for this (red)? What part of the world was this study done and at what depth?



> As the oceans absorb more and more CO2, they may become more acidic. Recent measurements suggest that this is somewhat the case and that grave consequences can be expected. But what is the story? Should we be alarmed? How much is known and how much is not? Is ocean acidification another hoax, a swindle, or do we need to pay serious attention?
> 
> What are the threats to the oceans? How does ocean acidification work? What is the carbon cycle? In this chapter we will try to foster an in-depth understanding of the CO2 processes in the ocean and where present science fails.
> 
> ...


----------



## Knobby22 (10 March 2009)

The thing about sience is that there are no certainties, only theorys. 
But the Royal Society, no less, has concerns.


http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249

Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
30 Jun 2005 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted to the atmosphere by human activities is being absorbed by the oceans, making them more acidic (lowering the pH the measure of acidity).

Evidence indicates that emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities over the past 200 years have already led to a reduction in the average pH of surface seawater of 0.1 units and could fall by 0.5 units by the year 2100. This pH is probably lower than has been experienced for hundreds of millennia and, critically, at a rate of change probably 100 times greater than at any time over this period.

The report outlines our best understanding of the impacts of these chemical changes on the oceans. The impacts will be greater for some regions and ecosystems, and will be most severe for coral reefs and the Southern Ocean. The impacts of ocean acidification on other marine organisms and ecosystems are much less certain. We recommend a major international research effort be launched into this relatively new area of research.

We recommend that action needs to be taken now to reduce global emissions of CO2 from human activities to the atmosphere to avoid the risk of irreversible damage from ocean acidification.


----------



## ghotib (10 March 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Of course you can have models. You just need to understand their limits.
> 
> Do you have a souce for this (red)? What part of the world was this study done and at what depth?




Southern Ocean. News reports referred to sampling from the ocean floor for historical comparisons but that's not included in the freely available abstract of this particular paper, which is on the Web at 

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18860.abstract

The link to Supporting Information leads to a PDF which includes information about the sample locations but not the depths. The full article costs $US10. 

The documentary "Crude - the Incredible Journey of Oil" goes into the relationship between ocean chemistry and atmospheric CO2. It's available on DVD, or at http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/ 

Ghoti


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (14 March 2009)

It seems scientists keep coming out against the man made propaganda:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25182520-2703,00.html


> THREE senior Japanese scientists separately engaged in climate-change research have strongly questioned the validity of the man-made global-warming model that underpins the drive by the UN and most developed-nation governments to curb greenhouse gas emissions.



Any thoughts on the article?


----------



## rederob (14 March 2009)

> *Scientific Congress Delivers Preliminary Conclusions on the Latest Science of Climate Change Since IPCC’s Last Assessment Report*
> 12 March 2009: The international scientific congress titled “Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions” took place from 10-12 March 2009, in Copenhagen, Denmark, and was organized by the International Alliance of Research Universities and attended by over 2,000 participants from around 80 countries. The main aim of the congress was to provide a summary of existing scientific knowledge two years after the Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was released and in the run-up to the UNFCCC conference in Copenhagen in December 2009. The preliminary conclusions of the Congress contain six messages concerning: climatic trends, social disruption, long-term strategy, equity dimensions, consequences of inaction, and meeting the challenge.
> 
> In particular, the congress concluded that, according to recent observations and given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized. Temperature rises above two degrees Celsius will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century.
> ...



It would appear that the IPCC models are leaning on the conservative side of the climate curve and things may be worse than most expected.
While the skeptics conjure media attention by virtue of their skepticism alone, many climate scientists are getting on with the business of determining the actual extents and effects of an increasingly warmer atmosphere.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 March 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> It seems scientists keep coming out against the man made propaganda:
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25182520-2703,00.html
> 
> Any thoughts on the article?




I read that article.

I'd agree with the content, but I'm surprised nobody has bothered to attempt to refute it on this thread.

Where is 2020?

I never thought I'd ever say it , but, I missya.

gg


----------



## spooly74 (14 March 2009)

What Was the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference Really About?

Viewpoint / by Mike Hulme / March 13, 2009

It's problematic when largely unresolved debates among the world's climate change researchers get reduced to six key messages.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/art...hagen_climate_change_conference_really_about/



> ...........
> 
> The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference was no IPCC. This was not a process initiated and conducted by the world’s governments, there was no systematic synthesis, assessment, and review of research findings as in the IPCC, and there was certainly no collective process for the 2,500 researchers gathered in Copenhagen to consider drafts of the six key messages nor to offer their own suggestions for what politicians may need to hear. The conference was in fact convened by no established academic or professional body. Unlike the American Geophysical Union, the World Meteorological Organisation or the UK’s Royal Society ”” who also hold large conferences and who from time-to-time issue carefully-worded statements representing the views of professional bodies ”” this conference was organized by the International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU), a little-heard-of coalition launched in January 2006 consisting of ten of the world’s self-proclaimed elite universities, including of course the University of Copenhagen.
> 
> ...


----------



## rederob (14 March 2009)

spooly74 said:


> What Was the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference Really About?
> 
> Viewpoint / by Mike Hulme / March 13, 2009
> 
> It's problematic when largely unresolved debates among the world's climate change researchers get reduced to six key messages.



Had Hulme used his noggin, he would have worked out that the 6 key messages were based on the respective conference themes.
Alas, he's not too bright.
With around a thousand presentations to cover across a few hundred sessions it would be impractical to package a comprehensive conference summary immediately it ended. 
That's why they said 







> The preliminary conclusions of the congress will be developed in a synthesis report to be published in June and forwarded to participants at the UN Climate Change Conference in December in Copenhagen.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 March 2009)

rederob said:


> It would appear that the IPCC models are leaning on the conservative side of the climate curve and things may be worse than most expected.
> While the skeptics conjure media attention by virtue of their skepticism alone, many climate scientists are getting on with the business of determining the actual extents and effects of an increasingly warmer atmosphere.






spooly74 said:


> What Was the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference Really About?
> 
> Viewpoint / by Mike Hulme / March 13, 2009
> 
> ...






rederob said:


> Had Hulme used his noggin, he would have worked out that the 6 key messages were based on the respective conference themes.
> Alas, he's not too bright.
> With around a thousand presentations to cover across a few hundred sessions it would be impractical to package a comprehensive conference summary immediately it ended.
> That's why they said




One of the main reasons that sceptics such as I are suspicious of the results of the innumerable conferences is the lack of clarity in the results of all this hot air.

A few quotes.

Vague forms of speech have so long passed for mysteries of science; and hard words mistaken for deep learning, that it will not be easy to persuade either those who speak or those who hear them, that they are but a hindrance to true knowledge.

    * John Locke, 1690 

I have made this letter longer that usual because I lack the time to make it shorter.

    * Blaise Pascal 

If you cannot - in the long run - tell everyone what you have been doing, your doing has been worthless.

    * Erwin Schrodinger (Nobel Prize winner in physics) 

Whatever is worth saying can be stated in fifty words or less.

    * Stan Ulam, world-famous mathematician 

gg


----------



## rederob (14 March 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> One of the main reasons that sceptics such as I are suspicious of the results of the innumerable conferences is the lack of clarity in the results of all this hot air.
> gg



A conference is just a vehicle for a lot of information.
Sift through the information for better understanding.
Don't blame the conference for your shortcomings.
(And only 25 words, exclusive!!!)


----------



## rederob (14 March 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> But to deny debate on the topic and to insist that any scepticism of man made global warming is VALID without proper debate with SCIENTISTS, that denial of debate is pathetic.



What do climate change deniers want to debate?
The scientific arena continues to provide a forum for debate, while past issues seem to have been pretty well covered.
Global warming is proven.  Debating it is a waste of time.
The manmade contribution to warming is not proven beyond doubt.  On the balance of probabilities our science suggests that forcings from increased CO2 levels have had an impact.
Intellectually moribund deniers of climate change regurgitate ad infinitum the slim pickings of a now decimated camp.  Repackaging themselves as "skeptics" they hide in their twisted wreck of junk science thinking they are immune from justifying their perverse beliefs.
"Oh, it's just weather."
Isn't it just.


----------



## spooly74 (15 March 2009)

rederob said:


> It would appear that the IPCC models are leaning on the conservative side of the climate curve and things may be worse than most expected.






> The six key messages are not the collective voice of 2,500 researchers, nor are they the voice of established bodies such as the World Meteorological Organisation. Neither are they the messages arising from a collective endeavour of experts, for example through a considered process of screening, synthesizing, and reviewing of the knowledge presented in Copenhagen this week.




Surely, you could only consider a model conservative if the projections made are below observations.

What data or alternate models imply that things may be worse than expected based on current emissions scenarios?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (15 March 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> One of the main reasons that sceptics such as I are *suspicious of the results *of the innumerable conferences is the lack of clarity in the results of all this hot air.
> 
> A few quotes.
> 
> ...



GG it's not the results but the conclusion of the results that is the problem. Agenda gratifying interpretations. Perhaps 21 of them.

Quote Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25182520-2703,00.html


> Dr Maruyama said many scientists were doubtful about man-made climate-change theory, but did not want to risk their funding from the government or bad publicity from the mass media, which he said was leading society in the wrong direction.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (15 March 2009)

rederob said:


> While the skeptics conjure media attention by virtue of their skepticism alone, many climate scientists are getting on with the business of determining the actual extents and effects *of an increasingly* warmer atmosphere.



In the absense of waffling on what time frame are you referring to?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (15 March 2009)

> rederob, What do climate change deniers want to debate?



No one is denying climate change. It happens even without man. 


> The scientific arena continues to provide a forum for debate, while past issues seem to have been pretty well covered.
> *Global warming is proven.*  Debating it is a waste of time.



Is it? The silliness of this remark is just hilarious. Of course the earth warms as it is meant to with its atmosphere sustaining life. 


> The manmade contribution to warming is not proven beyond doubt.



Naturally.


> On the balance of probabilities our science suggests that forcings from increased CO2 levels have had an impact.



Who's science is that? 


> Intellectually moribund deniers of climate change regurgitate ad infinitum the slim pickings of a now decimated camp



. One in ten is out? 


> Repackaging themselves as "skeptics" they hide in their twisted wreck of junk science thinking they are immune from justifying their perverse beliefs.
> "Oh, it's just weather."
> Isn't it just.



Do they hide behind Co2?


----------



## rederob (15 March 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Surely, you could only consider a model conservative if the projections made are below observations.
> 
> What data or alternate models imply that things may be worse than expected based on current emissions scenarios?



If you don't want to go through the Congress papers, don't ask silly questions.


----------



## rederob (15 March 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> In the absense of waffling on what time frame are you referring to?



I repeat, for your benefit: Global warming is proven. Debating it is a waste of time.

Distraction, fabrication and obfuscation are important tactics to deniers of climate change.  Unable to comprehend the overwhelming evidence that our earth is on a collision course with severe weather events, they appease their minds with irrelevances.

On a recent BBC radio program on climate change denial an articulate person (Patrick) suggested we needed an open debate amongst the respective camps so that he could be swayed one way or the other.  He must be oblivious to the debates happening around the world on a regular basis in various media.  They generally "prove" that the respective camps remain entrenched.  Because the future contains few certainties, deniers can rightfully say that scientists simply don't know what's going to happen!  And scientists will generally respond with probabilities rather than definitives.

If scientists are not sure what is going to happen, why believe them?

That's not the right question.  The right question asks what gives rise to a scientist making a claim in the first case.

When thousands of scientists in a highly specialised field start to draw similar conclusions an interesting question to ask is if they could be wrong.
There is always that chance.

A better question to ask is if they are right, what are the consequences and it there anything we can do?

Or do we keep asking them, "what time frame are you referring to?"


----------



## spooly74 (15 March 2009)

rederob said:


> If you don't want to go through the Congress papers, don't ask silly questions.




Just asking you to back up your statements. 



> Between 2,000 and 2,500 researchers from around the world attended three days of meetings during which 600 oral presentations (together with several hundred posters on display) were delivered on topics ranging from the ethics of energy sufficiency to the role of icons in communicating climate change to the dynamics of continental ice sheets.




I don't have the time to wade through all the papers, but thankfully you did, which led you to your statement.

Again, specifically, what new data from the conference (congress ) suggests the the IPCC models are on the conservative side?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 March 2009)

I am planning a conference on the Psychosocial mindset of Weather Denial.

It will be on Hayman Island and I intend applying for sponsorship to those companies and organisations who stick their head out the window to figure out whether its going to rain or not.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 March 2009)

rederob said:


> I repeat, for your benefit: Global warming is proven. Debating it is a waste of time.



It is proven that the Earth's temperature fluctuates and that this has included a period of warming since the mid-1970's and at various times prior to that. It can thus be said that global warming itself is proven, although the cause is not proven.



> The right question asks what gives rise to a scientist making a claim in the first case.



The answer to that depends on why they are researching in the first place?

If it's for the love of it then any claims made are likely to be based on their research. 

On the other hand, if they or the source of their funding has a vested interest in the outcome of the research then the reason for making any claim about the results of that research may well be commercial rather than scientifically based.


----------



## rederob (15 March 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Just asking you to back up your statements.
> I don't have the time to wade through all the papers, but thankfully you did, which led you to your statement.
> Again, specifically, what new data from the conference (congress ) suggests the the IPCC models are on the conservative side?



If you aren't bothered to read the papers then you can wait till June when a comprehensive set will be available.
You can then choose not to bother reading them too.


----------



## spooly74 (15 March 2009)

rederob said:


> If you aren't bothered to read the papers then you can wait till June when a comprehensive set will be available.
> You can then choose not to bother reading them too.




What papers Rob? There was hundreds of presentations across the spectrum of science at this self elected get together.

You stated that the IPCC's models are now on the conservative side and refuse to back it with any link whatsoever.

Conservative with respect to temp?
Conservative with respect to sea level?

You can't just appeal to authority and say "read it". Read what? What paper should I read? All of them?

I'm positive not all the presentations projected 'worse than expected' climate, so I'll wait for you to simply post a link, or I'll wait till June, whichever comes first.


----------



## rederob (15 March 2009)

spooly74 said:


> You stated that the IPCC's models are now on the conservative side and refuse to back it with any link whatsoever.



Actually, I quoted from the Congress preliminary conlusions.
Stop being lazy.
If you have contrary information, put it up.


----------



## spooly74 (16 March 2009)

rederob said:


> Actually, I quoted from the Congress preliminary conlusions.
> Stop being lazy.
> If you have contrary information, put it up.



Correct me if I've interpreted this wrong.

The claim being made is this:



> In particular, the congress concluded that, according to *recent observations* and given high rates of observed emissions, *the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized. *



which led to your statement:


rederob said:


> It would appear that the IPCC models are leaning on the conservative side of the climate curve and things may be worse than most expected.




I would like to see what data they are referring to, with particular emphasis on the terms "_recent observations_" - "_worst case_" - "_are being realised_".

Below is a chart of _recent observed_ temp from GISS (red) and Hadcrut (purple) vs multiple model runs. It shows the worst case scenarios (or even worse) are not currently met. Nowhere near it.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (16 March 2009)

rederob


> Debating it is a waste of time.



And the strategy is already known.


> Distraction, fabrication and obfuscation are important tactics to deniers of climate change.  Unable to comprehend the overwhelming evidence that *our earth is on a collision course with severe weather event*s, they appease their minds with irrelevances.



How can the Earth collide with a weather event that is inside the Earth's atmosphere? Verbose cliches don't help the debate.


> On a recent BBC radio program on climate change denial an articulate person (Patrick) suggested we needed an open debate amongst the respective camps so that he could be swayed one way or the other.  He must be oblivious to the debates happening around the world on a regular basis in various media.  They generally "prove" that the respective camps remain entrenched.  Because the future contains few certainties, deniers can rightfully say that scientists simply don't know what's going to happen!  And scientists will generally respond with probabilities rather than definitives.



You can call me Patrick. 


> If scientists are not sure what is going to happen, why believe them?



That's a very good question.


> That's not the right question.  The right question asks what gives rise to a scientist making a claim in the first case.



This is an even better question.


> When thousands of scientists in a highly specialised field start to draw similar conclusions an interesting question to ask is if they could be wrong.
> There is always that chance.



Yes. And we could also ask where their funding comes from and what that funding is for. 


> A better question to ask is if they are right, what are the consequences and it there anything we can do?



We know the answers to that. Clean up the planet, water, ground and air. 


> Or do we keep asking them, "what time frame are you referring to?"



It's quite a pertinent question for those making claims without credible unbiased funded research results.

Spooly,

Thanks for the resources you have provided.


----------



## rederob (16 March 2009)

> The IPCC report received some criticism for not taking into account the melting ice sheets of Greenland and the Antarctic when estimating future rising sea levels, and new knowledge obtained since then and presented at this week’s congress suggests that sea levels could rise by more than a metre by 2100 – far more than the IPCC estimate of between 18 and 59cm.
> 
> Approximately 10 percent of the world’s population, or 600 million people, live in flood-danger areas and scientists warned the impact of sea level rise on them will be ‘severe’.
> Dr John Church of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research said recent satellite data and ground observations show sea levels rising at least 3mm per year – a rate well above the 20th century average.
> ...



Skeptics want "neat" answers.
The myriad of climate impacts does not lend itself to such neatness.
Temperatures do not rise linearly. Nor will sea levels. And occasionally ice sheets will be lesser one year than the previous.
The Congress canvassed issues far and wide and raised awareness of impacts from local level to global levels.


----------



## rederob (16 March 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> It's quite a pertinent question for those making claims without credible unbiased funded research results.



The issue of a warmer earth has been done to death in this thread.
You just don't want to accept it.
Good for you.

As for the science "funding" issue, it is proven beyond doubt that the energy sector continues to fund hundreds of lobbyists and skeptics.  
On the other hand, governments would keenly fund scientists who could show climate change was a fiction of the imagination because they could then direct billions of dollars towards more socially beneficial things.  To suggest governments have a vested interest in promoting the impending dangers of climate change is fanciful.  There are no votes in falsifying climate change.

As for tabling a year-old short-span chart on temperature, onya spooly.  Now, what did it mean in a global decadal context? And how was it relevant to global climate change models that actually show declining temperatures within an overall theme of increasing average temperatures?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 March 2009)

rederob said:


> Skeptics want "neat" answers.
> The myriad of climate impacts does not lend itself to such neatness.
> Temperatures do not rise linearly. Nor will sea levels. And occasionally ice sheets will be lesser one year than the previous.
> The Congress canvassed issues far and wide and raised awareness of impacts from local level to global levels.




You've obviously never heard of Ockham's Razor.

gg


----------



## rederob (17 March 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> You've obviously never heard of Ockham's Razor.
> 
> gg



And you haven't heard of AGW.


----------



## basilio (17 March 2009)

The challenge of the global warming debate is that if the theory and subsequent observations of thousands of scientists is true then our emissions of CO2 are effectively making the world uninhabitable for the current  ecosytems (which naturally includes us ) within  a century.

The science goes on to say that to have any chance of slowing the process and in fact preserving some part of the  planet for life as we roughly know it, we must make totally radical changes to how we produce energy and in the lifestyles we lead. That observation of course brings the issue into total conflict with the current major energy producers (fossil fuel industry) and large parts of the current economic system ( the parts that simply want us to consume "as-much-as-possible-forever" )

And finally the thought that we may be facing a catastrophe of the highest order within our lifetimes is the stuff of nightmares and very few people want to willingly entertain such thoughts.

So overall it's hardly surprising that:

1) The fossil fuel industries have devoted much energy and cleverness to  questioning and clouding the issue.

2) The vast majority of the players in the current economic system don't want to know about climate change.

3) And most of the ordinary punters aren't impressed with the thought that our future is looking very bleak.

Other factors that influence how we  make sense of the situation are some of the current "givens" or mythologies of the 20th century. For example

_1) The future can only get better as science and business progress us to more and more prosperity....

2) The Western  civilised world through its mastery of  economics, science, business etc deserves unlimited success by virtue of its enterprise and hard work....

3) Technology can solve any problem...

4) *There are no limits to growth and  Growth is Go(o)d*_

5) And finally. If anything does goes wrong there will be a magical solution (like in the movies...!!) that will fix everything up by the morning....

Do these strike any chords with other forum readers? 

Lets consider some other public health/public interest issues with a history and how our society reacted to them.

*Smoking.*.  Lovely little habit that really does make the smoker feel good. A relaxant as well as a stimulant and very addictive. 
Unfortunately medical science discovered in 1935 in London that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer. For the next 50-60 years however the industry relentlessly moved to  discredit the science, attack the researchers, produce their own contradictory research through their own institutes, buy political influence, pull the job creation card  and so on while smokers died like flies. 

And smoking is still a very highly profitable, legal industry. Not much of a signpost for respecting the efforts of truthful science is it?

*Asbestos* A great, great product.  Many uses. Unfortunately mining it, using it and breathing in the dust condemns many people to a miserable, painful death 30-40 years later.  
This was all understood  50-60 years ago. But the industry refused to accept the science because it was going to cost them money. And so for the last 40 years we have witnessed the inch by inch struggle to have clear scientific evidence accepted and the product banned. And now we are seeing the companies face huge ongoing payouts while tens of thousands of people die and millions more are exposed to crumbling asbestos in buildings around the world.

The list can be expanded at will. My point is that GW and humanities role in the current situation is another clear problem which science has recognised way beyond any reasonable doubt.
* It is also the biggest catastrophe facing all of us and unfortunately the same forces and factors that resulted in the needless deaths of millions of people are now likely to destroy most of life on earth and almost all of us*.

How sure am I that we are facing a critical problem? In the end one of my reality touchstones is the insurance industry. They have a very strong interest in making sure their bets on events are based on the best evidence. They don't want BS or spin, just the facts. 

That's why smokers had big life insurance premiums way before there were warning signs on cigarette packets.

That's why the reinsurance industry has been front and centre on warning about global warming and assessing the risks to property that will result from the inevitable consequences of fire, flood and cyclones.
*
And it's why we shouldn't be surprised if in the next year, in the light of the scientific updates on the pace of GW,  there isn't some fundamental revision of which coastal areas will be insurable. That is reality. *

My last point. On a personal level if any of us went to doctor and during an examination they discovered a very serious condition that threatened our health, in fact of life, how determined would we be to disregard his assessment ? Sure we would get a second opinion. We may even want a third. How about a fourth or fifth?  Will we only be happy when we find someone who can confidently tell us that this problem that the first  10-1000 doctors agreed on was in fact not a problem and that they were mistaken or simply just too self interested to give the right diagnosis?


----------



## spooly74 (18 March 2009)

rederob said:


> As for tabling a year-old short-span chart on temperature, onya spooly.  Now, what did it mean in a global decadal context?




Seeing as you offered nothing, temp seems an obvious metric to compare IPCC predictions against the claims being made .... remember?
The chart clearly shows that *recent observations *should not cause such sensational claims.
The up-to-date chart below shows that the short term trend is negative.



> And how was it relevant to global climate change models that actually show declining temperatures within an overall theme of increasing average temperatures



No model that I'm aware of predicts a 10 year trend of cooling based on current emissions, so I'll ask for a cite please.



> The IPCC report received some criticism for not taking into account the melting ice sheets of Greenland and the Antarctic when estimating future rising sea levels, and new knowledge obtained since then and presented at this week’s congress suggests that sea levels could rise by more than a metre by 2100 – far more than the IPCC estimate of between 18 and 59cm.




The IPCC *do* take Greenland and the Antarctic into account but use past flow rates and emphasise "*but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future*." Thats a pretty basic error in the article.

The IPCC also state: 

_"Models used to date do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, *because a basis in published literature is lacking*"_

It looks to me like this self-elected University congress has just taken data from the IPCC's 3rd assessment report, and ignored the limitations in the 4th.
Till June.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 March 2009)

Great post Basilio.


----------



## rederob (18 March 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Seeing as you offered nothing....



I offered increased sea levels.
Sea levels rise when substantial quantities of ice melts - due to increasing temperatures.  And they rise when increasing temperatures heat the oceans, thereby expanding their volume.
If it was getting colder it would be difficult for sea levels to rise. 
By the way, your chart of the temperature "anomaly" nicely confirms that the earth is warming (over a statistically significant period).  Typically this anomaly is expressed as a deviation from the average temperature baseline period of 1951-1980.  Note that climate scientists prefer a 30 year baseline period to infer subsequent deviations.
Your short-period temperature chart simply shows the possibilities of temperature variations, and the short-term trend.
Clearer representation of global temperature trends is found at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (18 March 2009)

rederob said:


> Typically this anomaly is expressed as a deviation from the average temperature baseline period of 1951-1980.  Note that climate scientists prefer a *30 year baseline period* to infer subsequent deviations.
> Your *short-period temperature chart* simply shows the possibilities of temperature variations, and the short-term trend.
> Clearer representation of global temperature trends is found at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/




What time frame is that red? 30 years?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (18 March 2009)

> The issue of a warmer earth has been done to death in this thread.



As are the grandiose cliches.


> You just don't want to accept it.



Not the case at all. I just want someone to say MAN is resposible and why?


> As for the science "funding" issue, it is proven beyond doubt that the energy sector continues to fund hundreds of lobbyists and skeptics.
> On the other hand, governments would keenly fund scientists who could show climate change was a fiction of the imagination because they could then direct billions of dollars towards more socially beneficial things.  To suggest governments have a vested interest in promoting the impending dangers of climate change is fanciful.  *There are no votes in falsifying climate change*.



Maybe so. But you are forgetting about the governments who have signed up to UN agreements. And the Green vote is big in Australia.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (18 March 2009)

basilio said:


> The challenge of the global warming debate is that if the theory and subsequent observations of thousands of scientists is true then our emissions of CO2 are effectively making the world uninhabitable for the current  ecosytems (which naturally includes us ) within  a century.
> 
> The science goes on to say that to have any chance of slowing the process and in fact preserving some part of the  planet for life as we roughly know it, we must make totally radical changes to how we produce energy and in the lifestyles we lead. That observation of course brings the issue into total conflict with the current major energy producers (fossil fuel industry) and large parts of the current economic system ( the parts that simply want us to consume "as-much-as-possible-forever" )
> 
> ...



Your analogies are unable to compare the manmade GW story to something much easier to define.


----------



## rederob (18 March 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> What time frame is that red? 30 years?



The linked website goes back over 100 years. Is that good enough?

Your other guttersnipes are quite pathetic yet indicative of skeptics' mentallity.


----------



## spooly74 (18 March 2009)

rederob said:


> By the way, your chart of the temperature "anomaly" nicely confirms that the earth is warming (over a statistically significant period).



The 10 year chart is a measure of IPCC predictions, nothing more.
Give that a predicted 0.2C should be realised over that time frame based on current emissions, you would currently reject the IPCC's hypothesis.

The next 10 years may well be different. 



rederob said:


> Typically this anomaly is expressed as a deviation from the average temperature baseline period of 1951-1980.  Note that climate scientists prefer a 30 year baseline period to infer subsequent deviations.
> Your short-period temperature chart simply shows the possibilities of temperature variations, and the short-term trend.
> *Clearer representation of global temperature trends is found at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/*



Here is the same 100 year 'absolute' chart using a 30 year baseline from 1951 - 1980 measured against current climate models.
This hardly inspires confidence to predict temperatures 100 years ahead.


----------



## basilio (18 March 2009)

> Your analogies are unable to compare the manmade GW story to something much easier to define.
> __________________
> Discussion only! All posts are free speech only and may be factually incorrect.
> It's Snake Pliskin




I totally agree with the final part of your post.

I  suggest that if you cannot see the analogies between the examples I have outlined and the detailed research and evidence of anthropogenic global warming - you may have your eyes closed...


----------



## rederob (18 March 2009)

spooly74 said:


> The 10 year chart is a measure of IPCC predictions, nothing more.
> Give that a predicted 0.2C should be realised over that time frame based on current emissions, you would currently reject the IPCC's hypothesis.





> *GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
> Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation *_Originally posted Dec. 16, 2008, with meteorological year data. Updated Jan. 13, 2009, with calendar year data._
> Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05 °C [ref. 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record.



If the ten hottest years (since reliable records have been kept) occurred within the last 12 years why would anyone think the IPCC model forecasts were unreliable?
Climate scientists do not contemplate a linear increase in temperature, and continuing to suggest this as a foundation point to global warming is mischievous.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (19 March 2009)

basilio said:


> I totally agree with the final part of your post.
> 
> I  suggest that if you cannot see the analogies between the examples I have outlined and the detailed research and evidence of anthropogenic global warming - you may have your eyes closed...



Basilio, good to have you comment. 

Just on this:


> My last point. On a personal level if any of us went to doctor and during an examination they discovered a very serious condition that threatened our health, in fact of life, how determined would we be to disregard his assessment ? Sure we would get a second opinion. We may even want a third. How about a fourth or fifth? Will we only be happy when we find someone who can confidently tell us that this problem that the first 10-1000 doctors agreed on was in fact not a problem and that they were mistaken or simply just too self interested to give the right diagnosis?



I think it is ridiculous to say what you have. What you are attempting to do is say that anyone who has a different view to others would only take the advice that is emotionally acceptable. That it ludicrous and silly. But this cannot be anologous to GW. 

The problem with the man made GW story is many scientists are stating there is GW from man and those who say it is not from man. So, for the scientists who say it isn't, are they the same as in your analogy above? Not really. The issue is funding and agendas and specialities. But in the debate there is no real debate of the causes and quite commonly just - Co2, even on this thread, there is no discussion of the sun and its role in heating the globe. "The Earth is heating so it must be us". Why not "Consideirng the sun heats the Earth, let's explore that before we fix our minds on a story that is doubtful and convenient"?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (19 March 2009)

rederob said:


> The linked website goes back over 100 years. Is that good enough?
> 
> Your other guttersnipes are quite pathetic yet indicative of skeptics' mentallity.



No, the time frame is too short and totally inadequate to take a view on. 

I am happy to talk about the topic and without making personal attacks  such as you have. If you want to use cliches expect people to say they suck. The word skeptic is redundant.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 March 2009)

rederob said:


> As for the science "funding" issue, it is proven beyond doubt that the energy sector continues to fund hundreds of lobbyists and skeptics.
> On the other hand, governments would keenly fund scientists who could show climate change was a fiction of the imagination because they could then direct billions of dollars towards more socially beneficial things.  To suggest governments have a vested interest in promoting the impending dangers of climate change is fanciful.  There are no votes in falsifying climate change.



Internationally it's no secret that the nuclear industry is a big supporter of emissions cuts and sees itself as a major beneficiary. It's to the point that some refer to the Kyoto Protocol as the "Nuclear Protocol", a reference both to the consequences of it (build more nuclear plants) and the source of significant funding promoting it.

Within Australia, do a bit of digging and you'll find it difficult to find anyone pushing for cuts to emissions who isn't in some way associated with or receiving funds from the gas industry, Tasmanian state government or the renewable energy industry. All of those have a vested interest in an end to cheap coal-fired power at the national and indeed global level and have been pushing the issue for a rather long time.

Disclosure: Smurf is making money from public concern over the climate change issue. I have a vested interest in it as do many.


----------



## basilio (19 March 2009)

Just on this:
Quote:


> > My last point. On a personal level if any of us went to doctor and during an examination they discovered a very serious condition that threatened our health, in fact of life, how determined would we be to disregard his assessment ? Sure we would get a second opinion. We may even want a third. How about a fourth or fifth? Will we only be happy when we find someone who can confidently tell us that this problem that the first 10-1000 doctors agreed on was in fact not a problem and that they were mistaken or simply just too self interested to give the right diagnosis?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Snake Pliskin I suggest the isssue is as I have put it and it also incorporates other parts of my post.

No-one  really wants to believe that the planet is cooking and worse we are responsible. The first part is bad enough : to consider that it is our collective actions that have caused the the result is pretty horrendous and not a place  many want to go. That's what i was talking about in terms of the mass psychology of wanting to disbelieve.

I used the analogy of the  diagnosis because I believed it was apt.  If one is diagnosed with a cancer the probability that its true will be verified by  the overwhelming majority of physicians. It would be fair to get a second opinion and perhaps a third . How many more would you want?

But in this world it would be possible to find a doctor or another person to say  "No - this is not a cancer ". or " We can cure this with my new technique/potion/crystal therapy whatever. " And its fair to say that when many people are faced with such a a prognosis they desperately want to find and hear this lifeline.

And in fact the cancer may not be terminal. There have been inexplicable cures, remissions, perhaps even miracles. Not often but possible. And we now know enough about the effect of the mind on the body and  X factors to not rule out such events. _(Trouble is I havn't see any examples  of the power of the mind over the effect of 1 gigatonne of CO2 )_

Back to manmade global warming. The current facts are that  there are very, very few scientists in the global warming field who would dispute the evidence that man made CO2 is culprit in GW. This would be the 1000th doctor example. 

There will some more people who aren't climate scientists who will try to suggest other factors are as likely to be the problem. Sunspots and so on  (Very few people will suggest that we aren't actually getting a lot warmer) 

Mixed up with these people and throwing a lot of money to them are the representatives of the fossil fuel industry who stand to lose $trillions  if we have to change our energy sources. I used the smoking and asbestos examples to show how  effectively these organisations can create doubt and dispute despite clearer and clearer evidence of the harm their products are doing to us. I documented this in more detail in earlier posts.

Snake there is a chance that the majority of scientists have got it wrong.  At this stage its probably about 1-2%. *But in the real world we  make our big decisions on the overwhelming evidence not the small possibility it might be wrong. *That's why I pointed out that Reinsurance companies are front and centre  on attacking GW.
*
But on a fundamental basis when we recognise even a small possibility that a catastrophic event will occur common sense dictates a cautious approach.* For example we wouldn't let a plane fly if there was a 1% chance it would crash. (In the real world that would mean  that 1 in a hundred flights would  end in disaster). We wouldn't engineer a bridge with a similar chance of failure and so on.

Even if the current scientific view of man made GW had only a 10% probability of being correct (and unfortunately it is closer to 90+%) how could we let our entire future be cooked because we were not quite certain? Doesn't make sense does it?

On another note, the urgent move to renewable energy and radical reduction in our use of resources will be forced on us by simple reality.  Oil, gas, coal will deplete. They don't grow on trees ( _Well yes but it takes an awfully long time...)_ The reality of peak oil is in fact far closer and far clearer than GW. The impact on our industrial society will also be the stuff of nightmares.  The "good" news is that  moving as fast as possible to a renewable energy base for our society at least addresses both issues .

These points have been made a number of times in this forum...

My experience is that the world of big money and big business is also about big bullxxx and big hype. The last 7 years of bull market has been about persuading everyone that shares and houses and profits can rise infinitely. That its our God given right to get our million dollars from the gravy train. That there there are no downsides and no consequences. We are now just starting to pay the financial price for this self interested scam.

It is worth realising that it is the same economic interests that denied the possibility that this gravy train might fall over a cliff have also been steadfast in denying GW and Peak Oil.   In fact I just can't think of an environmental, health or political  issue where  entrenched financial interests have not done everything and anything to save their money - and hang the effects on everyone else. 

And yet these people through their paid shills are the ones we want to listen to on  GW? Pleeeese...!


----------



## spooly74 (19 March 2009)

rederob said:


> If the ten hottest years (since reliable records have been kept) occurred within the last 12 years why would anyone think the IPCC model forecasts were unreliable?
> Climate scientists do not contemplate a linear increase in temperature, and continuing to suggest this as a foundation point to global warming is mischievous.



The predictions made by the IPCC are based on emissions scenarios. The fact that the Earth has warmed in the past and that recent years are among the hottest is irrelevant to the models.
We would need to be looking at some accelerated warming in the next 5-8 years or the IPCC's models should be rejected by the scientific community.

My last chart shows how they performed when back tested over a 100 years with an accepted baseline. Not only do they fail to get close to the mean, the difference from observed is out by some 2 degrees.
Credibly though, they seem to get the trend right, but how they do this when getting the temperature so wrong is a mystery.

And, I'm certainly not trying to be mischievous. The issue of AGW is not fully understood, and having a skeptical approach to 'questionable' models should only lead to a more informed debate.


----------



## spooly74 (19 March 2009)

basilio said:


> No-one  really wants to believe that the planet is cooking and worse we are responsible. The first part is bad enough : to consider that it is our collective actions that have caused the the result is pretty horrendous and not a place  many want to go. That's what i was talking about in terms of the mass psychology of wanting to disbelieve.



And I presume you can provide some cites for the global mass delusion? 



> Snake there is a chance that the majority of scientists have got it wrong.  At this stage its probably about 1-2%.



Reference?


> But on a fundamental basis when we recognise even a small possibility that a catastrophic event will occur common sense dictates a cautious approach.



It remains to be seen whether policy recommendations are cautious.



> Even if the current scientific view of man made GW had only a 10% probability of being correct (and unfortunately it is closer to 90+%)



Current modeling vs observations suggests otherwise.



> On another note, the urgent move to renewable energy and radical reduction in our use of resources will be forced on us by simple reality.  Oil, gas, coal will deplete.



That simple reality is not so simple.



> The mathematics of United States carbon dioxide emissions are not actually that complicated. The figure below from the U.S. Energy Information Agency shows that the 5,991 million metric tonnes (MMt) of carbon dioxide emitted by the U.S. came from 3 sources: coal, natural gas, and petroleum (see three inputs in the upper left of the graph).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Aussiejeff (19 March 2009)

Do these last 7 days of simple statistics matter? Apart from the World Economic Crisis, we are fast approaching our very own SE Australian Water Crisis.

Hume Dam          Th       We       Tu        Mo       Su        Sa        Fr   
Percent Full (%)  *6.4*  	6.5  	7.0  	7.0  	7.2  	7.4  	7.7

That's right, folks. Only *6.4%* left as of today! 

With an average downdraw of approx. 1.5% per 7 day period, that leaves around 4 weeks to hit below 2% if no massive rain comes. The last 25 mm "downpour" did almost nothing - added a paltry .1% or so.

The authorities will have to let go of the Dartmouth reserve if Huey doesn't take a leak big time (only 20.3% of capacity there as of today). Here we go again.

It was only a lucky short, wetter than normal break in 2006-07 that got us to this point at all. Without that lucky break, both dams would be all but dry by now. 

Question is, will Huey be so generous as to offer another "lucky break" to save ours and the Authority's a$$es this year? Or will the Big Fella get all sadistic and crack the whip?


----------



## basilio (19 March 2009)

Spooly not quite sure how you are reading my posts.

I suggest that the vast majority of people *would not like to believe the world is going to become inhabitable within a relatively short period of time and that mankinds collective actions were responsible*.  I really wouldn't have thought it necessary to attempt to cite a study to make such an observation. 

*The 1-2% possibility that we don't have serious global warming *? Okay a generalisation based on the overwhelming majority view of scientists who have been monitoring increases in global temperatures around the world not to mention the evidence of this rapid temperature rise. I suppose I was trying to suggest there was a tiny chance that miraculously global temperatures would steadily fall over the next 10-20 years and that all our fears would turn out to groundless. That would be fantastic... in every sense of the word.


> Quote:
> But on a fundamental basis when we recognise even a small possibility that a catastrophic event will occur common sense dictates a cautious approach



By cautious I meant that the risk of a  catastrophic outcome should dictate a policy approach to address the issue - in our case radical reduction in CO2 emissions to attempt to reduce the risk of runaway GW.

As far the accuracy of IPPC modelling I take my information from the analysis undertaken by Climate scientists at Real Climate. 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting with your table on the current energy mix in USA.

My point was that *we face a certain depletion in fossil fuel resources. 
* They are finite - full  stop. Furthermore there is strong evidence that the world as whole will be hitting the supply capacity of this finite resource in the very near future. In that sense we need to go renewable out of necessity as well as reducing greenhouse gases.

_____________________________________________________________________________

By the way the reference from Real Climate is worth a good look. Apart from the explantion from the climate scientists there are 470 odd comments and in some cases responses which tease out many of the issues you raise. 
Cheers


----------



## spooly74 (19 March 2009)

basilio said:


> Spooly not quite sure how you are reading my posts.
> 
> 
> *The 1-2% possibility that we don't have serious global warming *? Okay a generalisation based on the overwhelming majority view of scientists who have been monitoring increases in global temperatures around the world *not to mention the evidence of this rapid temperature rise. *




What rapid temperature rise? From when?




basilio said:


> By the way the reference from Real Climate is worth a good look. Apart from the explantion from the climate scientists there are 470 odd comments and in some cases responses which tease out many of the issues you raise.
> Cheers




I have read it, but the models are now being tested vs reality.
None of the comments there, or anywhere, explain the difference observed.
See previous charts.


----------



## basilio (19 March 2009)

spooly74 said:


> What rapid temperature rise? From when?




*Global Temperature
*
There is no single thermometer measuring the global temperature. Instead, individual thermometer measurements taken every day at several thousand stations over the land areas of the world are combined with thousands more measurements of sea surface temperature taken from ships moving over the oceans to produce an estimate of global average temperature every month (see the sections on how climate is measured ).

From these records, the ten warmest years in the instrumental record of global temperature (since around 1880) all occur within the 12 year period 1997-2008. Although 2008 data below show it was the coolest since 2000 due to the moderate to strong La NiÃ±a that developed in the latter half of 2007. However, the total global temperature increase from the 1850s throught to 2005 is 0.76 °C (1.36 °F) and the rate of warming averaged over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. So don't be lulled by one year where it is relatively cooler, what we need to look at is decadal or long term trends.


*Global Temperature 2008 NASA*

An increasing rate of warming has taken place over the last 25 years. Above the surface, global observations since the late 1950s show that the troposphere (up to about 10 km) has warmed at a slightly greater rate than the surface, while the stratosphere (about 10–30 km) has cooled markedly since 1979. This is in accord with physical expectations and most model results.

Confirmation of a global temperature rise comes from the observed temperature increases in the oceans, observations of sea level rise, glacial melt, sea ice retreat in the Arctic and diminished snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. Global average temperature is forecast to rise 4 °C (7.2 °F) toward the end of the 21st century, and this is a mere 90 years away! Even if began today, and stopped most of our greenhouse gas emissions overnight, we would still see a temperature rise of around 2 °C (3.6 °F) by 2090-2100. David Spratt and Philip Sutton explain in their paper Code Red what will happen with three degrees of warming, and how dangerous this is.

This rapid rise in temperature is unmatched in the last million years, and even then, the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years. Our human ( anthropogenic ) actions have ramped up the rate of change not evidenced in any record, and we are leaving ourselves very little time to adapt.


*Global mean temperature IPCC*

Figure Above: Annual average global temperature (black dots) along with simple fits to the data. The left hand axis shows global temperature anomalies relative to the 1961 to 1990 average and the right hand axis shows the estimated actual temperature ( °C). Linear trend fits to the last 25 (yellow), 50 (orange), 100 (purple) and 150 years (red) are shown, and correspond to 1981 to 2005, 1956 to 2005, 1906 to 2005, and 1856 to 2005, respectively. Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is greater, indicating accelerated warming.


*The rapid rise in global temperature is unmatched in the last million years. Normally, and when the Earth has warmed after an ice age, it is a gradual process taking about 5,000 years. *

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/global-temperature.html

What  a shame. I couldn't cut and paste the actual graphs!  Have to learn how.Anyway the first one is The NASA graph which tracks Global Land and Sea temperatures from 1880 to 2008.  

The second graph looks at Global Mean temperatures  from 1850 to 2008. As note above the rapid rise in global temperature is unmatched in the last million years. Click the url for the graphs


----------



## spooly74 (19 March 2009)

basilio said:


> What  a shame. I couldn't cut and paste the actual graphs!  Have to learn how.Anyway the first one is The NASA graph which tracks Global Land and Sea temperatures from 1880 to 2008.



Here is the same chart, again.


----------



## rederob (19 March 2009)

spooly74 said:


> The predictions made by the IPCC are based on emissions scenarios. The fact that the Earth has warmed in the past and that recent years are among the hottest is irrelevant to the models.
> We would need to be looking at some accelerated warming in the next 5-8 years or the IPCC's models should be rejected by the scientific community.
> 
> My last chart shows how they performed when back tested over a 100 years with an accepted baseline. Not only do they fail to get close to the mean, the difference from observed is out by some 2 degrees.
> ...



Increased CO2 emissions are key to climate predictions, but many other aspects/influences impact modeled outcomes.
The fact that the earth is hotter now than previously validates the long term trend that is shown in the many climate models.
While we might expect a warming in the next 5-8 years, some scientists speculate that we are entering a "Maunder Minimum" situation, a period of reduced irradiance that could last for decades.  If this were to occur we would need at least another 7 years of CO2 increases to offset the decreased irradiance.   More simply put, temperatures may not rise for another 10 years, and the IPCC conclusion are no less valid.
I am not going to open the gate to modeling errors and inaccuracies.  If anyone is interested in their construction and history, this is a good read: http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/model_appraisal.pdf
The science of AGW is reasonably well understood.  More difficult to measure is the difference that man has made over and above natural influences.  Climate models are attempting to capture this “difference” and forecast the longer term impacts.  The IPCC makes no claim that a modeled outcome for any future year will be accurate. 
As for “informed debate”, there are literally thousands of scientific papers that contribute to the efficacy of climate modeling.  This forum is hardly the place to debate them.
Finally, our differences here began in relation to the Copenhagen Congress outcomes.  Many of these were founded on the latest real world observations.  These observations suggested the IPCC Climate models were underestimating the pace of climate change.  Your posts only reinforce my points.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 March 2009)

A few observations... 

The chart of US energy supply and consumption shows petroleum as the largest source and gas as the second largest.

Oil production capacity seems to have reached at least an interim, if not final, peak globally whilst US / Canada gas production shows all the tell tale signs of peaking too. So forget any scenario that involves using more oil / gas to offset lower coal use. More likely we'll see a significant shift from gas to coal or some other energy source in the US. 

Gas and oil aren't here for the long term, the debate is about whether peak production is now or in a few years - nobody with any credibility expects that we'll have anything other than falling use of those resources in 2050. That the Garnaut report and most other modelling fails to take this rather critical point into account is a very serious flaw in their assumptions, to the point of making their entire CO2 emissions forecasts essentially useless in the real world.

Now, to Aussiejeff who mentioned water. Yep, that's what happens when you try and run any catchment or integrated (hydraulically or electrically) group of catchments at greater than 100% of firm supply capability.

Someday you wake up and the dams are empty, an outcome that was 99.99% certain with or without climate change and could be demonstrated years in advance by established modelling techniques (which, by the way, are very similar to how a trading system is back tested).

Solution? There are only two. Either drop consumption to not more than firm supply capability or increase firm supply capability (additional diversions or in some situations storage). They are the only two options that can work, the reasons being physical not political or financial.


----------



## Aussiejeff (21 March 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Now, to Aussiejeff who mentioned water. Yep, that's what happens when you try and run any catchment or integrated (hydraulically or electrically) group of catchments at greater than 100% of firm supply capability.
> 
> Someday you wake up and the dams are empty, an outcome that was 99.99% certain with or without climate change and could be demonstrated years in advance by established modelling techniques (which, by the way, are very similar to how a trading system is back tested).
> 
> Solution? There are only two. Either drop consumption to not more than firm supply capability or increase firm supply capability (additional diversions or in some situations storage). They are the only two options that can work, the reasons being physical not political or financial.




Hi Smurf.

Unfortunately, the Authorities have promised irrigators "high security" water through sale of permits. The money appears more important than the water supply?

See page 5 graphs here, which show a pretty scary recent trend in MDB inflows. http://riverinfo.mdba.gov.au/weekly-report/current_wr.pdf

What do you predict will be the outcome if the same trend continues again over the approaching months - ie another dry winter? Will the MDB be screwed?

aj


----------



## basilio (21 March 2009)

> Hi Smurf.
> 
> Unfortunately, the Authorities have promised irrigators "high security" water through sale of permits. The money appears more important than the water supply?
> 
> ...




Insufficient water, no MDB,  = no viable towns in the region + large fall in amount of food production in Australia ie we (city people) start  wondering how we are going to put food on the table.
_
What a shame we couldn't forsee this possibility over the last 5-10 years....._
______________________________________________

_When the last river runs dry..........


(You all know the rest of the story)_


----------



## Aussiejeff (23 March 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> That's right, folks. Only *6.4%* left as of today!




Ummm.... make that *5.5%* today  

Only a paltry 169,688 ML left. At current average downdraw of approx. 8,300 ML/day, that leaves around 20 days to hit *0%*, if no massive rain comes. The authorities have not started letting out Dartmouth reserve - yet.

TWENTY DAYS!!!

... and counting ...


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (23 March 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> A few observations...
> Gas and oil aren't here for the long term, the debate is about whether peak production is now or in a few years - nobody with any credibility expects that we'll have anything other than falling use of those resources in 2050. That the Garnaut report and most other modelling fails to take this rather critical point into account is a very serious flaw in their assumptions, to the point of *making their entire CO2 emissions forecasts essentially useless in the real world.*




Yes, and the fearmongerers spout off like teapots without a lid.

Good posts as always Smurf.


----------



## rederob (23 March 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Yes, and the fearmongerers spout off like teapots without a lid.
> 
> Good posts as always Smurf.



Actually it was a rather poor effort from Smurf. The contribution of coal to CO2 emissions far outstrips the decline from oil and gas over the next 50 years.
Not that unthinking skeptics would know to look at the facts.


----------



## ColB (23 March 2009)

> Originally posted by *Rederob*
> 
> "Actually it was a rather poor effort from Smurf. The contribution of coal to CO2 emissions far outstrips the decline from oil and gas over the next 50 years.
> 
> Not that *unthinking skeptics* would know to look at the *facts*."




And whose facts would those be Red?  

The ones from scientists that you want to believe in or the ones that Smurf believes in.

The Al Gores who make their living by spreading your climate change propaganda or the Coal Industry sponsored scientist.

Or the countless climate modelling studies that all generally contradict each other in some shape or form.

One thing is for sure though, climate is changing, has changed, and will always change just as it has done so over the past trillion years.

Is it because of us?  We contribute to an extent.  To what extent, who really knows.

All I know is, that Government propaganda on the one hand encourages us to cut our energy usage depicting black balloons emanating from all our appliances but sticking their other hand out to grab all the royalties and taxes that the coal and oil industry provides them so that they have enough money to ensure their superannuation portfolios aren't affected in these times.

Let's ban cows, they contribute a third of Australia's GHG emmissions with politicians probably running a close fourth


----------



## rederob (23 March 2009)

ColB said:


> And whose facts would those be Red?
> 
> The ones from scientists that you want to believe in or the ones that Smurf believes in.
> 
> ...



Many facts continue to be posted here.
The deniers ignore them constantly.
Just as your post adds nothing to the debate by way of supplementary information: Simply more of the tactics of denial.
What else can you put up that supports a contrary case?


----------



## ColB (23 March 2009)

> Originally posted by *Rederob*
> 
> "Many facts continue to be posted here."




The following are all factual

Fact One: "The ones from scientists that you want to believe in or the ones that Smurf believes in."

Fact Two: The Al Gores who make their living by spreading your climate change propaganda or the Coal Industry sponsored scientist.

Fact Three: Or the countless climate modelling studies that all generally contradict each other in some shape or form.

Fact Four: One thing is for sure though, climate is changing, has changed, and will always change just as it has done so over the past trillion years.

Fact Five: Is it because of us? We contribute to an extent. To what extent, who really knows.

Fact Six: All I know is, that Government propaganda on the one hand encourages us to cut our energy usage depicting black balloons emanating from all our appliances but sticking their other hand out to grab all the royalties and taxes that the coal and oil industry provides them so that they have enough money to ensure their superannuation portfolios aren't affected in these times.

Fact Seven: Let's ban cows, they contribute a third of Australia's GHG emmissions 



> Originally posted by *Rederob*
> 
> "The deniers ignore them constantly."




Can't see anything in my post that would indicate I am a Climate Change denialist.  In fact to the contrary if you read carefully.  Think you have a problem with interpetation.



> Originally posted by *Rederob*
> 
> "Just as your post adds nothing to the debate by way of supplementary information: Simply more of the tactics of denial."




Unless you happen to be some leading climate scientist I would suggest you, as are most of us, not qualified to interpret the data that any of these climate change scientists put out.



> Originally posted by *Rederob*
> 
> What else can you put up that supports a contrary case?




A contrary Case! Whose case? Yours?  Whose scientific case would you like me to post? One that you agree with because its suits your agenda or one that you disagree with yet you don't have the qualifications to dispute its findings anyway.


----------



## rederob (23 March 2009)

ColB said:


> A contrary Case! Whose case? Yours?  Whose scientific case would you like me to post? One that you agree with because its suits your agenda or one that you disagree with yet you don't have the qualifications to dispute its findings anyway.



If you don't know what my qualifications are you would be well placed to comment on what you do know.
Apart from that, is there anything new you want to contribute?
Your "facts" have already been done to death here.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (24 March 2009)

rederob said:


> ...is there anything new you want to contribute?



What do you see as the biggest cause of fictional GW? Is it gas, oil, coal etc..?


----------



## spooly74 (24 March 2009)

rederob said:


> Increased CO2 emissions are key to climate predictions, but many other aspects/influences impact modeled outcomes.
> The fact that the earth is hotter now than previously validates the long term trend that is shown in the many climate models.



The trend could simply be realised from coming out of the last little ice age. It in no way validates models future predictive powers. Like I said, getting the trend right while getting the temperature so wrong requires an explanation. Yet to see one.



> While we might expect a warming in the next 5-8 years, some scientists speculate that we are entering a "Maunder Minimum" situation, a period of reduced irradiance that could last for decades.  If this were to occur we would need at least another 7 years of CO2 increases to offset the decreased irradiance.   More simply put, temperatures may not rise for another 10 years, and the IPCC conclusion are no less valid.



What scientists speculate that we're entering a Maunder Minimum, and have they put out a press release with climate warnings? The previous Maunder Minimum was bitterly cold leading to deaths, disease and famine. 
And these freezing conditions will not invalidate the IPCC's projections? 

You can't have it both ways.



> Finally, our differences here began in relation to the Copenhagen Congress outcomes.  Many of these were founded on the latest real world observations.  These observations suggested the IPCC Climate models were underestimating the pace of climate change.  Your posts only reinforce my points.



They most certainly do not.
Now, who's being mischievous?

The statement from that university get-together was 100% political.


----------



## rederob (24 March 2009)

spooly74 said:


> They most certainly do not.



Yes they do!
You just can't see it.


----------



## cerberus (24 March 2009)

rederob said:


> Yes they do!
> You just can't see it.





ooh they can see it.but it could affect their short term bottom line and they can't have that.


----------



## spooly74 (24 March 2009)

rederob said:


> Yes they do!
> You just can't see it.




Again, based upon your premise "IPCC Climate models were underestimating the pace of climate change" and taking recent observations this Century.

*Is a linear trend of 2C/century treated as a point estimate consistent with either Hadley or GISS during this period? *No and no. If we interpret the IPCC statement of “about 2C/century” for the first two or three decades as being 2C/century and applying from 2001-2008, this lies outside the 95% confidence intervals of trends consistent with observations. 

*How many model means are rejected as inconsistent with the Hadley trend at a significance level of 5%?* 8 That is to say 73% of these model means are inconsistent with the Hadley trend. All are inconsistent on the high side. 

*How many model means are rejected as inconsistent with the GISTemp trend at a significance level of 5%?* 4. That’s 36% of model means. All are inconsistent on the high side. 

*Is the multi-model trend inconsistent with the either Hadley or GISS observations at a significance level of 5%?* The model mean trend is inconsistent with observations. The multi-model mean trend is different from the observed trend, and the difference is consistent to the 95% confidence level. This diagnosis applies for both HadCrut and GISSTemp.


----------



## rederob (24 March 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Again, based upon you're premise "IPCC Climate models were underestimating the pace of climate change" and taking recent observations this Century.



Which of your posts shows the earth in a long term cooling phase?
Which of your posts shows a decrease in sea levels?
Which model contradicted the scientific principle of radiative forcings?
What!
None.
How can that be?


----------



## spooly74 (24 March 2009)

What a ridiculous straw man.

*Which of your posts shows the earth in a long term cooling phase*?When did I attempt to show that the earth is in a long term coolin trend?

*Which of your posts shows a decrease in sea levels?*Where did I mention sea levels, which btw have been steadily risisng at ~ 3mm per year -There's been no acceleration in recent observations in sea level, again, refer to your premise.

*Which model contradicted the scientific principle of radiative forcings?*Does such a model even exist?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (24 March 2009)

> The trend could simply be realised from coming out of the last little ice age. It in no way validates models future predictive powers. Like I said, getting the trend right while getting the temperature so wrong requires an explanation. Yet to see one.



Yes, interesting Spooly.

Little ice ages, warm periods etc. The Earth lives aided by the Sun.


----------



## ColB (24 March 2009)

> Originally Posted by *Rederob*
> 
> "If you don't know what my qualifications are you would be well placed to comment on what you do know."




You seem to be the one putting yourself up as an authority on climate change science.  It should be you who states your qualifications in order to add some shred of credibility to your arguments.  If not, how about posting your source reference when you spread your gospel so then we'll know if your information actually comes from a source or is just hot air.  

I'm a qualified horticulturalist and I don't know a great deal about the science of climate change and I don't PRETEND to. 



> Originally posted by *Spooly*
> 
> What a ridiculous straw man.
> 
> ...




I think I mentioned something along the lines of your difficulty in interpreting peoples posts.  You seem to reinforce this belief in your response to Spooly with statements that never related to his original post.  Read peoples articles first before your respond and maybe you won't be called a Straw Man.


----------



## rederob (24 March 2009)

spooly74 said:


> What a ridiculous straw man......
> *Which of your posts shows a decrease in sea levels?*Where did I mention sea levels, which btw have been steadily risisng at ~ 3mm per year -There's been no acceleration in recent observations in sea level, again, refer to your premise.



When you asked about the findings from the Copenhagen congress I posted how on the pace of sea level rises was greater than the IPCC had modelled.  This should have formed the foundation of your responses.
And now you say, "*Where did I mention sea levels*".
Little wonder it's hard to get a decent debate underway here.


----------



## spooly74 (24 March 2009)

rederob said:


> When you asked about the findings from the Copenhagen congress I posted how on the pace of sea level rises was greater than the IPCC had modelled.  This should have formed the foundation of your responses.
> And now you say, "*Where did I mention sea levels*".




pfft!

Sea level rise determines temperature, does it?

The first IPCC model totally exaggerated current observed sea levels. Fact.

The last report has deferred from making short term predictions on sea level rise due to overwhelming uncertainty. But, the models are currently below current observed levels. This is not recent observations, as you're (or congress, lol) suggesting.









> On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century
> 
> GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492, 2007
> 
> ...






> Little wonder it's hard to get a decent debate underway here.



What's the rush :


----------



## rederob (24 March 2009)

Thank you for supporting the case espoused by the Copenhagen cogress.


----------



## spooly74 (24 March 2009)

Yawn, I don't.



> This was not a process initiated and conducted by the world’s governments, *there was no systematic synthesis, assessment, and review of research findings as in the IPCC, and there was certainly no collective process for the 2,500 researchers gathered in Copenhagen to consider drafts of the six key messages* nor to offer their own suggestions for what politicians may need to hear.


----------



## rederob (24 March 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Yawn, I don't.



Then stop posting charts and data that supports its conclusions.


----------



## spooly74 (24 March 2009)

Climate Science Infallibility Syndrome

When fighting political battles through science, scientists are at a distinct disadvantage. Unlike politicians and political advocates who can cherry pick and even change their arguments and justifications as they see fit (since that is what they are expected to), scientists’ claim to authority rests on the assertion that they have access to the truth. So they often enter political arenas explaining that their views are more true than their opponents, and thus on this basis their political agenda deserves to win out. The more strident the scientists appear in political debates the more compelling their grasp of truth appears to be. By contrast, changing one’s views or even acknowledging uncertainty, even if fundamental to how science progresses, is not an asset for scientists in the political arena.

But science can be fickle. The notion of what is true evolves in science, as new studies come in and new data, theories, and techniques are developed and advanced. Further, science rarely speaks with one voice, which also is quite normal and fundamental to how science actually works. The very process of science with all of its messiness and shades of gray does not lend it well to political battles, where issues are typically defined in black and white terms.

.................continued
..............................


----------



## spooly74 (24 March 2009)

rederob said:


> Then stop posting charts and data that supports its conclusions.




My charts of temperature do not support it. Point out how they do, please.
If the chart of sea level for the last 15 years (which, the IPCC are well aware of) is all of a sudden recent observations worse than IPCC projections.......

It was a political statement, written before the event, with no scientific consensus.

I cannot repeat myself any other way.


----------



## rederob (24 March 2009)

Everything you have posted is consistent with the notion of a warming earth, whereby models replicate the actual trends over lengthy periods.
It is impossible for sea levels to rise consistently if the earth is cooling or if massive glaciers are forming globally.  In the latter regard, if recent sea level trends continue, predictions of IPCC 2007 will be rendered conservative in the years ahead.


----------



## spooly74 (25 March 2009)

rederob said:


> Everything you have posted is consistent with the notion of a warming earth, whereby models replicate the actual trends over lengthy periods..



Have you seen any explanation as to why they get the temperature so wrong?
The mean is wrong and some of the models are out by 2 degrees. That's not marginal.


rederob said:


> It is impossible for sea levels to rise consistently if the earth is cooling or if massive glaciers are forming globally.  In the latter regard, if recent sea level trends continue, *predictions of IPCC 2007* will be rendered conservative in the years ahead.



The IPCC made no short term projections on sea level in the last report.
Why?
However, they did in earlier publications, illustrated below.



> In particular, the congress concluded that, according to *recent observations* and given high rates of observed emissions, *the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized*.




I stand by my case, that the summary issued from this congress:

- was not a concensus from the 2,500 delegates
- is not above worst case IPCC predictions: observed sea level is not above 1990 predictions, and I've shown that temperature is below all their model means from the 2007 report.
- that it was purely alarmist political junk


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 March 2009)

Al Gore, Stephen Chu, the Ruddmeister and Penny Wong meet over Weather tomorrow.

In a huge building warmed by coal and gas.

What a joke.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/pm-to-meet-gore-on-climate-20090326-9cet.html

"We will decide to pursue the limitation etc etc etc........

What a waste of a good fire.

Shakespeare would have wept.

gg


----------



## basilio (30 March 2009)

Strong interview with Nicholas Stern (Stern Review 2006 on Global Warming).  I believe he brings together all the elements of the discussion in a very convincing way.



> We're the first generation that has had the power to destroy the planet. Ignoring that risk can only be described as reckless'
> 
> ....Since publishing the Stern Review in 2006, the professor has become the global authority on climate change. Commissioned by Gordon Brown, his study of the economics of climate change shifted the debate away from polar bears and unseasonal summers, and reframed it in the cold hard language of the balance sheet. Unless we invested 1% of global GDP per annum in measures to prevent climate change, the review warned, it would cost us 20% of global GDP. Suddenly, the CBI and the Institute of Directors were paying attention. It was a defining moment for the credibility of a movement once belittled as too counter-culture to be taken seriously. Stern became the grey hero of the greens - powerful precisely because he seemed such an improbable eco warrior.
> 
> ...



.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/30/climate-change-nicholas-stern-interview

Being irrationally optimistic  as  Stern says might make us feel better but it won't change what is happening on the ground.

We fight or we lose.... everything..


----------



## spooly74 (30 March 2009)

basilio said:


> Strong interview with Nicholas Stern (Stern Review 2006 on Global Warming).  I believe he brings together all the elements of the discussion in a very convincing way.
> 
> 
> .....
> ...




The only thing reading that tripe does is distract from the science.

Regardless, are his facts and figures even accurate?



> *Mistreatment of the economic impacts of extreme events in the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change *
> 
> _Abstract_
> 
> ...


----------



## spooly74 (30 March 2009)

More from mainstream.
Not sure about his quote 'the sea is not rising' 



> Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told
> 
> .....
> 
> ...


----------



## Knobby22 (31 March 2009)

spooly74 said:


> More from mainstream.
> Not sure about his quote 'the sea is not rising'




The article says he was chairman of INQUA.
He must have been a lone dissenting voice as they are strongly saying sea levels are rising.

http://www.inqua.tcd.ie/documents/iscc.pdf


----------



## rederob (31 March 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> The article says he was chairman of INQUA.
> He must have been a lone dissenting voice as they are strongly saying sea levels are rising.
> 
> http://www.inqua.tcd.ie/documents/iscc.pdf



Wayne trotted out this very same tripe earlier in this very same thread.  It's just a case of the skeptics continuously repeating proven falsehoods on the chance that some of the less intelligent will be sucked in.


----------



## spooly74 (31 March 2009)

rederob said:


> Wayne trotted out this very same tripe earlier in this very same thread.  It's just a case of the skeptics continuously repeating proven falsehoods on the chance that some of the less intelligent will be sucked in.






			
				spool said:
			
		

> Not sure about his quote 'the sea is not rising'



 again


----------



## basilio (8 April 2009)

> Scientists must rein in misleading climate change claims
> 
> Overplaying natural variations in the weather diverts attention from the real issues
> 
> ...




There you are; another poke in the eye for the GW "alarmists". And guesss what? It is reported in The Guardian.

Well worth a careful read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-science-pope


----------



## metric (8 April 2009)

US Navy Physicist warns of possibly 'several decades of crushing cold temperatures and global famine'

By Retired U.S. Navy Physicist and Engineer James A. Marusek 

2 Apr 09 – Excerpts:  “The sun has gone very quiet as it transitions to Solar Cycle 24. 



> “Since the current transition now exceeds 568 spotless days, it is becoming clear that sun has undergone a state change. It is now evident that the Grand Maxima state that has persisted during most of the 20th century has come to an abrupt end.




“(The sun) might (1) revert to the old solar cycles or (2) the sun might go even quieter into a “Dalton Minimum” or a Grand Minima such as the “Maunder Minimum”. It is still a little early to predict which way it will swing. Each of these two possibilities holds a great threat to our nation.

“We are now at a crossroad. Two paths lie before us. Both are marked with a signpost that reads “Danger”! Down one path lies monstrous solar storms. Down the other path lies several decades of crushing cold temperatures and global famine.” 

“Climate change is primarily driven by nature. It has been true in the days of my father and his father and all those that came before us. Because of science, not junk science, we have slowly uncovered some of the fundamental mysteries of nature. Our Milky Way galaxy is awash with cosmic rays. These are high speed charged particles that originate from exploding stars.

“Because they are charged, their travel is strongly influenced by magnetic fields. Our sun produces a magnetic field wrapped in the solar winds that extends to the edges of our solar system. This field deflects many of the cosmic rays away from Earth. But when the sun goes quiet (minimal sunspots), this field collapses inward allowing high energy cosmic rays to penetrate deeper into our solar system. 

          As I say in Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps, these same 
          cosmic rays can lead to mutations and evolutionary leaps. 

“As a result, far greater numbers collide with Earth and penetrate down into the lower atmosphere where they ionize small particles of moisture (humidity) forming them into water droplets that become clouds. Low level clouds reflect sunlight back into space. An increase in Earth's cloud cover produce a global drop in temperature.



> “If the sun becomes quieter than the old solar cycles, producing more than 1028 spotless days, then we might slip into a Dalton Minimum or maybe even a Grand Minima such as the Maunder Minimum. This solar state will last for decades. Several solar scientist have predicted this will begin in Solar Cycle 25, about a decade from now. But a few have predicted this will occur now in Solar Cycle 24.




“A quiet sun will cause temperatures globally to take a nose-dive. We will experience temperatures that we have not seen in over 200 years, during the time of the early pioneers.



> “Temperatures are already falling. Satellites provide generally the most accurate atmospheric temperature measurements covering the entire globe. From the peak year 1998, the lower Troposphere temperatures globally have fallen around 1/2 degree Celsius due to the quiet sun.




“This is despite the fact that during that same time period, atmospheric carbon dioxide (at Mauna Loa) has risen 5% from 367 ppm to 386 ppm. The main threat from a “Dalton Minimum” or “Maunder Minimum” event is famine and starvation (affecting millions or hundreds of millions worldwide) due to shortened growing seasons and harsher weather. In the past, in addition to great famines, this cold harsh weather has also lead to major epidemics.

See entire great article:
http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/Signpost.pdf
Thanks to Marc Morano for this link


----------



## rederob (8 April 2009)

spooly74 said:


> What scientists speculate that we're entering a Maunder Minimum, and have they put out a press release with climate warnings? The previous Maunder Minimum was bitterly cold leading to deaths, disease and famine.



Oh dear, there really was one!



metric said:


> US Navy Physicist warns of possibly 'several decades of crushing cold temperatures and global famine'.
> 
> By Retired U.S. Navy Physicist and Engineer James A. Marusek
> 2 Apr 09 – Excerpts:  “The sun has gone very quiet as it transitions to Solar Cycle 24.


----------



## metric (8 April 2009)

rederob said:


> Oh dear, there really was one!




many more actually....

http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache...+new+maunder+minimum&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

http://www.prisonplanet.com/scientist-predicts-ice-age-within-10-years.html

http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175


----------



## Aussiejeff (8 April 2009)

metric said:


> many more actually....
> 
> http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache...+new+maunder+minimum&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au
> 
> ...




Bloody typical.

Just when we are be-devilled with the World Financial & Economic Crises, dumb Ol Sol goes and gets all dozy on us. 

WAKE UP SOL!! What the hell do you think you are playing at??

Your Earth needs YOU!! :angry:

Oh well. I'm sure the supersmart CEO & Directors of KRuddBank can come up with a bailout plan to shield us from the cold.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 April 2009)

We've had more rain in Townsville this week, brisk showers and expect a fine weekend,

Ain't weather great.

al gore eat yer heart out.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 April 2009)

Still raining here.

Now the New Scientist not known to be kind to those of reason is coming around to debunking the Gore Kool Effect.

_There was also no significant warming trend from between 1977 and 1985, or between 1981 and 1989 - and those periods certainly weren't the end of global warming. Now, as if more evidence were needed, two climate scientists have produced more data showing that the current lull in no way contradicts the fact that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing long-term warming.
_

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/04/has-global-warming-really-stop.html

gg


----------



## MrBurns (12 April 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It has been raining solidly in N.Queensland for the last few days. Most dams are full. It dropped to 16 last night. I have to wear a jumper from about 4pm onwards.
> 
> If you want to know what the weather is like stick your head out the window.
> 
> ...




Agreed


----------



## basilio (12 April 2009)

> Now the New Scientist not known to be kind to those of reason is coming around to debunking the Gore Kool Effect.




Full publication of the New Scientist blog on Global warming actually shows the scientific background of the arguments and the intent of the writer.



> Has global warming really stopped?
> .JPGMichael Le Page, biology features editor
> 
> According to some records of past temperatures there has been no significant surface warming between 1998 and 2008.
> ...




Categories: Environment


----------



## Blissbomb (13 April 2009)

Everyone was so gung ho about saving our environment, melting pola bears and carbon foot prints. Dont hear much about it anymore? Been placed in the to hard basket! Wear so busy trying to save ourselves financially.


----------



## basilio (13 April 2009)

Are any forum readers interested in the  scientific analysis of the oft repeated arguments that GW is basically BS.? I came across an excellent website which managed to discuss all the arguments with both good references and a relatively easy to understand language.

Cheers

http://www.skepticalscience.com/



> About Skeptical Science
> 
> Skeptical Science was created by John Cook, an ex-physicist (majoring in solar physics at the University of Queensland). My interest in global warming began when I got into some discussions with a skeptical family member who handed me a speech by Senator Inhofe. It took little research to show his arguments were misleading and lacking in science.
> 
> ...


----------



## enigmatic (13 April 2009)

What a misserable day the market is closed and its raining outside.. 
Stupid climate change it hasnt rained here for atleast 10years on the 13th of april...
Hang on that means it has happened before.. Big deal get over it maybe we should just adjust to our climate for a change instead of changing it to suit us..
Umbrella today..


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 April 2009)

Blissbomb said:


> Everyone was so gung ho about saving our environment, melting pola bears and carbon foot prints. Dont hear much about it anymore? Been placed in the to hard basket! Wear so busy trying to save ourselves financially.



It's no secret that there's a relationship between environmentalism and economic cycles with both peaking at the same time.

If those who seek to "save the earth no matter what the economic cost" get their way then we'll end up trashing the entire planet as both the economy and concern for the environment fall in a hole. Plenty of third world examples of just that and some closer to home too.


----------



## Green08 (14 April 2009)

In the SMH 13th April - yesterday in the Opinion section of the News, there was an interesting article.

Professor Ian Plimer Australia's eminent geologist has written a book entitled, Heaven and Earth.

"An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, palaeoecology, glaciology, climatology, meterology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history".

He doesn't dispute the dramatic flux in climate change "Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the curcial relationship between climate and solar energy".

Should be interesting reading.


----------



## ghotib (14 April 2009)

I read that piece with interest. Plimer is one of my heroes because of his consistent political campaign against the pretence that creationism is science, so his equally consistent campaign against political action to change civilisation-caused carbon emissions troubles me. 

Without seeing the book, which is not yet published, comment is obviously speculative. So I speculate that Plimer's long view is too long for human civilisation. Certainly earth has known periods hotter than are now predicted for this century and beyond, and it's quite capable of sequestering all the carbon we've been putting into the air and oceans and cooling down again. But the planet is already about as warm as humans have ever known and is warming faster than humans have ever known. I don't think there's a serious risk that we'll wipe ourselves out. I do think there's a serious risk of a population crash and collapse of civilisation if humans don't change our behaviour quickly. That won't affect the planet any more than the exinction of the dinosaurs did, or even the collapse of the Mayans or the Roman empire. But it sure ain't what I'd like for my descendants. 

Ghoti


----------



## spooly74 (14 April 2009)

ghotib said:


> I read that piece with interest. Plimer is one of my heroes because of his consistent political campaign against the pretence that creationism is science, so his equally consistent campaign against political action to change civilisation-caused carbon emissions troubles me.




I can see why it would. I wasn't aware of his work against creationist stupidity but from the few selective quotes from the article, I not sure that his new book is anything more than opinion.

Below is a talk from last August, again, a bit light on scientific facts, and considering this speech and the title of his new book 'Heaven and Earth', I'm inclined to give it a miss.


----------



## Mr J (16 April 2009)

I've never paid much attention to global warming. Noise, coincidence, factors we don't know of or understand etc, it just seems there's too much uncertainty to take such a strong stand against it. To me it just sounds like the herd jumping on the latest bull market. I'm surprised so many scientists go along with it, but then there's no law that states scientists can't be fools, have agendas or ruled by fear.

That said, while I have serious doubts about global warming, there's nothing wrong with keeping our environment reasonably clean. After all, we have to live in it. As I type this, I look out at the cloud of smog hovering above the harbour .


----------



## rederob (16 April 2009)

Mr J said:


> I've never paid much attention to global warming. Noise, coincidence, factors we don't know of or understand etc, it just seems there's too much uncertainty to take such a strong stand against it. To me it just sounds like the herd jumping on the latest bull market. I'm surprised so many scientists go along with it, but then there's no law that states scientists can't be fools, have agendas or ruled by fear.



The scientists that "go along with it" are the ones involved, for the main, in specific and concentrated research that suggests man-made influences are speeding what otherwise what could be "normal" or natural processes.
There is an increasing pool of active "deniers" who prefer to believe that man has had no impact on climate change, and generally latch onto discredited science that is constantly regurgitated - the "throw enough mud principle".
It seems that as more information is comes out each year that supports the AGW hypothesis, the bigger the effort to "deny" its veracity.


----------



## IFocus (18 April 2009)

I have tried to keep an open mind on this issue but I do believe  these guys  as apposed to the politics of yes and no groups.

Today's Australian



> Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking
> 
> Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.
> 
> "Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-601,00.html


----------



## Green08 (18 April 2009)

Dr Allison on to say which is fact, the majority of ice beneath the water surface will not raise sea levels (no brainer which most haven't thought about). It is the exposed ice above the sea level in these regions. Most of the focus has been on Greenland and the Artic, But the convertor current has the warm water flowing towards greenland before it plunges down alongside Canada.  The  Antarctica receives the full blast of deep cold older water on the converter belt.  

There is Climate Change no doubt about it.  I wouldn't be surprised if after warming things get very cold very fast. Dependant on the converter belt.  I wish there was more upto date information as it has a more profound effect directly on our weather.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (18 April 2009)

Green08 said:


> Dr Allison on to say which is fact, the majority of ice beneath the water surface will not raise sea levels (no brainer which most haven't thought about). It is the exposed ice above the sea level in these regions. Most of the focus has been on Greenland and the Artic, But the convertor current has the warm water flowing towards greenland before it plunges down alongside Canada.  The  Antarctica receives the full blast of deep cold older water on the converter belt.
> 
> There is Climate Change no doubt about it.  *I wouldn't be surprised if after warming things get very cold very fast*. Dependant on the converter belt.  I wish there was more upto date information as it has a more profound effect directly on our weather.




Just like a stock price; after it goes up it comes down. Though, I think not a hold and forget approcach to cyclical conditions. The stupidity we see from investors also applies to man made climate change propagandists.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 April 2009)

Prof.Plimer is the main force extant in the cause against the "Church of Climatology"

Now please READ HIS BOOK.

And can we please now end this thread.

It is a honeypot for the disastrous left, who now have only the Weather to blame for the lack of uptake of their disastrous leftie ideas.

Perhaps Joe should endow the power to have a thread ended by its originator after exhaustive left wing nitpicking Gorebore anti democratic whingeing godbothering people who don't respect the other side of the argument.

gg


----------



## rederob (18 April 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Prof.Plimer is the main force extant in the cause against the "Church of Climatology"
> 
> Now please READ HIS BOOK.
> 
> ...



When it's clearly "proven" that there is no case supporting climate change then the thread will come to its natural end.
Plimer makes many good points, and much has been mentioned of them in one way or another in this thread.
He cannot, however, show that man's massive consumption (read "burning") of carbon-based fuels in less than 2 centuries, has a natural precedent.
Nor can he show that the destruction of carbon sinks (read "clearing of forests") ever previously occurred so rapidly.
Moreover, neither Plimer nor any other scientist has demonstrated that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels can lead to significant and sustained global cooling.


----------



## ghotib (19 April 2009)

Well GG, If you start a thread with a deliberately (I think) provocative title you can't really complain if people continue to be provoked. 

Climate change is not another name for weather. An argument that pretends they are the same thing is never going to get anywhere. Neither is an argument that jumps from science to public policy and back again without being sure that all parties are talking about the same thing. 

There is not and never will be clear, 100% reliable knowledge of what the weather will be at any given point on the earth on any given day under any given carbon emission scenario, but that's not what climate science is about. I think this blog posting is a pretty good summary of how scientists (including Plimer) think and why many of them believe the policy issues of climate change are acute even though there are many unanswered scientific questions. It's from Michael Tobin at http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/05/falsifiability-question.html. 



> Friday, May 2, 2008
> The Falsifiability Question
> OK, the new meme among the denialists is that the tide is with them, that their evidence is overwhelming, that we must be religious zealots not to be able to see the overwhelming evidence that, um, that "very not what the IPCC says". I think we need to talk about the balance of evidence, someday, but I'd like to address the "falsifiability question", i.e., what evidence would it take to shake me of my firm "belief" in AGW.
> 
> ...




Ghoti


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (19 April 2009)

ghotib said:


> Well GG, If you start a thread with a deliberately (I think) provocative title you can't really complain if people continue to be provoked.
> 
> *Climate change is not another name for weather*. An argument that pretends they are the same thing is never going to get anywhere. Neither is an argument that jumps from science to public policy and back again without being sure that all parties are talking about the same thing.
> 
> There is not and never will be clear, 100% reliable knowledge of what the weather will be at any given point on the earth on any given day under any given carbon emission scenario, but that's not what climate science is about. I think this blog posting is a pretty good summary of how scientists (including Plimer) think and why many of them believe the policy issues of climate change are acute even though there are many unanswered scientific questions. Ghoti




According to Dictionary.com climate is weather conditions. So if climate changes weather conditions change. So climate is another name for weather. Source:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/climate


----------



## Green08 (19 April 2009)

> And can we please now end this thread.
> 
> It is a honeypot for the disastrous left, who now have only the Weather to blame for the lack of uptake of their disastrous leftie ideas.




Dear GG

You give me the giggles - fancy a leftie like me talking about Pilmer.

We just drove 900 kms from South Melbourne to Sydney yesterday and the climate changed several times!!  sporatic buckets of heavy rain to greet us. Tomorrow the final journey to the High country where I'm sure it will be different again.

Completing the obligatory L's, my daughter do 120 hours of driving with me I elected to burn through diesel (I make no apologies for any damage this does - my car is maintained - this is a job to be done) close to 4000 kms on all types of road (would have driven me crazy going around the suburbs) in the span of 6 days. She has done exceedingly well


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 April 2009)

Green08 said:


> Dear GG
> 
> You give me the giggles - fancy a leftie like me talking about Pilmer.
> 
> ...




Thanks Green08, while I can understand poor people like you being careful with their diesel , it really pisses me off that people like Al Gore and that pommy bastard Branson get to mouth off about Weather while wasting enormous amounts of fuel on personal travel.

And then the catch is that guys and gals like you get your opinions from them, and their ilk, and then it catches on. Suddenly modelling on computers becomes fact and then a belief.

By the way it was a glorious day in Townsville today, a light breeze, no rain. A wonderful day spent pig shooting.

gg


----------



## Happy (19 April 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Thanks Green08, while I can understand poor people like you being careful with their diesel , it really pisses me off that people like Al Gore and that pommy bastard Branson get to mouth off about Weather while wasting enormous amounts of fuel on personal travel.
> ..




I wander if we could make majority of driving for license in driving simulator.

After all pilots do it and then they get theri licenses, also most of re-training is done on simulators too.


----------



## rederob (19 April 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> According to Dictionary.com climate is weather conditions. So if climate changes weather conditions change. So climate is another name for weather. Source:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/climate



If your understanding is as you prefer to define "climate" then it may be a substantial challenge to get you to appreciate the meanings of "composite", "prevailing" or "averaged" which tradionally are included in the definition.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 April 2009)

rederob said:


> If your understanding is as you prefer to define "climate" then it may be a substantial challenge to get you to appreciate the meanings of "composite", "prevailing" or "averaged" which tradionally are included in the definition.




Ah, the Church of Climatology, arguing as the Christian church did 2000 years ago about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. 

If an argument is worth having , baffle the punters with postmodern words. 
Alan Sokal where are you?

A beautiful evening in Townsville. A light breeze. 25 degrees. Low of 21-22 predicted tonight.

gg


----------



## rederob (19 April 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Ah, the Church of Climatology, arguing as the Christian church did 2000 years ago about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.
> If an argument is worth having , baffle the punters with postmodern words.
> Alan Sokal where are you?



There was no "argument".
It's a basic definition that is at question.
You keep posting your weather reports for Townsville and we will have its climate pegged in no time - well, maybe a matter of years.


----------



## ghotib (19 April 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> According to Dictionary.com climate is weather conditions. So if climate changes weather conditions change. So climate is another name for weather. Source:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/climate



Naughty Snake  The full dictionary.com definition of climate as it relates to weather is: 


> *the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions* of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, *throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.*



Dictionary.com doesn't say it, but it's not hard to find out that 10 years is generally the shortest period that climate is concerned with. So when people talk about climate change, they are talking about change in the average composite weather conditions over multiple decades. Obviously the daily weather is related to that, but one day's weather in once place doesn't indicate trend in global climate any more than one trade in a gold mining stock indicates a trend in the price of gold. 

You can't have a sensible conversation about climate change without acknowledging the difference between climate and weather. As this thread demonstrates.

Ghoti


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (19 April 2009)

rederob said:


> If your understanding is as you prefer to define "climate" then it may be a substantial challenge to get you to appreciate the meanings of "composite", "prevailing" or "averaged" which tradionally are included in the definition.




"Averaged" is a suspect word to say the least. Though, my preference is not to over complicate things, rather interpret things as they are, devoid of any political agenda. 

Perhaps you should read the source I provided again.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (19 April 2009)

ghotib said:


> Naughty Snake  The full dictionary.com definition of climate as it relates to weather is:
> 
> Dictionary.com doesn't say it, but it's not hard to find out that 10 years is generally the shortest period that climate is concerned with. So when people talk about climate change, they are talking about change in the average composite weather conditions over multiple decades. Obviously the daily weather is related to that, but one day's weather in once place doesn't indicate trend in global climate any more than one trade in a gold mining stock indicates a trend in the price of gold.
> 
> ...



As a non-socialist, marxist if you prefer, I don't quite understand why you say it is so hard to have debate or discussion - definitely not party mantra - about a topic which is not too complicated. 

Weather: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/weather


> –noun  1.  	the  state  of  the  atmosphere  with  respect  to  wind,  temperature,  cloudiness,  moisture,  pressure,  etc.



Climate:


> –noun  1.  	the  composite  or  generally  prevailing  weather  conditions  of  a  region,  as  temperature,  air  pressure,  humidity,  precipitation,  sunshine,  cloudiness,  and  winds,  throughout  the  year,  averaged  over  a  series  of  years.




So the problem for non thinkers is: Is weather time restricted for defining purposes, or is it much like space?


----------



## spooly74 (20 April 2009)

ghotib said:


> It's from Michael Tobin at http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/05/falsifiability-question.html.
> 
> .....
> 
> ...




Total CO2 in the atmosphere in 1900 ~ 280ppm
Total CO2 in the atmosphere today   ~ 380ppm

Log2(380/280) x 3C = 1.32C

We've only seen half that warming since industrial times, so 2.5 - 3 degrees per doubling of CO2 can be falsified through current observation.


----------



## CAB SAV (20 April 2009)

Check out Cnn's "latest News'
Video titled -Burn wood not money-
Encouraging people to install wood heaters to save money!
F#*^K the environment.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (21 April 2009)

An interresting read in the Australian today:http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25347937-11949,00.html


> Glaciologists point out that the world has seen shrinking icecaps in the past. Ice is a dynamic environment and it is not necessarily abnormal or catastrophic when ice sheets periodically lose the quantities of ice that generated last week's headlines.






> Ice-core drilling has suggested 40,000-year cycles of ice melting and refreezing.




Is it possible for an expert to show that weather is not cyclical?


----------



## Green08 (21 April 2009)

> Is it possible for an expert to show that weather is not cyclical?




I don't dispute the climate/weather changes are cyclical. But when the Amazon is in drought microclimatic change, mainly from deforestation thanks to no clearing technique and appalling agriculture / animal husbandary practise voiding the soil on a mass scale. The effects from greed will have disasterous results on life, and ones we haven't seen. The Amazon will not recovery to any glory.





​
http://images.google.com.au/imgres?...ll%7Cmedium%7Clarge%7Cxlarge&gbv=2&hl=en&sa=G


----------



## Julia (21 April 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> An interresting read in the Australian today:http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25347937-11949,00.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It was reported yesterday that although ice in west of Antarctica is melting, ice in east is increasing.


----------



## rederob (21 April 2009)

Solar cycles have an impact on global temperature and, as suggested in earlier posts, may go some way to explaining why the last decade has cooled a touch. Some information on the recent records set are at:  http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm


----------



## Knobby22 (22 April 2009)

Julia said:


> It was reported yesterday that although ice in west of Antarctica is melting, ice in east is increasing.




The increase in the eastern ice shelf is consistent with global warming.
Warmer air holds more water which leads to more snow. I heard it explained on 774 ABC radio. There is no question that Antartartic temperatures are not increasing and in fact it was predicted more than 10 years ago that there would be increasing ice buildup however what is happening in East Antartica has been quicker than forecast. 

From the article you posted Julia:

"Scientists note that stable or increased sea ice does not necessarily mean temperatures are not rising. Australian Bureau of Meteorology senior climatologist Andrew Watkins says monitoring at three sites in Australia's Antarctic territory and at Macquarie Island, Australia's sub-Antarctic territory, indicate minor warming since the mid-'50s. 

Watkins points out that snowfall could be increasing in Antarctica even as temperatures rise, adding to the ice mass, and there is much uncertainty about the total volume of ice."


----------



## spooly74 (22 April 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> The increase in the eastern ice shelf is consistent with global warming.




What exactly does 'consistent with' really mean?
Is a decade of flat/cooling global temperature, increased sea, ice all consistent with global warming?

If so, it begs the question. 

What observations are inconsistent with (anthropogenic) global warming


----------



## rederob (22 April 2009)

spooly74 said:


> What exactly does 'consistent with' really mean?



Looks like the naysayers are having consistent problems with rather basic terminology.
But I guess we can't be consistent all the time
I too am looking for an "expert" that thinks weather may be cyclical
I know the Tour de France is cyclical.  Even the climate during the Tour is cyclical.


----------



## drsmith (22 April 2009)

The problem with the climate change debate is that it has become extremely polarised. Hard core believers on both sides defend their points of view with a religious conviction.

With climate change (whether it be on a global or regional scale, or both), life must adapt to the changing conditions. The most significant impact on humans would be a change in areas suitable for food production. We can only adapt to that at tremendous cost.

Changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere will lead to changes in the atmospheric energy budget and hence climate change whether that be on a regional or global scale. It is something we should aim to minimise as a basic principal.

Are world governments more interested in the basic principal above or do they prefer to just encourage a polarised debate on climate change with the objective being a growing acceptance over time and hence the acceptance of a carbon tax.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (23 April 2009)

rederob said:


> Looks like the naysayers are having consistent problems with rather basic terminology.
> But I guess we can't be consistent all the time
> I too am looking for an "expert" that thinks weather may be cyclical
> I know the Tour de France is cyclical.  Even the *climate* during the Tour is cyclical.



Tour de France weather. Wow this thread has progressed.


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> The problem with the climate change debate is that it has become extremely polarised. Hard core believers on both sides defend their points of view with a religious conviction.
> 
> Are world governments more interested in the basic principal above or do they prefer to just encourage a polarised debate on climate change with the objective being a growing acceptance over time and hence the acceptance of a carbon tax.




Great post Dr.Smith

I agree with the general thrust of your post.

The big problem that is not really being addressed on this thread in my unqualified scientific opinion is essentially how is carbon tax calculated and valued.

The current financial crisis had very little to do with the industrial capitalists and a lot more to do with the valuations and methods adopted by finance capitalists. It is these pricks who have created the trauma for the vast majority facing lay-offs, not the people who have employed them and tried to keep the continuation of the social contract between employer and employee.

The problem I have with a carbon tax is that in a similar way to the ivory tower protected finance capitalists position (eg. getting bailed out by taxpayers even though they ****ed themselves etc. etc.) These guys will just use this as a new category of wealth to enrich themselves and will make others pay for it. Certainly appears on it's face to be another con-job by the powers that be, who will collect more revenue from others and then use and exploit it for their own interests until things go wrong.

Ultimately it will be manipulated by bankers very much like the Madeoff, OTC and banking scams that have taken place during this financial crisis.

JMO 

DYOR

Cheers
Gumby


----------



## spooly74 (23 April 2009)

rederob said:


> Looks like the naysayers are having consistent problems with rather basic terminology.
> But I guess we can't be consistent all the time
> I too am looking for an "expert" that thinks weather may be cyclical
> I know the Tour de France is cyclical.  Even the climate during the Tour is cyclical.






If cooler temps and increasing ice are consistent with global warming, I was just wondering what would be inconsistent with global warming.

Any ideas?


----------



## rederob (23 April 2009)

spooly74 said:


> If cooler temps and increasing ice are consistent with global warming, I was just wondering what would be inconsistent with global warming.
> 
> Any ideas?



If cooler temps and increasing ice were consistent *global *themes over a protracted time span it would be difficult propose the earth was warming.


----------



## Knobby22 (23 April 2009)

spooly74 said:


> If cooler temps and increasing ice are consistent with global warming, I was just wondering what would be inconsistent with global warming.
> 
> Any ideas?




I know where you are coming from.

One section of Antartica is getting colder while the rest is getting warmer or staying the same temeperature. Is this showing inconsistentcy or is it a result of different current/wind effects?

Global warming has flattened this decade but the earth temperature, weather and current patterns are still be affected by the sharp warming that occurred in the previous decade and still exists. This is despite the fact that we are in a lull in sun activity that should mean we are undergoing cooling. 

The next ten years should settle it one way or the other. I am not a convert to one side of the other but read magazines such as New Scientist and the argument we are going to see further climate change appears pretty strong to me. I hope that something has been missed and it doesn't occur however the arguments I have seen in this thread saying its not occurring or is caused by other factors have been pretty weak so far.


----------



## basilio (29 April 2009)

Well what do you know....



> * Scientists admit global warming is a hoax *






> By Eoin O'Carroll | 04.01.09
> 
> 
> In an unprecedented move Wednesday, the Norwegian Nobel Committee rescinded the Peace Prize it awarded in 2007 to former US vice president Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, amid overwhelming evidence that global warming is an elaborate hoax cooked up by Mr. Gore.
> ...




http://features.csmonitor.com/envir...sts-worldwide-admit-global-warming-is-a-hoax/


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 April 2009)

I wish this warming thing would hurry up...

1.7 degrees last night and I was at work outdoors at 3am. Oh great, what fun...  That's colder than the average for June or July and it's only April.

And it's going down to 2 degrees again tonight. On the positive side, I'm inside right now and I see the cat is toasty warm lying upside down in front of the fire.


----------



## basilio (29 April 2009)

For those who are curious....

You might remember  the work of the Global Climate Coalition  during the 1990's . Basically they were a very powerful lobby group which (successfully) undermined the scientists who were warning about global warming from the early 90's.

*Turns out that their own scientific  experts told them the scientific basis for global warming was established and undeniable.
*
But of course they ignored them and spent the next 10 years spreading the disinformation and dribble that seems to have accepted by those who really don't want to hear unpleasant truths.



> Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate
> 
> 
> By ANDREW C. REVKIN
> ...




http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&emc=eta


I took the opportunity to read the document presented to the Global Climate Coalition by their advisors. Makes excellent reading and  covers the scientific knowledge at that time clearly and honestly. See Point 1 . Shame it got lost in the  10 years of propaganda that followed....

http://documents.nytimes.com/global-climate-coalition-aiam-climate-change-primer#p=3


----------



## spooly74 (29 April 2009)

basilio said:


> See Point 1 . Shame it got lost in the  10 years of propaganda that followed....
> 
> http://documents.nytimes.com/global-climate-coalition-aiam-climate-change-primer#p=3



Maybe they just read point 2.


----------



## Mr J (29 April 2009)

Greenland seems happy enough.


----------



## metric (30 April 2009)

Global warming alarmists out in cold

By Andrew Bolt
Herald Sun
April 29, 2009 12:01am


IT'S snowing in April. Ice is spreading in Antarctica. The Great Barrier Reef is as healthy as ever. 
And that's just the news of the past week. Truly, it never rains but it pours - and all over our global warming alarmists. 

Time's up for this absurd scaremongering. The fears are being contradicted by the facts, and more so by the week. 

Doubt it? Then here's a test. 

Name just three clear signs the planet is warming as the alarmists claim it should. Just three. Chances are your "proofs" are in fact on my list of 10 Top Myths about global warming. 
And if your "proofs" indeed turn out to be false, don't get angry with me. 

Just ask yourself: Why do you still believe that man is heating the planet to hell? What evidence do you have? 

So let's see if facts matter more to you than faith, and observations more than predictions. 

MYTH 1 

THE WORLD IS WARMING 

Wrong. It is true the world did warm between 1975 and 1998, but even Professor David Karoly, one of our leading alarmists, admitted this week "temperatures have dropped" since - "both in surface temperatures and in atmospheric temperatures measured from satellites". In fact, the fall in temperatures from just 2002 has already wiped out half the warming our planet experienced last century. (Check data from Britain's Hadley Centre, NASA's Aqua satellite and the US National Climatic Data Centre.) 


Some experts, such as Karoly, claim this proves nothing and the world will soon start warming again. Others, such as Professor Ian Plimer of Adelaide University, point out that so many years of cooling already contradict the theory that man's rapidly increasing gases must drive up temperatures ever faster. 

But that's all theory. The question I've asked is: What signs can you actually see of the man-made warming that the alarmists predicted? 

MYTH 2 

THE POLAR CAPS ARE MELTING 

Wrong. The British Antarctic Survey, working with NASA, last week confirmed ice around Antarctica has grown 100,000 sq km each decade for the past 30 years. 

Long-term monitoring by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports the same: southern hemisphere ice has been expanding for decades. 

As for the Arctic, wrong again. 

The Arctic ice cap shrank badly two summers ago after years of steady decline, but has since largely recovered. Satellite data from NASA's Marshall Space Flight Centre this week shows the Arctic hasn't had this much April ice for at least seven years. 

Norway's Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre says the ice is now within the standard deviation range for 1979 to 2007. 

MYTH 3 

WE'VE NEVER HAD SUCH A BAD DROUGHT 

Wrong. A study released this month by the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre confirms not only that we've had worse droughts, but this Big Dry is not caused by "global warming", whether man-made or not. 

As the university's press release says: "The causes of southeastern Australia's longest, most severe and damaging droughts have been discovered, with the surprise finding that they originate far away in the Indian Ocean. 

"A team of Australian scientists has detailed for the first time how a phenomenon known as the Indian Ocean Dipole - a variable and irregular cycle of warming and cooling of ocean water - dictates whether moisture-bearing winds are carried across the southern half of Australia." 

MYTH 4 

OUR CITIES HAVE NEVER BEEN HOTTER 

Wrong. The alleged "record" temperature Melbourne set in January - 46.4 degrees - was in fact topped by the 47.2 degrees the city recorded in 1851. (See the Argus newspaper of February 8, 1851.) 

And here's another curious thing: Despite all this warming we're alleged to have caused, Victoria's highest temperature on record remains the 50.7 degrees that hit Mildura 103 years ago. 

South Australia's hottest day is still the 50.7 degrees Oodnadatta suffered 37 years ago. NSW's high is still the 50 degrees recorded 70 years ago. 

What's more, not one of the world's seven continents has set a record high temperature since 1974. Europe's high remains the 50 degrees measured in Spain 128 years ago, before the invention of the first true car. 

MYTH 5 

THE SEAS ARE GETTING HOTTER 

Wrong. If anything, the seas are getting colder. For five years, a network of 3175 automated bathythermographs has been deployed in the oceans by the Argo program, a collaboration between 50 agencies from 26 countries. 

Warming believer Josh Willis, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, reluctantly concluded: "There has been a very slight cooling ..." 

MYTH 6 

THE SEAS ARE RISING 

Wrong. For almost three years, the seas have stopped rising, according to the Jason-1 satellite mission monitored by the University of Colorado. 

That said, the seas have risen steadily and slowly for the past 10,000 years through natural warming, and will almost certainly resume soon. 

But there is little sign of any accelerated rises, even off Tuvalu or the Maldives, islands often said to be most threatened with drowning. 

Professor Nils-Axel Moerner, one of the world's most famous experts on sea levels, has studied the Maldives in particular and concluded there has been no net rise there for 1250 years. 

Venice is still above water. 

MYTH 7 

CYCLONES ARE GETTING WORSE 

Wrong. Ryan Maue of Florida State University recently measured the frequency, intensity and duration of all hurricanes and cyclones to compile an Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index. 

His findings? The energy index is at its lowest level for more than 30 years. 

The World Meteorological Organisation, in its latest statement on cyclones, said it was impossible to say if they were affected by man's gases: "Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point." 

MYTH 8 

THE GREAT BARRIER REEF IS DYING 

Wrong. Yes, in 1999, Professor Ove Hoegh-Gulberg, our leading reef alarmist and administrator of more than $30 million in warming grants, did claim the reef was threatened by warming, and much had turned white. 

But he then had to admit it had made a "surprising" recovery. 

Yes, in 2006 he again warned high temperatures meant "between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland's Great Barrier Reef could die within a month". 

But he later admitted this bleaching had "minimal impact". Yes, in 2007 he again warned that temperature changes of the kind caused by global warming were bleaching the reef. 

But this month fellow Queensland University researchers admitted in a study that reef coral had once more made a "spectacular recovery", with "abundant corals re-established in a single year". The reef is blooming. 

MYTH 9 

OUR SNOW SEASONS ARE SHORTER 

Wrong. Poor snow falls in 2003 set off a rash of headlines predicting warming doom. The CSIRO typically fed the hysteria by claiming global warming would strip resorts of up to a quarter of their snow by 2018. 

Yet the past two years have been bumper seasons for Victoria's snow resorts, and this year could be just as good, with snow already falling in NSW and Victoria this past week. 

MYTH 10 

TSUNAMIS AND OTHER DISASTERS ARE GETTING WORSE 

Are you insane? Tsunamis are in fact caused by earthquakes. Yet there was World Vision boss Tim Costello last week, claiming that Asia was a "region, thanks to climate change, that has far more cyclones, tsunamis, droughts". 

Wrong, wrong and wrong, Tim. But what do facts matter now to a warming evangelist when the cause is so just? 

And so any disaster is now blamed on man-made warming the way they once were on Satan. See for yourself on www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm the full list, including kidney stones, volcanic eruptions, lousy wine, insomnia, bad tempers, Vampire moths and bubonic plagues. Nothing is too far-fetched to be seized upon by carpetbaggers and wild preachers as signs of a warming we can't actually see. 

Not for nothing are polar bears the perfect symbol of this faith - bears said to be threatened by warming, when their numbers have in fact increased. 

Bottom line: fewer people now die from extreme weather events, whether cyclones, floods or blinding heatwaves. 

Read that in a study by Indur Goklany, who represented the US at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: "There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk." 

So stop this crazy panic. 

First step: check again your list of the signs you thought you saw of global warming. How many are true? What do you think, and why do you think it? 

Yes, the world may resume warming in one year or 100. But it hasn't been warming as the alarmists said it must if man were to blame, and certainly not as the media breathlessly keeps claiming. 

Best we all just settle down, then, and wait for the proof -- the real proof. After all, panicking over invisible things is so undignified, don't you think? 

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25402980-5007146,00.html


----------



## rederob (30 April 2009)

Bolt is just regurgitating the climatic short term themes, which are shown in the multi-decadal context to be quite misleading.


----------



## metric (30 April 2009)

rederob said:


> Bolt is just regurgitating the climatic short term themes, which are shown in the multi-decadal context to be quite misleading.




so reef bleaching was long term....? lol

the world warmed for 20 years....and that was long term..lol

the polar caps melted for a few years (did they really)...but that was long term...lol

seas are cooling...lol

seas arent rising!! lol

cyclones arent getting worse or increasing...lol

ah the sheep, all jumping on the GW bandwagon, heading to the slaughter by the aptly named al gore. what a mob of fools.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 April 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> I wish this warming thing would hurry up...
> 
> 1.7 degrees last night and I was at work outdoors at 3am. Oh great, what fun...  That's colder than the average for June or July and it's only April.
> 
> And it's going down to 2 degrees again tonight. On the positive side, I'm inside right now and I see the cat is toasty warm lying upside down in front of the fire.



That was yesterday. Last night it was a bit colder at 1.3 and according to the BOM we've had the coldest period in April since 1952.

Now, if it were the hottest period since 1952 then those screaming about climate change would be all over it as "proof" of global warming. But they remain absolutely silent when the weather doesn't do what suits thier message.

Obviously a few days is pretty meaningless. My point is about the politics of it all and not the weather as such.


----------



## jonojpsg (30 April 2009)

I saw an article the other day that said March 09 was the 10th warmest March on record globally.  I guess that makes it into the post 98 period as a sign of warming?



> Temperature Highlights
> 
> The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for March was 55.87degrees F, which at 0.97 degrees F above the 20th century average of 54.9 degrees F ranks as the 10th warmest March on record.
> Separately, the March global land surface temperature was 42.47 degrees F, which was 1.67 degrees F above the 20th century average of 40.8 degrees F, ranking it as 10th warmest March on record.
> ...


----------



## spooly74 (3 May 2009)

basilio said:


> For those who are curious....
> 
> *Turns out that their own scientific  experts told them the scientific basis for global warming was established and undeniable.
> *
> But of course they ignored them and spent the next 10 years spreading the disinformation and dribble that seems to have accepted by those who really don't want to hear unpleasant truths.



Turns out that that was sloppy journalism by the NYT and the editor has added a correction after being informed by a reader. 



> The amended version, which was brought to the attention of The Times by a reader, acknowledged the consensus that greenhouse gases could contribute to warming. *What scientists disagreed about, it said, was “the rate and magnitude of the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ (warming) that will result.”*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/science/earth/02editorsnote.html




It would seem disinformation and dribble are only present in the articles you link to.


----------



## Calliope (5 May 2009)

*Ian Pilmer gets it right*. 

However the hysteria still has a long way to go. Children are indoctrinated in schools that man-made climate change is an established truth.



> It is human arrogance to think that we can control climate, a process that transfers huge amounts of energy. Once we control the smaller amount of energy transferred by volcanoes and earthquakes, then we can try to control climate.
> 
> Until then, climate politics is just a load of ideological hot air.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25429080-7583,00.html


----------



## metric (5 May 2009)

> Media Ignore Al Gore’s Financial Ties to Global Warming






> Former Vice President Al Gore has built a Green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms. And the US portion is headed up by a former Gore staffer and fund raiser who previously ran afoul of both the FEC and the DOJ, before Janet Reno jumped in and shut down an investigation during the Clinton years.






> Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.






> Here's a list indicating what it takes to make money along with Al. Funds associated with these companies have placed millions of dollars under Al Gore's control. And, as you'll see below, Gore's selection for the US President of GIM might raise a few eyebrows as well.
> 
> AFLAC INC - AQUANTIVE INC - AUTODESK INC - BECTON DICKINSON & CO BLACKBAUD INC - GENERAL ELECTRIC CO - GREENHILL & CO INC - JOHNSON CTLS INC - LABORATORY CORP AMER HLDGS - METABOLIX INC - NORTHERN TR CORP - NUVEEN INVTS INC -STAPLES INC - SYSCO CORP - TECHNE CORP - UBS AG - VCA ANTECH INC - WATERS CORP - WHOLE FOODS MKT INC
> 
> ...





http://newsbusters.org/node/11149


----------



## ColB (5 May 2009)

> *Humans are 'not hurting' the climate*
> 
> Cara Jenkin Environment Reporter - April 13, 2009 12:00am
> 
> ...




CASE CLOSED!  Unless anyone can find impartial scientific evidence to refute Professor Plimers 2111 scientific references supporting his claims


----------



## rederob (5 May 2009)

ColB said:


> CASE CLOSED!  Unless anyone can find impartial scientific evidence to refute Professor Plimers 2111 scientific references supporting his claims



Plimer did not disprove that CO2 levels have no impact on temperature:  Merely that, inter alia, CO2 levels change cyclically and dramatically over geological time.
Climate change proponents suggest that the additional contribution of CO2 from man's activities has been unprecedented, and that it is speeding any natural processes.


----------



## derty (5 May 2009)

This argument is as dogmatic as any discussed on the net. Up there with creationism vs evolution, conservatism vs liberalism ... e.t.c. If you look you will find a reference supporting your viewpoint or refuting any argument. Most are coming at this with a hardline Ya or Na and I would be very surprised if even one or two of the posters on here had more than a high school science education, let alone specialised in atmospheric, climate or earth sciences and were abreast of the data, data collection and interpretation to make an informed decision. What we largely have here is an exercise in cherry picking supportive points of view.

I am a geologist, my daily life is spent immersed in rocks 2.7 billion years old. The Earth was a very different place back then. I understand the time frames involved in the processes of the Earth. It is a complicated beast, with many overlapping and non-synchronised cycles which have durations that range from daily to many millions of years. Then you need to add in the complexity of the interactions and cycles of the atmosphere with the hydrosphere and the lithosphere coupled with solar input. 

Many of the propositions and contradictions put forward by both sides of the argument seem credible to me. The amount of data collected from recent history (the last million to half million years) is extremely detailed and continuous, especially at the thickest parts of continental ice, and as we head back in time the resolution of the data we can glean is reduced. So when we are looking at these climatically extreme events in the distant past we cannot make interpretations based on annual data or even data at the 1000, 10,000 or 100,000 year resolution. We can make comparisons between then and now but to say anything with absolute certainty is bollacks.  The possibility that humans could be having an effect on the temperature of the Earth is not without plausibility. At the end of the day *I do not feel qualified * to pin my flag in either camp and it surprises me how so many can with dogmatic fervour.

Plimer is an extremely respected geoscientist. His work promoting geology to the mainstream and his battles with the creationists are to be applauded. One also needs to take into account that writing a book is a commercial exercise and a book of this nature has to find definitively for the stated case. I haven't read the book yet, but I find it hard that you would be able to "knock out every single argument we hear about climate change" without losing some objectivity in your references. Though when you are selling a book there is nothing like a bit of controversy to help sales along.

Ian Plimer has known to be dogmatic himself at times. For example in the Mount Isa area there is large chunks of the countryside where the rocks have Calcium levels much higher than is easily explained. Plimer believed them to represent ancient widespread evaporitic deposits (essentially salt lake deposits). Another hypothesis was that as granites in the area had intruded they have released vast amounts of fluids rich in Ca that dramatically changed the rocks that they percolated through. As the evidence grew the granite hypothesis was overwhelming but Plimer refused to let go of his evaporite hypothesis. I am not sure if he has to date.

Just because someone agrees with your point of view does not automatically make them right.


----------



## basilio (5 May 2009)

Well wonders will never cease ..................




> *US climate change denier James Inhofe joins Al Gore in fight to save the Arctic*
> 
> In a surprise U-turn, the conservative Republican senator has put forward a bill to review the dangers of black carbon
> 
> ...


----------



## Calliope (6 May 2009)

*Inhofe picked a bad time to jump ship.*


*Gallup Poll Editor: Al Gore Is Losing Global Warming Debate*


By Noel Sheppard - Newsbusters
May 5, 2009 - 15:58 ET



> Any measure that we look at shows Al Gore's losing at the moment. The public is just not that concerned.
> 
> So said Gallup Poll editor Frank Newport about the Nobel Laureate's campaign to convince Americans that man's carbon dioxide emissions are destroying the planet. As reported by U.S. News & World Report's Paul Bedard at his Washington Whispers blog Tuesday:
> 
> ...


----------



## kincella (6 May 2009)

I am in the middle on this....in Melb we have had the hottest days 46% Feb 09 and the coldest night 2% last week...last year from July 08 I felt cold  until xmas....and we had so many overcast days ..but no rain...
in the central district from Melb to up above NSw and probably SE Qld....that area is in the worst drought in my memory....apart from households, think food, crops, livestock, meat.....looks like we will let those industries die...and just import everything 

the biggest problem I have....is the lack of water...if we do not get rain or means to increase our water supply....it will not matter how much climate change or ETS or carbon taxes they charge.....water is our current biggest problem.....will we buy water from overseas....where ? Africa....

something has to be done to stop all the pollution...but if China and the other big polluters do not change ??? 
oh and from the beginning...talk was Al Gore and even Turnbull and Rudd had invested into companies that would reap the benefits from the ETS carbon trading...so its in their interests to scaremonger


----------



## metric (6 May 2009)

national geographic airs cooling fears.



> May 05, 2009
> Sun Oddly Quiet””Hints at Next “Little Ice Age”?
> By Anne Minard, National Geographic News
> 
> ...




http://icecap.us/


----------



## Calliope (6 May 2009)

metric said:


> national geographic airs cooling fears.
> 
> 
> 
> http://icecap.us/




Brrrr. Give me global warming any day.


----------



## derty (6 May 2009)

Here is a bit of Solar objectivity for you; cherry pickers feel free to select whichever article agrees best with your views.

objective:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090328163643.htm

http://science.jrank.org/pages/6875/Total-Solar-Irradiance.html


Pro-AGW:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/09/solar_wind_at_50year_low_what_1.html

http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-forcing-and-global-warming-here-we-go-again

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Anti-AGW:
http://icecap.us/

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1396

http://www.timothybirdnow.com/?p=57

http://www.co2science.org/subject/s/summaries/solartempnhemis.php



Knock yourselves out


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 May 2009)

kincella said:


> the biggest problem I have....is the lack of water...if we do not get rain or means to increase our water supply....it will not matter how much climate change or ETS or carbon taxes they charge.....water is our current biggest problem.....will we buy water from overseas....where ? Africa....
> 
> something has to be done to stop all the pollution...but if China and the other big polluters do not change ???



There's still plenty of water in Australia. It's just that we've tried to take virtually all our water from a minority of the available sources whilst failing to accept this was never going to work. It's like employing 100 people then having 5 doing virtually all the work - it'll lead to trouble that's for sure.

As for the overall issue, in a world of constant growth we're destined to burn everything we can get our hands on. That's just what happens when you keep using more and more each year - eventually you end up using all you can get your hands on. *All we're really debating is where it gets burnt - that it will be burnt is a given without truly radical change that not even the Greens are seriously proposing*.


----------



## Calliope (6 May 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> As for the overall issue, in a world of constant growth we're destined to burn everything we can get our hands on. That's just what happens when you keep using more and more each year - eventually you end up using all you can get your hands on. *All we're really debating is where it gets burnt - that it will be burnt is a given without truly radical change that not even the Greens are seriously proposing*.




Even if, by some stretch of the imagination, we accepted that we have contributed to global warming by burning all available fuels, you would need to be of Al Gore density to presume that we could, or would do anything about it.

By we, I mean the majority of the six billion people on the planet. They don't share our aspirations for a cleaner planet before they have had the chance to  share some of the material things we are so heroically prepared to sacrifice. 

The arrogance of people like Rudd, Gore and prince Charles flitting around the world in private jets with entourages, doesn't inspire much faith in their naive desires to save polar bears.


----------



## Julia (6 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> The arrogance of people like Rudd, Gore and prince Charles flitting around the world in private jets with entourages, doesn't inspire much faith in their naive desires to save polar bears.



Well, Calliope, how could you possibly contemplate a world without polar bears?  Whatever would we do?  

 And you have failed to mention the one legged twin headed praying mantis, the double shelled micro snail, or any other obscure insect whose welfare requires to be placed ahead of that of human beings.


----------



## metric (7 May 2009)

this is really funny. 







> The New York Times recently reported that the term ‘global warming’ “turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes.” To that end, ecoAmerica, an environmental non-profit marketing firm has proposed a complete change in the vernacular used to sway public opinion.  Rather than ‘global warming’, they advocate the use of “our deteriorating atmosphere.”






> ecoAmerica was not happy to have their recommendations leaked.  In fact, they pulled the information from their website.  However, a copy of some of it is available via Google’s cache here.  Among the changes they recommend are:






> •      Don’t use the word’s “global warming” to describe our “climate crisis.”  These words are politicized and polarizing. Their associations are inaccurate, confusing and abstract for most Americans.
> 
> •      Coal and oil companies are branding themselves as “energy companies,” (all of the above) co-opting the word “alternative” and confusing the public.   Advocates need to point out that the coal and oil companies’ words are inconsistent with their expenditures/deeds.
> 
> ...





http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...ate-advocates-working-against-themselves.html


----------



## Calliope (13 May 2009)

A.A. Gill in the Sunday Times on environmentalists.



> The truth is environmentalists are just not attractive. They're not winning, engaging, amusing or empathetic. They are ranty, repetitive, patronising, demanding, deaf, weirdly bonkers and smelly. Environmentalists are the nutters with degrees in composting who sit next to you on the bus. But that's not their real impediment. The real killer thing is the schadenfreude: the naked, transparent, hand-rubbing glee with which they pass on every shame, sadness and terror. No disaster is too appalling that the green movement can't caper and keen with a messianic glee.


----------



## Pat (14 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Well, Calliope, how could you possibly contemplate a world without polar bears?  Whatever would we do?
> 
> And you have failed to mention the one legged twin headed praying mantis, the double shelled micro snail, or any other obscure insect whose welfare requires to be placed ahead of that of human beings.



What about-

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/05/leatherback-turtles/appenzeller-text/2



> Bleakney eventually moved on to other studies””sea slugs were a special passion of his””but he never stopped marveling at the great beasts he had encountered on the fishing piers of Nova Scotia. "It was mind-boggling," he recalled in a recent interview with Canadian conservationists. "A reptile of that size, that lives in ice water, that can thrive on jellyfish." Almost 50 years later, scientists are still astonished at the leatherback's physical prowess, though today wonder is alloyed with a more modern sentiment: fear that even before we fully understand the leatherback and its epic life story, our own activities may be driving it to extinction.




Is that enough reason to want to save turtles, bears or even one legged insects from the big bad humans? 

Shame it costs money, everyone would be up for it.


----------



## Soft Dough (14 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> The arrogance of people like Rudd, Gore and prince Charles flitting around the world in private jets with entourages, doesn't inspire much faith in their naive desires to save polar bears.




I love it how people think that polar bears are becoming endangered.  It seriously makes me chuckle at their stupidity.

On both levels that they not only believe in global warming, even though there is no evidence of humans contributing anything realistic to warming, and their ignorance of the fact that not only have pb survived in much warmer climates than today, but that only 1 of the populations of pb are at any risk.


----------



## Mickel (22 May 2009)

ColB said:


> CASE CLOSED!  Unless anyone can find impartial scientific evidence to refute Professor Plimers 2111 scientific references supporting his claims




Professor Ian Plimer spoke to 4BC's Greg Cary (Qld audience) and answered questions from listeners on Tuesday this week. Here is a link to the podcast-

http://www.4bc.com.au/displayPopUpP...edia.mytalk.com.au/4bc/podcasts/ianplimer.mp3

I have purchased a copy of his book "Heaven + Earth Global Warming: The Missing Science". While I have only read the 1st chapter, it does make interesting reading.

One paragraph from this chapter- "The hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 can create global warming can be tested by measurement. This is how 
science works. Temperature measurements using groung-based thermometers, balloon-mounted radiosondes and satellite-mounted
microwave sensing units all show that no warming has occured since 1998. Once the urban heat island effect with ground 
thermometers and the 1998 El Niño are considered, there has been little warming since 1979. During that time atmospheric CO2 has
increased. Climate models using increasing CO2 predict simultaneous and intense warming in both polar areas, yet this has not 
happened in modern or ancient times. The test of the hypothesis above shows that there is no relationship between measured
temperature and CO2 emissions. The hypothesis fails."

In the interview he states that he is doing a promotional tour of USA next week and they are doing an initial print run of 100,000 copies of the book there. I think we will hear a lot more about Ian Plimer and his book. He also mentions in the interview that he is privately talking to politicians from Labor and Liberal parties since publication of the book last month.

If he and his book can change the attitude of the public and politicians it will greatly assist mining companies and in particular UCG companies who have less pollutants in their gases and diesel in the case of Linc Energy IMHO.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 June 2009)

Mickel said:


> Professor Ian Plimer spoke to 4BC's Greg Cary (Qld audience) and answered questions from listeners on Tuesday this week. Here is a link to the podcast-
> 
> http://www.4bc.com.au/displayPopUpP...edia.mytalk.com.au/4bc/podcasts/ianplimer.mp3
> 
> ...




Very apt comment.

The warmening believers are now running scared.

A global political party is being formed to refute the climate change nonsense.

Good science will win out in the end.

A link shows how small we are in the grand scheme of things, it is incomprehensible how Al Gore and his gas guzzling cohorts can foist unfair penalties on ordinary folk because of their mistaken beliefs.

http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/climate-change.html

gg


----------



## bassmanpete (12 June 2009)

I post this link without further comment.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm


----------



## spooly74 (12 June 2009)

bassmanpete said:


> I post this link without further comment.
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm




From the site:


> The skeptic argument...
> For the years 1998-2005, temperature did not increase. And yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more CO2 into the atmosphere. (Source: There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 by Bob Carter)
> 
> *What the science says...
> While 1998 was an unusually hot year due to El Niño, the long term trend since 1998 is still that of warming*.




Analysis could show that since 98 that trend could be embedded into a longer term warming trend, but, since 98 the trend is absolutely negative.


----------



## rederob (12 June 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Analysis could show that since 98 that trend could be embedded into a longer term warming trend, but, since 98 the trend is absolutely negative.



The chart since *1898* is resoundingly positive for the warming cause.
Short term trends can be discounted, and from a climate perspective have marginal validity for even up to several decades.
A more reliable indicator might be to look at which 10 years in the past 100 were the hottest, and then see if a trend is evident.


----------



## nulla nulla (12 June 2009)

You keep cutting down trees and there is no photosynthesis going on so the oxygen carbon dioxide ratios are stuffed. We are slowly poisoning ourselves. 

One of the biggest contributors to the build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which you hear very little about, is those big ol jet airliners carting everyone off on their holiday or that big important business trip.

And they dump their pollution at 30,000 feet above sea level. Go figure.


----------



## Calliope (13 June 2009)

The problem with climate change is that it is so boring.




> How ironic it is that in the very era of impatience and shrunken attention spans, the world has been confronted with a dilemma like climate change.
> 
> It is like a test God has sent us to remind us we're idiots, because it is a problem modern society is uniquely unsuited to fixing: the worst consequences are a long way off, and we don't care about a long way off, and the solutions are dull, and we don't care about dull.
> 
> If climate change could be solved with a sell out-charity concert and natty fund-raising ribbons, we'd be sorted. But it doesn't. It requires immediate action of a complex and boring nature. Negotiations over trading and credits and prices per tonne and projections. Just yesterday I fell asleep reading that the State Government has stalled on the issue of bonuses for rooftop solar panels, unsure of whether to grant home owners a gross tariff or a net tariff.




http://www.smh.com.au/environment/m...o-bother-saving-the-planet-20090612-c61q.html


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 June 2009)

I still can't work out why, if the warmening cause is correct, the planet has not warmed over the last 11 years.

All this modelling that the warmening scientists go on with sounds like poppycock to me.

The dreadful thing is, that as it is a left cause, and Labor is in, we will have to pay for all this silliness with carbon taxes and their effects on the economy.

If it weren't so serious, it would be a laugh.

Pilmer's book should be given gratis to every politician in Canberra, so they can see the other side of the argument presented logically and sanely.

Its weather , just weather.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 June 2009)

nulla nulla said:


> You keep cutting down trees and there is no photosynthesis going on so the oxygen carbon dioxide ratios are stuffed. We are slowly poisoning ourselves.
> 
> One of the biggest contributors to the build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which you hear very little about, is those big ol jet airliners carting everyone off on their holiday or that big important business trip.
> 
> And they dump their pollution at 30,000 feet above sea level. Go figure.



That environmentalists have consistently promoted tourism and the service economy as the answer to all things economic is precisely the problem that I have with them. 

It may well have stopped an assortment of local pollution and other environmental harm, only to transfer it to China etc, but it's directly adding vast amounts of CO2 via travel, especially aviaition. Then they tell us to catch the bus to work, as though that is somehow going to offset the extra emissions from increased tourism and the service economy / globalisation.

I call BS on this one big time. If anyone is serious about cutting CO2 then start supporting things which actually fix the problem or at least reduce it. That means relocalisation of manufacturing and the development of _large scale_ non-fossil energy sources that can actually be built and used as an alternative to fossil fuels. And with present technology that means, in practice, nuclear and hydro supplemented with wind and a bit of biomass, all of which are totally or substantially opposed by mainstream environmentalists. In the not too distant future, geothermal may be added to that list but it's viable only in a small number of locations at present where wet geothermal fields are suitable.

And stop supporting things that make it worse, tourism and the service economy being the most obvious to head the list. Shipping materials and goods around the world whilst turning the Third World into wealthy consumers might suit some socialist ideal, but it sure won't do anything to CO2 emissions other than ramp them up, up and up again.

There's not much hope when even so-called environmentalists oppose the solutions and support those things which can only make the situation worse. That's a big part of the reason I just can't see anything being done. Anyone who tries, gets whacked over the head by the greens who always seem to find some problem with any proposal big enough to actually make a difference. Truly amazing just how common some of these endangered species are and how just about every forest / river / hilltop or scenic landscape is apparently the last one left. Protect the lot and we're stuck with fossil fuels...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 June 2009)

For anyone interested in Ian Pilmer this is an interesting transcript of an abcnewswire interview he gave.

He makes the point that science is not about consensus but rather about evidence and that the evidence for climate change is skinny.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/06/transcript-ian-plimer-interview

gg


----------



## MrBurns (25 June 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> For anyone interested in Ian Pilmer this is an interesting transcript of an abcnewswire interview he gave.
> 
> He makes the point that science is not about consensus but rather about evidence and that the evidence for climate change is skinny.
> 
> ...




Science is about the race to get funding, hence false test results and so on.


----------



## wayneL (25 June 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Science is about the race to get funding, hence false test results and so on.



Unfortunately true.

I have a friend who's a bit of a big knob (can a woman be a big knob? ) in the field of gene technology research. She says exactly the same thing.


----------



## spooly74 (25 June 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Science is about the race to get funding, hence false test results and so on.



How do you know the test results are false, did somebody falsify them


----------



## MrBurns (25 June 2009)

spooly74 said:


> How do you know the test results are false, did somebody falsify them




Well you see it's like this, research in it's purest form reports all results good or bad, but research that actually gets results attracts more funding so.. human nature being what it is means that sometimes in order to look as if the research is progressing, some results are shall we say..enhanced.


----------



## rederob (25 June 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Well you see it's like this, research in it's purest form reports all results good or bad, but research that actually gets results attracts more funding so.. human nature being what it is means that sometimes in order to look as if the research is progressing, some results are shall we say..enhanced.



Thus, if research showed climate change was a myth it would get significant funding.
That's because "warmers" have put trillion dollar price tags on mitigation. So spending some billions on research to conclusively prove the myth would be money well spent.


----------



## MrBurns (25 June 2009)

rederob said:


> Thus, if research showed climate change was a myth it would get significant funding.
> That's because "warmers" have put trillion dollar price tags on mitigation. So spending some billions on research to conclusively prove the myth would be money well spent.




Climate change is now a huge industry producing income for thousands of people , so if you find it's BS you get funding if you find it's true you also get funding, thats capitalism.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 June 2009)

rederob said:


> Thus, if research showed climate change was a myth it would get significant funding.
> That's because "warmers" have put trillion dollar price tags on mitigation. So spending some billions on research to conclusively prove the myth would be money well spent.




Which is like saying that it is ok to spend billions on a belief, even if its not proven to be valid, and may not benefit the earth, ever.

gg


----------



## rederob (26 June 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Which is like saying that it is ok to spend billions on a belief, even if its not proven to be valid, and may not benefit the earth, ever.
> gg



gg
This was a "fake" post.
Please re-read my second sentence and you will understand why.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 June 2009)

rederob said:


> gg
> This was a "fake" post.
> Please re-read my second sentence and you will understand why.




Sorry mate. I do agree with you about MJ though, but wasn't game to say it on the MJ thread.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 June 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Climate change is now a huge industry producing income for thousands of people , so if you find it's BS you get funding if you find it's true you also get funding, thats capitalism.



Scientists are not paid by people doing research for the sake of it. They are, in general, funded by organisations with a vested interest in the outcome.

Those funded by anyone whose existence or profits depend on there being a link between CO2 and climate change have a pretty strong incentive to reach conclusions that there is indeed a link. Nobody's going to fund someone to speak out _against_ their own interests.

Likewise with those funded by organisations with a vested interest in there not being a link between CO2 and climate change. Those paying are likely to reconsider real quick if those scientists start saying there's a problem with CO2.

Sadly, this topic is so absolutely political and financial that any prospect of proper research is now remote. Anyone studying it, is almost certainly funded by someone with an interest in the outcome one way or the other. To say otherwise is simply naive.


----------



## basilio (27 June 2009)

> Scientists are not paid by people doing research for the sake of it. They are, in general, funded by organisations with a vested interest in the outcome.
> 
> Those funded by anyone whose existence or profits depend on there being a link between CO2 and climate change have a pretty strong incentive to reach conclusions that there is indeed a link. Nobody's going to fund someone to speak out against their own interests.
> 
> ...




I find it bizarre that a range of probably quite capable people seem to believe that the huge body of research and evidence developed in the past 30 years by climate scientists is somehow basically wrong and driven by a desire for ongoing funding.
*
On a fundamental level the role of CO2 as key factor in determining the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere has been proven repeatedly*.
There is a really excellent essay which summarizes the history of the scientific theory and research on the effect of CO2.  And I find it far more  complete than the self serving stories from people who either have little scientific training in this field or who are paid to muddy the waters.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

It may somehow be reassuring to not believe the world is rapidly warming: it may be comforting (even if it warming is happening) to believe mankind has an insignificant effect.

*But these beliefs are not what is actually happening in the real, measurable world*. Lets deal with reality before reality deals with us please


----------



## basilio (27 June 2009)

> Scientists are not paid by people doing research for the sake of it. They are, in general, funded by organisations with a vested interest in the outcome.
> 
> Those funded by anyone whose existence or profits depend on there being a link between CO2 and climate change have a pretty strong incentive to reach conclusions that there is indeed a link. Nobody's going to fund someone to speak out against their own interests.
> 
> ...




I find it bizarre that a range of probably quite capable people seem to believe that the huge body of research and evidence developed in the past 30 years by climate scientists is somehow basically wrong and driven by a desire for ongoing funding.
*
On a fundamental level the role of CO2 as key factor in determining the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere has been proven repeatedly*.
There is a really excellent essay which summarizes the history of the scientific theory and research on the effect of CO2.  And I find it far more  complete than the self serving stories from people who either have little scientific training in this field or who are paid to muddy the waters.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

It may somehow be reassuring to not believe the world is rapidly warming: it may be comforting (even if it warming is happening) to believe mankind has an insignificant effect.

*But these beliefs are not what is actually happening in the real, measurable world*. Lets deal with reality before reality deals with us please

PS  So who is the scientist who pulled together the theories and  research data on CO2.  His name is Spencer Weart.  I have posted the start of his biography below. 
_
SPENCER R. WEART (), originally trained as a physicist, is a noted historian specializing in the history of modern physics and geophysics. Until his retirement in 2009 he was Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) in College Park, Maryland, USA, and he contineus to be affiliated with the Center.

Born in Detroit, Michigan in 1942, he received a B.A. in Physics at Cornell University in 1963 and a Ph.D. in Physics and Astrophysics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, in 1968. He then worked for three years at the California Institute of Technology, supported as a Fellow of the Mount Wilson and Palomar Observatories. At Caltech he taught physics, did research on the sun's atmosphere and on ground-based and space-based telescope _instrumentation, and published papers in leading scientific journals.

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


----------



## spooly74 (27 June 2009)

basilio said:


> It may somehow be reassuring to not believe the world is rapidly warming: it may be comforting (even if it warming is happening) to believe mankind has an insignificant effect.
> 
> *But these beliefs are not what is actually happening in the real, measurable world*. Lets deal with reality before reality deals with us please




Please define what you mean by rapidly warming. Choose your own timescale if you wish.

Current hypothesis gives a range from 2.5C - 4C per doubling of CO2.
Total CO2 in the atmosphere in 1900 ~ 280ppm
Total CO2 in the atmosphere today ~ 380ppm
Log2(380/280) x 3C = 1.32C
We've seen about half that in the 'real, measurable world'. Thoughts? :dunno:

I've missed your links to the Guardian. 

In the mean time, perhaps you could give us your opinion on the following:

*Systematic Misrepresentation of the Science of Disasters and Climate Change*


----------



## wayneL (28 June 2009)

Here's a great way to arrive at total agreement about global warming, just exclude anybody who doesn't agree:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html



> *Polar bear expert barred by global warmists*
> 
> Dr Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views 'are extremely unhelpful’ , reveals Christopher Booker.


----------



## Mr J (28 June 2009)

I'm not informed on this topic, but the trader in me - one that recognises probability, variance and human nature - is quite skeptical. I do not consider it possible that any of this is certain, and since many scientists suggest that it is then all I can conclude is that they're not being objective. Many certainly have an agenda, and many are always willing to 'believe'.



> I find it bizarre that a range of probably quite capable people seem to believe that the huge body of research and evidence developed in the past 30 years by climate scientists is somehow basically wrong and driven by a desire for ongoing funding.




I'm sure many believe they are right, but that does not mean they have the evidence to back it up. Religions have believed they are right and received finding for thousands of years, despite not having the evidence to back it up. There are also the people who have an agenda or for egotistical reasons would like to prove their belief to be correct. I think that is the problem here - belief versus evidence.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 June 2009)

wayneL said:


> Here's a great way to arrive at total agreement about global warming, just exclude anybody who doesn't agree:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html




Another quote from Dr.Taylor in the Telegraph UK's article.



> Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.
> 
> Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.




gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 June 2009)

And now Jupiter is warming.

Polar bears are increasing.

And Crusties/Warmeners are being paid $250,000 a year to count CO2 and charge for it.

The end is nigh.

Take out your dead.

gg


----------



## Samson 9 (3 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> And now Jupiter is warming.
> 
> The end is nigh.
> 
> ...




It is closer then you think. You skeptics can try to make fun of climate change but after reading the article in the Australian below, you may also start believing in the fast approaching horrors of climate change.

Climate change is shrinking sheep
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25727435-11949,00.html

I think there may be also some of the missing science there for Professor Ian Plimer. I hope he reads it and stops reprinting his book.


Sam


----------



## wayneL (4 July 2009)

Samson 9 said:


> It is closer then you think. You skeptics can try to make fun of climate change but after reading the article in the Australian below, you may also start believing in the fast approaching horrors of climate change.
> 
> Climate change is shrinking sheep
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25727435-11949,00.html
> ...






There are so many caveats that should be added to that article, that it's ridiculous. In any case, hardly a harbinger of ecological catastrophe now is it?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 July 2009)

Samson 9 said:


> It is closer then you think. You skeptics can try to make fun of climate change but after reading the article in the Australian below, you may also start believing in the fast approaching horrors of climate change.
> 
> Climate change is shrinking sheep
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25727435-11949,00.html
> ...




Mate in the mid 19th century the ideal beautiful woman weighed 105kg, had a large butt and large breasts.

This was because tuberculosis was deadly and made handsome lassies into cadavers between seasons.

For some strange reason, lads, became more carnally excited when they saw a buxom lass than when they say a proxy cadaver.

Now let us extraolate to 2009.

We find that herpetic figures of 50kg are the most attractive. And as lads are so they react.

AND IT IS NOT DUE TO BLOODY CLIMATE CHANGE.

And Paris Hilton is not a sheep, although she may have many of their attributes, and lonely Kiwi lads upon the Desert Highway are not migrating to Hirta in search of skinny sheep.

thanks for the link mate.

gg


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (4 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> There are so many caveats that should be added to that article, that it's ridiculous. In any case, hardly a harbinger of ecological catastrophe now is it?




I agree. The arrogance and con of man is pathetic. Lot's of gullible communists unaware of propaganda and real facts.


----------



## Samson 9 (5 July 2009)

Quotes from "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" first published in 1841:

 "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."

 "Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder's welcome."

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

Nothing ever changes.

Sam


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (6 July 2009)

Samson 9 said:


> Quotes from "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" first published in 1841:
> 
> "*Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one*."
> 
> ...



Truth is a funny thing. There are many who think bananas are apples.


----------



## wayneL (8 July 2009)




----------



## Calliope (9 July 2009)

AL Gore says *"The debate is over"* Stalin said much the same thing when he started eliminating the opposition.


----------



## Aussiejeff (10 July 2009)

Hooray!

ObamaKRudd have saved the world!! 

80% cut in CO2 emissions by developed countries by 2050!!!

Oh.... hang on.....



That means roughly *2% per year every year on average for the next 40 years*, right?

Ummm...

How much would that cost our piddly-widdly economy???

*DOH*

Economy stuffed....

*sniff* 

.... but then, SupaKRudd will still be around in 2050 to save you all anyway with a massive amount of "detailed programmatic specificity" !! (I'll be watching from cloud 9 :engel: )

*Nirvana*


----------



## ghotib (10 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> There are so many caveats that should be added to that article, that it's ridiculous. In any case, hardly a harbinger of ecological catastrophe now is it?



At this time, it's an interesting and uncontroversial demonstration of an isolated population adapting to local environmental change.  

But in hindsight, it might well be a harbinger of ecological catastrophe. A clue, a straw in the wind, a small signal of looming disaster. If only somebody had realised in time... Oh wait. That's us, and this is the time. 

Ghoti


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (10 July 2009)

ghotib said:


> At this time, it's an interesting and uncontroversial demonstration of an isolated population adapting to local environmental change.
> 
> But in hindsight, it might well be a harbinger of ecological catastrophe. A clue, a straw in the wind, a small signal of looming disaster. If only somebody had realised in time... Oh wait. That's us, and this is the time.
> 
> Ghoti



And from causes totally unlinked to man or jovians.


----------



## ghotib (10 July 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> And from causes totally unlinked to man or jovians.



Ah yes, the Jovians. The changes in the visible surface of Jupiter are fascinating - and beautiful, for what that's worth. This item from the University of California is the closest I've been able to get to a discussion that's both informed and comprehensible. 

The following quotations are shameless cherry-picked, but I think the point they illustrate - that the processes influencing climate differ greatly between Jupiter and Earth - is correct. The full article is at: 

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/6305



> About 20 years ago, Marcus developed a computer model showing how the Great Red Spot emerged out of and endured in the chaotic turbulence of Jupiter's atmosphere. His efforts to explain the dynamics governing it and other vortices on Jupiter led to his current projection of the planet's impending climate change...
> 
> ...Marcus approaches the study of planetary atmospheres from the untraditional viewpoint of a fluid dynamicist. "I'm basing my predictions on the relatively simple laws of vortex dynamics instead of using voluminous amounts of data or complex atmospheric models," says Marcus.
> 
> ...




Ghoti


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 July 2009)

The glib excuse for an ex politician Al Gore is being given soft questions on the 7.30 report (what a surprise), as I write.

The ABC assume that what he says is gospel and do not seem to give any airtime or credence to those who believe in Weather. They give him patsy questions for the answers they want. What a waste of airtime.

Its just not fair.

Al Gore, still looks and sounds like a Jovian joke.

gg


----------



## Calliope (13 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The glib excuse for an ex politician Al Gore is being given soft questions on the 7.30 report (what a surprise), as I write.
> 
> The ABC assume that what he says is gospel and do not seem to give any airtime or credence to those who believe in Weather. They give him patsy questions for the answers they want. What a waste of airtime.
> 
> ...




Yes, I saw that. It is difficult to believe that anyone could give credibility to this idiot. He keeps harping about the overwhelming scientific evidence to support his  nonsense theories on global warming. If I remember correctly Hitler had overwhelming support for his equally dangerous theories.

It's all about controlling the masses with propaganda.


----------



## Julia (13 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The glib excuse for an ex politician Al Gore is being given soft questions on the 7.30 report (what a surprise), as I write.
> 
> The ABC assume that what he says is gospel and do not seem to give any airtime or credence to those who believe in Weather. They give him patsy questions for the answers they want. What a waste of airtime.
> 
> ...



Yep, whenever you see Heather Ewitt doing the interviewing, you may as well leave the room.  She only ever does the really soft stuff where all the questions and answers are pre-arranged.   Gore really gives me the pip.
Every time I see him, I remember that shot of his house - a mansion with every room in the house glowing with lights.

I suppose at least we can be grateful that he failed in his bid for the presidency.


----------



## Buckeroo (13 July 2009)

Ditto

When I hear him speak, have to admit, I do get the urge to go out & melt some ice just to smite him!!

Cheers


----------



## Julia (13 July 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> Ditto
> 
> When I hear him speak, have to admit, I do get the urge to go out & melt some ice just to smite him!!
> 
> Cheers


----------



## wayneL (13 July 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> Ditto
> 
> When I hear him speak, have to admit, I do get the urge to go out & melt some ice just to smite him!!
> 
> Cheers



Yep.

I go and start up the Hummer and let it idle for a few hours.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> Yes, I saw that. It is difficult to believe that anyone could give credibility to this idiot. He keeps harping about the overwhelming scientific evidence to support his  nonsense theories on global warming. If I remember correctly Hitler had overwhelming support for his equally dangerous theories.
> 
> It's all about controlling the masses with propaganda.






Julia said:


> Yep, whenever you see Heather Ewitt doing the interviewing, you may as well leave the room.  She only ever does the really soft stuff where all the questions and answers are pre-arranged.   Gore really gives me the pip.
> Every time I see him, I remember that shot of his house - a mansion with every room in the house glowing with lights.
> 
> I suppose at least we can be grateful that he failed in his bid for the presidency.






Buckeroo said:


> Ditto
> 
> When I hear him speak, have to admit, I do get the urge to go out & melt some ice just to smite him!!
> 
> Cheers




Lets hope ole Steve Fielding puts it upem when the vote comes down as to whether ( excuse the pun ) we spend billions on carbon taxes while Kevin Ludd's mates in China laugh their heads off and go, go, go, industrially after they've squeezed all the info out of poor old Steven Hu.

gg

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner (13 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Lets hope ole Steve Fielding puts it upem when the vote comes down as to whether ( excuse the pun ) we spend billions on carbon taxes while Kevin Ludd's mates in China laugh their heads off and go, go, go, industrially after they've squeezed all the info out of poor old Steven Hu.
> 
> gg
> 
> gg




I'm sure it's not a spelling error. But Kevin "Ludd" GG. :dimbulb:
You mean the machine smashers of the Highlands? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

Surely you are playing on the fact that most Asian languages have no distinction between "R" and "L". Don't worry I've been to Japan to listen to a native recite the Neil Sedaka classic in karaoke version "Oh Carol" and understand completely. 

As for Steven Hu, I'd like to read the People's Republic of Communist China Statutory Law with regard to seditious or anti-patriotic activities  before I can make an *objective*  comment.


----------



## Calliope (14 July 2009)

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,25777671-5000117,00.html




> *Do young have the will to make climate change sacrifices*
> 
> THE prevailing attitude among young people today continues to be "do as we say, not as we do" when it comes to saving their planet.
> 
> ...




They have all been brainwashed at school. Fossil fuels bad, self-interest OK.


----------



## kincella (14 July 2009)

can anyone direct me to a long range weather forecaster...apparently on current affairs last night...predicting good rains for australia in Sep and then again at xmas...think he was a kiwi....waster an hour or so looking for something about him


----------



## Timmy (14 July 2009)

Could this be the chap on TV?  Long-range forecasts.  From NZ.  You wont believe how he does it.  Good luck.

Predict Weather


----------



## johnnyg (14 July 2009)

Interesting chart here ---> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25780407-5019059,00.html

Any chartists got any views on it? :


----------



## Aussiejeff (14 July 2009)

johnnyg said:


> Interesting chart here ---> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25780407-5019059,00.html
> 
> Any chartists got any views on it? :




Clearly it is a _"receding 3rd wave algorithm overlying an ascending hypothecy"_

Commonly known in scientific circles as a _"Hypothetical discontinuum"_.

Any chartist worth their salt would know that, eh?


----------



## Calliope (14 July 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> Clearly it is a _"receding 3rd wave algorithm overlying an ascending hypothecy"_
> 
> Commonly known in scientific circles as a _"Hypothetical discontinuum"_.
> 
> Any chartist worth their salt would know that, eh?




Exactly.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 July 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> Ditto
> 
> When I hear him speak, have to admit, I do get the urge to go out & melt some ice just to smite him!!
> 
> Cheers




Yes Al Gore appears a much diminished figure, refusing to argue the point with his detractors.

He is a victim of his patrician upbringing, unconvincing, realising that his arguments are unconvincing yet unable to leave the stage. 

He didn't appear to be very happy to be in Australia. Perhaps too many Weatherers for his liking.

He wouldn't even give Sen.Steve Fielding the time of day. How insulting for a visitor to ignore a Senator of the Australian parliament.

gg


----------



## trainspotter (14 July 2009)

Lennox Walker was an Australian long range weather forecaster of some note. His son Hayden has taken over the reins.

http://www.worldweather.com.au/ is the site.

Interesting read that could be considered possible or fallacy.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 July 2009)

rederob said:


> I am careful in what I say.
> A 30 year trend of increasing (albeit not statistically significant) sea ice extent remains in place, and is corroborated by the below table:




Rob - would have replied earlier , but seem to have fallen asleep there. 

These aussie-funded scientists conclude that the antarctic ice has retreated about 170km since the mid 1900's. - the graph is a series of scallops. 

(I believe I made reference to the same result in a post in late Dec, early Jan - not important. 

For the graph you'll have to look at the pdf. 

PS I note you agree that that graph of yours ( about 11 Jan from memory) was "not statistically significant"  
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=384651&highlight=significant#post384651

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=1950+antarctic+curran&meta=


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Rob - would have replied earlier , but seem to have fallen asleep there.
> 
> These aussie-funded scientists conclude that the antarctic ice has retreated about 170km since the mid 1900's. - the graph is a series of scallops.
> 
> ...




2020 I'm going to be pleasant to you seeing as you're back and you make good points.

Most of us weatherers are as much in to having as little pollution as possible, clean food, a good life, clean beer, shopping trolleys that have wheels that work, etc. as you Warmeners.

The difference is that we are not catastrophists.

We believe your science to be a religion and not open to argument.

Now thats the end of nice.

gg


----------



## wayneL (15 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Most of us weatherers are as much in to having as little pollution as possible, clean food, a good life, clean beer, shopping trolleys that have wheels that work, etc. as you Warmeners.
> 
> *The difference is that we are not catastrophists.*
> 
> We believe your science to be a religion and not open to argument.




Exactly!


----------



## kincella (15 July 2009)

thanks for the links re weather forecasters.....been to both before my request...and could not find any free stuff....or really any useful information..unless I was prepared to pay a fee...

every day, newspapers show the rainfall for every suburb in australia...for that day...
yet that information is not kept or available free on the net....
spent an hour or more of wasted time.....came up with average rain for the area...up to 1999...10 years ago...
then today the ABS site has charts of rainfall in the past...but it is very broad...for eg it covers the whole state of NSW....when in fact the central district has experienced severe drought for the past 15 or more years....but the coast has had near average rainfalls....
huge difference between the coast and the inland  areas....
and the data is old...back to 04 etc....
I think I did post here not so long ago...the rainfall had increased past 3 months to above average records.....(average going back some 10 years)
and there has been constant rain for the past 2 weeks...maybe only 3-4 mils a day....
how on earth am I to estimate the size of the water tank required...when something as simple as the recent rainfall (past 3 years say) for that area is not readily available....
one needs an accredited person to view your home...if you want to access the green loan.....I wonder if those people will have accurate rainfall charts for the area....to help decide the size of the water tank required....

on another note.....Al Gore is being paid for his appearances to sell the climate change con job.....amost all involved stand to gain significant wealth if they can get the con job passed....hence steers clear of any questions


----------



## Calliope (15 July 2009)

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25783305-7583,00.html



> The Nobel laureate in economics Paul Krugman goes further. After the narrow passage of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill in the US House of Representatives, Krugman said that there was no justification for a vote against it. He called virtually all of the members who voted against it "climate deniers" who were committing "treason against the planet".
> 
> Krugman said that the "irresponsibility and immorality" of the representatives' democratic viewpoints were "unforgivable" and a "betrayal". He thus accused almost half of the democratically elected members of the house, from both parties, of treason for holding the views that they do, thereby essentially negating democracy.





> Even if every Kyoto-obligated country passed its own, duplicate Waxman-Markey bills -- which is implausible and would incur significantly higher costs -- the global reduction would amount to just 0.22C by the end of this century. The reduction in global temperature would not be measurable in 100 years, yet the cost would be significant and payable now.
> 
> Is it really treason against the planet to express some scepticism about whether this is the right way forward? Is it treason to question throwing huge sums of money at a policy that will do virtually no good in 100 years? Is it unreasonable to point out that the inevitable creation of trade barriers that will ensue from Waxman-Markey could eventually cost the world 10 times more than the damage climate change could ever have wrought?


----------



## Agentm (15 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Yes Al Gore appears a much diminished figure, refusing to argue the point with his detractors.
> 
> He is a victim of his patrician upbringing, unconvincing, realising that his arguments are unconvincing yet unable to leave the stage.
> 
> ...





i agree

one moment with fielding and answering the one question on how the carbon dioxide is increasing,  yet the temperature is not, remains unanswered

not that al gore knows the answer, he only follows the same well rehearsed script.

i love the term "inconvenient truth".. its one thing these fantasist environmentalists speak.   the truth is inconvenient so its left out..   

the truth is the earth has always been in a global warming phase..

the mini ice age we are just leaving is one that was always going to happen.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (15 July 2009)

Agentm said:


> i agree
> 
> one moment with fielding and answering the one question on how the carbon dioxide is increasing,  yet the temperature is not, remains unanswered
> 
> ...




Well said.


----------



## Buddy (15 July 2009)

Up until now I havn't really contributed to this thread but I am now prompted to by that pompous twitish bore, er, gore, to say something.  So here goes........

Paleochannels!
Gore blimey mate, havn't you ever heard of paleochannels. Ignorant gore, er,  bore.

I remember going to a lecture on paleochannels a number of years ago. In fact, here is a paper on it if any of you are interested in getting gored, er, bored.

http://www.newcastle.edu.au/service/archives/coalriver/pdf/3282_001.pdf

The jist of it is that study of paleochannels leads to a determination of previous sea water levels.  We are currently nearing a long term cyclical high in ocean levels. The next long term trend will be a lowering of sea levels. Notwithstanding cataclysmic techtonic plate movement which could cause thing to go up, down, sideways,etc...... you know....events of biblical proportions. Which by the way, will eventually happen as the continent Pangea is reformed. Another (say) 10m increase in sea level would be nothing out of the ordinary from a long term trend perspective.

So, what goes up comes down, and vice versa.  Sea level WILL rise further, and nothing Ms Wong says or does will make a scrap of difference.  So, that's probably not so good for the real estate industry.  But, on the other hand, sea levels will then fall and think of what that means to the real estate industry.... all that new land to flog.  And, you will be able to drive from Melbourne to Hobart (one really wants to do that?), or Dover to Calais instead of catching the ferry.

You just need to wait for anything between 10,00 - 100,000 years. Give or take a bit. And dont forget to take your winter woolies because it's gonna get a bit chilly.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The difference is that we are not catastrophists.
> 
> We believe your science to be a religion and not open to argument.



Now that's hit the nail on the head. It's become a religion that's for sure.

But not to worry, only this afternoon I heard some 20-something man proclaiming that "nuclear is not the answer". But not to worry he assured me, we're alright here in Tassie because hydro is a clean energy source.

Now whilst I agree that 0.02kg of CO2 per kWh is about the cleanest you'll get anywhere as far as power generation is concerned, if only he knew history! If he was 25 years older then he'd probably have spent some time in inflatable yellow boats and/or tied to the few bulldozers that managed to escape the late night addition of valve grinding paste to their engine oil down in the south-west of Tas back in the early 80's.

These people just seem to adopt whatever is the current cause and put their efforts into championing it. Science, logic and rational thought always has been avoided in the environmental debate. 

Edit: Seems I'm doing my bit though as I'm suddenly sitting in the dark. Better go and investigate...


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 July 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Edit: Seems I'm doing my bit though as I'm suddenly sitting in the dark. Better go and investigate...



Seems that the 160W MV lamp has decided it's had enough. Not to worry though, I'll bring the home office into the 21st Century with one of those fancy 48W compact fluro's and save a bit of CO2 in the process.


----------



## Calliope (16 July 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> But not to worry, only this afternoon I heard some 20-something man proclaiming that "nuclear is not the answer". But not to worry he assured me, we're alright here in Tassie because hydro is a clean energy source.




A lot of otherwise rational people are saying that nuclear is the answer. The answer to what?  They are assuming we have a problem. But if we do, what is causing the problem? They are playing into the hands of the catastrophists who say high CO2 emissions are dooming the planet. A highly improbable theory.

The ones who stand to gain are the latter day Marxists, (the Gores, the Rudds and the Obamas) who have latched on GW as a rationale for turning the worlds economy on it's head. 

To succeed they first have to scare te beejesus out of us. And as they are not getting any hard questioning from the media they are succeeding.


----------



## Timmy (16 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> The ones who stand to gain are the latter day Marxists, (the Gores, the Rudds and the Obamas) who have latched on GW as a rationale for turning the worlds economy on it's head.




I thought the capitalists just did that already?


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> A lot of otherwise rational people are saying that nuclear is the answer. The answer to what?  They are assuming we have a problem. But if we do, what is causing the problem? They are playing into the hands of the catastrophists who say high CO2 emissions are dooming the planet. A highly improbable theory.
> 
> The ones who stand to gain are the latter day Marxists, (the Gores, the Rudds and the Obamas) ... etc




lol
It was the only thing that tempted me to vote for Johnny Howard last time - that he was in favour of nuclear.


some confused theories being aired around here


----------



## rederob (16 July 2009)

Agentm said:


> i agree
> 
> one moment with fielding and answering the one question on how the carbon dioxide is increasing,  yet the temperature is not, remains unanswered
> 
> ...



You continue to miss the point.

There are no scientists that argue that the earth will not warm more or cool more substantially in thousands of years time.

The global warming debate is focussed on significant climate change now occurring in our lifetimes.

Some here suggest the science in not proven.  In fact it is, and scientists in the anti-warming camp acknowledge the scientific basis of global warming.  What they argue over is the extent that man's contribution to warming is greater than mother nature would otherwise thrust on us.

This is a clever argument.

Without a replica "control" earth to test any hypothesis on, pro-warming scientists cannot be conclusive in their findings until we have passed a tipping point, and become locked in to a significantly warmer earth for centuries to come.  Thus, to "win" this argument everyone has to lose.

The central issue should be about what constitutes "reliable" evidence that the earth's warming is being significantly impacted by man.  To date it appears that we have nothing in particular, but a lot altogether.  The common enemy seems to be CO2, although other "greenhouse gases" are being pointed at by the anti-warming camp when it is convenient.  

The agreed science shows that CO2 levels in the atmosphere affect the earth's temperature.  And increasing CO2 levels are known to have historically proven higher temperatures.

The anti-warming camp will not focus on the science because it is an inconvenient truth.  The science is also boring and difficult to relate to, so they instead go for matters of common appeal that, with the right spin, make sense.

For example, if pro-warmers suggest Polar Bear populations are being decimated, and anti-warmers can "prove" they are not, there is magically evidence that the earth is not warming.  This is a classic sucker punch.  In essence all we have is proof that there are now more Polar Bears - nothing less, nothing more.  

More recently we have the intellectually challenged Senator Fielding suggesting that because the earth has not warmed in the last 15 years, then global warming is a furphy.  Fielding has been briefed well by the anti-warming camp, and spouts their mantra at every opportunity.  Fielding is typical of the gullibility that anti-warmers can tap; he has no clue about climate issues per se, but thinks he's on  winner because there is a scintilla of "real facts" that prove he is right.  If Fielding did have a clue, he could have used a moving 15-year average over the last 100 years, and got a very different answer.


----------



## basilio (16 July 2009)

Nice call Red Rob. But as we are well aware by now, the main protagonists on this forum have absolutely no desire to see any part of the picture, either scientific theory or factual evidence, that conflicts with their desire to deny human produced global warming.  

End of story...

I see it a bit like people who insist that falling out of a plane at 10,000 metres without a parachute  *will not kill you*. Their proof ? There will certainly be a few examples of people who have landed in  haystacks, soft snow whatever and survived.  That's enough evidence in this type of debate to shout down the theories of gravity and the thousands of people who have come to a sticky end falling from great heights.


----------



## Gamblor (16 July 2009)

rederob said:


> You continue to miss the point.
> 
> 
> More recently we have the intellectually challenged Senator Fielding suggesting that because the earth has not warmed in the last 15 years, then global warming is a furphy.  Fielding has been briefed well by the anti-warming camp, and spouts their mantra at every opportunity.  Fielding is typical of the gullibility that anti-warmers can tap; he has no clue about climate issues per se, but thinks he's on  winner because there is a scintilla of "real facts" that prove he is right.  If Fielding did have a clue, he could have used a moving 15-year average over the last 100 years, and got a very different answer.




Don't get me started on Fielding. The guy thinks the earth is around 10,000 years old - how can anyone take a word he says seriously?  He's just another conservative nut job pushing the same old agenda.


----------



## Calliope (16 July 2009)

I'm afraid all the mantra of several thousand politically correct, pro-warming scientists can't control CO2 levels.


http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,25782735-5013678,00.html

*Carbon coup really means game is over*


> KEVIN Rudd's carbon 'coup' is actually a damning if unintended admission that the 'climate change game' is over. Game, set and match to carbon - and more specifically, carbon dioxide emissions.
> 
> Three things came out of last week's G8 summit and the so-called 17-member Major Economies Forum in Italy.
> 
> ...


----------



## Timmy (16 July 2009)

Gamblor said:


> Don't get me started on Fielding. The guy thinks the earth is around 10,000 years old - how can anyone take a word he says seriously?  He's just another conservative nut job pushing the same old agenda.




Isn't the belief 6,000 years?  Sorry to nit pick, but I think the Creationists, or Cretinists or whatever they are called, argue the Earth is 6,000 years old.  Bizarre.


----------



## brty (16 July 2009)

Good grief,



> pro-warming scientists cannot be conclusive in their findings until we have passed a tipping point, and become locked in to a significantly warmer earth for centuries to come.




Is this another GW "fact"?? even though I thought it only theory. Please PROVE the theory.



> we have the intellectually challenged Senator Fielding




He was so dumb that he was able to get himself elected despite being in a two bit minor party, yet nearly every other candidate that has stood separately from the major 3 parties misses out, time after time.

Here is something for the religious zealots, (GW'ers), 

You better pray that there is no GW because the pollies collectively are going to do buggerall about it, no matter how much "proof", until it is wayyyy too late.
If anything, we should be, sorry, you should be  screaming at the pollies for ways to live with GW, before it's too late.

brty


----------



## Calliope (16 July 2009)

Gamblor said:


> Don't get me started on Fielding. The guy thinks the earth is around 10,000 years old - how can anyone take a word he says seriously?  He's just another conservative nut job pushing the same old agenda.




Yes, it's a shame he and Gore didn't get together, but I suppose it wouldn't be politically correct to put two "intellectually challenged" people in a bun fight.


----------



## rederob (16 July 2009)

Fielding was not the first loon to be elected to the Senate, and he won't be the last.
When Hanson learned about global warming she replaced her light bulbs with fluoros.:iamwithst


----------



## Calliope (16 July 2009)

rederob said:


> Fielding was not the first loon to be elected to the Senate, and he won't be the last.




Yeah, don't forget Bob Brown and his Green loonies.


----------



## Buddy (16 July 2009)

Aarrhh, you're all wrong, bassa, red, 2020 and the rest of you. Didn't you read my post about paleochannels, yada, yada.  

Well ma frens ah hav seen the light, the truth, the gospel, the word of the lord. And it's your lucky day, I just found it in my surf wanderings. Here it is, in Chapter 15 (especially, Page 2). 

http://www.free-energy-info.com/Chapter15.pdf

You will heed the word of the lord, watch out for the ides of Nibiru, and especially the orbit!

Actually, I hope this guy is wrong and global warming is a consequence of human activity..... a tad easier to deal with. 

P.S. I wonder if Pat sleeps at night.


----------



## Gamblor (16 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> Yes, it's a shame he and Gore didn't get together, but I suppose it wouldn't be politically correct to put two "intellectually challenged" people in a bun fight.




fail


----------



## noco (16 July 2009)

rederob said:


> You continue to miss the point.
> 
> There are no scientists that argue that the earth will not warm more or cool more substantially in thousands of years time.
> 
> ...




30,000 + scientists around the world have thrown cold water on the "ALARMIST" theories. Doesn't that say something?

They all can't be wrong. Co2 emmissions represent some .055% of the atmosphere. How can that have such an affect as the alarmist are purpoting.It doesn't make sense.

iT was reported Earth had a 100 year drought 4000BC and massive floods 7000BC.

I live in NQ and drilled for water in my back yard and pulled up periwinkle shells 25 feet below the surface. How do reckon they git there?


----------



## bugmenot (16 July 2009)

noco said:


> They all can't be wrong. Co2 emmissions represent some .055% of the atmosphere. How can that have such an affect as the alarmist are purpoting.It doesn't make sense.




In the same way that in only takes an alcohol level of .05% in your blood to destroy your life in a car accident, it only takes 0.05% Co2 in our atmosphere to cause potentially grave and irepairable damage.


----------



## rederob (16 July 2009)

noco said:


> 30,000 + scientists around the world have thrown cold water on the "ALARMIST" theories. Doesn't that say something?
> 
> They all can't be wrong. Co2 emmissions represent some .055% of the atmosphere. How can that have such an affect as the alarmist are purpoting.It doesn't make sense.
> 
> ...



Each of your points suggest to me that you are as gullible as Senator Fielding.

Given that you have answered the wrong the questions, how do you arrive at an understanding of the issues?


----------



## wayneL (16 July 2009)

rederob said:


> Some here suggest the science in not proven.  In fact it is,
> 
> ==
> 
> Without a replica "control" earth to test any hypothesis on, pro-warming scientists cannot be conclusive in their findings




Can anyone spot a fault here?

Folks, go to http://climatesci.org for better, more balanced science.


----------



## wayneL (16 July 2009)

bugmenot said:


> In the same way that in only takes an alcohol level of .05% in your blood to destroy your life in a car accident, it only takes 0.05% Co2 in our atmosphere to cause potentially grave and irepairable damage.



Bad analogy.

Alchohol isn't  a natural and essential component of blood like co2 is to the atmosphere. No Co2 and the world croaks (it's an impossibility really).

Alcohol is a toxin, CO2 is not.

Creatures have lived on this planet with much higher levels of CO2 before.

And if it only takes 0.05%, then we're already stuffed. Jeez we started at .25% or something.

If we must use analogies, let's at least make them applicable and accurate.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 July 2009)

basilio said:


> Nice call Red Rob. But as we are well aware by now, the main protagonists on this forum have absolutely no desire to see any part of the picture, either scientific theory or factual evidence, that conflicts with their desire to deny human produced global warming.
> 
> End of story...
> 
> I see it a bit like people who insist that falling out of a plane at 10,000 metres without a parachute  *will not kill you*. Their proof ? There will certainly be a few examples of people who have landed in  haystacks, soft snow whatever and survived.  That's enough evidence in this type of debate to shout down the theories of gravity and the thousands of people who have come to a sticky end falling from great heights.




basilio, mate, a better analogy would be a very rich man who owns a plane, a very big plane, that is a huge part of his ego, that has been previously bruised. He wishes to keep it flying. 

He convinces some , many fellow travellers to fly with him, burning up valuable AV gas that the rest of us feel we could use in smaller planes. He (Al is his name as it happens) convinces all these experts to jump out of the plane at 30,000 feet with parachutes, to prove to the rest of us that it is dangerous to do so. 

The rest of us chug around in our Cessnas and never come to a sticky end. And we can access AV gas, at any small airfield, any time we want to.

gg


----------



## Calliope (16 July 2009)

Buddy said:


> Actually, I hope this guy is wrong and global warming is a consequence of human activity..... a tad easier to deal with.




Buddy,

I would actually prefer the quick solution to the one that Rederob and his gullible converts have mapped out for us. The burning hell which they are hoping for, would take decades and they probably won't live long enough to know if their dreams have come true

But that's all right. It's the constant nagging that it is all our fault and that we should do something about it, that is annoying, and all this is accompanied by their supercilious attitude. Although I guess that even chief sneerer Red must get embarrassed at the ignorance of some of his acolytes

What these naggers lack is a little commonsense. Even if their hopes, that carbon emissions were raising temperatures, had some basis, only a gullible fool could believe that man could control global climate change.
,


----------



## wayneL (16 July 2009)

Whether anthropogenic climate change is real or not, whether it is, but not much to worry about, or, whether it is and we are all about to be engulfed by violent boiling oceans, there is a massive... no, a monumental hypocrisy at the heart of the warmanista movement.

It is - "Do as I say not as I do"

eg http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25777671-5000117,00.html



> The likes of Al Gore lined up to inspire thousands of young people to discover their inner Captain Planets and solve the climate crisis.
> 
> The sentiment was noble but the focus unclear. Young people don't need to be persuaded of the climate crisis. Poll any group of people, young or old, and a majority will talk of their passion to live in a greener world.
> 
> ...




This obnoxious duplicity is not only apparent in the youth, it is glaringly unambiguous in those respectable middle aged alarmists who live vey comfortable, sometimes opulent energy hungry lifestyles. Nowhere is this more obvious than with our proselityzing and bogus eco-preacher, Al Bore.

I'd like to know what those who preach at us from on high in this thread are actually doing. I suspect they lead normal, fossil fuel consumptive lifestyles to rival any "denier". I don't know how many times I've been preached at my multi-childed, Range Rover Driving, Large centrally heated home living, disgracefully hypocritical AGW acolytes.

They don't like it when I point out the gross and disgusting hypocrisy.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 July 2009)

rederob said:


> Each of your points suggest to me that you are as gullible as Senator Fielding.
> 
> Given that you have answered the wrong the questions, how do you arrive at an understanding of the issues?




rederob, I think you have underestimated Steve Fielding.

I think like you that he is a godbotherer.

But he has political nous.

And he has a track record of working for communities and the silent majority of small people without access to a strong voice like Al Gore has.

He will make his own mind up and has my admiration. I've got a lot of time for this godbotherer

He certainly scared the **** out of Al Gore. 

Poor ole Al didn't have the bottle to meet with Steve.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> lol
> It was the only thing that tempted me to vote for Johnny Howard last time - that he was in favour of nuclear.
> 
> 
> some confused theories being aired around here



If the timeframe is 10 years then the only option is a crash program of nuclear construction plus whatever wind, hydro and solar hot water we can manage in that timeframe. No planning process, no objections - just build it as though we were at war.

If the timeframe is 20 years then we could build the reactors to the best standards, choose only the best wind sites and so on. 

If the timeframe is 50 years then it's unlikely we'd need nuclear power in this country at all. Geothermal, wind, wave, solar, hydro, biomass etc will do the job nicely if given enough time.

Ever wondered why there's so much talk about very short timeframes? Follow the money and you'll find the answer...  As is pretty well understood in the energy industry, it's now or never for nuclear in Australia because we're not far from showing how geothermal leaves it for dead economically and environmentally. Hence the massive push for short timeframes and nuclear power - now or never and there's a lot of money riding on it.


----------



## wayneL (16 July 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Ever wondered why there's so much talk about very short timeframes? *Follow the money and you'll find the answer.*..  As is pretty well understood in the energy industry, it's now or never for nuclear in Australia because we're not far from showing how geothermal leaves it for dead economically and environmentally. Hence the massive push for short timeframes and nuclear power - *now or never and there's a lot of money riding on it.*




Quoted for emphasis. 

Spot on Smurf.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> Yeah, don't forget Bob Brown and his Green loonies.



Much as I strongly disagree with him on anything even remotely connected to energy, to be fair I'd argue that Bob does have some good points.


----------



## noco (16 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> Bad analogy.
> 
> Alchohol isn't  a natural and essential component of blood like co2 is to the atmosphere. No Co2 and the world croaks (it's an impossibility really).
> 
> ...




Thanks for the support wayneL. Looks like we are roughing up Bugmenot and Rederob's feathers when they come up with such stupid anaolgies.


----------



## rederob (16 July 2009)

Garpal
Hanson had political nous in that she appealed to a section of society in a particular way.  She formed a Party that won seats at State level, such was her sway at the time.
But remember this thread is about climate change, which you would rather say is just another way of talking about the weather.  In that regard Fielding is as knowledgeable about weather as the next politician, but his capacity to argue the toss on climate issues is possibly as well founded as a failed 5th grader.

Moving on to the other "deniers'" points, there is a propensity to dwell on the catastrophic and extreme in order to invoke the sense that "warmers" have lost their marbles and want us to believe the worst case scenario is around the next corner.
Nice try, but it really does not wash.
If we get a 2 degree climate change over the next century most people won't notice it on a day to day basis because a process of adaptation will be well and truly underway... as it goes.
The people who will notice - in retrospect - are those on lowing lying land that slowly disappears from under them, and are forced to relocate. And people that used their land for a specific purpose for generations, and now cannot, because their "climate" changed significantly.
Weather events will have changed markedly, but as the process of change is decadal, successive generations will simply get used to playing the deck of cards they are dealt.


----------



## MrBurns (16 July 2009)

Climate change is an industry now and a haven for bludgers and bull**** artists much the same as the palm reading industry or the Labor party.

Probably not a bad idea to develop alterative sources of energy anyway instead of being at the mercy of the towel heads forever and the emmissions are a bit dirty.

Would be great if we could develop a tosser and bull**** converter into a usable form of energy, we could just plug it into KRudd and sell to the world.


----------



## wayneL (16 July 2009)

rederob said:


> The people who will notice - in retrospect - are those on lowing lying land that slowly disappears from under them, and are forced to relocate.



see http://climatesci.org/index.php?s=sea+level+rise&submit=Search



> And people that used their land for a specific purpose for generations, and now cannot, because their "climate" changed significantly.
> Weather events will have changed markedly, but as the process of change is decadal, successive generations will simply get used to playing the deck of cards they are dealt.



This is likely to happen in my opinion, but the culprit will not be greenhouse gases, rather, land use changes. This is a far more potent factor in regional climate change.

http://climatesci.org/index.php?s=land+use&submit=Search


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 July 2009)

rederob said:


> Garpal
> Hanson had political nous in that she appealed to a section of society in a particular way.  She formed a Party that won seats at State level, such was her sway at the time.
> But remember this thread is about climate change, which you would rather say is just another way of talking about the weather.  In that regard Fielding is as knowledgeable about weather as the next politician, but his capacity to argue the toss on climate issues is possibly as well founded as a failed 5th grader.
> 
> ...




As wayneL would say mate "ad hominem"

I have a few hominem mates and I don't understand how he argues this, as I'm a simple sole (sic) but from my reading of arguments this is an ad hominem argument.

Steve is as different from the fish and chips lady as Al Gore is from Peter Uranium Garrett, 

Oh ****, I've shot me hominemes down.

gg


----------



## noco (16 July 2009)

rederob said:


> Garpal
> Hanson had political nous in that she appealed to a section of society in a particular way.  She formed a Party that won seats at State level, such was her sway at the time.
> But remember this thread is about climate change, which you would rather say is just another way of talking about the weather.  In that regard Fielding is as knowledgeable about weather as the next politician, but his capacity to argue the toss on climate issues is possibly as well founded as a failed 5th grader.
> 
> ...




You use the big word "IF" WE get a 2 degree rise, obviously you are now throwing dubious doubt on your own belief.
What are you basing this 2 degrees on, something the AL Gore's LEFTIES are harping to the sceptics?


----------



## Calliope (16 July 2009)

rederob said:


> The people who will notice - in retrospect - are those on lowing lying land that slowly disappears from under them, and are forced to relocate. And people that used their land for a specific purpose for generations, and now cannot, because their "climate" changed significantly.




And you care. Like Stalin cared when the Kulaks lost their land.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 July 2009)

noco said:


> You use the big word "IF" WE get a 2 degree rise, obviously you are now throwing dubious doubt on your own belief.
> What are you basing this 2 degrees on, something the AL Gore's LEFTIES are harping to the sceptics?




It will be a bludy miracle if it's limited to 2 deg.

On the subject of lefties and righties, and I notice Calliope has had to change tack 180 degrees from his accusations of Labor leading us to nuclear - when Howard was miles ahead there ...

but here's what Lord Anthony Gibbens said on ABC last week ( see Copenhagen thread #7 if you're interested)...



> ANTHONY GIDDENS: Well, I think part of it is because the climate change sceptics, as I say, being locked into a wider confrontation of political parties, do tend to get quite a lot of attention. They represent, as it were, a kind of Rightist critique of climate-change policy. Plus the fact that it is something quite different from orthodox political issues anyway. So, we're all struggling to sort of cope with the immensity of the issue and you're bound to get a lot of continuing controversy. And I think insofar as I said before, scepticism is based on looking rationally at scientific findings - there is obviously a justification for that. *The problem is when it shades over into a sort of illiterate demagoguery of its own*.




Maybe there are two religions here. 
Now to decide which has done the more research.
Try reading some of this bloke ...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock

btw noco et al , what do you think of Richard Lovelock anyway?  I'd be interested in your opinion.

Hint.  Don't forget to consider his contribution to warning us about the (potential for) damage to the ozone layer. Ignoring the taunts from big business that he was an alarmist etc, making the instruments himself to monitor the problem  because he couldn't get funding.    Rederob has mentioned him also.



> If such predictions were coming from anyone else, you would laugh them off as the ravings of an old man projecting his own impending death onto the world around him. But Lovelock is not so easily dismissed. As an inventor, he created a device that helped detect the growing hole in the ozone layer and jump-start the environmental movement in the 1970s. And as a scientist, he introduced the revolutionary theory known as Gaia -- the idea that our entire planet is a kind of superorganism that is, in a sense, "alive."
> 
> Once dismissed as New Age quackery, Lovelock's vision of a self-regulating Earth now underlies virtually all climate science. Lynn Margulis, a pioneering biologist at the University of Massachusetts, calls him "one of the most innovative and mischievous scientific minds of our time."
> 
> Richard Branson, the British entrepreneur, credits Lovelock with inspiring him to pledge billions of dollars to fight global warming. "Jim is a brilliant scientist who has been right about many things in the past," Branson says. "If he's feeling gloomy about the future, it's important for mankind to pay attention."




Mind you, you have to smile to yourself when you hear Branson and Lovelock mentioned in the same sentence.  

btw, he actually initially abandoned his initial results - thinking that the concentrations were insignificant.  But he was heading in eaxactly the right direction.

PS And It is indeed exactly like alcohol in the bloodstream - in that a small amount makes a big difference - but co2 takes a long time to reach full effect ( hundreds of years).  We are in for one hellova hangover pepol!


----------



## Julia (16 July 2009)

brty said:


> He was so dumb that he was able to get himself elected despite being in a two bit minor party, yet nearly every other candidate that has stood separately from the major 3 parties misses out, time after time.
> 
> 
> brty






Garpal Gumnut said:


> rederob, I think you have underestimated Steve Fielding.
> 
> I think like you that he is a godbotherer.
> 
> ...



I agree.   It takes at the very least strength of character to withstand the ridicule and entreaties to join the Labor Party's line on this.
You can throw off at Senator Fielding's IQ all you like.

There are plenty of politicians with quite high intelligence, but without either personal integrity or courage.





Smurf1976 said:


> Much as I strongly disagree with him on anything even remotely connected to energy, to be fair I'd argue that Bob does have some good points.



Yes, he does.  I would never vote Green in my wildest nightmares, but I can't think of a single Green politician whom I'd regard as a hypocrite.
That's decidedly more than I can say for both the main parties.


----------



## rederob (16 July 2009)

noco said:


> You use the big word "IF" WE get a 2 degree rise, obviously you are now throwing dubious doubt on your own belief.
> What are you basing this 2 degrees on, something the AL Gore's LEFTIES are harping to the sceptics?



Perhaps you could read the IPCC summaries and quickly get up to speed.
Then you could read back in this thread to see that I hold Gore in no regard whatsoever.
Take care not to steal Calliope's thunder:  Then again, the more clowns the merrier


----------



## Calliope (16 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> On the subject of lefties and righties, and I notice Calliope has had to change tack 180 degrees from his accusations of Labor leading us to nuclear - when Howard was miles ahead there ...




There you go again with your silly lies. You really are a bottom feeder. All  your posts are are boring repetitious drivel. At least Rederob puts up a good argument and he has the integrity to recognise Gore as an imposter. Are you prepared to come out of the closet too?


----------



## Calliope (16 July 2009)

rederob said:


> Take care not to steal Calliope's thunder:  Then again, the more clowns the merrier




Yes I agree. With you as the court jester and 2020 as your imitator you certainly give me a lot of amusement. But I have the feeling that 2020 is as big an embarrassment to you as Al Gore. He is such an easy beat.


----------



## trainspotter (16 July 2009)

Good too see so many responses by rederob that go for the "Chickenwing" and not the throat !  His tactic of jugular proportions that leave the true argument alone is amazing. I beleive they call this "Strawman" theory. When one cannot produce the evidence that will convict the lowly perpetrator, one simply must go for the carotid arteroid. By perceiving this, one simply repeats oneself over and over. A bit like a Labot Party HACK really.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (17 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> PS And It is indeed exactly like alcohol in the bloodstream - in that a small amount makes a big difference - but co2 takes a long time to reach full effect ( hundreds of years).  *We are in for one hellova hangover pepol!*



The one key point you have failed to acknowledge is that carbon, co2 is natural in the environment. 

Alcohol in the blood is not. It is an external substance.

Let's save the propagandist rhetoric.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 July 2009)

May I just say say that even though I do not agree with 2020 , his posts are well researched and villification and disrespect of his views should not be countenanced.

Let us argue on science and politics about which this great debate will be won or lost.

And I must repeat 2020 this is not nice to you. I do not countenance bodgey science which disadvantages my dna, kids, grandkids etc, by cruel bodgey taxes and carbon credits.. 

I insist on being fair and respectful of your views with which I totally disagree so far.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 July 2009)

Thanks for the qualified encouragement gg,...

"Fight to the death my right to say it " sorta stuff ? 

:topic gotta feeling that Fielding is keen on internet censorship.  Now there's another topic altogether.  Certainly gotta be dealt with by people of intelligence, and I don;t believe Fielding is the man.   

Also he (+Libs) singlehandedly (first round) stopped alcopops when it was gonna allocate a stack on warnings, counselling, education and other initiatives, cultural and sporting sponsorship,  etc.  - all thoser things you'd expect Family First to stand up for.  weird dude. 
http://rachel-siewert.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/alcopops-tax-right-decision-greens


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 July 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> The one key point you have failed to acknowledge is that carbon, co2 is natural in the environment.
> 
> Alcohol in the blood is not. It is an external substance.
> 
> Let's save the propagandist rhetoric.



there were times in the past when CO2 was higher than now.  then again, the solar radiation was half what is now as well.  THe entire thing appears to be in a balance, where the temperature of the earth was more of less the same - to the point where James Lovelock espoused his Gaia theory.  But I'm guessing you've never read any Lovelock.  - it's worth a read.  "The revenge of Gaia" etc 

alcohol in the blood.  - so you hang your case on the fact that alcohol is exterrnal.    Sound like the JW's who refuse blood transfusions - and about as relevant.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 July 2009)

One last comment about the assertion (by Bolt and others) that the world has been cooling since 1998.
a) it was a single year of high value which coincided with El Nina - and of course el Nina's are part and parcel of the problem of GW/CC in any case i.e. their frequency and severity are all due to GW - but moving on
b) were the results averaged it would show the continued upward trend, especially when the lesser solar activity was deducted to show the continuning increasing contribution of CO2
c) 1998 was an "outlier" - i.e. a statistical blip - a bit like the diving judges when they ignore the top and mottom arks and average the rest.
d) as they also say, there are liars, outliers, and out-an-out liers.  

PS try telling your Uni maths professor that that you'd like to do a PhD on the subject, and your first comment was that you'd looked at the data, and it's clear that 
a) the world has generally been cooling since 1998 (based on one spike), and  
b) that proves that the ghg contribution in particular is a furphy 
I'm guessing you'd be laughed out of the faculty. 

Hell, half the time the same people who say a) is true ...
also agree that b) is currently influenced by a slow start to the next possibly milder 11-12 yearly solar cycle


----------



## spooly74 (17 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> One last comment about the assertion (by Bolt and others) that the world has been cooling since 1998.
> a) it was a single year of high value which coincided with El Nina - *and of course el Nina's are part and parcel of the problem of GW/CC in any case i.e. their frequency and severity are all due to GW *- but moving on




Frequency and severity are as a result of increased CO2?
Do you have a cite if I've assumed correctly.


----------



## brty (17 July 2009)

2020,



> especially when the lesser solar activity was deducted




Was the higher solar activity of before added to prove the figures?? or do we only take lesser solar activity into account???

We simply do not understand the sun and its cycles enough to fully know its impact on our climate, however there is plenty of evidence that these cycles are directly related to hotter and colder periods, irrespective of the levels of CO2.

Here is another site with lots of inconvenient facts for the true believers..

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

brty


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 July 2009)

I cannot believe how you Warmeners still persist with your claptrap.

There are so many variables in weather.

How can you pin anything on CO2.??

I myself generally drop the window on the Arnage if I need to get an opinion on climate or weather, or ask some bloke who has seen more than a few cycles of weather in the district I am in.

I certainly wouldn't ask that big fat capitalist bastard Al Gore.

gg


----------



## Gamblor (17 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I cannot believe how you Warmeners still persist with your claptrap.
> 
> There are so many variables in weather.
> 
> ...




They can pin it on CO2 because there is historical evidence of it causing big climate shifts in the past. Global warming is the wrong label for it as well because some parts of the world will actually get colder.


----------



## Calliope (17 July 2009)

brty said:


> 2020,
> Here is another site with lots of inconvenient facts for the true believers..
> 
> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
> ...




Thanks for that site brty. It makes you wonder why 2020 persists with his nonsense. But as they say "none so blind as those who will not see."


----------



## Gamblor (17 July 2009)

brty said:


> 2020,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The lack of scientific reasoning on that site is a worry - that's the problem i have with all the sceptics, never enough reasoning and study involved in their arguments - half of it's put together by people with very little scientific background and the other half comes from people with vested interests. 

They leave out too much very important information.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 July 2009)

Gamblor said:


> The lack of scientific reasoning on that site is a worry - that's the problem i have with all the sceptics, never enough reasoning and study involved in their arguments - half of it's put together by people with very little scientific background and the other half comes from people with vested interests.
> 
> They leave out too much very important information.




They are not sceptics in the true sense. They are reactionary. 
There is no point arguing. 

According to half of them, man didn't land on the moon.


----------



## Calliope (17 July 2009)

Gamblor said:


> the problem i have with all the sceptics, never enough reasoning and study involved in their arguments - half of it's put together by people with very little scientific background and the other half comes from people with vested interests.
> 
> They leave out too much very important information.




Change "sceptics" to "alarmists" and you start to make sense.


----------



## noco (17 July 2009)

brty said:


> 2020,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



brty, what a great article you have found from geocraft. It is something I have always believed to be the truth. I sincerely hope all the alarmist read it.

Please send a copy to Penny Wong and Al Gore, I'm sure they would love to read it. Pigs might fly too!


----------



## rederob (17 July 2009)

noco said:


> brty, what a great article you have found from geocraft. It is something I have always believed to be the truth. I sincerely hope all the alarmist read it.
> 
> Please send a copy to Penny Wong and Al Gore, I'm sure they would love to read it. Pigs might fly too!



The site is a non-event in the climate change debate.
Latch on to it for all it's worth - which is very little.
It comes as no surprise to those that have half a brain that Hieb's links are to fossil fuel, while his "climate" contributions could be put together by a primary school student on google.


----------



## GumbyLearner (17 July 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> They are not sceptics in the true sense. They are reactionary.
> There is no point arguing.
> 
> According to half of them, man didn't land on the moon.




Is that the Pinewood Studios Stanley Kubrick thing?


----------



## trainspotter (17 July 2009)

One and the same Gumby, one and the same. Sceptics are raving on about shadows that do not line up and a flag fluttering when impaled into the surface. No wind on the moon right? Why did it flutter then? Knida stuff. I remember a journalist hack asking Buzz Aldrin (His mums name was Marion *Moon* by the way. Irony is a b!tch sometimes) the same question. Poor guy woke up in hospital with a broken jaw.


----------



## Gamblor (17 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> Change "sceptics" to "alarmists" and you start to make sense.




Something tells me i'd have to do a lot more than that for you to be able to make sense out of anything


----------



## Buddy (17 July 2009)

I'm not going to get sucked in to debating the CO2 thing but.....

One of the really funny (Ha Ha) things about this whole issue is.... SO WHAT?  So sea levels are going to rise because of increasing CO2. So what?  They are going to rise anyway regardless of human activity. So some people will have to relocate. So what? It's happened in the past and will happen in the future. So, get over it. 

Temperatures will rise. Maybe. So what? It's happened before. Live with it, things change, life changes, species come and go. Yes sure humankind has caused direct extinction of many species. But a damned site more have been made extinct my humans uncaring selfish land clearing, pollution (no, not CO2, but stuff far more dangerous) etc, than the number that will go down because of increased CO2.

Climate will change. Yes. But it's going to anyway, regardless of human activity. I would be far more worried about global cooling than warming, based on current scientific knowledge.

Really, this whole debate should be taken away from the pollies. They're  just crackers anyway. As soon as the pollies got involved in this thing, the opportunity arose to get more control over "the people", get more money (read TAX) for the polly dumb ideas and to make certain folks (eg Gore) richer. Come on guys, do you really think this guy gives a damn about anything but himself? He's just another ponzi Maddoff.

Now...........having done my rant........... That is not to say we should not be "doing something". But for different reasons than the populist global warming mantra.  

*Oil & gas will be depleted.* So it makes sense to come up with a better energy source. Besides, oil and gas should preferably be used as feedstock for petrochemicals, not sent up the chimney stack to make cheap electricity. Also for transportation fuel, until a viable alternative is developed. And, the problem with Coal is that it is a messy way to generate electricity. Yes it is relatively cheap but it needs large infrastructure to support it - massive mining operations with all the waste and rehabilitation problems, extensive transport requirements (railways, trucks, ships, etc). In time, coal fired power stations will be viewed as old technology. There are better ways...eg large scale thermal solar, wind & wave to a limited extent, geothermal (very promising), 4th-5th (and beyond) generation fission, and fusion (in time). And... lets make all our gadgets more energy efficient!

*Cut pollution and rejuvinate the planet.* How about cutting back on real pollution. There are still bad industrial practices in the developed world that need improving. But nowhere near as bad as the so called underdeveloped world (including India, China, S.E. Asia, Russia& soviets). These people are making the place uninhabitable in my mind, and is far more serious than CO2 levels.  Spend some money on improving farming practices and rehabilitate tha land (eg salt de-graded land in Australia, land clearing (or should I say raping) in the Amazon, unsustainable forrestry practices in S.E. Asia and Africa.

*And above everything else solve the fckulation problem.* If people got that under control about 100years ago, we wouldn't have half the problem we have now.

So there you go, thats my 4 cents worth.


----------



## drsmith (17 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> a) it was a single year of high value which coincided with El Nina - and of course el Nina's are part and parcel of the problem of GW/CC in any case i.e. their frequency and severity are all due to GW - but moving on



El Nina 

Is that opposite to La Nino ?


----------



## Julia (17 July 2009)

drsmith said:


> El Nina
> 
> Is that opposite to La Nino ?


----------



## noco (17 July 2009)

rederob said:


> The site is a non-event in the climate change debate.
> Latch on to it for all it's worth - which is very little.
> It comes as no surprise to those that have half a brain that Hieb's links are to fossil fuel, while his "climate" contributions could be put together by a primary school student on google.




rederob, I don't think you have any brain at all.


----------



## wayneL (17 July 2009)

drsmith said:


> El Nina
> 
> Is that opposite to La Nino ?



Haha!

Missed it at first until I saw Julia's smileys.

Very good.


----------



## trainspotter (17 July 2009)

La NiÃ±a translates from Spanish as "the girl-child". The term "La NiÃ±a" has recently become the conventional meteorological label for the opposite of the better known El Niño. 

The term La NiÃ±a refers to the extensive cooling of the central and eastern Pacific Ocean. In Australia (particularly eastern Australia), La NiÃ±a events are associated with increased probability of wetter conditions. 

Changes to the atmosphere and ocean circulation during La NiÃ±a events include: 

Cooler than normal ocean temperatures across the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. 
Increased convection or cloudiness over tropical Australia, Papua New-Guinea, and Indonesia. 
Stronger than normal (easterly) trade winds across the Pacific Ocean (but not necessarily in the Australian region). 
High (positive) values of the SOI (Southern Oscillation Index). 

A La NiÃ±a event is sometimes called an anti-ENSO (anti-El Niño-Southern Oscillation) event.


----------



## trainspotter (17 July 2009)

noco said:


> rederob, I don't think you have any brain at all.




Not nice noco. He does have a brain. I think the word you are looking for is intellect ?


----------



## wayneL (17 July 2009)

Well let's not go down the name calling route again guys.

I don't want to put my moderators hat on and I'm sure the other mods don't want to either.

Chill, stick to the subject of the debate.


----------



## trainspotter (17 July 2009)

On the playgrounds of our youth we all heard the old phrase, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Unfortunately, many societal groups seem intent today upon claiming that words too always hurt. Whoever believes this gets to feel hurt a lot and is always at the whim of some person out there. Personal power is lacking..

"Words are weapons, sharper than knives, makes you wonder how the other half die." Michael Hutchence hung himself with his belt strung from a doorknob.

So yeah. Name calling can have a devastating effect. Ner ner ne' ner ner.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 July 2009)

drsmith said:


> El Nina
> 
> Is that opposite to La Nino ?



oops


Then again neither translates exactly from the Spanish unless you throw in a few "y" consonants/vowels whatever.

El Niño and La NiÃ±a
...

(compare Filipino and Filipina I guess)

Hey if that 's the bigget criticism of my post you can find, then I'll consider that you you basically agree with the ghist , ...

namely that there are liars, outliers and out-and-out liars.  (also misspelt back there I notice). cheers

PS Maybe I'll just call it the ENSO index in future, not being a native speaking Spaniard.  - albeit I find I have to fight a lot of bull lately.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 July 2009)

to be honest , the typo I'd seriously like to apologise for is in #1591 - where I make reference to the irony of (Richard)  Branson and (James) Lovelock being mentioned in the same sentence.

And I end up with Richard Lovelock (??).  sheesh.   Now there is a man I truly admire, and a far more serious mistake. - in my eyes anyway.  

Still we all have our heroes - I have James Lovelock, some of you blokes have the likes of Fred Singer and Tim Ball.   (well known "opinions for hire").



> ...Richard Branson, the British entrepreneur, credits Lovelock with inspiring him to pledge billions of dollars to fight global warming. "Jim is a brilliant scientist who has been right about many things in the past," Branson says. "If he's feeling gloomy about the future, it's important for mankind to pay attention."
> 
> Mind you, you have to smile to yourself when you hear Branson and Lovelock mentioned in the same sentence


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> So yeah. Name calling can have a devastating effect. Ner ner ne' ner ner.




It's not so much that TS, it's that it turns a thread into unreadable garbage for those interested in the debate and not flame wars.

Cheers

<edit to add>It wasn't directed particularly at you either, just that the general tone of the thread was going downhill.

The ludicrous _non-sequitur_ and lame _double entedrÃ©_ is annoying enough without _ad hominem_ added to the mix.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> La NiÃ±a translates from Spanish as "the girl-child". The term "La NiÃ±a" has recently become the conventional meteorological label for the opposite of the better known El Niño. .............
> 
> *A La NiÃ±a event is sometimes called an anti-ENSO *(anti-El Niño-Southern Oscillation) event.




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=374209&highlight=enso#post374209

Then there was that humourous bit (if you search for humour in life, you sometimes find it in the most unexpected places) , viz



> The name ‘El Niño’ originally was given to a change in the coastal current (usually flowing from south to north) near the Peruvian coast during anos de abundancia. Paita sailors who used to sail north-south direction along the coast *called the counter-current ‘El Niño’, after the Child Jesus because it had a tendency to appear soon after Christmas *(the reason for this seasonality is not yet fully understood, ...






> As an aside, *it's amusing to note that in some early papers, the opposite of El Niño was described as the 'anti-El Niño'  but given the religious connotations described above, this usage did not get a lot of support*



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/el-nino-global-warming/


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 July 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Frequency and severity [of El Niño] are as a result of increased CO2?
> Do you have a cite if I've assumed correctly.




spooly, howdy 
True there are models that give contradicting answers here.... (quote below - you'll enjoy the fact that some models differ even contradict each other), but...
 it is still relevant that 1997-8 was the worst recorded to date - possible exception of 1982-3 ( only a blind optimist would say that's a fluke?) 



> El Niño events tend to recur every 3-8 years. The last El Niño as of today was in 1997-98, and was the strongest or second strongest (after 1982-83, depending on what you look at) event observed in modern times. The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) in Australia provides an Internet page on ENSO with a nice ENSO wrap-up for up-dated information.




And in any case I guess my point was that you can't reasonably pass the buck for (arguably) the worst high-temperature single year on record (1998) (= weather event)...  on another weather pattern.  

It's like saying "it's really hot in this room, but that's nothing to do with the weather - it's because the airconditioner burnt out due to yesterday's high temperature" sorta thing - if you get my drift. 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/el-nino-global-warming/


> How will the El Niño phenomenon be affected by a global warming?
> This is what the Dutch Meteorological Institute (KNMI) and the Max-Planck Institute (Germany), Matt Collins of Univ. Reading (U.K.) think. There is even a short entry about global warming and ENSO in Wikipedia. The brevity of this entry may reflect the fact that the question about how ENSO will respond to a global warming is still not settled. However, it seems that one common trait among some climate models is the indication that a global warming may result in a more a general El Niño-type average state (eg. Collins et al. 2005, Climate Dynamics, 24, 89-104. 19 and here).





> Analysis by Collins of climate model simulations indicated that increased CO2 may result in ENSO events becoming larger in amplitude and more frequent than under present conditions. This conclusion was based on version 2 of the Hadley Centre Coupled Model (HadCM2). However, in a subsequent analysis based on version 3 of the Hadley Model (HadCM3), Collins found that he could not detect a change in magnitude or frequency of ENSO as greenhouse gases increased, thus contradicting the results of his earlier study. These differences highlight the level of uncertainty associated with ENSO and global warming.




wiki gives this :-


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENSO
> But El Niño's effects on weather vary with each event, and ENSO's intensity or frequency may change as a result of global warming. Research suggests that treating ocean warming which occurs in the eastern tropical Pacific separately from that of the central tropical Pacific may help explain some of these variations




:topic
sheesh looking back at that poll end of last year - 28% don't even believe it's getting warmer!! - wow.  Hoostn we have a problem 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13752&highlight=enso


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 July 2009)

As for that long range forecasting stuff ( and indeed I heard them say that in the old days, they simply based their predictions on the plot of sea temperature - checked the last time it was similar to that , and forecast it would all happen again ... but I digress.  )  Here's what the BOM's ENSO Wrap-up has to say ...
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/



> ENSO Wrap-Up
> A regular commentary on the El Niño-Southern Oscillation
> About El Niño & La NiÃ±a
> CURRENT STATUS as at 8th July 2009
> ...




On the other hand  ...


> After many weeks of positive values, the most recent value of the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD), as measured by the Dipole Mode Index (DMI), was *slightly negative* [ = wetter]. In the past, positive IOD values have been associated with drier conditions through south east Australia in winter and spring.




Summary...
If you're not confused, then you don't understand what's going on.



2020hindsight said:


> :topic
> sheesh looking back at that poll end of last year - 28% don't even believe it's getting warmer!! - wow.  Hoostn we have a problem
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13752&highlight=enso




Can't understand what all the fuss is about with this GW! - Why don't folks just turn up their damned air conditioners like we do? .


----------



## spooly74 (18 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> a) it was a single year of high value which coincided with El Nina - and of course el Nina's are part and parcel of the problem of GW/CC in any case i.e. *their frequency and severity are all due to GW* - but moving on






> It's like saying "it's really hot in this room, but that's nothing to do with the weather - it's because the airconditioner burnt out due to yesterday's high temperature" sorta thing - if you get my drift.




You should try and eliminate these absolute throw-away comments



> However, in a subsequent analysis based on version 3 of the Hadley Model (HadCM3), Collins found that he could not detect a change in magnitude or frequency of ENSO as greenhouse gases increased, thus *contradicting the results of his earlier study*. *These differences highlight the level of uncertainty associated with ENSO and global warming*.


----------



## Calliope (18 July 2009)

Gamblor said:


> Something tells me i'd have to do a lot more than that for you to be able to make sense out of anything




Well give it a go anyway. This thread is a good place to practice a little common sense. For starters try taking an opposite tack to 2020.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 July 2009)

> It's like saying "it's really hot in this room, but that's nothing to do with the weather - it's because the airconditioner burnt out due to yesterday's high temperature" sorta thing - if you get my drift.






spooly74 said:


> You should try and eliminate these absolute throw-away comments




ok - you didn't get my drift.
I'll try rephrasing it.
GW includes sea temperature effects
ENSO is all about sea temp effects
wowo - maybe they're related?


----------



## Calliope (18 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> ok - you didn't get my drift.
> I'll try rephrasing it.
> GW includes sea temperature effects
> ENSO is all about sea temp effects
> wowo - maybe they're related?




I get the feeling you've had a night on the turps.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> I get the feeling you've had a night on the turps.




just relax calliope, and let it all go over your head... less stressful for you.


----------



## Calliope (18 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> just relax calliope, and let it all go over your head... less stressful for you.




It doesn't seem fair that while I'm relaxing, you have to burn the midnight oil to make up for lost time to get your daily quota back up.


----------



## spooly74 (18 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> ok - you didn't get my drift.
> I'll try rephrasing it.
> GW includes sea temperature effects
> ENSO is all about sea temp effects
> wowo - maybe they're related?



Saying "maybe they're related" and "their frequency and severity are all due to GW" are two very different statements. That's my drift.


----------



## trainspotter (18 July 2009)

"It wasn't directed particularly at you either, just that the general tone of the thread was going downhill" - wayneL

No sweat brother. My hands never left my wrists at any time. But I do enjoy watching OTHERS go tÃªte-Ã -tÃªte at times. I find it amazing that it depends on what mood you are in as to how one can interpret the written word.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 July 2009)

Gamblor said:


> The lack of scientific reasoning on that site is a worry - that's the problem i have with all the sceptics, never enough reasoning and study involved in their arguments - half of it's put together by people with very little scientific background and the other half comes from people with vested interests.
> 
> They leave out too much very important information.



That applies to a large portion of what is said by *both* sides of this argument.

Very little research, in any field, is done for the sake of it. It's funded by someone with an agenda, usually economic or political. They're paying good money and expect an outcome that supports their economic or political objectives. As with any job, if you don't deliver what the boss wants then they won't keep paying you for long.


----------



## drsmith (18 July 2009)

The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) are essentially a measure of the atmospheric response to sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies across the equatorial Pacific Ocean (SOI) and the equatorial Indian Ocean (IOD).

Warmer than normal waters off the eastern equatorial Pacific is what results in a negative SOI and an El Niño. Warmer water is essentially displaced further eastwards across the tropical Pacific and the rainfall fallows resulting in drier than normal conditions over Australia/SE Asia. The IOD works in the same way with a positive (drier phase for Australia) associated with a westward displacement of warmer water in the equatorial Indian Ocean.

These two factors are currently pulling in opposite directions with tropical Pacific SST anomalies trending towards and El Niño (drier) and equatorial Indian Ocean SST anomalies trending towards a -ve (wetter) IOD phase.

https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/ncoda_web/dynamic/ncoda_1440x721_global_anom.gif
(Note: Internet explorer may not accept security certificate of above site)

Generally speaking individual SOI/IOD events are on the scale of around a year however shorter phase variations in the atmosphere can temporarily mask the effects of these longer phase events. This appears to be what is currently happening with the Pacific (SOI) side of the equation with the net result being the current active period for cold fronts and rainfall over southern Australia.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 July 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Saying "maybe they're related" and "their frequency and severity are all due to GW" are two very different statements. That's my drift.



OK Even if I accept that one - (although there were two models, one shows relation, one is inconclusive - never mind , we move on)  .. but does it change the conclusion?

spooly - please answer this one then..

How do you think a Uni Maths Professor would react to the claim that "the graph below justifies dismissing GW because it shows that the world has been warming since 1998?",

- a statement so often repeated by Andrew Bolt and others. ?

Or would you consider that spindoctoring of the stats, and unscientific. 
(to say nothing of ignoring the multiple forcing functions at work here) 

I'll repeat my post so that you can see where I was heading.

Would be great if you answered in a commital way, one way or the other.



2020hindsight said:


> One last comment about the assertion (by Bolt and others) that the world has been cooling since 1998.
> a) it was a single year of high value which coincided with El Nina - and of course el Nina's are part and parcel of the problem of GW/CC in any case i.e. their frequency and severity are all due to GW - but moving on
> b) were the results averaged it would show the continued upward trend, especially when the lesser solar activity was deducted to show the continuning increasing contribution of CO2
> c) 1998 was an "outlier" - i.e. a statistical blip - a bit like the diving judges when they ignore the top and mottom arks and average the rest.
> ...




PS:-


> out·li·er ... A value far from most others in a set of data.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 July 2009)

We wouldn't be having this debate if the fortune spent bailing out banks and indebted consumers had been spent on non-fossil energy instead.

For that matter, we wouldn't have either a climate or a finacial problem if we'd never embraced the "service economy" and had stuck to actual wealth creating industry in a world dominated by engineering and production, not finance and consumption. 

In engineering terms, CO2 is just another problem and we largely have the fixes - it's the non-productive financial and political types who stand in the way as usual.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 July 2009)

I reckon that one's worth 4cents smurf 


needless to say you run the risk of offending the accountants and bankers etc reading this.

Incidentally, here's a cartoon I found ..


----------



## Calliope (18 July 2009)

The pressure and propaganda from the left in Western democracies to reduce carbon emissions will come to naught unless China comes to the party, However they are not nearly so gullible as we are, and are not likely to be convinced that CO2 is the problem. And why should they make such huge sacrifices, just because we think they should.

The Copenhagen talkfest will be a fizzer. If China tells Mr Rudd to shut up his nagging about GW, he will. He is learning to do as he is told. He has little choice.


----------



## trainspotter (18 July 2009)

Recently seen in Antarctica.


----------



## trainspotter (18 July 2009)

Oh My God !

THE Catholic Church has confessed it is one of the biggest carbon emission sinners in Australia.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25799480-29277,00.html


----------



## noco (18 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> The pressure and propaganda from the left in Western democracies to reduce carbon emissions will come to naught unless China comes to the party, However they are not nearly so gullible as we are, and are not likely to be convinced that CO2 is the problem. And why should they make such huge sacrifices, just because we think they should.
> 
> The Copenhagen talkfest will be a fizzer. If China tells Mr Rudd to shut up his nagging about GW, he will. He is learning to do as he is told. He has little choice.




Gawd Calliope I hope you are right. Nothing would please me more than to see that weasal put back into his shell by the Chinese.


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Oh My God !
> 
> THE Catholic Church has *confessed* it is one of the biggest carbon emission sinners in Australia.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25799480-29277,00.html



At least it is now absolved of its sins. :


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> needless to say you run the risk of offending the accountants and bankers etc reading this.



No personal offence to anyone is intended and there is a legitimate role in society for bankers and accountants. 

The problem arrived when banking and accounting transformed from a means of facilitating productive industry into a massive undertaking in its own right that, in due course, began to choke the productive base it was supposed to serve. 

If you ignore the requirements of the bankers then non-fossil energy is already cheaper in terms of materials used and man hours of labour required for a given level of output. That was the well accepted case with hydro-electric power until the financial / service economy emerged and it would be the case now with wind, geothermal and non-electricity uses of solar. 

In the 1910's Australia was leading the way with "impossible" electricity projects being successfully built in Tasmania and Victoria. And we kept doing it again and again over the following decades.

But in the early 2000's Victoria and Tasmania have both installed second hand, obsolete, inefficient generating plant that New Zealand and the US scrapped. We very nearly ended up with some from India too.

Judge for yourself on those last two points but that really says it all in my opinion. We've gone from world leaders to buying second hand.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 July 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> The problem arrived when banking and accounting transformed from a means of facilitating productive industry into a massive undertaking in its own right that, in due course, began to choke the productive base it was supposed to serve.



No argument from me - when NAB were one of our biggest if not biggest businesses back there a few years, (when BHBB was still BHP I believe) you had to scratch your head.  Still, it's a job ..  and some of us will have to be paid for doing bugga all, because of energy restrictions ( I guess).  As long as they don't become millionaires out of these parasitic industries,-  MBL springs to mind for some reason


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 July 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Saying "maybe they're related" and "their frequency and severity are all due to GW" are two very different statements. That's my drift.






			
				2020 said:
			
		

> Would be great if you answered in a commital way, one way or the other



"nothing heard,  over"

OK - looks like you've having trouble meeting that requirement, i.e. to commit yourself to a position on this.

How about the claims (implied by "scientist" Bob Carter, and stated by  columnist, Andrew Bolt) that the world has been cooling since 1998, and that global warming is a furphy? :- 

The following are also very different statements:- 
i.e. Saying :-
a) the world has cooled since 1998 
b) the world has not warmed since 1998 
c) a dozen quotes you can take from the following. 

Firstly this is what Prof Bob Carter says about it  (a clown in my books - compared to the paper below anyway )
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ith-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html


> There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
> 
> By *Bob Carter*
> Published: 12:01AM BST 09 Apr 2006
> ...




meanwhile, here's what BOM's National Climate Centre's Robert Fawcett say about it :-
I attach the full pdf document, from Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (AMOS) earlier this year - the relevant article titled "Has the world cooled since 1998?"  covers pages 9-16 incl. 

Next a summary given at the website, (Skeptical Science) , and illustrated below by a couple of coloured graphs.  
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm



> Has the world cooled since 1998?
> Robert Fawcett
> National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology, Australia
> Address for correspondence: R. Fawcett, National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology, GPO Box
> ...



.....


> 4. Concluding remarks
> This article has explored the question of whether or not the cooling assertion, that global annual mean temperatures over the past decade have remained static or even declined slightly, has merit. This question is more relevant to the HadCRUT3 time series, in which 1998 is the warmest year (to 2006), than the GISS and NCDC time series, in which 2005 is the warmest year. In terms of the smoothed versions of these three time series, the evidence in favour of the cooling assertion is very slight at best.
> 
> Removing the ENSO-related inter-annual variability by means of linear regression against the SOI provides more evidence against the cooling assertion. Of the three global time series explored, the HadCRUT3 time series is the most ambivalent when ENSO-adjusted, and even that one has 2006 as the warmest (adjusted) year. *In the GISS data set, ENSO-adjustment results in a stark warming over the past 40 years. Nationally, 2005 remains Australia’s warmest year whether or not the ENSO signal is removed.* Ultimately, the correctness or otherwise of the cooling assertion is something for which the observations will in time provide the answer.
> ...




Further Summary according to skeptical science http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm :-


> All 3 data sets demonstrate that the anomalously hot 1998 was due to the strong El Niño of 1997/98. When ENSO-adjusted, 1998 looks much less remarkable than it does in the original data. In the 3 ENSO-adjusted data-sets, 2005/ 2006 are the hottest year(s) on record and the trend from 1998 to 2007 is that of warming.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 July 2009)

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/23/what-bob-carter-and-andrew-bolt-fail-to-grasp/
What Carter and Bolt fail to grasp.  
note that total heat continues to build up - and El Niño just spreads it around a bit rather than have it concentrated near Sth America. 



> Water stores an immense amount of heat compared with air. It takes more than 1000 times as much energy to heat a cubic metre of water by 1 degree Centigrade as it does the same volume of air. Since the 1960s, over 90% of the excess heat due to higher greenhouse gas levels has gone into the oceans, and just 3% into warming the atmosphere (see figure 5.4 in the IPCC report (PDF)).
> 
> Globally, this means that if the oceans soak up a bit more heat energy than normal, *surface air temperatures can fall even though the total heat content of the planet is rising.* Conversely, if the oceans soak up less heat than usual, surface temperatures will rise rapidly.
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (19 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> "nothing heard,  over"




See ASF commandments thread. There is one there especially for you. 

I suspect spooly already knew it.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 July 2009)

ok 
this one for both you and spooly then wayne ...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm


----------



## wayneL (19 July 2009)

zzz...zzz...zzz...zzz...zzzzzzzzzz.......................

Exactly the same technique evangelical churches use.

Strange that.


----------



## Gamblor (19 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> Well give it a go anyway. This thread is a good place to practice a little common sense. For starters try taking an opposite tack to 2020.




When you can put forth some well thought out and researched arguments then we'll talk about comon sense.


----------



## Calliope (19 July 2009)

Gamblor said:


> When you can put forth some well thought out and researched arguments then we'll talk about comon sense.




When the alarmists are asked why they are making such a big thing about their predictions that by the end of the century we will all be fried or drowned, they inevitably say that they want to make the world a better place for their children and grandchildren etc.( and for the polar bears.)

They also throw in their idealogical hatred for the big energy companies. But their interest is more humanitarian than political. Or so they would have us think.

In spite of their wonderful ideals, their grandchildren will go to their own versions of hell in their own ways. They are indoctrinated at school to believe the alarmists version of "The Science", but hedonism and self interest soon take over.

As for saving all the other species. That's a pipe dream. When the astronauts landed on the moon they said that there were three billion people on earth. Now there are six billion. Our expanding population has a tendency to overwhelm all those species that compete with us for space. We only save those that are useful to us. But even with some of them it's a losing battle.  

There is nothing the alarmists can do about that except come up with a virus to drastically thin us out.

All the hot air spouted on this thread by the alarmists is not going to make one iota of difference to the outcome.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (19 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> ok
> this one for both you and spooly then wayne ...
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm



To use the word _sceptic_ is charlatanistic in this case. 

And yes, the sun has a lot to do with heating the Earth. Without it there would be darkness and no heat - unless you drilled deep and lived hundreds of metres underground. This is proven.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 July 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> And yes, the sun has a lot to do with heating the Earth. .... This is proven.



you reckon snake,  

well - how is it then, 
that ....

on day 1 God said "let there be light"

and on day 4 he said " let there be the sun / stars"? 

(ps gotcha  )


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (19 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> you reckon snake,
> 
> well - how is it then,
> that ....
> ...


----------



## Gamblor (19 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> When the alarmists are asked why they are making such a big thing about their predictions that by the end of the century we will all be fried or drowned, they inevitably say that they want to make the world a better place for their children and grandchildren etc.( and for the polar bears.)
> 
> They also throw in their idealogical hatred for the big energy companies. But their interest is more humanitarian than political. Or so they would have us think.
> 
> ...





Thanks. I needed a good laugh - but it's not going to distract me from the fact you haven't put forth any evidence regarding your view that CO2 does not cause climate change. You're starting to sound like one of those god bothering nut jobs as well, which isn't helping your cause. 

Praise Jesus


----------



## Calliope (19 July 2009)

Gamblor said:


> Thanks. I needed a good laugh - but it's not going to distract me from the fact you haven't put forth any evidence regarding your view that CO2 does not cause climate change. You're starting to sound like one of those god bothering nut jobs as well, which isn't helping your cause.
> 
> Praise Jesus




Inane comments like that do not enhance *your cause*, whatever it is. You are trying to impress your elders, 2020 and Rederob... "look at me - see how smart I am".

You did say once;



> They can pin it on CO2 because there is historical evidence of it causing big climate shifts in the past. Global warming is the wrong label for it as well because some parts of the world will actually get colder.




So you think it is not man-made, but a natural phenomenon. So what are you banging on about?


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 July 2009)

Well it looks like the Greens are going to find themselves pretty stretched with all these renewable energy developments here in Tassie. They won't have enough protesters to man all the picket lines and wave the banners...

Musselroe - wind farm planned by the Hydro in NE Tas. Environmentalists have struggled to find anything wrong with it thus far, probably due to the political implications of opposing development in a region with high unemployment following closure of a major timber mill. 

Cattle Hill - wind farm privately funded planned for Lake Echo, an existing power generation site (hydro) in operation since 1956. It appears (seriously) there's already a search to find an endangered something or other in the area for obvious reasons.

Gunns Bell Bay - biomass power plant (baseload operation) as part of the proposed pulp mill. Environmentalists have been flat out fighting it for 5 years (with most of their objections relating directly to the power station, not pulp production per se - Tas already having two operating pulp mills which haven't caused much of a fuss). But of course we'd better not have anyone using waste wood to generate power, the very idea first promoted by environmentalists...

Hydro expansion project - another 1000 GWh annual output from various hydro-electric sources is planned. This ought to give the greens something to do for a while...  

Geothermal - lots of indications the resource is there and there is private money exploring with, in principle, the idea of developing a significant power station.

Now, if all this gets built then we're going to end up with an integrated hydro / wind / biomass / geothermal system meeting 100% of local demand (net) plus baseload exports to Victoria equivalent (annual generation, not peak power) to half the output of the entire Snowy scheme. 

*TOLD YOU IT COULD BE DONE. And this is actually planned*, not one of Smurf's wild ideas. Integrate geothermal / wind / biomass with hydro and there you have baseload renewable energy cheaper than nuclear and without the risks. 

*Now just wait for the greens to try and stop key parts of it so it all falls in a heap and we're stuck with fossil fuels...*


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 July 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> ... *TOLD YOU IT COULD BE DONE. And this is actually planned*, not one of Smurf's wild ideas. Integrate geothermal / wind / biomass *with hydro *and there you have baseload renewable energy cheaper than nuclear and without the risks ...



Well done smurf - 
So are we talking a plan for Tasmania, or Aus wide ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Well done smurf -
> So are we talking a plan for Tasmania, or Aus wide ?



We're talking proof of concept that could be implemented for most of the country in the future with actual implementation in Tasmania now.

I won't deny that Tas is absolutely a special situation with energy, we already have 89% renewable energy in the grid (long term average) and for decades had 100%, but nonetheless this is proof of a workable concept if other locations substituted pumped storage for the natural flow hydro used in Tas. And there's plenty of pumped storage sites in NSW especially.

It's more significant in terms of proving that the idea works than actually displacing fossil fuels at this stage. Integrate geothermal, wind, hydro and anything else that's available locally and the individual variabilities can be balanced out to produce baseload power. 

This is the key concept that makes an all-hydro system work and it's very well understood by a handfull of people. There's no reason at all why it shouldn't work with geothermal, biomass and a significant percentage of wind added to it just as it already works fine with intermittent (ie unreliable) gas-fired generation and intermittent off-peak power imports added. As long as you have the guaranteed, fast start generation from hydro (or some other source of storage - compressed air, batteries...) then you can handle the variations in everything else without much fuss. 

As I've said a few times here, Smurf wants to eventually run the whole country this way. Massive geothermal plants in SA, Qld and wherever else we can make them work. Pumped storage schemes in Qld, NSW. Wind in SA, Vic and Tas. Natural flow hydro and use of biomass everywhere it's available (Qld, NSW, Vic, Tas). And a whole lot of transmission lines plus centralised control to turn all that variability into constant, reliable power. That'll fix energy and CO2 issues for most of Australia and I'm pretty confident we can do it cheaper than the nuclear alternative once all the costs are included.

So I see this situation in Tas as hopefully the first real step in the right direction. Proof that we can integrate renewables and end up with something that works reliably. It won't be running the whole country that's for sure, but overall we'll end up with a system (including existing hydro and wind) that's equivalent in most respects to two large nuclear reactors. But, and here's the point, it will have cost no more to build in today's money than recent overseas experience with nuclear, costs less to keep running than nuclear and there's no toxic legacy.

Now, we're talking about plans here and not things that are physically under construction so there's no certainty of it all happening. But these are actual projects at the stage of development applications, financing or under proper financial scrutiny so it's not just some wild idea. 

We could make a proper start on this at the national level simply by building some baseload geothermal plants. Stop blowing money on plasmas, coal and everything else and just take the risk, make that investment as we did a century ago with brown coal and hydro but this time do it with geothermal. We could get a decent % of non-fossil energy just by doing that alone. It'll never happen if we don't make it happen...


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 July 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> As I've said a few times here, Smurf wants to eventually run the whole country this way.



Smurf for PM ! 
thanks btw


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 July 2009)

smurf, you aware that they are gonna have the ability to run the desal in Sydney 24 hrs as necessary, and pump the water back to reservoirs.  (there's a bit of concern that the dirt caught in the joints due to unidirectional flow will be dislodged - but surely a short term problem that one) 

Hence (I'm thinking) why not have nuclear running full time - pumping uphill by night - and hydro by day (during peaks)  - nice way to flatten out the demand.  

PS that desal can fill a 6 foot diam pipe with a massive flow rate - we're talking a serious pump here.


----------



## Buckeroo (20 July 2009)

Was watching a David Attenborough wild life program about the plankton growth every year around Alaska.

He sounded worried because the winter up there was one of the *coldest* (at the time of making) & it could mean the plankton growth would not be enough to feed the poor sea lions & whales.

Aaargh - the affirmative or negative argument is only used when it suits someone to gain advantage!! Its just another example of the sham this all is.

Cheers


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 July 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> Was watching a David Attenborough wild life program about the plankton growth every year around Alaska.
> 
> He sounded worried ....



yeah mate , 
he's worried all right 

He's worried he's been slow to learn ...
(link to video) :-

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=314744

Sir David Attenborough ..
admitting that , in making his documentaries, he contributed to the problem ....

"what happens next is up to us"
"man himself is now a destructive force"
"we are fortunately flexible, and can change our ways - and must change our ways" etc


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Hence (I'm thinking) why not have nuclear running full time - pumping uphill by night - and hydro by day (during peaks)  - nice way to flatten out the demand.



Without knowing the details, it does seem plausible in theory to do that.

I should explain the reason why I'm so keen in using hydro / pumped storage rather than total reliance on nuclear / geothermal even though the latter is technically possible.

It comes down to cost and reliability. Slow ramp up and ramp down for nuclear, very long transmission lines for geothermal. Both are potential troubles. Contrast that with almost instant starting for hydro plant and relatively shorter transmission lines to suitable sites.

But it comes down to peak capacity. Look at Victoria, for example. Demand stays in the range 4500 - 6500 MW most of the time but it goes as high as 10,000 MW at the peak. It's simply uneconomic to build the 12,000 MW of nuclear / geothermal that would be needed (allowing for maintenance shutdowns etc) and then have half of it sitting there doing nothing most of the time. 

The capital cost of such plant is just to high for this. Same with brown coal - that's why we ended up with only 6367 MW (summer rating) of brown coal generation but it supplies most of the power used in Vic. That's the generation, from coal, that we'd substitute with geothermal / nuclear.

But what about the rest? Well at the moment it's gas and hydro in Vic. But in a non-fossil fuel world we'll want to get rid of the gas or at least use gas for something else (eg transport). And Smurf's plan is to run baseload generation (nuclear, geothermal) harder plus build some more hydro to fill the gap. 

At the moment in Vic for 2011-12 summer (when all currently planned projects should be completed):

Coal: 6389 MW
Gas : 2183 MW
Hydro: 2187 MW

So roughly 60% coal (baseload), 20% gas (intermediate and peaking), 20% hydro (mostly peaking).

There's not really enough capacity installed in Vic, hence the dependence on supply from other states (NSW, Tas, SA). But you get the picture of how a balance of base, intermediate and peaking generation looks. Coal provides most of the energy (as would geothermal or nuclear) but gas / hydro is a fairly cheap way to add lots of peak capacity that isn't used all the time (and hence contributes relatively little to total generation).


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 July 2009)

And here's what gets me so upset about the Greens. 

Always happy to whinge about industry. But never a word is said about that massive source of pollution down here, the one so-called environmentalists advocated in the first place.

http://www.examiner.com.au/news/loc.../ban-them39-call-on-heater-smoke/1571863.aspx

It's the one-eyed stuff I just don't get. Sure, there's a river flowing freely and we're not burning much heating oil these days and in itself that's a good thing. But there's a price being paid and all I'd like to see is that at least acknowledged, rather than repeating the constant "greens were right" mantra that just doesn't match reality.

There's two sides to everything but for some strange reason environmentalists seem to have trouble understanding that. Cut CO2 sure, but then what do we do with the nuclear waste? Burn wood for heat sure, but what about smoke? Shut down some industry OK, but what about the resultant effects overseas?

The downsides are never acknowledged, and that's the problem I have with environmentalists. Right about a lot of things I'd agree, but refusal to acknowledge the negative effects of their ideas doesn't add to credibility.


----------



## kgee (20 July 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Without knowing the details, it does seem plausible in theory to do that.
> 
> 
> But it comes down to peak capacity. Look at Victoria, for example. Demand stays in the range 4500 - 6500 MW most of the time but it goes as high as 10,000 MW at the peak. It's simply uneconomic to build the 12,000 MW of nuclear / geothermal that would be needed (allowing for maintenance shutdowns etc) and then have half of it sitting there doing nothing most of the time.
> ...




I hope this is a laymans thread... but wouldn't the solution be to intergrate the national power grid so we could have bigger plants running full time...I've heard that there is a lot of new tech in this area where power won't be lost over transmission of long distances?


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 July 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> And here's what gets me so upset about the Greens. ..



well - whether you want to argue with the greens or not smurf - climate change is real 

btw - How the hell did a bloke named Brown end up leader of the Greens ?


----------



## Knobby22 (21 July 2009)

kgee said:


> I hope this is a laymans thread... but wouldn't the solution be to intergrate the national power grid so we could have bigger plants running full time...I've heard that there is a lot of new tech in this area where power won't be lost over transmission of long distances?




Yes, if you run power over long distances you should run DC current rather than AC. This reduces losses substantially. The problem is making DC power and the danger of DC to people, if a fault occurs and you connect you will not be able to disconnect unlike AC which throws you away.


----------



## Buckeroo (21 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> well - whether you want to argue with the greens or not smurf - climate change is real
> 
> btw - How the hell did a bloke named Brown end up leader of the Greens ?




Like the pun and maybe climate change is real (even though no one really knows the cause) - but what the heck?

The masses are controlled - if by chance some powerful people want everyone to crap at 8:00am in morning because its better for the environment & they don't have to pay penalty rates for waste workers, then they will create a campaign to ensure this happens! 

Its all so very easy. Find a whole lot of scientists to agree that its good for your health to crap at 8:00am in the morning, get someone who can make a whole lot of graphs, build a good propaganda machine to stifle negative comments and walla - it all done & dusted.

Whats maybe not so farcical, is I wouldn't be surprised if one day they ban foods that cause flatulence - there goes my Saturday lunch baked beans!

Cheers


----------



## Calliope (21 July 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> Like the pun and maybe climate change is real (even though no one really knows the cause) - but what the heck?




Yeah! What the heck?  Everyone knows that climate change is real. That is more or less what gg said in the first post. The argument has been about whether it is our fault even though it has been going on long before we were around.

Various smart people have come and gone on this thread with arguments based on their web surfing that the "The Science" has proved that global warming is coming and that it is caused by CO2 and therefore it has to be our fault.

While they are smart people, I doubt if they are smarter than Ian Plimer. I am sure he has read all the same stuff that they have, and yet he is a denier. 

He is also a denier of Creationism. But that is another story.


----------



## Timmy (21 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> While they are smart people, I doubt if they are smarter than Ian Plimer. I am sure he has read all the same stuff that they have, and yet he is a denier.
> 
> He is also a denier of Creationism. But that is another story.




Denier of creationism?  He gets my vote on that score then.

One more test for him, any idea if he is a denier of the moon landings?


----------



## Buckeroo (21 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> Yeah! What the heck?  Everyone knows that climate change is real. That is more or less what gg said in the first post. The argument has been about whether it is our fault even though it has been going on long before we were around.




Don't you mean, "everyone knows changing whether is real"?

Anyway my point was, can we right now, really hope to change the direction of the argument on whats responsible? 

I don't think we can until people either become tied of it or the economic impact starts to affect peoples lives. The affirmative voices have too much power & money at the moment on their side of the argument.

Cheers


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 July 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> The masses are controlled - if by chance some powerful people want everyone to crap at 8:00am in morning because its better for the environment & ...
> 
> Whats maybe not so farcical, is I wouldn't be surprised if one day they ban foods that cause flatulence - there goes my Saturday lunch baked beans!
> 
> Cheers



1. I'm told that it's 8.12am in Switzerland. (+/- 5 minutes, in case it's difficult)
2. Then again , as Peter Ustinov used to say, everything in Switzerland is illegal - unless of course it's compulsory. 
cheesr


----------



## badger41 (22 July 2009)

Energy Myths and Realities.

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this link before, but it is a must read to give you a real idea of what the whole energy/climate change debate is about. Not short (7 pages), but some really good detail on the REAL implications of what is being proposed around the world. Brilliant!

www.questar.com/2009_news/UVUSpeech.pdf

or just google the title Energy Myths and Realities.

Cheers, badger


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 July 2009)

kgee said:


> I hope this is a laymans thread... but wouldn't the solution be to intergrate the national power grid so we could have bigger plants running full time...I've heard that there is a lot of new tech in this area where power won't be lost over transmission of long distances?



Doing my best to stick to layman's terms as much as possible.  But any debate about CO2 is, in the Australian context, substantially a debate about power stations.

As for the grid question, yes certainly if we're going to use energy sources that can't be brought to the cities (oil and gas are pretty easy to transport) then the way to go is to turn that primary energy (wind, geothermal or whatever) into electricity which is then transmitted to where it's needed.

Long distance transmission isn't totally efficient, there are losses, but it's more efficient than most seem to think. We're talking about losses less than 10% in most situations which isn't something that would stop its use.

What we have now is basically some load centres (primarily the cities) each with some power stations within a couple of hundred km near coal mines or other fuel. Plus we have some power stations in or near the cities themselves (most notably in Adelaide and Perth but also elsewhere).

Then we have a grid connecting most of the state to this system plus some links between states. Qld, NSW, Vic, SA are all linked via AC power links. Qld-NSW, Vic-Tas and Vic-SA are also linked by DC links.

DC does have some merits, but the case for it isn't as strong as some seem to believe. Losses across the Tas-Vic DC link go as high as 5.5% of total energy transmitted at full load and it's only 250km. It's not really much better than AC (but connecting Vic-Tas via AC had a lot of other problems so it was done with DC). 

Also lots of potential corrosion and environmental issues with DC - avoiding those added 80% to the cost of the Vic-Tas link which is rather significant ($780 million versus $430 million). 

So overall, connecting Qld, NSW/ACT, Vic and SA to massive geothermal / nuclear plants and/or dispersed renewable sources via conventional AC transmission lines seems the way to go. The basic system is already there, it just needs some extra lines (admittedly quite a lot of extra lines) to handle some big changes in the locational source of generation. All that's very doable, it's just $.

WA and NT are in a different situation. Yes they could be connected and we could have a truly national grid, but the huge distances and existence of (at present) relatively cheap local means of generation makes it largely pointless. Losses would be pretty large over those distances, capital costs would be high and the benefits would be small. It would only make sense if there wasn't some reasonably economic means of generating power closer to Perth, Darwin and industries in those states - maybe someday but at present there's not a problem.


----------



## Soft Dough (23 July 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> I won't deny that Tas is absolutely a special situation with energy, we already have 89% renewable energy in the grid (long term average) and for decades had 100%, but nonetheless this is proof of a workable concept if other locations substituted pumped storage for the natural flow hydro used in Tas. And there's plenty of pumped storage sites in NSW especially.




Oh so the solution is to use hydro for lights and fridges and to burn the forests for heat.

Come and tell me that hydro is viable when Tasmanians stop using woodheaters.

Launceston in winter is an absolute joke ( and it is a shame as it is one of my favourite cities in Australia) 

I wonder what the proportion of energy from hydro is if you factor in heating as well.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 July 2009)

Soft Dough said:


> Oh so the solution is to use hydro for lights and fridges and to burn the forests for heat.
> 
> Come and tell me that hydro is viable when Tasmanians stop using woodheaters.
> 
> ...



I was having a bit of a go at mainstream environmentalism there since that's precisely where the "burn wood not hydro" argument comes from. That was a point very heavily pushed during the great dams debate of the early 80's and went as far as one prominent environmentalist going into business manufacturing wood heaters. 

They urged Tasmania to "put more pressure on the forests" (ie put less pressure on the rivers) on the basis that large amounts of wood rot on the forest floor, effectively going to waste. 2.4 million tonnes a year was the commonly quoted figure and by the 1990's about 0.6 million tonnes was being used in domestic wood heaters.

The actual wording at the time didn't specifically advocate wood exclusively, but it urged Tasmanians not to use electric heating. Given that the surging price of heating oil and a planned switch to electric heating was what lead to the controversial dam plan in the first place, by default environmentalists were promoting wood since that was the only viable alternative and this point was widely acknowledged at the time.

Now, my point is NOT to re-start a debate that was settled 26 years ago. *My point is that there is almost always a down side to supposed solutions to environmental problems and I'd like to see that acknowledged. I just want people to understand that it's not a clear cut case of do this and save the Earth. Whatever you do, there will be another environmental downside somewhere and that point is largely being missed in the CO2 debate*. 

So why then do I use energy in Tas to make the point? Well it did start the world's first Green party and it is in itself a very good example of the types of decisions we face if CO2 emissions are to be drastically cut. You can't have renewables if you don't want the landscape dotted with wind turbines, geothermal plants and their infrastructure, transmission lines, dams and so on. We can cut CO2 certainly, but there are impacts elsewhere on the environment from doing it. 

So I'd argue that we want to get it right and that slashing emissions "just in case" is flawed logic given the consequences of doing so both economic and environmental. It's not a one-way street here...

For the record, I'm actually qutie keen on bushwalking so I certainly do understand the conservation side of the argument. And this might make a few people fall of their chairs, but at one point I was actually on the conservationists' side and that's how I became interested in the whole energy and environmental debate in the first place. (Yep, you heard it, Smurf was at one point pretty much a Green!).

But the more I learnt and understood, the less I could accept that burning wood, coal etc was really a good idea no matter what impact hydro, wind or whatever might have on the landscape. That's a personal opinon there of course but it's one from someone who's seen all of these energy sources in action.

I've seen a lot of bush and I've seen rather a lot of dams and power stations too (and that includes coal, oil, wind and gas-fired plants as well as hydro). Placed in the hot seat and forced to make a decision, I'd rather leave nature alone but I'd build a dam, wind farm or geothermal plant in preference to fossil fuels or burning wood in the suburbs that's for sure.

Anyway, here's the answer to the question about energy in Tas. I'm using total energy consumption here for all uses including transport. I'm basing it on long term average rainfall and wind speed at 2008 energy consumption rates and assuming zero net transfer (annually) across Basslink. For gas-fired generation, I've assumed use of the gas turbines and combined cycle unit at Bell Bay and not the steam turbines which were recently mothballed.

Oil = 36 PJ (predominantly transport fuels)
Hydro = 35 PJ 
Coal = 12 PJ (almost all used in heavy industry)
Gas = 11.5 PJ (of which 4.5 PJ used to generate electricity)
Wood = 8 PJ (domestic heating and some industrial boiler fuel use)
Wind = 1.5 PJ
Other (landfill gas, industrial waste, solar etc) = 0.2 PJ

So in % terms that's 35% oil, 34% hydro, 12% coal, 11% gas, 8% wood, 2% others (mostly wind). Those figures don't add to 100% due to rounding.

In terms of household use, it's important to avoid double counting here due to the differences in appliance efficiency. For example, 1000 MJ or wood will produce about 600 MJ of heat into the room. But 1000 MJ of electricity used in a heat pump will put about 3000 MJ of heat into the same room. Lots of examples like that and it's very easy to double count.

So I'll put it this way instead, focussing on end use of the energy rather than the input volumes. 

Heating is typically 50% of household energy use. 25% for hot water, 5% for cooking and 20% for everything else. Those are fairly widely accepted "typical" figures for an average house in Tas.

2008 figures are that about 58% of homes used electric as their main source of heating (up from 30% in the early 1990's and 12% in the late 1970's). 35% use wood, 4% LPG, 2% oil and 1% natural gas. So electric is dominant now whereas wood dominated in the 80's and 90's and oil dominated in the 70's.

For hot water it's about 89% continuous electric storage, 8% off-peak electric, 2% gas and the remaining 1% is solar, wood etc. The only real change there over the years is the growing use of gas, though it's still a pretty small figure.

For cooking electric ovens are almost at 100% and electric cooktops somewhere around 92 - 95%. The remainder is predominantly LPG with the odd wood oven here and there and a few using natural gas for cooking. 20 years ago that would have been close to 100% electric for cooktops.

Now, from all these figures something ought to be pretty clear. If we had a non-fossil, cheap and plentiful supply of electricity then we could use that to provide all non-transport energy which is two thirds of total energy. All we have to do is use electricity for everything as long as there's enough electricity from renewable sources to do it. 

Same principle applies nationally and ultimately that's where I think we're headed - an all-electric economy apart from road vehicles and aviation. Of course, that only works if we first build non-fossil sources of electricity to power it all...


----------



## Calliope (25 July 2009)

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25826886-11949,00.html



> After Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said yesterday the government wanted to invest in renewable energy development, Mr Ferguson writes in The Australian today that the green lobby has to accept that the technology does not exist for clean renewable energy generation supplying baseload power.
> 
> "Technologies capable of producing clean, affordable, reliable baseload power from the sun, the wind, the ocean -- or from low-emissions coal -- may still be several years away," Mr Ferguson writes.
> 
> ...








> "Im yet to meet anyone who opposes the use of cheap, reliable renewable energy," Mr Ferguson writes. "However, the factors limiting the uptake of renewables remain technical, not political.
> 
> "We must have a rational, science-based pathway to overcome those hurdles. Faith alone will not get us there."
> 
> ...






> "Martin Ferguson is a total, 100per cent, lackey of the mining industry," Senator Brown said.


----------



## noco (25 July 2009)

With all the "HOOHA" that has gone on for months between the ALARMIST and the SCEPTICS, there has not been one decent debate between the lot of them.

I quote from the Townsville daily Bulletin Sat 25 July:-

Professor Ian Plimer who wrote the book Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science. He promoted his book in Townsville on Wednesday night during a talk titled "Human Induced Global Warming: A load of hot air.

A crowd of 100 attended the meeting, held at the Mecure Inn after James Cook University baulked at providing  a venue.

The university told the North Queensland branch of the Austraklian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy that  it must find a speaker to balance Prof. Plimer's controversial views.

"There was an an attempt to find someone to take me on, but no one had the courage to do it," he told the Townsville Bulletin before the meeting.

As a compromise, JCU had offered a venue on the condition that the talk not be publicised.

He said,he had rejected this, descibing it as censorship.

"It's demonising of dissent," he said.

Unquote.

I would like to know, why the people of Australia are not given the chance to speak and voice their oppinion on CLIMATE CHANGE via a  referendum based on the true facts from both sides, and  not just the hipe put out by the media which favours the ALARMIST.

P*ssed of completly.


----------



## Soft Dough (25 July 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> So I'd argue that we want to get it right and that slashing emissions "just in case" is flawed logic given the consequences of doing so both economic and environmental. It's not a one-way street here...




Well that is the problem isn't it.

We are doing this stuff when the science is inconclusive, yet you have prominent people brainwashed into believing man made climate change wven though there is no science to prove it.


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 July 2009)

Fielding on Global Warming earlier in the year ... (for interest, considering he's such a "sceptic" these days 



> Divorce adds to the impact of global warming - Steve Fielding
> From: The Daily Telegraph February 25, 2009 12:00AM
> 
> DIVORCE adds to the impact of global warming as couples switch to wasteful single lifestyles, according to an Australian politician.
> ...




*it would be better for the planet if couples stayed married*. 
Maybe , maybe not - depends if they're gonna stay together - maybe relying on some rhythm method  - and have 16 kids I guess


----------



## trainspotter (25 July 2009)

Seems the pot calling the kettle black really. Repercussions?


----------



## Trevor_S (30 July 2009)

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/era-of-trans-arctic-shipping-nigh/



> In part because of warming and  the retreat and thinning of Arctic sea ice in summer, this  northern sea route is slowly becoming a reality






> Last year, for the first time in the era of satellite monitoring,  both Arctic passages were briefly open at the same time.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 August 2009)

Constant wind, at the beginning of August. That's certainly early - normally September / October around the time of the equinox. Hopefully it comes and goes quickly and we don't have to put up with it for the next 2 months!

Climate change or just a normal variation in the weather? Can't prove it either way on just one example.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Can't prove it either way on just one example




just go to the pub and thrash it out m8 
 and remember
one swallow does not a pissup make 

PS still - counterargument - it is still consistent with predictions of climate change.


----------



## wayneL (2 August 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> just go to the pub and thrash it out m8
> and remember
> one swallow does not a pissup make
> 
> PS still - counterargument - it is still consistent with predictions of climate change.



The argument is not about climate change. Most realise that climate changes.

The argument is whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, and to what extent. If anthropogenic to _x_%, what are the factors. There is a more cogent argument that land use is an important factor, far more important that co2 and other greenhouse gases. (see http://climatesci.org )

As further argument, there is climate behaviour around the world consistent with a cooling phase.

Either way, Roger Pielke Snr has pretty much irrefutably shown that the IPCC bunch have mislead policy makers over climate change science. Read all the science.

As I have consistently said, co2 is the wrong focus.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 August 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> PS still - counterargument - it is still consistent with predictions of climate change.



Indeed it is...


----------



## Buckeroo (2 August 2009)

wayneL said:


> The argument is not about climate change. Most realise that climate changes.
> 
> The argument is whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, and to what extent. If anthropogenic to _x_%, what are the factors. There is a more cogent argument that land use is an important factor, far more important that co2 and other greenhouse gases. (see http://climatesci.org )
> 
> ...




Hear, hear.....

Cheers


----------



## basilio (7 August 2009)

*Ian Plimer to  publicly defend climate change views.*

Really interesting to see that there will be a debate between George Monbiot and Ian Plimer on the question of anthropogenic climate change.

Key point however is that Monbiot has persuaded Ian Plimer to make specific written responses to a number of questions raised in his book. Nice curly ones to that go the basis of the innumerable misrepresenations Ian makes . Best example is 



> 8. You cite a paper by Charles F Keller as the source of your claim that:
> 
> "satellites and radiosondes show that there is no global warming." (p382)
> 
> ...




It will be interesting to see how Ian explains this question not mention the other 10.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/05/climate-change-scepticism


----------



## basilio (13 August 2009)

> *Ian Plimer to publicly defend climate change views.*
> 
> Really interesting to see that there will be a debate between George Monbiot and Ian Plimer on the question of anthropogenic climate change.
> 
> ...




Well we have been waiting with bated breath for Ian Plimer to explain just how he gets to his breathtaking conclusions.... But in vain. (What a surprise .) What he does instead  is post these unbelievably obscure questions for Monbiot to answer complete with calculations and  references.

Of course Monbiot is not a Climate Scientist  as he points out so Plimer is asking the wrong person. On other hand....



> My questions, by contrast, are addressed to the right person. They concern only what Ian Plimer purports to know. He made precise and specific claims in his book. Many of them are either unsourced or blatantly misrepresent his sources. I have not set him an exam in atmospheric physics; I have simply asked him to cite his sources and explain his statements.
> 
> If his claims are correct, my questions will be easy and quick for him to answer. If his claims are wrong, my questions will be difficult, if not impossible. The longer he procrastinates, the more he blusters and horses about, the worse his position looks.
> 
> ...




Is there just a chance that Heavan and Earth is sheer BS dressed up with 2000 plus irrelevant and misquoted  footnotes ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...g/12/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism


----------



## wayneL (13 August 2009)

basilio said:


> Well we have been waiting with bated breath for Ian Plimer to explain just how he gets to his breathtaking conclusions.... But in vain. (What a surprise .) What he does instead  is post these unbelievably obscure questions for Monbiot to answer complete with calculations and  references.
> 
> Of course Monbiot is not a Climate Scientist  as he points out so Plimer is asking the wrong person. On other hand....
> 
> ...




Basilio,

It is interesting (and laughable) that the Monbiotites ares taking the high moral ground here. I have no doubt Plimer is using some dodgy interpretations.

But what's new?

That's the AGWers stock in trade. 

Let's focus on honest brokers such as Roger Pielke Snr who are ignored in this whole ridiculously binomial debate.

Monbiot is just as bad, if not worse, than Plimer. As far as debates go however, Monbiot has an amazing advantage in having the platform of the rabidly left wing Guardian, the unofficial journal of the Fabian Society. 

Monbiot has the temerity to assume that all his assertions are correct and uses The Grauniad and its acolyte readership of left wing ideologues in a war of public relations, rather than a battle of fact.

I don't mind that Plimer is defensive, given the media power of Monbiot. The minions have already made up their mind and are being childishly ad hominem. But that's the usual tactic.

Those interested in the science will sit back and watch this develop into a proper debate. As it stands, it is nothing more than a typical Guardian/Fabian hatchet job. 

Meanwhile, Pielke continues to speak the most sense.


----------



## wayneL (13 August 2009)

BTW - The French say ‘qui s’accuse, s’excuse’ which means ‘he who accuses, excuses himself’. 

This is the _modus operandi_ of Monbiotism.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 August 2009)

wayneL said:


> BTW - The French say ‘qui s’accuse, s’excuse’ which means ‘he who accuses, excuses himself’.
> 
> This is the _modus operandi_ of Monbiotism.




lol

A bon mot x 3.

As opposed to a 

mon biot / 3

Hung , drawn,  quartered.

The Warmeners are getting quite desperate and the poor tell me they are getting restless about all this Taxing of Weather.

gg


----------



## wayneL (13 August 2009)

As I have stated _ad nauseum_, the focus of the Moonbats and Climate Nazis (to indulge in the puerile AGWer tactic credibility attack via ad homeinem) of  on CO2 is all wrong.

Here is one small example:

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188



> Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage
> By Chris Demorro
> Staff Writer
> 
> ...


----------



## Calliope (14 August 2009)

South Park Commentary to "Smug Alert"


----------



## Buckeroo (14 August 2009)

wayneL said:


> As I have stated _ad nauseum_, the focus of the Moonbats and Climate Nazis (to indulge in the puerile AGWer tactic credibility attack via ad homeinem) of  on CO2 is all wrong.
> 
> Here is one small example:
> 
> http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188




Good argument, will use this at my next dinner party I have for all my pro climate change friends - thanks

Cheers


----------



## wayneL (14 August 2009)

Here is something that absolutely reeks of data manipulation.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/



> The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests to see the data.
> 
> The CRU has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection - except to hand-picked academics - for several years. Instead, it releases a processed version, in gridded form.




This is a very bad smell coming from the rotten core of the AGW hypothesis.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 August 2009)

wayneL said:


> Here is something that absolutely reeks of data manipulation.
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/
> 
> ...



Smurf notes once again that the coal miners, dam builders, factory operators and most others who upset the greens have always been very willing to let the general public see their facts and figures, indeed such information has generally formed the basis of their arguments.

There's no reason why the information shouldn't be made freely available. Unless, that is, there's something to hide...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 August 2009)

Just an update on climate change/weather.

We had a high of 26 today and there is a predicted low of 14.

Presently it is 18.

I know it is 18 now, I have to put a light jumper on.

I knew it was 26 as it was quite hot during the day, after a few weeks of cooler weather.

I do not know if it will be a low of 14. But expect it to be so, as it was last night. But I may be wrong.

Warmeners using computer forecasts could not predict what my weather would be like in 2 weeks time, any more than they could in 50 or 100 or 200 years time.

The evidence doesn't stack up.

gg


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (16 August 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Just an update on climate change/weather.
> 
> We had a high of 26 today and there is a predicted low of 14.
> 
> ...



GG,
Do yo think barometer changes stipulate weather changes of the insane or taxable opportunities of the undebateable?

I heard the Chinese went to the north pole hundreds of years agao and found no ice. Any info on this ? Anyone or two?


----------



## Knobby22 (16 August 2009)

wayneL said:


> Here is something that absolutely reeks of data manipulation.
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/
> 
> ...




*****-up theory*

A common (and laconic) British English quote, coined by Sir Bernard Ingham, is the saying "****-up before conspiracy". The full quotation given by Sir Bernard is "Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the ****-up theory."[7]

I think this applies in this case.


----------



## Calliope (16 August 2009)

wayneL said:


> This is a very bad smell coming from the rotten core of the AGW hypothesis.




The masses are more likely to accept a doctrine which plays on peoples fears. Those people driving AGWism have obviously learnt well from the study of the growths and acceptance of Nazism and Communism.

It seems obvious that the drivers of the global brainwashing have an ulterior motive, but have there been any forensic studies done on what this motive is?


----------



## drsmith (16 August 2009)

The oceans of the northern hemisphere are getting a little warm, particularly towards the Arctic.

https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/ncoda_web/dynamic/ncoda_1440x721_global_anom.gif


----------



## Knobby22 (16 August 2009)

Calliope said:


> The masses are more likely to accept a doctrine which plays on peoples fears. Those people driving AGWism have obviously learnt well from the study of the growths and acceptance of Nazism and Communism.
> 
> It seems obvious that the drivers of the global brainwashing have an ulterior motive, but have there been any forensic studies done on what this motive is?





Since you have guessed somethings amiss, it's time to tell you.

It's to create the 4th Reich.
Now that the problems with cloning have been solved, A little Hitler is been grown at this moment from a left over pubic hair found in a public establishment during the conquering of Poland. When he has aged to a reasoanble level, the next stage of the plan will proceed!!


----------



## trainspotter (16 August 2009)

It seems we are not alone in our theories.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25401759-5000117,00.html

Would be nice to have the truth bandied around every now and again so we can make an informed decision.


----------



## stocksontheblock (16 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> It seems we are not alone in our theories.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25401759-5000117,00.html
> 
> Would be nice to have the truth bandied around every now and again so we can make an informed decision.




Sorry TS, yet isnt that an oxymoron? Truth and Fox News?


----------



## noco (16 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> It seems we are not alone in our theories.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25401759-5000117,00.html
> 
> Would be nice to have the truth bandied around every now and again so we can make an informed decision.




Could not agree more trainspotter. Why do we have to put up with such bloody deceitful people on this Climate Change crap.

Let common sense prevail.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 August 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> GG,
> Do yo think barometer changes stipulate weather changes of the insane or taxable opportunities of the undebateable?
> 
> I heard the Chinese went to the north pole hundreds of years agao and found no ice. Any info on this ? Anyone or two?




Snake, argue logically on this mate.

Whenever the warmeners get frustrated like the godbotherers they go on the fatwa.

If I am unable to predict weather 2 days hence, how can you, do so, fifty or two hundred years hence.

Penny Wong has it wrong.

gg


----------



## stocksontheblock (16 August 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Snake, argue logically on this mate.
> 
> Whenever the warmeners get frustrated like the godbotherers they go on the fatwa.
> 
> ...




I'm trying to see past the poor grammar and sentence construction, however:

What is a "warmeners" and "godbotherers"? I assume you mean a God bother, or God bothers, however the "warmeners" is one that needs explanation.

Why can’t you predict the weather for more than 2 days forward - not hence? Do you not have the equipment? Is it broken, or is this one of those statements like: all male hair-dressers are gay, no substance to the statement yet it makes you sound cool at the BBQ.

I have my doubts on some of the rubbery figures used to say there is as big an issue/problem as reported etc., yet so-far you seem to have offered very little - and that’s not just pointed at you, its all who have so-far suggested its bulls*it, so prove them wrong. If you’re right then why, amongst the scientific community are you in such a small minority that it doesn’t even warrant counting heads.

I am sure that you also believe that the world and humans are only 6000 yrs old as Christian fundamentalists (CF's) would have us believe, they, if you read it in isolation have a very valid argument (of sorts), yet if you open your eyes and take the blinkers off then it becomes a little more apparent that its just a plain old load of sh*t!

I am not one to agree with those who say the world will end in a fortnight if we don’t stop polluting, yet, and to be as nice as I can, you would have to be pretty much as mentally disillusioned as the CF's to think we aren’t doing some damage, and maybe, just maybe making a few changes now might be of some long-term benefit!


----------



## trainspotter (16 August 2009)

Oh Oh ... I can feel a *FLAME ON* .... Johnny Storm like coming!!


----------



## Calliope (17 August 2009)

stocksontheblock said:


> I'm trying to see past the poor grammar and sentence construction, however:
> 
> What is a "warmeners" and "godbotherers"? I assume you mean a God bother, or God bothers, however the "warmeners" is one that needs explanation.
> 
> Why can’t you predict the weather for more than 2 days forward - not hence? Do you not have the equipment? Is it broken, or is this one of those statements like: all male hair-dressers are gay, no substance to the statement yet it makes you sound cool at the BBQ.




I know you are only pretending to be clever, but that's no excuse for your rude and sarcastic comments about another poster. Before you start criticising others you might put you own house in order. This is a quote from an earlier post of yours;



> The one thing that politics and politicans lack is *creedability*. It wont come back - if it ever was there - yet for anyone to take the smallest interest it has to have *creedibility*, and suggesting people like WT just makes it more of a joke than it needs to be.
> __________________
> I went to University, so I know how to pretend to be clever




Your credibility is destroyed.


----------



## trainspotter (17 August 2009)

And here it comes ! LOLOL *FLAME ON Johnny Storm*

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone.
Who you calling Big nose? Roman nose.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 August 2009)

Don't let Garpal Gumnut get to you, stocksonblock.

He's just poking with a stick to get a response.

He would have you believe that he is the classical northern Queenslander, 10 years behind and thinks the earth is flat.

He is really after a laugh. In fact he is really a closet greenie growing magic mushrooms in his back yard. This whole threads a joke, not too many take it seriously.


----------



## stocksontheblock (17 August 2009)

Calliope said:


> I know you are only pretending to be clever, but that's no excuse for your rude and sarcastic comments about another poster. Before you start criticising others you might put you own house in order. This is a quote from an earlier post of yours;
> 
> 
> 
> Your credibility is destroyed.




Did I have credibility to start with? News to me!

I know how all Queenslander’s most certainly like to get behind each other in more ways than one, however I fail to see your point! Now, that really is me having a dig!

Yes TS, FLAM ON, why not? It’s Monday and I have to break the boredom.

A warmeners is not a word! There is nothing that even comes close to it! So, if it is to mean something or have some sort of meaning then explain it, it’s all I asked for!

Thank you for quoting my own words back to me, I appreciate it. For if I was to make such a blatant hash of getting a point across I would expect the likes of you et al to come jumping across the screen and correct me.

It’s funny that you have neither tried, although it wasn’t directed at you, to even explain the word, nor why you can’t predict the weather from one day to the next.

MMM ... let me have a look. Something close to home for you: Brisbane was supposed to be fine for Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday. Guess what? It was. No rain predicted, and there wasn’t any. From what I can see the predicted temperate was almost on the nose, so, as I say is your equipment not working as it appears the BOM has some equipment working! Whoops, before you go digging for any other posts of mine, I should change BOM to Bureau of Meteorology.

Have a wonderful day. :


----------



## stocksontheblock (17 August 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Don't let Garpal Gumnut get to you, stocksonblock.
> 
> He's just poking with a stick to get a response.
> 
> ...




Ohhh Knobby, GG didnt get to me. I have read way to many of his posts to think that he might actually believe some of what he writes - well, without firmly having his tongue planted in his cheek ... however, Townsville?????? (just for some, that was humour ... ha ha ha!)

Maybe for some I should add a bunch of these things  to indicate humour - then again ...

I am sure, should he, and if he has an objection to anything I say he will be sure to express it.


----------



## trainspotter (17 August 2009)

*Mental note to self* Do not poke stocksontheblock with a stick ever again.


----------



## Buckeroo (17 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Oh Oh ... I can feel a *FLAME ON* .... Johnny Storm like coming!!




Good call Trainspotter - I'd say your a dab hand at picking stocks as well?

Cheers


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (18 August 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> If I am unable to predict weather 2 days hence, how can you, do so, fifty or two hundred years hence.
> gg



Cheers..


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (18 August 2009)

An article relevant to the debate. Source:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25942956-7583,00.html


----------



## trainspotter (18 August 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> Good call Trainspotter - I'd say your a dab hand at picking stocks as well?
> 
> Cheers




LOLOL .... ummmmm that would be a big NEGATIVE on this matter. I have no rationale or strategy, let alone a system. !! LMAO (sold the lot on Thursday 13th August) Where is the market heading now? LOLOLOL


----------



## Knobby22 (18 August 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> An article relevant to the debate. Source:
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25942956-7583,00.html




The quality of thinking is woeful. Does Rupert search for these guys?

For instance:

"_Remember, it was not so long ago that we were confronted with the unnerving prospect of being fried like eggs on a hotplate as a result of a widening hole in the ozone layer of the atmosphere. 

The hole is apparently still there, although it has stopped expanding and has, in fact, started shrinking. Coincidentally, it is now playing second fiddle to global warming in the climate change debate. 

But just as we were told to disregard any suggestion that a hole in the ozone layer could be, in large part anyway, caused by Earth's natural evolution, so we must accept that global warming cannot be attributed to any natural changes in the planet's climactic cycle. No. It is all our fault_. "

It was caused by CFCs, scientifically proven. The world stopped using CFCs in propellants and fridges. Production was frozen in 1986 and halved in 1999 and is almost not being made today. CFCs levels are dropping in the upper atmosphere and the hole has started to shrink! Fancy that! Science got it right. I can't see how anyone can use it as their argument unless they are unbelievably ignorant.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 August 2009)

And:

_Combet makes the extraordinary statement that the government will give no credibility to any challenge to its policy on global warming unless it is done through major peer-reviewed scientific journals._

How terrible! We shouldn't  be listening to those awful scientists with their work being checked. We should be listening to Garpal Gumnet and how it rained yesterday?.

Honestly, if this is the level of discourse that Rupert Murdoch is reduced to publishing the global warming deniers should give up.

The skeptics, the true skeptics question things like whether the causes are as clear cut and whether the CO2 effect is waning etc. I don't mind them as at least they are using that funny organ between the ears.


----------



## Buckeroo (18 August 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> The quality of thinking is woeful. Does Rupert search for these guys?
> 
> For instance:
> 
> ...




Keep coming back to the argument, you should never believe everything you see in the media. There will be arguments both ways and skeptics like me search the net looking for negative comments & believers like your self, try to dispel the skeptics views - it the natural way of things.

One thing I can say, it seems to me the skeptics are increasing in number. Finally there is more scientific evidence that all this may be a normal occurrence - and it must be difficult for the believers that the world is currently getting colder?

Cheers


----------



## stocksontheblock (18 August 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> Finally there is more scientific evidence that all this may be a normal occurrence - and it must be difficult for the believers that the world is currently getting colder?
> 
> Cheers




Sorry Buckeroo to select only part of your text, yet it’s the most relevant part.

I am not even sure that those so called alarmists doubt that this is a "normal occurrence". The one thing I have taken away from the whole Climate debate over the years is that it is not the fact that this does happen naturally, it’s that we have accelerated a process by 10's, of not 100's of thousands of years.

So, if we are indeed accelerating this process of global warming then we are doing it at our peril, and not in a natural and timely manner. So, in effect we are hammering the nail in our own coffin as we are not giving ourselves time to react or prepare.


----------



## wayneL (18 August 2009)

stocksontheblock said:


> Sorry Buckeroo to select only part of your text, yet it’s the most relevant part.
> 
> I am not even sure that those so called alarmists doubt that this is a "normal occurrence". The one thing I have taken away from the whole Climate debate over the years is that it is not the fact that this does happen naturally,* it’s that we have accelerated a process by 10's, of not 100's of thousands of years.*
> 
> So, if we are indeed accelerating this process of global warming then we are doing it at our peril, and not in a natural and timely manner. So, in effect we are hammering the nail in our own coffin as we are not giving ourselves time to react or prepare.




Really? Care to substantiate that comment?


----------



## Calliope (18 August 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> The skeptics, the true skeptics question things like whether the causes are as clear cut and whether the CO2 effect is waning etc. I don't mind them as at least they are using that funny organ between the ears.




They will be gratified to learn that they have the blessing of someone called Knobby22, providing they follow his advice.


----------



## stocksontheblock (18 August 2009)

wayneL said:


> Really? Care to substantiate that comment?




Which part?


----------



## wayneL (18 August 2009)

stocksontheblock said:


> Which part?



The bit in bold 

" it’s that we have accelerated a process by 10's, of not 100's of thousands of years."


----------



## Calliope (18 August 2009)

stocksontheblock said:


> Which part?




When you are asked back up a stupid statement your pretence at being clever evaporates.


----------



## stocksontheblock (18 August 2009)

wayneL said:


> Really? Care to substantiate that comment?




Sorry, shouldnt try and cook dinner and write on ASF at the same time.

If the part in bold is what you are referring to: it should have said ... it’s that we have accelerated the process by 10's, if not by 100's of thousands of years.

You may still think this needs more, yet incase the meaning was lost.

Thanks,


----------



## stocksontheblock (18 August 2009)

Calliope said:


> When you are asked back up a stupid statement your pretence at being clever evaporates.




My god, I think I have a stalker now!

MMM ... should I go and try and find your stupid posts and little rants and show how "stupid" you are?

MMM ... what was it you said the other day ... rude etc?

MMM ... you might just end up being a lot of fun! Unless I find something better to do, like wash my hair.


----------



## wayneL (18 August 2009)

stocksontheblock said:


> Sorry, shouldnt try and cook dinner and write on ASF at the same time.
> 
> If the part in bold is what you are referring to: it should have said ... it’s that we have accelerated the process by 10's, if not by 100's of thousands of years.
> 
> ...




I wasn't picking the grammar, I was wondering if you could substantiate the claim.


----------



## Calliope (18 August 2009)

stocksontheblock said:


> My god, I think I have a stalker now!
> 
> MMM ... should I go and try and find your stupid posts and little rants and show how "stupid" you are?
> 
> ...




Put up or shut up!


----------



## stocksontheblock (18 August 2009)

Ummm ... without raiding my book collection and searching the net for things I have read, I can 'refer' to a couple of books that come to mind:

1. The Chaos Point, The World at the Crossroads. Ervin Laszlo. (Good read by the way, not just climate, yet on all aspects of how we should think of creating a better place to live - that’s if you think we need it).

2. The Weather Makers. Tim Flannnery - A VERY BIG alarmist.

3. Hot, Flat, and Crowded. Thomas L. Friedman. (Great book).

Without having to read them again to find the page and exact quote, there are references to the 'effect' of global warming as being something that has occurred in the past - many times, and that it will happen as a natural consequence of how 'things work'. Earths rotation, environmental factors, etc.

However, if I recall, this is a natural process which occurs over time, and that it is gradual.

From their, and others I have read, their point is that we are polluting so much that we are speeding up this natural process, and while it cant be stopped when it occurs naturally, it could be planned for. So, given we are speeding this process up by many 10's of thousands of yrs we are bringing something forward that is more rapid and possibly doesn’t give us time - if we ignore it, to make plans, try and effect the outcome, or effect the consequences.

Let’s just say the polar caps do melt. If we had time, recognised it, and prepared for it we could better understand who (places by the water) would be effected, and thus make plans for those who would be displaced to be relocated.

My point is not to either agree or disagree, yet I think there is a reasonable amount of 'evidence' to suggest we as a people are doing a pretty crap job for the environment on the whole, so we should, where possible make changes to either stop, or slow down - even halt (if we could somehow), what is apparently inevitable in nature.


----------



## stocksontheblock (18 August 2009)

Calliope said:


> Put up or shut up!




Yay, I officially have a stalker now, how cool is that!


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 August 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> One thing I can say, it seems to me the skeptics are increasing in number.



Regardless of the underlying issue, evidence etc, I think it would be very hard to argue with the notion that the skeptics are certainly becoming a lot more visible.

1988 it was accepted as fact, the only questions being how bad it would be, when it would happen and what we could do about it.

21 years later there's a lot more visible dissent on the basic notion that CO2 is a problem, suggesting that the greenhouse effect / global warming / climate change is following the same basic path as do many things. Ignored, ridiculed, accepted as fact and then challenged. 

A lot of things concerning the environment have followed that same basic pattern over the years - nucelar, waste disposal, dams, logging, pollution in general. Ignored at first, then ridiculed and claimed not to be a problem, then accepted as fact and often as a "good thing" and then later the subject of a divisive battle by an increasing group of dissenters. It's all cyclical this stuff...


----------



## trainspotter (18 August 2009)

Will trade carbon credits for sex.


----------



## stocksontheblock (18 August 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> A lot of things concerning the environment have followed that same basic pattern over the years - nucelar, waste disposal, dams, logging, pollution in general. Ignored at first, then ridiculed and claimed not to be a problem, then accepted as fact and often as a "good thing" and then later the subject of a divisive battle by an increasing group of dissenters. It's all cyclical this stuff...




While I agree broadly with this, the one thing that does worry me is that this is - if you believe it - a true global problem, with very real global consequences. If you believe there is a problem of course.


----------



## Calliope (18 August 2009)

stocksontheblock said:


> Yay, I officially have a stalker now, how cool is that!




Don't flatter yourself that I would stalk an easybeat like you. I just like exposing frauds, especially those who claim to be university educated and yet admit they have no credibility, pretend to be clever and have a poor grasp of English.


----------



## wayneL (18 August 2009)

stocksontheblock said:


> Ummm ... without raiding my book collection and searching the net for things I have read, I can 'refer' to a couple of books that come to mind:
> 
> 1. The Chaos Point, The World at the Crossroads. Ervin Laszlo. (Good read by the way, not just climate, yet on all aspects of how we should think of creating a better place to live - that’s if you think we need it).
> 
> ...



Flannery et al have nothing more than a hypothesis. One that fails to predict anything at all, therefore, not qualified as theory.

How we pollute this earth is a disgrace. This should be addressed. It isn't in any substantive way.

The focus on co2 and AGW detracts from the real factors and is a red herring. Yes, we should urgently address general pollution, waste and LAND USE. But  the co2 argument is fallacious, it is a minor player in CC and it's role in climate change has been VASTLY overstated and misrepresented to policy makers.

http://climatesci.org


----------



## trainspotter (18 August 2009)

Boys, boys, boys. Let's focus on the weather and not each other PUHLEASE!


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 August 2009)

stocksontheblock said:


> While I agree broadly with this, the one thing that does worry me is that this is - if you believe it - a true global problem, with very real global consequences. If you believe there is a problem of course.



The notion of a global problem I can accept even though I'm unconvinced as to the severity (open mind there).

But I find it very hard to take seriously anyone proposing a "solution" to a global problem that doesn't actually reduce the global cause of that problem. 

The various schemes we hear about involve mostly relocating the point source of emissions rather than reducing them, a "solution" that sounds more like an economic treaty than an environmental one to me. If CO2 is going to cook the planet then moving the smoke stacks from one country to another isn't going to help in the slightest, indeed it may even make things worse due to the increased shipping required. And yet doing this is precisely what the mainstream "solutions" propose, hence my opposition to them.


----------



## stocksontheblock (18 August 2009)

Calliope said:


> Don't flatter yourself that I would stalk an easybeat like you. I just like exposing frauds, especially those who claim to be university educated and yet admit they have no credibility, pretend to be clever and have a poor grasp of English.




Wow ... your back again, great. I was starting to think that you had been told to go to bed. Thank you for coming back!

Well, I guess I should give you a poke so you will come back again. Easybeat, is two words, not one. It is generally accepted that there is no need for the capital E in English, as you are referring to the language english, and not the people – English.

MMM … credibility? Now, if I recall, I think you, my loving stalker claimed I had none. I just asked the question, “did I have any to start with?”

As for a fraud, then sure, if it makes you feel better to think of me as a fraud then great, you can use this as a quote for the next stalk you make: “I am a fraud with no credibility”. Please, and I expect that you would anyway, be sure to use that out of context.

I think I will grow to like you little Calliope. I love smug condescending -------. Pick any word you like, to fill the ------, the one I have in mind starts with an ‘a’.

I think as I have seen TS say, Flam On! Have I got that right? I am sure you will let me know.

Ohhh, and please, don’t feel ignored if I don’t respond to all your little posts. As I am, unlike you, flattered with all the attention, yet I should keep something for later.


----------



## stocksontheblock (18 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Boys, boys, boys. Let's focus on the weather and not each other PUHLEASE!




I know, yet how can I not ... I think there is so much more to be said that doesnt include this childish behaviour.

However, sorry to all, I will ignore little Calliope from now on. Now matter how much he continues to stalk me. :


----------



## trainspotter (18 August 2009)

It's actually "FLAME ON" ... Johnny Storm. Your talent is wasted on the likes of Calliope. He prefers his lizards grilled and not frilled.


----------



## stocksontheblock (18 August 2009)

wayneL said:


> Flannery et al have nothing more than a hypothesis. One that fails to predict anything at all, therefore, not qualified as theory.
> 
> How we pollute this earth is a disgrace. This should be addressed. It isn't in any substantive way.
> 
> ...




Ohhh I agree that what they are saying going forward ... mmm ... wasnt that one of the pet hate's in another thread? Yet, from what I understand there appears to be historical 'evidence' of global warming events and hence, like most forecasts I guess they take conditions from the past, plug them into models based on certain conditions and, as you say, create a hypothesis on what may happen.

Smurf1976 would seem to have the right approach.

I guess the one question I have is that should there be a one fits all 'solution' applied, or should this be discussed, and then moderated based on many views? (what springs to mind, the saying as to why we have Camels) For example, in another thread the talk of banning plastic bags has really ended up being just that, talk. Should communities be allowed to ban them as they see-fit, or should it be a bold declaration from the Fed to say as from tomorrow there will be no more made?

Sure, this might be a little simple when things like pollution from mining etc need to be considered, yet what is the approach to take when there are so many vested interest groups?


----------



## Calliope (18 August 2009)

stocksontheblock said:


> I am not even sure that those so called alarmists doubt that this is a "normal occurrence". The one thing I have taken away from the whole Climate debate over the years is that it is not the fact that this does happen naturally,* it’s that we have accelerated a process by 10's, of not 100's of thousands of years.*




Do you think this is being caused by CO2 emissions?


----------



## stocksontheblock (18 August 2009)

Calliope said:


> Do you think this is being caused by CO2 emissions?




I think, like many who have posted in this thread Co2 could be in my view, a red herring.

I am not a chemist, and don’t claim to be, however I have read about what is spewed our of the factories and power plants around the nation and the world, and Co2 makes up a part of the overall pollution, however what concerns me is the complete lack of any care by - those who have the power - to make any effective and lasting change.

Its all tear jerking stuff, yet I firmly believe that whether CC and all the other names for it are as bad for us as some say makes not a little bit of difference to me. What I do care about is that at the expense of the planets health - in general, and our health - as a people, we seem to be coming up with half-assed ways on keeping those who believe nothing bad will happen, and those who think the world will end tomorrow.

The question should not be about how bad it may or may not be, it should be about how can we make change to our lives that does not result in killing ourselves, the planet, or going at least half-way there.

We don’t need plastic bags from shops, so stop them being made. It’s very simple. Don’t ask companies to apply for piss-ant $3 and $5 million grants to develop ways for cars to run clearer, pass a law that makes them do it from their own money and give them 10 yrs, and I bet pounds to pennies there will be a solution in 5 yrs, not 10.

Sure, some will be hurt, some jobs lost; maybe a few things might cost more, yet so what? There will be new jobs created, and for a few extra cents, I'm happy to pay if it means that the air I breathe is clean.

Some problems have very simple solutions, its just we have politicians who have to make them for us. So, where’s the hope?

Yet, to answer your question, yes Co2 is a cause, yet thats the media created nasty because they can spell it and people understand it. Its the rest of the crap being pumped out that concerns me more.


----------



## Buckeroo (18 August 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Regardless of the underlying issue, evidence etc, I think it would be very hard to argue with the notion that the skeptics are certainly becoming a lot more visible.
> 
> 1988 it was accepted as fact, the only questions being how bad it would be, when it would happen and what we could do about it.
> 
> ...




Wow, a lots happen here since I've been gone.

Anyway Smurf, I agree what your saying, but all these arguments are being controlled by vested interests particularly when we talk about global warming.

For instance, packaging & the absolute waste of resources this is, as well as the energy required to create it. I can safely say, this particular issue won't be tackled in any form because governments & business can't make any money out of it - it would be so simple to regulate & minimize packaging that its laughable. 

As with banning plastic bags at shopping centers? Well, all I see is the government giving the plastic bag manufacturers more value - people will have to buy the large, thicker bags you buy in a box as a replacement.

And with global warming, its a bonanza for governments & financial organizations (carbon trading) - industry isn't too perturbed either because they will just pass on any costs to the consumer (as long as its done in unison globally)

So you can see why I'm a skeptic?

Cheers


----------



## Knobby22 (19 August 2009)

Calliope said:


> They will be gratified to learn that they have the blessing of someone called Knobby22, providing they follow his advice.




Yes, Calliope.
I give you my royal pardon to think as much as you like.
Please use it. 

I haven't thought of any advice yet, but a short pier comes to mind.:aliena:


----------



## Pat (19 August 2009)

stocksontheblock said:


> Sure, this might be a little simple when things like pollution from mining etc need to be considered, yet what is the approach to take when there are so many vested interest groups?




Unfortunately it will always be the most profitable approach .


----------



## noco (19 August 2009)

Calliope said:


> Do you think this is being caused by CO2 emissions?




No Calliope, I think the C02 emmissions are coming from the "GRASS" that stocksontheblock smokes.

It also affects how the brain operates. You know what I mean---- all FUSSY-FUSSY. A lot of those Uni students get hooked on the stuff.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 August 2009)

stocksontheblock said:


> We don’t need plastic bags from shops, so stop them being made. It’s very simple. Don’t ask companies to apply for piss-ant $3 and $5 million grants to develop ways for cars to run clearer, pass a law that makes them do it from their own money and give them 10 yrs, and I bet pounds to pennies there will be a solution in 5 yrs, not 10.
> 
> Sure, some will be hurt, some jobs lost; maybe a few things might cost more, yet so what? There will be new jobs created, and for a few extra cents, I'm happy to pay if it means that the air I breathe is clean.



Serious question here.

What is the effect on:

1. land use / salinity / water

2. CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions

From a ban on plastic bags. It would seem to me that any such ban will fix one problem whilst increasing both of those two. Plastic has its downside, but it's an outright winner in terms of not needing anything grown and producing minimal CO2 compared to alternatives.

We live in a world of tradeoffs. Easy to cut CO2 - as long as you don't mind some other environmental impacts. Indeed 30 years ago those other impacts (specifically those related to nuclear and hydro, the only substantial non-fossil sources of electricity) were the entire focus of the mainstream environmental movement and are waht first made Australians seriously think about the environment.

ALL power pollutes. Coal, oil and gas spew out CO2. Hydro floods the wilderness. Nuclear is dangerous beyond belief when you consider the risks of war or natural disaster over the next 100,000 years. Wind turbines kill the birds. Solar panels need lots of energy-intensive and polluting materials to make. Large scale biomass starts with old growth logging to clear the land. And so on... 

ALL power pollutes in some way, the only question is what form we'd prefer the pollution to take. As I've said many times here, I'd rather a flooded river (the damage from which is reversible in a few decades at most) or the scenery blighted by wind turbines or solar thermal plants (easily reversible - - just dismantle them and plant trees on the land) than have a 10,000+ year problem with CO2 or nuclear waste. But I won't argue that the non-fossil non-nuclear power sources don't pollute because in a way they certainly do.


----------



## So_Cynical (20 August 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Serious question here.
> 
> What is the effect on:
> 
> ...




A while ago i actually tried to find out what the the GHG impact of plastic bags was...After a lot of digging, eventually came to the conclusion it was pretty much irrelevant.




Smurf1976 said:


> ALL power pollutes. Coal, oil and gas spew out CO2. Hydro floods the wilderness. Nuclear is dangerous beyond belief when you consider the risks of war or natural disaster over the next 100,000 years. Wind turbines kill the birds. Solar panels need lots of energy-intensive and polluting materials to make. Large scale biomass starts with old growth logging to clear the land. And so on...
> 
> ALL power pollutes in some way, the only question is what form we'd prefer the pollution to take. As I've said many times here, I'd rather a flooded river (the damage from which is reversible in a few decades at most) or the scenery blighted by wind turbines or solar thermal plants (easily reversible - - just dismantle them and plant trees on the land) than have a 10,000+ year problem with CO2 or nuclear waste. But I won't argue that the non-fossil non-nuclear power sources don't pollute because in a way they certainly do.




Taking into account all the impacts and limitations of all the available power generation technologies...the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor LFTR has to come out on top...ill cut and paste the important bits.


The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) uses inexpensive thorium as a fuel, transforming it to uranium-233 which fissions, producing heat and electric power at a cost less than that from coal power plants.


These LFTR plants produce less hazardous waste than coal or other forms of nuclear energy -- less than 1/100 the long-lived radioactive waste of today's nuclear power plants. It can consume spent fuel now stored outside existing nuclear power plants.


They use an inexhaustible supply of inexpensive thorium fuel. One tonne of thorium (costing $100,000) provides 1 GW-year of electric power, enough for a city...and Aust has massive deposits.


There air cooled and the LFTR operates at high temperature, for 50% thermal/electrical conversion efficiency,  thus needing only half the cooling required by today's coal or nuclear plant cooling towers.


No plutonium or other fissile material is ever isolated or transported to or from the LFTR, except for importing spent nuclear fuel waste used to start the LFTR.


The LFTR is intrinsically safe because overheating expands the fuel salt past criticality, because LFTR fuel is not pressurized, and because total loss of power or control will allow a freeze-plug to melt, gravitationally draining all fuel salt into a dump tray, where it cools convectively.

http://rethinkingnuclearpower.googlepages.com/aimhigh
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thorium_Reactors
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/


----------



## stocksontheblock (20 August 2009)

noco said:


> No Calliope, I think the C02 emmissions are coming from the "GRASS" that stocksontheblock smokes.
> 
> It also affects how the brain operates. You know what I mean---- all FUSSY-FUSSY. A lot of those Uni students get hooked on the stuff.




I'm so glad to see such a valuable contribution. Thank you! :


----------



## noco (20 August 2009)

stocksontheblock said:


> I'm so glad to see such a valuable contribution. Thank you! :



I am not convinced that CO2 emmissions has anything to do with Global Warming, oops sorry it is now Climate Change since the ALARMIST have been proven wrong. The globe is actually cooling according  to the latest statistics.

I have travelled the world and yes there are places in  need pollution control purely for local inhabitants health; Thailand, Manila, Beijing just to name a few.

The ETS that the Labor Party are trying to sell is fraudulent to say the least. It is nothing more than a gigantic tax grab and will do absoluty nothing to reduce CO2 emmissions. The only thing it will do is affect your hip pocket.

You don't have to be uni graduate or a rocket scientist to work that out.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 August 2009)

noco said:


> I am not convinced that CO2 emmissions has anything to do with Global Warming, oops sorry it is now Climate Change since the ALARMIST have been proven wrong. The globe is actually cooling according  to the latest statistics.
> 
> I have travelled the world and yes there are places in  need pollution control purely for local inhabitants health; Thailand, Manila, Beijing just to name a few.
> 
> ...




An excellent point.

Its a tax gathering exercise.

Perhaps the best description of GW was by Bob Lutz, in 2008, at the time a Senior VP of GM motors.

"Global warming is a crock of ****."

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 August 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> A while ago i actually tried to find out what the the GHG impact of plastic bags was...After a lot of digging, eventually came to the conclusion it was pretty much irrelevant.



The GHG impact from the bags themselves. But there are a lot of scenarios where the GHG impact from not having them is significant which, on balance, suggests that a ban on bags would result in an overall increase in emissions. 

Fix one problem whilst increasing another.



> Taking into account all the impacts and limitations of all the available power generation technologies...the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor LFTR has to come out on top...ill cut and paste the important bits.



Agreed that, in theory, thorium reactors have a lot of advantages over fossil fuels and conventional nuclear (uranium) reactors. There's still some impact on the environment though, there ain't no free ride in the energy game, but agreed they'd be a massive improvement over coal, oil, gas or uranium. How they compare with solar, wind, hydro, geothermal etc is harder to assess since the nature of impacts is very different.

Personally, and this is only my opinion:

1. Geothermal and Low impact renewables (non-controversial sites for wind, hydro, wave, solar etc)
2. Thorium
3. High impact renewables (wind farms in scenic areas, damming the wilderness and so on)
4. Fossil fuels
5. Uranium 

In that order would be my preference. Main reason I'm so against uranium is that at some point war and/or natural disaster is almost guaranteed. It's simply naive to think we'll go 100 years, let alone 100,000 years, without conflict and I'd rather not have a pile of fissionable material in every tin pot dicatorship when it happens. And nor would I want one in my backyard to be a target for others. And in any event, it's still a limited resource that depletes just like oil and gas - it's at best a short term solution. (Thorium is also limited, but there's a lot more of it than there is uranium).

Geothermal, low impact renewables and thorium ought to not create too much havoc overall in their use, hence a preference for them.

High impact renewables will mess up the scenery BUT this is a temporary, reversible problem that won't cook the planet or make anything uninhabitable. Even the strongest opponents of such schemes (including Bob Brown himself) acknowledges that the impacts are reversible in a matter of decades at most which sure beats waiting 100,000 years to clean up the mess from fossil fuels or uranium.

As for the rest, if there's one thing in favour of coal it's that it's relatively peaceful in a military sense which is more than can be said for oil and to some extent gas.


----------



## Knobby22 (27 August 2009)

Of course this doesn't "prove" anything but it is weather and it is warming.
Since we are in an El Niño period which is meant to provide us with colder weather and since the Sun at present is in its quiet mode, also meaning we should be getting cooling, this is particuarly worrying. 

*Record set to tumble for hot August nights*
Page: Print Asa Wahlquist, Rural writer | August 27, 2009 
Article from:  The Australian 
*AUSTRALIA is on track for a record hot August, and this winter is likely to be the hottest on record as well.*

The Bureau of Meteorology yesterday issued a special climate statement in which it said this month was set to be the warmest August on record "by a substantial margin". 

Blair Trewin, from the National Climate Centre, said "it will almost certainly be the warmest winter on record for South Australia and NSW and a reasonable chance for Victoria and Tasmania". 

Whether it beats the national record depends on the next few days. The average August temperature this year is currently 0.08C behind the record, set in 1996, "but our forecast indicates that will probably nudge up a bit over the next few days," Dr Trewin said. 

Temperature records were broken by unprecedented margins. 

Murwillumbah's August record was broken by 5.1C, while another nine stations broke their records by 4C or more. Many coastal towns in northern NSW and southern Queensland experienced their hottest day of 2009 in August, beating summer highs. 

And many centres experienced hot August nights, setting new records for minimum temperatures. Lismore, in northern NSW, broke its record by more than 3C when the overnight temperature stayed at 23.3C on Tuesday night. 

Dr Trewin said the forecast for northern Australia was to remain hot, making a record-setting winter likely. 

"To miss out on the record from here, we'd need to have very much below-average temperatures for the next five days, and there is no indication that is going to happen." He said the hot weather had been more a result of what did not happen than what did. Typically there are warm periods in August, but strong frontal systems from the south push cool southerly air into the tropics. 

But the southern fronts did not arrive this month, and the air kept warming and the temperature kept rising. 

"What happened earlier this week was that after this hot air had been building over the continent for the last two or three weeks, you started to get more of a westerly flow over northeastern NSW, southeast Queensland, which brought that hotter air out to the coast," he said. 

The warm weather is forecast to stay, with the bureau's seasonal outlook for a high probability of above normal temperatures through the spring over most of the continent. 

Dr Trewin said the El Niño weather event had stalled. "It is still kicking along at about El Niño thresholds. Sea surface temperatures are running about 0.8C above normal in key areas." 

Normally during an El Niño, the central and eastern Pacific are warm and the waters closer to Australia are quite cool. "On this occasion, it is warm pretty well right across the Pacific," Dr Trewin said. "That is quite an unusual combination."


----------



## wayneL (27 August 2009)

Off Topic, but have a look what happens when one of those windmills carks it.


----------



## Buckeroo (27 August 2009)

Crap that's impressive - makes you wonder how these guys got the pictures - they weren't carrying a shotgun with them were they?

Cheers


----------



## mellifuous (27 August 2009)

In the times of the Mayan Kingdom, it was human sacrifice to appease the gods...

Now, in these 'modern' times, it's the payment of tax to appease the gods...

It's either our lives or our money ...

Best make for the boonies if there's talk of pyramid construction to foster a 'green solution'  ...


----------



## Chris45 (27 August 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Article from: The Australian
> AUSTRALIA is on track for a record hot August, and this winter is likely to be the hottest on record as well.




As we move to greener technology over the next few years and the Global Dimming effect decreases, I think new "hot" records will be commonplace.


----------



## Buddy (27 August 2009)

So, Peter, Penny and Kev.  
Just how much direct impact does CO2 increase have on Australia's climate and rainfall?
And....don't you realise or understand that the science is dynamic? Not all the answers are known, let alone the questions.



> *Has Northern-hemisphere Pollution Affected Australian Rainfall?*
> 
> ScienceDaily (Aug. 26, 2009) ”” New research announced at the international Water in a Changing Climate science conference in Melbourne, 24-28 August, implicates pollution from Asia, Europe and North America as a contributor to recent Australian rainfall changes. Australian scientists using a climate model that includes a treatment of tiny particles – or aerosols – report that the build up of these particles in the northern hemisphere affects their simulation of recent climate change in the southern hemisphere, including rainfall in Australia.
> 
> ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 August 2009)

This ETS Tax is going to bugger the country and be a politically correct burden on the shoulders of succeeding generations.

What a dose of trots are the Wongs and the Rudds of this world.

Nerds seem to have taken over our government.

Soul less , humourless, nerds.

gg


----------



## noco (27 August 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This ETS Tax is going to bugger the country and be a politically correct burden on the shoulders of succeeding generations.
> 
> What a dose of trots are the Wongs and the Rudds of this world.
> 
> ...




GG, I reckon if Malcolm Turnbull should followed the Nats and several of his Liberal MP's, do  a 180 degree turn on this ETS and his ratings would go up 10 or 20 points.
The SCEPTICS are gaining in momentum, the average JOE BLOW are starting to wake up to RUDD and WONG for the frauds they are. They have to be stopped.


----------



## prawn_86 (27 August 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This ETS Tax is going to bugger the country and be a politically correct burden on the shoulders of succeeding generations.
> 
> What a dose of trots are the Wongs and the Rudds of this world.
> 
> ...




Yep. Look at all the parties young members. They are all the nerds who have nothing better to do, or no one better to socialise with, so joining a political party makes them think they have power.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 August 2009)

With climate change the drought is permanent, or so we were told.

Now we've just had the wettest Winter in Hobart since 1974 and we're not far off the all-time record either. Everything's green, you can't go anywhere without people talking about the weather, downpours waking everyone up just about every night, flooding all over the place and the Hydro's getting all excited (publicly) about the financial benefits.

Same thing happened last time the world was cooling back in the 1970's.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (27 August 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This ETS Tax is going to bugger the country and be a politically correct burden on the shoulders of succeeding generations.
> 
> What a dose of trots are the Wongs and the Rudds of this world.
> 
> ...



GG,
Good points.
It's effective to ask who the invisible hand is.


> GG, I reckon if Malcolm Turnbull should followed the Nats and several of his Liberal MP's, do a 180 degree turn on this ETS and his ratings would go up 10 or 20 points.
> The SCEPTICS are gaining in momentum, the average JOE BLOW are starting to wake up to RUDD and WONG for the frauds they are. They have to be stopped.



So if it would pick up his ratings and deliver better things to him then why doesn't he do it? Perhaps there is something globally powerful driving this thing.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 August 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> GG,
> Good points.
> It's effective to ask *what *the invisible hand is.
> 
> So if it would pick up his ratings and deliver better things to him then why doesn't he do it? Perhaps there is something globally powerful driving this thing.



Economically speaking I corrected my error above.


----------



## mellifuous (28 August 2009)

Yes folks, it was all about 'global warming' until things got cooler and it rained.

Now, it's about 'climate change'.  The wongs will be wright about this one every time now. Every time the climate changes, they'll wack on a new tax.

When there's a drought, the mantra will be 'pay tax'...

When there's a flood, the mantra will be 'pay tax'...

When it's hot as hell, the manta will be 'pay tax'...

When it's cold as the north pole, the mantra will be 'pay tax'... 

And then, when it's clear that paying tax doesn't solve the problem, then.. 

.... heads will roll ...  it's always been the most effective way for human beings to appease the gods when nothing else works.

so, remember, when ms. wong & co. talk about building pyramids, head for the boonies..  it could very well be that your HEAD will roll next.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 August 2009)

The preceding comments are very interesting.

Perhaps the Thread should be Climate change, another name for TAXES.

The medieval peasant was in a bind. The harder he oe she worked the more the Baron or Lord took.

It would appear that Rudd and Wong have cottoned on to a way of taxing the non existent. Taxing a possibility rather than an actuality.

Muppets.

gg


----------



## wayneL (28 August 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Muppets.




I was thinking of something considerably more profane.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 August 2009)

wayneL said:


> I was thinking of something considerably more profane.




Round about these parts mate, muppets is the most profane you can get.

gg


----------



## awg (28 August 2009)

For the first time, I have succeeded in having Roses bloom for 12 months of the year. Dont know whether its because I am getting better as a gardener, but this August has been like late Spring.

Havent read this thread but I reckon all the changes humanity is making to the environment is certainly heating the earth.

Chance of reversing it..nil

Lots of interesting evidence of climate change in the past, obviously not caused by human intervention.


----------



## mellifuous (29 August 2009)

Yes, the utopic dream of everlasting life, of being born into adulthood to remain so for all time, and to enjoy the fruits and pleasures of our being.

But, alas, we are born, we live, and we die - like leaves that bloom in the spring and fall to the ground in autumn in order that they merge with the earth from whence they come.

Clouds swirl in unruly patterns, rain comes and goes, mountains erode, ice caps melt and reform, sun spots bathe the earth with unpredictable amounts of radiation, and in the middle of all of this the wrongs of this earth worship the gods of certainly.

Don't fool yourselves into thinking that 'modern' man's mind is so much different from those Mayans who thought sacrificing virgins would appease the gods.

The 'circle game' - the only constant is change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R9XPIvZC0s&feature=related

Thank goodness we don't sacrifice virgins anymore - but, if there is talk about building pyramids, run for the boonies...!


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 August 2009)

More rain. More floods. And now it's damn cold as well. Even had to stop cloud seeding because it's raining too much...

So I'm off to the shops today to do my bit for energy consumption and at least warm myself up a bit, even if not the planet. Yep, I'm finally giving in and buying an electric blanket - I'm just so totally fed up with this shivering nonsense...

CO2? Well with all this rain we're back to 100% renewable electricity here in Tas (storages now over 40% and still rising). And my solar panels went up on the roof last monday - I'm sure they'll work nicely _if_ the sun ever comes out...


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 August 2009)

MORE rain today and it's pouring down right now. Wettest winter since 1954 and I'm starting to comprehend the concept of cabin fever. Go to bed - it's raining. Wake up - it's raining. Middle of the day - yep, more rain. 

282mm for 3 months which is massive rainfall by local standards. I'm starting to feel for those who live in places where that would be considered normal, or even dry. It must drive you mad...


----------



## drsmith (31 August 2009)

Several years ago I was in Hobart in September. The sun was out but it was still very cold.

Tasmania has had a wet winter but the rest of southern Australia would average out to about normal.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/...area=aus&period=3month&region=aus&time=latest


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 August 2009)

At least the farmers and the Hydro seem happy with the weather. A fortune falling from from the sky with crops and power stations all being very nicely watered. 

I just wish I wasn't also being watered every time I go out the front door... It's better than 11 years of drought though so I won't complain too loudly.


----------



## Julia (31 August 2009)

Apologies if I've overlooked a more appropriate thread.
This is The Punch's view of the ETS:



> http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles...x-on-food-so-wont-buy-the-ETS/?referrer=email




They are suggesting a dawning awareness amongst the punters of how this scheme will affect their weekly budgets.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (2 September 2009)

Don Harrold has an interview of a farmer regarding a cold summer this year. In Japan I concur it has been cold this summer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jiuIsTaWo0&feature=channel


----------



## mellifuous (2 September 2009)

Medieval England






Charles Dickens' England

The Thames froze over:-






Gee, the change from the greenery of Sherwood Forest to the snow of Dickens' time must have sent the whole of England into a prayer vigil (which clearly worked).

Do we really have to stock up on canned food?  

Can't we just have a spot of blood letting?

("... To the Mayans, the ritual of blood-letting was the most effective way to appease their gods to bring good luck or plentiful crops. An example of this can be seen in the limestone relief Shield Jaguar and Lady Xoc found in Mexico dated around 725 C.E. where Lady Xoc pierces her tongue with a thorny rope. ...") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice_in_Maya_culture

Can't we just have a prayer vigil?  Let's stick with our Egyptian heritage, let's not become barbarians.  

Run - Run - Run ::: They're building pyramids -






No, we have a new way to appease the gods, an ETS.

Tax is the answer - no prayers to Egyptian gods and no blood letting - just pay money.


----------



## noco (2 September 2009)

Julia said:


> Apologies if I've overlooked a more appropriate thread.
> This is The Punch's view of the ETS:
> 
> 
> ...




Great article Julia, it follows on from what I have been saying for ages, this ETS is just a TAX GRAB by Rudd.

I've E-Mailed  my local MP and Malcolm Turnbull, encouraging them to follow the Nationals and many Liberal MP's by doing an 180 degree turn and fully reject Rudd's ETS and CPRS outright; even fight an election on it. The "Sceptic Party" are gaining momentum, but what else do they stand for?

I believe, Turnbull will gain considerably in the opinion polls if he had the fortitude to take this action.

More exposure must be given to this idiotic fallacy that an ETS will lower CO2 emmissions!


----------



## basilio (2 September 2009)

*The melting of Greenland.*

In Greenland it's now the science season for glaciologists, seismologists and climatologists. They are all scurrying around examining  just how quickly the glaciers are peeling off the Greenland mainland.

It's a long story but worth the effort. If you are interested in exactly what is happening in Greenland and the implications for the rest of world (as distinct from the repeated assertion that* IT JUST ISN"T HAPPENING*)   it's worth setting aside 15 minutes or so to read and consider. In fact the current scientific observations completely override all previous estimations. 



> Before their first expedition, Hamilton and his colleague Leigh Stearns, from the University of Kansas, used satellite data to plan exactly where they would land on a glacier.
> 
> "When we arrived there was no glacier to be seen. It was way up the fjord," he says. "We thought we'd made some stupid goof with the co-ordinates, but we were where we were supposed to be." It was the glacier that was in the wrong place. A vast expanse had melted away.
> 
> When Hamilton and Stearns processed their first measurements of the glacier's speed, they thought they had made another mistake. They found it was marching forwards at a greater pace than a glacier had ever been observed to flow before. "We were blown away because we realised that the glaciers had accelerated not just by a little bit but by a lot," he says. The three glaciers they studied had abruptly increased the speed by which they were transmitting ice from the ice sheet into the ocean.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/01/sermilik-fjord-greenland-global-warming


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 September 2009)

noco said:


> More exposure must be given to this idiotic fallacy that an ETS will lower CO2 emmissions!



That outcome was painfully obvious before the average Australian had heard of ETS, CPRS or Kevin Rudd.

Hawke was PM back then, Kylie Minogue was a supposed one hit wonder the radio stations didn't like, it was the Bicentenial year and Expo was on in Brisbane. Yep, 1988...

The whole thing has been understood for more than two decades now. Shifting emissions from Australia to another country doesn't help the planet, it just increases wealth and domestic consumption in that other country, plus also increasing shipping, thus leading to total emissions going up rather than down. Nothing new here, apart from the fact that a few more people seem to be waking up to the fact.


----------



## mellifuous (2 September 2009)

http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=A0CF47FB-237D-9F22-E80D57976488F91C

"... The Planetary Air Leak; May 2009; Scientific American Magazine; by David C. Catling and Kevin J. Zahnle; 8 Page(s)

One of the most remarkable features of the solar system is the variety of planetary atmospheres. Earth and Venus are of comparable size and mass, yet the surface of Venus bakes at 460 degrees Celsius under an ocean of carbon dioxide that bears down with the weight of a kilometer of water. Callisto and Titanplanet-size moons of Jupiter and Saturn, respectivelyare nearly the same size, yet Titan has a nitrogen-rich atmosphere thicker than our own, whereas Callisto is essentially airless. What causes such extremes? If we knew, it would help explain why Earth teems with life while its planetary siblings appear to be dead. Knowing how atmospheres evolve is also essential to determining which planets beyond our solar system might be habitable.

A planet can acquire a gaseous cloak in many ways: it can release vapors from its interior, it can capture volatile materials from comets and asteroids when they strike, and its gravity can pull in gases from interplanetary space. But planetary scientists have begun to appreciate that the escape of gases plays as big a role as the supply. Although Earths atmosphere may seem as permanent as the rocks, it gradually leaks back into space. The loss rate is currently tiny, only about three kilograms of hydrogen and 50 grams of helium (the two lightest gases) per second, but even that trickle can be significant over geologic time, and the rate was probably once much higher. As Benjamin Franklin wrote, A small leak can sink a great ship. The atmospheres of terrestrial planets and outer-planet satellites we see today are like the ruins of medieval castlesremnants of riches that have been subject to histories of plunder and decay. The atmospheres of smaller bodies are more like crude forts, poorly defended and extremely vulnerable. ..."

What will we do? 
Stop the leak?
Worry about the melting ice caps?
???

I know, pay tax!!!!!!


----------



## drsmith (2 September 2009)

Earth's atmosphere is protected from the solar wind by a magnetic field whereas the atmospheres of Mars and Venus are not.

Venus could do with a little atmospheric reduction.


----------



## mellifuous (3 September 2009)

from the article:-

".... Although Earth seems comparatively unscathed by escape, that will change. Today hydrogen escape is limited to a trickle because the principal hydrogen-bearing gas, water vapor, condenses in the lower atmosphere and rains back to the surface. Bout our sun is slowly brightening at about 10% every billion years. That is imperceptibly slow in a human timescale but will be the devastating over geologic time. As the sun brightens and out atmosphere warms, the atmosphere will get wetter, and the trickle of hydrogen escape will become a torrent.

This process is expected to become important when the sun is 10% brighter - that is, in a billion years - and it will take another billion years or so to desiccate our planet's oceans. Earth will become a desert planet, with at most a shrunken polar cap and only traces of precious liquid. After another two billion years, the sun will beat down on our planet so mercilessly even the polar oases will fail, the last liquid water will evaporate and the greenhouse effect will grow strong enough to melt rock. Earth will have followed Venus into barren lifelessness. ..."

No problems,  the human race has plenty of time to find another abode.

But, for those of us who have lived and live today, '*ashes to ashes, dust to dust, oblivion to oblivion*'


----------



## noco (3 September 2009)

basilio said:


> *The melting of Greenland.*
> 
> In Greenland it's now the science season for glaciologists, seismologists and climatologists. They are all scurrying around examining  just how quickly the glaciers are peeling off the Greenland mainland.
> 
> ...




Basilio, a very intense and interesting article on Greenland and yes Climate Change is real, but I do not believe it is caused by CO2 emmissions as stated, but rather by the intensity of the SUN.

The article fails to mention some 1000 years ago the Vikings migrated to Greenland because they could graze cattle and grow crops, when at that time, Greenland was green; hence the name Greenland.

Some 500  years later, it once again iced over and became useless for cattle and crops.

Currently, the residents of Greenland are rubbing their hands together for a multi billion dollar economy created by the fact they are now able once again to graze cattle and grow their crops for export.  

The modelling by some of these so called experts have already been proven wrong, so it beggars beyond belief how acurate their predictions will be in  the future.

So, the ice has melted in Greenland over milleniums and has been replenished under the right conditions. I can't believe the Earth would have been troubled too much by industrial CO2 emmissions in those times, but rather by natural phenomenals such as volcanos and bush fires.


----------



## basilio (7 September 2009)

*



Armed forces may be the agents of climate change

Click to expand...


*


> THE oceans are getting warmer, coral reefs are increasingly under threat, Arctic ice is dropping into the sea. July was the warmest month in 130 years of testing ocean temperatures. Who are we going to call?
> 
> The admirals and the generals. It appears that the US military is as concerned about the fate of the Earth as the man and woman on Civvy Street. And, as history has shown, what troubles the US generals troubles the rest of the world.
> 
> ...




http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/ar...-of-climate-change-20090904-fbdp.html?page=-1

Well it's a shame that the US Military doesn't take proper notice of this forum(and others like it) 

For some reason they seem to accept the collective knowledge of almost all climate scientists as well as the objective reality of the unprecedented rapid warming of the earth. 

But hell  the Generals are just a bunch of pinkos these days.


----------



## Buddy (11 September 2009)

So here we go again...............


"AUSTRALIA is under pressure to pledge hundreds of millions of dollars a year to an international fund to help developing countries adapt to climate change, after the European Union revealed it would be willing to chip in up to $25 billion a year by 2020."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26056609-11949,00.html

I always knew this whole issue is about TAX and wealth re-distribution, not correcting any climate change.

So the Brussel's syncophants, along with their likeminded chardonnay sipping socialist mates in OZ and elsewhere, are bleeding their hearts to the "developing countries". What a crok of sh**. How on earth is this going to rectify any possible damage from climate change?  All it will achieve is making the corrupt officials in developing countries more wealthy. More on the gravy train, as they say. The fact is that these countries, or should I say basket cases, rely on rich countries already. It's called 3rd world aid. Now they have found an excuse to get more, more, more, more, more.

If these nutters were really serious about reducing CO2 emmission they would be spending money where it really counts - in the high emmitting countries. Why on earth would you spend money in countries that have negligible emmissions? Any money that comes out of this new tax should be spent on developing technologies, renewable electricity generation, nuclear power plants, energy reduction and efficiency programs. Who cares about the 3rd world, they are all going to be dead anyway unless the problem is fixed. That is, if we are to believe the climate change alarmists.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 September 2009)

noco said:


> Basilio, a very intense and interesting article on Greenland and yes Climate Change is real, but I do not believe it is caused by CO2 emmissions as stated, but rather by the intensity of the SUN.
> 
> The article fails to mention some 1000 years ago the Vikings migrated to Greenland because they could graze cattle and grow crops, when at that time, Greenland was green; hence the name Greenland.
> 
> ...




I fail to see what Greenland has to do with weather in Australia.

It really is a plot by the left to apply a Global Tax and then distribute it as they wish.

People will wake up eventually to this tax grab.

gg


----------



## $20shoes (11 September 2009)

Some amazing and frankly distressing footage of ice flows over the last two decades. Set your Controls for the heart of the Sun people...

http://blog.ted.com/2009/09/timelapse_proof.php


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 September 2009)

$20shoes said:


> Some amazing and frankly distressing footage of ice flows over the last two decades. Set your Controls for the heart of the Sun people...
> 
> http://blog.ted.com/2009/09/timelapse_proof.php




Show that to the Vikings mate.

Maudling videos do not a proof make.

Its been happening for eons.

Capt.Cook wouldn't have set sail for Australia if he'd been relying on pissant proof as that.

gg


----------



## $20shoes (11 September 2009)

Haha...fair enough gg. Just have your speedos ready in case.


----------



## wayneL (11 September 2009)

$20shoes said:


> Some amazing and frankly distressing footage of ice flows over the last two decades. Set your Controls for the heart of the Sun people...
> 
> http://blog.ted.com/2009/09/timelapse_proof.php




By itself - meaningless and not distressing at all. 

I find the giant pacific garbage dump distressing.


----------



## $20shoes (11 September 2009)

wayneL said:


> By itself - meaningless and not distressing at all.
> 
> I find the giant pacific garbage dump distressing.




Hardly meaningless. It was A TED talk. I think he would have assumed his audience had the brains to connect the bigger picture. You have a rapid expansion in ice loss since the Little Ice Age ended which is far in excess of the retreat you see during a typical Earth warming phase. 
In fact, everything but the data coming from our ice shelfs seems meaningless.


----------



## wayneL (11 September 2009)

$20shoes said:


> Hardly meaningless. It was A TED talk. I think he would have assumed his audience had the brains to connect the bigger picture. You have a rapid expansion in ice loss since the Little Ice Age ended which is far in excess of the retreat you see during a typical Earth warming phase.
> In fact, everything but the data coming from our ice shelfs seems meaningless.




Better stop driving your car, heating your home and consuming industrially produced food then.


----------



## $20shoes (11 September 2009)

Never damn it!! Ice-Melt Schmice melt. Just try and let it  interfere with my comfortable life Wayne 

And yes that big rubbish tip in the middle of the Pacific is some nasty stuff. Enjoy your weekend guys!! The ice can wait...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 September 2009)

My new lady Dharma who is a marine biologist has told be about a German ship going through the Arctic, the Northeast passage with an icebreaker ahead of it.

She's a rabid Green but her scintillating personality and personal fitnes and beauty nullifies that.

So the poles may be melting a bit.

I'll have to look at all the evidence again when I stop looking at Dharma.

She wants me to sell the Arnage and buy a Prius.

gg


----------



## wayneL (15 September 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> She wants me to sell the Arnage and buy a Prius.
> 
> gg



Buy a Hummer. Less damage to the planet overall. 

Prius manufacture is environmental vandalism.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 September 2009)

wayneL said:


> Buy a Hummer. Less damage to the planet overall.
> 
> Prius manufacture is environmental vandalism.




Try explaining that to Dharma.

She's lining me up for a trip with her on the Steve Irwin.

I'm gone mate.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 September 2009)

wayneL said:


> Buy a Hummer. Less damage to the planet overall.
> 
> Prius manufacture is environmental vandalism.



Or just get a small, efficient diesel and you'll emit far less CO2 than either of those other options. Cheaper too and the modern ones drive a lot better than you probably think.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 October 2009)

It seems that this whole debate about Weather has been hijacked by the politicians, economists, arbitragers and no-hopers intent on putting another tax on us all.

OK the Samoans have had a tsunami, they've been having them for bloody centuries.

Likewise the Phillipines with their storms.

The most devestating cyclone to rip through Australia occurred in Darwin in 1975.

I still fail to see any evidence of global warming.

Its a balmy warm evening here in Townsville, no different than many in the past, this time of year.

I will fight any government that puts taxes on me on computer projections.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (18 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The most devestating cyclone to rip through Australia occurred in Darwin in 1975.
> gg




That was no cyclone. that was the unfortunate co incidence of simultaneous paydays on 3 separate sheep stations in the area.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> That was no cyclone. that was the unfortunate co incidence of simultaneous paydays on 3 separate sheep stations in the area.




With respect mate, it was horrible, I know a bloke who saw his best mate decapitated by a piece of flying sheet metal. He was so traumatised he built himself a house in to a hill facing south. 

Visit the Darwin museum, it was quite frightening.

gg

gg


----------



## noco (18 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It seems that this whole debate about Weather has been hijacked by the politicians, economists, arbitragers and no-hopers intent on putting another tax on us all.
> 
> OK the Samoans have had a tsunami, they've been having them for bloody centuries.
> 
> ...




I'm with you GG. It's a lot of woop woop belong bulla ma cow as they say in PNG.
Came out of the Civic theatre last night to be confronted with a down pore of rain. Dry as a bone in Mount Louisa, but the frogs are croaking here so we might get our share tonight. As you say, no different to many in the past.

But GG they don't talk much about Global Warming any more ,so you have to think Climate Change; you know all that nasty CO2 emissions which are cooling the globe!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL.


----------



## MrBurns (18 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> With respect mate, it was horrible, I know a bloke who saw his best mate decapitated by a piece of flying sheet metal. He was so traumatised he built himself a house in to a hill facing south.
> 
> Visit the Darwin museum, it was quite frightening.
> 
> ...




Didnt mean to be disrespectful, I thought most wounds would have healed by now.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Didnt mean to be disrespectful, I thought most wounds would have healed by now.




No mate, I knew you weren't being disrespectful, but it was a ptsd scenario, and many who went through it moved down the coast to Cairns, Townsville and Mackay, as they were very traumatised by it.

No offence taken.

gg


----------



## wayneL (18 October 2009)

There is apparently some very scary clauses in the CC treaty they all intend signing in Copenhagen in December.

Here is a video of Monckton's comments as per the other thread.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> There is apparently some very scary clauses in the CC treaty they all intend signing in Copenhagen in December.
> 
> Here is a video of Monckton's comments as per the other thread.





Thanks wayneL

Quite a scary prospect.

gg


----------



## wayneL (18 October 2009)

In view of the exposure of the hockey stick fraud, here's how to make your own hockey stick graph. 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/...rry-picking-to-make-hockey-sticks/#more-11779


----------



## explod (18 October 2009)

Well I dont' know about all the science or all the crap, only what I have experienced.

I grew up on a farm in the Western Distict of Victoria, fourth generation on the land.   In my teens I learnt that the average rainfall across Victoria was 25 inches, in some southern parts, routinely 40 inches, in the Otway Ranges much higher than that.  And it was every year, (the family goes back on the land here to 1850)cattle down to thier stomachs in mud from July to October, sometimes to November.

This stopped with the drought of 1969, the year my Father died.   It has never reached these rainfall levels across the whole state since and the frogs that appeared every winter do not appear now back at the old farm.

Go figure.


----------



## beerwm (19 October 2009)

I did post this on another topic..but it is probably more relevant here; might be a repost.


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007; with a 90% or greater probability, human actions are the cause of climate change.

- caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.

1000+ researchers/scientists/experts... 100+ countries.
-all reviewed/peer reviewed.


----------



## wayneL (19 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007




That's where the credibility falls over. Research this, there are numerous problems with this organization and the truthfulness/accuracy of their reporting.


----------



## beerwm (19 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> That's where the credibility falls over. Research this, there are numerous problems with this organization and the truthfulness/accuracy of their reporting.




I did check them out briefly, but found nothing more than a few rants on some blogs.


----------



## wayneL (19 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> I did *check them out briefly*, but found nothing more than a few rants on some blogs.




Then by your own admission, you haven't researched this. Come back when you have.

Start here http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/main-conclusions-2/ (Not a "denier")


----------



## beerwm (19 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> Then by your own admission, you haven't researched this. Come back when you have.
> 
> Start here http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/main-conclusions-2/ (Not a "denier")




ok right, so you're disputing 1000+ scientists/researchers/experts, from 100 + countries - based on some internet blogs you have read.

[which arent peddling their own agenda... right?]

you seem adamant that 'CC is a fraud' so i doubt you're going to change your view, but try and look at it rationally.


----------



## wayneL (19 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> ok right, so you're disputing 1000+ scientists/researchers/experts, from 100 + countries - based on some internet blogs you have read.
> 
> [which arent peddling their own agenda... right?]
> 
> you seem adamant that 'CC is a fraud' so i doubt you're going to change your view, but try and look at it rationally.




beer

Please note the link I posted along with my other comments, then you you can take down the ludicrous straw man you just put up.

If you are unable to discern where I at with this, it is useless discussing it with you.

Please, don't become 2020Hindsight MkII.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 October 2009)

From the article Wayne posted.

"Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide."

This is very true. I think the models are still in their infancy. They are trying to model a whole world. The other important factor is measurement. We have only really been good at it for 70 years.

I believe that anthromorphic climate change is happening. The question is the degree of change and the way the natural systems operate to mitigate or alternatively amplify the change. 

In other words we know its occurring but we don't know how bad a problem it will be!

So what do we do about it? Wait for more data, in 10 years time I think the facts will be quite clear. Try to limit our damage to the environment? I think we should be taking steps. Set up a method of encouraging faster change though carbon taxes? Why not!

Is Australia, the USA and Europe got the plan right using their complex systems of taxation/carbon credits? I think not. Too many vested interests, too many rules, too much beauracracy and not enough clarity. We should have a simple carbon tax and leave it at that. 

It is the government response that leaves me cold.


----------



## Realist (19 October 2009)

skint said:


> And then there's this....
> 
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0




What the hell happened around 1960 for the green line to drop so much?

Looks like bollocks to me....


----------



## Mr J (19 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007; *with a 90% or greater probability*, human actions are the cause of climate change.
> 
> - caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
> 
> ...




Apparently there's an internal agreement that there is up to a 10% chance that they're all wrong. I can only imagine the agenda and corruption flying around there, but even they admit they may not be correct.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 October 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> We should have a simple carbon tax and leave it at that.



Carbon tax should work fine as a means of reducing CO2 provided that there is no means to opt out other than by not emitting CO2. 

If you take a look at the schemes that have been proposed, they all have some means of opting out, commonly by shifting operations to different countries. The whole thing fails miserably if the tax rate in, say, New Zealand is different to the tax rate in Brazil. Polluters will simply shift to the lowest tax country and continue polluting if that situation is allowed, precisely what they have done in the pursuit of cheap electricity for the past 100 or so years and are still doing today.


----------



## beerwm (19 October 2009)

Mr J said:


> Apparently there's an internal agreement that there is up to a 10% chance that they're all wrong. I can only imagine the agenda and corruption flying around there, but even they admit they may not be correct.




not sure if this post is sarcastic, but there is computer modelling/bell curves, etc and 90% confidence interval sounds 'very likely' comapred to...

5% chance climate change is due only to natural causes.

18:1 odds, i know what side i'd be on.



Smurf1976 said:


> Carbon tax should work fine as a means of reducing CO2 provided that there is no means to opt out other than by not emitting CO2.
> 
> If you take a look at the schemes that have been proposed, they all have some means of opting out, commonly by shifting operations to different countries. The whole thing fails miserably if the tax rate in, say, New Zealand is different to the tax rate in Brazil. Polluters will simply shift to the lowest tax country and continue polluting if that situation is allowed, precisely what they have done in the pursuit of cheap electricity for the past 100 or so years and are still doing today.




not really, as the tax would be on the end user/

carbon tax wouldnt necessarily reduce emissions; as a cap and trade scheme looks to eliminate the cheapest emissions first, while a carbon tax is at a constant price and not directly tied to emissions just a 'set price'.


----------



## MrBurns (19 October 2009)

Dunno what all the fuss is about - 

Humans arent alien to Earth, everything we do is natural so doesnt really hurt the environment.

Do people point at other animals and say they are hurting the planet ? No 

This is all BS


----------



## beerwm (19 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Dunno what all the fuss is about -
> 
> Humans arent alien to Earth, everything we do is natural so doesnt really hurt the environment.
> 
> ...




so i guess if we dump some 'natural' toxic waste into our water supply we'll all be fine.


----------



## MrBurns (19 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> so i guess if we dump some 'natural' toxic waste into our water supply we'll all be fine.




Don't talk rubbish, no animal drinks contaminated water.


----------



## beerwm (19 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Don't talk rubbish, no animal drinks contaminated water.




i dont even know what that means,

anyway the extraction from carbon -- underground --> to carbon in the air is not a natural process.

deforestation is not a natural process.


----------



## MrBurns (19 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> i dont even know what that means,
> 
> anyway the extraction from carbon -- underground --> to carbon in the air is not a natural process.
> 
> deforestation is not a natural process.




Whatever animals do is a natural process, we are no different.


----------



## beerwm (19 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Whatever animals do is a natural process, we are no different.




is that the best you have? hahaha

then chernobyl was natural... and this is... no fuss.


----------



## drsmith (19 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Dunno what all the fuss is about -
> 
> Humans arent alien to Earth, everything we do is natural so doesnt really hurt the environment.
> 
> ...



It does little to address the core question of when the demands of our growing population will outstrip the Earth's capability to sustain it.

Should we reach that point then nature's solution is not overly pleasant.


----------



## MrBurns (19 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> is that the best you have? hahaha
> 
> then chernobyl was natural... and this is... no fuss.




Yes it was .........same as Krakatoa and others.


----------



## MrBurns (19 October 2009)

drsmith said:


> It does little to address the core question of when the demands of our growing population will outstrip the Earth's capability to sustain it.
> 
> Should we reach that point then nature's solution is not overly pleasant.




Well we better restrict population growth, or people will die, in the natural order of things there wil be a war and that will fix that.


----------



## drsmith (19 October 2009)

War is one way to restore an equilibrium between human population and the resources available to support it.

Perhaps this will be part of our natural evolution.


----------



## MrBurns (19 October 2009)

drsmith said:


> War is one way to restore an equilibrium between human population and the resources available to support it.
> 
> Perhaps this will be part of our natural evolution.




Very possible.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> not really, as the tax would be on the end user



OK, we'll put the tax on the end user.

Now work out how much carbon was emitted in the production of the computer you are using right now. 

Now go and buy 20 newspapers in Australia. On average, 9 of them were produced using paper from Tasmania (low carbon due to hydro-electricity), 5 were produced using paper from Albury (higher carbon due to fossil fuel energy) and the other 6 were produced using imported paper (carbon in manufacture being unknown). Now work out how to apply the carbon tax to these newspapers.

Then work it out for 10 other randomly selected consumer items.

Spot the problem?


----------



## Gamblor (19 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Whatever animals do is a natural process, we are no different.




I laughed at that - quite possibly one of the most stupid things i've read around here for a while :


----------



## MrBurns (19 October 2009)

Gamblor said:


> I laughed at that - quite possibly one of the most stupid things i've read around here for a while :




You cant fool us we know you cant read:


----------



## drsmith (19 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Very possible.



The answer is to be able to develop new energy sources to sustain a growing demand but the question is whether we will be able to do it fast enough bearing in mind shorter term economic interest from established energy sources holds back such development.


----------



## beerwm (19 October 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> OK, we'll put the tax on the end user.
> 
> Now work out how much carbon was emitted in the production of the computer you are using right now.
> 
> ...




yeh... i agree pricing carbon by regulation wouldnt work. but taxing the supplier isnt going to change it.

-so your statement.... it will reduce C02 isnt really accurate.



Gamblor said:


> I laughed at that - quite possibly one of the most stupid things i've read around here for a while :




:


----------



## MrBurns (19 October 2009)

drsmith said:


> The answer is to be able to develop new energy sources to sustain a growing demand but the question is whether we will be able to do it fast enough bearing in mind shorter term economic interest from established energy sources holds back such development.




Unfortunately I don't think we have any hope of doing that because of vested interests.

Money rules.

Change will have to be forced on us at which stage it wont be too late but there will be enormous damage done before we come up for air.


----------



## Mr J (19 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> not sure if this post is sarcastic, but there is computer modelling/bell curves, etc and 90% confidence interval sounds 'very likely' comapred to...
> 
> 5% chance climate change is due only to natural causes.
> 
> 18:1 odds, i know what side i'd be on.




Have any of these computer models been shown to be credible?


----------



## beerwm (20 October 2009)

Mr J said:


> Have any of these computer models been shown to be credible?




i dont know how to answer this.... 90% is 90% on the facts given,


----------



## Mr J (20 October 2009)

I find it hard to believe that they could come up with a reasonable figure as there are far less complicated systems that we can't model. 90% is just a calculation, nothing more. At least it's nice to hear about probability rather than certainty.


----------



## wayneL (20 October 2009)

Mr J said:


> Have any of these computer models been shown to be credible?




Nope.

They have failed to predict anything... except in hindsite.

What you might call curve fitting in mechanical trading systems.


----------



## Mr J (20 October 2009)

Wayne, how could you say that about the top scientific minds on the planet? :

When I was a kid, I would take a scientist's word as fact. Then I discovered that there is nothing left untainted by politics and money.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 October 2009)

Mr J said:


> Wayne, how could you say that about the top scientific minds on the planet? :
> 
> When I was a kid, I would take a scientist's word as fact. Then I discovered that there is nothing left untainted by politics and money.




Bit cynical. Many models have been too conservative.

Most scientists believe in the scientific principle and there are few denying that climate change is happening. It's just that over such a short time frame and with all the different elements that effect the weather such as carbon dioxide, pollution, cloud formation, ocean currents etc. are extremely complex and the effect of man has really occurred over a short time so it is extremely difficult to model and such a complex system.

You can see where sea levels, CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans, and climate change is going. We just can't really quantify whether ot will slow down or speed up.


----------



## Mr J (20 October 2009)

It's not cynical, it's the world in which we live. I'm not suggesting it applies to all scientists, but it certainly applies to certain groups.



> there are few denying that climate change is happening




Climate always changes. The issue is whether we are currently a significant influence.


----------



## beerwm (20 October 2009)

these models arent just based on cause and effect.

c02, greenhouse gases are all known to have a effect on atmospheric conditions, its science.... not curve fitting.

what is with this deep seeded denial, you all seem quite emotionally involved.


----------



## Mr J (20 October 2009)

The only emotion I see is from the side that are convinced we're destroying the world. There are some denying climate change etc, but most of the "skeptics" (which are emotionally called "deniers") are just asking for proper science and discussion.


----------



## beerwm (20 October 2009)

Mr J said:


> The only emotion I see is from the side that are convinced we're destroying the world.




???

all ive given you are facts


----------



## spooly74 (20 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> c02, greenhouse gases are all known to have a *effect* on atmospheric conditions, its science....




The predicted effect does not match observations. That's science.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (20 October 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> all the different elements that effect the weather such as carbon dioxide, pollution, cloud formation, ocean currents etc. are extremely complex and the effect of man has really occurred over a short time so it is extremely difficult to model and such a complex system.
> 
> You can see where sea levels, CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans, and climate change is going. We just can't really quantify whether it will slow down or speed up.




Complex it is which gives no credibility to the models as they are proved wrong. The cooling phase is happening. Cyclical nature. 

I support a warm Earth instead of a cool one. Ice kills life. Greenhouses do not. 



> these models arent just based on cause and effect.
> 
> c02, greenhouse gases are all known to have a effect on atmospheric conditions, its science.... not curve fitting.
> 
> what is with this deep seeded denial, you all seem quite emotionally involved.



This is typical of the socialist hijacked green movement. Truth is conveniently distorted as coherence theory, unfortunately, allows. Any form of rational logical debate is avoided and the word of choice is "denier" in the hope it will intimidate people to fall into the socialist line. May the skeptics come out in droves and let truth reign.


----------



## beerwm (20 October 2009)

spooly74 said:


> The predicted effect does not match observations. That's science.




you'll find, that the observations are of a small sample period... the 'effect' is science.
-just because there wasnt rain today, doesnt mean rain doesnt exist.

saying they dont match observations is wrong anyway [90% confidence]


----------



## beerwm (20 October 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> This is typical of the socialist hijacked green movement. Truth is conveniently distorted as coherence theory, unfortunately, allows. Any form of rational logical debate is avoided and the word of choice is "denier" in the hope it will intimidate people to fall into the socialist line. May the skeptics come out in droves and let truth reign.




what truth am i distorting??

im they only one quoting evidence... and all you are saying is... i am wrong?

who is being rational?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (20 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> what truth am i distorting??
> 
> im they only one quoting evidence... and all you are saying is... i am wrong?
> 
> who is being rational?



The parrots of the movement are repeating the distortion. They are repeaters. They should think more and respect truth. My post was not directed at you as a person. I have left all emotion out of it. Science allows critical skepticism and debate. That is what science is.


----------



## Mr J (20 October 2009)

Why do you keep bringing up the 90% figure? Do you honestly believe that there is in fact a 90% probability that humans are responsible for the majority of current climate change? Why do you take a model's calculation as fact? Why do you take these people's word as fact?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (20 October 2009)

Mr J said:


> Why do you keep bringing up the 90% figure? Do you honestly believe that there is in act a 90% probability that humans are responsible for the majority of current climate change? Why do you take a model's calculation as fact? Why do you take these people's word as fact?




That's what repeaters do. They don't think. They just repeat distortions of truth. Sometimes they repeat truth.


----------



## Out Too Soon (20 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It has been raining solidly in N.Queensland for the last few days. Most dams are full. It dropped to 16 last night. I have to wear a jumper from about 4pm onwards.
> If you want to know what the weather is like stick your head out the window.
> Winter rain and low temperatures are a normal variant, as are rising tides and drought.
> These jokers on the Goremobile know as much about the climate as Wayne Swan knows about economics.
> gg




Garpal look what you've done 
Climate change & humanities effect on it is as plain as the nose on my face & becomes more so with each passing year. 

The thing that p's me off about Gore is I don't remember hearing much from him when he was in a position of power.

  It's almost pointless arguing, we have left it almost too late to save ourselves. Yes theres been Ice ages & warm ups before. Our current civilisation wasn't around then accelerating the process. The planet is getting warmer faster than our atmosphere can cope.
  As well as melting ice caps & glaciers, rising sea levels, displaced millions, failed crops all leading to failed economy, wars for survival, failed civilisation billions dead & mass extinctions what have we got to worry about?
  Maybe our brightest minds are wrong so lets do nothing at least on a planet like Venus you don't need electricity to cook your dinner. : 

  PS: obviously I've done my trading for the day


----------



## spooly74 (20 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> you'll find, that the observations are of a small sample period... the 'effect' is science.



I'm unclear as to what you're talking about.

The 'effect' on temperature has been estimated by the IPCC at between 2.5C and 4C per doubling of Co2 concentrations.

Total Co2 in the atmosphere in 1900 ~ 280ppm
Total Co2 in the atmosphere today   ~ 385ppm

That's over a 100 year sample period.
You do the math.


----------



## beerwm (20 October 2009)

Mr J said:


> Why do you keep bringing up the 90% figure? Do you honestly believe that there is in fact a 90% probability that humans are responsible for the majority of current climate change? Why do you take a model's calculation as fact? Why do you take these people's word as fact?




well... they are scientists... they are independent... i cant see any agenda attached.

should i take the word of some internet blogs like you seem to be doing.

whose being irrational now?


----------



## Mr J (20 October 2009)

Out Too Soon said:
			
		

> Maybe our brightest minds are wrong




I imagine few of our brightest minds are working on climate change, and even our brightest minds are not infallible.



> Climate change & humanities effect on it is as plain as the nose on my face & becomes more so with each passing year.




How is it obvious to you? Is each year statistically significant? Perhaps you could prove it once and for all?

Beer, I have quoted no blogs, and am not acting irrational. Your comment doesn't make any sense.


----------



## beerwm (20 October 2009)

Mr J said:


> I imagine few of our brightest minds are working on climate change, and even our brightest minds are not infallible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




well your basis of 'no climate change' is based on what then.... a gut feel... the weather outside?

look at the evidence... make a rational decision... thats all im doing.
- and its not that hard either...


----------



## Mr J (20 October 2009)

I'm not sure what you're reading, but you can't be reading my posts. I never suggested there was no climate change, and my position is based on what I perceive to be a lack of conclusive evidence. If you ask the majority of people what they base their opinion on, I imagine it will likely come down to media and government influence, or a feeling that it doesn't seem to add up. Few opinions are decided purely on the evidence.

Your position is clear, and I doubt you're going to convince anyone who requires more evidience and better discussion than has occurred.


----------



## basilio (21 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> well your basis of 'no climate change' is based on what then.... a gut feel... the weather outside?
> 
> look at the evidence... make a rational decision... thats all im doing.
> - and its not that hard either...




Sorry beerwm but you simply havn't actually read or possibly understood the title for this forum. It says "Climate change another name for weather.". That means the originator and the most enthusiastic  followers have decided that man made climate change is not real. End of story.

In fact it seems that *even the possibility* that we may be destroying the livability of our planet (at least for  99% of all current species ) is not  open to discussion.

Don't waste your time here trying to talk about the consensus of almost the entire scientific community on the issue, the physical facts on how CO2 traps heat, the  wealth of knowledge gained from  drilling ice cores ect or the (terrifying) fact that Greenland is melting at an exponential rate. None of these fit the the underlying premise "Climate change is another name for weather ". So these statements are wrong or socialistic or bad models or whatever. Simple isn't it ? _(but just a bit sad.._..)

Cheers

PS You could give up a few hours of your life reviewing this thread and fully appreciate how fruitless it is trying to introduce evidence, science or logic to the discussion in this particular thread....


----------



## wayneL (21 October 2009)

basilio said:


> Sorry beerwm but you simply havn't actually read or possibly understood the title for this forum. It says "Climate change another name for weather.". That means the originator and the most enthusiastic  followers have decided that man made climate change is not real. End of story.
> 
> In fact it seems that *even the possibility* that we may be destroying the livability of our planet (at least for  99% of all current species ) is not  open to discussion.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 October 2009)

Mr J said:


> I'm not sure what you're reading, but you can't be reading my posts. I never suggested there was no climate change, and *my position is based on what I perceive to be a lack of conclusive evidence.*



I wish I could show you what I saw on our last fishing trip. It was a near windless morning with few clouds in the sky. Out over the water at an elevation of what I estimate to be 2 to 5 klms and visible length of about 10 klms was a brown haze. Now the only thing that produced that (and which I`m a guilty user) is one coal fired power plant. One, just one coal fired plant, and one day the evidence was undeniable. 
< Mod: ad hominem insult deleted>

P.s.... the gas was Nitrogen Dioxide.


----------



## wayneL (21 October 2009)

OK folks, as people cannot make their points without insulting people, this thread is closed.


----------

