# Program: The Great Global Warming Swindle



## wayneL (17 March 2007)

75 minutes worth... interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 March 2007)

wayne - 1 minute was enough for me  - 
I preferred the show on abc four corners which showed the corrupt scientists to be what they are ... in the paid service of the Exxons of the world - (the one you kndly found the link for)


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 March 2007)

wayne - 1 minute was enough for me  - 
I preferred the show on abc four corners which showed the corrupt scientists to be what they are ... in the paid service of the Exxons of the world - (the one you kndly found the link for)   

This youtube video reminds me of Ayn Rand (again) - (previous post of mine follows)  - the quote in *bold * is based on data compiled in 1971, probably written 1973 or so I guess.  - such ignorance, such incompetence, such mismanagement , such selfishness by the industrialised and developed countries ...., such a terrible legacy for the Y generation  


> http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageSer...and_biograp hy
> "Ayn Rand ...Atlas Shrugged was her greatest achievement and last work of fiction. In this novel she dramatized her unique philosophy in an intellectual mystery story that integrated ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, politics, economics . " - one tough lady - then again born in Russia , saw the Bolshevik revolution in 1917/18 etcetc.
> 
> .....Here's what she said about pollution:- back in the 60's granted - but we are reapingthe rewards today ...
> ...


----------



## wayneL (17 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> wayne - 1 minute was enough for me  -
> I preferred the show on abc four corners which showed the corrupt scientists to be what they are ... in the paid service of the Exxons of the world - (the one you kndly found the link for)



This one acknowledges GW but refutes CO2 as the cause and pins it on solar activity. Does a good job of it.

Pollution is still the biggy for me rather than co2.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 March 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> This one acknowledges GW but refutes CO2 as the cause and pins it on solar activity. Does a good job of it. Pollution is still the biggy for me rather than co2.



lol -k m8,  I'll try again "later"  - maybe I'll get to the second or third minute before I "change the channel".   
when they claimed the ice wasn't melting, I thought to myself - so go find a hungry polar bear and tell THAT to his face  :

PS polar bears are eating each other - even more frequently than normal
PPS If the problem is pollution , then let's play safe and work on BOTH pollution and CO2 
PPS I think i heard last night that last year was the hottest on record since records commenced in 1880? - worldwide? or USA one or other anyway.  
PPS The other thing I didnt like about the intro is that Al Gore is ridiculed.  As you said somewhere else "don't play the man, play the ball".


----------



## wayneL (17 March 2007)

This was on prime time TV in the UK. You gotta watch the whole show before canning it.


----------



## wayneL (17 March 2007)

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060926_solar_activity.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 March 2007)

well I agree wit the lastcoupla lines anyway.
" During the last few decades, the solar activity is not increasing. It has stabilized at a high level, but the Earth's climate still shows a tendency toward increasing temperatures," Usoskin explained. 

He suspects even if there were a link between the Sun's activity and global climate, other factors must have dominated during the last few decades, including the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."


----------



## wayneL (17 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> including the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."



You have to say that to get money


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 March 2007)

Wayne, I'm sure you've heard that one ... the Irish scientists at a meeting 
Professor Shaun  :- "well so wott if the americans have gotten to the moon , we're gonna go to the sun!!!"
"but won't it be too hot?" sez Prof Paddy?
"ahh no , we've thought of that ... and we've worked out how to get around it ...
we've decided to go at night ya see" 

lol that avatar of yours (icarus bull) sure tells a story - same story as your previous dive bomber i guess?.


----------



## ghotib (18 March 2007)

I watched the whole thing. It's nice watching something like this at the computer: you can look things up as questions arise. 

The programme lost cred for me early on as it featured Tim Ball and Fred Singer, both of whom featured earlier in their careers as spokesmen for tobacco/cancer skeptics and to my mind are hopelessly tainted witnesses to anything. Incidentally, Singer is one of the guys who claims in the programme never to have seen a cent from oil companies. Here's a counterclaim, with references: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer. 

I was more interested in the work of John Christy, the guy who does the temperature measurements with balloons. As best I can find, his current view is that human-generated CO2 emissions are responsible for at least part of a real global temperature rise, but that the effects are not likely to be as catastrophic as some predictions. That strikes me as a reasonable and scientific position, and the guy is doing real research and looking for real data. Which makes this article interesting
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050811_global_warming.html 

I don't say that Al Gore presented a flawless case but this programme has its own problems:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

Wayne, you summarised the programme's case as being that global warming is real but caused by solar activity rather than by (human-caused) CO2. I don't quite agree with that summary; I think the programme sets several arguments running and doesn't actually make any of them. The kicker is the end, where it suggests that economic development in Africa is impossible without increased use of coal and oil. The suggestion doesn't even pretend to be scientific: it's a rhetorical gambit that to my mind discredits everything that preceded it. 

That's a pity because there probably is more information to be publicised that  would be useful in forming public policy. But this programme certainly won't stop me turning out lights when I leave a room.

Cheers,

Ghoti


----------



## wayneL (18 March 2007)

Thanks for your assessment ghotib.



> The kicker is the end, where it suggests that economic development in Africa is impossible without increased use of coal and oil. The suggestion doesn't even pretend to be scientific: it's a rhetorical gambit that to my mind discredits everything that preceded it.
> 
> That's a pity because there probably is more information to be publicised that would be useful in forming public policy. But this programme certainly won't stop me turning out lights when I leave a room.




Agree with you on this.

It's still an interesting topic with loads of rhetoric, misinformation, hidden agendas and hypocrisy on both sides... interspersed with a little bit of real science.

I've learned long ago to be mistrustful of "science" on a lot of different fronts, for a lot of the reasons outlined in the program, and indeed the reasons outlined in your post. 

Just trying to generate some discussion sans the foregone conclusions implanted by the thought police. As far as turning out the lights... yeah I'm all for that, for lots of reasons independent of CO2.

Cheers


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 March 2007)

Sorry wayne, I just can't get into this tainted spin-doctored science.  (and thanks ghotib).  Bit like the proof that USA didnt land on the moon because the flags are flying - or a million theories about USA bringing down WTC themselves - as if.

Global warming is obvious.  This isn't one of those cases where you say, ok, we have 3 scientists on the committee saying black (i.e. doomssayers), and three saying white (no need to worry folks, fossil fuel is harmless) - let's go for grey.  You end up with a camel, and a camel just won't work for this one.  The scientists predicting doomsday have been amazingly reserved imo.  The truth could well lie on the black side of black.    

At least moths are turning up at the meeting in Europe to give proof of the crazy climate changes going on. - crops being eaten by catepllars that would usually not survive the winter etc.  It's dead easy decision for me.  Global warming left to continue unchecked is the death knell.  

Whatever the cause of Global warming, we have to try to slow it down at least. This thing is like the Queen Mary - It will take a hundred years to get back to where we are now in any case. 

Anyone who trusts the word of (cigarette companies or) oil companies needs their heads read.  As for coal - I can see that the "fossil fuel lobbyists" will probably get their way in Aus - Even Peter Garrett is saying "coal is ok for the time being" - but at least he's adding the bit about the need for clean coal technology.   
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1854517.htm 


> The Denial Machine , Reporter: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Broadcast: 26/02/2007
> For years the global warming debate has swirled like a firestorm. Science has been tossed about in a tornado of spin from doomsayers and doubters, deep green activists and fossil fuel lobbyists.
> 
> How did the future of the planet become such a political battleground?  A few weeks ago the pre-eminent body of climate scientists, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reaffirmed that global warming is real, happening now and very likely caused by human activity.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 March 2007)

Wayne - finally found time to listen to it all.  Have to say I owe you a massive apology. Fantastic. 

In my defence as to my initial reaction ... it starts with what I consider to be a spindoctored twisted logic:-

"1. ice is melting , 
2. sea is rising , 
3. hurricanes are blowing and 
4. its all your fault 
5. scared? 
6. dont be,  
7. its not true."

I think we should all be "scared", but the answer "it's not true" apparently only applies to statement 4, the fact that man is probably not responsible (or at least not as resonsible as we are lead to believe).  
The inference is that nothing we do will change anything (very fatalistic - probably over simplistic in itself), and that man is insignificant and not in control as he thinks (very humbling)
"ahh but I may as well try to catch the (solar) wind" - as Dylan would say.   

Can't see how clearing the amazon jungles  (the lungs of the planet) is gonna help (?) - and they don't go anywhere near topics like that - Once that is out of the way , it is fantastic (I concede).  
Pretty compelling case for "political interference" behind the environmental debate. (starting with Maggie Thatcher etc) and for lop-sided funding of research projects, etc (pro vs anti global warming (?) or "greenhouse" (?) - they use the terms interchangably which gets confusing). 

Hard to argue with the likes of Patrick Moore, apparently cofounder of Greenpeace (till he left) who now sees sinister motives in the debate. (as do many).  

Temp is leading CO2 by 200 years .  Hence CO2 is clearly not the cause.  yep, that sure wan't brought out by Al Gore either.

I was particularly "hooked" at about 68th minute , in summary :-
"the precautionary principle has politically suspect motives ( third  world suffer)".  If we are telling the third world that they are only to use wind and solar - what we are really telling them is "you cannot have electricity!" and you cannot become industrialised !. or a steel industry , or railway networks etc.  "might power a transister radio" as they say.   ..."morally repugnant".   "somebody (the environmental lobby) is keen to kill the African dream - and the African dream is to develop" . "We are still at the level of survival"

PS I have to go away and think long and hard on this.  Do some more research lol. thanks again.
PPS I still intend to help my mate down the road with his objective of planting 100 trees lol.  
PPS as usual wit these things you have to define your terms - global warming is happening, real, measureable.  But the causes ? - that's where these scientists differ yes?  Then come the motives - ?


----------



## wayneL (18 March 2007)

2020,

I hope people don't go and rush out the door to buy that hummer, or by a whopper made with beef raised where the Amazon "used" to be, (and now can hardly support pasture)(as you and ghotib have said); I certainly won't be.

Take away the CO2/climate change arguement and there are still huge challenges. I will still be as annoyingly green as possible.

I just wonder about the agenda and am cynical when an "industry" is built up around something... and I am deeply suspicious when an American politician takes up a cause. (and races around the world in jets, motorcades and probably lives in an energy hungry mansion)


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 March 2007)

ghotib said:
			
		

> I don't say that Al Gore presented a flawless case but this programme has its own problems:
> http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece



thanks Ghotib - sheesh - even Channel 4 is not above bending the truth ( and consistently) throughout that article. 
Seems there's lies, damned lies, and then (out on their own by a country mile) lies about the environment.  manipulated every which way. 
here's the true NASA graph for comparison. 
(question arises does Channel 4 have links with Exxon? lol)
But the article of this thread is still worth a watch for sure.   


> The real global warming swindle
> A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors
> By Steve Connor
> Published: 14 March 2007





> One of the principal supports for his thesis came in the form of a graph labelled "World Temp - 120 years", which claimed to show rises and falls in average global temperatures between 1880 and 2000.
> 
> Mr Durkin's film argued that most global warming over the past century occurred between 1900 and 1940 and that there was a period of cooling between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom was under way. This showed, he said, that global warming had little to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.
> 
> ...



http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/9929/a001008_pre.jpg
the graph on the right is the real graph (NASA website) -
one has increase 1880 - 1940 of 0.5, then decrease 1940-1980 of 0.2, then increase by 0.4 since.
The true graph shows increase of 0.5 then a further INCREASE of 0.2 then increase 0f 0.3,  arriving at a point 0.3 higher overall, and blowing the argument that things cooled between 40 and 80. (I'm making assumptions that both are in degC)   
But there's no question either way that things are getting hotter.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 March 2007)

Here are some graphs etc on sun effects.
the Channel 4 program showed correlation between solar activity and temp over 500 million years.
Here's another of those LiveScience.com articles:-


> http://www.livescience.com/environment/060913_sun_warming.html
> During times of high activity, like in year 2000, the Sun shines about 0.07 percent brighter, researchers report in the September 14 issue of the journal Nature. The researchers used a combination of data on solar brightness obtained by spacecrafts since 1978 and isotope data ””collected from Earth's atmosphere and in ice sheets of Antarctic and Greenland””to recreate the Sun's influence on terrestrial temperatures over the past several centuries.
> 
> Although events such as sunspots have increased in the last 400 years, their effect only contributed a small amount to global warming, the results show. “Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness,” said study co-author Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.



The first graph is from Channel 4. (temp and solar winds) - good correlation. 
The second graph is only over a few 100 years, temp appears to be in phase with "solar cycle" (assuming Ive read it right) - and between 1880 and 1940 there is approx 0.4deg C increase in "Temp Anomaly".  
They are not meant to be directly compared and contrasted.  different time frames.  - both fairly convincing you'd think. Yet the LifeScience website  concludes differently (human influences far outweigh .. Sun's brightness" (?) - and they are the sourceof the second graph for instance.  - that's it , I'm knocking off for a beer. (rather than get into another sun-heated argument).


----------



## Kimosabi (18 March 2007)

Alot of the Global Warming stuff is absolute crap...

The REAL problem is we're running out of OIL.  Now the governemnts of the world can't readily admit that their running out of BLACK GOLD because of the subsequent social/political upheaval etc.

So in classic Government fashion they create another crisis that achieves their ends without admitting to the real problem.

What better way to get Society/Industry to come up with new renewable fuels and energy, than create an environment condusive to develop renewable fuels/energy than come up with this Global Warming crap which accelerates the development of Renewable Energy etc.

Not that this is a bad problem or strategy, but imagine the reaction if the Wall Street Journal, CNN or Bloomberg ran with the front page headline

*"WORLD HAS TWO YEARS OF OIL SUPPLIES LEFT"*


----------



## rederob (18 March 2007)

Kimosabi said:
			
		

> A lot of the Global Warming stuff is absolute crap...
> *"WORLD HAS TWO YEARS OF OIL SUPPLIES LEFT"*



Not sure which bits you are referring to, but the scientific consensus, which did not exist a few years ago, suggests global warming effects are well and truly to the fore.
Moronic mortals have a conceptual problem with evolutionary time, and therefore find it difficult to conceive that a one degree temperature change to planet earth makes a massive difference to weather - due to many subsidiary influences, particularly related to melting of the ice caps ans incumbent rising sea levels.
It is in fact this latter effect that will prove the greatest catastrophe, but if we are not willing to see the writing on the wall now, I guess worrying about it later is something the next generation will have to learn to die with.


----------



## Kimosabi (18 March 2007)

rederob said:
			
		

> Not sure which bits you are referring to, but the scientific consensus, which did not exist a few years ago, suggests global warming effects are well and truly to the fore.
> Moronic mortals have a conceptual problem with evolutionary time, and therefore find it difficult to conceive that a one degree temperature change to planet earth makes a massive difference to weather - due to many subsidiary influences, particularly related to melting of the ice caps ans incumbent rising sea levels.
> It is in fact this latter effect that will prove the greatest catastrophe, but if we are not willing to see the writing on the wall now, I guess worrying about it later is something the next generation will have to learn to die with.




Planet Earth has been getting hotter and colder all by itself without any help from humans.

If you want to cool the Earth down,  blow up a couple of huge volcano's or steer an asteroid into the Planet.  It's worked in the past and I'm sure it'll work in again the future.

Planet Earth is a pretty dynamic place, it's always been changing and I suspect it will continue to keep changing regardless of what humans do...


----------



## Judd (18 March 2007)

Kimosabi said:
			
		

> Planet Earth has been getting hotter and colder all by itself without any help from humans.
> 
> If you want to cool the Earth down,  blow up a couple of huge volcano's or steer an asteroid into the Planet.  It's worked in the past and I'm sure it'll work in again the future.
> 
> Planet Earth is a pretty dynamic place, it's always been changing and I suspect it will continue to keep changing regardless of what humans do...




Um, yes.  Try Tombora, Indonesia, 1815.  150 times more powerful than Mt St Helens.  Lots of Co2 and other greenhouse gases.  Pity that it lowered the world's average temperature by about 1 degree and caused the loss of a few summers.

Climate change is an fact - heck, with some 10% of the earth still under ice you could argue that we are in the latter stages of an ice-age.

Global warming?  Yep, I, like others, are concerned about toxic waste but to what degree it is adding to climate change I am still open to views.


----------



## rederob (18 March 2007)

Kimosabi said:
			
		

> Planet Earth has been getting hotter and colder all by itself without any help from humans.
> 
> If you want to cool the Earth down,  blow up a couple of huge volcano's or steer an asteroid into the Planet.  It's worked in the past and I'm sure it'll work in again the future.
> 
> Planet Earth is a pretty dynamic place, it's always been changing and I suspect it will continue to keep changing regardless of what humans do...



Yes
And these changes have been imperceptible at a "human generational" level.
That is no longer the case.
The clearing of the world's forests since the beginning of the industrial revolution have ratcheted the pace of global climate change to a new level.
It is a fallacy to suggest "human" impacts cannot influence climate change, and the decision to rid the world of chlorofluorocarbons (Montreal Protocol) is possibly the best recent demonstration of the good and bad we can do.
Volcanic and astronomic events are largely outside of our control, although the US is investing millions into researching near-Earth impact objects (NASA's Spaceguard Survey program).
If you want to remain ignorant to scientific evidence, because there is a smidgeon of doubt cast by loony disbelievers funded by Bush (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKJ2fu_Gluo) and the dirty energy protagonists, then by all means believe what you will.


----------



## wayneL (18 March 2007)

If the CO2 side is right, Oz seems to be in a spot of bother

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/02/throw_another_aussie_on_the_ba_1.html


----------



## billhill (18 March 2007)

The difference between climate change now and in the past is that this time its happening more rapidly then ever. I think the evidence supports a warming earth at least in part due to human activities. Point is what happens if we ignore a possible threat and it eventually manifests. Personally i would rather be safe then sorry.


----------



## Kimosabi (18 March 2007)

And in the 60's - 70's they were worried about global cooling, crop failing etc...


----------



## chops_a_must (18 March 2007)

rederob said:
			
		

> Yes
> And these changes have been imperceptible at a "human generational" level.
> That is no longer the case.
> The clearing of the world's forests since the beginning of the industrial revolution have ratcheted the pace of global climate change to a new level.
> It is a fallacy to suggest "human" impacts cannot influence climate change, and the decision to rid the world of chlorofluorocarbons (Montreal Protocol) is possibly the best recent demonstration of the good and bad we can do.



For the uneducated, there a few really important matters that need discussion. And a part of the argument in this area relates to fundamental problems in scientific method. Mainly, that of inductivist proclamations. Here, we have the main line of argument:







In that CO2 emissions have risen consistently with the global temperatures. 

But here is a similar case:






Undoubtedly therefore, the attempt to reduce bullying has interfered with the natural selection process, and resulted in spiraling obesity in children. But this an absurd conclusion, when we take into account other issues. But it is the type of argument the global warming brigade has used.

And another spanner in the works:






Contrary to popular opinion, vegetation levels are actually increasing. It is one of the facts that has survived scrutiny from BjÃ¸rn Lomborg's work. Even my environmental studies lecturers don't dispute this (no matter how much it pains them to say so). What is in dispute, is how much O2 rubber and oil trees in SE Asia contribute to the atmosphere.

But to me this leads to an obvious conclusion. In that rising CO2 levels CANNOT be the ONLY contributing factor to global warming. Although, it obviously plays a part.

Cheers,

Chops.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 March 2007)

chops, wayne , all you sandgropers out there 
great show on SBS tonight 8.30 - all about solar energy - fantassstic!!!

PS in 5 billionyears the sun will reach out and burn up the earth !!!

so much for generation ZZ    (bags not being reincarnated then ).

PS Galileo knew that the sunspot activity worked around an 11 year cycle!!
I just learned that today lol.
(PPS even so, I suspect that the pope is still in denial lol)


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 March 2007)

chops."here we have zis jumping flea.   "ZHUMP" notice how he zhumps....  unt now I cut off his legs ... SHOP..now, "ZHUMP"... he no longer zhumps....
hence shentlemen, this proves zat when you  cut off the legs , a flea is completely deaf"


----------



## wayneL (18 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> chops, wayne , all you sandgropers out there
> great show on SBS tonight 8.30 - all about solar energy - fantassstic!!!
> 
> PS in 5 billionyears the sun will reach out and burn up the earth !!!
> ...




This reminds me of another group of dissenting scientists; those that follow the theory of the electric universe.

A link on GW from them http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8gfbewe7


----------



## rederob (18 March 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Contrary to popular opinion, vegetation levels are actually increasing. It is one of the facts that has survived scrutiny from BjÃ¸rn Lomborg's work. Even my environmental studies lecturers don't dispute this (no matter how much it pains them to say so). What is in dispute, is how much O2 rubber and oil trees in SE Asia contribute to the atmosphere.
> 
> But to me this leads to an obvious conclusion. In that rising CO2 levels CANNOT be the ONLY contributing factor to global warming. Although, it obviously plays a part.
> 
> ...



Chops
It's a complex organism, is the Earth.
For example, the ice caps reflect an incredible amount of heat, and as they recede, the potential of the greater surface area of the oceans to "absorb" energy effectively doubles the heating mechanism from this event alone.
Additionally, although we cannot see the natural atmospheric barrier thinning, it is, thereby increasing the sun's radiation effects on the Earth's surface.
In relation to there being more "vegetation", compare that to there being less "forests": The carbon absorption potential of a forest is significantly greater than a vegetative crop, for example, after clearing.
The metaphoric black American in the woodpile is the extent that increased cloud cover through higher CO2 emissions prevents oceans from warming as greatly as they otherwise would.  To date there are measurable instances (such as last summer over the Great Barrier Reef), but not on the global scale needed to make a meaningful impact.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 March 2007)

This topic has become so political that there's basically nobody left who isn't biased in some way either intentionally of by virtue of some personal vested interest.

Those doing government funded research can hardly come out and say that global warming doesn't exist. If enough people belived them then there goes research funding into climate change. Politicians aren't going to pump millions of $ into funding resarch into something that even the scientists are saying doesn't exist, especially when the notion that it does exist runs counter to so many other objectives.

On the other hand, those funded by the fossil fuel industry or major energy consumers have a strong incentive to downplay the seriousness of climate change or deny that it exists at all.

In reality, the truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle. It probably is a problem but not to the extent that the most dire predictions suggest.

Play it safe? The problem there is that, whilst scientifically sensible, it comes at the cost of not pursuing development in the poorer countries to the same extent that it would otherwise occur. Renewable energy generally costs more than fossil fuels, especially coal (though there are exceptions - mostly using waste biomass, remote solar etc applications, large scale hydro and in a few locations geothermal). If energy is more expensive then that in itself tends to reduce overall economic development and this comes at a massive social and human cost in the poorer countries where basics like clean food and water are still lacking (noting that fixing this will in practice require an increase in energy use).

As for me, I've done my own experiments in the lab (though they are by no means proof - they were fairly simplistic) and studied the theory. I believe that climate change is real and is happening now. But I don't think we can blame it for every drought, flood or cyclone when we have non-climate change valid explanations for such recent events (El Niño in the case of the past Summer's lack of rain in Australia). Climate change may have had an influence but it isn't likely to be the sole or even dominant cause and it's misleading at best for anyone to claim that it is.

One of the real issues with climate change that I have is that most research into it seems to ignore the effects of both global dimming and heat islands. There's just no point in measuring temperature anywhere near cities when we know they are artificially heated above background levels even without climate change. Many seem to conveniently ignore this. Likewise global dimming must surely have an impact even though there is a lack of certainty as to the extent. Ignorance or uncertainty is no excuse for sloppy reasearch producting dire conclusions, especially not when so much is potentially depending on that research.

The oil situation also attracts bias by its very nature although there are fewer strong incentives than with climate change and a narrower range of opinions.

Oil companies ultimately lose if the oil does dry up. Their incentive is to maintain high consumption as long as possible so all the oil is used. They thus have an incentive to deny that oil supplies will peak until it actually happens. After that, their incentive reverses to promoting peak oil as reality in order to justify rising prices and keep government hands off their profits, arguing that the money is needed to invest in expensive alternatives to conventional oil.

Oil consumers have much the same incentive prior to the peak. Deny that supplies will peak for as long as possible lest a panic start and the exporting countries increase the price. But once it actually happens, companies have an incentive to adapt as fast as possible to ensure long term profitability while governments have an incentive to deny that supplies have peaked lest that scare exporters into reducing production voluntarily and worsening the immediate crisis.

Of course, businesses promoting alternatives to oil do have an incentive to create panic although they are mostly pushing climate change (rather than fossil fuel shortages) at the moment since it achieves the same end result and is politically a more successful argument at present. That said, the Hydro in Tas did run the fossil fuel depletion argument periodically from the late 1950's to the early 1980's and even the Victorian brown coal industry (arguing that coal was far more plentiful than oil or gas) used it in the 70's so it's nothing new. 

Technically valid arguments they certainly were, but those pushing them had an obvious bias toward alternatives and an incentive to overstate the urgency of the problem which in practice is just what they did. Ultimately right with the outcome (a finite resource must run out eventually if there is ongoing consumption) but far too early with the timing. 

For those who have followed the oil situation for a while, and I first heard of peak oil in 1988, it is all falling disturbingly into place. Big oil starting to acknowledge the finite nature of oil rather than saying there's plenty. Surplus capacity close to zero. Discovery continues to trend down and consumption continues to trend up. Major importers moving to lock up supplies and exporters doing likewise. War in the Middle East. All the things we've been expecting for years and all happening now.   

It is undeniable that the oil supply situation is a LOT tighter than it was 20 or even 5 years ago. And the gap between the optimists and pessimists is, with a couple of notable exceptions, frighteningly close. When oil companies start saying their primary resource will be delining in a decade and the pessimists say it already is then it seems we're damn close to hitting peak production. The point has arrived where outright denial no longer makes sense, hence the shifting in public position from some of the major oil companies in recent times.

IMO the most likely scenario is that we get seriously whacked over the head by oil within a decade and probably quite a bit sooner. Then we go down the "The Future Is Electric" track as far as we can plus a serious attempt at coal liquefaction and conversion of road vehicles to natural gas. 

And the electricity will come from where? Back to nuclear, coal and some more big dams I expect with a modest contribution from alternatives, primarily wind and geothermal (on a global basis).  In the Australian context we'll likely rely more on coal and geothermal and less on nuclear and new  hydro than the rest of the world, but I do think we'll end up with some nuclear and a modest amount of new hydro.


----------



## rederob (18 March 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> This reminds me of another group of dissenting scientists; those that follow the theory of the electric universe.
> 
> A link on GW from them http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8gfbewe7



Wayne
Excellent link.
Tesla is/was one of my "heros" and knew more about electricity than probably anyone to this day.  Some of his demonstrated experiments remain a mystery to this day, while his patents led Marconi to commercialise "radio".


----------



## wayneL (18 March 2007)

Interesting program on SBS right now re sun spots and global temps. (WA)

No sun spots age in 18th century correlated to a "mini" ice age.

FWIW

<edit> 2020 posted about it earleir Doh!


----------



## chops_a_must (19 March 2007)

rederob said:
			
		

> Chops
> It's a complex organism, is the Earth.
> For example, the ice caps reflect an incredible amount of heat, and as they recede, the potential of the greater surface area of the oceans to "absorb" energy effectively doubles the heating mechanism from this event alone.



Yes. But is this the result of greenhouse emissions or the result of the ozone layer being thinned over the poles?


			
				rederob said:
			
		

> Additionally, although we cannot see the natural atmospheric barrier thinning, it is, thereby increasing the sun's radiation effects on the Earth's surface.



Once again, this is a case of the chicken or the egg. Is the thinning of the atmosphere related to greenhouse gases, or other causes, thereby adding to warming?


			
				rederob said:
			
		

> In relation to there being more "vegetation", compare that to there being less "forests": The carbon absorption potential of a forest is significantly greater than a vegetative crop, for example, after clearing.



Yes, this is after clearing. But, if the number one premise of the greenhouse gas brigade is correct, we should be able to see a result.


			
				rederob said:
			
		

> The metaphoric black American in the woodpile is the extent that increased cloud cover through higher CO2 emissions prevents oceans from warming as greatly as they otherwise would.  To date there are measurable instances (such as last summer over the Great Barrier Reef), but not on the global scale needed to make a meaningful impact.



Really? So cloudy nights are much colder than clear sky nights in Winter? WARM oceans create clouds, which feed on themselves such as in cyclones and hurricanes.



> As for warming caused by mankind's production of so-called "greenhouse gases," Professor Nils-Axel MÃ¶rner wrote in a submission to the UK parliament on global warming, "The driving idea is that there is a linear relationship between CO2 increase in the atmosphere and global temperature. The fact, however, is that temperature has constantly gone up and down. From 1850 to 1970, we see an almost linear relationship with Solar variability; not CO2. For the last 30 years, our data sets are so contaminated by personal interpretations and personal choices that it is almost impossible to sort up the mess in reliable and unreliable data."



http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8gfbewe7

See my post above.

Cheers.


----------



## Kimosabi (19 March 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Interesting program on SBS right now re sun spots and global temps. (WA)
> 
> No sun spots age in 18th century correlated to a "mini" ice age.
> 
> ...




I'm filling out the "Stop Sun Spots" grant application at the moment and will send it into the Government Tomorrow morning...


----------



## rederob (19 March 2007)

> Originally Posted by chops_a_must
> Really? So cloudy nights are much colder than clear sky nights in Winter? WARM oceans create clouds, which feed on themselves such as in cyclones and hurricanes.



Chops
Interpreting a broad statement in a specific and silly context is not good analysis.
Cloud cover at night has many opposite effects to cloud cover at day, and these differ over land and sea.
Warm oceans, of themselves, do not, as you say, "create clouds".  There are many mechanisms that come together to cause clouds to form.  were that not the case we would have a bit of trouble with rainfall in Central Asia, and snows in the cold arctic regions.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, but if you don't want to do the research, take care not to obviously misinterpret events you don't understand well.


----------



## Prospector (19 March 2007)

Kimosabi said:
			
		

> Planet Earth has been getting hotter and colder all by itself without any help from humans.
> 
> If you want to cool the Earth down,  blow up a couple of huge volcano's or steer an asteroid into the Planet.  It's worked in the past and I'm sure it'll work in again the future.
> 
> Planet Earth is a pretty dynamic place, it's always been changing and I suspect it will continue to keep changing regardless of what humans do...





Exactly my thoughts too!  If all of time is considered to be 1 hour, humans have been on this earth for the last few seconds.  So where were we before the dinosaurs?  The earth was in a naturally occurring warming cycle for thousands of years until the meteors hit to cool it all down.  We are so arrogant that we even think we are responsible for global warming?  Mother nature will have the last laugh.....

Oh, and you must read 'The Australian' from the last weekend.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> PS in 5 billionyears the sun will reach out and burn up the earth - so much for generation ZZ  (bags not being reincarnated then )



"so much for the news, and now for tomorrow's forecast
chance of scattered showers in the morning, possibly overcast till lunch, then in the afternoon the sun will fry everything in sight.  Now for Shirley Bassey with that old favourite from a few centuries back  "fry me to the moon and let me play among the stars".


----------



## Happy (19 March 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Interesting program on SBS right now re sun spots and global temps. (WA)
> 
> No sun spots age in 18th century correlated to a "mini" ice age.
> 
> ...





And we have roughly 5 billion years to find another habitable Solar system, as our Sun if will not swallow up the Earth while expanding will definitely kill all life, of course if it lasts that long.


----------



## Rafa (19 March 2007)

Prospector said:
			
		

> Exactly my thoughts too!  If all of time is considered to be 1 hour, humans have been on this earth for the last few seconds.  So where were we before the dinosaurs?  The earth was in a naturally occurring warming cycle for thousands of years until the meteors hit to cool it all down.  We are so arrogant that we even think we are responsible for global warming?  Mother nature will have the last laugh.....





well said Prospector... as always...
This global warming movement is simply a new age religious institution, filling a spritual void in peoples lives...

Someone is getting very rich from all this. (EDIT... At the moment its the Nuclear lobby...     )

I have no doubt that pollution is a problem, some doubt that CO2 is the problems, especially when you consider methane (the stuff emitted by humans and animals and forests) of which there are now record numbers, is a lot lot worse than CO2.

But, if this religious movement helps put the brakes on our unprecedented love affair with continuos growth, etc, etc... it may be a good thing in the long run...


----------



## billhill (19 March 2007)

Just thought i would provide a little background concerning this controversial program.
First its director Martin Durkin's background can be found on the link below. Seems he has a bit of a thing against environmentalist being involved with several anti-environment organisations not to metion that he made a doco in 1998 arguing that silicon breast implants were infact good for women and posed no risk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)

And as for the main scientist Ian Clark he works for the fraser institute which is a beneficiary of none other then exxon mobil.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1280
http://www.desmogblog.com/fraser-institute-readies-attack-on-ipcc

Look at the evidence and make up your own mind.


----------



## wayneL (19 March 2007)

billhill said:
			
		

> Just thought i would provide a little background concerning this controversial program.
> First its director Martin Durkin's background can be found on the link below. Seems he has a bit of a thing against environmentalist being involved with several anti-environment organisations not to metion that he made a doco in 1998 arguing that silicon breast implants were infact good for women and posed no risk.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)
> 
> ...



Yes.

This is why I said above:



			
				wayneL said:
			
		

> It's still an interesting topic with loads of rhetoric, misinformation, hidden agendas and hypocrisy on *both sides.*.. interspersed with a little bit of real science.



The same type of criticisms can be leveled at both sides.

When politicians, organizations, career researchers, money interests become involved, the obfuscations can become impenetrable. 

We should not however discard any evidence because it was financed by a particular VI. This IS when it gets tricky though; research from now on, cannot be taken at face value. We must dissect the methodology to look for signs of bias.

As one who navigated through the multiple commercial interests of the field of equine exercise physiology and read hundreds of studies on the topic, I can tell you that 98% of research, and the conclusions thereof, is complete bunkum. 

Keep an open mind folks.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 March 2007)

Rafa said:
			
		

> well said Prospector... as always...
> This global warming movement is simply a new age religious institution, filling a spritual void in peoples lives...
> 
> Someone is getting very rich from all this. (EDIT... At the moment its the Nuclear lobby...     )
> ...



Nuclear - there were quite a few referring to the Kyoto Protocol as the "Nuclear Protocol" for good reason. The nuclear industry is reported to have backed it with lobbying and $ and the timeframes precluded mass adoption of renewables as an alternative.

As for methane, natural gas (as in the stuff you cook with) is almost entirely methane. Indeed that's why it's called "natural" gas even though it isn't really any more natural than the petrol to which it is closely related and is processed in similar fashion. Unburnt natural gas is a potent greenhouse gas so any evaluation of gas as an energy source needs to take this into account. 

It's not as "green" as many would have us believe, especially not when transported as LNG which is energy hungry to produce and results in considerable methane leakage.

That said, coal mines also contain a fair bit of methane so that's a problem too. Of course it is possible to extract that methane before (or without ever) mining the coal but in practice it usually ends up in the atmosphere unburnt.

Landfills are another big methane source. In some locations it is extracted and burnt for electricity generation - a double benefit of avoiding methane release and saving some other fuel at the same time. But in many cases it does end up in the atmosphere.

Sewage is another soruce but with proper design it is possible to capture some of this at the sewage works and use it for power. In many cases that isn't done however.

(Note that both landfill gas and sewage gas are relatively minor power sources - a supplement rather than a replacement for coal, nuclear etc).


----------



## insider (20 March 2007)

It's a fair point... good video... But I personally want to fight global warming because of air quality... So i can breath better...


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> When politicians, organizations, career researchers, money interests become involved, the obfuscations can become impenetrable. ... I can tell you that 98% of research, and the conclusions thereof, is complete bunkum.



wayne, I know what bunkum means , but had to go to google to find obfuscation . 


> Obfuscation refers to the concept of concealing the meaning of communication by making it more confusing and harder to interpret.  Obfuscation may be used for other purposes. Doctors have been accused of using jargon to conceal unpleasant facts from a patient.



Given that we are talking about the health of our planet, why sure the "doctors" will use tricks and half-truths to hide the truth from us  . 

PS I did a quick computational prognostication on the back of a postage stamp, and found that 30% of global warming is due to human activity, and 60% is due to sunspots - except on sunny days when 80% is due to sun spots. And 35% is due to human activity.  And furthermore 74.75% of all statistics is made up on the spot.   

PPS things are changing so fast that the principle of extrapolating the past into the future is surely very inaccurate.  100 years ago the Wright Bros were the main contributors to airplane pollution problems - these days thousands of planes take off every hour, and each is capable of using the entire oxygen put out by Sherwood forest in a day (hour ?) - some damned forest in UK  - Sherwood being the only forest name I can remember in UK lol, and Smurf can identify with that great Tasmanian, Robin (Errol Flynn) Hood   . - sorry for the unintended obfuscation.

And as Smurf has said many times - just wait till China takes the graph up to new highs never before dreamed of.


----------



## BuyandHold (20 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> lol -k m8,  I'll try again "later"  - maybe I'll get to the second or third minute before I "change the channel".
> when they claimed the ice wasn't melting, I thought to myself - so go find a hungry polar bear and tell THAT to his face  :
> 
> PS polar bears are eating each other - even more frequently than normal
> ...




Polar bears are doing just fine mate.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2969/


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2007)

BuyandHold said:
			
		

> Polar bears are doing just fine mate.



B&H, Guess I was thinking of a recent photo I saw of the bloodstains in the snow of a female bear recently eaten by a (much larger) male. Must be tough decision around mating time.


----------



## wayneL (20 March 2007)

BuyandHold said:
			
		

> Polar bears are doing just fine mate.
> http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2969/



Hah! Good site that one. Lots for me to violently disagree with, but Non-PC and they speak their truth to the world. Good stuff.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2007)

Here are three graphs , 
a) temp vs time, (remembering that they can explain the dip after 1940 due to sulphates - conveniently omitted from Ch 4's video), 
b) sunspot activity, and
c) manmade energy consumption with little regard to atmosphere   
(PS where I said before that the temp last winter was max since 1880 in the world - it was only the northern hemisphere !! (where they are currently meeting to discuss this).  Phew - and for a while there I thought we in the Southern Hemisphere had to be concerned 



> Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said.
> 
> If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.
> "The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.
> ...


----------



## 56gsa (20 March 2007)

billhill said:
			
		

> Just thought i would provide a little background concerning this controversial program.
> First its director Martin Durkin's background can be found on the link below. Seems he has a bit of a thing against environmentalist being involved with several anti-environment organisations not to metion that he made a doco in 1998 arguing that silicon breast implants were infact good for women and posed no risk.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)
> 
> ...




what was interesting about this program was the acknowledgement that science ('truth') is biased by people's priorities (eg in this case governments and funds available).  thus while the dissenters may have industry connections i don't see this as problem as long as the science stacks up.  advocates have similarly dubious links to funding sources (eg govt). 

i'm no scientist so i would be interested to know how the al gores, tim flannery's and other advocates for the CO2_climate change link have responded to this - anyone found any scientific response to the ideas in this doco?

thanks


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2007)

56gsa said:
			
		

> i'm no scientist so i would be interested to know how the al gores, tim flannery's and other advocates for the CO2_climate change link have responded to this - anyone found any scientific response to the ideas in this doco?thanks



gsa, there's a top post by ghoti back there 
including counterclaims posted 14march07. - all happening as we speak.  
I was quoting from this site in my previous post
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece


			
				ghotib said:
			
		

> ..The programme lost cred for me early on as it featured Tim Ball and Fred Singer, both of whom featured earlier in their careers as spokesmen for tobacco/cancer skeptics and to my mind are hopelessly tainted witnesses to anything. Incidentally, Singer is one of the guys who claims in the programme never to have seen a cent from oil companies. Here's a counterclaim, with references: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer.
> 
> I was more interested in the work of John Christy, the guy who does the temperature measurements with balloons. As best I can find, his current view is that human-generated CO2 emissions are responsible for at least part of a real global temperature rise, but that the effects are not likely to be as catastrophic as some predictions. That strikes me as a reasonable and scientific position, and the guy is doing real research and looking for real data. Which makes this article interesting
> http://www.livescience.com/environment/050811_global_warming.html
> ...


----------



## billhill (20 March 2007)

56gsa said:
			
		

> thus while the dissenters may have industry connections i don't see this as problem as long as the science stacks up. advocates have similarly dubious links to funding sources (eg govt).




Firstly exxon mobil has been running a counter global warming campaign for many years. They are hardly going to fund an institute or scientist whos research hurts their business. It is  a clear conflict of interest and although the sceintist may be carrying out legitimate work how can we be sure that their certain results are not tied to funding, its happened before. This ian clark carries less credibility the he would without the exxon links. Secondly our governments (australia, USA) are quite anti global warming themselves so i can't see how their funding of global warming scientists is a dubious link. In fact both governments have attemped to censor top climate scientist so as to play done the global warming risk. If someone can find links between global warming advocates and say the wind power industry then that would be a dubious link but i've not seen or heard this yet although thats not to say its not happening. 

How about we all look at the scientific evidence as a whole. We should be making a judgement by weight of evidence. So a couple of scientist think global warming is due to sunspots. How many think its due to humankind, a hell of a lot more.


----------



## Dukey (20 March 2007)

56gsa said:
			
		

> what was interesting about this program was the acknowledgement that science ('truth') is biased by people's priorities (eg in this case governments and funds available).  thus while the dissenters may have industry connections i don't see this as problem as long as the science stacks up.  advocates have similarly dubious links to funding sources (eg govt).
> 
> i'm no scientist so i would be interested to know how the al gores, tim flannery's and other advocates for the CO2_climate change link have responded to this - anyone found any scientific response to the ideas in this doco?
> 
> thanks




Warning long, convoluted post follows!!!!!!

I saw Al Gores movie last week  & I thought I should watch the 'Opposing view' movie carefully - just to make sure I had a handle on both sides of the argument. 
I can say that I have a great respect for Al and his views - but the 'swindle' movie brought up some good points - and the one about 'scientific bias' driven by the continual (usually yearly) need for scientists to submit funding applications / proposals is a biggie.  I have worked (in the past) for both CSIRO and Qld State scientific bodies - and this problem is VERY real.  In my arena - soil & land management/conservation - the buzz words a few years back were ' SUSTAINABILITY'; 'Land Degradation' and the like. It was understood by all that any funding proposal would be greatly enhanced by the liberal insertion of these buzz words throughout the proposal and particularly in the title. Thats how fickle the many funding bodies were/are.
Now this isn't to denigrate the scientists involved but the facts were - and probably still are - that if you want to do a comprehensive study of 'X' - then you will need many more then 1 years funding - and you'd better be prepared to make your yearly funding applications relevent to the political climate - or you will find yourself and your project canned in no time - so what would you do??? ... You tell the funding bodies what they want to hear, get your funding, and continue your important work.

Another aspect about 'Modelling' is also very true - by changing a few perameters or constants, modellers can make their models say almost anything. Within scientific circles - this statement (more or less) is often spat out of the sides of the mouths of 'grass roots' scientists, when asked to consider the new & wonderful model of 'AAA Natural System ' which miraculously deals with hundreds of parameters.   
Now I'm sure the vast majority (of modellers) are trying to get to 'the scientific truth of whatever they are studying' - BUT there is no doubt in my mind that many are unconsciously biased towards creating the result that they believe in or have a vested interest in.  ie. If the model says something that you don't like or is unexpected - then you tend to go back and check data and find a 'reason' - then maybe you 'fix' the model to account fo this 'discrepancy'. But as soon as the model says exactly what you wanted or expected - then the checking is moderated to make sure there are no glaring omissions. etc. The model is wheeled out as largely 'complete'. 
All this doesn't mean models have no value - we just need to be very careful about how we use them - especially for very complex systems like global weather. Models that can be checked against 'reality' have greatly increases validity - but this is difficult for something as huge and complex as 'global weather'.

I would really like to look at the hard data about sunspots and which comes first - the CO2 rise or the Temp rise. That, I think is the crux of the matter.
... But maybe I won't use 2020's data set below!!!. (which looks suspiciously like three charts of the same data! . nice try 20's!!)

Either way - even if CO2 isn't the problem we think it is - there are myriad other reasons why we 'human animals' should try to minimize our impact on the planets surface; minimize energy consumption and pollution and try to find ways to 'work with nature' rather then 'work against it'. 

Anyway... my !!!!!

Certainly won't hurt to change a few light bulbs and fix other energy 'bad habits'...


----------



## insider (20 March 2007)

The most important point was that green peace are full of crap and a pack of anti capitalist and anti corporate pigs and even the Founder of green peace who ditched them because of it said so.... lol


----------



## Dukey (20 March 2007)

Greenpeace... yeah - we need them I think in some ways -eg... to 'keep the bastards honest' - but they attract too many militant crazies for my liking.

Gotta love this - a quote from the director of the 'swindle' movie - referring to the historical temp. chart they used in the film. Taken from http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
     website posted earlier.

"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said."

Just goes to prove how people (both sides probably) choose the 'hard data' that suits their agenda - scientist or not (definitely NOT in Durkins case).

What or Who are us regular plebs supposed to believe??????????????????

-E


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2007)

Dukey said:
			
		

> I would really like to look at the hard data about sunspots and which comes first - the CO2 rise or the Temp rise. That, I think is the crux of the matter.
> ... But maybe I won't use 2020's data set below!!!. (which looks suspiciously like three charts of the same data! . nice try 20's!!)...



Hek - you caught me lol.
That is the true chart of temp versus time mate ( which I found from NASA website - as per that lead on Ghoti's post) - see one of my previous posts)
It is the one that the Channel 4 program "corrupts" and "manipulates" to say that there was cooling between 1940 and 1975/80  

PS I think that those who have said that sunspot activity is partly to blame and human activity likewise are on the right track. 
The trick then is to quantify the relative contributions now, and into the future.
and even contemplate the possibility / probability that effects of human activity in this regard are growing exponentially, and maybe even about to reach some horribly disastrous "critical tipping point?" ( my words )  Some point of no return.  
correction - some point of "seriously delayed" return    (like 100 - 200 years whatever)

Did anyone else see "Planet of the Apes"? lol - that sort of thing.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2007)

http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/9929/a001008_pre.jpg
dukey, see my post #16 , this is the same Nasa graph that you mention is "wiggley lined" 
If you correct it for the cooling effect of sulphates in the atmosphere (reflecting heat) it is arguably pretty much a straight line through the 20th century.  - that 's the most optimistic view. 
Otherwise it could be seen I guess as steeply increasing in recent years. "when the true magnitude of the problem was revealed" as that article said.


----------



## 56gsa (20 March 2007)

thanks 2020


			
				Dukey said:
			
		

> Either way - even if CO2 isn't the problem we think it is - there are myriad other reasons why we 'human animals' should try to minimize our impact on the planets surface; minimize energy consumption and pollution and try to find ways to 'work with nature' rather then 'work against it'.



Agree with you here Dukey - I remember in the late 1990s a group of people in Sth Aust living next door to Pasminco zinc smelter took the company to court under the trade practices act for supplying them with defective goods (eg pollution) - they lost but i thought it was a clever approach.  Also a lot of systems that are developed to reduce pollution actually improve the efficiency of the plant overall (I'm thinking here of Portland's aluminium smelter).  If you think of pollution as a defective good that is the result of inefficiency then reducing these by-products (or re-using them / clustering synergistic industries etc) actually improves the bottom-line in the long run, as well as adhering to a precautionary approach regarding great unknowns such as climate change.

I might have missed it in this doco - but I was waiting for them to show current sun spot activity that explains the present increase in temps - did they do this - did the weather predictor guru provide any predictions.

There were also a number of 'non-scientific' arguments in the doco.  Eg showing the decrease in temps post WWII when CO2 was rising and saying this proves theres no link - all it proves is there is no immediate causal effect.  Also the claim CO2 is minute in the atmosphere (so were CFCs!!). And the comment that earth has always had change temps - yes but as i understand it CO2 has never been higher than it is now as far as we know.

Billhill - science isn't democracy - doesn't matter if only one person  thinks sunspots is the reason, they can still be right although its a tough road to hoe (Galileo, Darwin etc etc)


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2007)

sorry to labour this one, but I think that the Nasa graph would qualify EEK for inclusion in the "Breakout Alert" thread!!  (Earth's Environmental Kalamity, - from whatever cause.)   

-and makes Channel 4's article's intro a real "con" imo.
 "Scared? Don't Be?"  !!   Perhaps Mr Durkins wouldn't object if we expressed "extreme concern!" lol.  
It's an old pun, but "better to light a candle than curse the darkness" - as long as the candle doesnt give off CO2 .

PS One thing I will accept (after watching that show) is the third world's right to use dirty coal for as long as it takes for them to crawl out of their survival mode.  Might encourage the developed world to help them a bit more.  And the likes of AUS and USA - (neither of whom were prepared to sign Kyoto P)  MUST try to crank back. 

I remember once hearing an American mother interviewed on TV complaining that "noone was going to dictate to her that she couldn't run her climatically controlled house through winter - and who cares what effect it had on the atmosphere / third world / future generations".  It was her right!! - she paid her taxes !! etc etc .  I just find it all a bit selfish.

Question then arises, what about China? (call em the second world I guess). Then we hit that scary prospect of the graph going off the scale.


----------



## billhill (20 March 2007)

56gsa said:
			
		

> Billhill - science isn't democracy - doesn't matter if only one person thinks sunspots is the reason, they can still be right although its a tough road to hoe (Galileo, Darwin etc etc)




True it is not a democracy but it does work on a weight of evidence. the weight is currently with the global warming advocates. Sunspots may also be involved but for this doco to discount human causes is irresponsible IMO.


----------



## wayneL (20 March 2007)

billhill said:
			
		

> True it is not a democracy but it does work on a *weight of evidence*. the weight is currently with the global warming advocates. Sunspots may also be involved but for this doco to discount human causes is irresponsible IMO.



Not when that evidence is suspect as Galileo et al discovered.

But!..... I agree the doco was irresponsible because it implicitly encouraged more fossil fuel based development. Even the CO2 doubters couldn't argue that this is causing problems independent of climate change.

It IS imperative that we reduce our dependence on non-renewable and pollution causing petrochemicals. The big problem is that most of the answers are not palatable to a gluttonous and self indulgent populace, or have huge issues of their own such as the nuclear option.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> PS One thing I will accept (after watching that show) is the third world's right to use dirty coal for as long as it takes for them to crawl out of their survival mode.  Might encourage the developed world to help them a bit more.  And the likes of AUS and USA - (neither of whom were prepared to sign Kyoto P)  MUST try to crank back.



Agreed there with the condition that the developed countries don't cut back by means of simply transferring emissions to the developing countries.

If you look at, say, aluminium smelting then that is basically exporting electricity. It's the only reason Australia's first aluminium smelter was built in Tasmania - cheap hydro power. Likewise it's the only reason smelters were built in Victoria (brown coal) and New Zealand (hydro). 

In the absense of a physical means of exporting directly, aluminium smelting was the way to do it. Likewise the TEMCO ferro alloy plant in Tas was built for exactly the same reason. And it's why Zinifex expanded to the point of sourcing 70% of it's ore from outside the state. 

Even NSW and Queensland are in the same game now. Export coal directly and export more in the form of processed materials. Hence the smelters in NSW and Queensland and also various other energy intensive manufacturing.

And if you make the power more expensive when someone else can do it cheaper? Well, South Australia is the home of expensive (gas-fired) electricity and it's notable as NOT having an aluminium smelter. Likewise WA which mines bauxite (aluminium ore) but doesn't have a smelter - power is relatively expensive in WA. For the same reason Japan closed its smelters after the 1970's oil crisis.

So my real concern is that we end up doing nothing more than shifting energy intensive industry from one place to another. We stop doing it in Australia but let the Chinese do it instead. Quite likely that would end up using the exact same coal. We export the raw materials, someone else processes them. With all the extra shipping required that would actually increase emissions rather than reduce them.

So if the developed countries are going to cut back then for it to work there needs to be some means of assigning emissions from exported or imported product. That way, the consumer of the aluminium or whatever is assigned responsibility for the emissions from producing it rather than the country that actually has the smelters. That removes the incentive to simply shift to another country.

But would they really move? I'll put it this way. If Queensland, NSW, Victorian or Tasmanian electricity prices increased to the price that wind power costs then the smelters would become cash flow negative or damn close to it even without including wages or other non-energy operating costs (apart from the ore etc). They would be gone in a flash and with it an outright fortune in exports. All for no net greenhouse benefit if they simply relocate to China etc and use coal-fired power. 

As for emissions in total, I'll put it this way...

The suggested 25 nuclear reactors would have run the entire country around the year 2000. But they would be enough for just one third of forecast consumption by the time they are actually built. Cosntant growth and we'll be using more coal then than we do today even with the nuclear plants.

Meanwhile, it seems likely that we'll get the herritage listed Lake Margaret scheme in Tas up and running as a fully working museum again in 3 years or so. Herritage listed because it was the largest hydro plant in the Southern Hemisphere when built, it doesn't come anywhere near large enough to officially qualify as a legitimate power station these days (though the power produced will end up in the grid). A point that really says it all when it comes to constant growth.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 March 2007)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> If you look at, say, aluminium smelting then that is basically exporting electricity.



 that's a shocking thing to say Smurf . - but a good way to express it.


----------



## numbercruncher (22 March 2007)

FLooding in Portugal, they say probably because of Global Warming ! Wait till this happens in Low lying places of say India where Millions live   



> Waves up to four metres high have burst through dykes and flooded part of a popular beach resort close to Lisbon, highlighting the growing threat of erosion to Portugal's coastline.





http://optuszoo.news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=256073&_cobr=optus


----------



## Happy (22 March 2007)

> From ABC , March 20, 2007
> 
> 
> SUN, SALT WATER COULD MAKE FUEL, SCIENTISTS SAY
> ...






Amazing, how government is dragging feet to support development of alternative fuel to replace dreaded CO2 producing foes.

Government has excise cut and this is free money, which probably explains the reluctance to act.


----------



## rederob (22 March 2007)

Happy said:
			
		

> Amazing, how government is dragging feet to support development of alternative fuel to replace dreaded CO2 producing foes.
> 
> Government has excise cut and this is free money, which probably explains the reluctance to act.



Happy
If Oz used a fraction of the research funding on geosequestration instead on alternative energy options, we would be well ahead.
Coal mining is big business.
However coal royalties are even better business for the States, so diverting moneys elsewhere will not be smiled on by the big end of town!


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> that's a shocking thing to say Smurf . - but a good way to express it.



I could also point out that tourism is effectively little more than recreational oil burning from an energy perspective. I'm not opposed to tourism as such, but it's not the "green" industry that many like to claim. It's a massive polluter by any measure and one of the hardest industries to clean up from a technological perspective.

Just to make the point about consumption, right now at 1:45am (I'm not usually on ASF at that time...) the Eastern states including SA and Tas are using a combined 21523 MW of electricity. Roughly 90% of that is coming from coal at this very moment. So we're pumping out 20,000 tonnes of CO2 per hour to generate electricity right now whilst most are sleeping...


----------



## Rafa (23 March 2007)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Just to make the point about consumption, right now at 1:45am (I'm not usually on ASF at that time...) the Eastern states including SA and Tas are using a combined 21523 MW of electricity. Roughly 90% of that is coming from coal at this very moment. So we're pumping out 20,000 tonnes of CO2 per hour to generate electricity right now whilst most are sleeping...





Can you extrapolate a bit more Smurf?
Why are we using this energy, is it mainly industry related?


----------



## happytown (23 March 2007)

fear not, the greatest minds are on to the problem, and help is at hand,

"Pill stops cow burps and helps save the planet"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2040845,00.html

cheers


----------



## happytown (23 March 2007)

and just maybe it isn't a bad idea,

"Germany Plans Boom in Coal-Fired Power Plants - Despite High Emissions"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,472786,00.html

cheers


----------



## chops_a_must (23 March 2007)

billhill said:
			
		

> True it is not a democracy but it does work on a weight of evidence.



That is total crap!

Ever heard of falsifiability?


----------



## rederob (24 March 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> That is total crap!
> 
> Ever heard of falsifiability?



I do love a well balanced, strongly argued, case.

Then again, I'm always skeptical about plausibly deniable counter intuitive State manipulated conspiracy theories from credible sources.


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 March 2007)

here's a theory ... in the past when there was a lot of sunspot activity, there was maybe a corresponding increase in vegetation ?? 
	

		
			
		

		
	









and perhaps without those forests, we are starting the next cycle of sunspot activity "behind the 8 ball"


----------



## billhill (24 March 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> That is total crap!
> 
> Ever heard of falsifiability?




Chop's go and read some journal articles. Where is the weight of evidence? If you have a tight chest, pain in your arm and shortness of breath, are you gonna tell me its the flu because you read it in some journal article, no it is most likely heart attack, why because the weight of scientific evidence tells us these are the symptom. It might turn out not to be a heart attack but would you take the chance. Don't tell me that all the global warming evidence is one big conspiracy because that is a load of crap. And as for falsifiability that is a cheap shot. Any scientist should know that just about any theory can be proved possibly false. Possibly we don't even exist, but that doesn't stop people from trying to acheive the highest. The shrinking possibility that global warming does not exist does not mean we shouldn't do anything about it.


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 March 2007)

Dukey said:
			
		

> 1. .. But maybe I won't use 2020's data set below!!!. (which looks suspiciously like three charts of the same data! . nice try 20's!!)
> 
> 2. Either way - even if CO2 isn't the problem we think it is - there are myriad other reasons why we 'human animals' should try to minimize our impact on the planets surface; minimize energy consumption and pollution and try to find ways to 'work with nature' rather then 'work against it'.



dukey, I agree with you on point 2, but here's a better attempt to show those graphs.

These only show ARCTIC TEMPERATURES vs Solar and vs CO2. (wikipedia)
(more graphs to follow).  They say "poor correlation between CO2 and temp" - but not that bad really (given their dishonesty about the "cooling" during the 40's which has been explained by sulphur pollution).

Also ice core data - note the time axis is reversed (i.e. "years ago".  ) intersting that red line (dust) is low at the moment?
green line ( CO2 ) is pretty high
temp (blue) is pretty high


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 March 2007)

Before posting more graphs, here's John Christy's REAL opinion (when not stuck in amongst others)..


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy
> Christy is generally considered a contrarian on some global warming and related issues, although he helped draft and signed the American Geophysical Union statement on climate change [2]. In an interview with National Public Radio about the new AGU statement, he said: *It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way.*More recently, in a study presented to the Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy he said:
> •	"I showed some evidence that humans are causing warming in the surface measurements that we have but it is not the greenhouse relation."
> •	Christy has also said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are a cause of the global warming that has been measured, *[but] he is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels.*"


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 March 2007)

Also that "mini - ice age", (when they skated on the Thames - they say 14th Century - why didnt they skate again in the 17th ? )
"medieval warm period", (much warmer than today, think of the crusaders in hot metal in middle eastern deserts ), and
3000 years of hot during "Holocene Maximum" 6000 yrs ago.

Also another copy of that chart that they "massage" to the point of non-recognition - versus the real graph.  They say " in the last 150 years, the temp rose 0.5degC before 1940, since then it has fallen for 4 decades , then risen for 3 decades".  Blatant spin doctoring  of the data. - and misreading the graph. 

They forget to say that "it has risen more than 0.3 half degree since 1940". In fact the truth NASA graph shows that temp rose the same since 1940 as it did up to 1940.


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 March 2007)

Finally, more investigation into the suns involvement. 
a) directly , and
b) indirectly through  cosmic rays

paraphrasing.. Firstly there is close correlation between sun spot activity and Earths temp - due to "Direct Heat".

Then the indirect effect of solar winds. "Solar wind sweeps away cosmic rays formed by exploding supernovi etc. when this happens, clouds dont form, and their cooling effect is lost"

"When cosmic rays (reaching the earth) went down the temp went up".

Again , see how nicely they pretend that their data fits the "massaged" graph of earths temp (the graph that they admit they massaged - "it's a fluff" (?)). 

Hence dukey, lol - I wasn't trying to con you, just repeating what they were saying 





PS note that the cosmic rays are plotted in reverse, i.e. it has been flipped, or if you like the Y2 axis is increasing down.  The last graph shows how cosmic rays (blue) decrease , and temp (red) increases.

PPS I still think that using old data is dangerous - for the purpose of extrapolating into the future.  i.e. man IS having an effect - and we have to consider the possibility that the past will not be a measure of the future (imho). we can't ignore it, and its all happening in an exponetially increasing manner (surely).  Toffler's "Future Shock" makes it clear that we are heading into crazy times, and that applies to everything, including the environment.

so in summary , I agree with you , lol - man is surely part of the probelm - but how much ?


----------



## chops_a_must (24 March 2007)

billhill said:
			
		

> Chop's go and read some journal articles. Where is the weight of evidence? If you have a tight chest, pain in your arm and shortness of breath, are you gonna tell me its the flu because you read it in some journal article, no it is most likely heart attack, why because the weight of scientific evidence tells us these are the symptom. It might turn out not to be a heart attack but would you take the chance. Don't tell me that all the global warming evidence is one big conspiracy because that is a load of crap. And as for falsifiability that is a cheap shot. Any scientist should know that just about any theory can be proved possibly false. Possibly we don't even exist, but that doesn't stop people from trying to acheive the highest. The shrinking possibility that global warming does not exist does not mean we shouldn't do anything about it.



I have read plenty of articles, it's a part of my study.

Personally, I don't think there is enough evidence. I have yet to read a publication, that in my mind, addresses all of the relevant issues. And that is a problem. Though, it certainly shouldn't stop us from taking action now.

The fact that greenies, who I am probably a part of, have been notoriously wrong in predictions (apart from one or two occasions) in many high profile cases, leaves me sceptical. Tin would run out in the 70s. We would all starve to death in the 80s due to overpopulation. Spaceship Earth. The list goes on and on...


----------



## rederob (24 March 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> I have read plenty of articles, it's a part of my study.
> *Personally, I don't think there is enough evidence*. I have yet to read a publication, that in my mind, addresses all of the relevant issues. And that is a problem. Though, it certainly shouldn't stop us from taking action now.



Not enough evidence for what?
To convince you that the Earth is now warmer than it was?
Or that the Earth is not getting warmer?

What are the "relevant" issues?
The causes of global warming, or the effects of global warming?

I doubt there is a single "publication" that addesses everything, but there is a wealth of information available.

Also note that temperature charts for Earth prior to the 17th century are largely estimates based on sets of scientific assumptions as we had no means for taking such measurements before then.


----------



## chops_a_must (24 March 2007)

rederob said:
			
		

> Not enough evidence for what?
> To convince you that the Earth is now warmer than it was?
> Or that the Earth is not getting warmer?
> 
> ...



The causes, either way.

There can be no doubt that the earth is warming.


----------



## billhill (24 March 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> I have read plenty of articles, it's a part of my study.
> 
> Personally, I don't think there is enough evidence. I have yet to read a publication, that in my mind, addresses all of the relevant issues. And that is a problem. Though, it certainly shouldn't stop us from taking action now.
> 
> The fact that greenies, who I am probably a part of, have been notoriously wrong in predictions (apart from one or two occasions) in many high profile cases, leaves me sceptical. Tin would run out in the 70s. We would all starve to death in the 80s due to overpopulation. Spaceship Earth. The list goes on and on...




As a fellow scientist I respect that you feel there is not enough evidence chop's. I disagree and thats my opinion. Just remember that although we may be wrong some of the time, we also get it right and thats what scares me. Too many people have their heads in the sand. I used to think like that. In denial that there was a problem. For me the evidence is enough for us to start preparing for the worst. I honestly hope we're wrong because if the scientist are right the future looks clouded to say the least.


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 March 2007)

billhill said:
			
		

> ..because if the scientist are right the future looks clouded to say the least.



ahh , bill, - but then the earth cools and ....    (jokin)






repeating ghoti's link, :-
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
"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. ",  

If this is so, are we doing the wrong thing in stopping pollution 
	

		
			
		

		
	





equally, (same result), should be be sending up millions of balloons to act as "fake clouds"??


> The real global warming swindle
> A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors
> By Steve Connor
> Published: 14 March 2007
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 April 2007)

transferance of guilt - a natural psychological process I'm told.
"US-Aust initiative " is all about action in the developing nations??  
who do we think we are ? to set ourselves up as the only ones entitled to development / timber clearing etc.   (this was covered in that Channel 4 video you may recall)

Thought for the day ...
"Mr Turnbull says there is nothing new in the report and the Government is doing all it can to save the reef, *but admits that may not be possible.*"

Yet wasn't it just a few months ago that it was all "she'll be right - nothing to panic about folks." ?? 
The prime minister saying "Al Gore is just trying to promote his movie"... 
the treasurer saying that "it will be bad in 50 years, and we plan to do something before then ..."   

Sounds like an admission of gross incompetence to me.  - anyone disgaree.? 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1892019.htm


> US-Aust to work on climate change initiative.
> The US has agreed to work with Australia on a global deforestation initiative to address climate change.
> The agreement comes as politicians and environmentalists react to the latest report on global warming, which predicts increased droughts and floods in Australia.  With almost a fifth of the world's emissions coming from forest clearing, the *Government says the initiative aims to prevent forest logging in developing countries.*
> 
> ...


----------



## insider (7 April 2007)

NASA Scientists are reporting that Mars is facing their own global Warming issues... That says that Global Warming has less to do with Carbon emissions than The sun burning at a Hotter Temperature


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 April 2007)

insider said:


> NASA Scientists are reporting that Mars is facing their own global Warming issues... That says that Global Warming has less to do with Carbon emissions than The sun burning at a Hotter Temperature



 yep saw that m8. intresting isnt it    Mars has all these geological features that appear to be canyons carved by water   yet only the poles of Mars are currently "water / ice" according to the photos - you wonder if that will happen again (?) 

still, we shouldn't ignore our own contribution to the problem on earth , yes? 

And you'd have to agree surely, that for us to propose doing things overseas (in developing countries , reduced forest clearing etc) - without AT LEAST matching them at home - "dollar for dollar", or let's call it "tree for tree" -  it is hardly valid compensation for our own (first world) excesses. ?


----------



## chops_a_must (7 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> And you'd have to agree surely, that for us to propose doing things overseas (in developing countries , reduced forest clearing etc) - without AT LEAST matching them at home - "dollar for dollar", or let's call it "tree for tree" -  it is hardly valid compensation for our own (first world) excesses. ?



Not to mention that we refused to ban the importation of illegally logged timber from the areas that we are funding to protect. Or to stop the logging of old growth forests in Australia.

There are some rather hypocritical messages here.

Plus the cutting of funding to all sustainable logging programmes in PNG (which provided thousands of villagers with an ongoing income). This itself has led to rampant forest clearing in these areas that were being managed well.

Shame Australia, shame.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 April 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Not to mention that we refused to ban the importation of illegally logged timber from the areas that we are funding to protect. Or to stop the logging of old growth forests in Australia.
> 
> There are some rather hypocritical messages here.
> 
> Plus the cutting of funding to all sustainable logging programmes in PNG (which provided thousands of villagers with an ongoing income). This itself has led to rampant forest clearing in these areas that were being managed well.  Shame Australia, shame.



I wonder could it be , chops - lol - that PNG timber getters dont vote in Aus   How dare we !  Are we such cretons as even to suggest it to them?  Maybe I'm missing something , but it smells like an insult, looks like an insult - heck, maybe it really IS an insult ?  (yet Rudd and Howard are both behind it ?   - gotta be something to do with Tasmania lol)

PS The reasoning seems to be "give them money in exchange" - they will be happy ! (?)  
I have worked in three expatriate situations.
a) PNG, where the Aussies ran the place - using alcohol as the common denominator lol - since we left in 1972, the elections are decided on who provides the most free booze   (plus of course the "which one is my one-talk" system)
b) American Samoa, where the yanks ran the place on the dollar - keep em financially "fat" and they'll be happy - trouble is that the people become lazy and sadly lose any zest for life - I can tell you their brothers and sisters in the much poorer Western Samoa ( under NZ administration) are thinner, poorer, and infinitely more happy. 
c) finally in HK where the combination of British internationalism , and chinese industry and "business skills", have proved to be an incredibly successful combination - a giant dragon in Asia.  (although possibly becoming overshadowed by Shanghai in recent times - local politics etc - but I'm talking about pre 1997 of course) 

No question which one is the best system.    - and it ain't the one where the people get handouts ( sheesh - reminds me of the Indian reservations ;(  "how many blankets for your land, redskin- and your dignity - and your buffalo etc etc ??" )


----------



## Kimosabi (7 April 2007)

I suspect Global Warming is another neo-conservative fear campaign.

Something stinks at the highest levels of Power on this Planet, the question is, What are they trying to achieve?


----------



## chops_a_must (7 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> I wonder could it be , chops - lol - that PNG timber getters dont vote in Aus   How dare we !  Are we such cretons as even to suggest it to them?  Maybe I'm missing something , but it smells like an insult, looks like an insult - heck, maybe it really IS an insult ?  (yet Rudd and Howard are both behind it ?   - gotta be something to do with Tasmania lol)
> 
> PS The reasoning seems to be "give them money in exchange" - they will be happy ! (?)
> I have worked in three expatriate situations.
> ...




They weren't handouts 20/20. Most of the funding was for equipment and marketing, so that they had somewhere to sell their product. And the reason why they didn't have to clear massive amounts of land, was because all of the money raised went to the community, not a company.

But in my reading of the topic over the last few years is that the interests involved in PNG have significant lobbying/ donating/ bribing power over the nationals.



> “One company – Rimbunan Hijau, controlled by billionaire Malaysian Hiew King Tiong has interests in the finance sector, the media, information technology, property, retailing, commercial printing, travel and shipping,” the report’s executive summary states.
> 
> The Tiong family also has business interests in China, Malaysia, Cambodia, Hong Kong, Canada, the USA, New Zealand and Australia. “In Australia, Tiong investments include the Harbourside shopping complex at Darling Harbour in Sydney, and companies that account for 10 per cent of Australia’s mango crop.”



(RH are the biggest logging company in PNG)
http://www.foe.org.au/media-releases/2006-media-releases/mr_07_08_06.htm



> Rimbunan Hijau also has interests in Australia. Company searches reveal extensive business investments through Thomas Tiong Kiu King, a younger brother of Hiew King Tiong. Various family members of the Tiong family are key shareholders of two major holding companies, Deland Corporation and Burlington Corporation.
> 
> These holding companies in turn own companies such as
> Landmark Investments, Landmark Projects, Landworth and
> ...



http://www.celcor.org.pg/image/HR.pdf



> In PNG, the capacity and political will to uphold legal and
> human rights is being undermined, not least by the logging
> industry itself. International fi nancial institutions struggle to
> see beyond the frame of large-scale forestry to glimpse the
> ...



http://www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res_ACF-CELCOR_exec_tasol.pdf

Nuff said.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 April 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> They weren't handouts 20/20. Most of the funding was for equipment and marketing, so that they had somewhere to sell their product. And the reason why they didn't have to clear massive amounts of land, was because all of the money raised went to the community, not a company....(RH are the biggest logging company in PNG)
> ...Nuff said.



ahh yes. 
two things , my comment about handouts relates to Aus giving handouts to PNG etc to stop land clearing, (which I understand is the flipside of this latest proposal to gain , in effect , carbon credits - those things that we refuse to acknowledge )   ...and so clear our consciences for us..

but then .. whilst I referred to the Chinese industry in HK, you introduce the topic of recent Malaysian timber industry ethics, which is subtley  "different"    I can tell you a few stories there too - for instance, put all your money in the Malaysian stock exchange lol -  see if you end up with 10% of your investment 

PS shortest job in the world? - lol , Forestry Minister in PNG  (and let's not talk about Sarawak, various islands of Indonesia etc)


----------



## chops_a_must (7 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> ahh yes.
> two things , my comment about handouts relates to Aus giving handouts to PNG etc to stop land clearing, (which I understand is the flipside of this latest proposal to gain , in effect , carbon credits - those things that we refuse to acknowledge )   ...and so clear our consciences for us..
> 
> but then .. whilst I referred to the Chinese industry in HK, you introduce the topic of recent Malaysian timber industry ethics, which is subtley  "different"    I can tell you a few stories there too - for instance, put all your money in the



It is different but I was pointing out the fact that the Australian government has a huge role in this (bigger than what anyone could imagine) as they are approving the clearing of forest and cutting deals with these same people. THAT is the reason the libs wont do anything about the issue. It's got nothing to do with Malaysian ethics, but our role in the problem in Australia.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 April 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> It is different but I was pointing out the fact that the Australian government has a huge role in this (bigger than what anyone could imagine) as they are approving the clearing of forest and cutting deals with these same people. THAT is the reason the libs wont do anything about the issue. It's got nothing to do with Malaysian ethics, but our role in the problem in Australia.



 i remain as always open minded, lol , I will do some more research   and/or ask you to amplify lol

PS Pauline Hanson may have been a fringe dweller, but lol , she will go down in history with that comment / reply "please explain" !!:silly:

PPS we have perfectly good trees in Tasmania if they want to get serious about saving trees


----------



## Julia (7 April 2007)

insider said:


> NASA Scientists are reporting that Mars is facing their own global Warming issues... That says that Global Warming has less to do with Carbon emissions than The sun burning at a Hotter Temperature




As far as we know Mars is unpopulated.  If Mars is also experiencing global warming, then presumably it cannot be attributed to the actions of man.  Doesn't it then follow that global warming on our own planet may also not in fact be due to anything we have done or are doing?


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 April 2007)

It is the net change in forest cover that is the real issue. If you clearfell and burn a forest then that's releasing carbon. If you replant it then that slowly soaks it back up again.

It's not really that different to harvesting wheat. If you eat it then ultimately that releases carbon dioxide. Then you plant more wheat which soaks that carbon back up again.

Done properly, a lot of wood can be cut on a sustainable basis without permanently adding carbon to the atmosphere. It's when there is permanent clearing of land that it's a problem.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 April 2007)

Julia said:


> As far as we know Mars is unpopulated.



ahhh c'mon Julia. 
where did you get that idea? 

I saw this doumentary from USA presented by Arnie Schwarz - and he had this big lump in his nose that he pulls out with these bludy big tweezers - and it proved there are lots of people on Mars.!

PS yep I found that real interesting as well - and we come back to the question, what percentage of GW is natural,  eg due to the sun and what percentage is man made.

(make that EGW Earth's Global Warming - since we now have to differentiate it seems)

Note that it is driven (probably indirectly granted - but this is what they say in the article results from the sun, then the winds then the dust etc) by a similar phenomenon to CO2 greenhouse effect on earth,  but almost certainly the prime driver is the sun.  - and 100% certain it aint mad made - unless the martians are putting up a red smoke screen to stop earthlings observing them from all these Viking and Global Surveyor missions peeping toms 

PS let's do our best to minimise CO2, but give the third world a break and let them have less efficient power sources. (i.e. the other option would be to give them nuclear power plants I guess, but I would not be going there , personally - too many Homer Simpsons around over here, let alone there ) 

PPS Interesting too that 0.65 deg C is not too different from the effect on Earth since the 1970's 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1890339.htm


> Mars heating up: NASA.  *Earth's dusty neighbour Mars is grappling with its own form of climate change as fluctuating solar radiation is kicking up dust and winds that may be melting the planet's southern polar ice cap, scientists have announced. *
> 
> Researchers have been watching the changing face of Mars for years, studying slight differences in the brightness and darkness of its surface.   These changes in brightness have been generally attributed to the presence of dust, but until now their effect on wind circulation and climate has not been clear.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 April 2007)

I find that sequence interesting in itself .... radiation > strong winds (hurricanes , cyclones etc) > dust > presumably rapid increase in the warming

a) winds are increasing on earth yes? stable mates in tandem?
b) I wonder if this problem on Mars becomes unstable, i.e. becomes a viscious circle - obviously not because it must've been through the cycle many times ... or rather I wonder how long it takes to settle again? - does it need the sun's radiation to decrease before it stabilizes?
c) if you want to get a clear photo of Mars, better do it now before it gets too windy 
 


> NASA scientist Lori Fenton and colleagues, reporting this week in the journal Nature, now believe variations in radiation from the surface of Mars are fuelling strong winds that stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet's temperature.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 April 2007)

I also find it interesting that the concept of dust "trapping heat" in that article is contrary to what happens on earth - in that pollution tends to prevent heat getting here in the first place.  - i.e. According to those comments triggered by the Channel 4 program, pollution has a cooling effect.

I am getting a little suspicious of the accuracy of this one.   But if someone out there is an expert on Mars then great, maybe they could set me straight here.


----------



## maffu (8 April 2007)

wayneL said:


> This one acknowledges GW but refutes CO2 as the cause and pins it on solar activity. Does a good job of it.
> 
> Pollution is still the biggy for me rather than co2.




A scientist up the road from me, is in his 70's and has been talking about Global Warming being a serious problem, but due to the declining amounts of oxygen in our atmosphere, thus the world has less insulation. Its an interesting point, and the only research done on this was back in the 60's and 70's and in that decade the amount of oxygen dropped dramtically, then once that was found out the funding was dropped and no more research has been done.

He is a really smart guy, and his back shed is amazing with all the jacobs ladders, and lightning machines pumping out millions of volts. It was very interesting going to his place to listen to him talk about it.


----------



## billhill (8 April 2007)

Here 2020, 
                This article explains how the dust affects temperatures on mars.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070404203258.5klhwqs4&show_article=1

Because earths surface is covered by vegetation and water (absorb heat) dust in the atmosphere has the opposite affect to dust on mars.


----------



## billhill (8 April 2007)

Interesting article examining solar winds on mars and earth.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast31jan_1.htm


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 April 2007)

Thanks bill, appreciated. Interesting they talk of things "spiralling out of control" up there - obviously very unstable climate - obviously we can cross Mars off the list as a potential alternative "summer retreat" if the going gets too hot here.  Unless we take a lot of both hot and cold clothing - and learn how to breath (pure) CO2.  
getting back to Earth for a minute   , but Nature magazine also has this (about the expansion of arid areas in latitudes such as New Maxico (and Middle East, Nth Africa , about 30 - 35 deg N latitide -  and presumably South Australia , South Africa about 30 - 35 deg S latitude  )....

The Dust Bowl of the 1930's has been blamed on poor farming of course ( total clearing etc) 

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070402/full/070402-9.html


> Return of the dust bowl?  Climate change set to make the arid southwest even drier
> 
> The drought that spawned the great American Dust Bowl of the 1930s may become the new climatic norm for much of the southwestern United States and other subtropical regions of the world. In a report published today, (5april 07) researchers in the United States and Israel project an imminent increase in aridity in subtropical regions over the next century, which will affect several important agricultural regions.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 April 2007)

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070402/full/070402-7.html
this scientist disagrees ... (paraphrasing) "mars heating up is all old hat .... bulk of scientists agree - we can model any planet, Earth or Mars, we know what they are doing , and we know what we doing as well ... and we on Earth have a problem other than solar..."
in short,  - "don't get distracted by Mars folks"  

I'm surprised he says that the solar fluctuations are only in accordance with normal cycle (11 yearly as I recall).  I thought there was a nasty upward trend creeping up on us (??) - the next 500 years or so maybe (??)


> Hot times in the Solar System
> The warming of other solar bodies has been seized upon by climate sceptics; but oh how wrong they are, says Oliver Morton.
> 
> The sceptical 'argument' — using the word loosely — in question is that global warming on Earth should be seen as a natural, as opposed to anthropogenic, phenomenon because other planets and moons in the Solar System are getting warmer, too (which, indeed, they are). Since what the planets have in common is the Sun, they say, it must thus be the Sun that is driving the warming.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 July 2007)

I like the way the ABC is approaching this

straight after screening it , they (Tony Jones) puts the writer / producer of the program in the hot seat - and challenges his cred. 

oops - just about to start ( 8.30) - big hand on 6 etc 
But the discussion with 'expert panel' of scientists who debunk the program follows at 9.24 pm


----------



## BradK (12 July 2007)

At this point in the program, there is alot of discussion about using global warming as a way to continue the subjucation of the world's poorest people. 

I like the points they make; 

1. Only use of solar power - can't power industry like that. 
2. The fact that wood fires cause respitory diseases and causes greatly dimiinshed life expectancy. 

Very interesting

Brad


----------



## Kathmandu (12 July 2007)

Here's 17,200 scientist's who think global warming is a fallacy

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm


Global Warming Petition   

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 gasses 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. 

Dave


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 July 2007)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=179592&highlight=goonshow#post179592
sorry kathmandu, but I don't like it when documentaries that claim to expose "swindles" are so easily shown to be swindles themselves.

BradK - spot on m8 - I agree - that's the part of the program that hits home to me as well   We must let them catch up a whisker.  No more of this selfish Aussie thing "well, third world, if YOU want to use more coal-fired power stations, then so will WE!"   - China (second world I would say) opening new coal fired power stations at a rate of several hundred a year ( I think (?) - might be wrong, but heaps) - but it should be easier for Africa, and only when they get electric light can we legitimately comment.- imo  .


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 July 2007)

BradK said:


> At this point in the program, there is alot of discussion about using global warming as a way to continue the subjucation of the world's poorest people.
> 
> I like the points they make;
> 
> ...



Anyone who considers wood an acceptable fuel source for household use didn't come to Tasmania between the mid-1980's to late 1990's. 

Please don't inflict that foul stench of toxic creosote on anyone else. Nobody deserves punishment quite _that_ bad...


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 July 2007)

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'now' and 'NOW'

Graphs 1 and 2:-
let’s pretend the solar flare chart correlates like mit and glove
lets forget this mad divergence, there’s no need to show “all of”
quickly – join the missing data – let’s just broadcast this manure
keep it simple, keep it stupid, for our simple minded viewer.

Graph 3:-
lets pretend we’re quoting NASA lets throw in a graph or two
lets amend it where it doesn’t fit the dogleg that we drew
and our defence? we’re novices! – no “frank and honest” test
we’re Channel 4 - controversy is what we do the best.

Graph 4:-
lets pretend these shortened trendlines were correct ten years ago
since then we’ve have record records almost five years in a row
...   Channel 4 ! - it’s not the “now and then” that’s causing all the row !
- it’s the 'if' - of rather 'when' - and the difference “now and *NOW*!”
---------------------------------------------------------

By the way the first graph is what Durkin used - conveniently ignoring the divergence of solar activity vs temp since then. 
The second graph is what the ABC showed during Durkin's cross examination. 
The third picture (full width , includes two graphs) compares what they say is NASA record versus what you find on NASA website.
And the final graph - extrapolated by me - is what has happened to temp in the last 25 years - it's based on a garph that the ABC had last night, extremely approximate obviously  (sorry I missed getting a photo of the TV on that occasion)


----------



## algis (13 July 2007)

Interesting program and great of the ABC to air this great swindle of a swindle.

Had me questioning things for a most of the program (including... my god! was John Howard actually right to not fall for the GW hysteria!).  For GW has become a bit of a religion of sorts - and by that, I mean a bit unquestioned.  For (as someone who was once involved in academic research) it is rare to find even scientists go against a universal consensus (fear of ridicule and a scientist thrives on existing assumptions to add to a scientific model).  It is always good to see a balanced argument and views from both sides of opinion.

And it also went some way to show how reliant we are as individuals on evidence presented by people with certain interests.  Paint a picture professionally enough and you will have have the world belief your fallacy is true.

I thought it was interesting that the program showed the relationship between solar activity and global temperatures... this was never highlighted in previous GW media I've come across.  Don't remember if An Inconvenient Truth mentioned this.

Great to see that the ABC shows that the presented relationship fails to show what has been happening since the 70s - that solar activity has remained constant or has decreased, yet temperatures have continued to increased.  Shocking that this data was not revealed.  This sort of thing brings the credibility of the program down to the 'secret alien autopsy' video that was shown 15 years ago...

The point that the developed world is expecting the third world to stop with greenhouse gas emitting methods of energy production is a good one to raise...  no idea what can be done to improve the situation here in the next few decades.

Also there was a brief mention on sea levels and the fact that continents move in relation to sea level rather than the other way around.  The snow that once covered all of Britain weighed that island down by a few metres apparently - erosion of coastline way above current sea level.

What I did find laughable was the audience for this - there were maybe 2 people that made sane comments - very little constructive questions were posed to the panel.  Bit of a bizarre panel as well...

What I'd like to know is views from others about possibilities raised by an Inconvient Truth - such as positive feedback loops and the effect of melting of land-based ice on sea levels.  

By positive feedback loops, I mean the melting of permafrost and release of carbon within and carbon evaporating from oceans with increased heat.  The resulting increase in carbon fostering further increases in temperature.  

Thermal expansion of seas and their effect on sea level should be easy enough to model along with displacement due to shifting of land based ice/snow from Greenland, Canada and Antartica....


----------



## websman (17 July 2007)

Global warming is a fraud and Al Gore is an idiot....

I've been noticing my rights slipping away.  America is no longer a free country.  I'm immigrating to Australia as soon as possible...but I need a job.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (17 July 2007)

websman said:


> Global warming is a fraud and Al Gore is an idiot....
> 
> I've been noticing my rights slipping away.  America is no longer a free country.  I'm immigrating to Australia as soon as possible...but I need a job.




If anyone understood the nature of our solar system they would recognise that the earth DOESN'T keep a stable temperature due to its comfort zone as it orbits the sun. that is why we have had ice ages and now it is heating up a bit. 

I am sure we can a our most to fight the POLLUTION but we cant stop the warming.


----------



## visual (17 July 2007)

And now for the Chinese version of global warming,
apparently they are having a huge problem with rats,rats in plague proportions,so they are eating them!how does the enviroment figure,well the rats are in plague proportions because the Chinese also eat the snakes that eat the rats and use the owls that are the natural enemy of the rat for medicinal purposes,but the proponents of the Global warnming defenders will surely not see those logical connections,


----------



## Bobby (19 July 2007)

websman said:


> I've been noticing my rights slipping away.  America is no longer a free country.  I'm immigrating to Australia as soon as possible...but I need a job.




Tell me what your good at ?

lets just wish that hindsight2020 will not pollute this, just hope I'm on still on the dopes ignore list.

Bob.


----------



## Whiskers (25 August 2011)

I whole heartedly agree with Hayden Walker on this. It may have been discussed earlier, but certainly worth bumping again to stimulate more rational thinking.



From an article published in the Northern Star, March 2011; 

"If you want to blame global warming for these weather extremes, show me the formula and I'll agree with you, but no one's got the formula to show the correlation between weather extremes and global warming.
"The River Thames froze up for six weeks and dried up for six weeks in the early centuries and there was no industrial revolution back then," he said.
He said the sun started to warm up in 2009, and in 2010 there were floods, blizzards, earthquakes and volcanic explosions around the world.
"If you have high sun spot activity, you find you get high rainfall, no drought conditions," Mr Walker said.
Haven't we had more severe sunspot activity of late? Soo... expect more wet and extreme weather.

The other factor that has an influence on sunspot and solar flare activity is the planetary (gravitational) cycles, ie how and when they line up. Walker understands this, but as yet (as far as I know) does not have a precise formula for predicting this.

Imo his methodology is much closer to understanding the cause and consequently the longer term weather outlook than many others who just monitor cycles and patterns here on earth. 

http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2011/03/10/hayden-walker-weather-man-cool-on-warming/


----------



## medicowallet (25 August 2011)

Whiskers said:


> I whole heartedly agree with Hayden Walker on this. It may have been discussed earlier, but certainly worth bumping again to stimulate more rational thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No, our sunspot activity has ramped up from its minimum, but is still low... which probably explains the cooling over the past 10 years.


----------



## Whiskers (25 August 2011)

medicowallet said:


> No,




 no what? Are you still bent on dissagreeing with me :.



> our sunspot activity has ramped up from its minimum, but is still low... which
> 
> probably explains the cooling over the past 10 years.




Well, yes... I thought that much was self evident for anyone with an open mind. 

It's why the 'movement' has changed from calling it Global Warming to Climate Change and now more emphasis on CO2 or carbon emissions, no doubt because temperatures were flattening off and even declining over the last decade and the 'warming' arguement was not sustainable even with their dodgy data.


----------



## NewTrade (25 August 2011)

Whiskers said:


> no what? Are you still bent on dissagreeing with me :.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Should be called the fight against nature - attempting to subdue change is just an un-winnable battle.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 December 2011)

It looks as if the Global Warming Industry led by Al Il Gore and his brainwashed masses is hitting the hard ice of reality.

The Antarctic ice is more extensive than ever in recorded history.

Explain that.

For more on solar panels and wind turbines causing disastrous global cooling go to

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23765

From the Australian today 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-reality-sets-in/story-e6frg8y6-1226227156367




> ONE hundred years after Douglas Mawson's first Australian-led Antarctic expedition was almost defeated by thick pack ice, the same problem has stumped those seeking to follow in his wake.
> 
> Unusually dense ice floes off the coast of East Antarctica, and particularly Mawson's landing spot of January 1912, Commonwealth Bay, have in recent days repelled private expeditions seeking to commemorate the centenary of the historic event.
> 
> ...




gg


----------



## MrBurns (22 October 2013)

What a farce, as if you can blame Global Warming on the NSW bushfires, this sham industry is a pox on us all.




> UN climate chief Christiana Figueres calls for global action amid NSW bushfires
> 
> The United Nations says the New South Wales bushfires are an example of "the doom and gloom" the world may be facing without vigorous action on climate change.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-22/un-climate-chief-warns-of-nsw-27doom-and-gloom27/5036814


----------



## macca (22 October 2013)

Don't you love how these self appointed experts comment on anything and everything that makes the headlines. Funny how no matter what happens it is always "climate change causing it"

The facts are that aboriginals lived quite happily for thousands of years in the exact same bush that we now live in fear of. The bush that now exists in Oz is what adapted to the aboriginal way, yet we come along and change that and then wonder why we have a problem.

The arrogance and stupidity of modern man is breathtaking


----------



## GoodCall (22 October 2013)

MrBurns said:


> What a farce, as if you can blame Global Warming on the NSW bushfires, this sham industry is a pox on us all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thank you Mr Burns.  I am from the mountains and nearly drove into that fire storm last Thursday, as I am not currently staying in the mountains.  I have been very upset over the destruction, but thankful that no lives have so far been lost.

I was sickened by Bandt's comments and also today by that ABC news story you quoted.  These are not the only incidents, it is as if the ABC are determined to push it.  I find it offensive that they would use this disaster to push their propaganda and have to turn the tv off.

When I lived in the mountains, certain unreasonable environmental influences would often interfere with many residents ability to manage their properties appropriately.  You may occasionally hear a comment by a resident preparing for the worst that he could have done more to protect his property if he wasn't hampered.  It is obvious what he is saying.

The greens may claim to favour preventative burning off in words but in action they and those who are influenced by them actively obstruct this process as well as other preventative measures.


----------



## burglar (22 October 2013)

MrBurns said:


> What a farce, as if you can blame Global Warming on the NSW bushfires, this sham industry is a pox on us all ...




How can GW cause deliberately-lit fires?


----------



## So_Cynical (23 October 2013)

burglar said:


> How can GW cause deliberately-lit fires?




Fires require more than just ignition, no fuel no fire, no wind no dangerous fire, etc etc.


----------



## macca (23 October 2013)

burglar said:


> How can GW cause deliberately-lit fires?




If the fire is hard to start or is quickly extinguished through lack of fuel then the ratbags don't get a buzz do they


----------



## MrBurns (23 October 2013)

HA well done Tony, telling it like it is - 




> Tony Abbott accuses UN official of 'talking through her hat' on climate change
> 
> Prime Minister Tony Abbott has dismissed a UN assessment that the New South Wales fires are linked to climate change, accusing a senior UN official of "talking through her hat".
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-23/tony-abbott-fires-climate-change-rfs-un/5039932


----------

