Resisting Climate Hysteria

[GumbyLearner]

Everyone in this thread needs to pay more tax or you are all off to the loony bin like Galileo!

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Everyone in this thread needs to pay more tax or you are all off to the loony bin like Galileo!

Canis meus id comedit

That is my return.

The centerlink crew gamble, drink and procreate, so the cc should pay the carbolic tax.

Then the rest of us can get on with earning a quid to keep them in the style to which they are hysterically accustomed.

I will not pay a carbolic tax.

No way

gg

 

[GumbyLearner]

I will not pay a carbolic tax.

No way

gg

Neither will I. I think it's best to stay put.
Plenty of newbie taxpayers coming into Australia to make up the shortfall for those
born in aussie taxpayers like me who don't want to move back.

Great advice gg. Plenty of newbies coming in. Most of which are much more malleable than the former constituency.

 

[wayneL]

Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and
Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses

CONCLUSIONS
Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S.
tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each
time period we consider, the records show small decelerations
that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of
worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain
are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less
than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y
2
accelerations that are required to
reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf
(2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted,
Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an
increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.
It is essential that investigations continue to address why this
worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration
of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why
global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last
80 years.

Via that gossip blog.

 

[sval62]

 

[sinner]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404,0,772697.story

A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

The hearing was called by GOP leaders of the House Science & Technology committee, who have expressed doubts about the integrity of climate science. It was one of several inquiries in recent weeks as the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb planet-heating emissions from industrial plants and motor vehicles have come under strenuous attack in Congress.

Muller said his group was surprised by its findings, but he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined.

The Berkeley project's biggest private backer, at $150,000, is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch are the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on the burning of fossil fuels, the largest contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases.

Article continues.

 

[basilio]

Nice story sinner. It will be fascinating to see how this all finishes.

One thing we can be certain of of course is that regardless of what the figures might say there is absolutely no way global warming is related to human activity and that it isn't going to matter that much anyway, that there are far more important pollution problems to worry about, that CO2 certainly isn't a causal factor and that really we should all understand that the thousands of scientists who have been beating their gums about this problem are just pigs in the trough of government funded largesse.

(Have I missed anything Wayne et al . ?? I'm sure the usual gang will offer their insights into seriously misguided review. )
__________________________________________________

Also liked the last touch comments of the story.

Other scientists noted that temperature is only one factor in climate change. "Even if the thermometer had never been invented, the evidence is there from deep ocean changes, from receding glaciers, from rising sea levels and receding sea ice and spring snow cover," Thorne said.

"All the physical indicators are consistent with a warming world. There is no doubt the trend of temperature is upwards since the early 20th century. And that trend is accelerating."

Still the sun is shining here on a beautiful autumn morning so obviously we havn't a care in the world.

 

[drsmith]

Interesting interview with

Associate Professor Stuart Franks ... a Hydro Climatologist wrote a peer reviewed paper in 2006 that warned about higher rainfall currently being experienced by Queensland.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/...april.html?site=brisbane&program=612_evenings

 

[sails]

... I'm sure the usual gang will offer their insights into seriously misguided review...

What's misguided about Australia only contributing a tiny

...................................1.28%

to world carbon emissions and that carbon taxing the Australian people will mainly hurt people financially and apparently do the tiniest fraction of a percent about carbon emissions worldwide?

And to compensate certain sectors will most likely further dilute any potential reduction in carbon dioxide.

I think there are two separate debates. One is the dubious global warming theory which gives the excuse for a tax.

The second is, will that tax actually achieve anything other than hurt the people who find their cost of living is through the roof?


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

 

[basilio]

Your right Sails there are 2 separate discussions. This thread was started to debase the conversation about Global Warming. By continually deriding the evidence, attacking the scientific community which is extensively researching the issue and then minimising any possible effects deniers are then able to attack any possible solutions on economic grounds.

It's probably more appropriate to take the Carbon Tax question to that particular forum. But the question of just what humanity is doing to the climate and the effect this will have on our future deserves respect rather than ridicule. In that sense the study undertaken by Richard Muller (who is a genuine scientific skeptic as distinct from a pure BS denier) is worth following.

 

[sails]

Your right Sails there are 2 separate discussions. This thread was started to debase the conversation about Global Warming. By continually deriding the evidence, attacking the scientific community which is extensively researching the issue and then minimising any possible effects deniers are then able to attack any possible solutions on economic grounds.

It's probably more appropriate to take the Carbon Tax question to that particular forum. But the question of just what humanity is doing to the climate and the effect this will have on our future deserves respect rather than ridicule. In that sense the study undertaken by Richard Muller (who is a genuine scientific skeptic as distinct from a pure BS denier) is worth following.

Basilio, I had an open mind initially. Didn't know much about it and the theory seemed plausable without delving into it too much.

The series of events that changed my mind were:

1. The hypocrisy of the likes of Al Gore and then Gillard who seem to take no thought of their own carbon footprint.

2. Then it became clear it was all about the money and imposing a tax with the most likely outcome being wealth redistribution possibly with an intent to try and sway votes at the next election. Whenever large sums of money can be extracted from an unsuspecting public, it raises immediate questions, IMO.

3. Then I started to hear from other scientists, highly qualified such as John Christy, who explain that a carbon tax will do as much good as spitting in the ocean.

4. Climate has been changing all on it's own. Severe weather has shown it's hand long before climate change could be blamed.

So, I might be called a denier, but there is little left to convince me that there is anything more in this than an excuse to impose an unpopular tax making it all about the money. And, unless the "deniers" keep standing up against this, we may well be sucked into one of the biggest money scams we have ever seen.

 

[sptrawler]

Its much easier to introduce a new tax than try and raise an existing one. If it was about global warming we would follow the leaders not try and be the leader. There is a budget hole from stupid spending and more stupid spending to come someone has to pay for it. The problem is the baby boomers are trying to save for their retirement and the Government want their money and also want them to keep working. What better way than to make it too expensive to retire.LOL don't you just love it getting older and more cynical.

 

[Julia]

don't you just love it getting older and more cynical.

Cynicism happens as a result of bitter experience and is usually soundly based.
Maybe think for the future about auditioning for that TV program "Grumpy Old Men/Women"?

 

[basilio]

Basilio, I had an open mind initially. Didn't know much about it and the theory seemed plausable without delving into it too much.

The series of events that changed my mind were:

1. The hypocrisy of the likes of Al Gore and then Gillard who seem to take no thought of their own carbon footprint.

2. Then it became clear it was all about the money and imposing a tax with the most likely outcome being wealth redistribution possibly with an intent to try and sway votes at the next election. Whenever large sums of money can be extracted from an unsuspecting public, it raises immediate questions, IMO.

3. Then I started to hear from other scientists, highly qualified such as John Christy, who explain that a carbon tax will do as much good as spitting in the ocean.

4. Climate has been changing all on it's own. Severe weather has shown it's hand long before climate change could be blamed.

So, I might be called a denier, but there is little left to convince me that there is anything more in this than an excuse to impose an unpopular tax making it all about the money. And, unless the "deniers" keep standing up against this, we may well be sucked into one of the biggest money scams we have ever seen.

It's interesting to read your comments which in effect reflects the incredibly effective disinformation campaign that has been waged against climate change scientists and any other people who speak up on the topic.

The attack on Al Gores alleged hypocrisy was a calculated effort to destroy his credibility and therefore the very strong effect he was having on public opinion with his presentations and finally the documentary of his presentation. A very typical ad hominem attack.

The comment about it all being a new tax is interesting as well. If one accepted that we needed to drastically change the way we generate energy and replace fossil fuelled energy with non fossil fuelled energy then some sort of economic incentive/disincentive is the way economists would recommend.The economic point of a tax on carbon is to make non carbon sources of energy more economically viable.

There is always a fair comment that this is just governments taxing for the sake of taxing but perhaps it might be worth discussing the best ways of changing energy use rather than reflexively dissing any government actions.

The John Cristy comment about a carbon tax being totally ineffective. Hmm. Actually all people in this area would agree that each single measure will have only a small effect. To actually address the problem properly will require many changes of policies, practices and community attitudes and even then because we have stuffed around for so long it may well be too late. If you put aside an hour or so to actually read a reasonable summary of the science and the consequences you will get an idea of the magnitude of the problem.

And the final comment "The climate has been changing all the time" is another priceless piece of misleading denier mischief. Yes of course climate has been changing for many different reasons. But what we are facing is an extremely rapid climate change ( rapid in geological terms) almost certainly caused by our actions in releasing billions of extra tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. The comment is as fatuous as saying about lung cancer victims that "people are dying all the time" and skipping over the faint possibility that 30 years of smoking was the direct cause of an early. ugly death. (I think this is a really good comparison because before the climate change denial industry really got going the same marketing sociopaths had developed their disinformation skills on behalf of Big Tobacco to prevent recognition that 1) smoking was addictive and 2) It caused lung cancer.)

The idea that pumping millions of extra tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere would in itself inevitably raise the temperature of the earth was put forward over a hundred years ago. It was formulated as a more specific theory around 60 years ago.

Through the last 30 years scientists having been carefully measuring temperatures around the world, observing the effects of a warming climate and increasing at an exponential rate their understanding of the earths past climates and the effects of other factors on our climate.

So in 2011 the evidence is well and truly in. The planet is warming at a rapid rate (again geologically speaking) and the inevitable consequences of continued warming will be absolutely catastrophic for our civilisations and most of the current lifeforms. And unfortunately we look like seeing some of these effects well within the next 20 years.

Of course absolutely no one including the scientific community (and me..) wants to believe that conclusion because it is devastating. So what do we do Sails ? Perhaps just shrug our shoulders and have a long pixx up before it all gets too tough ?


For a few stories on climate change check out

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm

A far more detailed but very useful analysis is on a website run by the insurance giant Allianz. It's interesting to note that insurance companies were amongst the first large companies to study the science carefully and come to the conclusion that we better take this problem seriously. This site is really worth a bit of time.

http://knowledge.allianz.com/climat...292&kwg=Exact_1784968432_climate+change+facts

 

[sails]

Basilio...

I gave you an honest run down of the factors which convinced me that this whole carbon thing is nothing more than a money scam and then you proceed to tear it down piece by piece with the same annoying spin that put me off in the first place...

Using words like "mischief", "denier", etc become rather tiring and do nothing to convince me of your arguments.

Oh and I forgot a fifth point: Finding out that Australia's world carbon emissions are only 1.28% reduces the whole carbon tax to the point of being ludicrous. Sure you can make that look bigger by quoting per capita, but we do live in a country of deserts, sweeping plains and rugged mountain ranges which are somewhat uninhabitable, so Australia will always have a less dense population than some other countries.

But the fact remains that Australia's carbon emissions are so negligible that trying to reduce them by 5% or even 20% will do practically nothing in the big scheme of things. That is another fact that fuels my increasing belief that it is nothing but a money scam. The reason remains a mystery, but the guesses are that it is for wealth redistribution and possibly part of an effort to "butter up" certain sectors of the community as a means of getting re-elected.

 

[orr]

What your suffering from sails is not new, It is in fact beautifully illustrated in a painting by J.L.A.Gericult-Le Radeau De La Medusa. We're all wretch's on that raft. Some see the tiny mast on the horizion and know that's our hope, other's try to encouraged the disillusioned, cursed by futility others hold back those with hope, others succumb to mortifying despair, seeing nothing but the fallen and others beaten still rise.
Depending on my mood sometimes I stand before this work of art and weep at its power to expose humanity.(it's the appreciation of art like this that makes it worth the bother, for me)

 

[spooly74]

Interesting interview with

http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/...april.html?site=brisbane&program=612_evenings

More on this here

Given the well-known relationship between the SOI and heavy rains in eastern Australia (eg., McBride and Nicholls, 1983) we can conclude that the fundamental cause of the heavy rains this past six months was indeed this record La Ni̱a event. Other heavy rain years (1917/18, 1950/51, 1973/74, 1975/76) were also the result of strong La Ni̱a events. The relationship between rainfall and the SOI is very strong, with a correlation coefficient of 0.66. So, the heavy rains were not caused by global warming, but by a record la Ni̱a event Рa natural fluctuation of the climate system.

But he doesn't stop there. He next asks: "But perhaps 2010/11 was a record La Niña because of global warming?"* His answer:

There has not been any trend in the SOI over the past 111 years, despite the warming of global mean temperature of about 0.75 °C over that period. Nor do climate models consistently predict increased strength of La Niña events from enhanced atmospheric content of greenhouse gases (eg., Vecchi and Wittenberg, 2010). So there is no reason, at this moment, for us to suspect that global warming is increasing the frequency or intensity of La Niña events.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/04/neville-nicholls-on-australias-extreme.html

 

[white_goodman]

So in 2011 the evidence is well and truly in. The planet is warming at a rapid rate (again geologically speaking) and the inevitable consequences of continued warming will be absolutely catastrophic for our civilisations and most of the current lifeforms. And unfortunately we look like seeing some of these effects well within the next 20 years.

id be interested in seeing such evidence... what % of co2 is in the atmosphere? and what % of that co2 is man made?

brb getting my tin hat

 

[sails]

id be interested in seeing such evidence... what % of co2 is in the atmosphere? and what % of that co2 is man made?

brb getting my tin hat

and better grab a drink too - it will be a looooong read...

And I hope he addresses the 1.28% that Australia contributes to world carbon emissions.

If Australia can reduce emissions by 5%, that will reduce emissions worldwide by 0.00064.

And for that miniscule amount, they want to rob over $800 per working person per annum. They have to be joking - this is totally absurd.

 

[white_goodman]

and better grab a drink too - it will be a looooong read...

And I hope he addresses the 1.28% that Australia contributes to world carbon emissions.

If Australia can reduce emissions by 5%, that will reduce emissions worldwide by 0.00064.

And for that miniscule amount, they want to rob over $800 per working person per annum. They have to be joking - this is totally absurd.

also note on that bbc article chart show what the temperature scale in on the right...

a doubling of co2 might = 1 degree of increase...

its the same crop of weak minded people falling victim to a Goebbels style campaign l70 years later...