Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Calliope]

Science says we should put a tax on carbon. Commonsense tells us that carbon is our most valuable resource. That great believer in "the science", Bob Brown, thinks all fossil fuels should stay in the ground. He lacks common sense.

THE economy looks set to suffer it biggest contraction in 20 years in the first quarter of 2011 after a string of natural disasters savaged exports in crucial industries such as coal

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...atural-disasters/story-e6frg926-1226066438394

 

[wayneL]

Wayne I think the contributors who wanted to ditch all scientific research on climate change (unless they agreed with it of course !) in preference to their own robust commonsense made more sense than you have.

FWIW I leave the discussion on the robustness of the current science behind climate change to a real expert.




And, please note, Professor Steffen was John Howards appointment as the government science advisor in 2004.

Yes, and as previously noted, alarmists must go the ad hominem route as the first option.

You are at least true to form.

Prof. Steffan has done no better than throw a tantrum.

 

[sails]

Ahhh but not all scientists agree with your version. Even though you may not agree with them doesn't mean they are wrong either...

And I don't think any pro carbon tax has actually refuted the wiki link that I have posted from time to time. Posted it again yesterday when IFocus listed all the countries that are doing something to reduce carbon. Apart from India, all eight other countries emit a combined total of 1.04% of world carbon dioxide.

Australia emits 1.35% (by memory). Even if we reduce our emissions by 5% - it seems futile to put the economy at such risk for this piddling amount.

I think there are two arguments - one is the one being mostly discussed here and this is how much responsible man is for CO2. An argument that will always have opposing view points.

The other more important thing IMO is - even IF we are responsible, unless the heavy polluting countries which emit a combined total of approx 70% such as China, US, Japan, Rusia do something, isn't it futile for the rest of the countries who emit such tiny amounts? Any thoughts from our climate "experts"????

basilio - why do you think Australia should put it's economy at risk to reduce 5% of 1.35% of world carbon dioxide emissions? Don't you think it's futile when the biggest polluting countries are not interested in this nonsense?

 

[explod]

Prof. Steffan has done no better than throw a tantrum.

We are starting to see who is throwing the tantrum. Lacking a bit of explanation in proportion to the bland statement I feel.

Yes this whole carbon and warming thingo is a connundrum. But as we continue with expansionism it is only going to grow into a larger problem.

If we can start to at least agree that we have a problem, and we will eventually, then all heads will be the better to try and solve it.

The current crapola is the more pointless of all that we assert. And this point does deserve a

 

[wayneL]

Yes, and once apon a time the world was flat and the heretics who expresses another possiblity, based on some crazy science, were cast out and some burned at the stake.

Waynel, subjective gobbledygook is just that and science works and points to conclusions which are objective.

But of course we will only see what we want to look at. Our dreams and desires cannot be measured and quantified but they unfortunately get in the way of the objective.

Observations are (usually) objective. Experiment design (or model design) is subjective to a lesser or greater extent as I've highlighted in my example of equine exercise physiology.

Conclusions often are, or at least have a component of subjectivity.

The very nature of climate science means there is a very large component of subjectivity.

 

[wayneL]

We are starting to see who is throwing the tantrum. Lacking a bit of explanation in proportion to the bland statement I feel.

OK then, can you please highlight where the professor has introduced any substantive scientific arguments in that article?

 

[bellenuit]

Science says we should put a tax on carbon.

Actually science doesn't say that at all. Science, at least the consensus view, tells us that the earth is warming and that the warming trend is due to an increase in carbon dioxide due to human activity. To the extent that I have followed the debate I accept that that is the case. Science also tells us that the way to slow down or stop the warming trend is to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which can only be achieved by reducing CO2 emissions to a point where CO2 absorption exceeds CO2 emissions. Science can also tell us what human activities produce the most CO2 and what produce the least.

Science makes no statement on what is the best way to encourage the move from high CO2 emitting activities to low CO2 emitting activities and what economic effect such a move would have. That is the realm of economics and politics The carbon tax is one such method. One can accept the scientific view in relation to climate change but fully reject the proposed solutions to effect the change. That isn't challenging science, but challenging an economic model that has to date never been tested in the socio-economic environment that is Australia. My opinion is that it won't work and will lead to a weakening in Australia's economic position which will put us in a worse position to tackle the problem.

 

[explod]

OK then, can you please highlight where the professor has introduced any substantive scientific arguments in that article?

''You can have a very partisan approach to the policy and how you deal with it - that's fair game - but I think a wise society would respect the judgment of its experts, bearing in mind that that judgment is continually debated within [the scientific community],'' he said.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...st-infantile-20100524-w81e.html#ixzz1Numg4Ol9

At the end of the day we have to surely take some note of the experts.

Of course how we attain that may be the real burning question.

 

[wayneL]

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...st-infantile-20100524-w81e.html#ixzz1Numg4Ol9

At the end of the day we have to surely take some note of the experts.

Of course how we attain that may be the real burning question.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[mexican]

Always good to hear a presentation by a qualified Professor that does not have his hand in the government's pocket!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9IHKfzDdn8&feature=relmfu

 

[Calliope]

Actually science doesn't say that at all. Science, at least the consensus view, tells us that the earth is warming and that the warming trend is due to an increase in carbon dioxide due to human activity.

Sorry. I thought Gillard was using "the science" which says warming is our fault, to justify her taxes, to put a brake on our nasty "human activity" of emitting CO2 by burning coal.

 

[explod]

You didn't answer my question.

You need to explain first why you believe the professor was throwing a tantrum. It ws not clear to me.

 

[wayneL]

You need to explain first why you believe the professor was throwing a tantrum. It ws not clear to me.

I hold that to be self evident. Emotive language is the clue.

 

[IFocus]

I keep wondering about a couple of questions.

If we do nothing what will a world population of 9 billion do for energy and who goes hungry?

If we do nothing what will drive us to discover other other energy sources.

If we do nothing what will the wars look like in the battle for energy?

If we do nothing what happens if the oceans acidify.

Is there anyone here who believes oil will not run out?

Is there anyone here who believes coal or nuclear power will plant crops?

How can what we do today i.e. world growth in resource use continue with a population of 9 bil.

If we do some thing who will die?

 

[explod]

''It's a no-brainer. If you go over the last couple of decades you see tens of thousands of papers in the peer-reviewed literature, and you have less than 10 that challenge the fundamentals - and they have been disproved,'' Professor Steffen said after an address at the Australian Davos Connection's Future Summit.

''Right now, this almost infantile debate about whether 'is it real or isn't it real?', it's like saying, 'Is the Earth round or is it flat?' [Climate change] is a hugely important question and yet we are not having a rational discourse in the media in Australia on this question. That is my biggest frustration.''

This is what he was purported to have said directly. The other content is the version of what was said by the reporter.

And I agree with what he states above and would be interested on what, in this Waynel, that you disagree and why?

 

[moXJO]

I keep wondering about a couple of questions.

If we do nothing what will a world population of 9 billion do for energy and who goes hungry?

If we do nothing what will drive us to discover other other energy sources.

If we do nothing what will the wars look like in the battle for energy?

If we do nothing what happens if the oceans acidify.

Is there anyone here who believes oil will not run out?

Is there anyone here who believes coal or nuclear power will plant crops?

How can what we do today i.e. world growth in resource use continue with a population of 9 bil.

If we do some thing who will die?

Bleehhh
Are you the writer for the new carbon tax ad or something.

 

[IFocus]

Bleehhh
Are you the writer for the new carbon tax ad or something.

To be honest the carbon tax is neither here nor there but to do nothing is a much more serious decision.

There are some serious consequences coming but seems like those making the decisions now wont be around for the results I just cannot see a happy ending in 50 years time.

I think the climate thing is not a No 1 issue now but if we cannot find a way though dealing with the questions on really such a basic premise .........well we are well and truly Fu(ked for the other serious issues coming sooner.

 

[trainspotter]

I keep wondering about a couple of questions.

If we do nothing what will a world population of 9 billion do for energy and who goes hungry?

If we do nothing what will drive us to discover other other energy sources.

If we do nothing what will the wars look like in the battle for energy?

If we do nothing what happens if the oceans acidify.

Is there anyone here who believes oil will not run out?

Is there anyone here who believes coal or nuclear power will plant crops?

How can what we do today i.e. world growth in resource use continue with a population of 9 bil.

If we do some thing who will die?

Methinks a carbon tax is not the answer. Seeing how we waste more food then we eat I really do not see this as an issue.

 

[basilio]

I keep wondering about a couple of questions.

If we do nothing what will a world population of 9 billion do for energy and who goes hungry?

If we do nothing what will drive us to discover other other energy sources.

If we do nothing what will the wars look like in the battle for energy?

If we do nothing what happens if the oceans acidify.

Is there anyone here who believes oil will not run out?

Is there anyone here who believes coal or nuclear power will plant crops?

How can what we do today i.e. world growth in resource use continue with a population of 9 bil.

If we do some thing who will die?

That is the big picture IFocus. We don't just have a global warming problem or a peak oil problem or a resources constraint problem. If we are going to somehow muddle through in some semi coherant shape all the issues have to be addressed.

When we (as a society) actually get to the stage of acknowledging the reality and severity of these issues we might start thinking about what we have to change and give up to make an impact. Up until now it's been groups like the Pentagon, environmentalists and the broader scientific community who have been most concerned.

It's been mentioned before but still bears repeating. The mantra of continual economic growth as the only way to keep our society going is one of the basic reasons we are in this mess. And to get out of this mess (after we actually recognise it is there ! ) we have to find a way of restructuring our society to use less resources but still keep everyone alive and reasonably happy.

I think that deserves it's own thread and it is a worthwhile discussion.

 

[sails]

Ahhh but not all scientists agree with your version. Even though you may not agree with them doesn't mean they are wrong either...

And I don't think any pro carbon tax has actually refuted the wiki link that I have posted from time to time. Posted it again yesterday when IFocus listed all the countries that are doing something to reduce carbon. Apart from India, all eight other countries emit a combined total of 1.04% of world carbon dioxide.

Australia emits 1.35% (by memory). Even if we reduce our emissions by 5% - it seems futile to put the economy at such risk for this piddling amount.

I think there are two arguments - one is the one being mostly discussed here and this is how much responsible man is for CO2. An argument that will always have opposing view points.

The other more important thing IMO is - even IF we are responsible, unless the heavy polluting countries which emit a combined total of approx 70% such as China, US, Japan, Rusia do something, isn't it futile for the rest of the countries who emit such tiny amounts? Any thoughts from our climate "experts"????

OK, I'll try again Basilio - what's the point when Australia emits so little CO2???

If still no answer, I will start a new thread...lol