Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Logique]

David Beckham Reignites Hypocrisy of “Overpopulation” Alarmists
Ultra-rich elitists lecture middle class on having less children, reducing living standards while living in opulence and procreating with gusto
Paul Joseph Watson Tuesday, July 19, 2011
....to expose the rampant hypocrisy of those telling us to lower our living standards, reduce CO2 emissions and have less kids while they themselves live in luxury, fly around in private jets, and procreate with little concern for “overpopulation”....
....The overpopulation myth is a tool of control freaks, a discredited and arcane reinvention of the eugenics dogma, designed to oppress, micro-manage and enslave the population by imperiling them to stunt their freedom, prosperity and happiness, while its proponents are stinking hypocrites who would do the planet a huge favor by following their own advice and disappearing off the face of the earth for good.

Malthusianism come and goes, but seems does seem to travel in lockstep with the AGW crowd and greens generally.

If you want to reduce birth rates, increase prosperity. This is the very thing the AGW crowd would prevent, if they could, via carbon dioxide reduction measures that would restrict economic development in the third world. At Copenhagen, the Chinese effectively told the west to take a flying leap, and I understand why.

Birth rates in the west are serious decline.

 

[moXJO]

Mr Klaus, who entered public life in 1989 when he and colleagues volunteered their services to the leaders of Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution against the communist regime imposed in the aftermath of World War II, warns that climate change is being used as a political weapon by the Left. "I do not believe in the innocence of global warming alarmists," he said. "They do not care about the environment, they just misuse it in their crusade, which aims at limiting our freedom and prosperity.

"I don't want to make cheap comparisons of their ideology with communism, but I do see many similarities . . . It is a new variant for the activist political Left, and I spent all my life fighting such a political thinking because I lived in such a political system."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/alarmism-a-danger-to-democracy-vaclav-klaus/story-fn59niix-1226098608900

It's a shame the science has been muddled in with the political.

 

[wayneL]

Judging from the rate of change we have seen in the last few decades I don't think most of the older members of this forum will see obvious large scale changes in the climate and will likely go to their graves still convinced it is a load of piffle. Though I think later in my life there will some major and obvious changes and my children and their children will live in a significantly different world.

Thanks derty. We can argue about the causative factors (and no doubt will ), but I agree that our (grand)children will live in a different world to this one.

The great shame is how those at either fringe of the debate have polarized points of view. I means that the great bulk of good that can be done in the middle is ignored.

 

[trainspotter]

I would let you know, but my computer with a calculator was destroyed by the Y2K bug..

Maybe my book on nostradamus will have something. Now it must be floating around in my room somewhere, because I don't allow gravity in here because it sucks down the bacteria which I will NEVER immunise myself against.

Don't worry though, I have thick skin, but brittle bones, from the fluoride that the government puts in the water to control my mind, so that I can watch the television which beams messages telling us to consume more.

Oh well, back to my hobby, got my trusty EL480i telescope.. just trying to find any evidence of a flag or footprints on the moon. Anyway, I have to go, Elvis wants another pie god dammit, he'll have to eat it cold, because Carbon dioxide is now a potent poison....

Post of the month. Puts some perspective on the matter.

 

[IFocus]

Well I don't really see it being addressed in any way that will begin to actually reduce emissions. Mind you there are ruminations that China is to embark on a emissions trading scheme though the aim is not to reduce emissions but to slow the rate of increase. The end result will be that we will see global annual emissions rise and will see an acceleration in rate of increase in the atmospheric CO2 levels.

The magic number touted is levelling atmospheric CO2 at 450ppmv to limit the temperature rise to 2 deg C. Now I don't know enough about climate modelling to know how accurate that number is. However, what we are seeing is a sustained period of temperature rise coupled with an increase in atmospheric CO2 almost entirely from anthropogenic sources. Regardless of what is said about Mann's hockey stick, the fact remains that the temperature anomaly has been confirmed by multiple studies using varied temperature proxies.

The absorption properties of CO2 within the infra-red spectrum is well understood, as is the band saturation effect that causes the logarithmic reduction in the energy intensity leaving the Earth. The radiative forcings of the long lived greenhouse gasses are well understood as are their contributions with increasing intensity. While the role of water vapour is less understood it's very short residency period makes it a reactionary atmospheric component and is not a long term driver of temperatures. The role of variations in the Sun is also less well understood, though the uncertainties are such that they cannot be used to explain the temperature variations.

The bare bones is that the current temperature variations (as well as those of palaeo variations) are not adequately explained in the absence of CO2 and the greenhouse effect and with anthropogenic additions of CO2 increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels by nearly 40% it is entirely logical to conclude that the bulk of the observed temperature anomaly is human induced.

As for the ramifications for humans on Earth that is a whole lot more subjective. Most of the doom and gloom merchants peddling imminent catastrophe are almost certainly wrong and most of the high profile ones all have political motives. From what I remember most of the predictions do not have a global 2 deg C rise in temperature occurring until late this century. However as the CO2 rise is leading the temperature rise the conditions for ensuring that temperature rise will be met long before then.

Judging from the rate of change we have seen in the last few decades I don't think most of the older members of this forum will see obvious large scale changes in the climate and will likely go to their graves still convinced it is a load of piffle. Though I think later in my life there will some major and obvious changes and my children and their children will live in a significantly different world.

Thanks derty huge post

 

[springhill]

Here is a letter written by Frederick Seitz,
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University,
regarding a Research Review of Global Warming Evidence,
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm

A petition signed by over 31,000 American Scientists - see the following site
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm

Click on The Global Warming Review Paper link and it brings you here.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

In the words of J.Gillard, i respect the scientists, i respect the science, the science is in. She should sit down and read this, pretty damning.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

We are looking at a low of 9 degrees in Townsville tonight. It's bloody colder presently so the forecasters are out by a bit.

This , from a comment on The Economist

How about the correlation between the number of pirates sailing the seas and the average global temperature? The correlation is obvious: back when there were more pirates the average temperature was lower; ergo, the absence of pirates is the cause of global warming.
Maybe now that those Somali and Asian pirates are active we will see a drop in the average global temperature.

Maybe this will make it to the front page of economist.com too.

I rest my case.

gg

 

[Wysiwyg]

How about we strike a deal. The politicians, guided by Ross Garnaut, give up everything that they use which is derived from the earth and move into the bush. That means selling the house and contents, car and toys. This is called leading the way and dealing with the climate change directly.

 

[derty]

Derty - that's the science.

But where is the scientific solution?

Why are economists and politicians deciding on the solution? They are not qualified. Doesn't this worry you from a science perspective?

AND trading carbon credits (or abatements) to other low co2 emitting countries (or companies as apparently Al Gore does or has done with his own companies) does not actually remove co2 from the atmosphere?

Can you please explain to me how trading money is going to reduce co2 in the atmosphere?

Look forward to your reply...

PS - please don't point me to economist papers, because they are NOT scientists qualified in climate and atmospheric science.

Apologies for the late reply - life is quite busy at the moment.

Basically the scientific solution has been presented by scientists qualified in climate and atmospheric science. It is to reduce CO2 emissions.

Unfortunately the implementation of that solution is only really viable via political and economic means. It requires the enticement, coercion or forcing of emitters to reduce their emissions. This is necessary, as while the cost of discharging your waste into the environment is cheaper than the cost of cleaning your waste before discharging it, there will be resistance from corporations and individuals to take the more expensive option. The incentive to change will generally require laws or taxation devices, and that is when the politicians and economists come in.

As for how taxation or emission trading schemes will work to limit the rise and possibly eventually begin to reduce atmospheric CO2 is quite simple. I'm sure you already understand the concept but I'll just put down my take on it. Taxes will make it more expensive to release the CO2 than treat it. Cap and Trade will place upper limits on how much CO2 a nation can emit and within that how much industries and businesses can emit. Those that emit less than the limit can sell their credits to those that can't. The cap limit can be reduced over time, reducing the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere and causing those industries and businesses that cannot comply to be priced out of business. Emissions trading allows the sale of carbon credits gained by emitting less than your cap or by sequestering CO2 to those that need to reduce taxes or allow production above a cap.

Ultimately the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere can only be facilitated by widespread adoption of non-CO2 emitting power generation and CO2 sequestration.

The sequestration of CO2 is not in the realm of climate scientists expertise. This is largely the work of chemists and engineers.

 

[sails]

Thanks, Derty. No worries taking time. These longer posts can take up quite a bit of time and I appreciate your effort...

I do understand the concept in FORCING people to use alternative energy. I am concerned that such energy has not yet been fully developed and, at this stage, green energy is generally more expensive than coal fired.

However, it seems the political goal is to make coal fired so unreasonably expensive, that people will be left with no choice economically than to try and work with alternatives. But, what if these alternatives are not reliable? I posted the story on the White Cliffs solar power station that eventually was fed into the grid as it was too expensive and didn't work at night.

But that aside, do we know if carbon tax is actually the most efficient method? Have tests been done in other countries that have priced carbon before us to know exactly how much co2 is reduced (as that seems to be the AGWers goal)? Has it been adjusted for economic factors such as recession or economic growth and how established, affordable and reliable alternatives were at the time of initiating carbon pricing? Scientists are good at this - are there any reports? I haven't been able to find any - only economist reports which I don't trust when they are delving into an area of science for which they are not qualified.

 

[sails]

Derty, in a nutshell, I am asking if scientists monitoring the effectiveness of pricing carbon?

And hopefully that is not just scientists on government payrolls as there is potentially a massive conflict of interest. Politicians are generally not known for their honesty...

I have major doubts that pricing carbon is going to change co2 in the atmosphere as there are far more causes of co2 other than our electricity use. But it is an essential service, so it makes sense from a political viewpoint that this is an area to tax to get the most revenue.

Too many things don't add up. I think it's time to move on from the controversial science and now that we are being threatened with the imposition of a tax that was promised wouldn't happen, we need to know how much this has been researched.

There seems to be nothing on it except from economists and they are not scientifically qualified, imo.

 

[Wysiwyg]

The cap limit can be reduced over time, reducing the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere and causing those industries and businesses that cannot comply to be priced out of business. Emissions trading allows the sale of carbon credits gained by emitting less than your cap or by sequestering CO2 to those that need to reduce taxes or allow production above a cap.

It will work when the nations that pump 1000 times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere follows this plan.

 

[Ruby]

The following address by Dr David Evans is an excellent short explanation (for those who are always asking for references but can't be bothered taking the time to look them up and spend the time reading them) of how we are being misled by the propaganda of the climate change "warmists".

Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.

He says.........

"The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians."

read the rest -it won't take long.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/

I thinkyou will agree he has the right credentials!

 

[springhill]

DANGEROUS GLOBAL WARMING ALERT!

News article from the Nelson Mail.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/5336024/Motuekas-first-snow-in-several-decades

and this excerpt from the NZ Herald.
"Yesterday saw the most widespread snow since 1995, with snow driven by a cold southerly falling from the southern tip of the South Island to Waikato, including in unusual spots such as Nelson, Palmerston North and the Kaimai Ranges near Tauranga.

The snow blanketed Christchurch in white.

The city had the heaviest snowfall, dumps of 30cm and 15cm disrupting electricity, transport, health and education services.

The University of Canterbury reopened again this morning at 11am after closing yesterday. Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology remains closed for a second day.

Orion Energy said damage to overhead lines cut power to at least 2000 Christchurch homes. Power has now been restored to almost the entire network, with only a handful of Tai Tapu customers still without power this morning.

Elective surgery and outpatient clinics at Christchurch Hospital were cancelled.

The St John ambulance service was called to 24 incidents in the South Island - eight in Christchurch - in which people injured themselves by falling on ice or snow.

Bus services have also been affected, with many runs cancelled. Metro hope to get some buses back on the road from 11am.

Later in the day, the cold air moved north, bringing snow flurries to Wellington. Some snowflakes drifted on to downtown Lambton Quay.

MetService said Greytown, in Wairarapa, had its first snow in 70 years.

Weather ambassador Bob McDavitt said the record cold was caused by a southerly push arriving at the coldest time of year and in an uninterrupted flow from the Antarctic.

"The coldest days usually come in late July," he said.

"But what is unusual is that ... this cold air has managed to bring snow to widespread areas ... and to places that haven't seen it for 15 to 20 years or more."

Federated Farmers adverse events spokesman David Rose said fortunately the snow did not come during lambing or calving.

"It's winter and spring that concern us the most," he told Radio New Zealand.

"Winter [weather] in winter is okay and we do have plans in place."

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research climate scientist Georgina Griffiths said the temperature at a weather station in Whangaparaoa, north of Auckland, dropped to 4.5C.

Dr Griffiths said that the last time it snowed in Auckland, in June 1976, the temperature was between 4C and 5C.

BIG CHILL

* First snow in Greytown, Wairarapa, since the 1940s.
* 45cm of snow in central Christchurch.
* Light snow in Nelson, Motueka, and Wellington.
* Airports, roads, hospitals closed, power cut.
* Coldest July day on record in Banks Peninsula (-1.2C).
* 12cm of new snow at Turoa skifield; -10C on upper slopes."


Those kiwi fools! If only they had left carbon alone all this could have been averted.

 

[derty]

DANGEROUS GLOBAL WARMING ALERT!

News article from the Nelson Mail.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/5336024/Motuekas-first-snow-in-several-decades

Cold snap is cold.

From the same article:

Mr Palmer welcomed the cold snap, saying it would help to provide the chilling many horticultural crops such as apples needed and reduce the risk of diseases and pests, which was high after such a warm autumn and a mild start to winter.

Swings and roundabouts - it's all about the long term averages.

 

[wayneL]

DANGEROUS GLOBAL WARMING ALERT!

News article from the Nelson Mail.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/5336024/Motuekas-first-snow-in-several-decades

and this excerpt from the NZ Herald.
"Yesterday saw the most widespread snow...

See! Our carbon tax is working! ::

 

[wayneL]

Swings and roundabouts - it's all about the long term averages.

Can you inform the Gorists and the Hansenists of this please.

 

[derty]

Can you inform the Gorists and the Hansenists of this please.

It's a problem that afflicts both sides of the fence.

It's often used to score cheap points, push the barrow or scaremonger, in the full knowledge that they are perturbations in the trend.

Though more often than not, especially at the level this forum operates at, it is presented as genuine evidence for or against warming and just reinstates the posters lack of understanding of the processes at the most basic of levels.

 

[springhill]

It's a problem that afflicts both sides of the fence.

It's often used to score cheap points, push the barrow or scaremonger, in the full knowledge that they are perturbations in the trend.

Though more often than not, especially at the level this forum operates at, it is presented as genuine evidence for or against warming and just reinstates the posters lack of understanding of the processes at the most basic of levels.

The article was posted toungue in cheek, obviously it's long term trends that matter, but it's still fun to take the p!ss out of global warmists with the odd short term event, just as they propose short term trends as the definitive evidence of climate change.

How long term is long term anyway, even 10,000 years is a pimple on a dog's butt in terms of planet age. Our scientific records date a couple of hundred.

 

[sails]

...Though more often than not, especially at the level this forum operates at, it is presented as genuine evidence for or against warming and just reinstates the posters lack of understanding of the processes at the most basic of levels.

Maybe so, Derty. However the majority of Australians are not scientists and yet we have to give a verdict at election time. Most people can see through lies, and I think the level of deception at play with AGW being used as an excuse for a new tax is something people can see through.

It seems that Gillard is using many partial truths in a desperate attempt to get voters on side, however, the more porkies and truth stretches she uses, eventually the public will find out and she will be further despised together with her policy.

Those of us without scientific qualifications have to rely on common sense in weighing up evidence from all sides of the debate. At this stage for me, the warming side is coming up severely wanting and made worse by the partial truths being sprouted.