Resisting Climate Hysteria

[sptrawler]

If the Chinese are willing to take the risks of buying up agricultural land in Australia with the hops it will feed them should the worst happen, then more fool them.

As was seen during SARS, when the chips are down even slightly, it's every country for themselves.

China would be better off stopping the desertification of their own country, reforming their agricultural sector to attain the efficiency of the US and Australia in terms of output rather than buying land somewhere else and hoping we will ship the produce to them.

Why? when you can purchase land outside of your borders, that already has been cleared has infrastructure, all it requires is water.
The cost placed on pumping water from the ord to Perth was $12B, that was using diesel not gas.
That is a pittance to China, when they own enough land, they could put it in and charge us for the water.LOL

We are such a bunch of dicks, but we will be able to watch our demise on high speed NBN broadband, for $50b.

Like our NBN driven IT sector is going to lead us to the forefront of the world. Jeez
Even if we came up with something the U.S, U.K or China would buy it out.

The only advantage we have is minerals on the surface and a small population.
We should be using the mineral wealth to develop the food bowl, which will be ongoing.IMO

 

[ghotib]

And who is Dr.Jones one might ask?

Can he take out tonsils? no.

Can he take out an appendix? no.

He is funded.

He who pays the piper plays the tune.

He robs the Sun of it's rays. What happens when that runs out?
gg

Is that supposed to be a joke GG? I thought it might be a test but it seem a bit too simple for that - Is there more than one Dr Jones Yes/No/Anything for a cheap shot

This Dr Jones is a senior climatologist with the BoM. His B,SC and Ph.D are from Uni of Melbourne.

I live in a corner of the Illawarra region of NSW. The region was one of those designated Catastrophic Fire Conditions today. Our corner was merely Extreme, but we still spent the day with the car packed and attention divided between the dam, the sky, the radio and the Rural Fire Service twitter feed.

I was feeling very thankful but Smurf's post above, that

"All those "dams will never fill again" type predictions did a lot to discredit the public perception of the overall issue and unfortunately it's been reduced to a he said / she said type of argument.

makes me as sad as anything I've read on this whole sorry thread.

If our level-headed Smurf believes that any such bald prediction was ever made, it can only be because the real predictions have been drowned out by the distortions. This particular distortion comes from a Landline interview with Tim Flannery in 2007. Here's the question and Flannery's answer:

SALLY SARA: What will it mean for Australian farmers if the predictions of climate change are correct and little is done to stop it? What will that mean for a farmer?

PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

Both question and answer contain "if"s. Both question and answer are in the context of farming through a long drought. The answer is a general description of long term (to 2100) changes whose initial impacts on rainfall and water storages were already visible. It doesn't say and doesn't mean that the dams would never fill again from the day of the interview till eternity. It does mean that IF certain trends continue then at some time dams and river systems will run dry.

So much misunderstanding. Such terrible results. So very sad.

 

[sydboy007]

Why? when you can purchase land outside of your borders, that already has been cleared has infrastructure, all it requires is water.
The cost placed on pumping water from the ord to Perth was $12B, that was using diesel not gas.
That is a pittance to China, when they own enough land, they could put it in and charge us for the water.LOL

We are such a bunch of dicks, but we will be able to watch our demise on high speed NBN broadband, for $50b.

Like our NBN driven IT sector is going to lead us to the forefront of the world. Jeez
Even if we came up with something the U.S, U.K or China would buy it out.

The only advantage we have is minerals on the surface and a small population.
We should be using the mineral wealth to develop the food bowl, which will be ongoing.IMO

i think food produced within your country's borders is far more secure than outside.

Just look at what happens when some food crops were low due to drought a few yrs back. Half of Asia stopped exporting rice, Russia banned wheat exports.

If China wants to take the risk to expand food production within Australia, good for them, but don't for a minute think that if the Australian Govt was faced with a food crisis that they would allow it to be exported if it was required to feed the local population.

 

[sydboy007]

Is that supposed to be a joke GG? I thought it might be a test but it seem a bit too simple for that - Is there more than one Dr Jones Yes/No/Anything for a cheap shot

This Dr Jones is a senior climatologist with the BoM. His B,SC and Ph.D are from Uni of Melbourne.

I live in a corner of the Illawarra region of NSW. The region was one of those designated Catastrophic Fire Conditions today. Our corner was merely Extreme, but we still spent the day with the car packed and attention divided between the dam, the sky, the radio and the Rural Fire Service twitter feed.

I was feeling very thankful but Smurf's post above, that makes me as sad as anything I've read on this whole sorry thread.

If our level-headed Smurf believes that any such bald prediction was ever made, it can only be because the real predictions have been drowned out by the distortions. This particular distortion comes from a Landline interview with Tim Flannery in 2007. Here's the question and Flannery's answer:

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

Both question and answer contain "if"s. Both question and answer are in the context of farming through a long drought. The answer is a general description of long term (to 2100) changes whose initial impacts on rainfall and water storages were already visible. It doesn't say and doesn't mean that the dams would never fill again from the day of the interview till eternity. It does mean that IF certain trends continue then at some time dams and river systems will run dry.

So much misunderstanding. Such terrible results. So very sad.

+1

The debate out climate change is so politically charged. It's a shame that the economy and environment have been so divorced from each other with the world of economics.

We all need to realise we need to do a lot more with a lot less.

 

[wayneL]

Just a sidebar and with reference to the 'big oil funding' strawman argument, did anyone notice this little deal?

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/gore-went-to-bat-for-al-jazeera-and-himself/

Television executives and observers were surprised by both the big price tag and the decision by Mr. Gore, one of the best-known proponents for action to combat global warming, to sell to a Middle Eastern monarchy built with oil wealth.

The headline on a FoxNews.com op-ed on Thursday was “Global warming guru Al Gore becomes rich hypocrite with sale of Current TV to Qatar, Inc.” Several analysts said that Al Jazeera overpaid for Current.

 

[basilio]

The headline on a FoxNews.com op-ed on Thursday was “Global warming guru Al Gore becomes rich hypocrite with sale of Current TV to Qatar, Inc.” Several analysts said that Al Jazeera overpaid for Current.

compliments of Wayne

Ah thats great. Wayne wants to use Fox news as a reference for reality.

Of course when you actually read the story in the New York Times you realise that Al Gore felt more comfortable with Al Jazzera as a buyer than, say, Glen Becks company. In fact Al Jazzera is recognized as an exceptionally evenhanded and competent international news agency. Gosh even GG says that !!

By the way Wayne are you still of the view that global temperatures aren't actually rising because of urban heat island effects/ dodgy sitings and so on ? Just wondering . Obviously there must be some serious urban heat islands around Oz at the moment.

Along similar lines it appears, according to GG, that because the senior meteorologist Dr Jones is paid by the Commonwealth government he can't be trusted with reading the results of the daily temperatures. Something about "He who pays the piper calls the tune" (And I offered GG as a reference on Al Jazzera !!)

Welcome to Some Dude and sydboy007 to this thread. It's good to see some fresh thoughtful contribution.

And Ghotlib that was an excellent contribution of the full text of Tim Flannerys Landline interview in 2007. It was never hard to understand why Tim Flannery and most scientists could foresee problems with keeping up water supplies in a warming climate. The deliberate distortions of the comments used by Andrew Bolt and co in the climate discussion have just been used to discredit Tim Flannery and and by extension other scientists in this discussion.

 

[explod]

In February 1992, at the UN in New York, the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) - a lobby group representing Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, Shell, BP and many other oil, coal and auto companies - used professional sceptic Fred Singer to attack the IPCC science at a press conference during the fifth session negotiations. The GGC issued a briefing entitled "Stabilising carbon-dioxide emissions would have very little environmental benefit". This kind of tactic became a feature of the negotiations: the deployment of one or more of a tiny group of well known contrarians against hundreds of scientists - most of them in government service, including the US's - who populated the IPCC side.

It has worked too well and though at this late stage the number of circling Indians are honing in, my own fear is that we may too late.

The quote from p.157 "Half Gone" Leggett 2005

 

[Smurf1976]

I was feeling very thankful but Smurf's post above, that makes me as sad as anything I've read on this whole sorry thread.

If our level-headed Smurf believes that any such bald prediction was ever made, it can only be because the real predictions have been drowned out by the distortions. This particular distortion comes from a Landline interview with Tim Flannery in 2007.

All I can say is that I was personally quite involved so far as the issue of rainfall (well, stream flows) are concerned back in 2008 and 2009.

Been to meetings, seen the charts, heard the predictions and so on. I was also personally shouted down (by someone from government) for daring to point out that "zero flows" was an unlikely scenario.

It is a reality that Australian state governments all bought the "zero flows" line as at least being possible back in circa 2008 - 2009. All the mainland states went into desal to "drought proof" urban water supplies and did so amongst considerable panic with the associated cost blowouts and so on.

Look in the newspapers and public comment is much the same. "Water is more valuable than oil", "water is the most precious resource" and so on. Even the likes of Bunnings jumped on the bandwagon with an assortment of "water saving" devices for sale. Drought hysteria was everywhere.

Then there were the dams, public perception being that they were useless because we'd never be able to fill them. In complete ignorance of the facts, the argument goes along the lines of "what's the point of having more storage if we can't fill what we've got?". Never mind that filling it up when it does rain is the whole point of storage.

In much the same manner as talk of buying stocks is hard to avoid during the last days of a mania (those old enough will no doubt remember the dot com hype all too well). It was hard to escape the "water crisis" back then, and there were certainly plenty of people making predictions as to how long the water would "last" based only on what was already in storage. That, as much as (if not more than) Flannery, is where this "never fill the dams again" myth comes from.

Needless to say, once you've associated "permanent" drought with climate change then public support drops like a rock once the rain starts and the floods arrive. It's like anything to do with reputation - up the stairs and down the fire pole.

Adding to the public's lack of confidence were things like calls for "permanent" water restrictions, a move that makes a mockery of the prospect of future drought whilst also inconveniencing people for no necessary reason. It's a grab for control for the sake of it.

Personally, I'm very well aware of what's going on so far as stream flows are concerned and the trend isn't good that's for sure. Likewise I'm a regular bush walker and I know what I see there too and it's the same trend. Even after the "good" rains of 2010 and 2011, there's no shortage of "permanent" creeks that are still dry today (and yes, some of those are in water catchment areas). The stream flow decline in SW WA is well known and documented meanwhile Hydro Tas has released a lot of data publicly about what's going on in Tasmania. I'll add that we are now in a period where storage levels are very likely to trend downward.

But I also know that people are fed up with hearing "scientists" argue for taxation (I have personally heard this one on radio news) and so on. Stick to the facts, the actual science, and drop the politics.

 

[sydboy007]

All I can say is that I was personally quite involved so far as the issue of rainfall (well, stream flows) are concerned back in 2008 and 2009.

Personally, I'm very well aware of what's going on so far as stream flows are concerned and the trend isn't good that's for sure. Likewise I'm a regular bush walker and I know what I see there too and it's the same trend. Even after the "good" rains of 2010 and 2011, there's no shortage of "permanent" creeks that are still dry today (and yes, some of those are in water catchment areas). The stream flow decline in SW WA is well known and documented meanwhile Hydro Tas has released a lot of data publicly about what's going on in Tasmania. I'll add that we are now in a period where storage levels are very likely to trend downward.

But I also know that people are fed up with hearing "scientists" argue for taxation (I have personally heard this one on radio news) and so on. Stick to the facts, the actual science, and drop the politics.

It worked pretty well with sorting out sulphur emissions and acid rain

Seems to have worked fairly well on cutting down cigarettes too.

Maybe more of an emphasis on energy efficiency could help. I am annoyed that we allow too many highly inefficient products into this country.

A focus on higher fuel efficiency for cars would go a long way too. We could cut billions off our oil import bill if the Australian car fleet had similar efficiency levels as the Japanese and Europeans.

maybe less about saving the planet, more about securing our competitiveness and economic security in a more multi-polar and fractured future.

 

[Smurf1976]

It worked pretty well with sorting out sulphur emissions and acid rain

Seems to have worked fairly well on cutting down cigarettes too.

Maybe more of an emphasis on energy efficiency could help. I am annoyed that we allow too many highly inefficient products into this country.

A focus on higher fuel efficiency for cars would go a long way too. We could cut billions off our oil import bill if the Australian car fleet had similar efficiency levels as the Japanese and Europeans.

maybe less about saving the planet, more about securing our competitiveness and economic security in a more multi-polar and fractured future.

Cutting SOx emissions really only worked in those countries that wanted to do it. Also there's that little point that installing an FGD plant is a "bolt on" fix for existing power stations, smelters and the like and is reasonably cheap. It's akin to the idea of cheaply capturing and storing carbon - that's a very similar concept to what actually happens with sulphur. And of course the by-products of capturing sulphur, either as sulphuric acid or gypsum, are themselves valuable.

With cigarettes, there are still countries where smoking rates are extremely high and even increasing. Likewise cigarettes are still advertised by various means in much of the world. Even in places like California they are still advertised - and yet go into a cafe and there's a nice big warning sign telling you that the coffee, cakes and anything else they sell might give you cancer (true).

My real point though is that doctors focus on the health dangers of smoking and urge patients to quit. I don't recall my GP ever campaigning directly on taxation policy or urging the introduction of tradeable smoking permits and an exchange to trade them on complete with a futures market etc.

If you hear a "scientist" urging taxation reform then at best this "scientist" has proclaimed themselves an expert on markets and economics. It reeks of jumping on the bandwagon with regard to a specific, widely promoted solution to the problem. They'd be better off sticking to the science, and letting others work out how to bring about the emissions reduction.

 

[macca]

I don't think we have had this link have we ?

http://www.climatecooling.org/

Interesting stuff from someone who has worked with IPCC in the past

 

[basilio]

What has been the contribution of human emitted greenhouse gasses to global warming in the last 16 years ?

Nifty video manages to identify and separate the effects of volcanic eruptions and El Niño effects from temperature changes. Short sweet and simple.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk&feature=player_embedded

 

[Some Dude]

I don't think we have had this link have we ?

http://www.climatecooling.org/

Interesting stuff from someone who has worked with IPCC in the past

Which point on the website was the most interesting for you?

 

[sails]

Which point on the website was the most interesting for you?

SD - are you a teacher by any chance? Or an ex-teacher?...

 

[Some Dude]

SD - are you a teacher by any chance? Or an ex-teacher?...

Heh. I have done teaching but I am a software engineer by trade. I taught software development and project management for a small time.

Why do you ask?

 

[sails]

Heh. I have done teaching but I am a software engineer by trade. I taught software development and project management for a small time.

Why do you ask?

SD, questions like this one of yours: "Which point on the website was the most interesting for you?" which is quite typical of the types of questions given to school kids for homework. I know because I help a fair bit with grandkid's homework and I dread these sort of loaded questions when I am tired from looking after the kids and their mum AND the child has little idea on how to answer it and needs a fair bit of help!...

 

[Some Dude]

SD, questions like this one of yours: "Which point on the website was the most interesting for you?" which is quite typical of the types of questions given to school kids for homework. I know because I help a fair bit with grandkid's homework and I dread these sort of loaded questions when I am tired from looking after the kids and their mum AND the child has little idea on how to answer it and needs a fair bit of help!...

Well, fortunately for you, I am not the teacher, and macca isn't your grandchild

What I find when looking at series of claims is that is that is better to focus on the main salient point that the person finds convincing so that I don't waste my time investigating points that will ultimately prove irrelevant.

 

[wayneL]

Oh those Russians!

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/04-01-2013/123380-global_warming-0/

Global warming, the tool of the West
04.01.2013


By Stanislav Mishin



For years, the Elites of the West have cranked up the myth of Man Made Global Warming as a means first and foremost to control the lives and behaviors of their populations. Knowing full well that their produce in China and sell in the West model and its consequent spiral downward in wages and thus standards of living, was unsustainable, the elites moved to use this new "science" to guilt trip and scare monger their populations into smaller and more conservatives forms of living. In other words, they coasted them into the poverty that the greed and treason of those said same elites was already creating in their native lands.

What better way to staunch protests at worsening economic and life conditions than to make it feel like an honourable job/duty of the people to save "Gia". At the same time, they used this "science" as new pagan religion to further push out the Christianity they hate and despise and most of all, fear? Gia worship, the earth "mother", has been pushed in popular culture oozing out of the West for a better part of the past 1.5 decades. This is a religion replete with an army of priests, called Government Grant Scientists.

 

[orr]

SD, questions like this one of yours: "Which point on the website was the most interesting for you?" which is quite typical of the types of questions given to school kids for homework. I know because I help a fair bit with grandkid's homework and I dread these sort of loaded questions when I am tired from looking after the kids and their mum AND the child has little idea on how to answer it and needs a fair bit of help!...

This is a quote lifted from a direct link From maccas artical:
"No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years"

"Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades"

It's the bit I liked best in the Article.

Use it next time your 'helping' your kids and grand kids with their home work/indoctrination?... It may elucidate an uncomfortable question or two. But that's what learning is about. Or there is the 'Blissful' alternative.

'Life' ahhhhhhh... It's getting very tiring isn't it Sails, so many disagreeable things, ghastly things. Go and have a BEX and a good lie down, in or about the late 50's.

 

[Some Dude]

This is a quote lifted from a direct link From maccas artical:
"No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years"

"Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades"

It's the bit I liked best in the Article.

Do you object to us digging a little deeper into both that research, the author, and why you like it best?

If you don't object:

What about that point appeals to you. Is that a piece of information that you find compelling with regard to your belief about the topic?