Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

Well I apologize for not sitting in front of a computer twelve hours a day, fretting about an imaginary Armageddon, jousting with obnoxious leftist evangelical alarmists.

To save waiting for me, just read outside of where you know you'll feed your raging confirmation bias. Answers are there for the open minded

You are ever ready to pounce on an opportunity for your cause Champ. However I note a gradual withdrawal as the content leaks out of the can.

22 degrees here in Victoria today. All time highs according to the news at lunch time. However we have to batten down as a high wind rain storm is about to hit us here at Portarlington. Wife has not had to use the clothes drier for weeks so all good.

 

[basilio]

And while we are on the topic of people with no credibility lets have another look at the poor, persecuted Professor Salby.

Did you know for instance that he was banned from research funds in America for 3 years because of deceptive conduct in his research work? In essence he misappropriated around $300,000 and lied through his teeth about the research.

Unfortunately for Macquarie Uni they just didn't check him carefully enough before offering him a position.

Climate Sceptic Professor Sacked From Australian University Was Banned By National Science Foundation For "Deceptive Conduct"
Repost This
Comment on this StoryEmail this story

A CLIMATE sceptic professor fired from his Australian university for alleged policy breaches had previously been banned for three years from accessing US taxpayer-funded science research money.

Dr Murry Salby, sacked in May by Macquarie University in Sydney, was the subject of a long investigation by the US National Science Foundation.

The investigation (pdf), which was finished in February 2009, concluded that over a period when Dr Salby was working at the University of Colorado, he had likely fabricated time sheets in relation to research paid for through NSF money.

We conclude that the Subject (Dr Salby) has engaged in a long-running course of deceptive conduct involving both his University and NSF. His conduct reflects a consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit. This supports a finding that the Subject is not presently responsible, and we recommend that he be debarred for five years.

The NSF subsequently decided to only “debar” Dr Salby for three years, preventing him from accessing any NSF research grants or being involved in work related to them. The investigation was carried out by NSF’s Office of Inspector General - an arms-length organisation providing oversight to the NS

..[/B]

http://desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/mu...niversity--banned-national-science-foundation

- - - Updated - - -

I would like to have added a few more paragraphs about the conduct of Professor Salby but, as usual, the website was offline when I pressed send.

Just always seems to happen when I outlining some juicy exposure of a climate denialist fraudster.

 

[orr]

feed your raging confirmation bias. Answers are there for the open minded

Look mate as hard as it is for you to believe this; I appreciate the back ally's you've taken me down, too look at things from as many different perspectives as deemed worthy, But it is not for you I post here. Through History the gullible have have lined the pockets of snake oil sales men, I don't see you, as in that bucket. The quacks you proffer though, are protagonists for an elite who know no limits to their greed, nor do they give one iota for the broader project of humanity. A transition will be made through time to a carbon neutral dynamic to the benefit of all and not just human beings, accept those who disproportionally benefit through saturation. The real question is how much damage will be done before that point is reached. To expose here to ridicule the twaddle no matter arcanely scripted that is presented by those who are either deluded, lickspittles, or payed mouth pieces to the misanthropic elite mentioned above is my small effort to help a broader audience.

As to your hours online 'blathering', check your post rate to mine 'cooky boy'. Maybe One of us needs to get a life.

 

[basilio]

I was reflecting Waynes insistence that one should look outside the usual suspects to obtain a more balanced understanding of cliamte science.

So I did. I decided to have a look some of the work of the real Climate scientists who had published the 24 peer reviewed scientific papers that had rejected global warming as a real concern.

Professor Patrick Michaels wrote 4 such papers. He is one of the more outspoken scientists attacking the general consensus on the issue. He is quoted extensively by Fox News Wasington Post and CNN.

Trouble is when you look at his history of predictions re climate change he is just so, so wrong. Where its betting on cooling trends, Ice Ages, Green technology, Temperatures in the hemispheres, the Urban heat island effect, Satellites and so on.

This is the other side of the story.

Patrick Michaels: Cato's Climate Expert Has History Of Getting It Wrong
Research July 10, 2013 9:57 AM EDT ӼӼӼ SHAUNA THEEL
36
Print

A review of claims made by the Cato Institute's Patrick Michaels over the last quarter century shows that he has repeatedly been proven wrong over time. Michaels is one of a few contrarian climate scientists who is often featured in the media without disclosure of his funding from the fossil fuel industry.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/07/10/patrick-michaels-catos-climate-expert-has-histo/194800

 

[wayneL]

.
As to your hours online 'blathering', check your post rate to mine 'cooky boy'. Maybe One of us needs to get a life.

Orr. Check my join date. Then, if you'd done your research (which you obviously need to brush up on), know I've traded for a living exclusively for nearly ten years. Initially due to injury,but for a long time because I enjoy it. It would seem to follow that I would have a lot of posts on a STOCK forum.

I'm an active guy though. I like making sh*t, playing with horses and chatting with hot women... even not so hot women with beautiful personalities (you don't have to be beautiful to be beautiful). I still trade, but I've resumed my previous business which permits all those things.

So between my business, sport, trading and spending time with my gorgeous wife, who by some miracle is still with me after 31 years together, life is full and enjoyable. This crowds out my minor hobby of verbal sword play with obnoxious clowns on the interwebs.

So, as you were saying?

 

[Some Dude]

Certainly worth reading the Crikey report with regard to Salbys claims. Apparently he was behind a story produced in The Australian which attempted to debunk the Angry Hot summer story which highlighted the temperature extremes in Australia over 2012-2013.

Some more information emerging about Salby.

Salby had previously been banned for three years from accessing US taxpayer-funded science research money after the National Science Foundation (NSF) found that Salby's "actions over a period of years displays a pattern of deception, a lack of integrity, and a persistent and intentional disregard of NSF and University rules and policies."

The NSF report found that Salby had funneled himself hundreds of thousands of dollars in government grant money through a for-profit company he created, of which he was the sole employee. To justify his salary payments to the NSF, Salby claimed to be working for this company for an average of 14 hours per day for 98 consecutive days, which aside from being entirely implausible, would also have left him no time to fulfill his university obligations. The NSF concluded that Salby's behavior was likely fraudulent, but by the time the report was completed, Salby had resigned from the University of Colorado and moved to his job at Australia's Macquarie University.

Past history but it won't help his situation.

 

[Calliope]

This is what the lunatic left greenies have saddled us with...AND FOR WHAT???

It takes a special kind of incompetence to create the developed world’s highest power prices in a land blessed with so much cheap coal:

US giant Peabody Energy has slashed another 170 positions from its Queensland and NSW coal operations, weeks after it cut 450 employees

The latest job cuts in the sector, which has been suffering from low commodity prices and high costs, takes the total positions lost from the industry over the past year to more than 11,000…

Peabody chairman and chief executive Greg Boyce ... said Australia now had the most expensive power in the developed world, while cost pressures, eroding productivity and a maze of project approval requirements had plagued new coal projects.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

 

[basilio]

Ahh Andrew Bolt, Calliope and Peabody Mines - a collective trio of willful ignorance, unfortunate ignorance and blind self interest.

All this story says is that the price of coal has fallen making the mines unprofitable to Peabody. End of story.

 

[Calliope]

willful ignorance, unfortunate ignorance and blind self interest.

Ahh! There we have basilio in a nutshell, plus the usual bit of nastiness and arrogance thrown in.

 

[Zedd]

Those lunatic greenies again! Why did we listen to them when they were lobbying for excessive overdesign and gold-plating of our grid infrastructure. Bastards!

 

[Knobby22]

So its the greenies fault that gold plating occurred!
Who publishes this rubbish?
It has been caused by failed privatisation and regulation. Didn't anyone read the articles?
The regulators have been gamed by the companies.

 

[sydboy007]

This is what the lunatic left greenies have saddled us with...AND FOR WHAT???



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

So the Greenies caused a hyraulic fraking revolution in the USA which caused natural gas prices to drop from over 12 USD to below 3 USD per 1M BTU.

This price drop caused natural gas to be a cheaper fuel than coal so there's been a major shift to using natural gas as a fuel for electricity generation in the USA.

This in turn has caused a major reduction in coal demand, so US coal producers have basically flooded the seaborne thermal coal market.

As you know, when supply increases, and demand decreases, prices fall. It's how markets work.

I'd also argue that Peabody probably signed up to stupic work practices with the unions making the mines uneconomic without 100 year high coal prices.

So between a flood of thermal coal from the USA and poor management practices at the mine, how is that in any way related to "greenies"

 

[basilio]

Sdyboy you really wouldn't want to to us "facts" or "logic" in this conversation. They left years ago.

Andrew Bolt serves up any old tripe that suits his interest in bashing environmental/climate change discussions. And others just parrot him.

And naturally of course if you were looking for a coal company determined to trash the science behind Climate Change you couldn't go past Peabody.

In February 2010, Peabody Energy Corp. filed an inch-thick critical response to a U.S. EPA finding that power plant emissions tied to global warming endangered human health.

The St. Louis-based coal company laid out its arguments against global warming and the need to regulate emissions through a recounting of what climate skeptics were calling "Climategate." The short-lived scandal broke in 2009 when published emails among scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit opened the door for interest groups to pounce on the science supporting climate change.

In its regulatory filing, the nation's largest coal producer cast a wide net and pulled no punches. Peabody accused top scientists of manipulating data, and it sought to cast doubt on findings by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. By then, the U.N.-led body of science analysts had concluded that industrial greenhouse gases were amassing in the atmosphere and causing potentially irreversible damage.

Peabody argued, in contrast, that burning fossil fuels was good for the environment and for human health.

"Because GHG emissions, particularly carbon dioxide emissions, are so closely tied with all facets of modern life, a finding that GHG emissions endanger public health and welfare is akin to saying that modern life endangers public health or welfare," Peabody said in its petition to EPA. "But plainly just the opposite is the case."

Peabody continued: "Indeed, the obvious benefits of combusting fossil fuels present a paradox to EPA in making its Endangerment Finding: as the world has combusted more and more fossil fuel and therefore has emitted more and more GHGs, virtually every measurement of public health and welfare has improved."

Investors at the time embraced the spirited rebellion against the nation's environmental regulator. And it appeared to matter little that Peabody's strategy in Washington put it at odds with a broad scientific consensus

Of course a really basic fact about coal fired power stations is damage done by airborne particles, destruction of environment through rapcious mountain levelling coal mining and so on - apart from the CO2 emissions.

But as I said this is a fact free zone.

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059983899

 

[sydboy007]

Sdyboy you really wouldn't want to to us "facts" or "logic" in this conversation. They left years ago.

I hear ya. I just can't let something so blatantly incorrect stand.

If we don't challenge it and show it to be the false propaganda it is, then it unfortunately becomes accepted as fact which does no one any good.

My hope is if people see certain people are factually wrong with their claims most of the time, they'll start to ignore what they say.

 

[sptrawler]

I hear ya. I just can't let something so blatantly incorrect stand.

If we don't challenge it and show it to be the false propaganda it is, then it unfortunately becomes accepted as fact which does no one any good.

My hope is if people see certain people are factually wrong with their claims most of the time, they'll start to ignore what they say.

What, you mean a bit like your statement that the poor soil up North was the reason we couldn't grow crops.lol

Mate you are so full of it, mini me Rudd, that's what you would be.

 

[Calliope]

What, you mean a bit like your statement that the poor soil up North was the reason we couldn't grow crops.lol

Mate you are so full of it, mini me Rudd, that's what you would be.

This is the guy who said I was rude to call him a Greenie.

 

[wayneL]

I hear ya. I just can't let something so blatantly incorrect stand.

If we don't challenge it and show it to be the false propaganda it is, then it unfortunately becomes accepted as fact which does no one any good.

My hope is if people see certain people are factually wrong with their claims most of the time, they'll start to ignore what they say.

Like Hansen, Mann, Romm, Gleik et al?

 

[sydboy007]

What, you mean a bit like your statement that the poor soil up North was the reason we couldn't grow crops.lol

Mate you are so full of it, mini me Rudd, that's what you would be.

So we have X milions of hectares up north that Tony wants to develop

How does one go about narrowing down where to focus their efforts

Oh um, lets see:

How much water can we reliably use without degrading the environment would be a good start.

Then in those areas we have water we can focus on the soil quality. If you'd ready any of the reports I provided links to you, you would see they all mention POOR soil quality as a major issue.

My main argument is so far Abbotts hasn't show he's interested in a scientific analysis of what can be done up north, and most of the reports I've read, indicate that firstly water will be the main issue, after which poor soil quality will be another major inhibiting factor.

Throw in pests and wild life feeding on a lot of the crops that have previously trialled up north, and I don't see it likely we can double food production by going north. Abbott hasn't mention if he will allow GM crops, which is the only way I can see us overcoming water, poor soil, pests as an issue. Once you move in land, the issues of transportation costs become relevant issue as well.

 

[springhill]

So we have X milions of hectares up north that Tony wants to develop

How does one go about narrowing down where to focus their efforts

Oh um, lets see:

How much water can we reliably use without degrading the environment would be a good start.

Then in those areas we have water we can focus on the soil quality. If you'd ready any of the reports I provided links to you, you would see they all mention POOR soil quality as a major issue.

My main argument is so far Abbotts hasn't show he's interested in a scientific analysis of what can be done up north, and most of the reports I've read, indicate that firstly water will be the main issue, after which poor soil quality will be another major inhibiting factor.

Throw in pests and wild life feeding on a lot of the crops that have previously trialled up north, and I don't see it likely we can double food production by going north. Abbott hasn't mention if he will allow GM crops, which is the only way I can see us overcoming water, poor soil, pests as an issue. Once you move in land, the issues of transportation costs become relevant issue as well.

The problem with 'reports' is that they are usually written by someone who has never worked the land. I have an uncountable number of state govt dept reports, federal dept reports here that I wouldn't wipe my backside with.

Sand is an exceptionally poor quality soil, probably the worst, but you can still grow all kinds of vegetables and even fruit in it.

You obviously have no idea, and no practical experience growing food commercially.

You read it on the internet, therefore it must be true.

Stop embarrassing yourself by quoting reports as fact.

 

[Julia]

All this story says is that the price of coal has fallen making the mines unprofitable to Peabody. End of story.

Peabody CEO says 'policies such as the carbon tax and renewable energy target had hurt the sector and called for whoever (sic) won the federal election to repeal the carbon tax and streamline the project permitting system'.
It's wrong to suggest the only problem is the lower price of coal.

So its the greenies fault that gold plating occurred!
Who publishes this rubbish?
It has been caused by failed privatisation and regulation. Didn't anyone read the articles?
The regulators have been gamed by the companies.

I don't know about the rest of Australia, but regional Qld electricity suppliers are all owned by the government, so no way of blaming privatisation here.

There seems to be rather a lot of attributing cause and effect in accordance with the philosophy of the person attempting to make the argument.