Resisting Climate Hysteria

[cynic]

Yep... !! And for dear Cynic; that was a satirical piece intended to do exactly what Explod pointed out.

And as I said earlier I will not attempt to discuss science with a person who seriously believes he has a better grasp of the Theory of Relativity than the best scientists in the field.

That's so typical of your pusillanimity, basilio, throwing stones whilst hiding behind the credentials of others!

Wouldn't it be easier to come out into the open and learn some actual science so that we can resolve this matter once and for all?

Alternatively, how hard would it be for you to admit to the fact that your allegations were unfounded?

P.S. Unlike certain(not all) posters to this thread, my comprehension of science is sufficient to substantiate all of the assertions that I've made on this and other threads!
(Also, the scope of my scientific understanding is not limited to google searches or the contents of wikipedia!)

 

[explod]

"Objectivity" wayneL @_@$&xo,

Starooth, your personal feelings are like blood flowing all the wayvthrough this thread.

The oil lobby is alive and well and withvthe Murdock press in goverent the task of raising the truth just tougher. But as i have repeated you are going to lose this one ole Pal.

Watch this space.

 

[wayneL]

Plod, your predictive prowess is running at 0% on this forum, showing yet again the veracity of wayneL's law.

There is never a better contrarian signal than one of your predictions.

 

[explod]

Plod, your predictive prowess is running at 0% on this forum, showing yet again the veracity of wayneL's law.

There is never a better contrarian signal than one of your predictions.

I gave up predicting years ago. Remember the trend is your friend till the bend.

Global warming induced by the burning of fossill fuels is on the up trend. You can see and feel it so you can even forget the guvnut induced scientists.

 

[basilio]

They need to understand, as WayneL does, that no true scientist would ever ever say the science is decided and 97% of scientists agree..

Logique

Is there space for a risk management approach here?

Lets accept that there are very few things that are certain in life. How much of a risk should we take that GW is very real and that if it continues (as most Climate scientists believe it will) we face a very sticky future ?

How much of risk would accept that your next plane flight will crash because of known faults with the engines ?

What is the acceptable cancer risk for smoking ?

There is a well developed discussion on this approach that simply covers the same logic that is used by all businesses and all governments when they have to make decisions on imperfect knowledge. Might be worth a read.

Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
How a scientist looks at public discussions of climate change

......To start, we should all recognize that no one wants to injure the planet, the climate, and the future economies and societies that our children will inherit. Even the radicals don't want to pollute the planet. Can you imagine James Inhofe sitting around the dinner table asking his family to find more ways he can pollute the air and water of this planet? I can't; it just doesn't happen.

....We can discuss climate change without immediately falling back to debasing comments; when we inject more civility into the conversation, maybe it will be possible to find a new path. A new path formed by the majority that is concerned about climate change but wants to make sure our actions make sense. Actions that solve the climate problem without crippling industry. Actions that solve the problem without infringing on liberties. We all know that such solutions are available; we could start today… we just need to start.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nt/2014/feb/12/discussing-global-warming-hard

 

[burglar]

... Global warming induced by the burning of fossill fuels ...

Some of the warming is induced by the burning of fossil fuels.
Most of it is produced by the Sun.

Leastways, that's the way I understand it.

 

[wayneL]

Yeahbut, carbon tax is not the way.

Everyone would like to see renewables become more viable on a number of levels, not the least of which is energy security. Skeptics just want a better world than the alarmists are proposing. The real science supports our view, not the catastrophist's view.

 

[wayneL]

I gave up predicting years ago.

No you didn't.

You predicted Liebor 55% Liberal 45% two party preferred only six months ago, and we know how that turned out.

Also by indulging in alarmist quackery, you are making a prediction, just a few posts ago you implicitly predicted the Apocolypse, maintaining your 0% accuracy.

 

[explod]

No you didn't.

You predicted Liebor 55% Liberal 45% two party preferred only six months ago, and we know how that turned out.

Also by indulging in alarmist quackery, you are making a prediction, just a few posts ago you implicitly predicted the Apocolypse, maintaining your 0% accuracy.

Rubbish, i was not even on the trade.

Would have to admit to a bad case of ramping though.

However you continue to use attacks to distort the reality of Co2 induced climate change.

 

[basilio]

Yeahbut, carbon tax is not the way.

Everyone would like to see renewables become more viable on a number of levels, not the least of which is energy security.

Wayne L

Hmm... I somehow remember thousands of posts ago suggesting that the energy security and peak energy arguments were critical enough in themselves to say we should change direction towards renewables. The realization that this would take at least a generation means the sooner one starts the better.

How to do it ? In our current economic framework putting tax on carbon to price its externalities is the cleanest most transparent way to encourage the shift in energy use. One of the bodies pushing and explaining that view is The American Conservative.

How to Tax Carbon
Conservatives can fight climate change without growing government.

Rather than acknowledge climate change as a major public-policy issue and draft a serious proposal to deal with it””to counter the left’s plan to expand dramatically the size, scope, and cost of the federal government””the right has too long pursued a course of obstructionism that amounts to little more than political theatre.

....The best policy to address greenhouse gas emissions, while adhering to conservative principles, is a carbon tax combined with tax and regulatory reform. Merely uttering the phrase “carbon tax” strikes fear into the heart of many on the right. This is understandable, to the extent that what conservatives actually fear is a plan that would layer energy taxes on top of the overly burdensome tax and regulatory regime we already have.

But one need not engage in climate alarmism or capitulate to big government to make a case for a revenue-neutral carbon tax. In fact, President Obama’s recent speech helps illustrate why the right needs to consider one more seriously.

A conservative carbon tax has three key components: revenue neutrality, elimination of existing taxes, and regulatory reform. When combined, these policies would yield a smaller, less powerful government; a tax code more conducive to investment and growth; and the emissions reductions the law says we must achieve.

The first and arguably most important component is absolute, bona fide revenue neutrality. The federal government is already too large and expensive. Conservatives routinely oppose efforts by the left to raise revenue in order to shore up lavish spending and broken entitlement programs. A carbon tax should no more be used to fund bigger government than any other tax. Every single dollar raised by a carbon tax must be devoted to tax reductions elsewhere in the code.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-to-tax-carbon/

 

[cynic]

...
But Cynic. When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.

...
The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.

basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!

I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
(That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)

bump

bumpity bump.

Cynic your views on why we need to artificially produce more CO2 are too way out there for me to want to engage you in discussion.

When you went on to say that the Max Planck institute didn't know what it was talking about with regard to the Theory Of Relativity I just gave up.

basilio, since when did mammalian respiration become an artificial process?

You've accused me of "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" with my CO2 observation whilst failing to provide so much as a single one of these purported "facts".

The fact that you do not understand the mathematics behind Einstein's theorem is hardly a valid (or logical) justification for your refusal to substantiate your hasty and misinformed accusations!

If you're willing to make accusations on a public forum, then it is reasonable to expect to be called upon for justification!

Around we go again!

bump.

bumpity bump.

bumpity bump bump.

Basilio, thanks for providing yet another fine example highlighting the folly of entertaining claims made by those unwilling or unable to differentiate between fiction, popular fallacies, contemporary science and recorded history. (Note the factually incorrect assertions by Gohmert in relation to biblical texts and contemporary physics).

P.S. I still await your response to my request for substantion of your "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" allegation. By my last tally zero have been presented! It may inerest you to know that there is a big difference between zero and one thousand.
If there were any real substance to your outlandish allegation, then surely you should be able to improve on that number!

Yep... !! And for dear Cynic; that was a satirical piece intended to do exactly what Explod pointed out.

And as I said earlier I will not attempt to discuss science with a person who seriously believes he has a better grasp of the Theory of Relativity than the best scientists in the field.

That's so typical of your pusillanimity, basilio, throwing stones whilst hiding behind the credentials of others!

Wouldn't it be easier to come out into the open and learn some actual science so that we can resolve this matter once and for all?

Alternatively, how hard would it be for you to admit to the fact that your allegations were unfounded?

P.S. Unlike certain(not all) posters to this thread, my comprehension of science is sufficient to substantiate all of the assertions that I've made on this and other threads!
(Also, the scope of my scientific understanding is not limited to google searches or the contents of wikipedia!)

...and around we go again!

bump

 

[basilio]

Cynic why do you feel the need to SPELL OUT why I won't engage with you ?

 

[cynic]

Cynic why do you feel the need to SPELL OUT why I won't engage with you ?

Why do you need to disown responsibility for your own allegations?

 

[burglar]

... How to do it ? ...

Tax on carbon means householders putting money into Guvmint coffers.
Most likely place it goes from there, is into a pay increase for politicians!

Transparent way to encourage the shift in energy use?!

Pollies couldn't even close a coal-fired power station as promised!!

 

[wayneL]

Basilio, in the the Australian context, the only shift a carbon tax (inter alia) is/will be responsible for is a transfer of our industrial capacity to China and other jurisdictions in general, rendering us incapable of participating in ground floor shifts in energy production.

I agree government may have a role in facilitating this, but a carbon tax has the rverse effect ad far as we are concerned... and also increased emissions on the global scale.

 

[basilio]

Tax on carbon means householders putting money into Guvmint coffers.
Most likely place it goes from there, is into a pay increase for politicians!

Transparent way to encourage the shift in energy use?!

Pollies couldn't even close a coal-fired power station as promised!!

Why not read the paper I referred to and see what types of caveats they see as important in establishing a price mechanism to move to renewable energy ?

 

[basilio]

Basilio, in the the Australian context, the only shift a carbon tax (inter alia) is/will be responsible for is a transfer of our industrial capacity to China and other jurisdictions in general, rendering us incapable of participating in ground floor shifts in energy production.

I agree government may have a role in facilitating this, but a carbon tax has the rverse effect ad far as we are concerned... and also increased emissions on the global scale.

And that is the reason for a global approach to the issue. Having an international approach to pricing energy to ensure all countries are moving in the same direction

At this stage in the game I also believe China is reviewing it's interest in coal fired power stations. The extent of the smog across their cities is now at critical levels. They just can't continue to put more smoke into the atmosphere.

And finally? You raised the point. I concur. Australia needs to move to a renewable energy system for long term energy security in itself. A system that puts a higher price on carbon based energy will encourage that movement. Otherwise we will have to wait until energy prices become so high - that......

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-reaches-11-times-who-recommended-levels.html

 

[cynic]

...
But Cynic. When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.

...
The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.

basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!

I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
(That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)

bump

bumpity bump.

Cynic your views on why we need to artificially produce more CO2 are too way out there for me to want to engage you in discussion.

When you went on to say that the Max Planck institute didn't know what it was talking about with regard to the Theory Of Relativity I just gave up.

basilio, since when did mammalian respiration become an artificial process?

You've accused me of "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" with my CO2 observation whilst failing to provide so much as a single one of these purported "facts".

The fact that you do not understand the mathematics behind Einstein's theorem is hardly a valid (or logical) justification for your refusal to substantiate your hasty and misinformed accusations!

If you're willing to make accusations on a public forum, then it is reasonable to expect to be called upon for justification!

Around we go again!

bump.

bumpity bump.

bumpity bump bump.

Basilio, thanks for providing yet another fine example highlighting the folly of entertaining claims made by those unwilling or unable to differentiate between fiction, popular fallacies, contemporary science and recorded history. (Note the factually incorrect assertions by Gohmert in relation to biblical texts and contemporary physics).

P.S. I still await your response to my request for substantion of your "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" allegation. By my last tally zero have been presented! It may inerest you to know that there is a big difference between zero and one thousand.
If there were any real substance to your outlandish allegation, then surely you should be able to improve on that number!

Yep... !! And for dear Cynic; that was a satirical piece intended to do exactly what Explod pointed out.

And as I said earlier I will not attempt to discuss science with a person who seriously believes he has a better grasp of the Theory of Relativity than the best scientists in the field.

That's so typical of your pusillanimity, basilio, throwing stones whilst hiding behind the credentials of others!

Wouldn't it be easier to come out into the open and learn some actual science so that we can resolve this matter once and for all?

Alternatively, how hard would it be for you to admit to the fact that your allegations were unfounded?

P.S. Unlike certain(not all) posters to this thread, my comprehension of science is sufficient to substantiate all of the assertions that I've made on this and other threads!
(Also, the scope of my scientific understanding is not limited to google searches or the contents of wikipedia!)

...and around we go again!

bump

Cynic why do you feel the need to SPELL OUT why I won't engage with you ?

Why do you need to disown responsibility for your own allegations?

Around and around this goes!
Where it stops - nobody knows!

bump

 

[trainspotter]

Instead of wasting bandwidth in a pissing contest why not post some relevance to the topic of the thread?

THE national weather agency is predicting Australia's climate will continue to warm, bringing more extreme heat and longer fire seasons across large parts of the country.
A new report by the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO concludes the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is rising, and left unchecked further emissions will cause more warming this century.
"Limiting the magnitude of future climate change requires large and sustained net global reductions in greenhouse gases," states the third "State of the Climate" report.

http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...mate-predictions/story-e6frfku9-1226844241944

 

[basilio]

Great Trainspotter. You have just unveiled the elephant in the room.

I'll just get out of your way now to let the Naysayers explain very clearly just how corrupt these figures are and how the BOM and CSIRO are a bunch of "catastrophic, warmist alarmists" who should be re educated quick smart. (don't let me down folks...)