Climategate

[OzWaveGuy]

Of course you are right, OzWaveGuy. Modelling is just a waste of time.

Incorrect and misrepresented in your post. Models are extremely useful tools, many industries use them for planning/financial/staffing/quotas etc - and they are accurate (for periods of time).

However, they poorly predict the future when the underlying trend changes. Many have seen forecasts by IDC/Gartner/Economists/RBA wrt to industry and economic growth and trends - but this is strongly related to historical growth statistics and data. Get an unexpected trend change (eg GFC) and the obvious question becomes: "Why didn't YOUR model predict the sudden (and aggressive) change?". Simple: they don't work all the time

With respect to climate change: The sun has been less aggressive and the earth has cooled for the last 9-11 years depending which data sets are reviewed. So again, the obvious question: Why didn't the 'expert' models predict this? Answer : They don't work.

ClimateGate and the uncovering of the truth is now history in the making as the Psychology of the crowd changes from Climate Change to Climate Scam. Many are now exposed to the underlying strategy: to move wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. It's almost true when people say this is the worlds biggest con.

Where there is common ground is on the topic of cleaner and more effective energy sources: I haven't found anyone who disagrees with this (although someone in this forum will probably step in now, or an Oil Company Rep).

Feel free to comment bellenuit, but do not misrepresent my views or in this case, views or assertions that I did not make in the first place!

 

[Smurf1976]

cleaner and more effective energy sources:[/B] I haven't found anyone who disagrees with this (although someone in this forum will probably step in now, or an Oil Company Rep).

Trouble is, we don't really have anything that's ready to go as a replacement for fossil fuels without some major drawback.

Either it doesn't produce the same useful product, is of far lower productivity, or has it's own environmental downsides.

Solar, wind etc are useful as a source of intermittent electricity production certainly. But that doesn't work to run, say, a smelter or a city without relying predominantly on backup from fossil fuels. It's a partial solution only, and then only to the production of electricity (ie no good for replacing petrol etc).

Fossil fuels have massive productivity - man puts very little effort in to get a lot of energy back. Most of the alternatives "employ more people", a polite way of saying they are not as productive and won't scale up as an actual replacement for coal etc.

And as for the environment, need I say more than that nuclear and hydro are the only large scale non-fossil fuel sources we have now apart from firewood etc. Opposition to hydro started the world's first Green political party, closely followed by similar opposition to nuclear. Burning wood isn't without problems and controversy either.

So a better energy source we certainly need, I doubt anyone would argue with that. But we don't have it yet so any forced reduction in fossil fuel use will simply force a rise in the use of nuclear, hydro, wind, etc instead - all of which come with their own problems and don't truly replace the economic role of fossil fuels, particularly oil.

 

[So_Cynical]

Trouble is, we don't really have anything that's ready to go as a replacement for fossil fuels without some major drawback.

The British seem to be adopting a strategy of just building heaps of wind farms and using that power to feed into the baseline power demand....like when ever a wind tower is producing, that is treated as base line and there's a reduction in normal non wind output so that wind power genuinely replaces the non renewable at that point in time.

Its like if there is enough wind generators and there located all around the coast then there's always wind somewhere...so always renewable power being pumped into the grid...so its like a variable baseline power that's always there.

And i hate to keep harping on the "innovation" theme but it is a major part of the Kyoto agreement and the thinking that lead to it all those years ago....and i cant help but think that the Americans will come up with some solutions once GHG abatement has a real value....and money starts to flow from offsets.

 

[Aussiejeff]

The British seem to be adopting a strategy of just building heaps of wind farms and using that power to feed into the baseline power demand....like when ever a wind tower is producing, that is treated as base line and there's a reduction in normal non wind output so that wind power genuinely replaces the non renewable at that point in time.

Its like if there is enough wind generators and there located all around the coast then there's always wind somewhere...so always renewable power being pumped into the grid...so its like a variable baseline power that's always there.

And i hate to keep harping on the "innovation" theme but it is a major part of the Kyoto agreement and the thinking that lead to it all those years ago....and i cant help but think that the Americans will come up with some solutions once GHG abatement has a real value....and money starts to flow from offsets.

Not sure I place as much faith in "Americans" coming up with "solutions" as yourself.

Sure, they solved the Global Financial Crisis and won the World War On Terror, didn't they?

So it should be a cinch they'll also win the inevitable Global Warming War I too?

Nup....

 

[tja125]

After listening to James Hensen, the NASA climatologist, on Lateline, I'm becoming more and more convinced that there is global warming and that man is responsible for it.

He holds the opinion that an ETS is useless to prevent GW and that the only solution is a direct tax on fossil fuels. He likens the ETS to the indulgences granted by the Catholic Church (in the middle ages?) that effectively allowed sinners to go on sinning, but could buy salvation if they had enough money to do so, by buying indulgences from the Church. That kept the Bishops happy as they got the income and the sinners happy as they could go on sinning (if they could afford it). The ETS is the same. It allows the major polluters to continue polluting by buying offsets, but it doesn't stop them polluting. Governments claw in the money from the cost of the offsets.

The topic of this thread is Climategate. All we know is that a few scientists have been over enthusiastic in their endeavours to prove global warming is man made. But why does that negate the 99% of the rest of the science that also seems to prove the same thing (and before anyone asks me to show the proof, I cannot, I am not an expert and simply have to make my judgement on what seems to be the most persuasive argument).

To be honest, what influenced me enormously at arriving at the conclusion that what most scientists are saying is right, is that Fox News is saying the opposite and promoting the argument that the leaked emails are proof that the whole of the science is fabricated. Being on the same side of the argument as them is anathema to me and I started to question the facts of the doubters and they held less water than the pro man made climate change argument.

I respect the opinions of everyone (well most) on ASF, but what I find interesting is that those who are against the science that seems to prove that man is responsible for GW and are latching on to whatever flimsy arguments that the doubters may offer, are also those who, like me, would ridicule the arguments put forward by the God believers on this forum who reject evolution and the rest of the science that explains the universe without the need for some omnipotent deity being involved.

Why do we hold science in such esteem when it comes to the topic of religion, but doubt it so much when it comes to the major cause of climate change. If we are honest with ourselves, few of us understand the science underpinning either area and chose to go with whatever aligns with our prejudices.

Julia. You seem to be assuming that my post was in favour of an ETS. It had nothing whatsoever to do with what policies to adopt. I was responding to the notion that as we cannot accurately predict the weather 3 days ahead, that we shouldn't bother to try and predict global weather patterns and their causes, even though they may effect our very existence as a species. As I indicated, the purpose of the modelling is not to show whether Christmas day will be a nice day in Cairns in 2020, but whether the trends in climate could lead to situations that could be catastrophic to us as a species and if so, is there any action that we can take to prevent such changes.



I agree. And don't those scientists also use their own models to come to their conclusions? Or perhaps use the same models as the mainstream scientists, but come to different conclusions.

And I wouldn't make the assumptions that all the scientists that think differently to the mainstream are excluded from peer review. From what I have read, many have been peer reviewed and found wanting.



I'm not sure why you think it is not relevant? I was simply indicating that economic modelling is trying to predict long term trends in the economy and based on those trends we make decisions on whether we should invest in shares or property or whatever. It is not trying to predict the price of BHP in 2020. Equally climate modelling, as stated above, is trying to predict long terms trends in climate change, not whether it is going to be a nice day in Cairns on Christmas Day, 2020. It was an an analogy to illustrate the purpose of climate modelling, not to suggest that the climate and the economy exhibit the same trends. It was a throwback to the "not being able to predict the weather in 3 days time" idea means we shouldn't bother modelling at all. We equally cannot predict accurately the value of indices or particular stocks in 3 days time, but that doesn't mean we should not try to model economic trends.



I have no argument there.



Certainly a lot more than the rantings of Rush Limbaugh and the Fox network. Somebody posted a video clip, either on this or the other "climate" threads a day or two ago, that seemed to give a fairly good counter-explanation of the "smoking gun" emails to that promoted by the mainstream media. We are being told what interpretation to give on the use of certain words in those emails and if we accept those interpretations then they appear suspect. But even if those few emails are truly indicating fraudulent activity, that doesn't make the whole of the science suspect. And as I said, the counter-explanations are plausible alternative interpretations IMO. I find the very same issues when dealing with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They present facts but then try to tell you how you are to interpret those facts. There are often alternative interpretations that are far more plausible than what the CTs suggest. If you can find that video, it is worth taking a look. All is not what it seems.



Were those that didn't do any economic modelling more accurate? The models didn't forecast the GFC. Pity. You and I and a lot of others would not have lost a lot of money (at least on paper) if they had. But though the models didn't forecast sudden aberrations in the long term trend of a gradually increasing stock market, many of us who stayed invested are slowly recuperating our losses and if past experiences are anything to go by, in 10 years or so it may seem as if it never happened.



I wouldn't concede that at all, Julie. You have either construed me to have said something I didn't say, or if you actually do disagree with what I said, you are of the opinion that climate science is all bogus. I cannot understand how you would hold the latter opinion, as you do hold some climate scientists in high esteem.

For the record......

I believe climate modelling is not a waste of time and if it makes predictions that suggest that we, as a species, could be in danger, then we should not ignore those predictions, even if we know the model to be far from perfect. That is all that my original post stated. It was a statement in support of science as opposed to not bothering with studying anything because we can't even predict the weather in 3 days time.

I did not state what action we should take. I just stated that we should not ignore the predictions. The actions may be to invest more in researching climate change to improve the model, or to cut down on those actions that the model might be indicating is the cause of the potential problem as a precaution until we know more or even to go all out and assume the model is right and ban outright any activity that the model suggest is a potential cause, even if it means destroying our economies (a better to be poor than dead scenario).

Personally I believe in a combination of the first two of these. One should always strive to improve the science, but I also believe if there is a belief that CO2 could lead to catastrophic global warming, then we should take actions to cut down on the emissions of CO2. Such as encouraging nations like Brazil and Indonesia not to destroy their rain forests. Such as using renewable energy in place of fossil fuels. These actions will come at some cost, but if they give us some extra breathing space until we get the science right, then it will be money worth spent.

Finally. I do not support the ETS in any way and never have. It has merits, but only if it is universally implemented and compliance is guaranteed. It cannot be implemented by just a few countries, without destroying the economies of those countries due to the disadvantage they would be placed under compared to their competitors.

Great posts Bellenuit you seem to make a lot of sense, and good on you for posting. I too would sleep a lot better if Fox wasn't spreading total crap all over the world lol. Here is that link to the video once more that you talked about for anyone who missed it:

http://www.desmogblog.com/another-look-stolen-emails

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Trouble is, we don't really have anything that's ready to go as a replacement for fossil fuels without some major drawback.

My response is simple: Has the Government of the day really looked? IMO - No! Rationale: The population 'Control' attributes are also a key factor in the strategy.

Why hasn't Wong or Krudd looked within Australia and evaluated the innovators that exist within?

eg here's one I found the other day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLngerzzSBI and appears to have real potential

Is it real? Does it work? I don't know - but neither does the Gov.​

The posters that support ETS/Copenhagen Treaty/Climate Change/Scare-Mongering on the ASF are working incredibly hard to convince others: My only question is: Who are you working for?

I would have expected the warmists alarmists to be actively discussing and debating alternative energy innovations, instead most are simply moving with the psychology of the warmist crowd repeating the same old propaganda.

If someone has created a thread to discuss alternative energy sources - esp ones being developed in Aust, please place a link to the thread(s).

 

[prawn_86]

If someone has created a thread to discuss alternative energy sources - esp ones being developed in Aust, please place a link to the thread(s).

Here is one thread for you OWG - https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4240

 

[wayneL]

Great posts Bellenuit you seem to make a lot of sense, and good on you for posting. I too would sleep a lot better if Fox wasn't spreading total crap all over the world lol. Here is that link to the video once more that you talked about for anyone who missed it:

http://www.desmogblog.com/another-look-stolen-emails

Richard Littlemore is an idiot... a bloody cheek accusing others of being nitwits.

Focussing on Fox means that the pro ACC are the real sceptical science, or even the moderate ACC proponents such as Pielke Snr (whom they detest as a traitor to the crusade).

Littlemore is simply the flip side of Fox.

 

[tja125]

Richard Littlemore is an idiot... a bloody cheek accusing others of being nitwits.

Focussing on Fox means that the pro ACC are the real sceptical science, or even the moderate ACC proponents such as Pielke Snr (whom they detest as a traitor to the crusade).

Littlemore is simply the flip side of Fox.

Richard Littlemore explained the fake emails and outlined everything that was said in the emails as plain facts, without twisting them around or taking things out of context, or quoting things said without properly researching or reading the extent of the emails (Unlike almost everyone else). He also researched things before jumping to conclusions and simply explained these emails properly, which no one else did. I don't see at all how fox would do any of these things, or research anything properly before simply reporting some rediculous news headline. So sorry i do not see how Littlemore is anything like, any sort of equivalent or flipside to Fox and i believe anyone could PLAINLY see this simply from watching that video or reading anything he has written.

What a joke, you have made my day, i don't often laugh outloud, thankyou.

 

[wayneL]

Richard Littlemore explained the fake emails and outlined everything that was said in the emails as plain facts, without twisting them around or taking things out of context, or quoting things said without properly researching or reading the extent of the emails (Unlike almost everyone else). He also researched things before jumping to conclusions and simply explained these emails properly, which no one else did. I don't see at all how fox would do any of these things, or research anything properly before simply reporting some rediculous news headline. So sorry i do not see how Littlemore is anything like, any sort of equivalent or flipside to Fox and i believe anyone could PLAINLY see this simply from watching that video or reading anything he has written.

What a joke, you have made my day, i don't often laugh outloud, thankyou.

Sorry mate, your laughter is of the delusional variety.

You are (whether intentional or not) complicit in spin. Even George Monbiot has conceded the damage the emails have done.

 

[Aussiejeff]

Sorry mate, your laughter is of the delusional variety.

You are (whether intentional or not) complicit in spin. Even George Monbiot has conceded the damage the emails have done.

Whatever, the Chinese have everything in hand. Literally. Whatever spin the IPCC wants to come up with, it appears The Inscrutibles are non-plussed about it all.

At least until 2050.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Whatever, the Chinese have everything in hand. Literally. Whatever spin the IPCC wants to come up with, it appears The Inscrutibles are non-plussed about it all.

At least until 2050.

According to this article there are moves afoot to regulate emissions by limiting the coal used per tonne and reduce the number of small steel manufacturers. Moves an Australian government would not even whisper. (or will they?)

Chinese steel firms with production capacity of less than 1 million tonnes per year will be eliminated from the sector, according to a draft policy document released on Wednesday.

As part of its efforts to impose "order" on the fragmented steel sector, China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology will also raise environmental standards on steel mills, forcing them to upgrade their equipment or have their licenses revoked.

Mills should not use more than 92 kg of coal and 6 tonnes of water for each tonne of steel produced. Waste water emissions should not exceed 2 cubic metres per tonne of steel produced, and sulphur dioxide emissions should also be limited to 1.8 kg per tonne of steel.

http://www.chinamining.org/News/2009-12-09/1260340950d32085.html

 

[tja125]

Sorry mate, your laughter is of the delusional variety.

You are (whether intentional or not) complicit in spin. Even George Monbiot has conceded the damage the emails have done.

I only laugh at **** that is hilarious, i don't have any problems with delusional ideas, unlike a lot of people. As for the spin, i can tell my breath is wasted so i'll give up trying to convince you and just be content with the laughter you give me (better than seinfeld, and thats saying something).

*Smiles and Nodds... Walks Away...*

Thanks again LOL.

 

[Smurf1976]

My response is simple: Has the Government of the day really looked? IMO - No! Rationale: The population 'Control' attributes are also a key factor in the strategy.

Why hasn't Wong or Krudd looked within Australia and evaluated the innovators that exist within?

The brown coal industry in Australia was created by a small number of determined individuals, most notably Sir John Monash, and the backing of the Victorian state government which saw the economic and strategic potential back in 1918 and formed the SECV to make it happen.

Large scale hydro-electricity in the Australian context came about at the hands of a small number of business men with the backing of the Tasmanian state government back in 1914 who saw the massive economic potential if offered the island state.

South Australia launched its own low grade coal industry in the 1950's after numerous attempts mostly by the SA state government. It offered SA a reliable fuel supply at a time when that was problematic and also the potential to do something with manufacturing industry as Vic and Tas were pursuing.

All of these came about with little or no support from the Australian Government or the other states (though NSW indirectly helped by cutting off coal supplies to Vic and SA).

In the case of Tasmania, it went far enough for the Commonwealth to rule out assistance or any kind of bail out if this "high risk venture" sent the state broke. The key argument there being that electricity was unlikely to be of long term use in the event that the only customer signed up at the time ceased to exist. 93 years after it started operating, that first customer is still going strong, as are the other 230,000 who subsequently decided that electricity was no gimmick.

Talk about lack of foresight! The Victorian and Tasmanian brown coal and hydro ventures respectively dominated Australian industrial power supply for decades to come and lead to the establishment of many new industries and much employment in both states.

Some years later the economic advantage shifted to black coal and Qld jumped on the bandwagon as Vic and Tas had done decades earlier. Witness all those processing plants built in Qld in recent times as a direct result.

What would I do? Well I'd revisit the thinking of the Vic and Tas governments a century ago and this time focus on geothermal. Let's actually go and build a large scale plant, probably in SA, backed by the Australian government.

Yes it's a gamble but it is the most likely chance we have to gain a national economic advantage in cheap energy once again as black coal's days seem to be numbered. And it just happens to offer an almost complete fix for CO2 from electricity generation as well.

 

[So_Cynical]

If someone has created a thread to discuss alternative energy sources - esp ones being developed in Aust, please place a link to the thread(s).

Energy from Thorium forum http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/

Some very smart cookies there.

 

[wayneL]

Something to hide.

From Anthony Watts' blog

Journalist Phelim McAleer (‘Mine Your Own Business’, ‘Not Evil Just Wrong’) asks Prof Stephen Schneider from Stanford University an Inconvenient Question about ‘Climategate’ emails. McAleer is interrupted twice by Prof Schneider’s assistant and UN staff and then told to stop filming by an armed UN security guard.

Yet they allow sceptics to be invaded by rabble. Secuity not interested.

 

[wayneL]

I only laugh at **** that is hilarious, i don't have any problems with delusional ideas, unlike a lot of people. As for the spin, i can tell my breath is wasted so i'll give up trying to convince you and just be content with the laughter you give me (better than seinfeld, and thats saying something).

*Smiles and Nodds... Walks Away...*

Thanks again LOL.

OK

**gives tja125 a patronizing pat on the head as he wanders off.

 

[So_Cynical]

Climategate - The other side of the story...i found this link over at the Thorium forum...some interesting reading.

FactCheck.org Debunks 'ClimateGate'
How The Right-Wing Noise Machine Manufactured ‘Climategate’
NWF CEO Larry Schweiger: Polluter-Pushed Hack Can't Cloud Science
AP Review: Stolen Emails Don't Undercut Vast Body of Scientific Evidence

http://swifthack.com/

 

[Soft Dough]

OMG - not another climate change thread.

Maybe one of the mods should start an 'Aussie Climate Change Forum'?

the forum doesn't exist, bit like something else really.

I mean are the Y2K, ozone layer, alien invasion, meteor destruction, WMD and man on moon threads not enough to keep you satisfied?

 

[tja125]

Something to hide.

From Anthony Watts' blog





Yet they allow sceptics to be invaded by rabble. Secuity not interested.

Lol, i love lord monkeytongue's comments at the end of the second video about them being hitler youth, classic! This whole climate change thing sure sounds like a dirty commy conspiracy to me i'm sold, please spoon feed me some more fox. Gotta watch out for the reds under the bed.

LOL