Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

wayneL · 13 December 2007

billhill said:
Its easy to say that we have to change and many people are making a concious effort to do so. Alot of people don't give a s**t about their footprint as well. Therefore its alot easier to hand the task to the government and regulators because they actually have the power to make a significant difference.

I think you'll find that people are changing. The prominance of the GW issue in the election shows this. The population demanded better action on GW and they will now get it. Sure most people have changed only their ideals and opinions so far but you need that shift before behaviour will change.

Not until it is marketed. Marketing is all powerful and people won't change while there is status in an energy hungry lifestyle.

Since we have radically change our ways (and it's not that radical at all) we have noticed a change in attitude towards us. The people in our income group are offended by our choice of lifestyle and/or believe we have gone broke... this is enlightening however. #### 'em, Bohemians are much more fun.

I'll only believe in change when the marketeers change.... i.e. not bloody likely.

Smurf1976 · 13 December 2007

Words are easy. Most are in for one huge shock as to the implications for them personally if we actually do get serious about cutting emissions. Just as they are in for a shock with the implications if we don't.

Smurf1976 · 13 December 2007

wayneL said:
Not until it is marketed. Marketing is all powerful and people won't change while there is status in an energy hungry lifestyle.

Since we have radically change our ways (and it's not that radical at all) we have noticed a change in attitude towards us. The people in our income group are offended by our choice of lifestyle and/or believe we have gone broke... this is enlightening however. #### 'em, Bohemians are much more fun.

I'll only believe in change when the marketeers change.... i.e. not bloody likely.

It's truly amazing how often I have to "justify" having an economical car etc. Even had to explain to someone why I don't waste electricity a few days ago - they just couldn't understand even when I put it in purely financial terms that it will save money.

Wysiwyg · 13 December 2007

Smurf1976 said:
Words are easy. Most are in for one huge shock as to the implications for them personally if we actually do get serious about cutting emissions. Just as they are in for a shock with the implications if we don't.

What about electricity, water and fuel restrictions?For the majority, this is when the message will hit home.`Till then (if ever) the `majority` will continue on in Beta level regardless.

Ps possible future scenario

2020hindsight · 14 December 2007

George Bush & Will Ferrel On Global Warming

2020hindsight · 14 December 2007

Australia remains part of the so-called "umbrella" group of nations at the climate talks, including the United States, Japan, Canada and Russia, which all oppose concrete figures in the Bali declaration, instead supporting a flexible approach for each country.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/13/2118513.htm?section=justin

EU criticises Rudd on climate change
Posted 2 hours 20 minutes ago

A European Union leader has accused Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of not doing enough to fight global warming despite signing the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr Rudd signed the landmark treaty on global warming as his first act in office last week and headed to the UN conference on climate change on his maiden foreign trip.

Yesterday Mr Rudd enjoyed two rounds of applause as he told the conference that he had handed over papers completing ratification of the treaty.

But EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas says he has voiced regret to a top Rudd adviser that the PM did not back an EU-led proposal calling for carbon emission cuts by 25 to 40 per cent by 2020 from 1990 levels.

"I told him the Prime Minister lost an opportunity in his speech to commit to this range of 25 to 40 per cent," he said.

"But still there is time because otherwise the Kyoto signing, which we applauded, will not have the substance that we expect from Australia.

"The expectations are very high."

Mr Dimas says voters "have shown that they can push out of government those who do not respond to the concerns of the people."

Mr Rudd's signing of Kyoto reversed one of the more controversial policies of his defeated predecessor, John Howard, and left the United States as the only major industrial country to shun the treaty.

Mr Rudd has been tight-lipped on what he expects from the Bali conference, which aims to come up with a framework for after Kyoto's commitments expire in 2012.

Australia remains part of the so-called "umbrella" group of nations at the climate talks, including the United States, Japan, Canada and Russia, which all oppose concrete figures in the Bali declaration, instead supporting a flexible approach for each country.

ghotib · 14 December 2007

--B-- said:
Bill, here is an interesting letter written by a member of the "esteemed" IPCC Reviewers Panel.

ROFL!!! Looks like Dr Gray needs to spend some time on a stocks forum so he can learn about back testing computer models. Technical system traders know, you can test the predictive power of a model by seeing how well it models the past and the present. Pity Dr Gray hasn't cottoned on to that yet.

This link is to a commentary on one of Dr Gray's recent papers. The introduction says that it "...only highlight a few key points which illustrate the fundamental misconceptions on the physics of climate that underlie most of Gray's pronouncements on climate change and its causes." http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/

Perhaps you'd care to comment --B--

The IPCC reports contain tougher critiques of their own methods and data than this letter does.

Ghoti

2020hindsight · 14 December 2007

--B-- said:
Bill, here is an interesting letter written by a member of the "esteemed" IPCC Reviewers Panel.

Since you ask me to go into that post of yours by Vincent Gray, (and incidentally ghoti, it's a different Dr Gray to the one your quote - which just goes to show that with literally thousands of scientists out there, you are gonna get many repititions of the same surnames - (and many differeing opinions - some totally useless, and some "better" (general concensus becomes relevant yes?)

:topic most of em fat portly gentlemen - and more Chins than a Hong Kong phone directory ....

I quote below his conclusion, where he makes unfortunate reference to "the Great Global Warming Swindle".... and he implies that he believes that TV article

Below I give a lead to other posts, and indeed to the youtube of the man who made that show (Durkins) being interviewed by ABC's Tony Jones. Knock youtubes if you wish, but remember that - in this instance at least, they give you a chance for one of the deniers to be cross-examined -

and he fails! - simple as that - ! He is shown to be a cheat !

By drawing attention to these obvious facts I have now found myself persona non grata with most of my local professional associations, Surely, I am questioning the integrity of these award-winning scientific leaders of the local science establishment. When you get down to it, that is what is involved.

I somehow understood that the threshold had been passed when I viewed "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Yes, we have to face it. The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide "evidence" that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to "prove" their case.

He goes on to say there hasn't been any global warming for past 8 years ??

The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is, that the world will slowly realise that the "predictions" emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any "global warming" for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.

--B-- said:
oh ive got more if you like 2020.
i note with amusement you have failed to address anything in the letter.
Clearly, being a member of the review panel, Dr Gray has adequate knowledge to comment.
lol, youtubes are credible evidence now?.

In the end I like the conclusion you arrive at - albeit by a circuitous route..

i clarified that earlier 2020. i have no problem with measures to reduce pollution. this isnt because i belive in catastrophic climate change and its not because i believe co2 is evil and deadly.

keep viewing your youtube videos and ill continue reading the opinions and findings of credible scientists.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=231965&highlight=swindle#post231965

2020hindsight said:
Part of the reason for doubt is the misinformation put out by the likes of Durkins ( "Great Global Warming Swindle").

Worth a watch if you missed it on ABC.

Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 3/9

This is the Australian Broadcasting Corporations presentation and debate of Martin Durkins documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle.

PS note that it is currently HOTTER than the medieval warm period. (and rapidly heading "north")

2020hindsight · 14 December 2007

And -B- . after that try watching this
you can compare Prof David Karoly of Uni of Melb ( and IPCC - who is one of my team) -
with Prof Bob Simpkins (who is one of your team)

2020hindsight said:
Kiwi,
Here's part of that ABC review of Durkin's "Great Global Warming Swindle" - showing it to be a swindle itself !!
Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 3/9

There are other parts of course - but this one should be enough to show you how "scientific" this Durkins bloke is (and honest for that matter)

ok next one is pretty relevant as well
this one introduces the Australian panel .
Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 4/9

Prof David Koroly (Uni of Melb) allegedly has links to IPCC
Prof Bob Carter (James Cook Uni) - probably doesn't

2020hindsight · 14 December 2007

...
typical IPCC report summary

Scuba · 14 December 2007

Gore urges divided climate summit to ignore US
ABC news site-AFP

...edits...
"My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali. We all know that," he said to loud applause.
...
...
"You can feel anger and frustration, and direct it at the United States of America," he said.

"Or you can make a second choice, you can decide to move forward and do all of the difficult work that needs to be done and save a large open blank space in your document and put a footnote by it that says this document is incomplete."

"Over the next two years, the United States is going to be somewhere it isn't right now. You must anticipate that."

Aussiejeff · 14 December 2007

wayneL said:
Not until it is marketed. Marketing is all powerful and people won't change while there is status in an energy hungry lifestyle.

Since we have radically change our ways (and it's not that radical at all) we have noticed a change in attitude towards us. The people in our income group are offended by our choice of lifestyle and/or believe we have gone broke... this is enlightening however. #### 'em, Bohemians are much more fun.

I'll only believe in change when the marketeers change.... i.e. not bloody likely.

Spot on, wayneL...

I personally don't see REAL behavioural change occurring on a BROAD scale until some or all of the following "incentives" are offered/legislated for ALL consumers....

(1) SIGNIFICANT rebates OR taxes (on a sliding scale) for basically EVERY consumable item known to personkind (including cars, washing machines, light bulbs, dish washers, Big Macs etc, etc ). EVERY consumable should be rated by a PF (Pollution Factor) and the retail price to the consumer adjusted accordingly to reflect that products particular pollution "footprint". Hell of a job to introduce - but the carrot and stick approach might just work. Some items like photo-voltaics and water tanks already attract rebates in some states, but the amount of refund is still WAY to low to encourage many more consumers to switch across.

(2) A new broad-based curriculum of MANDATORY anti-pollution and pro-environmental subjects should be introduced to ALL primary & secondary schools. That should be easy when all kids will soon have laptop access! The message on how to be a responsible consumer needs to be hammered into the new generations from an early age...

(3) SIGNIFICANT user pays charges (again, on a sliding scale) for water, gas & electricity useage across ALL sectors (business and private). Until mining companies, power generators and commercial agriculture, as well as private individuals, start to pay the REAL cost of these currently dirt cheap commodities, pollution as we are experiencing on the current massive scale will continue barely un-abated.

Of course, none of the above measures will be cheap to implement - but getting people to change en-masse without such painful measures would be near impossible IMO.

AJ

--B-- · 14 December 2007

ghotib said:
ROFL!!! Looks like Dr Gray needs to spend some time on a stocks forum so he can learn about back testing computer models. Technical system traders know, you can test the predictive power of a model by seeing how well it models the past and the present. Pity Dr Gray hasn't cottoned on to that yet.

so you think technical system models are comparable to those that model the climate?

i dont.

This link is to a commentary on one of Dr Gray's recent papers. The introduction says that it "...only highlight a few key points which illustrate the fundamental misconceptions on the physics of climate that underlie most of Gray's pronouncements on climate change and its causes." http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/

Perhaps you'd care to comment --B--

as 2020 pointed out below, this is a different Dr Gray and therefore this is hardly relevant.

when i have some more time ill read more of your article and those of Dr William Gray.

The IPCC reports contain tougher critiques of their own methods and data than this letter does.

Ghoti

Click to expand...

perhaps you would like to post these 'critiques'?

moneymajix · 14 December 2007

The last ten years on earth have been the hottest decade on record.

In Australia, the last 12 months has been one of the hottest years on record.

PS:

AlGoreRithmic

Term meaning support methods for the planet.

white_goodman · 14 December 2007

moneymajix said:
The last ten years on earth have been the hottest decade on record.

In Australia, the last 12 months has been one of the hottest years on record.

PS:

AlGoreRithmic

Term meaning support methods for the planet.

yeh you cant say global warming based upon such a small timespan, that how we go into this propoganda mess, look back further then 10 years, 50 years or even 100 years, we have to look back to trends over ages or 1000's of years... plus that little theory that Australia has experienced the hottest year on record is flawed cos if you remember june/july this year especially in Sydney it was the coldest on "record"

Rafa · 14 December 2007

As much as i agree with everything you say WayneL, i think your hope for changing from the ground up is a bit too idealist... (we have 6 billion people in the world, and the majority haven't got past the lower levels of maslow hierarchy of needs

)

What BillHill said is spot on... Its up to govt's (dare i say, leaders), to lead the flock towards the new beleifs, and present a convincing arguement why it is in our best interest.

As much as i can't stand al gore, its becoming more apparent that us humans are dumb arses who only react to fear... if we can all be convinced to act in the name of self preservation, the problem can be solved in no time... (to borrow from you previous post, Al Gore is the marketing face of the GW crusade)

numbercruncher · 14 December 2007

white_goodman said:
yeh you cant say global warming based upon such a small timespan, that how we go into this propoganda mess, look back further then 10 years, 50 years or even 100 years, we have to look back to trends over ages or 1000's of years... plus that little theory that Australia has experienced the hottest year on record is flawed cos if you remember june/july this year especially in Sydney it was the coldest on "record"

Its not a theory, its a fact backed by data.

People are grabbing the cliche title "Global Warming" and running with it, forget that title, its "Climate Change" - More extremities of everything, Hotter weather, colder weather, more Intense Cyclones, more floods, more draughts,the proof is in the pudding. The general theme is higher average temperatures, which is backed by scientific fact and data collected all over the planet, including things such as Glaciers and Ice shelfs retreating year on year and gathering speed.

I cant logically see how anyone can still be denying this considering the absolute mass of undenieable evidence.

We can all see just how seriously "most" Governments are now taking this issue and if we as investors dont position ourselfs accordingly, well more the fools us eh ?

--B-- · 14 December 2007

numbercruncher said:
Its not a theory, its a fact backed by data.

People are grabbing the cliche title "Global Warming" and running with it, forget that title, its "Climate Change" - More extremities of everything, Hotter weather, colder weather, more Intense Cyclones, more floods, more draughts,the proof is in the pudding.

the theory is that 'evil' co2 traps heat in the atmosphere resulting in warming.

as the global temperature has 'cooled' since 1998 the scientists pushing GW changed the catch phrase to 'climate change' to suit their agenda.

The general theme is higher average temperatures, which is backed by scientific fact and data collected all over the planet, including things such as Glaciers and Ice shelfs retreating year on year and gathering speed.

except that average temps have not been increasing since 1998.

We can all see just how seriously "most" Governments are now taking this issue and if we as investors dont position ourselfs accordingly, well more the fools us eh ?

governments usually act to keep voters happy. the issues they act upon cant necessarily be assumed to be valid simply because they act.

ftr: i fully agree with your comments re: we investors.

white_goodman · 14 December 2007

numbercruncher said:
Its not a theory, its a fact backed by data.

People are grabbing the cliche title "Global Warming" and running with it, forget that title, its "Climate Change" - More extremities of everything, Hotter weather, colder weather, more Intense Cyclones, more floods, more draughts,the proof is in the pudding. The general theme is higher average temperatures, which is backed by scientific fact and data collected all over the planet, including things such as Glaciers and Ice shelfs retreating year on year and gathering speed.

I cant logically see how anyone can still be denying this considering the absolute mass of undenieable evidence.

We can all see just how seriously "most" Governments are now taking this issue and if we as investors dont position ourselfs accordingly, well more the fools us eh ?

governments are only on the bandwagon cos it would be political suicide not do so...plus your evidence is skewed as the best temperature recording system in the world is in the US and many of those stations have been moved to different location, are situated near hot ashphalt, are to low to the ground or funnily enough situated next to air conditioners. climate change yes, human induced NO...hell why do you think its called Greenland...its covered in ice, but when sttled by the vikings it was during a climate change or unusual warm period hence the green surroundings... and we are in a period of time where temperature fluctuations are minmal roughly +- 2.5 celsius a century where as around 11000 yars ago it would change up to 15 celcius

moneymajix · 14 December 2007

Barrier Reef could be gone within 30 years: study

A new study predicts the world's coral reef systems, including Queensland's Great Barrier Reef, could collapse within 30 years if the effects of global warming are not reversed.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/14/2118585.htm

Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

What do you think of global warming?

There is no reliable evidence that indicates global warming (GW)

There is GW, but the manmade contribution is UNPROVEN (brd),- and we should ignore it

Ditto - but we should act to reduce greenhouse gas effects anyway

There is GW, the manmade contribution is PROVEN (brd), and the matter is not urgent

Ditto but corrective global action is a matter of urgency

Other (plus reasons)

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Smurf1976

Smurf1976

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

2020hindsight

2020hindsight

ghotib

THIMKER

2020hindsight

Attachments

2020hindsight

Attachments

2020hindsight

Attachments

Scuba

Don't f*#% around, buy a round

Aussiejeff

--B--

moneymajix

white_goodman

BOC

Rafa

numbercruncher

Beware of Dropbears

--B--

white_goodman

BOC

moneymajix

Similar threads

Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

What do you think of global warming?

There is no reliable evidence that indicates global warming (GW)

There is GW, but the manmade contribution is UNPROVEN (brd),- and we should ignore it

Ditto - but we should act to reduce greenhouse gas effects anyway

There is GW, the manmade contribution is PROVEN (brd), and the matter is not urgent

Ditto but corrective global action is a matter of urgency

Other (plus reasons)

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Everyone wants money

THIMKER

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments

Don't f*#% around, buy a round

BOC

Beware of Dropbears

BOC

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency