Resisting Climate Hysteria

[brty]

Well said Smurf, one of the better posts on the topic.

I see your point, which is basically get over it move on and profit from the changes, because we are beyond fighting change (as in political).

brty

 

[basilio]

Re: Resisting Climate Hysteria
Well said Smurf, one of the better posts on the topic.

I see your point, which is basically get over it move on and profit from the changes, because we are beyond fighting change (as in political).

Totally agree. I think it will make more and more sense to invest in products and services that will directly reduce on going energy costs and overall costs of livings. So the comments about not overbuilding, installing PV ect make sense.

It's interesting to note that in the traditional investment advice almost all suggestions are geared to putting your money into external investments (shares, property , pine trees ....) to somehow make enough money to keep up a lifestyle you believe you need. On reflection many of those models seem to do a lot more for the advisers, managers and owners of the investments than the mum/dad investors.... Perhaps there is an opportunity for a another type of financial/life adviser who can suggest ways to live more economically and use at least some of the investment funds investment funds as Smurf has suggested.

One consideration in the drive to reduce costs and construct a simpler more robust life is making sure you get good value. Unfortunatey business being what it is when new trends get started all types of stuff gets thrown on the market with green labels and big promises. Given that some of these decisions are quite costly and you won't necessarily have the capital to replace them if they don't work out it will make sense to invest in quality, value for money deals.

 

[Calliope]

There's not much point now in continuing the should / shouldn't debate since it seems there's a done deal. The rational focus now is on how to make the best of it personally and what the bigger picture consequences will be.

You are right. We are screwed, but we don't have to grin and bear it. There is little advantage the great majority can gain from it, only higher taxation, and a lowered standard of living.There will be those who can make money from the misfortune of others. In a material society this is normal practice,but it is difficult for the losers to assume a "rational focus."

Sure, Mr Rudd has promised to compensate around two million "lower income householders" up to 120% of their excess power costs. In other words more welfare for his rusted on supporters. They will however get no compensation for the inevitable power failures. They may lose their faith when their house full of expensive electronic and white-goods fails to work.

 

[Mofra]

Sure, Mr Rudd has promised to compensate around two million "lower income householders" up to 120% of their excess power costs. In other words more welfare for his rusted on supporters. They will however get no compensation for the inevitable power failures. They may lose their faith when their house full of expensive electronic and white-goods fails to work.

I just wonder whether those supporters will be smart enough to understand what is happening, or they will assume the handout is Krudd's generosity & continue to vote for him.

Either way is seems the majority of the Australian economy is being manufactured by the governement, and this is just another example. The Austrian School Economists must be ready to host a wake given government action since the 07 election.

 

[noco]

From the Townsville Bulletin today, Clive Palmer who owns the Yabulu Nickel Refinery in Townsville has threatened to close down if the fuul extent of the ETS is applied.

Does Rudd and Turnbull care if 1200 loose their jobs? It does not appear that way. Not a word from our three state Labor parlimentary stooges.

 

[trainspotter]

Google "David Bellamy climate change" and get some unbiased information from a Scientist/Greenie/Professor.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

this whole Global Warming/AGW/Climate Change scam is agressively spilling across the internet....I'm sure there will be more high profile revelations to unfold (and they may not all be related to the AGW scam).

Who's checked the Australian temp. datasets, and have they been 'adjusted' too as below?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
...
....The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, which created the last two graphics and includes an IPCC reviewer, now alleges that Salinger and NIWA have refused to explain the basis on which the data was adjusted:

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

 

[Smurf1976]

You are right. We are screwed, but we don't have to grin and bear it. There is little advantage the great majority can gain from it, only higher taxation, and a lowered standard of living.There will be those who can make money from the misfortune of others. In a material society this is normal practice,but it is difficult for the losers to assume a "rational focus."

Sure, Mr Rudd has promised to compensate around two million "lower income householders" up to 120% of their excess power costs. In other words more welfare for his rusted on supporters. They will however get no compensation for the inevitable power failures. They may lose their faith when their house full of expensive electronic and white-goods fails to work.

Agreed but there are things you can do to at least minimise your losses. Some specific examples as follows (note that I'm not recommending (or otherwise) the companies mentioned, I'm just using current offers as an example.

1. Nu Energy (www.nue.com.au) will for just under $3000 supply and install a 1.5 kW PV system on your house roof. How much it saves you will depend on location and how much you pay for electricity - but in Hobart (not the ideal place for solar...) it works out at about $370 a year saving which, since it is completely TAX FREE, isn't too bad a return overall. And that saving will go up with any rise in electricity prices. In some parts of Australia they are offering the same system, fully installed, for just under $2000. Do the math there - it's worthwhile.

2. If you need a new hot water heater then for an electric one it's going to cost you about $1000 plus the plumber to install it - so around $1500 all up. But you could instead get a top of the range marine grade stainless steel Siddons Solarstream heat pump instead and that will come to around $3500 after rebates, substantially less in areas where there are state or local government rebates. And it will save you 70% on your hot water costs even in the middle of Winter.

This is a split system - tank goes where the electric one is now (mine will be under the house) and the compressor goes somewhere else convenient outside (just like a split system air-conditioner). Other companies, such as Quantum, make "all in one" units that are cheaper to install but need to have the tank outside.

Worth looking into, especially if you need a new water heater anyway. Spend $1500 - $2000 extra for 70 - 75% permanent savings that will increase in value with power costs. www.siddonssolarstream.com and www.quantumenergy.com.au Other companies make these systems too (but don't buy one with a booster element - it's not necessary unless you really do live somewhere that gets regular snow and ice and will use power unnecessarily during cool weather. Also make sure it can work on off-peak to minimise costs - the Siddons unit can.

3. Heating the house.

If you're using electric heating other than via an air-conditioner, you could save up to 77% of your heating bills (realistically 70%) by switching to a reverse cycle air-conditioner.

All the major air-conditioning manufacturers make reverse cycle models but Mitsubishi Electric now has a "Hyper Heating" version that is specifically optimised for heating. It works down to -25 degrees outside which should be more than enough for anyone in Australia (most other systems lose output at low temperatures, a common complaint with reverse cycle heating. Mitsubishi claims these models maintain constant output regardless of how cold it is outside). They also work as conventional air-conditioners for cooling during Summer.

Plenty more ideas and ways to reduce energy consumption but the 3 above will for many people completely offset the claimed $1100 a year increase in bills anyway. Then we can get back to worrying about the real issue with the ETS - the potential loss of our major exporting industries.

 

[derty]

I stumbled across this site: http://climatedebatedaily.com/

Has the latest and historic arguments from both sides of the fence as well as a very extensive list of sites that cover official sites, for and against science groups, for and against blogs, a whole range of data sites, for and against debunking sites and energy sites. It's a great compilation. It's huge!

 

[MS+Tradesim]

This may interest many. The alleged emails in question. If authentic, there are some real doozies:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

Apologies if someone already posted this. I came across them quite by accident today.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
...
....The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, which created the last two graphics and includes an IPCC reviewer, now alleges that Salinger and NIWA have refused to explain the basis on which the data was adjusted:

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

There really needs to be an official investigation of this fraud by scientists and the IPCC, but then who do the IPCC answer to? Not elected by you or me.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...-spreads-the-plot-thickens-the-shame-deepens/

"We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2””it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace."

 

[ghotib]

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
...
....The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, which created the last two graphics and includes an IPCC reviewer, now alleges that Salinger and NIWA have refused to explain the basis on which the data was adjusted:

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

Yes they have, at least twice in addition to the scientific papers:

From the website of NIWA, the New Zealand Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise:

NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8 °C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.

Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. The Climate Science Coalition has not done this.

NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.

Also from NIWA, a press release dated August 2006 http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/2006/2006-08-03-1 dealing with the same allegations.

For a more step by step explanation of how and why these sets of data are adjusted, try http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/.

Cheers

Ghoti

 

[Calliope]

Agreed but there are things you can do to at least minimise your losses. Some specific examples as follows (note that I'm not recommending (or otherwise) the companies mentioned, I'm just using current offers as an example.

Smurf, I agree entirely with your three suggestions. The is nothing more wasteful that compensating householders for increase in power costs. There is no incentive to reduce consumption.

When you consider all the power available from your roof it it makes sense that we should avail ourselves of it. Many of my neighbours are doing just that with !.5 kw solar panels and water heating systems. My son has the water heating system you describe and it been fully self-sufficient in the six months he has had it.

The compensation money should be used to help people to help themselves instead perpetuating power wastefulness.

 

[basilio]

from the website of NIWA, the New Zealand Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publi...mperature-rise:
Quote:
NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8 °C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.

Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. The Climate Science Coalition has not done this.

NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.
Also from NIWA, a press release dated August 2006 http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publi...6/2006-08-03-1 dealing with the same allegations.

For a more step by step explanation of how and why these sets of data are adjusted, try http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-l...top-scientist/.

Ii all makes perfect sense doesn't it.... Over a hundred years a few weather stations are moved to obviously cooler sites i.e. 125 metres higher up a mountain. Every meteorological body understand that there needs to be an adjustment of the older figures to ensure same for same comparison with new ones. It's done and explained - clearly.

And yet.. some deceitful blackards, after being shown how and why the adjustment was made, try to scream fraud. Just sickening and stupid.

I had a good read of how and why the figures were adjusted and the fact that these explanations were made and accepted by all the meteorological bodies ages ago. And specifically explained to the climate coalition.

It's simple. The deniers are liars.

 

[basilio]

It's simple. The deniers are liars.

Had a chance to think about my earlier post and I think it was a bit rough. I remembered a few conversations I have had with people who seem absolutely convinced that global warming is either not that real or not caused by people or any of the other comments bandied around the net. I don't think they would see themselves as liars.

So what was I trying to say? The core of the issue I feel is the systematic deceit of many people/organizations attempting to discredit either the science behind global warming or the scientists who observe and measure what is happening. The particular point of the "fudged" New Zealand temperatures is just one such absolutely glaring example.

If one takes the trouble to read what happened and then scout around the various meteorological organization and ask if the adjustments are kosher the simple answer would be yes. You can't directly compare readings from 2 weather stations if there has been a material change in the position. 125 metres of altitude is a clear change which will cause a demonstrated difference in recorded temperatures.

This had been made clear previously but it didn't stop a rehash of the story with character destroying comments about the scientists in question. The twisted stories in the Telegraph and Herald Sun are the lies I am particularly bitter about. It is only because these journalists chose to tell a story that is not truthful that millions of readers start to believe the deception.

In this particular case I sincerely hope "someone" has the capacity to sue these journalists and newspapers for libel.

If anyone here is actually interested in what happened in New Zealand and why, take the trouble to check out the link in the previous post.

 

[wayneL]

Had a chance to think about my earlier post and I think it was a bit rough.

It wasn't really. If someone is messing with, or disingenuously interpreting data, they need a size 13 steel-capped Blundstone up the derrier.

But it is important to note that we (as truth seekers) now have important evidence that both sides of the debate have been indulging in pure, grade A, USDA approved bull$#1+.

Quite frankly, I'm sick of it.

The whole CC debate has become about politics and zeal rather than the facts. We cannot move forward with any real consideration of what's actually happening, because that's obfuscated with emotion and nonsense that is laughingly referred to as peer reviewed science... oh, and what appears to be a hidden agenda.

That size 13 steel-capped Blundstone wielder needs to get to work on both extremes. The disappointing thing for me is that the pro ACC extremists have control of policy and are using it to further their own ends. Need there be any better example than the repulsive liar Al Gore who has used the worst of the science to enrich himself and to achieve influence denied him by the US supreme court and the reptilian cretin that brought us the immensely stupid "war on terrrrrrrr".

Yes let's call out the liars and mercilessly trash their reputations... on both sides of the debate.

But please don't try to claim the high moral ground for the pro AGW lobby because some clown jerking us off with a dodgy interpretation of data. In light of the latest email scandal and consistent exposing of bias by others, that would be speaking from a position of hypocrisy of truly megalithic proportions.

 

[alphaman]

I don't need figures, it's obvious to me that we are in a secular trend of environmental destruction. And given our obsession with the so-called "economic" growth, I'd say the fundamentals support continuation of this trend. Sure there will be a few bumps along the ride, but you can't fight the trend. Most likely the GEC (Global Environmental Crisis) is still generations away, by the time I'll be dead anyway.

 

[wayneL]

I don't need figures, it's obvious to me that we are in a secular trend of environmental destruction. And given our obsession with the so-called "economic" growth, I'd say the fundamentals support continuation of this trend. Sure there will be a few bumps along the ride, but you can't fight the trend. Most likely the GEC (Global Environmental Crisis) is still generations away, by the time I'll be dead anyway.

Agree, but let's address that rather than the CO2/AGW ruse.

 

[basilio]

Yes let's call out the liars and mercilessly trash their reputations... on both sides of the debate.

Nice one Wayne....

So while we are on the topic of taking out and trashing the reputations of liars consider just how the whole "solar actvity is causing global warming" BS has been a total scam since it's inception.

For years now one of the juiciest red herrings of the GW deniers has been that Solar activity was the big reason for global warming. Not just a small factor but THE factor. Graphs were used in The Great Global Warning Swindle amongst other pieces of rubbish that purported to show this correlation.

Trouble was this was a calculated lie by the relevant scientific researchers that was uncovered many years ago, put into into plain daylight - and then ignored by the body of deniers who simply arn't interested in the truth if it gets in the way of want they want to believe.

If other forum members want to see an overview of just how this fraud was concocted and used to cloud this this issue check out the link. I have attached a few relevant paragraphs.

Flawed science
I have followed the scientific work of these two researchers over many years. In the 1990’s I was scientific advisor to the Danish Energy Agency. It was my task to scrutinize the steady flux of climate related scientific literature and keep the Agency informed about developments which should be taken into account in shaping Danish energy and climate policies.

In 1991 Eigil Friis‐Christensen together with Knud Lassen, another Danish researcher, published an article in the scientific journal Science which attracted worldwide attention. It seemed to document a close agreement between data representing solar activity (solar cycle lengths), and terrestrial temperatures. The agreement was displayed on a graph which showed a solar and a terrestrial curve closely intertwined. What made the graph a sensation, was the fact, that the steep rise in temperature from about 1970, the ‘global warming’, was closely matched by a corresponding steep rise of the solar curve. This was seen by many as proof that global warming was caused by the sun. The graph has been reproduced extensively all over the word, both in the mass media and in scientific literature, and has helped to create a large community of believers, who claim that the sun is causing the global warming.

Regrettably, it took some years before a careful analysis of the article revealed that the conspicuous steep rise of the solar curve actually had nothing to do with the behavior of the sun, but had been created (accidentally?) by a change of the mathematical procedure used to calculate the points creating the steep rise. I published this finding in 2003 in The Journal of Atmospheric and Solar‐Terrestrial Physics, but had already presented my critique in the year 2000 at a conference on “The Solar Cycle and Terrestrial Climate”, arranged by the European Space Agency.

In the late 1990’s a series of articles seemed to provide additional credibility to the ‘solar theory’. In 1996 Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis‐Christensen presented observations which apparently lent support to the solar theory. At a conference in Birmingham they showed that some solar related data (this time the intensity of galactic cosmic rays) correlated strongly with some terrestrial data (total cloud cover). The agreement was striking for the years 1984‐90, which was the period for which data were available. However, as every scientist knows, an agreement only extending over a short time span, here seven years, can be misleading. So, to test a possible causal relationship, the authors in their later publications, two articles published in 1997 and 1998 respectively, added some more recent data, which they claimed demonstrated that the close agreement extended beyond the seven years.

However, close inspection of their work revealed two fatal flaws:
1) Most of the added data were totally irrelevant in the context of the article, but created the false impression that the close agreement with the solar curve did extend beyond the original seven years (see my paper for details). Actually, the authors’ procedure is like adding bananas to a statistic on apples and then claiming the statistic to be on
apples alone.
2) However, the authors had also added relevant data. These were all displayed in the 1997‐article, but some of them were removed again in the 1998‐article.Strangely enough, the removed data were precisely those data which indicated a beginning disagreement with the solar theory, a disagreement that would become dramatic when more observational data became available in the following years (See my 2003‐article for details).

ttp://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/PETERLAUT-ANALYSIS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-CPN1.p

So given that the lies that underpinned the "Global Warming is caused by Solar activity" was clearly exposed at least 10 years ago what are to make of the relentless push by deniers to continue to use that "evidence" since then? And you can start with Ian Plimer who copied the Great Global Warming Swindle rubbish into his book complete with manufactured figures.

This episode also highlights the point of peer reviewed science. When researchers put out a paper they have to show just how they arrived at their conclusions and enable other scientists to go through the process to verify it. In this case it became clear that clever subtle "mistakes" had made made in the calculations to come out with the desired result. The scrutiny of other scientists brought this to light.

The refusal of climate deniers to see this reality meant the lie was spread and still infects the mindset of many people who want to believe that something else apart from CO2 is causing global warming.

 

[noco]

With Tony Abbott now the new leader of the Coalition it looks like the ETS is dead until February. Perhaps now, there will be breathing space to gather more information on the SCAM AND CONSPIRACY of this flawed and fraudulent ETS.

It must be defeated.