- Joined
- 28 October 2008
- Posts
- 8,609
- Reactions
- 39
Dear oh dear!Seems like we might have to be more worried about freezing to death than being cooked...
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/11/16/186371_movies.html
There is no evidence of human global warming:
....
In 1995 UN IPCC scientists reported five times that there was no evidence of human warming. Yet UN IPCC politicians reported to national governments and media, quote: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”.
The scientific conclusion that there is no evidence of human global warming has been repeated many times since by UN IPCC scientists. Please refer to UN IPCC Expert Reviewer, PhD scientist Dr Vincent Gray who reviewed all four UN IPCC reports—1991, 1995, 2001, 2007. He says there’s no evidence anywhere. www.conscious.com.au
I was wrong with this statement, though most of them are opinion pieces and not research. Also Energy and Environment is not a science journal and is classed as a trade journal.has never conducted climate research or published a climate science paper in a peer-reviewed journal.
The world currently runs on about 16 terawatts (trillion watts) of energy, most of it burning fossil fuels. To level off at 450 ppm of carbon dioxide, we will have to reduce the fossil fuel burning to 3 terawatts and produce all the rest with renewable energy, and we have to do it in 25 years or it’s too late. Currently about half a terrawatt comes from clean hydropower and one terrawatt from clean nuclear. That leaves 11.5 terawatts to generate from new clean sources.
That would mean the following. (Here I’m drawing on notes and extrapolations I’ve written up previously from discussion with Griffith):
“Two terawatts of photovoltaic would require installing 100 square meters of 15-percent-efficient solar cells every second, second after second, for the next 25 years. (That’s about 1,200 square miles of solar cells a year, times 25 equals 30,000 square miles of photovoltaic cells.) Two terawatts of solar thermal? If it’s 30 percent efficient all told, we’ll need 50 square meters of highly reflective mirrors every second. (Some 600 square miles a year, times 25.) Half a terawatt of biofuels? Something like one Olympic swimming pools of genetically engineered algae, installed every second. (About 15,250 square miles a year, times 25.) Two terawatts of wind? That’s a 300-foot-diameter wind turbine every 5 minutes. (Install 105,000 turbines a year in good wind locations, times 25.) Two terawatts of geothermal? Build 3 100-megawatt steam turbines every day ”” 1,095 a year, times 25. Three terawatts of new nuclear? That’s a 3-reactor, 3-gigawatt plant every week ”” 52 a year, times 25″.
In other words, the land area dedicated to renewable energy (“Renewistan”) would occupy a space about the size of Australia to keep the carbon dioxide level at 450 ppm.
The main scary part is the astounding magnitude of this project, and how far we are from doing anything remotely close. Griffith describes it as not like the Manhattan Project, but like World War II ”” only with everyone on the same side.
And the likes of Al Gore really don't seem to be concerned with their own CO2 excesses...
Carbon Trade Ends on Quiet Death of Chicago Climate Exchange - not before Gore pockets $18M
To be an 'expert reviewer' you simply had request a copy of the draft report and sign to say you wouldn't publicly comment on the report before it was published. He was not an official reviewer. I could have asked for a copy and claim to be an IPCC expert reviewer.
I had a quick look through some of his recommended changes. Most of the were just 'replace this with that' or 'insert this on the end of such and such line'. He provided very few references for his changes. Apparently he made over 1800 requested changes.
Dr Vincent Gray is a chemist not a climate scientist and has never conducted climate research or published a climate science paper in a peer-reviewed journal. His work has been in the coal industry and his last publication was 22 years ago.
And Tim Flannery is a paleontologist. His work has been in the ideological warmist/alarmist field. He specializes in opinion pieces, especially to camera. So perhaps they'll both have to sit on the sidelines?....Dr Vincent Gray is a chemist not a climate scientist and has never conducted climate research or published a climate science paper in a peer-reviewed journal. His work has been in the coal industry and his last publication was 22 years ago.
And Tim Flannery is a paleontologist. His work has been in the ideological warmist/alarmist field. He specializes in opinion pieces, especially to camera. So perhaps they'll both have to sit on the sidelines?
Fine by me.And Tim Flannery is a paleontologist. His work has been in the ideological warmist/alarmist field. He specializes in opinion pieces, especially to camera. So perhaps they'll both have to sit on the sidelines?
In all fairness Knobby, he was involved in the coal industry for much of his career and now states he does not personally receive any money from industry. He is involved with some think tanks/groups that receive undisclosed industry support and has been obsessed with repudiating global warming since he retired in 1991.The point is that Dr Vincent Gray is under the pay of the coal industry and pushes their interests. Come up with someone better to agree with your needs.
Changes to the temperature histories, like all advances in knowledge, were a result of continuing investigations. Our picture of how characteristics are passed from one generation to the next is very different in 2010 from what it was in 1910. Is that sinister? Of course not. It's what you'd expect after intensive study by a large number of researchers. Genetics in 2010 still has many areas of uncertainty and questions requiring further intensive and expensive study. Is that sinister? Of course not. There's a very old saying that "the more you know, the more you know you don't know."I've asked questions in this forum before but have yet to have anyone answer them to any reasonable satisfaction, one in particular:
"Why did the IPCC change the temperature histories between the AR 1/2 and AR 3 to remove the Medieval Warming Period that was previously published? Can you clarify which expert reviewer(s) with climate qualifications decided this to become fact and scientifically justified through peer review process?"
Do you agree with the IPCC changing of temperature history that shows the Medieval warming period with higher temperatures than today swapped for the Hockey Stick that shows "unprecedented" and higher temperatures in the 1900's? If so, why?
As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
When you read the translation of the interview with Ottmar Edenhofer you will see that he is talking about climate change POLICY, not science. He talks about effects of climate change and limiting CO2 to limit temperature increase and clearly supports anthropogenic CO2 is related to climate change.http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy
UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'
By Noel Sheppard | November 18, 2010
If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."
As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.
When you read the translation of the interview with Ottmar Edenhofer you will see that he is talking about climate change POLICY, not science. He talks about effects of climate change and limiting CO2 to limit temperature increase and clearly supports anthropogenic CO2 is related to climate change.
To claim that "the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth" is disingenuous when the man whose discussion is being used to support the claim clearly believes that AGW is real.
It is one thing to say that there is corruption in the global warming debate but is that a good reason to say that there is no global warming happening. There is a lot at stake here and an obsene amount of money involved so there is bound to be corruption. Because there is corrupt operators is that a good reason to deney that there is a problem.
Face the facts. If there is we are in deep whatsit if we dont act. If there isnt and we do act then what do we have to lose. Maybe a little money. but ,hell that is made round to go round anyway. Even the flat stuff that you can stack can only be stacked so high.
So on one hand we can lose everything and on the other we lose a little cash. The answer is a nobrainer to me.
Then again there is no doubt whatsoever that we are polluting our planet. We are fouling our own nest. If we stop that then we correct both problems.
We can act or we can pay others to act for us. Maybe a carbon tax is the answer. We can act ( I have solar power, solar hot water and today I planted over 100 plants, dug in 2 tonne of mulch. that cost time and money)
or we can pay via a carbon tax.)
Anyone that doesn't agree is in my mind either mean, lazy or lives in fairy land. OR both.
That still resists Climate Hysteria but accepts Climate facts.
Do you also believe in God?
What you have just stated is another form of Pascal's Wager?
Also, if the Earth is warming, and if it is NOT caused by humans, should we still act to stop the warming?
If we forget "global warming", then in that context, we are saying it ain't broken.Forget "global warming". THINK "Fix the pollution". THEN see if it helps. What is there to lose? A little cost maybe but even the employment that is there to make the changes may even fix the world economy. (and give the ASF capitalists an investment opportunity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?