77931
Australia's largest renovations forum

Emission Trading

Page 54 of 240 FirstFirst ... 4 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 104 154 ... LastLast
Results 2,651 to 2,700 of 11988
  1. #2651
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Once more.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    Vin,

    It does seem futile at times, but we are making progress... slooowly...

    From: (page 14)
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rod Dyson
    One thing is for certain, and that is, there is NO credible scientific link to CO2 controlling temperatures

    To: (page 205)
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rod Dyson
    No one I know disputes that cO2 is a green house gas.


    So slowly, that I don't think Rod has noticed.
    Seeing as you have already verballed the good Mr Dyson, I will leave it to him to rebut in full this false attempt at demonstrating inconsistency. But in the interim, I put it to you that he has been single-minded in his argument that anthropogenic CO2 is what has not yet been proven to be responsible for the recent measured warming.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    By definition, in isolation it has a net warming effect - but is subject to interactions with many other variables and systems in ways that we are yet to fathom.

    This thread is filled with info from the start explaining how much of it is in the atmosphere, and how little we know in terms of its exact contribution to climate, so taking two quotes out of context contrary to someones stated position is casting a spurious assertion (Hmmm, pattern forming here). I do this all the time, but Rod has played a pretty straight bat.

    In terms of AGW Theory, the main issue in this thread, there is NO evidence proving a causal relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the measured 0.7 degree celsius "statisticallly averaged globally measured" warming over the last 150 years.

  2. #2652
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Vin,

    It does seem futile at times, but we are making progress... slooowly...

    From: (page 14)


    To: (page 205)


    So slowly, that I don't think Rod has noticed.
    Been my position all along

  3. #2653
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    Doc: Good work with the multiple string of sequential posts - and doing the night-shift! Keep it up - maybe even try for a whole page at the time. Come on, you can easily do a page! No point doing a single post when you can turn it into 15 instead!
    I'm running out of stuff. The whole world is realising this was a scam and have stopped talking or caring about it.

    Doh, now Rod just cut into my string of posts, so no hope tonight.

  4. #2654
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vin View Post
    That looks pretty conclusive to me

    Rod did you really make both of those statements
    Why not? they are both true. we know that co2 is a green house gas. we also know it is one of many. We know it is only a minor gas in comparison to water vapor. What we dont know is is the degree any increase of CO2 will alter the temperature. Until this question can be answered the entire theory is not proven and remains at best a guess.

    To think a minor Greenhouse gas controlls the temperature of eath without any direct evidence is a giat leap of faith. The casual correlation of increases of CO2 and temperatures since the 70's does not in any way shape or form proove anything.

  5. #2655
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Need a bigger bandwagon.

    A freezing winter!

    Mongolia is counting the cost of one of the harshest winters on record. Across the country an estimated 8.5 million goats, sheep, horses, camels, yaks and cows have died of hunger or succumbed to the freezing conditions. That's one in five of the entire national herd.

    Freak snowstorms were also reported, claiming the lives of 16 people. The National Emergency Management Agency's small provincial team saved more than 80 others who had been trapped or lost in the snow.

    A degradation of farming practices!

    This zhud has exposed huge problems in the way the livestock industry is run in Mongolia. Until 1995 it was controlled by government collectives and regulations. These days there is little thought to land and water management and last year there were 44-million animals roaming the land - well above the carrying capacity of the pastures. This has led to tensions among the herders.

    The privatisation of the business also led many young, inexperienced herders to buy animals. When prices for cashmere wool hit $40 a kilogram three years ago, herders took on more goats - voracious eaters which tread heavily. Once goats made up 20 percent of the national herd. Now they account for 80 per cent.

    A national disaster unfolds!

    The government has declared disaster zones in 15 of 21 provinces and through the United Nations is seeking $21m to assist in the immediate clean up of the dead animals. Australia has contributed $1m so far.

    Surely we couldn’t blame this one on Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory?

    Ah, to hell with all evidence to the contrary, throw it in anyway.

  6. #2656
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,764

    Default

    If you are going to quote what you think I think you should at least make some attempt at being correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    This is Rod's initial thread starting post. As you can see, Rod's had three points which he based his argument on.

    Rod's veiw across this thread can only be descibed as a roller coast ride.

    Apparently Rod requires irrefutable evidence to believe that the reduction of C02 and her accompanying noxious, toxic gases will be of any benefit to the world before he's gunna make a move.
    CO2 is not a pollutant for a start. I am all for spending money on ridding the world of real pollutants. Money spent on the bogus AGW claim would be much better spent reseaching way to rid us of real pollutants.
    He's also under the belief that man is unable to find an alternative source of power, other than fossil fuels!
    I have no doubt that man will find efficient forms of alternative fuel as and when the need arises. Again money wasted on AGW would have been better spent on the research of VIABLE alternative fuels. Sorry wind power and solar power just won't do it. They will play a roll on a very limited scale but try and run a country on solar or wind alone!

    He's also under the false assumption that the Australian Economy was not crippled when the Labour party was voted into power.
    Now this really demonstrates this has just been a provocative post. You know damn well my political views. And this does not mean a shred of support of Rudds utter waste and destruction of our economy.

    You should be a bit more ingenious in the future. Rather than trying to stir up the pot. Why not try to be constructive for once.





    These are only your opinions Headpin
    Attachment 79089

    And this is a classic case

    Attachment 79090[/quote]

  7. #2657
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I'm running out of stuff. The whole world is realising this was a scam and have stopped talking or caring about it.

    Doh, now Rod just cut into my string of posts, so no hope tonight.
    LOL sorry Doc and you were doing so well. I seem to be working on WA time lately. I'm always a late night person

  8. #2658
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default A bad Penny always turns up.

    I found Penny!

    “Climate Change Minister Penny Wong argued responsibility for the axed program now rested with another minister and another department.”

    Er, Yes Minister!

    “ Liberal Senator Ian McDonald quizzed the department's secretary, Robyn Kruk, on the failed program. Ms Kruk denied claims she was avoiding responsibility for the failed scheme. "I again say there were inherent risks, some of that risk could not be mitigated."”

    Er, these are the people asking us to trust them with mitigating risks at the “globally catastrophic” level.

    Here’s a tip Penny and Kev, try kicking a point first, then a goal, then string some wins together.

    Then we can take on global domination.

    Until then, try to keep a lid on it.

  9. #2659
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    LOL sorry Doc and you were doing so well. I seem to be working on WA time lately. I'm always a late night person
    No probs, it's cold and rainy over here now so time to check out anyway.


  10. #2660
    Duck Fat - 2K club member SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Below the Seventh Circle......
    Posts
    3,059

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post


    “Where does the scientist stop giving advice—at the causal link between cause and effect, or at the logical policy implications which may be clear to us as scientists, but not so clear to decision makers?”

    For a start, are you able to please provide the cause and effect evidence that the good Mr Pittock speaks of? He certainly did not provide any such thing.

    Then can you please explain if you agree scientists are suddenly better placed than policy makers to decide on these “logical policy implications”. Scientific training must have changed since I last checked. I’m not sure if these scientists are really that qualified to design and implement policy outside of the scientific bubble, factoring in issues such as micro and macro economics, energy security, national security, housing and welfare implications, food supply, poverty levels, equity and ethical issues, structural and historical inequalities, population constraints and these effects on future societal reforms, etc, etc, all at the local, national and global levels.

    To my knowledge, yes, the paper was peer reviewed. You may note that it is one of the elements of current scientific practise that Pittock has some 'issues' with (in his view, it's very slow and inherently conservative - I'm still not certain that's a bad thing) and he comments about them in the paper.

    Pittock included a very simple literature review in the first two pages of the paper highlighting the key papers that demonstrate the basic drivers behind the effect that our emissions are having on our atmosphere. Handily, and very typically for a peer reviewed scientific paper, all the papers & documents that Pittock referenced in this section are included in a list at the end....we call that a reference list. Rather than totally rehashing the whole thing, scientists tend to rely on the reader to pursue and examine the works described in a reference list. So if you indeed are looking for the cause and effect evidence....it's in those papers. And each of those papers itself has a reference list....and on we go. I truly encourage you to have a wander through them.

    Are scientists better placed to decide 'logical policy implications' than the policy makers? Sometimes...absolutely. It's the similar scenario to when you make what seems to you to be a simple investment decision that you believe will have a spectacular financial benefit....but then your accountant points out that as a result of that decision you'll end up having to take on an unforeseen (to you) tax burden. Policy makers are experts at making policy....they are not necessarily experts about every aspect of life that the policy might touch. Its implications if you will. And in some instances....a scientist, an accountant, a lawyer, a physician, an engineer or many,many specialists in their field are called in to make a contribution to policy.

    But that wasn't the question that Pittock was asking in that quotation. He asked when scientists should cease providing advice in terms of policy. Should it be at the point where they have demonstrated when the policy is required? Or should it be after the policy is drafted when the policy itself might have unintended outcomes? And I think it is fair to say that that we aren't talking just about physical scientists here....scientists from other fields such as (but not limited to) economics, humanities, sociology, engineering etc. are also included here.

    So, my good Doctor....when should the experts in their field leave the policy stage?

    People don't ever seem to realise that doing what's right is no guarantee against misfortune

  11. #2661
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Been my position all along
    Which one?

  12. #2662
    1K Club Member jago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ....
    Posts
    1,411

    Default

    Missionary by the sounds of things !

  13. #2663
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    In terms of AGW Theory, the main issue in this thread, there is NO evidence proving a causal relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the measured 0.7 degree celsius "statisticallly averaged globally measured" warming over the last 150 years.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    To think a minor Greenhouse gas controlls the temperature of eath without any direct evidence is a giat leap of faith. The casual correlation of increases of CO2 and temperatures since the 70's does not in any way shape or form proove anything.
    You two left out the bit about it being a political lefty, socialist, communistic, new-world-order thing!

    All those scientists all around the world have somehow just all got it wrong!

    Or is the standard of proof required a function of your own political biases?

  14. #2664
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    71
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post

    Think about everyday situations where you require irrefutable evidence before you commit yourself..................
    Is the water too hot/cold.? Before bathing/swimming.
    Does the Bank have my best interests at heart? Before applying for a mortgage.
    Is that 40 x 90 mm pine going to support my weight. 7M above the deck

    ball-not-man.jpeg

  15. #2665
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,764

    Default

    Head Pin it is quite obvious you are attempting to draw me into a slanging match.

    None of what you have posted has any foundation whatsoever. My position on AGW has not changed, throughout this thread. However if the facts do change I will change my opinion. What will you do?

    I suggest you are attempting to draw me into a similar slanging match as you did with other posters on this thread who were subsequently banned for retaliating. Well I have news for you, It won't work. All you are achieving is confirming what everyone else is thinking and that is you are a 1st class JERK.

    Now having said that you will not get any more from me, irrespective of what you post or how you post it I will not be responding to you in any way in future.

  16. #2666
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,764

    Default

    3 cheers Watson

  17. #2667
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    71
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Now, I'll just go through the rules again.

    Normal forum rules apply.....with the extra debate rule........Play the Ball not the man.

    Seconds out......box on.

  18. #2668
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Now, I'll just go through the rules again.

    Normal forum rules apply.....with the extra debate rule........Play the Ball not the man.

    Seconds out......box on.
    Shall do

  19. #2669
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    71
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Just a little note.
    Our main source of heating is a wood stove.......its had a blow out..........and I'm waiting 48 hours for the Fireproof cement to dry.
    Gotta say.......I'm bloody freezing.

    Sorry, probably not on topic.

  20. #2670
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Just a little note.
    Our main source of heating is a wood stove.......its had a blow out..........and I'm waiting 48 hours for the Fireproof cement to dry.
    Gotta say.......I'm bloody freezing.

    Sorry, probably not on topic.
    What timing I just got a call from the mrs to light the fire. What was that you said "suffer baby"

  21. #2671
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    71
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    3 PM tomorrow I can light it again..........bugger.
    I know weather can't be confused with the topic..........but Geez.....I'm cold.

    Added this as proof>

    image00111.jpg
    Last edited by watson; 27th May 2010 at 08:29 PM. Reason: added pic

  22. #2672
    Vin
    Vin is offline
    Novice
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    SA
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Ok this is a futile argument, the planet is stuffed anyway unless every nation on the planet follows China's one child policy. So lets debate the real problem

  23. #2673
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    71
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    This is probably one of those Global myths......but I have an inkling (unsupported....and not peer reviewed) that the most numbers of people that have ever lived on this planet (for all time) are actually present now..

    Just chucking it in there.

  24. #2674
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Our main source of heating is a wood stove.......its had a blow out..........and I'm waiting 48 hours for the Fireproof cement to dry.
    Gotta say.......I'm bloody freezing.
    Onya Noel!

    It is good to read that you are doing your bit to help cut CO2 emissions.


  25. #2675
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    71
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Tee Hee........lots of cubes of Yellow Box waiting to warm my weary bones.

    ps...as I get warmer.......I get happier.

  26. #2676
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    This is probably one of those Global myths......but I have an inkling (unsupported....and not peer reviewed) that the most numbers of people that have ever lived on this planet (for all time) are actually present now..

    Just chucking it in there.
    Snopes is your friend: snopes.com: Living Outnumber Dead

    and here is one that Rod might be interested in reading: snopes.com: Al Gore's Energy Use

  27. #2677
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vin View Post
    Ok this is a futile argument, the planet is stuffed anyway unless every nation on the planet follows China's one child policy. So lets debate the real problem
    Vin over population should not be confused with the AGW debate. Population increase has its own set of issues not to be confused with AGW. Of course if you hold to the theory of AGW more humans mean more emission. Now if you believe CO2 emissions are a problem then you naturally would see over population as a contributing factor.

    If you do not subscribe to the AGW theory over population is an entirely seperate debate.

    I'm not quite sure how you can go about decreasing population unless by volantary birth control. Having said that without any thought to the justification of having to do so.

    I saw a graph not long ago that shows that in most western countries population, without imigrants from predominatley muslim countires, would in actual fact be decreasing. I think in most developed countries the birth rates are about even or maybe negative. It is the poorer countries that tend to have large families.

  28. #2678
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Snopes is your friend: snopes.com: Living Outnumber Dead

    and here is one that Rod might be interested in reading: snopes.com: Al Gore's Energy Use
    I already know Al Gore uses more energy than any normal family!! There has been plenty of stories abounding the net on Al Gores hypocrisy when it comes to energy use.

    One that comes to mind was when his driver sat in the car with the engine running while waiting ages for Al Gore.

  29. #2679
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    71
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Bewdiful.......Bewdiful.........Bewdiful.
    That worked perfectly!!

    If we believe anything on the web......not kosher.
    If we believe what people quote from the web..........not kosher.

    But.
    If Snopes says its not true.....we believe that??? That's Milk and Meat.....Not Kosher.

    Thanks Chrisp......that was my reason for posting that crud.

    The Web is full of Biased Crud......and maybe we should think for ourselves.

    And so saying.....he wends his weary way into bed.....having spent a very bloody cold night waiting for the fire cement to cure.

    Tomorrow....3PM....I'll be burning Yellow Box wood ( that a Dog wind Blew down on my own place)......in my refurbished stove......made from the Brake drums of Semi-trailers......that I recycled 10 years ago.....from a semi that didn't make it back to the city.

    I love this stuff........so have a good night.

  30. #2680
    Vin
    Vin is offline
    Novice
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    SA
    Posts
    42

    Default

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY"]YouTube - The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8)[/ame]
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb3JI8F9LQQ&feature=related"]YouTube - The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 2 of 8)[/ame]
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFyOw9IgtjY&feature=channel"]YouTube - The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 3 of 8)[/ame]
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFLgjbKfypI&feature=related"]YouTube - The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See Part 4 of 8[/ame]

    If you want the remaining parts I find them tomorrow!

  31. #2681
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    And so saying.....he wends his weary way into bed.....having spent a very bloody cold night waiting for the fire cement to cure.

    Tomorrow....3PM....I'll be burning Yellow Box wood ( that a Dog wind Blew down on my own place)......in my refurbished stove......made from the Brake drums of Semi-trailers.
    I seem to recall that I heard something about fire cement taking three-times longer to cure when it is coldish... I don't know where I heard that?... Maybe it was something I read on the internet somewhere?...

    Just chucking it in there.

  32. #2682
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,764

    Default

    Yes Vin I have to agree that population is a problem and just another reason why money should not be wasted chasing the CO2 boggey man. The video's explain exponential growth very well! Thanks for posting them.

    In the natural world nature sure knows how to deal with over population, however mankind is very good at subverting nature with un-intended consequences. Hence we were smart enough to get rid of the plague and other deseases that were essentially a population control in humans. Where will this take us? I'm not sure. Will nature come back with something we just can't beat?

    In Tasmania the tasmanian devil population skyrocketed over the past 40 years, mainly due to increased food supply (road kill helped). This tumor they are getting is a consequence of over population in my opinion. It is transfered when they fight over food. Once the population thins not so many fights and less transfer of the tumor, leaves a smaller but healthier population of Devils. What is going to be the tumor for humans?

    Now we could talk about this forever but maybe it would be better in another thread rather than the AGW/ ETS thread

  33. #2683
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Propaganda beats science every day.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    How many millions of dollars is our government borrowing from China to fund these highly educational campaigns. The website below shows how shallow our kids education has become.

    “Primary students need to submit an original artistic piece like a song, poem, photograph or piece of artwork that raises awareness about climate change.

    Secondary and Tertiary students need to upload an original advertisement in video format that is up to 60 seconds in length and encourages, inspires and equips Australians to take action on climate change.


    In addition, Tertiary students must submit a media plan and a promotion plan outlining specific media outlets you would use to promote your ad and explaining how you would get maximum national exposure for your advertisement.”


    Here’s an example of a primary school project for the kiddies:


    “Students to learn how to say “global warming” and “climate change” in various languages. In one of the languages, students to write and say both in a sentence.”


    It is telling that this government is teaching Australian kids to run a spin campaign, rather than...oh, I dunno, maybe learn some science?
    Not satisfied with brainwashing the kids, lets waste more time and money via:





    Seriously people, what the hell happened to this country!

    The CSIRO is now campaigning against scientific debate, because people are starting to understand that the CSIRO's position is scientifically flawed. And they're using our money to do it. FFS!

    I'm surprised they didn't pay for the lunch as well to get more people in.

    Full sordid story at link above.

  34. #2684
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Seriously people, what the hell happened to this country!

    The CSIRO is now campaigning against scientific debate, because people are starting to understand that the CSIRO's position is scientifically flawed. And they're using our money to do it. FFS!
    What's happening to this country? Simple, we are just getting on with educating the general population to the effects of global warming. This is now taught in schools too. I don't see anything wrong with that - it is the overwhelming scientific view - it is NOT scientifically contentious at all.

    It is only the anti-AGW segment that promotes the idea that the science is in doubt. The idea that there is scientific debate on AGW is just propaganda for political purposes.

    The CSIRO, along with ALL the major scientific organisations in the whole world, all accept the AGW theory. Part of the charter of the CSIRO is public education.

    The anti-AGW isn't just fighting a loosing battle on the science, they are just completely out of step with the scientific position.

  35. #2685
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Put it up, back it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    To my knowledge, yes, the paper was peer reviewed. You may note that it is one of the elements of current scientific practise that Pittock has some 'issues' with (in his view, it's very slow and inherently conservative - I'm still not certain that's a bad thing) and he comments about them in the paper.

    Pittock included a very simple literature review in the first two pages of the paper highlighting the key papers that demonstrate the basic drivers behind the effect that our emissions are having on our atmosphere. Handily, and very typically for a peer reviewed scientific paper, all the papers & documents that Pittock referenced in this section are included in a list at the end....we call that a reference list. Rather than totally rehashing the whole thing, scientists tend to rely on the reader to pursue and examine the works described in a reference list. So if you indeed are looking for the cause and effect evidence....it's in those papers. And each of those papers itself has a reference list....and on we go. I truly encourage you to have a wander through them.

    Are scientists better placed to decide 'logical policy implications' than the policy makers? Sometimes...absolutely. It's the similar scenario to when you make what seems to you to be a simple investment decision that you believe will have a spectacular financial benefit....but then your accountant points out that as a result of that decision you'll end up having to take on an unforeseen (to you) tax burden. Policy makers are experts at making policy....they are not necessarily experts about every aspect of life that the policy might touch. Its implications if you will. And in some instances....a scientist, an accountant, a lawyer, a physician, an engineer or many,many specialists in their field are called in to make a contribution to policy.

    But that wasn't the question that Pittock was asking in that quotation. He asked when scientists should cease providing advice in terms of policy. Should it be at the point where they have demonstrated when the policy is required? Or should it be after the policy is drafted when the policy itself might have unintended outcomes? And I think it is fair to say that that we aren't talking just about physical scientists here....scientists from other fields such as (but not limited to) economics, humanities, sociology, engineering etc. are also included here.

    So, my good Doctor....when should the experts in their field leave the policy stage?

    To my knowledge, yes, the paper was peer reviewed.
    Apologies, the peer-reviewed crack was sarcasm. My views on this process in the climate science area is well documented.

    So if you indeed are looking for the cause and effect evidence....it's in those papers.
    With all due respect, the doctrine that has been foisted upon us all during this thread is that if we put it up, we have to back it up. I'd love to spend my time researching your argument for you, but if you can't back this statement of a causal relationship proving AGW Theory (as the good Mr Pittock certainly didn't), then you are free to retract it. I've previously put up plenty of info describing what constitutes a causal relationship in scientific terms to assist.

    Are scientists better placed to decide 'logical policy implications' than the policy makers? Sometimes...absolutely.
    Er, no, never. Call me a fuddy duddy, but I'm a stickler for that little process called the Westminster bicameral parliamentary system. But hey, you're not alone in trying to circumvent democracy:


    And in some instances....a scientist, an accountant, a lawyer, a physician, an engineer or many,many specialists in their field are called in to make a contribution to policy.
    Ah, now that sounds so much better. You see, everyone, scientist or not, gets to contribute to the policy process in Australia. This is the joy of a democracy. We can all email/call/write to our elected representatives with our facts and opinions and they can design policy accordingly. The oil companies can do this, environmental groups, scientists, economists etc etc. can all make a contribution. But no my friend, never should we accede authority to decide policy to any of these individual interests.

    Remember Copenhagen, that is how it all works.


    So, my good Doctor....when should the experts in their field leave the policy stage?
    They're on the wrong stage. Politicians work on the policy stage. See all points above as to how all these "experts" have the same rights of all of us in a democracy. You don't get extra voting or influencing rights with every PhD, and pretending "experts" somehow know best is condescending to many smart people who decide not to go to university to get the titular "expert" documentation. No one should ever cease providing advice to government (especially the current one, they need it ).

  36. #2686
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Let's try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    What's happening to this country? Simple, we are just getting on with educating the general population to the effects of global warming. This is now taught in schools too. I don't see anything wrong with that - it is the overwhelming scientific view - it is NOT scientifically contentious at all.

    It is only the anti-AGW segment that promotes the idea that the science is in doubt. The idea that there is scientific debate on AGW is just propaganda for political purposes.

    The CSIRO, along with ALL the major scientific organisations in the whole world, all accept the AGW theory. Part of the charter of the CSIRO is public education.

    The anti-AGW isn't just fighting a loosing battle on the science, they are just completely out of step with the scientific position.
    Simple, we are just getting on with educating the general population to the effects of global warming.
    See, there's that word again. In order to have an effect, you need a cause. Then you have a cause and effect relationship, or "causal relationship". I'd be grateful for your provision of the evidence of this. Perhaps you and SBD could tag team on the research.

    I also assume you mean AGW Theory, as opposed to just global warming. You see, this distinction is becoming more important as the "experts" now refer to AGW Theory as "global warming" or "climate change" to suit their particular obfuscations.

    Finally, presenting to the general population on "dealing with climate change denialism" could hardly be called scientific education.

    This is now taught in schools too.
    Er, yeh, there's a link in the original post to the Rudd government's latest efforts for teaching the kiddies science at Shout Out for Climate Change, but try not to get too bogged down in the periodic table or the astrophysics.

    It is only the anti-AGW segment that promotes the idea that the science is in doubt. The idea that there is scientific debate on AGW is just propaganda for political purposes.
    Now that's just plain scary.

    The CSIRO, along with ALL the major scientific organisations in the whole world, all accept the AGW theory. Part of the charter of the CSIRO is public education.
    ALL the major scientific organisations in the whole world all accepted that the Earth was flat. They also had a charter of public education, and many of the "uneducated" got the "pyre squared" (PiR2) treatment.

    The anti-AGW isn't just fighting a loosing battle on the science, they are just completely out of step with the scientific position.
    If the anti-AGW Theory position is losing, why are the CSIRO holding "anti-denialist" presentations and complaining that scientific debates are swaying public opinion away from AGW Theory? This sham has been funded by hundreds of billions of dollars, and is being unraveled by facts and common sense, all of which is absolutely free.

    Don't you just love democracy.

  37. #2687
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Maverick renegade?

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    ......and maybe we should think for ourselves...
    Better be careful Boss, that kinda talk could get you re-educated!

    You could find yourself shackled to Mr Dyson in a government basement listening to this:



    I figured I'm safe cos it would cost too many carbon emissions to fly me to Victoria for re-education, but you two guys better be careful.

  38. #2688
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    What's happening to this country? Simple, we are just getting on with educating the general population to the effects of global warming. This is now taught in schools too. I don't see anything wrong with that - it is the overwhelming scientific view - it is NOT scientifically contentious at all.

    It is only the anti-AGW segment that promotes the idea that the science is in doubt. The idea that there is scientific debate on AGW is just propaganda for political purposes.

    The CSIRO, along with ALL the major scientific organisations in the whole world, all accept the AGW theory. Part of the charter of the CSIRO is public education.

    The anti-AGW isn't just fighting a loosing battle on the science, they are just completely out of step with the scientific position.

  39. #2689
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    See, there's that word again. In order to have an effect, you need a cause. Then you have a cause and effect relationship, or "causal relationship". I'd be grateful for your provision of the evidence of this. Perhaps you and SBD could tag team on the research.

    I also assume you mean AGW Theory, as opposed to just global warming. You see, this distinction is becoming more important as the "experts" now refer to AGW Theory as "global warming" or "climate change" to suit their particular obfuscations.

    Finally, presenting to the general population on "dealing with climate change denialism" could hardly be called scientific education.

    Er, yeh, there's a link in the original post to the Rudd government's latest efforts for teaching the kiddies science at Shout Out for Climate Change, but try not to get too bogged down in the periodic table or the astrophysics.

    Now that's just plain scary.

    ALL the major scientific organisations in the whole world all accepted that the Earth was flat. They also had a charter of public education, and many of the "uneducated" got the "pyre squared" (PiR2) treatment.

    If the anti-AGW Theory position is losing, why are the CSIRO holding "anti-denialist" presentations and complaining that scientific debates are swaying public opinion away from AGW Theory? This sham has been funded by hundreds of billions of dollars, and is being unraveled by facts and common sense, all of which is absolutely free.

    Don't you just love democracy.

    Well said Doc

  40. #2690
    Duck Fat - 2K club member SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Below the Seventh Circle......
    Posts
    3,059

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    With all due respect, the doctrine that has been foisted upon us all during this thread is that if we put it up, we have to back it up. I'd love to spend my time researching your argument for you, but if you can't back this statement of a causal relationship proving AGW Theory (as the good Mr Pittock certainly didn't), then you are free to retract it. I've previously put up plenty of info describing what constitutes a causal relationship in scientific terms to assist.
    Hey Doc....if you don't do the research yourself then you'll never have any ideas of your own...so if you're happy letting Andrew Bolt & Piers Akerman do the research for you and form your opinions for you...then we here on the other side of the argument simply can't help you in your search for proof of AGW one way or the other. That's what the scientific process is all about - 'do your own research and make up your own mind'.

    The best we can do is point out the original research (which Pittock's paper references, for example) that we've found helped us form our opinion. If you'd like to point out the original research that supports your opinion on AGW (as opposed to AB's degustations) then I'm more than happy to read it and see if it influences my paradigm.

    By the by....you do recognise that there is a difference between 'policy formulation' and 'logical policy implications'....don't you? When scientists make a decision on the latter....they then tell the policy makers who can then make up their own mind what they would like to do with the information. So your precious democratic process is safe from that nasty worldwide cabal of scientists that you so fear and loathe.
    People don't ever seem to realise that doing what's right is no guarantee against misfortune

  41. #2691
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,764

    Default

    Well boys and girls, the AGW theory is just getting weaker and weaker. About that big list of scientific societies pledging their undying support for the AGW.

    Well the pressure from within is forcing them one by one to re-word their assertions on AGW. This will be a watering down of their current support in the UK's Royal Society. How far they will go is anyone's guess, but it surely means that support in the scientific societie's is not as strong as some would have us believe. My view is that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
    The UK's Royal Society is reviewing its public statements on climate change after 43 Fellows complained that it had oversimplified its messages.
    They said the communications did not properly distinguish between what was widely agreed on climate science and what is not fully understood.
    The society's ruling council has responded by setting up a panel to produce a consensus document
    Full link here. BBC News - Society to review climate message

  42. #2692
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Well boys and girls, the AGW theory is just getting weaker and weaker. About that big list of scientific societies pledging their undying support for the AGW.

    Well the pressure from within is forcing them one by one to re-word their assertions on AGW. This will be a watering down of their current support in the UK's Royal Society. How far they will go is anyone's guess, but it surely means that support in the scientific societie's is not as strong as some would have us believe. My view is that this is just the tip of the iceberg.


    Full link here. BBC News - Society to review climate message
    ...and a couple of more quotes from the same source:
    "There is very clear evidence that governments are right to be very worried about climate change. But in any society like this there will inevitably be people who disagree about anything - and my fear is that the society may become paralysed on this issue."


    "Lobbyists funded by the fossil fuel industry were fighting to undermine that consensus and science academies were concerned that public doubt might deter governments from taking precautionary action to reduce emissions of CO2."
    Lobby groups at work!



    Don't hold your breath waiting for the Royal Society to recant on AGW.

  43. #2693
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    ...and a couple of more quotes from the same source:
    "There is very clear evidence that governments are right to be very worried about climate change. But in any society like this there will inevitably be people who disagree about anything - and my fear is that the society may become paralysed on this issue."


    "Lobbyists funded by the fossil fuel industry were fighting to undermine that consensus and science academies were concerned that public doubt might deter governments from taking precautionary action to reduce emissions of CO2."
    Lobby groups at work!



    Don't hold your breath waiting for the Royal Society to recant on AGW.
    I don't need to hold my breath, it has started all ready. There is now way they could recant on AGW all in one go, they will loose too much face. Mark my words here right now, as you will see over the next 10 years or so. There will be a steady dilution if the steadfast support of scientific societies every where. It will start small and gather pace as more and more start changing their stance by opening the door of doubt just a crack at a time.

    They have no choice and they know it. They don't want to be left like a shag on a rock when the whole ediface comes tumbling down.

    So many (as in people groups and politicians etc), have put their entire credibility on the line over climate change, the smart ones are starting to put a foot on both sides of the fence. Those left bleating the doomsday scenario's to the death knell will be the activists, retiring politician's and retiring scientist's. Up and comming scientists etc. will start to see the writing on the wall, because if they want a future in science then they will need to come out on the right side of the AGW theory. If not their credibility will be shot. Either way the AGW theory is doomed as far as I am concerned, not one bit of empirical data supports the climate models that scared the world silly. They are running out of wriggle room.

    The only judge and jury will be the empirical data over the next 20 years or so that will either confirm or deny the AGW theory. As it cannot be proved or dis-proved any other way.

    See all my own opinion

    Now why don't you post how you think the AGW theory will play out over time. Then we can see who's prediction comes closest to the mark!

  44. #2694
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,764

    Default

    Here is a great article about the science and policy.

    Good timing as it has been raised here in the past day or two.

    We must stop saying ‘The science demands...’
    Top climate-change expert Mike Hulme tells spiked it is a scandal that scientific claims are increasingly usurping politics and morality.
    Full article here good read for both sides of the debate. spiked debate: We must stop saying ‘The science demands…’ by Tim Black

  45. #2695
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,764

    Default

    Seeing how Vin posted on how numbers can produce very scary result one way. I thought I might post this aticle on how numbers can be made to look scary in the opposite way.

    The article is about the greenland ice sheet and how long it will take to melt based on the current rates.

    On Being the Wrong Size | Watts Up With That?

  46. #2696
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default You're not alone.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Hey Doc....if you don't do the research yourself then you'll never have any ideas of your own...so if you're happy letting Andrew Bolt & Piers Akerman do the research for you and form your opinions for you...then we here on the other side of the argument simply can't help you in your search for proof of AGW one way or the other. That's what the scientific process is all about - 'do your own research and make up your own mind'.

    The best we can do is point out the original research (which Pittock's paper references, for example) that we've found helped us form our opinion. If you'd like to point out the original research that supports your opinion on AGW (as opposed to AB's degustations) then I'm more than happy to read it and see if it influences my paradigm.

    By the by....you do recognise that there is a difference between 'policy formulation' and 'logical policy implications'....don't you? When scientists make a decision on the latter....they then tell the policy makers who can then make up their own mind what they would like to do with the information. So your precious democratic process is safe from that nasty worldwide cabal of scientists that you so fear and loathe.
    A rather verbose retraction, but consider it graciously accepted.

    Don't feel too bad though, nobody else can find any evidence that AGW Theory is real either?

    As for my research, poor old Andy and Piers aren't really up to the job. Most of the scientific papers I use to form my opinion can be found here .

    And I couldn't do the policy questions as much justice as Rod's link below. Well worth a look.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Here is a great article about the science and policy.

    Good timing as it has been raised here in the past day or two.



    Full article here good read for both sides of the debate. spiked debate: We must stop saying ‘The science demands…’ by Tim Black
    And FYI, I fear real threats and loathe indoctrinated ignorance, especially in children. These bozo's aren't a cabal, more like a circus.

  47. #2697
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Too funny.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    These bozo's aren't a cabal, more like a circus.

  48. #2698
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Now that's funny.

    First we had to spend $30 million of our own money educating ourselves on climate change after Rudd dumps his own failed ETS:

    Then there was the $15 million we spent to educate ourselves on how to combat those lunatic “denialists”, whoever and wherever they are:

    Now there’s shonky dealings to get another $38 million for advertising to educate ourselves how the replacement ETS is so awesome for us, but we’re too all too dumb to realise it:

    With all this money we keep borrowing from China to educate ourselves on this stuff, we must all be really smart by now, huh?




  49. #2699
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Wrong side.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    ...Don't hold your breath waiting for the Royal Society to recant on AGW.
    That's our argument, you're supposed to be saying "Hold your breath waiting for the Royal Society to recant on AGW", cos then we save CO2 emissions.

  50. #2700
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    That's our argument, you're supposed to be saying "Hold your breath waiting for the Royal Society to recant on AGW", cos then we save CO2 emissions.
    Okay, if you're up to it, please go ahead and.... Hold your breath until the Royal Society recants.

Page 54 of 240 FirstFirst ... 4 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 104 154 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •