Emission Trading and climate change

Page 149 of 377 FirstFirst ... 49 99 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 199 249 ... LastLast
Results 7,401 to 7,450 of 18819
  1. #7401
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    297

    Default

    In the end, in a democracy, the people get the politicians they deserve, whichever side you vote for. Until enough voters start really thinking about their vote, we will end up with mediocre politicians, who care more about their position, and political point-scoring, than about doing what is in the long-term interest of the country.
    Whether you are for or against the carbon tax is a moot point; it is now a done deal, and will stay with us regardless of who wins the next election. We will all have to live with the ramifications, whatever they may be.

  2. #7402
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    That's seriously unrealistic. Only for you guys

    That's like expecting an Australian rugby union player to start playing for the All Blacks on Saturday simply because he thinks that they are a better team.
    You seem to mixing up sport with something more serious with far reaching implications, no wonder your having trouble seeing past the smoke screen & mirrors.

    All we have in this country is the Red Team, the Blue Team and the Green Team. Plus a few random shouters. If you want random politics driven by individual opinions then perhaps we should all vote for independents...or we could have multiparty coalitions as in Europe (where it's working out swimmingly!?).

    Who cares what the sides are called they were voted in to follow the wishes of the majority of the masses, hence the importance of polls
    Politics is all about compromise. It's not about what people actually think. Which is probably fortunate.
    See above
    Sorry , Old Son. Australian politics is a sport. And whose 'side' you are on is everything. For better or worse. However, there is hope. The political schizophrenia of late is a reflection of the fact that the 'masses' are finally getting a guernsey. Which is seriously flamin' ace, eh? Makes me feel alive and successfully irritating....
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  3. #7403
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    [QUOTE=johnc;857518]
    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post

    Aren't you in that case arguing that all votes should be poll driven, pandering to electoral whims NO! rather than weighing up the facts and voting according to what is right. Yes! like the election promise of no carbon tax Supposedly it is the slavish following of focus groups and the whim of the electorate that delivers bad policy and outcomes.
    What is their excuse for delivering bad policy & outcomes then, a dart board with hair brained ideas plastered all over it
    In the end we need politicans that can explain policy and debate cleanly without spin 70% of the population has proved to them that they are not stupid & can add up all the BS by not swallowing this stuff, you see the govt is still putting the spin on it, even just about everybody in business & politics from here & abroad has shot the policy to pieces as utterly ridiculous untill there is a global approach (which will never happen but can be better than it is in 2011) to lead, not behave like sheep running after the populist masses. Great leaders aren't sheep they set direction and carry a country forward. They are leading alright & they think there is a light at the end of the tunnel, trouble is its a dirty great train coming the other way which will wipe them away. When the polls constantly show how much the leader & their party is going down in popularity something is not right, at least with Kev he was letting the stupid policies die a quiet death & moving along with more meaningfull objectives
    regards inter

  4. #7404
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Sorry , Old Son. Australian politics is a sport. And whose 'side' you are on is everything. For better or worse. Just like the days of WW1 in 1915 when they could lose thousands of men on a day, now that was sport for the political & defence leaders of the day, you probably haven't worked out that we are the modern equivilant of their sport & they are on one side & we are on the other doing their dirty work. The number one character trait of a leader is getting someone to do something that they could never do themselves & having your believe its sport where you always follow your team religiously. However, there is hope. The political schizophrenia of late is a reflection of the fact that the 'masses' are finally getting a guernsey. Which is seriously flamin' ace, eh? Makes me feel alive and successfully irritating....
    regards inter

  5. #7405
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    You cannot draw a comparison between the bloody and brutal deaths of hundreds of thousands in the murderous cruelty of WW1 with what is a bloodless political spat between our major parties. That simply demeans and trivialises the deaths of all those young men nearly a century ago. You are also confusing politics with military tactics, the actions of the Generals against the objectives of the politicians there is a difference.

  6. #7406
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Sorry , Old Son. Australian politics is a sport. And whose 'side' you are on is everything. For better or worse. Just like the days of WW1 in 1915 when they could lose thousands of men on a day, now that was sport for the political & defence leaders of the day, you probably haven't worked out that we are the modern equivilant of their sport & they are on one side & we are on the other doing their dirty work. The number one character trait of a leader is getting someone to do something that they could never do themselves & having your believe its sport where you always follow your team religiously. However, there is hope. The political schizophrenia of late is a reflection of the fact that the 'masses' are finally getting a guernsey. Which is seriously flamin' ace, eh? Makes me feel alive and successfully irritating....
    Just like WW1. Yes. But the social attitudes of the day have changed...fortunately. And you have nailed the sociopathy of a leader in one.

    Trouble is the assumption that my belief that it is a sport (which is true) means that I (and my others) actually barrack for a team. Couldn't be more wrong. I'm one of those people who may watch the sport and politics simply for the blood, violence and psychopatheic tendencies of the commentary position. Couldn't give a flying fruitcake about whom is winning...I just watch for the entertainment.

    Given the fact that the Red, Blue and Green Teams have relatively tiny membership compared to the population at large.........I'll wager good money that I'm far from alone.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  7. #7407
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    You cannot draw a comparison between the bloody and brutal deaths of hundreds of thousands in the murderous cruelty of WW1 with what is a bloodless political spat between our major parties. That simply demeans and trivialises the deaths of all those young men nearly a century ago. You are also confusing politics with military tactics, the actions of the Generals against the objectives of the politicians there is a difference.
    You just cant see the sheer bloody minded stupidity, then, now & always of some leaders (thats the comparison). I do believe we are presently engaged in war on several fronts, of which has nothing to do with us. Its just a game to them because they are so far out of touch with reality, just power hungry little people not qualified to do anything really especially run a country. They say you have to kiss a lot of frogs to find a prince, this country is covered in warts from looking for a decent leader.

    regards inter

  8. #7408
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Just like WW1. Yes. But the social attitudes of the day have changed...fortunately. And you have nailed the sociopathy of a leader in one.

    Trouble is the assumption that my belief that it is a sport (which is true) means that I (and my others) actually barrack for a team. Couldn't be more wrong. I'm one of those people who may watch the sport and politics simply for the blood, violence and psychopatheic tendencies of the commentary position. Couldn't give a flying fruitcake about whom is winning...I just watch for the entertainment.

    If there wasn't serious & lasting outcomes to your entertainment (unlike footy) then it would be classed as so, get someone to belt your finger with a hammer, you probably wont think its entertaining, but I'm sure there are some people out there that would find it very amusing.Very few though.

    Given the fact that the Red, Blue and Green Teams have relatively tiny membership compared to the population at large.........I'll wager good money that I'm far from alone.
    regards inter

  9. #7409
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    A while ago I worked on a project with a lady who also had a daughter with a significant disability. She put a lot of her own time and money into helping other families who had kids with disabilities. At the same time she was also director of the family plumbing business, and talked about the early days when she went out with her father and grandfather installing septic tanks. She's a federal senator now, one with real world experience of running a business, raising kids and getting your hands dirty. Politicians are people with the same traits as the rest of us, some strengths and some weaknesses. we don't get the politicians we deserve, we get people who are just like us.

  10. #7410
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    A while ago I worked on a project with a lady who also had a daughter with a significant disability. She put a lot of her own time and money into helping other families who had kids with disabilities. At the same time she was also director of the family plumbing business, and talked about the early days when she went out with her father and grandfather installing septic tanks. She's a federal senator now, one with real world experience of running a business, raising kids and getting your hands dirty. Politicians are people with the same traits as the rest of us, some strengths and some weaknesses. we don't get the politicians we deserve, we get people who are just like us.
    No disrespect to the lady with her great volunteer work but there is big gap between helping her close family once apon a time to being a company director, like doing 4 years apprenticeship to be a qualified trades person, up to your knees in s**t most days for 30 years to get real world experience of what a lot of people do for a living, maybe she has done all that & is truly the exception to the norm, we need more of them.
    regards inter

  11. #7411
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Here we go read the reviews then read the book.
    Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert

    This entire great ship is sinking and Gillard just attached here tinny to it LMAO.

    We just live in hope the Tax does not do too much harm before it gets repealled .
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  12. #7412
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Just thought I'd make a rare appearance here to let our fake sceptics know that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project has submitted 4 papers for publication. You may remember that this team was hailed by sceptics and fake sceptics as they would surely blow open the AGW conspiracy with their large data set, highly qualified personnel and open & transparent methods.

    News for Fake Sceptics:

    1) UHI hype is just that. Hype only, not supported by the data.
    2) The global temperature record is intact and found to be correct (NASA GISS, NOAA/NCDC, and HadCRU) So much for the character assassination of scientists like Phil Jones with claims that the records were falsified and adjusted.

    If you like to watch Dunning-Kruger for fun, pop over to WUWT to see it en masse.

    woodbe.

  13. #7413
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

  14. #7414
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Analysis of NASA Satellite Data Suggests UN Climate Models are Full of Hot Air


    By Doug Powers • July 28, 2011 12:28 PM
    **Written by Doug Powers
    Stand down, Green Helmets!
    From Forbes by way of Yahoo News:
    NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
    Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
    “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
    In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
    So maybe we won’t have to spend $76 trillion to “green” the world?
    From the report (PDF):
    Yet, as seen in Figure 2, we are still faced with a rather large discrepancy in the time-lagged regression coefficients between the radiative signatures displayed by the real climate system in satellite data versus the climate models.
    In all fairness, I wouldn’t expect computer models to be spot-on simulations of the real climate system, but in honest research I would expect computer models to, at least once in a while, not always coincidentally err on the side of the equation that just happens to make Al Gore richer and serve as “evidence” that the UN should be further funded to police the impending catastrophe.
    Computer models of possible hurricane trajectories usually contain an array of possibilities based on a number of variables, but if the UN’s climates models were used, Hurricane Global Warming would always be poised for a direct hit on wherever the most wealth can be transferred.
    And in related “Al Gore hardest hit” news
    JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.
    Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.” But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
    On Thursday, Ruch’s watchdog group plans to file a complaint with the agency on Monnett’s behalf, asserting that Obama administration officials have “actively persecuted” him in violation of policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.
    [...]
    The article and presentations drew national attention and helped make the polar bear something of a poster child for the global warming movement. Al Gore’s mention of the polar bear in his documentary on climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth,” came up during investigators’ questioning of Gleason in January.
    On September 14th, Al Gore wants us to connect the dots, but we don’t really need to wait until then.
    **Written by Doug Powers
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  15. #7415
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Now...in more up to date news and information...

    Climate change: What we do in issue 2385 of New Scientist published 25th October 2011. Reading it online may require subscription but freely available pdf copies have turned up on online...

    Basically it's a potted discussion of what is known and unknown about climate change at this point in time.

    In summary...apparently we know:
    Greenhouse gases are warming the planet
    Other pollutants are cooling the planet
    The planet is going to get a lot hotter

    Sea level is going to rise many metres
    There will be more floods and droughts


    and we don't know:
    How high greenhouse gas levels will rise

    How great our cooling effects are
    Just how much hotter things will get

    How things will change in each region

    How quickly sea level will rise

    How serious the threat to life is

    Will there be more hurricanes and the like?

    If and when tipping points will come



    Fair to say that some of the writing is simplistic and there's not much referencing going on but as a primer and a guide...not too shabby.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  16. #7416
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    For anyone looking for more detail the WRI brief has more info with references.
    http://pdf.wri.org/climate_science_2009-2010.pdf

  17. #7417
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Sorry lads, been busy. Back soon.

    Apologies for not tearing shreds off this green fairy tale of late, but I've had quite few projects on the go. It has been hard to dedicate time to reinforcing reality to these dreamers.

    But here's a taste of reality to cause the "true believers" some angst until I can return to highlight the waffle they try to pass as facts:








    Now here's an unnaturally warming IPCC model that doesn't work:






    And here's a naturally hot Aussie model that does work. (Works for me anyway ).



    Good golly miss molly, that ocean is rising fast! When they started shooting, she was walking in the sand.
    And as for these lunatics thinking paying extra TAX in Australia makes the entire Planet Earth colder......

    Chat soon...
    Last edited by Dr Freud; 1st Nov 2011 at 04:34 AM. Reason: Added warming.

  18. #7418
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Just to poke the bear a little bit...

    An unseasonable snowstorm has hit the US East Coast, with some areas of Massachusetts seeing more than 27in (68cm) of snow.

    The authorities say at least nine people have died in snow-related accidents.


    More than three million homes have lost their electricity supply from Maryland to Massachusetts - some residents may be without power for several days.

    In New York City, a new record for October snowfall was set when 1.3in fell in Central Park. Only three other snowy October days have been recorded in the park in 135 years of record-keeping.


    John LaCorte, a National Weather Service meteorologist in Pennsylvania, told the agency that the last time the state saw a major storm so early was in 1972.


    "This is very, very unusual. It has all the look and feel of a classic mid-winter nor'easter," he said.

    BBC News - Snowstorm hits US East Coast killing at least nine




    Who would have thunk it...here's the evidence that swapping the car for a bicycle really does make the Planet Earth colder:


    Your Photos: First Snow of the Season on October 26, 2011 | Denver Post Media Center



    Brrrrrrrrrrr...

  19. #7419
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    A link explaining why Syun Akasofu and his graph are quite simply wrong.
    Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu

  20. #7420
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Is that it?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    A link explaining why Syun Akasofu and his graph are quite simply wrong.
    Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu



    What a joke. I could have debunked my post better than that. Still, if you are relying on the delusions of the hockey stick idiots for "facts", no wonder you're struggling. Even the fact that they called their ridiculous site "skepticalscience" is an admission that more people have been Googling this term for years, rather than this cults usual propaganda. I have no doubt they have snared some mentally unaware traveller's with their "tricks" (like Mike's nature "trick", huh?).

    Luckily most sensible Australians now understand the ridiculous con these lunatics have been peddling and will vote overwhelmingly against this ridiculous TAX at the next election early next year, after Rudd knifes JuLIAR. You can almost smell the blood in the water after the recent QANTAS debacle. Once this election is called, no more Carbon Dioxide TAX! Then we can all breathe out a (TAX FREE) sigh of relief.

    It must really annoy those Hockey stick clowns that even after they fudged the data, the new data still matches a natural warming scenario much better than their lies. Truly hilarious how reality bites.

  21. #7421
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Score check!

    Total Commonwealth Government Securities
    on Issue - $215,602m

    AOFM – Home

    Cool huh, $215 billion and skyrocketing by the day. Gotta love paying the Chinese Govt. tens of billions in interest every year due to wasteful government spending and ineptitude.

    But there's good news, we're also currently running a nearly $50 billion deficit.

    If only they could come up with some greeny fairy tale to trick weak minded people into actually campaigning to pay more TAX, in the false belief that it will make the entire Planet Earth colder!

    Oh yeh, they already came up with it.
    And some people believed it.

    Do you believe that Aussies paying more TAX will make the entire Planet Earth colder?

    If so, please let me know.

    If not, get rid of the lunatics peddling this con job.

  22. #7422
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Duh!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    What do you drive?
    An agenda, obviously!

  23. #7423
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Seriously people, please get up to speed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken-67 View Post
    Whether you are for or against the carbon tax is a moot point; it is now a done deal, and will stay with us regardless of who wins the next election. We will all have to live with the ramifications, whatever they may be.
    "Done deal" huh?

    I have been busy and hence paying heaps of TAX to keep the Occupy [insert banal cause] clowns fed and clothed with Centrelink benefits, while they protest how hard I work because I'm a capitalist pig. But this aside, I must have missed the assent.

    Here's the package:

    Clean Energy Legislative Package

    Legislation introduced

    On Tuesday, 13 September 2011, the Government introduced legislation to implement the policy set out in Securing a clean energy future: The Australian Government's Climate Change Plan.
    For more information about each of the bills introduced, including the text of the bills, explanatory memorandums, second reading speeches and parliamentary debates, please visit the relevant bill homepage:


    For more information about the legislative process, please visit the Parliament of Australia website.

    A public inquiry on the bills is being conducted by the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation.
    The Government released exposure drafts of key bills in the Package in July 2011. For more information about this process, including the submissions received, please visit the Public Exposure page.


    http://www.climatechange.gov.au/gove...gislation.aspx



    Yeh, yeh, I know, it's a boring and complicated mess to read, but give it a go.

    I'm still looking for the bit where the Planet Earth gets colder.


    And as for this:

    will stay with us regardless of who wins the next election

    You obviously missed this little gem:

    But Mr Abbott said he was more determined than ever to axe the carbon price if he became prime minister.

    “We will repeal this tax, we will dismantle the bureaucracy associated with it,” Mr Abbott said.
    “I am giving you the most definite commitment any politician can give that this tax will go. This is a pledge in blood this tax will go.
    “If the bills pass today this will be an act of betrayal on the Australian public. We will repeal the tax, we can repeal the tax, we must repeal the tax.”

    | The Australian

    One of you is wrong. If you vote in Abbott, we get to find out.

  24. #7424
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Total Commonwealth Government Securities
    on Issue - $215,602m

    AOFM – Home

    Cool huh, $215 billion and skyrocketing by the day. Gotta love paying the Chinese Govt. tens of billions in interest every year due to wasteful government spending and ineptitude.

    But there's good news, we're also currently running a nearly $50 billion deficit.

    If only they could come up with some greeny fairy tale to trick weak minded people into actually campaigning to pay more TAX, in the false belief that it will make the entire Planet Earth colder!

    Oh yeh, they already came up with it.
    And some people believed it.

    Do you believe that Aussies paying more TAX will make the entire Planet Earth colder?

    If so, please let me know.

    If not, get rid of the lunatics peddling this con job.

    As usual it is not what's said that hides reality, it's what's unsaid. The debt figure is debt guaranteed by the Commonwealth, however of that $215B a massive $57B is actually debt of the NSW and QLD governments. Net Commonwealth debt is around $80B which simply means not all that borrowed money has been spent there is quite a bit still in the bank. Let's try lowering the hyperbole for once.

  25. #7425
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default You'd make a great Labor Treasurer.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    As usual it is not what's said that hides reality, it's what's unsaid.
    You mean like the creative accounting hiding the $40 billion NBN cost? How's that revenue stream looking?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    The debt figure is debt guaranteed by the Commonwealth
    Google "liability", it'll save me time.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    a massive $57B is actually debt of the NSW and QLD governments
    Gee whizz, racked up under Labor again, surely just a coincidence???

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Net Commonwealth debt is around $80B
    Is that all, why don't you chip in and pay it?

    Now throw in the tens of billions of savings and surplus that were also left by Howard that's also been spent. Well over $120 billion dollars wasted.

    By the way, what have we got to show for this???

    That's the reason we need this greeny fairy tale TAX, to pay for all this waste of OUR money.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Let's try lowering the hyperbole for once.
    Spoken like a true socialist apologist.

    A financially literate response could be:

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Let's try lowering the [S]hyperbole[/S] Labor DEBT for once.
    Or we could just pay the massive greeny fairy tale TAX while they keep flushing our money down the toilet?

  26. #7426
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    I'd actually like my hyperbole at 4.5% per annum averaged over the next 20 years. It'll do wonders for my retirement fund - where else will I find such cheap and mindless entertainment in my dotage unless Abbot can do a Menzies?

    <blink>

    <whirrrr>

    <Duuung!> [EDIT: I am so going to have to do something about that Fisher & Paykel microwave - bloody Kiwi's]

    I wonder what odds Sportbet will give me on that possibility...have to be worth a coupe of bob!
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  27. #7427
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Or we could just pay the massive greeny fairy tale TAX while they keep flushing our money down the toilet?
    You know...I used to work in a sewage treatment plant...in nearly two years we only ever found one $50 note in the trash screens on the inlet. So I'm not sure you've got much to back up your claim that there's government money going down the loo.

    As for the $50...after a quick wash...a box of Crownies and a few serves of fish and chips as I recall. Excellent use of taxation...
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  28. #7428
    Golden Member manofaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    muswellbrook
    Posts
    659

    Default

    so I think the carbon tax is designed for 2 things:
    1. fill the coffers
    2. push our economy to spend more on research into more efficient energy production/consumption, before the rest of teh world.
    WTF? I just think that if the world in 10-20 years also decides to rethink enery production we will have had the 10 year jump, and since we sell stored energy to the rest of the world we are investing in a new source of income. Like the arabs and their massive land creations in the hope of the tourist dollar.
    I believe in global warming, but only because we transfer stored energy that was created with light into heat. No need to debate this stuff, its what I think. I have no evidence, no degree, you could say no idea. Like I say at work......you know when people think you are bludging I say... 'to the untrained eye'. WIO is a TLA
    A good tradesman can repair his mistakes. A bad one will tell you that he does't make any.

  29. #7429
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Well if you were not convinced before that Global Warming is contrived by a group of scientist then you better read some of the extracts from new emails released by CLIMATEGATE 2.

    Here is the link Breaking news: FOIA 2011 has arrived ! « tallbloke&#039;s talkshop

    Now the real beauty of this release is that there are a further 220,000 emails to be released at a date in the future. The zip file has been downloaded by thousands with an encrypted pass word. All that is required for the 3rd release is the password.

    We can only guess why the 3rd release is being held back. I think it is all about forcing one of the ring leaders to crack and reveal all before it is revealed for them.

    Wonderful days ahead. Gillards Carbon Tax is going to have such a huge stink about it before it comes into place. What a lot of gullible fools swallowed this garbage.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  30. #7430
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Here are a few extracts to feast on.

    I have not read through the emails to establish the context. But this selection will strengthen strong suspicions that a tight group of insiders have treated a questionable scientific theory as a cause that needs to by hyped:
    (1939) Thorne/MetO:
    Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
    troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
    wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
    uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
    further if necessary…

    (3066) Thorne:
    I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
    which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

    (1611) Carter:
    It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
    talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
    a select core group.

    (2884) Wigley:
    Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive… there have been a number of
    dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC ...

    (4755) Overpeck:
    The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
    included and what is left out.

    (3456) Overpeck:
    I agree (with) Susan (Solomon) that we should try to put more in the bullet about
    “Subsequent evidence” ... Need to convince readers that there really has been
    an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?

    (1104) Wanner/NCCR:
    In my [IPCC-TAR] review [...] I criticized...the Mann hockey(s)tick ...My review was
    classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times. Now the
    internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these
    early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in
    Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to
    SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.


    The CSIRO looks for a scary icon:

    (0445) Torok/CSIRO:

    ... idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
    “global icons” ...One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef ...
    It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the
    destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers… A perception of an
    “unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
    loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
    systematic damage from long-term climatic-environmental change ... Such a
    project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate
    change
    UPDATE
    Same old suspects - Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Jason Overpeck, Tom Wigley, Keith Briffa - and familiar talk of pushing the “cause”, attacking sceptics and deleting files:

    <3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
    “reconstruction”.


    <3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
    reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
    reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.

    <3940> Mann: They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
    example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
    upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
    bit.

    <0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
    doing, but its not helping the cause

    <2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
    process

    <2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
    task.

    <1577> Jones:
    [FOI, temperature data]
    Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we
    get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US
    Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
    station data.
    UPDATE

    A message from the leaker, left in the ReadMe file:


    /// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///

    “Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

    “Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

    “One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

    “Poverty is a death sentence.”

    “Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
    greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

    Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
    hiding the decline.

    This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
    remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.

    The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning
    to publicly release the passphrase.
    We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such
    as…
    UPDATE

    The lack of warming seems to bother the Climategate scientists...

    (1939) Thorne/MetO:
    Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
    troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
    wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
    uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
    further if necessary…

    (3066) Thorne:
    I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
    which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

    <4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:
    In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
    relations problem with the media
    Kjellen:
    I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
    warming
    The fact that the Medieval times were warmer is another problem:


    <5111> Pollack:

    But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.

    <5039> Rahmstorf:
    You chose to depict the one based on C14 solar data, which kind of stands out
    in Medieval times. It would be much nicer to show the version driven by Be10
    solar forcing

    <5096> Cook:
    A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability
    during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the
    “Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly
    in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have
    seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the
    MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.
    Better not let the public know of the doubts:

    <0310> Warren:

    The results for 400 ppm stabilization look odd in many cases [...] As it stands
    we’ll have to delete the results from the paper if it is to be published.

    <1682> Wils:
    [2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
    fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably [...]

    <2267> Wilson:
    Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially
    since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models,
    surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs.
    [...] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the
    models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from
    the sun alone.

    <5289> Hoskins:
    If the tropical near surface specific humidity over tropical land has not gone
    up (Fig 5) presumably that could explain why the expected amplification of the
    warming in the tropics with height has not really been detected.

    <5315> Jenkins/MetO:
    would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier
    melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?

    <2292> Jones:
    [tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They
    have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest
    that temperatures haven’t increased at these levels.

    <1788> Jones:
    There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from “recent
    extreme weather is due to global warming"] – at least not a climatologist.

    <4693> Crowley:
    I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the
    cost of damaged personal relationships

    <2967> Briffa:
    Also there is much published evidence for Europe (and France in particular) of
    increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may
    be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both. Contrast this
    with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest
    decline? To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even
    real?

    <2733> Crowley:
    Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in
    the open.

    <2095> Steig:
    He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he
    thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the
    supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.

    <0953> Jones:
    This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with
    sulphates won’t be quite as necessary.

    <4944> Haimberger:
    It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics
    in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is
    remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.

    <4262> Klein/LLNL:
    Does anybody have an explanation why there is a relative minimum (and some
    negative trends) between 500 and 700 hPa? No models with significant surface
    warming do this

    <2461> Osborn:
    This is an excellent idea, Mike, IN PRINCIPLE at least. In practise, however,
    it raises some interesting results [...] the analysis will not likely lie near to
    the middle of the cloud of published series and explaining the reasons behind
    this etc. will obscure the message of a short EOS piece.

    <4470> Norwegian Meteorological Institute:
    In Norway and Spitsbergen, it is possible to explain most of the warming after
    the 1960s by changes in the atmospheric circulation. The warming prior to 1940
    cannot be explained in this way.
    It’s getting harder to reconstruct past temperature to make recent warming seem unusual or alarming:

    <1583> Wilson:
    any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will
    undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently
    have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model
    comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.

    <4165> Jones:
    what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
    I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.

    <3994> Mitchell/MetO
    Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems
    to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no

    <4241> Wilson:
    I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
    could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
    [...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
    precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.

    <3373> Bradley:
    I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
    never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
    “reconstruction”.

    <4758> Osborn:
    Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
    middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
    MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
    ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!

    <0886> Esper:
    Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it
    is an important one. [...] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to
    missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by
    dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why
    don’t you want to let the result into science?

    <4369> Cook:
    I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
    defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
    science move ahead.
    Is this faith or is this science?

    <4394> Houghton [MetO, IPCC co-chair]

    [...] we dont take seriously enough our God-given responsibility to care for the
    Earth [...] 500 million people are expected to watch The Day After Tomorrow. We
    must pray that they pick up that message.

    <0999> Hulme:
    My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a
    job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of
    God’s planet into research and action.

    <3653> Hulme:
    He [another Met scientist] is a Christian and would talk authoritatively about
    the state of climate science from the sort of standpoint you are wanting.
    Those climate models just aren’t working out:

    <5131> Shukla/IGES:

    ["Future of the IPCC”, 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be
    willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the
    projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
    simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.

    <2423> Lanzante/NOAA:
    While perhaps one could designate some subset of models as being poorer in a
    lot of areas, there probably never will be a single universally superior model
    or set of models. We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so
    that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the
    breath of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area of focus.

    <1982> Santer:
    there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor
    tests we’ve applied.

    <0850> Barnett:
    [IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the
    modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer

    <5066> Hegerl:
    [IPCC AR5 models]
    So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long
    suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing
    correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.

    <4443> Jones:
    Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low
    level clouds.

    <4085> Jones:
    GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be

    Last edited by Rod Dyson; 23rd Nov 2011 at 02:13 PM. Reason: add spacing
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  31. #7431
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    [QUOTE=Rod Dyson;862200]Here are a few extracts to feast on.

    I have not read through the emails to establish the context. But this selection will strengthen strong suspicions that a tight group of insiders have treated a questionable scientific theory as a cause that needs to by hyped:

    No this will question those that question, as you said you have jumped onto a news item without considering anything. What will this show over last time? probably nothing.


    « The green ghost of a distant dead star
    New satellite gets INSANELY hi-res view of Earth »

    Climategate 2: More ado about nothing. Again.

    Geez, this again? Seriously?
    Two years ago, someone hacked into a University of East Anglia server and anonymously posted thousands of emails from climate scientists. Quickly dubbed "Climategate", global warming deniers jumped on this, trying to show that these scientists were engaging in fraudulent activities. However, it was clear to anyone familiar with how research is done that this was complete and utter bilge; the scientists were not trying to hide anything, were not trying to trick anyone, and were not trying to falsely exaggerate the dangers of climate change.
    I wrote about this when it happened and then again quickly thereafter, showing this was just noise. Accusations of fraud were leveled at climate scientist Michael Mann, but time and again he was exonerated: like this time, and then this time, and then this time, and of course this time, and then my favorite, this time.
    Climategate was widely denounced as a manufactured controversy, except, of course, by denialists. Because they denied it. That’s axiomatic.
    However, like a bacterium festering away someplace dank and fetid, Climategate is poised to infect reality once again: The Guardian is reporting that a second cache of stolen emails has been released anonymously, and once again the cries of conspiracy are being heard. However, it looks like these emails aren’t really new, and were simply from the original stolen batch, but were held back until today. Mind you, the emails from the first Climategate were released right before a big climate conference, in an obvious attempt to derail it in the media. This new batch was released days before a similar conference, in what appears to be a similar propaganda move.
    [UPDATE: Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) has called on the US intelligence community to investigate who stole these emails. I think this is the right move. We still don't know who did this two years ago, and I'd be fascinated to see who was behind it. H/T Michael Mann on Twitter.]

    Climate change denial blogs picked up on this immediately of course. There are examples in the Guardian article linked above. But this is the usual hue and cry, with nothing really new. About all this supposedly new material Michael Mann said:
    Mann called the new batch of emails "truly pathetic" and said they reflect desperation among climate deniers, who have failed to pick holes in the science. "They have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat."
    It’s hard for me to argue against this, given what Dr. Mann has gone through the past few years. Attacked constantly, exonerated repeatedly, he knows the climate change denialist methods probably better than anyone.
    The University of East Anglia, from which the stolen emails originated, issued a press release:
    This appears to be a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy over the science behind climate change when that science has been vindicated by three separate independent inquiries and number of studies – including, most recently, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group.
    That last bit about Berkeley is from just a few weeks ago, showing once again that global warming is real, and that Dr. Mann’s results show that there has been a sudden, recent, and large increase in global temperatures.
    None of this comes as a surprise to any of us who have been covering this for the past few years. I wonder, though, if the mainstream media have learned their lesson? Think Progress wonders the same thing.
    So, with the Noise Machine ready to blast into full gear, let me be very, very clear:
    Global warming is real. Independent studies confirm it. Vast amounts of evidence support it. 97% of climate scientists who study it agree with this. It’s almost certainly caused by human activity.
    Got it?
    The evidence is overwhelming, and no amount of noise will stop that. But that’s why the noise is made, to distract you. We are long past the time when this was simple skepticism — the open and honest questioning of evidence — and are now well into full-blown denial. This second release of emails is more evidence for that, especially given the timing.
    And in some sectors that won’t make a difference — cough cough Fox News cough cough — because they are impervious to evidence. So if this doesn’t blow over immediately — as well it probably should — then expect to see a lot more of this:


    Related posts:
    - Case closed: “Climategate” was manufactured


  32. #7432
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default



    Yes this says it all.

    I trust you will read these emails and from your own opinion?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  33. #7433
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    The beaver was just in the link, but is some ways he may well typify both sides.

  34. #7434
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default More like bad poetry.

    Hi folks,

    Apologies for the absence posting, so much work, so many taxes to pay, then watch it get flushed down some overseas toilet by JuLIAR and her cronies!

    And now so much fiction to debunk.

    In the ridiculous bad [S]astronomy[/S] prose, there are plenty of words spinning fiction, but no numbers to support any of it..except this already rebutted fiction:

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    97% of climate scientists who study it agree with this.
    Got it?
    The only numbers he can quote are from an opinion poll.

    No scientific evidence at all. Zero. Nil. Nada.

    Got it.

    Email that to your buddy Phil, and remind him he's an astronomer, not a poet. He needs to use numbers, not words, and certainly not other peoples opinions as his sole "mathematical" support.

  35. #7435
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default A tax scam based on a lie based on a farce.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Well if you were not convinced before that Global Warming is contrived by a group of scientist then you better read some of the extracts from new emails released by CLIMATEGATE 2.

    Here is the link Breaking news: FOIA 2011 has arrived ! « tallbloke's talkshop
    These are hilarious. Those still believing this con job are now beyond redemption. The world has given up on this farce. Canada has denounced the whole scam, the US left long ago, the UK is running away at light speed, and the EU is about to collapse, along with their ridiculous carbon dioxide scamming market, and China is burning more fuel than the Sun.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Wonderful days ahead. Gillards Carbon Tax is going to have such a huge stink about it before it comes into place. What a lot of gullible fools swallowed this garbage.
    Yeh, by the time these price rises start flowing through the economy, Aussies will realise the rest of the world is laughing at us idiots sending billions of our tax dollars to some Nigerian Prince who is promising not to cut down some trees.

    I don't think many Aussies will be laughing much.

  36. #7436
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Here's just a trickle...

    This is just a trickle of your tax dollars running down the sewer of scam artists across the world:

    This is the fortune that the Gillard Government has already told the United Nations it will shovel out on token “global warming” gestures:

    Australia’s fast-start package comprises:
    $248 million to the ‘International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative’ to support adaptation efforts;
    $146 million to the ‘International Forest Carbon Initiative’ to assist developing countries reduce emissions from reducing deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, known at REDD+;
    $131 million to multilateral agencies to assist developing countries mitigation and adaptation efforts;
    $38 million delivered through the climate change component of Australia’s contribution to the fifth replenishment of the Global Environment Facility; and
    $36 million to other climate change activities in developing countries, including $15 million to ‘Climate Change Partnerships for Development’

    Half a billion dollars gone, just like that, after a decade of no global warming.
    And now the United Nations’ is shaking the begging bowl for more global warming loot for its bureaucrats to parcel out as the biggest gravy train in history now stops in Durban:
    Minister of International Relations and Co-operation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, who will preside over the two-week conference, this week laid down making the Green Climate Fund operational as the minimum achievement she hoped for from COP17…
    The fund will help finance the efforts of poorer countries to mitigate and adapt to the effects of global warming… At Cancun and at COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009, developed countries agreed to mobilise $100 billion a year to help developing countries. But disagreements have arisen about where the money should come from.
    Uh oh. Is that Julia Gillard reaching for a wallet? How much more is the Gillard Government going to fitter on this ridiculous cause?
    But you can see why so many people just what the global warming scare to go on and on. I mean, $100 billion a year is one hell of a slush fund.

    How much more will Gillard fritter on her global warming crusade? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog


    Wait till the full flush starts with the Carbon Dioxide Taxes!

    Treasury projects up to $60 billion (yes Billion) dollars per year will be shipped overseas for various scams.

    Can anyone, yes I mean anyone, please explain how the Planet Earth will get colder as hardworking Aussies get their tax dollars flushed down overseas toilets?

    Anyone?

  37. #7437
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    The world has given up on this farce.
    The world would be delighted to give up on AGW. Unfortunately they are waiting for the sceptics to start doing science instead of opinion. You see (I know you know this, but the way you post here, you seem to be ignoring it) Science isn't formed by opinion, it's formed by years of hard work. Here is what a current publishing scientist has to say on the subject:

    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan Urban
    It is rare that a single paper overturns decades of work, although this is a popular conception of how science works. Many controversial results end up being overturned, because controversial research, almost by definition, contradicts large existing bodies of research. Quite often, it turns out that it’s the controversial paper that is wrong, rather than the research it hopes to overturn. Science is an iterative process. Others have to check our work. We have to continue checking our work, too. Our study comes with a number of important caveats, which highlight simplifying assumptions and possible inconsistencies. These have to be tested further.
    From Interview with Nathan Urban

    I'll go back to sleep now while you guys have wet dreams reading the old, stolen, out of date and out of context private emails of frustrated scientists.

    See you in a few months

    woodbe

  38. #7438
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Who's gonna pay all this money back? You are.

    Score check, here was 8 weeks ago:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Except this update: Total Commonwealth Government Securities on Issue - $206,892m

    $207 billion debt and skyrocketing!!!
    Where are we now:

    Total Commonwealth Government Securities
    on Issue - $219,102m

    Cool huh, we're borrowing nearly $2 billion per week. That's with a mining boom bigger than when Howard was running the country, and much bigger terms of trade. And what have we got to show for all this spending?

    But the most relevant question is who is going to pay all this money back, and how?

    The answers are you via these farcical "green taxes" like the Carbon Dioxide Tax.

    Trust me, $23 a tonne won't even cover the interest. Your power prices will be ramping up very high very soon.

    The "urgency" to save the Planet Earth will be used as the "urgency" for the price rises.

  39. #7439
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Welcome back.

    Hey mate, welcome back. Your comrades have been in desperate need of your wisdom. Their emotional convictions were admirable, but they didn't have your grasp of the dark side.

    I'll try to catch up on some posts over the next few weeks, but here's some food for "scientific" thought in the interim:

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    I'll go back to sleep now while you guys have wet dreams reading the old, stolen, out of date and out of context private emails of frustrated scientists.

    woodbe
    The reason they're so frustrated is because their computer models have comprehensively failed and their hypothesis is now junk. Soon, their gravy train will derail. They won't go quietly, because what a gravy train it was my friend...

    Even Flim Flammery is now trying to scare old ladies that they'll fry to death if they don't pay their taxes. This would be comical if it wasn't damaging this country.

    What a joke!

  40. #7440
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    north queensland
    Posts
    206

    Default

    This reminds me of another riveting discussion, fergit what.. oh wait, tradies/DIY... but it hasn't yet reached over 7000 posts, can't wait.

  41. #7441
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Hey mate, welcome back.
    Thanks, but I'm not back. I just drop in every now and then to feed the trolls.

    The reason they're so frustrated is because their computer models have comprehensively failed and their hypothesis is now junk.
    Please don't start that again until there is supporting science. The body of existing science is based on research (ie: work) and lots of it. Not emails, not blogs or shock jocks, or even Doc Freud's ramblings on Renovate Forums. Calling it junk does not make it so, but you're welcome to your opinion.

    Did you not read this?:

    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan Urban
    It is rare that a single paper overturns decades of work, although this is a popular conception of how science works. Many controversial results end up being overturned, because controversial research, almost by definition, contradicts large existing bodies of research. Quite often, it turns out that it’s the controversial paper that is wrong, rather than the research it hopes to overturn. Science is an iterative process. Others have to check our work. We have to continue checking our work, too. Our study comes with a number of important caveats, which highlight simplifying assumptions and possible inconsistencies. These have to be tested further.
    So, you're with the popular (mis)conception crowd, I take it.

    woodbe.

  42. #7442
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default It's happened already.

    Just in case you think I am just making this stuff up:


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    But the most relevant question is who is going to pay all this money back, and how?

    The answers are you via these farcical "green taxes" like the Carbon Dioxide Tax.

    Trust me, $23 a tonne won't even cover the interest. Your power prices will be ramping up very high very soon.

    The "urgency" to save the Planet Earth will be used as the "urgency" for the price rises.

    Here's a previous bunch of idiots who fell for the same scam:


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    How do you trick gullible people into feeling good about paying more taxes?

    Call it a green tax!

    "The Government today unveiled a raft of Budget measures to restore the State's finances by 2014...

    - Carbon tax charges will double to €30 a tonne, raising €330m...

    "It's to bring certainty for our people," Mr Cowen said."

    Recovery plan unveiled - News, The Budget - Independent.ie


    It's brought certainty to all of us champ.

    We can now be certain carbon taxes are just another form of revenue with zero environmental credibility.

  43. #7443
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default What science?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Thanks, but I'm not back. I just drop in every now and then to feed the trolls.
    They do get hungry.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Please don't start that again until there is supporting science.
    At least you now recognise there is no supporting science for this farce.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    The body of existing science is based on research (ie: work) and lots of it.
    "Lots of it" is the biggest understatement you've ever made here. This is the highest funded research area in human history!

    And after all this (ie: work), what proof has resulted? None. Nil. Zero.

    There is zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.

    After throwing so much money and so many resources aimed at finding something they even used dodgy data for, they can't. The body of science around this farce was a dead body long ago, and is now starting to fester and stink. Perhaps some time in the near future we can get back to looking for answers in this area of science, rather than determining the answer first, then trying to justify it regardless of reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Doc Freud's ramblings on Renovate Forums.
    I've been busy lately, but trying to put some more time in now. Not Rambo, just rambling

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Calling it junk does not make it so, but you're welcome to your opinion.
    Having no evidence proving it makes it junk. Me calling it junk is just playing the reality card.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Did you not read this?:
    Yes, he has a very good point. Every study ever conducted in this area of science has yet to find a single piece of evidence proving this farce. Therefore every single paper supports the fact that we are currently well within the ranges of normal and natural climate variation for the Planet Earth.

    If you ever present a "controversial" paper showing a single piece of evidence proving this farce, I will indeed scrutinise it very closely.


    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    So, you're with the popular (mis)conception crowd, I take it.
    I'm "with" reality. You should try it over here sometime.

  44. #7444
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default The death throes...

    It will fizzle out as the funding fizzles out.

    How do religions die? Generally they don't, which probably explains why there's so little literature on the subject.

    This week, the conclave of global warming's cardinals are meeting in Durban, South Africa, for their 17th conference in as many years. The idea is to come up with a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire next year, and to require rich countries to pony up $100 billion a year to help poor countries cope with the alleged effects of climate change. This is said to be essential because in 2017 global warming becomes "catastrophic and irreversible," according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency.


    Yet a funny thing happened on the way to the climate apocalypse. Namely, the financial apocalypse.


    The U.S., Russia, Japan, Canada and the EU have all but confirmed they won't be signing on to a new Kyoto. The Chinese and Indians won't make a move unless the West does. The notion that rich (or formerly rich) countries are going to ship $100 billion every year to the Micronesias of the world is risible, especially after they've spent it all on Greece.
    Cap and trade is a dead letter in the U.S. Even Europe is having second thoughts about carbon-reduction targets that are decimating the continent's heavy industries and cost an estimated $67 billion a year. "Green" technologies have all proved expensive, environmentally hazardous and wildly unpopular duds.
    Read the full article here:

    Stephens: The Great Global Warming Fizzle - WSJ.com

    It was spot on, but I didn't really appreciate this bit:

    Still, Zeus and Apollo are no longer with us, and neither are Odin and Thor. Among the secular gods, Marx is mostly dead and Freud is totally so. Something did away with them, and it's worth asking what.
    I'm still here Bret.

  45. #7445
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Here come the price blowouts.

    JuLIAR is all out of money, so the Planet is sh-- out of luck!

    Treasurer Wayne Swan yesterday confirmed that carbon capture technology isn’t really worth that investment first proposed:

    The reason the Government needs to come clean is that without carbon capture and storage, the carbon dioxide tax and emissions trading scheme will turn out to be much more expensive than it’s claimed. As Treasury itself noted:
    Faster technological progress will reduce global and Australian mitigation costs, while slower technological progress will increase costs. For example, Australia’s costs as a share of GNP in 2050 are 25 per cent lower under more optimistic assumptions of technological progress and 25 per cent higher if carbon capture and storage is not viable.



    Government cold on the technology it thought would save us | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
    Another Treasury assumption forced upon them by JuLIAR was that the all the rest of the world was acting exactly as Australia was. No-one else is, not a single other country has a comparable scheme.

    So what will this actually cost us Aussies? No-one knows. That's right, no-one. Treasury has not calculated a scenario where Australia goes it alone. That will be astronomically more expensive.


    We paid for this now entirely redundant farce:


    Clean Energy Future &ndash; Home


    What a joke!

  46. #7446
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    It will fizzle out as the funding fizzles out.
    Actually the so-called financial apocalypse (is it still an apocalypse if it only happened to Europe and the US?) could well be the best thing to stave off a climate apocalypse for a time. Less growth, less production, less consumption, less GHGs, much more interesting to watch on TV, etc etc.

    Replacing Kyoto is a bit of a irrelevant WOFTAM. We've already dialled in a fair substantial average temperature increase over the next 50 years anyway. So we've amortised the opportunity cost for three generations which is well past our current generational capacity to accept any culpability or benefit financially from any response...so why bother trying to prevent the inevitable?

    The real fun now will be watching the haphazard and half baked attempts towards adaptation....

    Oh and what makes whatshisface so sure that Odin and his mates are no more? What's his evidence? Just cause no-one apparently claims to be a Viking these days doesn't mean their gods are gone. They're probably just unemployed and have moved into public housing (very hard to find at the moment by the way) because they couldn't afford the council rates and maitenance on Valhalla - so now no-one knows where to look for them. And if you're wondering....the dead left long ago because the Gods couldn't keep them in the manner to which they'd become accustomed.

    As for Freud...he's not dead either (although he is as a corporeal entity). But he is discredited. One could ask how that might reflect on his namesake yet that may simply be a rhetorical question.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  47. #7447
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default So you agree JuLIAR and Swan are economically incompetent then?

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Actually the so-called financial apocalypse (is it still an apocalypse if it only happened to Europe and the US?)
    So JuLIAR raised our debt ceiling from $200 billion to $250 billion and is now reaching it rapidly for no reason? After starting with zero net debt. All those billions wasted for no reason. Thanks for finally agreeing those $900 cheques, pink batts debacle and school halls debacle were massive wastes of our money.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Less growth, less production, less consumption, less GHGs
    Not seeing it myself...



    But funny how CO2 levels keep going up and temperature hasn't for over a decade now. What happened? Blame "natural variation"? Blame Sulphur? Blame sceptics? Blame the Murdoch press? Blame everyone and everything except the farcical AGW hypothesis that has comprehensively failed!

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post

    The real fun now will be watching the haphazard and half baked attempts towards adaptation
    You mean just like us humans have been doing quite well for the last 2 million years? We now have cheap coal, other energy sources and industrial capacity, so will adapt much faster and better than we ever have.

    Do you think the climate has never changed over that 2 million years, or are you still praying to the church of the Hockey Stick and believing the climate has never changed before industrialisation?



    Can you find any demographers predicting a reduction in global population levels in the next century?

  48. #7448
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default How does a so-called scientist react to feedback regarding his errors?

    After realising his Hockey Stick delusions were uncovered, how does this "scientist" react?

    We now know that this Yamal work was a botch job - cherrypicking a few tree ring samples in Siberia to produce “evidence” of unprecedented warming, as used by Michael Mann in his notorious “hockey stick”.
    Here’s how the team of warmist scientists most behind the global warming scare responded on their influential blog:

    date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:33:06 -0400
    from: Michael Mann <???@ >
    subject: attacks against Keith
    to: Phil Jones <???@ >, Tim Osborn <???@ >

    Phil, Tim,
    .....................
    Meanwhile, I suspect you’ve both seen the latest attack against his (Briffa’s) Yamal work by McIntyre.Gavin and I (having consulted also w/ Malcolm) are wondering what to make of this, and what sort of response---if any---is necessary and appropriate. So far, we’ve simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate.
    .............................
    mike

    Climategate 2:0: Hide the dissent | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

    So far, we’ve simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate.

    WOW! Great reaction to professional scrutiny of your statistics, huh?

    Thanks again to the Mods on this site. You can see how other "scientific" sites have reacted to valid criticism of this farce over the years.

  49. #7449
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default More of the same garbage from Flim Flammery.

    Climate change is harming our health in Australia, and poses a significant threat for the future.

    Climate change will lead to more injuries, disease and deaths in decades to come.

    The Critical Decade: Climate Change and Health | Climate Commission
    How dumb do these people think Australians are?

    If the climate changes to colder conditions, do these predictions still come true?

    Here's Flim Flammery getting a reality check:

    In 2020, according to the ABS, Australia will be home to some 30 million people, of which Flannery insists roughly 6000 will be carried off by dengue fever and other curses that thrive in the heat. By 2070, the same ABS projection posits a likely population of between 46 million and 54 million, depending on which curve you choose to track.



    So let’s see how that works out: 6000 deaths per 30 million means a 1-in-5000 chance of being done in by nasty weather as of 2020.


    And 10,000 deaths in a 2070 population of 54 million? Well that comes in at 1-in-5400 climate casualties.


    So the warmer it is, at least by Flannery’s reckoning, the safer and healthier we will be.

    Bunyipitude


    And here's a more global perspective:

    In 1939, for instance, 438 people died in the Black Friday heat, not including the 71 Victorians killed by the fires.

    The temperatures back then were higher than those in Victoria and South Australia last week, but the heat this time hung around for longer.
    Yet despite our much greater population today, no more than 50 people died from heat, a fraction of the 1939 toll.
    What changed? Mostly our ability now to stay cool—most obviously through airconditioning.
    Airconditioning saves not just sweat, but lives. But what do we now see?
    South Australia’s government actually asked people to avoid using airconditioners last week, citing environmental reasons.
    In Victoria, Deputy Premier Rob Hulls had earlier asked people to likewise avoid using airconditioners unless necessary.
    The Age even campaigned against them, asking readers to toughen up.


    So vulnerable are the elderly to cold that a World Health Organisation report last year estimated that 40,000 Britons died every winter, and these “excess winter deaths are related to poor housing conditions—insufficient insulation, ineffective heating systems and fuel poverty”.

    That’s right: 40,000 Britons die each year in the cold, often because they’re too poor for warming. Compare that to the just 50 Australians who may have died in the worst heatwave in a century.


    Indeed, University of London researchers calculated in the Southern Medical Journal that in Britain, at least, a big warming over the next 50 years “would increase heat-related deaths in Britain by about 2000 but reduce cold-related deaths by about 20,000”.
    So let’s agree on the evidence: cold is the real killer, and airconditioning saves us in summer, just as central heating can save the frail in winter.



    Column - Killed in a green frenzy | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog



    This information showing warming is good for health has been around for years. For that tiny fraction who are vulnerable through illness or age, cheap coal powered electricity will ensure air conditioning mitigates all risks, very cheaply.

    In all the millions of our tax dollars Flim Flammery took for this research, did he miss these facts?

    Or did he do the AGW cults usual "trick" and just simply deleted them.

  50. #7450
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default A realistic look at the AGW farce and its health effects.

    A previous and much more realistic health assessment from the ever lovely Jo Nova.


    While most scientists agree CO2 causes some warming, there is great debate about just how much. If CO2 has only a minor effect on temperature then spending, say, $1 billion on inefficient roof-top solar panels is not just wasted money, it’s a choice that will kill people. We won’t be able to say exactly who it will kill but we can virtually guarantee that some people will die in the future who could have been saved.


    Why? Solar energy costs us more than five times what coal-powered energy does. So instead of spending $1bn on solar panels, we could have spent $200 million on cheap electricity and used the other $800m to double our medical research budget.


    Right now, the government is planning to cut $133 million from our $800m annual medical research budget. The Australian government has spent or will spend $3.8 billion dollars to combat climate change across four years. (The US government was spending about $7bn a year at last count.)

    We know we need a cure for cancer. We don’t know if the rest of the world will want to pump CO2 underground 10 years from now.

    On climate change, the wrong choice kills people either way « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax
    This article is well worth reading in full.

    Maybe Flim Flammery could contextualise his future climate research when he gets his next handout of our millions in taxpayer dollars to include these health outcomes:

    Cancer is a leading cause of death in Australia – more than 43,000 people are estimated to have died from cancer in 2010.

    Cancer costs more than $3.8 billion in direct health system costs.

    Around 434,000 people are treated for one or more non-melanoma skin cancers, with 448 people dying in 2007.

    $378 million was spent on cancer research in 2000-01, 22% of all health research expenditure in Australia. (Includes private money).

    Facts and figures
    So JuLIAR is happy spending billions of our dollars on what "could possibly or might" make a tiny fraction of the population sick or dead decades in the future, but spends only a few million on what is making hundreds of thousands sick and killing tens of thousands today.

    What price are we paying for the green propaganda to defend these lunatic greenies ideological dream?

Page 149 of 377 FirstFirst ... 49 99 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 199 249 ... 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
  •