Emission Trading and climate change

Originally Posted by PhilT2

I'll just leave this here as I know Doc is such a big fan.
TEDxPSU - Michael Mann - A Look Into Our Climate: Past To Present To Future - YouTube!

16 minutes and 6 seconds of my life I'll never get back. What a waste. Spent his whole time criticising politicians who correctly criticised his farcical Hockey Stick delusions. I watched it just in case he had an answer as to why the oceans started rising 120 years before he says the temperature started rising. And then after his alleged temperature spike, the oceans kept changing at the same rate as they had been since the end of the little ice age. Alas, no answers from him, but maybe you can help?

Did the Hockey Stick temperature rise travel backwards in time to cause the sea levels to rise?

Originally Posted by woodbe

That's denier logic right there.

Please explain how?

Originally Posted by woodbe

There are no absolutes possible in this statement.

The statement is absolute.

Originally Posted by woodbe

Here is the real fact:

The body of science supporting AGW hypothesis has yet to be disproven.

Insert relevant cause celebre:


The body of science supporting ALIENS has yet to be disproven.


The body of science supporting GOD has yet to be disproven.
The body of science supporting LOCH NESS MONSTER has yet to be disproven.

Etc, etc, etc...

Yes, these are all factual statements and you're certainly in good company.

Originally Posted by woodbe

Nice try.

Do, or do not, there is no try. Master Yoda.

Originally Posted by woodbe

Any reputable study factors in all inputs, including where appropriate, natural variability.

Really? All inputs. Please list these and I'll check if the last two "reputable" studies you have posted factors in all inputs. There are many, so take your time.

Originally Posted by woodbe

Fake Sceptics love to say it's natural variability and play on the ignorance of the public whether natural variability has been accounted for.

What the hell is a "fake sceptic"?

And natural variability doesn't need accounting for, it's the Null. The public are not ignorant on this, it's very simple. The Null Hypothesis is that human's are not going to cause the Planet to burst into flames. Therefore, climate changes naturally as it always has, caused by all inputs. Nature balances itself, how quaint.

Your supported theory that needs to reject the Null (and hasn't yet ) is that humans are causing catastrophic heating of the entire Planet Earth that is already unprecedented and soon and will be unstoppable, resulting in armageddon.

The public were previously ignorant due to the volume of propaganda and censorship, but they are learning fast. That is the joy of ignorance, it is merely the absence of information, which is easily corrected.

Ideological zealotry on the other hand is much more difficult to correct.

Originally Posted by woodbe

How many of them don't?

Couldn't find one, huh?

Originally Posted by woodbe

Proof that you haven't read (or perhaps understood) them.

No wonder you have issues determining what "proof" is.

Originally Posted by woodbe

These claims that scientists collude, falsify data and change it to suit their needs are unsupported by any scientific investigation.

I won't bore everyone by posting the huge volume of both CLIMATEGATE and CLIMATEGATE 2 emails, but please read them and then get back to me with the results from your "scientific investigation".

Originally Posted by woodbe

Sorry Doc, Bolt is not a scientist and does not do scientific investigation.

Who exactly made this claim that you are refuting? Or are you again engaging in semantic distraction because you still can't figure out how ocean levels started rising 120 years before temperatures started increasing on the Hockey Stick?

Originally Posted by woodbe

But hey, Sceptics don't need science, do they?

No. My original quote says it all. I am sceptical of many things, including Tarot, psychics, and aromatherapy. But I do not need to scientifically disprove them to be sceptical of their unproven claims. If they wish to remove my scepticism, they need to merely prove their case. Along with all the other wacko's out there looking for bogus cash handouts. I give money to Pharmaceutical companies occasionally, as they have proven their case. It's not that difficult when you are dealing with reality.

Where's the fanfare from the AGW hypothesis brigade about the Durban COP17 outcomes?

JuLIAR is hailing this as a historic agreement that allegedly validates her crippling the entire Australian economy with a massive new and useless TAX.

Ms Gillard said the development was a "remarkable step forward".
"That means the world is showing it's acting on climate change," she told reporters in Canberra today.

Gillard hails Durban climate deal

Do none of you support her LIES this time?

So what actually happened?

UN climate talks in Durban have ended the same way they began, in failure. Governments at the UN climate talks have chosen to listen to the polluters over the people and failed to reinforce previous climate saving measures and have steered clear of new global rules for tackling climate change.

“The grim news is that the blockers lead by the US have succeeded in inserting a vital get-out clause that could easily prevent the next big climate deal being legally binding. If that loophole is exploited it could be a disaster. And the deal is due to be implemented 'from 2020' leaving almost no room for increasing the depth of carbon cuts in this decade when scientists say we need emissions to peak," said Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director.

Politicians Listen to the Polluters at UN climate talks | Greenpeace Africa

Why is JuLIAR lying again? What is she trying to cover up this time? Oh yeh, here's a few things:

CANADA'S environment minister says the country is pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. ''We are invoking Canada's legal right to formally withdraw from Kyoto,'' the only global treaty that sets down targeted curbs in global emissions, Environment Minister Peter Kent said.

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

Gerard Henderson is right, of course:

In July, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, wrote to his Australian counterpart, Julia Gillard, supporting Labor’s legislation to introduce a carbon tax leading to an emissions trading scheme on July 1 next year.
Ostensibly, Cameron’s letter was one of praise for Gillard. However, the subliminal message was one of criticism of the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott…
(The) Canberra press gallery, which overwhelmingly supports Gillard and opposes Abbott on the carbon tax issue, made much of the letter.
Little mention was made of the fact that the climate change policy of the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government in Britain entailed a review in 2014. The message was that Britain would scale back its climate change abatement policies if it found itself to be out in front of other European Union nations....

The review scheduled for 2014 has been brought forward in the light of the economic situation.... In an emphatic declaration, (Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne last month) added: ‘’We are not going to save the planet by shutting down our steel mills, aluminium smelters and paper manufacturers. All we will be doing is exporting valuable jobs out of Britain.’’…

Now, it is understandable that the likes of the Prime Minister, Wayne Swan and Greg Combet do not want to draw attention to the change in direction in Britain. But journalists and commentators using the Cameron letter against Abbott have no such excuse. They are supposed to be reporting news, not barracking for causes.

A similar calculation, I believe, explains why the press gallery at first went soft on Julia Gillard when she broke her promise not to bring in a carbon dioxide tax, and underestimated the damage she’d just done to herself. I suspect the very same mistake is being made again about her breach of faith with Christians over same-sex marriage.
But let’s check who may now need to file a PS to their original reports.
Misha Schubert, The Age:

JULIA Gillard’s bid to impose a carbon tax in Australia has won a glowing endorsement from British Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader David Cameron, undercutting a fierce campaign against the scheme by his conservative ally, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

Jessica Wright, Sydney Morning Herald:

BRITAIN’S Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, has personally congratulated Julia Gillard on her carbon tax policy in a letter penned from the desk of 10 Downing Street.
In a clear embarrassment to the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, and his Coalition - who have vehemently opposed any price on carbon - Mr Cameron described the federal Labor government’s move on climate change as “bold” and “ambitious”.

Cameron should write Gillard another letter | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

JuLIAR's lies can no longer hide the fact that she sold out our country to Bob Brown and his greenies just to salvage her "career" aspirations. Some leader, huh?

What Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery said:

In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused “a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas” and made the soil too hot, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems … “.

What reader Greg tried to drive though on the Central Coast this morning:



Greg believed, and now his car is at the garage | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

Reset the doomsday predictions again I guess?

I think current thinking is 'more extreme weather events' so more drought, more floods, more storms/cyclones, and many of them extreme versions of what we are used to. Certainly the last three seasons down my way have been pretty irregular. Snow to 1300m yesterday ...

[QUOTE=SilentButDeadly;864296]No need for fanfare. Political progress is slow and (as always) influenced by Monty Python. No trumpets necessary for business as usual.

As for Gillard's 'Lies" they are mere embellishments of a simpler truth that wouldn't make headlines without a bit of hyperbole....much like your own with regard to the carbon price. In both cases, they do nothing to improve the standing in my eyes of the people that created them. Gillard and Freud are tarred with the same brush....

What actually happened in Durban? Essentially, the governments represented (even China, US and India) committed themselves to pursue a replacement agreement to the Kyoto Protocol over the next two years. This is important as it wasn't expected to gain this agreement this year. However, it still upset the various entities (who were always going to be upset regardless because that's what their PR people told them to be) pushing for faster action on curbing emissions to a point where it is thought that the rise in average temperatures could be kept to 2 degrees or less....a level some bright spark somewhere decided was the point at which the climate might start to become dangerous for human civilisation in its current form.

In truth I've never seen the science or the risk assessment that suggested the 2 degree rise was beyond our capacity to adapt to without significant human losses. But then since human beings in the developed world seem to be generally incapable of maintaining a level of gullibility significantly greater than the average sheep then perhaps the mob that came up with the number had a point. Personally, I'd like to think the number was much higher (because we are obviously going to exceed 2 degrees change) since surely human civilisations can't be that thick...but some days lately I do have my doubts.

QUOTE]

Durban sounds all to familar, groundhog day all over again, this would have to go down as one of the greatest lies ever told, like , the cheque is in the mail, I'm from the government & I'm here to help you, I wont leave it there for long. Then the cult members going around making up excuses for them while our Kamikaze govt' thinks they are going to save the planet all on their own by sacrificing us first.
regards inter

The body of science supporting ALIENS has yet to be disproven.


The body of science supporting GOD has yet to be disproven.
The body of science supporting LOCH NESS MONSTER has yet to be disproven.

Could you help me out with the location of this "body of science" for the above, things like hundreds of articles by people with real qualifications published in reputable journals?I won't bore everyone by posting the huge volume of both CLIMATEGATE and CLIMATEGATE 2 emails, but please read them and then get back to me with the results from your "scientific investigation".

The results we have seen so far is that there has been no charges levelled against any scientist as a result of these emails. Is that because of the secret conspiracy by whoever or is it a lack of any real evidence? Manns paper was published in 1998, how long does it take to find evidence of all this alleged fraud?

I give money to Pharmaceutical companies occasionally, as they have proven their case. It's not that difficult when you are dealing with reality

You probably never had a chance to try Thalidomide. HRT or Vioxx but you would be aware that big organisations dealing with complex issues sometimes make stuffups, but you still support them. But when climate scientists get something wrong, as they occasionally do. you claim it is proof of a conspiracy or fraud. Then when Watt posts something wrong, you pretend it never happened. When can we expect to see some consistency here?

I will try and get an answer to your question about the sea level rise as soon as I get a chance to read the paper that it stems from. But can I ask, have you read it? Are you sure that they are comparing two similar items eg temp rise in the northern hemisphere compared to sea level rise in the same area?

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

Durban is very familiar. It happens every other day...only the names change. That's governments for you, eh? Where would we be without them?
So you think it was a productive excercise, like the time before that & the time before that. The major economic powers are only waiting for undeniable evidence to surface before they make a move, mainly because they are not stupid & not swayed by cult opinion. If & when it is proven they will act, they might be silly but their not stupid.


In truth our 'kamikaze' government would like to make you think that they think that they can make you think they are going to save the planet all on their own...but I don't think they really think that. I wonder what our government in opposition thinks?
Lucky you got the remainder of your years worth of k's out there before the year ended, must be some sort of a prize for that.

Another thought....just what or who do think we are going to be sacrificed to?
The climate gods of course, who else could it be? People have been throwing themselves off cliffs or what ever since time began for some stupid reason or another

regards inter

Originally Posted by Black Cat

I think current thinking is 'more extreme weather events' so more drought, more floods, more storms/cyclones, and many of them extreme versions of what we are used to. Certainly the last three seasons down my way have been pretty irregular. Snow to 1300m yesterday ...

Alas, this is all spin driven by JuLIAR who will happily LIE to her own citizenry just to collect a new TAX to pay for her waste of our existing tax dollars on green dream schemes with no outcomes. This cult capitalises on a human perceptual error known as "saliency bias".

Don't believe me, then hear it from JuLIAR herself:

JULIA Gillard has told Labor MPs to warn voters that a failure to back a carbon tax will lead to more bushfires and droughts as well as coastal inundation and shorter skiing seasons.

The Prime Minister has given her troops scripted lines they should use with journalists or constituents, which justify the use of public money on government advertising in an apparent bid to soften up the electorate for a coming campaign in favour of the tax.

Proposed warnings to be offered include: "If we don't act then we will see more extreme weather events like bushfires and droughts. We will have more days of extreme heat and we will see our coastline flooded as sea levels rise.
"People in northern NSW will feel like they live in Cairns. That will affect the crops we grow, it will affect our native animals, and it will affect our lifestyles."


MPs are also urged to warn that extreme weather leads to associated additional deaths.


"Sea levels could rise by up to a metre and possibly even more by the end of the century," the document says. "Up to 250,000 existing homes are at risk of inundation.


"Climate change will see the average snow season contract by between 85 per cent and 96 per cent by 2050, and disappear by the end of the century."

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

And what does JuLIAR's boss say:

Senator Brown has used disasters to push his political views. In the wake of this year's Queensland floods, which took 35 lives and inflicted enormous economic damage, he suggested the "coal barons" should foot the bill. "Burning coal is a major cause of global warming," he said. "This industry, which is 75 per cent owned outside Australia, should help pay the cost of the predicted more severe and more frequent floods, droughts and bushfires in coming decades." Two years earlier, as the nation weathered the aftermath of the Victorian bushfires that took 173 lives, Senator Brown said it underlined the need for climate action: "Global warming is predicted to make this sort of event happen 25 per cent, 50 per cent more," he said.

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

Now, outside of the spin, what does the IPCC themselves say? Remember now, these are the high priests of this little scaremongering cult:

There is "low confidence" that tropical cyclones have become more frequent, "limited-to-medium evidence available" to assess whether climatic factors have changed the frequency of floods, and "low confidence" on a global scale even on whether the frequency has risen or fallen.


In terms of attribution of trends to rising greenhouse gas concentrations, the uncertainties continue.


While it is "likely" that anthropogenic influences are behind the changes in cold days and warm days, there is only "medium confidence" that they are behind changes in extreme rainfall events, and "low confidence" in attributing any changes in tropical cyclone activity to greenhouse gas emissions or anything else humanity has done.

BBC News - Mixed messages on climate 'vulnerability'

But the IPCC fascientists and their cult minions will happily keep drinking the koolaid, and try to force it down our throats as well, with their constant resetting of predictions of impending global doomsdays coming, soon. Er, maybe soon.

And our economy is being hobbled on the verge of another global financial meltdown because of this cr@p.

While the smart countries laugh, and laugh and laugh while they burn our coal cheaply in manufacturing industries we used to run.

Someone please let me know when this TAX starts cooling down the Planet Earth.

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

As for Gillard's 'Lies" they are mere embellishments

First you defend it as dissembling, now as embellishing, what's your next excuse - artistic licence with the truth?

Nice euphemisms all leading to the fact: JuLIAR!

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

without a bit of hyperbole....much like your own with regard to the carbon price.

I'll leave the "hyperbowl" to JuLIAR.

But please advise exactly where and how I have lied about the "Carbon Dioxide TAX"?

You still spin the cults beliefs about there being a "carbon price". You do understand the difference between Carbon and Carbon Dioxide by now I hope? I have posted enough links. Because the only two choices are that you are so misinformed on this subject that you do not know the difference between Carbon and Carbon Dioxide, or that you are also dissembling and embellishing to further the cult?

If you let me know which one, I can correct one very quickly, but the other will require some time.

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

Gillard and Freud are tarred with the same brush....

Yeh, I can see your logic. I also racked up hundred of billions of dollars of national debt wasted on green dream schemes and other farces, then LIED to my countrymen and crippled my country's economy in an effort to pay back my ineptitude.

I guess your reality check got lost in the mail again.

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

As for the rain on the Central Coast.......might be worth going to the ARI pages on the BoM site to see how big a deal it really wasn't. For either side of this idiot debate....

That was the whole point, "Land of droughts and flooding plains" ringing any bells?

All of this weather is well within natural parameters and high priest Flim Flam and all the other false prophets taking real profits from our taxes would do well to explain these "facts", as you have. As opposed to their usual farcical scaremongering.

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

And our economy is being hobbled on the verge of another global financial meltdown because of this cr@p.

Here's a snapshot from today:

BILLABONG International shares have plunged by 34 per cent after it forecast a massive decline in earnings for the first half of the financial year.

Why?

Billabong's profit downgrade comes a week after rival Quiksilver warned it also faced tough trading conditions, Fairfax reported.

And retail giant Myer also revealed it will be forced to close its worst performing stores - and shrink several others - as the company deals with poor sales.


Australian Retailers Association executive director Russell Zimmerman admited the unusually cold start to summer across the country was hurting sales of clothes, including swimwear and shoewear.


Mr Zimmerman said the cooler start to summer had hit retailers for six who relied on the run of hot weather to boost sagging profits.

Rough waters ahead for Billabong as shares dive and sales slump | News.com.au

And what about last year's sales:

This is primarily due to the generally weak condition of the Australian retail environment that has persisted for much of 2010. The tough trading conditions have been exacerbated for Billabong by the unseasonably cool weather in Australia. Billabong’s products are centred on beach culture and the cooler weather has seen fewer people refresh their summer wardrobe, particularly in the key state of Queensland. This has impacted sales in Billabong’s company owned retail stores, in addition to reducing orders for the core wholesale business in Australia.

Fat Prophets - Article Page - Australasian Equities - Billabong

So our economy is being crippled partly due to the natural "cold weather", now we are going to cripple our economy further to "unnaturally" make it even colder?

And still no word from Treasury on the fact all of their "household compensation" calculations are now entirely useless. Who will actually be much worse off now with no global agreement?

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

But please advise exactly where and how I have lied about the "Carbon Dioxide TAX"?

Well Doc, here's one:

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

So our economy is being crippled partly due to the natural "cold weather", now we are going to cripple our economy further to "unnaturally" make it even colder?

You don't believe the Carbon Tax will make any difference to the climate, yet somehow it will now "make it even colder" to suit your argument?

Make up your mind

Reality is that the planet is warming. Even if every nation acted to reduce emissions, the best we could hope for is a reduction in the rate of warming. So a Carbon Tax is never going to "make it colder"

woodbe.

Soft drinks, hard sales.

Consecutive interest rate cuts have improved consumer sentiment but a cool and wet start to summer has hampered Christmas trading in NSW, drinks maker Coca-Cola Amatil (CCA) says.

Coke feeling the cool summer

Maybe everyone just realised that Carbonated water has heaps of that "CARBON POLLUTION" in it that JuLIAR and her minions keep squeeling about. Oh no, hope you evil polluters aren't giving this pollution to your children and granchildren. No good saving the Planet Earth from this pollution if you keep pumping sodapop directly into the kiddies, huh?

What a crock. It's losing so much credibility, it may soon even be too embarrasing to other cults to call it a cult.

The body of science supporting ALIENS has yet to be disproven.
The body of science supporting GOD has yet to be disproven.
The body of science supporting LOCH NESS MONSTER has yet to be disproven.

Originally Posted by PhilT2

Could you help me out with the location of this "body of science" for the above, things like hundreds of articles by people with real qualifications published in reputable journals?

I'm a busy man, but my altruistic nature is happy to point you in the right direction. Try here for starters:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

This journal coincidentally started about the same time as our invention of the thermometer in the late 19th century, so has a similar chronological record of articles. There are many research based articles in this mix, and I'd love to research them all for you, but I think that comparing the sizes of our "body of science" is just machismo. My point was none of these things have been proven or disproven. There is much evidence supporting the existence of God as interpreted by the experts, so who knows, maybe God will be scientifically proven one day. And maybe one day the AGW hypothesis will. Until then, I'm not paying a TAX to either one.


I won't bore everyone by posting the huge volume of both CLIMATEGATE and CLIMATEGATE 2 emails, but please read them and then get back to me with the results from your "scientific investigation".

Originally Posted by PhilT2

The results we have seen so far is that there has been no charges levelled against any scientist as a result of these emails. Is that because of the secret conspiracy by whoever or is it a lack of any real evidence? Manns paper was published in 1998, how long does it take to find evidence of all this alleged fraud?

Not long at all, just read the CLIMATEGATE emails.

But do you want the FBI to arrest and prosecute these clowns for statistical ineptitude? I don't think Homeland Security has this high on their priorities list. But the burden of proof for criminal fraud is very different to that of scientific integrity. Seeing as you still don't want to read the truth, let me bore you and other readers a little. Here's CLIMATEGATE 2:

I was a reviewer of the
IPCC-TAR report 2001. In my review which I can not find again in its
precise wording I critcized the fact that the whole Mann hockeytick is
being printed in its full length in the IPCC-TAR report. In 1999 I made the
following comments:

1. The spatial, temporal (tree-ring data in the midlatitudes mainly contain
"summer information") and spectral coverage and behaviour of the data is
questionable, mainly before 1500-1600 AD.
2. It is in my opinion not appropriate already to make statements for the
southern hemisphere and for the period prior to 1500 AD.

My review was classified "unsignificant" even I inquired several times.

http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climatega.../mail/1104.txt

What happened prior to 1500? Oh yeh, maybe he was upset that Mann's Hockey Stick erased the Medieval Warm Period and not one of these allegedly "reputable" scientists with "real" qualifications made a peep!

And what of this?

-How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think,
that "our" reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann's work were not
especially honest.

Climategate 2 FOIA 2011 Searchable Database | 1656

Really? Not especially honest?

Does the cult regard this as "dissembling" or "embellishing"?


I give money to Pharmaceutical companies occasionally, as they have proven their case. It's not that difficult when you are dealing with reality.

Originally Posted by PhilT2

You probably never had a chance to try Thalidomide. HRT or Vioxx but you would be aware that big organisations dealing with complex issues sometimes make stuffups, but you still support them. But when climate scientists get something wrong, as they occasionally do. you claim it is proof of a conspiracy or fraud.

You guys really don't get this stuff do you? Let me please clarify:

Step 1: Disease is proven. (Type 1 diabetes?)
Step 2: Treatment is proven. (Insulin injection?)
Step 3: Treatment is paid for. (PBS?)

What you are referring to is side effects of the treatment after it is paid for. This does not mean it does not treat the disease, it does. The issue is are we prepared to make a risk based assessment that the potential side effects outweigh the treatment effect. For some medicines, more data indicates that we are not prepared the accept the potential side effects, so we discontinue use. For most medicines, we happily accept the side effects as the treatment effects outweigh them.

But now, back to your misunderstanding of this cult:

Step 1: The AGW hypothesis has not been proven.
Step 2: The treatment for the AGW hypothesis (assuming Step 1 even happens) has not been proven.
Step 3: We Aussies will be paying for this treatment from 1 July 2012.

Hopefully you now understand that this is not "climate scientists get something wrong", it is climate scientists get nothing. Nil. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

There is zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.

Simple, huh?
And you want to present an analogy after Step 3, because you "believe" Step 1 and Step 2 has already happened?

And I'm well and truly tired of responding to your cultish mantra as you say:

you claim it is proof of a conspiracy

So please present evidence of where I claim these inept clowns are "proof of a conspiracy"?

Or are you also just "dissembling" and "embellishing" as well?

Originally Posted by PhilT2

Then when Watt posts something wrong, you pretend it never happened. When can we expect to see some consistency here?

I don't pretend anything. If Watt's (or any other dill) tries to get me to pay TAX to make the Planet Earth colder, I'll bury them too. In the interim, any dill can post whatever they want. I'm "proof" of that.

Originally Posted by PhilT2

I will try and get an answer to your question about the sea level rise as soon as I get a chance to read the paper that it stems from. But can I ask, have you read it?

Hey, like I said, I'm a busy man, but here's a great link to get you started:

It wasn’t CO2: Global sea levels started rising before 1800 « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

Originally Posted by PhilT2

Are you sure that they are comparing two similar items eg temp rise in the northern hemisphere compared to sea level rise in the same area?

Mate, these are your

hundreds of articles by people with real qualifications published in reputable journals

and it sounds like you don't "trust" them anymore?

Are you saying that if the temperature only rises in the northern hemisphere, then we'll get no sea level rises in the southern hemisphere? If somewhere gets really hot, does only their sea level rise really high?

I'll try to explain where your message went wrong as I rebut it.

Originally Posted by woodbe

You don't believe the Carbon Tax will make any difference to the climate

First, let's try again:

You still spin the cults beliefs about there being a "carbon [S]price[/S] tax". You do understand the difference between Carbon and Carbon Dioxide by now I hope? I have posted enough links. Because the only two choices are that you are so misinformed on this subject that you do not know the difference between Carbon and Carbon Dioxide, or that you are also dissembling and embellishing to further the cult?

I'll assume you're in choice 2 shall I?

But it is encouraging to see you using the term TAX instead of price. You see, price indicates an exchange of things of value, like paying money and getting shoes, i.e. you paid a price for them. A TAX on the other hand goes to the government and joins CRF, with the taxpayer getting nothing in return. Yes, of course there is the greater good argument whereby governments provide infrastructure etc indirectly back to the taxpayer, but this is macro economics rather than micro economics where price operates. This would be like giving your money to the shoe store and getting no shoes, but feeling good because the shoe store owner will spend your money and stimulate the economy, giving you your general benefit.

Second, it's nothing to do with what I "believe". It is a fact that all inputs to the climate make a "difference" to the climate by definition. It is, and always has been, a question of quantum. My farts make a "difference" to the climate. These things are facts and do not require any "belief". I think it is telling that in this area of science the word "believe" is used so frequently.

Now, I think what you were trying to accuse me of is:

Australians paying more tax will result in no measurable change to any aspect of the climate on the Planet Earth.

If you want to stick to making a "difference", I can run a computer model to calculate (down to many zeroed decimal places) what difference my farts would make to the Global temperature of Planet Earth, and then other models can extrapolate this to the climate.

Originally Posted by woodbe

yet somehow it will now "make it even colder" to suit your argument?

It's not my argument, it's JuLIAR's. I just ridicule it. JuLIAR has said that if Aussies pay this TAX, the temperature will be colder, and the resulting climate effects predicted by the psychic computers will be reduced. If you seriously "believe" that I have been arguing that this TAX will make the Planet Earth colder, then there is not much I can do to help you.

Originally Posted by woodbe

Make up your mind

Already have. But luckily it's still able to change as soon as the facts do.

Originally Posted by woodbe

Reality is that the planet is warming.

Look harder, you can almost see reality from where you are. Care to throw in a time frame?

100 million years? Nope.



10,000 years? Nope.



1000 years? Nope.




Luckily all of that natural variation has now ceased and we mighty humans now control the temperature of the Planet Earth at will.

Originally Posted by woodbe

Even if every nation acted to reduce emissions, the best we could hope for is a reduction in the rate of warming.

As every nation is not acting, does that mean there is no hope?

And even if they did, we only have hope? No "proof" that the treatment we're paying for will work. Trillions and trillions of dollars to pay for "hope"? Do you think that case will get past the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme?

Originally Posted by woodbe

So a Carbon Tax is never going to "make it colder"

Er, that's my point.

Let's go through this slowly. Just to confirm it first, in case you get confused again, this is not what I "believe", this is the argument from JuLIAR and her minions, that you also apparently support.

Humans doing what we do is allegedly making the Planet Earth warmer (from some arbitrary starting point), hence the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis. So if we assume the temp today is 14 degrees celsius, let's assume a model (not Miranda Kerr) says the temperature will go to 18 degrees celsius. 18 degrees celsius is warmer than 14 degrees celsius. JuLIAR says if we pay the TAX, then the temperature will be colder than this 18 degrees celsius, let's say 16 degrees celsius. 16 degrees celsius is colder than 18 degrees celsius. Now if we all pay HEAPS more TAX, we may even get back down to 12 degrees celsius, which is even colder than all the previous temperatures referred to. Then if we keep farting, the temperature may be warmer at 13 degrees celsius.

Do you see now how the terms warmer or colder are relative to the initial temperature referred to? JuLIAR is saying that if we pay her TAX, then the temperature will be colder than what the psychic computers predicted. The fascientists say that if we reduce anthropogenic CO2 enough, then the Planet Earth will be colder than just about any relative temperature above you want to choose.

cold·er1. a. Relative lack of warmth.

What a crock.

This is why I ridicule this TAX and anyone who countenances any serious thought about it.

Originally Posted by woodbe

Well Doc, here's one:

If that's the worst of what you "believe" is me lying about the Carbon Dioxide TAX, then I'll be interested to hear your opinion on these claims.

JULIA Gillard has told Labor MPs to warn voters that a failure to back a carbon tax will lead to more bushfires and droughts as well as coastal inundation and shorter skiing seasons.

Smart meter technology to drive up the costs of power | thetelegraph.com.au

So much material, so little time...

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

Look harder, you can almost see reality from where you are. Care to throw in a time frame?

100 million years? Nope.



10,000 years? Nope.



1000 years? Nope.

Well, what can I say, you've shown the graphics, but left out the contextual information we need to see. How inconvenient.

None of those graphs show when man started to throw his weight around, yes, adding CO2, but also making wholesale land use changes etc.

Allow me to add some context to the pretty pictures, particularly the rise of man (Holocene) and Industrialisation that began around the mid 1800's

This one's a bit hard, the holocene is smaller than a pixel width at this massive scale, but that's as small as we can go:







And allow me to raise you one. Note that the graph below corresponds to the grey area added where possible to the above plots and corresponds to the time period where man started and continued to add CO2 into the atmosphere and other modifications to the planet that would filter through to the climate:

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

It is a fact that all inputs to the climate make a "difference" to the climate by definition. It is, and always has been, a question of quantum. My farts make a "difference" to the climate.

Quite a telling revelation, right there. Well said Doc, we now appear to disagree on the quantum and your farts. We're probably never going to agree on the quantum, so how about you supply the scientific evidence that proves that your farts make a difference to the climate.

Merry Christmas!

woodbe.

Originally Posted by woodbe

None of those graphs show when man started to throw his weight around, yes, adding CO2

Oh really? None of those graphs show CO2, huh?



This graph shows current CO2 levels about 390ppm, just a little up from our recent low of about 290ppm. It's a shame the scale designed to give context highlights this pitiful change, isn't it?

We can argue about how much of this 390 is natural, man-made, feedbacks, non-absorption, release, blah blah, but are we closing in on 5000ppm like when the temp was 12 degrees? Did you miss the big yellow label called atmospheric CO2? Or did you ignore it for making a mockery of this farcical cult. Or do you subscribe to some religious doctrine that radiation can tell man-made CO2 molecules from natural ones and only reacts with man-made ones?

Did you spot the correlation between CO2 and temp? Good joke, huh?

And this chart you now use below indicates a constant warming trend since 1850, whereas Mann's Hockey stick clearly show cooling until the 1920's, then a sudden and sharp spike in warming. Are you now junking the Hockey Stick from this cult, just like the IPCC did after 2000?

Originally Posted by woodbe

I love you guys burning any credibility this cult has ever had. The more you grasp at pitiful straws trying to make it sound "believable", the better opportunity us realists have to expose the farce that you all "believe" in.

And by the way, have you figured out why the warming has stopped? Did the psychic computers that predicted a constant exponential increase in warming fail again?

And by the way, did you figure out how the oceans started rising before Mann-made warming began? Is sticking by Mann costing you any shred of credibility left?

And by the way, did you figure out how Aussies paying more TAX will make the Planet Earth colder? Or is JuLIAR just lying again, and you're happy to sit quietly by in support of this cult?

And how's Flim Flam's predictions of no more rain going? He's still getting paid a big gravy train fare for his doomsday scare, and us taxpayers are paying for it and getting taken for a ride.

The curtain has been pulled away to reveal the little people pulling the levers my friend. If you still want to "believe", then good on you. Just don't kid anyone that it's real.

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

Oh really? None of those graphs show CO2, huh?

You seem to be lacking in reading skills today, Doc.

Try reading again, slowly. I've emphasised the important bits to make it easier for you:

Originally Posted by woodbe

None of those graphs show when man started to throw his weight around, yes, adding CO2, but also making wholesale land use changes etc.

For a guy who thinks "It is a fact that all inputs to the climate make a "difference" to the climate by definition. It is, and always has been, a question of quantum." you sure make a lot of irrelevant noise about times when man was not part of those inputs.

Your model and assumptions are wrong, Doc. We are now in a climate controlled by natural variability + the effects of man's inputs. Your graphs only show pre-industrial age variability and you assume there is no effect of man. Even your own [S]admission[/S] slip of the tounge about all inputs making a difference points to the error in your model and assumptions. Lets see that again:

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

It is a fact that all inputs to the climate make a "difference" to the climate by definition. It is, and always has been, a question of quantum.

Beautiful. Just Beautiful. Oh, I feel a new signature coming on.

You've come a long way Doc, even if you appear to be internally conflicted. Well done mate.

woodbe.

as an apprentice who works at a coal fired powerstation on the central coast (government owned) we kinda got screwed in the emissions trading scheme and the gen trader agreement

in the emission trading our stations where not deemed ok to receive any of the 5 billion compensation that went out to a few of the dirtier brown coal stations like victoria and the $25 per ton a c02 makes it nearly impossible for us to run as a business ($25 a ton and when you produce something in the range of 10,000,000 tons of c02 a year) but yes we are trying a few different things to reduce our carbon emissions (burning wood, capturing carbon and storing it else where). its just weird as we up our price the government is going to tax us.... give the money to struggling familes to pay bills.... so they can turn around it give it back to us and cycle continues.

the gen trader made our station worth virtually nothing as an asset. so if and when ever they actually get a buyer for it the gumbyment will get a screwed over price. the power industry is pretty much a guaranteed investment and no one can really understand why the government wanted to get rid of it. sure big lump sum of cash up front was probably nice (7 billion or what ever it was) but in the long run could have made a shitload more then that.

woodbe, in your post 7523 you have added the holocene appearance to the graphs, just one problem if you could understand the simple graphs you would realise that it disproves your cult theory even more.
regards inter

Placing pictures like this epitomises the absolute ignorance of the "true science believers". Mr Bolt... do you have something to add that might persuade us otherwise???

(I am sickened by peoples ignorance. It is shameful)

People go on about "the science"... well... read it!! Read the literature - damn ignorants!!!! The common position is the exact opposite as to what Sigmund Freud (and the like) are arguing. Grow up... the arguments that are held to be contra Anthro-GM are unsupported, ludicrous and weak.

I am not politically aligned nor, politically supportive of one position over another. Merely, just after a solution that promotes the most fruitful future. As to all other positions otherwise... get a perspective!!!

You have little idea.

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

Oh really? None of those graphs show CO2, huh?



This graph shows current CO2 levels about 390ppm, just a little up from our recent low of about 290ppm. It's a shame the scale designed to give context highlights this pitiful change, isn't it?

We can argue about how much of this 390 is natural, man-made, feedbacks, non-absorption, release, blah blah, but are we closing in on 5000ppm like when the temp was 12 degrees? Did you miss the big yellow label called atmospheric CO2? Or did you ignore it for making a mockery of this farcical cult. Or do you subscribe to some religious doctrine that radiation can tell man-made CO2 molecules from natural ones and only reacts with man-made ones?

Did you spot the correlation between CO2 and temp? Good joke, huh?

And this chart you now use below indicates a constant warming trend since 1850, whereas Mann's Hockey stick clearly show cooling until the 1920's, then a sudden and sharp spike in warming. Are you now junking the Hockey Stick from this cult, just like the IPCC did after 2000?




I love you guys burning any credibility this cult has ever had. The more you grasp at pitiful straws trying to make it sound "believable", the better opportunity us realists have to expose the farce that you all "believe" in.

And by the way, have you figured out why the warming has stopped? Did the psychic computers that predicted a constant exponential increase in warming fail again?

And by the way, did you figure out how the oceans started rising before Mann-made warming began? Is sticking by Mann costing you any shred of credibility left?

And by the way, did you figure out how Aussies paying more TAX will make the Planet Earth colder? Or is JuLIAR just lying again, and you're happy to sit quietly by in support of this cult?

And how's Flim Flam's predictions of no more rain going? He's still getting paid a big gravy train fare for his doomsday scare, and us taxpayers are paying for it and getting taken for a ride.

The curtain has been pulled away to reveal the little people pulling the levers my friend. If you still want to "believe", then good on you. Just don't kid anyone that it's real.

Is it possible for an unintelligent person cherry-picks data.

Quite frankly... the data it is weak, sickening and not insightful at all.

READ THE HANSARD!!!! AND THE SECOND READING SPEECH... After that, you may understand!!!

(I am severely distorted by people who purport that Anthro-GW does not exist. How, in all possibility, can your perspective exist??)

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

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...

I have previously asked the moderators of this forum to remove this posting as it is discriminatory on the basis of sex.

My request has not been actioned as yet.

I would STRONGLY suggest that this posting be removed and/or censored. If it is not, I will be raising with the HREOC.

Might I add, that I shouldn't have to do so because of one particular sexist comment, however my Wife is extremely offended and I wholeheartedly agree with her sentiment.

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

Where's the fanfare from the AGW hypothesis brigade about the Durban COP17 outcomes?

JuLIAR is hailing this as a historic agreement that allegedly validates her crippling the entire Australian economy with a massive new and useless TAX.




Do none of you support her LIES this time?

So what actually happened?



Why is JuLIAR lying again? What is she trying to cover up this time? Oh yeh, here's a few things:






JuLIAR's lies can no longer hide the fact that she sold out our country to Bob Brown and his greenies just to salvage her "career" aspirations. Some leader, huh?

Nothing wrong with this... progress!!! Old farts and traditional wrong-dooers see this as wrong??? Amazing!

Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne

Nothing wrong with this... progress!!! Old farts and traditional wrong-dooers see this as wrong??? Amazing!

We are so fortunate to have a leader in Julia Gillard. A true leader not afraid of the @@@@ or making hard deisions! Perhaps unpopular decisions, but decisions that will mark her as a true leader and ahead of her time. A TRUE LEADER - WHAT?? DOES GLOBAL WARMING EXIST?? SHIZERS - People are still going against the majority of the educated-science-world?

Mock pictures etc, be low and stoop to levels that can only be encapsulated by pictures but, rest assured that the pictures chosen exemplify what Australia is TODAY. Moronic to think otherwise.

See you all at the next election where the fiscal policy of The Labor Party will have rolled out and... Lib/Nat are nowhere to be seen but for their backward thinking rhetoric. Sharpen the focus Lib/Nats!!!!

So proud of what the greens have achieved!!

So very proud!:u

Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne

I have previously asked the moderators of this forum to remove this posting as it is discriminatory on the basis of sex. My request has not been actioned as yet. I would STRONGLY suggest that this posting be removed and/or censored. If it is not, I will be raising with the HREOC.Might I add, that I shouldn't have to do so because of one particular sexist comment, however my Wife is extremely offended and I wholeheartedly agree with her sentiment.

I'm sure photos like that are banned in some places where freedom of expression is not possible & cults are the norm, might not be a greenies utopia though.regards inter

Originally Posted by autogenous

Ive been told that using graphs spanning 200 years to predict climate means 2 poofteenths of nothing.

Write or wrong fossil resources are finite. There is predictions of 25 years of fossils left. Ok, lets make it 200 years.

A couple of decades ago we had a recession triggered by rapid increase in the price of a barrel of oil. Economically we are going to be more and more held to ransom from fossil fuels as price reflects supply over demand.

It is extremely important that we ready ourselves, begin a technology transition albeit not complete transition but a "ready" for any radical upturn in future fossil fuel pricing is a good thing. Its important for our economic security.

If you love building like I do this show the other day had some fabulous concepts and bamboo buildings.

Gunter Pauli: The Blue Economy - Science and Technology - Browse - Big Ideas - ABC TV

A very positive change to the general divisive media release in the past.

You were going really well untill the blue underlined bits.
regards inter

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

Oh I don't know. It worked for the Swiss Family Robinson...

unfortunately most people haven't a hollywood budget to build with, pity though, it has such a nice view of the garden.
regards inter

Well I'm buggered. The last time I visited this site I saw a reference to a book "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For the Worlds Top Climate Expert".This book is an expose' by Donna Laframboise on the manipulation of everything from graphs to language by the IPCC in order to push the fraud which is climate change. I bought this book as I would have expected every body else who was interested in the IPCC's Climate Bible. I then expected this thread would have withered for want of climate alarmists. I thought they would have been too ashamed to be identified with global warming activistes. BUT THERE STILL HERE. What everybody needs to understand, that realists and alarmists alike, is that the IPCC's Climate Bible is a political document and NOT a scientific document. So trying to debate a political document which uses flawed and fraudulent information as it's foundation is tantamount to arguing the benefitst of a capitalist society with Joseph Stalin. Stalin would just cook the books to prove he was right the same way the IPCC has cooked the the Climate Bible. I urge all to buy, either on line or in hard copy, this book in order that we may all be better informed. Regards Mark.

Originally Posted by mark53

Well I'm buggered. The last time I visited this site I saw a reference to a book "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For the Worlds Top Climate Expert".This book is an expose' by Donna Laframboise on the manipulation of everything from graphs to language by the IPCC in order to push the fraud which is climate change. I bought this book as I would have expected every body else who was interested in the IPCC's Climate Bible. I then expected this thread would have withered for want of climate alarmists. I thought they would have been too ashamed to be identified with global warming activistes. BUT THERE STILL HERE. What everybody needs to understand, that realists and alarmists alike, is that the IPCC's Climate Bible is a political document and NOT a scientific document. So trying to debate a political document which uses flawed and fraudulent information as it's foundation is tantamount to arguing the benefitst of a capitalist society with Joseph Stalin. Stalin would just cook the books to prove he was right the same way the IPCC has cooked the the Climate Bible. I urge all to buy, either on line or in hard copy, this book in order that we may all be better informed. Regards Mark.

Most sensible people have worked that out already without even having to buy the book (like the majority of the Australian public) but then again you can try to tell the other people.............. but you cant tell them much.
regards inter

As my dear old dad used to say "none are so blind as those who don't want to see". The obvious point for the game players amongst us is the IPCC Climate Bible is "sold" as a scientific, peer revued document, period. If anybody has any evidence by the authors of the Climate Bible that that the C.B. is a political document and not a scientific document then now is your chance to "put up". But if the object of your thread S&D is to perpetuate some puerile game then please spare us your lack of wit. Tah.

Originally Posted by woodbe

You seem to be lacking in reading skills today, Doc.

Try reading again, slowly. I've emphasised the important bits to make it easier for you:



For a guy who thinks "It is a fact that all inputs to the climate make a "difference" to the climate by definition. It is, and always has been, a question of quantum." you sure make a lot of irrelevant noise about times when man was not part of those inputs.

Your model and assumptions are wrong, Doc. We are now in a climate controlled by natural variability + the effects of man's inputs. Your graphs only show pre-industrial age variability and you assume there is no effect of man. Even your own [S]admission[/S] slip of the tounge about all inputs making a difference points to the error in your model and assumptions. Lets see that again:



Beautiful. Just Beautiful. Oh, I feel a new signature coming on.

You've come a long way Doc, even if you appear to be internally conflicted. Well done mate.

woodbe.

What is all this waffle?

Is this the cults new tactic for semantic distraction?

If you have a point, please make it, or a question, please ask it. I've got to have some fun with our other friend now, but let me know when you find anything even resembling reality associated with this cult. I've well and truly given up the possibility of you supplying any scientific evidence proving this farce.