Emission Trading and climate change

Page 229 of 377 FirstFirst ... 129 179 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 279 329 ... LastLast
Results 11,401 to 11,450 of 18819
  1. #11401
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Which debate is that?

    If you have to ask, you didn't know in the first place!


    You are part of the "audience". Are you disappointed?


    Ah! It must be like one of those audience participation pantomime debates then! And the people outside who haven't paid are the other audience, so logical for some it defies logic!

    Huh? What about the evidence? Doesn't that count as far as you are concerned? Oh, I think everyone knows the answer to that question...

    Yes that phantom irrefutable evidence? We will be able to spot it when it does actually appear because it will be able to fully explain why CO2 never had catastrophic global warming consequences on the past, when now it supposedly does have that capability, we really don't have to provide any evidence as we are living breathing proof that your evangelical belief isn't possible.
    regards inter

  2. #11402
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Really the debate is in it's death throws as the carbon tax is buried for the next 2 or 3 years, this will be a disappointment for the audience, you only have to look at the numbers of non members getting their daily dose of free entertainment, it's like having evangelical door knockers locked in a room & listening to them come up with every excuse which defies belief.
    regards inter
    Sounds like Inter is advocating the demise of the thread. I'd second that - though for very different reasons. Perhaps we can leave it up to Rod to have the final word and then move on to something useful, comfortable in the knowledge that everyone is happy because they were right in the end...
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  3. #11403
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Sounds like Inter is advocating the demise of the thread. I'd second that - though for very different reasons. Perhaps we can leave it up to Rod to have the final word and then move on to something useful, comfortable in the knowledge that everyone is happy because they were right in the end...
    Sounds like your making stuff up! its obvious that the ETS is buried for some time so this debate will naturally fade away........ unless someone new, with brilliance comes along & provides facts undoing the history of CO2 & the role it didn't play in the globes temperatures.
    regards inter

  4. #11404
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default Re: Emission Trading

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Sounds like your making stuff up! its obvious that the ETS is buried for some time so this debate will naturally fade away........ unless someone new, with brilliance comes along & provides facts undoing the history of CO2 & the role it didn't play in the globes temperatures.
    regards inter
    Even if they were brilliant they would fade against the natural glow of your everknowing self.

    Sometimes it's easier to go around obstacles. And often the obstacles have no idea they've even be passed by. So it is in this case...
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  5. #11405
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Even if they were brilliant they would fade against the natural glow of your everknowing self.

    Sometimes it's easier to go around obstacles. And often the obstacles have no idea they've even be passed by. So it is in this case...
    You guys are the only ones claiming I have anything above my quoted barely below average intelligence & from your efforts on trying to justify CO2 as the main cause of global warming, it may seem that intelligence I lack is superior!


    regards inter

  6. #11406
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    I never said the natural glow suggested intelligence...

    I've met many people whose ignorant glow has powered whole committees into glorious redundancy despite the best efforts of some very big brains. Your wilful glee about your own perceived short comings bring back some not so wonderful memories of this experience.

    If you truly think you are stupid then why do you continue to believe you have a meaningful contribution to make to the 'debate'?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  7. #11407
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    I never said the natural glow suggested intelligence...

    Thank goodness for that!

    I've met many people whose ignorant glow has powered whole committees into glorious redundancy despite the best efforts of some very big brains. Your wilful glee about your own perceived short comings bring back some not so wonderful memories of this experience.

    you lucky lucky fellow!

    If you truly think you are stupid then why do you continue to believe you have a meaningful contribution to make to the 'debate

    I'm only implying I'm not a rocket scientist, not an evangelical nitwit! Now that's the epitanmy of stupidity & if it makes you feel good that's great!

    '?
    Regards inter

  8. #11408
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    It is a moot point that the ETS in Australia is buried. Australian business and international trade will be penalised by countries that do have an ETS in the interest of their maintaining a level playing field (and yes, expect our largest trade partners China and Japan to penalise Australian trade too, once their ETSs are up and running). So whilst Australia will forego the benefit of moving to a modern energy economy as a result of an ETS, cancelling the ETS will not spare Australian industry of the downside to industry and growth that opponent purport the ETS would invoke.

    Instead of corporate carbon polluters paying the tax, ordinary Australians will all be taxed to pay the carbon polluters through "direct action". Sounds like a great plan - NOT.

  9. #11409
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    It is a moot point that the ETS in Australia is buried. Australian business and international trade will be penalised by countries that do have an ETS in the interest of their maintaining a level playing field (and yes, expect our largest trade partners China and Japan to penalise Australian trade too, once their ETSs are up and running). So whilst Australia will forego the benefit of moving to a modern energy economy as a result of an ETS, cancelling the ETS will not spare Australian industry of the downside to industry and growth that opponent purport the ETS would invoke.

    Instead of corporate carbon polluters paying the tax, ordinary Australians will all be taxed to pay the carbon polluters through "direct action". Sounds like a great plan - NOT.
    Now any sane person would reasonably recognise that when that happens, it would be the time to introduce what ever the global agreement dictates! Now this situation could be 5, 10, 15 or more years away or never!
    Not before!
    I'm wondering what planet has a business that doesn't make a profit on their wares whatever tax is plied on them! The users pay, no matter what, some action/taxes are direct & some not
    regards inter

  10. #11410
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    ...and some taxes change behaviour...

  11. #11411
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    ...and some taxes change behaviour...
    this is not beer or tobacco tax! And there is no economical choice unless artificially induced! When the cheaper alternative can stand on its own it will naturally commercially succeed & change behaviour.
    regards inter

  12. #11412
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    this is not beer or tobacco tax! And there is no economical choice unless artificially induced! When the cheaper alternative can stand on its own it will naturally commercially succeed & change behaviour.
    regards inter
    That is not how totalitarian regime operate and make no mistake, the green agenda is one of total control like the inquisition, Stalin, Castro and others. You must only look at how the "green" councils treat the farmers and how they destroy farmland with national parks infested with noxious weeds and feral pest that no one manages.

    In the cultist mind, us the vulgar populace, are ignorant and don't know. "They" know better whats good for us. Offer and demand play no role in a greenie commie world since the priests impose the dogma and the peasants pay.

    Oh yes! China and their ETS "up and running" ha ha, sure they are up and running they can smell the money coming from the caffe latte politicians who buy votes with false pretenses.

    By the way, what happened to "Global Warming"? By now we should be frying in a dry hell with no rain ever again, 9 meters of sea rise, 40C in the shade in winter and lets not forget, billions of climate refugees.

    is this the case of the dog ate my warming?
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  13. #11413
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    is this the case of the dog ate my warming?
    Nope, the dog ate your logic...

    Oh, and many farmers are "greener" than the people you are forever disparaging. They are intimately connected with the land, the climate, and the interplay between the two. And the multinationals in agribusiness are @@@@-scared of what global warming induced climate change will do to their returns, even if they like to keep that concern largely to themselves. The only thing the corporate agribusiness operators consider to be of greater concern than the disruption to production from global warming, is another global financial crisis.

    Agriculture Risks 2014


  14. #11414
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Nope, the dog ate your logic...

    Oh, and many farmers are "greener" than the people you are forever disparaging. They are intimately connected with the land, the climate, and the interplay between the two. And the multinationals in agribusiness are @@@@-scared of what global warming induced climate change will do to their returns, even if they like to keep that concern largely to themselves. The only thing the corporate agribusiness operators consider to be of greater concern than the disruption to production from global warming, is another global financial crisis.

    Agriculture Risks 2014

    nope your logic ate your dog,
    just what we need, corporate farmers! We already have corporate greed in the retail of farmers goods, now we can expect the same from farms, with profits being sucked from each end of the chain, the workers & the consumers!
    regards inter

  15. #11415
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    There are plenty of corporate farmers, but that is not what he was saying. Obviously you feel the need to respond to the logical but overlook Marc's inaccurate drivel.

  16. #11416
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    There are plenty of corporate farmers, but that is not what he was saying. Obviously you feel the need to respond to the logical but overlook Marc's inaccurate drivel.
    I only respond to punctuate both sides of the drivel
    regards inter

  17. #11417
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    If you truly think you are stupid then why do you continue to believe you have a meaningful contribution to make to the 'debate'?
    When Ignorance Begets Confidence: The Classic Dunning-Kruger | Psychology Today

    "The Dunning-Kruger effect describes a cognitivebias in which people perform poorly on a task, but lack the meta-cognitive capacity to properly evaluate their performance. As a result, such people remain unaware of their incompetence and accordingly fail to take any self-improvement measures that might rid them of their incompetence."

  18. #11418
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    When Ignorance Begets Confidence: The Classic Dunning-Kruger | Psychology Today
    "The Dunning-Kruger effect describes a cognitivebias in which people perform poorly on a task, but lack the meta-cognitive capacity to properly evaluate their performance. As a result, such people remain unaware of their incompetence and accordingly fail to take any self-improvement measures that might rid them of their incompetence."
    aha! our pseudo psychologist is back at work again! If only I was stupid & ignorant enough to believe the stuff you fellows do with no proof other than belief! I'd fit right in with your crowd then.
    regards inter

  19. #11419
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    If only I was stupid & ignorant enough to believe the stuff you fellows do with no proof other than belief!
    Want proof? Look no further than this thread

    (BTW, it's something you have accused me of dozens and dozens of time and now you say it is not true! )

    The "proofs" actually make very interesting reading, based on actual studies of real populations as they are:

    Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one

    Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence

    Want to see it in living action? See if you can find a person competently fulfilling their responsibilities in this bunch: https://www.liberal.org.au/our-team

  20. #11420
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    aha! our pseudo psychologist is back at work again! If only I was stupid & ignorant enough to believe the stuff you fellows do with no proof other than belief! I'd fit right in with your crowd then.
    regards inter
    Dunning-Kruger is a well known and researched effect, it is not a belief. Unfortunately, the effect is rife amongst CC Skeptics. The science behind the accepted position on mankind's effect on the climate is also not a belief. What is a belief is people who claim the science is wrong without showing why with accurate and peer reviewed science. If the skeptics can't publish anything to refute the accepted science where does that leave our unqualified and untrained Dunning-Kruger Skeptics? Up the creek. We have been there before: James Powell: 2013; 10,885 Peer Reviewed Climate Articles; 2 reject man-made global warming.

    How about we focus on the topic rather than playing the man? Of course if you do want this thread shut down you're doing exactly what is required.

    Show us some science that refutes the accepted scientific position.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  21. #11421
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Sydney and Melbourne going green despite uncertainty over future of Renewable Energy Target - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

    Sydney plans to reduce its emissions by 70 per cent by 2030 while Melbourne aims to have zero net emissions in just five-and-a-half years.
    Local governments seem to be in tune with their public.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  22. #11422
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Nope, the dog ate your logic
    There has be no warming since 1998, and despite the many explanation you can google, designed to "rebuke" the bad skeptics, the reality is irrefutable, CO2 UP, temperature, steady. Please do not repeat the Ocean's heatsink that will sometimes all of a sudden explode and cook us all.

    Facts are facts, computer rubbish is ... well just rubbish. CO2 is not the bad guy, just an easy target to shift power and resources.
    Not long ago, humans needed to be saved from their sinful ways in order to avoid the wrath of God. Of course God had better things to do and no wrat to be seen and the church slipped away into irrelevance. Climatolatry will follow suit.
    Of course another cult will spring up quick smart. I wonder what it will be?


    In an e-mail to GWPF, Lennart Bengtsson has declared his resignation of the advisory board of GWPF. His letter reads :
    “I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
    Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.”
    I am reproducing this letter with permission of Lennart Bengtsson.


    Source: http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.nl/2014...ory-board.html

    The Cult priests have found Bengtsson sins unforgivable, he will go to climate hell forever ...
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  23. #11423
    Novice Yande's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Age
    62
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    What a pathetic post. If you don't like people writing about their renovation, what are you doing here? As far as self funded retirees, you will find that most people posting here are either tradies or owner builders in full time employment. Oh yes with the few exceptions like you I suppose.
    So a 7th generation Australian, is that some sort of badge of honour? Why not use an Australian avatar then? Obviously you would have liked the same mob that delivered the worst 6 years of government we ever had, to win the elections. Wouldn't that be great! Would you like to see a tax on non Australians? perhaps a doubling of Centrelink payments?
    I just do not understand what message you are attempting to convey here with that post marc that is, apart from attempting to slander me.. BTW, My name is Mark, with a "K." Also my avatar is my Companies logo. and has nothing to do with nationality. I sell nuts. Which, despite what you wrongly assumed, leaves me in the Full time, self employed bracket.. (Crikeys..!! Are you Paranoid or obversely Nationalistic?) I am glad to see how I pressed your buttons though marc/mate.... .

  24. #11424
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yande View Post
    Well now at least I understand this Forum. Previous statements such as "The Chinese just want to conquer the world" took me by surprise. But now I realise just how many shiny tails, living off their super, with nothing better to do than sprout about their latest reno, and right leaning beliefs, spend their time here..

    So the Tax is gone... Wooppee, now I can burn the electrics day and night.. Especially as i am going to be $550 better off!! (No tony didn't say that, Bill did, apparently.) And according to most here, I need have no regard to the CO2 emissions I create. Unreal. Burn the plastic. Recycle?? No Too hard. Burn..

    Honestly, of late, it is embarrassing being a 7th generation Australian.. One only has to look at the clowns telling us what is right... Abbott, Hockey, and that douzy.. Pine.. If you voted for them fine.. I'm just smarter than most.
    I suggest that you re-read your own post and think:
    ...."shiny tails, living off their super, with nothing better to do than sprout about their latest reno, and right leaning beliefs, spend their time here.."
    ...."One only has to look at the clowns telling us what is right... Abbott, Hockey, and that douzy.. Pine.. If you voted for them fine.. I'm just smarter than most."

    Do you really think you are "smarter than most" ... ?
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  25. #11425
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    There has be no warming since 1998
    Dealing with this statement puts the rest of the post into perspective...

    The current favorite argument of those who argue that climate changes isn’t happening, or a problem, or worth dealing with, is that global warming has stopped.
    The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth.

    The actual data are easy for anyone to find – they all independently say the same thing:
    the Earth is warming – precisely the conclusion the scientific community has reached based on observations and fundamental physics.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/

    You choose which of the three camps our friend belongs to, lying, ignorant or blatantly disregarding reality... or Dunning Kruger champion, perhaps.

  26. #11426
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Dealing with this statement puts the rest of the post into perspective...

    The current favorite argument of those who argue that climate changes isn’t happening, or a problem, or worth dealing with, is that global warming has stopped.
    The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth.

    The actual data are easy for anyone to find – they all independently say the same thing:
    the Earth is warming – precisely the conclusion the scientific community has reached based on observations and fundamental physics.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/

    You choose which of the three camps our friend belongs to, lying, ignorant or blatantly disregarding reality... or Dunning Kruger champion, perhaps.
    Are you saying that data & scientific institutions that show there has been no significant increase in the globes average temperature since 1998 are lying, ignorant or disregarding reality then?
    regards inter

  27. #11427
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Are you saying that data & scientific institutions that show there has been no significant increase in the globes average temperature since 1998 are lying, ignorant or disregarding reality then?
    regards inter
    Presumably that is a hypothetical question, because there aren't any scientific institutions or data sets that "show there has been no significant increase in the globes average temperature since 1998".

  28. #11428
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Presumably that is a hypothetical question, because there aren't any scientific institutions or data sets that "show there has been no significant increase in the globes average temperature since 1998".
    It was a question & already your trying to squirm your way out of it as usual!
    regards inter

  29. #11429
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    It was a question & already your trying to squirm your way out of it as usual!
    Not at all. Here is (yet another) opportunity for you put aside the disparaging remarks and contribute some evidence instead...

  30. #11430
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Not at all. Here is (yet another) opportunity for you put aside the disparaging remarks and contribute some evidence instead...
    Well seeing I asked my question first, off you go with some proof to back up your claim?
    regards inter

  31. #11431
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Well seeing I asked my question first, off you go with some proof to back up your claim?
    Your 'question" was based on a false premise - the premise that "data & scientific institutions that show there has been no significant increase in the globes average temperature since 1998" simply isn't true. Whether you asked it first or not is rather irrelevant.

    I repeat, why not put aside the disparaging remarks and contribute with some evidence instead...

  32. #11432
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    For the "There's been no global warming since 199x brigade", you are wrong. This plot is surface temperature only - there is no "the ocean ate my warming" in this data...

    Last 20 years global monthly average surface air temperature. The thin blue line represents the monthly values. The thick red line is the linear fit, with 95% confidence intervals indicated by the two thin red lines. The thick green line represents a 5-degree polynomial fit, with 95% confidence intervals indicated by the two thin green lines. A few key statistics is given in the lower part of the diagram (note that the linear trend is the monthly trend). Last month included in analysis: May 2014. Last diagram update: 11 June 2014.



    http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTem...ature%20trends

  33. #11433
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    It was a question & already your trying to squirm your way out of it as usual!
    regards inter
    But that is precisely the fun of it.
    It's like following the process of sanctification of some poor average person who unknown to him or her is attributed the most unbelievable exploits.

    The Pause: warmaholics tie themselves in knots23 July, 2014 by Simon

    This is the awkward result when reality confronts ideology.

    According to Un-Skeptical Pseudo-Science, the Pause is just a myth:
    Climate myth… It hasn’t warmed since 1998
    “For the years 1998-2005, temperature did not increase. This period coincides with society’s continued pumping of more CO2 into the atmosphere.” (Bob Carter)
    No, it hasn’t been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn’t the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What’s more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.
    And in case that turns out not to be correct, there’s always a fallback position:
    “There’s also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on surface air temperatures when there are other, more useful [yeah, more useful all right... more useful to plug your agenda - Ed], indicators that can give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance — due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called ‘thermal mass’) — tend to give a much more ‘steady’ indication of the warming that is happening. Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon…”
    The now-famous ‘dog ate my warming’ excuse. Surface temperatures? We don’t need no stinkin’ surface temperatures… Please just ignore the fact that we obsessed over surface temperatures for the last 25 years, OK?
    So how come, Un-Sk Ps-Sc, a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters (a peer-reviewed journal, note) acknowledges the existence of the Pause and tries to explain it?
    In his new paper, [Shaun] Lovejoy applies the same approach to the 15-year period after 1998, during which globally averaged temperatures remained high by historical standards, but were somewhat below most predictions generated by the complex computer models used by scientists to estimate the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions.
    The deceleration in rising temperatures during this 15-year period is sometimes referred to as a “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming, and has raised questions about why the rate of surface warming on Earth has been markedly slower than in previous decades. Since levels of greenhouse gases have continued to rise throughout the period, some skeptics have argued that the recent pattern undercuts the theory that global warming in the industrial era has been caused largely by human-made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
    Lovejoy’s new study concludes that there has been a natural cooling fluctuation of about 0.28 to 0.37 degrees Celsius since 1998 — a pattern that is in line with variations that occur historically every 20 to 50 years, according to the analysis.
    But surely climate models were supposed to take account of natural climate variations, not just the effect of anthropogenic CO2? Why is it that the models failed to predict the Pause? Is it because the variables in the models are set such that CO2 has far too large an influence on the model output, and natural variations have been minimised? Just a thought.
    In any case, just enjoy the embarrassing squirming and wriggling of the warm-mongers as they battle it out to explain (or ignore) the Pause.

    The best of all the warmist topics is the one about China joining the ETS stated as a positive. It's like applauding Chechnya joining the Sicilian mafia. Oh yes!, now our credibility will shoot up sky high!
    Woohoo ...
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  34. #11434
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    ^^ Since the premise of the above post is false, as shown in the post immediately above it, the cut and paste above is yet another waste of forum space. Good one Marc

  35. #11435
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    I repeat, why not put aside the disparaging remarks and contribute with some evidence instead...
    +1

    I think we have been asked to debate the topic, not engage in personal attacks and trolling. Some of our posters don't seem to be able to understand something this simple, way more simple than understanding the climate...

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  36. #11436
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    For the "There's been no global warming since 199x brigade", you are wrong. This plot is surface temperature only - there is no "the ocean ate my warming" in this data...

    Last 20 years global monthly average surface air temperature. The thin blue line represents the monthly values. The thick red line is the linear fit, with 95% confidence intervals indicated by the two thin red lines. The thick green line represents a 5-degree polynomial fit, with 95% confidence intervals indicated by the two thin green lines. A few key statistics is given in the lower part of the diagram (note that the linear trend is the monthly trend). Last month included in analysis: May 2014. Last diagram update: 11 June 2014.



    climate4you GlobalTemperatures
    what can't you provide the data from the year requested? have another go. You too have started the weaselling tactics again!
    regards inter

  37. #11437
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Your 'question" was based on a false premise - the premise that "data & scientific institutions that show there has been no significant increase in the globes average temperature since 1998" simply isn't true. Whether you asked it first or not is rather irrelevant.

    I repeat, why not put aside the disparaging remarks and contribute with some evidence instead...
    Would it be too much to ask to man or woman up, have some backbone & just answer the question without evading it in your typical fashion!
    regards inter

  38. #11438
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Are you saying that data & scientific institutions that show there has been no significant increase in the globes average temperature since 1998 are lying, ignorant or disregarding reality then?
    regards inter
    Answered:

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    There aren't any scientific institutions or data sets that "show there has been no significant increase in the globes average temperature since 1998".
    Your response:

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Would it be too much to ask to man or woman up, have some backbone & just answer the question without evading it in your typical fashion!
    My question:

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Why not put aside the disparaging remarks and contribute with some evidence instead?

  39. #11439
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    what can't you provide the data from the year requested? have another go. You too have started the weaselling tactics again!
    regards inter
    For the record (and intertd6), here is a graph based on the UAH satellite record - the one endorsed by climate skeptics like Dr Roy Spenser - for the skeptics' cherry-picked period 1998 to the present. Nothing has been done to manipulate the red data line. The green mathematical linear trend line shows whether it is warming or cooling since the start of the data series in 1998.





    It is not surprising to see that the trend is showing continued warming, since 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of the instrument temperature record have occurred since 2000. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.


  40. #11440
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    You can tell when the skeptics are desperate when they repeatedly ask for a single range of years. We've been over this before and it is pretty clear that the 'since 1998' meme represents two things:

    Firstly, as John2b points out, it is a cherry pick. If you pick the year before or after 1998 the gradient of the trend line alters (up) markedly. This is the reason why climate science doesn't waste much time with short spans less than 25 years or so; year by year noise makes seeing the climate trends messy and inaccurate. Even so, there are other signs that the planet has continued to warm even over that short time period. The longer the question gets asked, the less likely the trend will be flat because warming has continued. Pretty soon, it will be irrelevant so the cherry pickers will move on to another hot year, perhaps 2010.

    Secondly, repeatedly asking for 'since 1998' is trolling. The question has been answered plenty of times in this thread, and the responses are all approximately the same.

    I also support John2b's request to 'put aside the disparaging remarks and contribute with some evidence instead?'

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  41. #11441
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    For the record (and intertd6), here is a graph based on the UAH satellite record - the one endorsed by climate skeptics like Dr Roy Spenser - for the skeptics' cherry-picked period 1998 to the present. Nothing has been done to manipulate the red data line. The green mathematical linear trend line shows whether it is warming or cooling since the start of the data series in 1998.





    It is not surprising to see that the trend is showing continued warming, since 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of the instrument temperature record have occurred since 2000. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.

    well you have some manipulated data loosely based on some facts to suit your cause that clearly shows no significant warming since 1998, there are a number of different data sets from your site which range from your less than 0.07'C / 16 years increase to approx' 0.01'C increase / 16 years, ( because your relatively new on the debate, the content of these data sets have already been argued & displayed by some of your comrades on the debate previously & shown to be alarmist garbage!) but back to my question which was a simple yes or no answer, now that you have shown that there has been no significant warming over the period since 1998, are the people who provide & interpret this data lying, ignorant or blatantly disregarding reality?
    A little clue to the manipulation of your so called facts can be seen in the top ten warmest years data, funny how one set of data shows 1998 as the warmest year & the other states 2010 as the warmest year, the two do not correlate to each other! Do you think we are all fools or something?
    regards inter

  42. #11442
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    You can tell when the skeptics are desperate when they repeatedly ask for a single range of years. We've been over this before and it is pretty clear that the 'since 1998' meme represents two things:

    Firstly, as John2b points out, it is a cherry pick. If you pick the year before or after 1998 the gradient of the trend line alters (up) markedly. This is the reason why climate science doesn't waste much time with short spans less than 25 years or so; year by year noise makes seeing the climate trends messy and inaccurate. Even so, there are other signs that the planet has continued to warm even over that short time period. The longer the question gets asked, the less likely the trend will be flat because warming has continued. Pretty soon, it will be irrelevant so the cherry pickers will move on to another hot year, perhaps 2010.

    Secondly, repeatedly asking for 'since 1998' is trolling. The question has been answered plenty of times in this thread, and the responses are all approximately the same.

    I also support John2b's request to 'put aside the disparaging remarks and contribute with some evidence instead?'
    you can tell when the alarmists are floundering when they can't explain why the temperature isn't rising as predicted when CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere at an exponential rate & ruining there doomsday predictions.
    as far as the disparaging remarks, your camp started back on that tact as soon as a simple question was asked of them.
    regards inter

  43. #11443
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    but back to my question which was a simple yes or no answer, now that you have shown that there has been no significant warming over the period since 1998, are the people who provide & interpret this data lying, ignorant or blatantly disregarding reality?
    Since I have just shown that there IS significant warming in the period 1998 to today (and you have failed to provide any information to show that there has not been a continuing rise in global surface temperature since 1998), the answer is yes - I think the people who claim there isn't are "lying, ignorant or blatantly disregarding reality".

  44. #11444
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Since I have just shown that there IS significant warming in the period 1998 to today (and you have failed to provide any information to show that there has not been a continuing rise in global surface temperature since 1998), the answer is yes - I think the people who claim there isn't are "lying, ignorant or blatantly disregarding reality".
    Sorry, but just because your interpretation of significant justifies your belief doesn't make it so, but to the rest if the population significant means
    1.sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy."a significant increase in sales"
    I would be certainly confident you don't have the credibility or credentials to rewrite the meaning of the word in any reference literature.

    regards inter

  45. #11445
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Sorry, but just because your interpretation of significant justifies your belief doesn't make it so, but to the rest if the population significant means
    1.sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy."a significant increase in sales"
    I would be certainly confident you don't have the credibility or credentials to rewrite the meaning of the word in any reference literature.

    Thank you for your candid assessment of my personal credibility. Now back to the forum topic...

    The dictionary definition of "significant" that you gave works just fine - there is no need to re-interpret anything. The ~0.1 degree increase in the 15 year period since 1998 represent a warming rate that matches that of the last century, which is extraordinary. If sales went up by ten times, most people would consider that "significant". Quote from NASA:

    "As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."


    Global Warming : Feature Articles

  46. #11446
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Thank you for your candid assessment of my personal credibility. Now back to the forum topic...

    The dictionary definition of "significant" that you gave works just fine - there is no need to re-interpret anything. The ~0.1 degree increase in the 15 year period since 1998 represent a warming rate that matches that of the last century, which is extraordinary. If sales went up by ten times, most people would consider that "significant". Quote from NASA:

    "As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."


    Global Warming : Feature Articles
    what ever! You still haven't answered a simple yes on no question to the time frame quoted? I must say your political expertise of ducking, diving, weaving & weaselling out of a simple question is certainly honed to candidate level! The trouble is you forget that there are real people here with real life experience that separates them from the wannabe backslappers.
    regards inter

  47. #11447
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    what ever! You still haven't answered a simple yes on no question to the time frame quoted?
    The answer aligns perfectly well to the time frame quoted and I specifically couched the answer to make that clear, by saying the rate of warming in the last 15 years being ~0.1 degrees (equivalent to ~0.7 degrees per century) is "roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming" and, yes, most people (me included) would call that "significant".

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    I must say your political expertise of ducking, diving, weaving & weaselling out of a simple question is certainly honed to candidate level! The trouble is you forget that there are real people here with real life experience that separates them from the wannabe backslappers.
    For the umpteenth time, please keep you disparaging remarks to yourself and constrain your replies to the topic of the forum. Your persistent muck-raking adds no credibility to your arguments.

  48. #11448
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default Re: Emission Trading

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Do you think we are all fools or something?
    regards inter
    Is that a rhetorical question?

    If not then...I think you are all something. Really something.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  49. #11449
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    you can tell when the alarmists are floundering when they can't explain why the temperature isn't rising as predicted when CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere at an exponential rate & ruining there doomsday predictions.
    as far as the disparaging remarks, your camp started back on that tact as soon as a simple question was asked of them.
    regards inter
    The reason why climate science focusses on longer term periods is so that short term variability does not mask the signal. That is exactly what is going on. Greenhouse gases aren't the only influence on climate and climate science would be the last to suggest it is the only one. Picking a short period starting with a high surface air temperature and then claiming that CO2 is not having the effect claimed is just loading the bases for trolling.

    Global Temperature: the Post-1998 Surprise | Open Mind

    Given how rapidly global temperature was rising prior to 1998, what’s the most surprising thing about global temperature since 1998?
    Most who call themselves “skeptics” of global warming would probably say “No global warming since 1998!” Under the name “hiatus” or “pause,” it features prominently in public discussion and even in senate testimony (e.g. from Judith Curry). In truth, such a “pause” or “hiatus” is not that surprising, neither from a statistical point of view nor based on climate model output. But there is one thing about post-1998 temperatures, compared to the pre-1998 temperatures, that is quite a surprise.

    It has — quite rightly — been pointed out that surface air temperature (SAT) isn’t all there is to global climate or global warming. Since 1998 we’ve witness sizeable warming of the oceans, including the deep ocean. We’ve seen a staggering decline of Arctic sea ice and the continued dwindling of most of the world’s glaciers. Sea level has continued to rise at a rate much faster than the 20th-century average (which itself was much higher than the average over the last several thousand years). It has been emphasized that a lack of “statistically significant” warming is not the same as a lack of warming. It has also been pointed out that the “pause” in SAT is not inconsistent with climate model simulations, that in fact climate models show episodes like we’ve observed “since 1998″ even in a still-warming world. And it has been shown (as climate scientists knew all along) that greenhouse gases aren’t the only factor influencing temperature, that “since 1998″ we’ve seen the most prominent known non-greenhouse factors (el Nino southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols, and solar variations) conspire to lower global temperature. It’s obvious to those whose eyes are open that without continued greenhouse-gas warming to offset these natural factors, we would have seen a notable decline in global temperature “since 1998.”
    See if you can put your mind to a logical response without disparaging comments. If you think the only measure of changes in the climate is SAT since 1998 you're sadly mistaken.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  50. #11450
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Moderating Climate Change Hysteria
    Christopher Calder - nonprofit, nonpartisan food security advocate

    It is now my opinion, given all the facts at hand, that “Climate Change,” a.k.a. global warming, has become a pathological, somewhat Orwellian faith based doomsday religion that has sailed far away from honest science. Speculation and hunches are not the same as proof, yet many are frightened and/or titillated that mankind is headed for certain annihilation.

    I do not welcome mass death, but many Christians who believe in End Times theology seem to long for it. I cannot help but notice how much Climate Change enthusiasts and Christian doomsayers have in common in terms of their basic subconscious psychology

    The Left has embraced Climate Change philosophy with a certain amount of glee. Climate Change proves that free markets are bad, that governments know best, and that industrialized society is somehow sinful. But if one looks at the actual facts, it is certain that government efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have largely been economic, environmental, and humanitarian disasters. In addition, greenhouse gas emissions have increased worldwide despite all the rules, regulations, and costly renewable energy projects. Much of what we have done so far has only made matters worse, so my plea is for more thoughtful consideration as to the negative effects of proposed climate change cures. Many Climate Change true believers have now become so hysterical that they have lost all rational perspective and no longer care about the scientific method, freedom of speech, or the welfare of the world's poor.

    The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the organization that governments look to for justification for spending money on renewable energy projects and carbon taxes, found that the Earth has not warmed since 1998 despite the fact that greenhouse gas emissions have increased. The acceleration in greenhouse gas release was due in no small part to global biofuel farming, which dramatically increased the production of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases. So why did global warming stop in 1998 as greenhouse gas emissions accelerated? That fact goes counter to the basic premises of man made global warming theory.

    Voters should read about the shocking IPCC climate change cover up scandal. Government officials told climate scientists to "cover up" the fact that Earth's temperature has not risen since 1998. Also read the apt criticisms of the IPCC report which were presented byMassachusetts Institute of Technology climate expert, Dr. Richard Lindzen, who was a lead author of Chapter 7 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. Lindzen stated that "The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence’ — "It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going."

    Read the rest here: Moderating Climate Change Hysteria
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

Page 229 of 377 FirstFirst ... 129 179 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 279 329 ... 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
  •