Emission Trading and climate change

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

The science was settled...

It's not drought, it's climate change, say scientists

MELISSA FYFE

August 30, 2009

theage.com.au

SCIENTISTS studying Victoria's crippling drought have, for the first time, proved the link between rising levels of greenhouse gases and the state's dramatic decline in rainfall.

A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change.

More here.

Oops...

Jury still out on climate change: CSIRO

BY ROSSLYN BEEBY, SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT REPORTER

19 Jan, 2010 08:54 AM

Canberratimes.com.au

Australia's peak science agency, the CSIRO, has backed away from attributing a decade of drought in Tasmania to climate change, claiming ''the jury is still out'' on the science.

The comments follow the issuing of a CSIRO report yesterday, revealing drought has cut water availability in northern Tasmania's premier wine growing region by 24 per cent, with river flows reaching record lows. One of the report's co-authors, hydrologist David Post, told The Canberra Times there was ''no evidence'' linking drought to climate change in eastern Australia, including the Murray-Darling Basin.

''At this stage, we'd prefer to say we're talking about natural variability. The science is not sufficiently advanced to say it's climate change, one way or the other. The jury is still out on that,'' Dr Post said.

More here.

How fast can they back pedal from this mess...

But wait, there is more indeed!

Originally Posted by chrisp

But wait, there is more:

Climate change is real and it's here: report

TOM ARUP

March 15, 2010

AUSTRALIA's two leading scientific agencies will release a report today showing Australia has warmed significantly over the past 50 years, and stating categorically that ''climate change is real''.

The State of the Climate snapshot, drawn together by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology partly in response to recent attacks on the science underpinning climate change, shows that Australia's mean temperature has increased 0.7 degrees since 1960. The statement also finds average daily maximum temperatures have increased every decade for the past 50 years.

(from: Climate change is real and it's here: report )

BTW, the article finishes up with this paragraph:

"CSIRO chief executive Megan Clark said yesterday that while society would debate the science underpinning climate change - much like previous debates about the link between smoking and lung cancer - CSIRO's role was to release ''unemotional'' scientific data."

That analogy seems to keep popping up again and again

Everyone, please hold your breath. We wouldn't like to blow the house of cards over.

It is a tragedy that this once great institution is being eroded because of this farce. And they wonder why kids these days don't want to study maths and science any more.

"CSIRO's role was to release ''unemotional'' scientific data."

You mean unemotional stuff like this?

"If the earth's temperature rose 2C, she warned, there would be risks that were "difficult and dangerous"."

I guess we better do something before it’s “too late”.

See more of the CSIRO decline that they can’t hide rehashed below.

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

A pretty green outfit now...

Professor Sackett said there was no real dispute within the scientific community about the reality of climate change but she wanted non-scientists to have greater access to the evidence to help inform the necessary public debate about crafting policy responses to the problem.



"The public must be provided with the best possible advice," Professor Sackett said.

Like this?

We've got 5 years to save world says Australia's chief scientist Professor Penny Sackett

THE planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government's chief scientist.

I liked the world more when there was only one green muppet.

Originally Posted by chrisp

You may like to ask Graeme Pealman for his view on your ill founded comment.

Scientists bitter over interference - National - theage.com.au

The CSIRO is just starting to shake off the gag put in place by the former government.

(Note the date on the article. It isn't the Rudd government that is being referred to in this article.)

Note the date on the article. But it is the Rudd government being referred to in this one:

THE nation's peak science agency has tried to gag the publication of a paper by one of its senior environmental economists attacking the Rudd government's climate change policies. The paper, by the CSIRO's Clive Spash, argues the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is an ineffective way to cut emissions, and instead direct legislation or a tax on carbon is needed. The paper was accepted for publication by the journal New Political Economy after being internationally peer-reviewed.

You see, historically the CSIRO being a government entity was supposed to remain apolitical and serve Australia, not get involved in political debate. Until now:

The apolitical science organisations have weighed into the debate as they believe Australians are not being told the correct information about temperatures, rainfall, ocean levels and changes to atmospheric conditions.

Err, are Australians being told about your assumptions leading to spurious assertions due to the total lack of evidence proving AGW Theory?

Or are you too busy releasing “unemotional scientific data” like this:

AUSTRALIA'S leading scientists have hit back at climate change sceptics, accusing them of creating a "smokescreen of denial".

More examination of this issue here, including:

Spash has said his paper, The Brave New World of Carbon Trading, is a dispassionate analysis of ETS policies and is not partisan.

He was told in February he could publish the work if it were peer-reviewed. In July, after it had been cleared for publication, the CSIRO told him it could not be published.

Spash has now been told he can't publish the paper - even in a private capacity - because it is ``politically sensitive''.

Furthermore, the CSIRO has attempted to win brownie points with the Government, which controls its purse strings, by disquieting attempts to intimidate him.

Spash says he received a letter outlining a list of trivial instances in which he was accused of breaching CSIRO policy, giving as an example a claim he had not completed a leave form properly.

It also contains this:

In a 6200-word address to the Lowy Institute on Friday, Kevin Rudd outdid Hanrahan with his dire predictions of ruination.
Soaring temperatures, greater drought, storm surges, rising sea levels and a drop in our GNP are all just over the horizon.

That analogy keeps popping up again and again.

Families in fear as energy costs soar

Pricing regulator IPART proposed rises of 44-62 per cent over three years to pay for a backlog of network maintenance and the Federal Government's proposed ETS.

The Ombudsman said these increases could cause "fuel poverty". "It may well, that's our concern, particularly if the [ETS] comes in," she said. Fuel poverty - a household spending more than 10 per cent of income for an adequate 21C warmth - contributed to nearly 37,000 English and Welsh deaths in 2008-09.

In Australia, it isn't the cold, it's the heat. High temperatures were linked to 374 deaths in Victoria last year.

IPART said a single aged pensioner would spend 7-12 per cent of income on electricity after the ETS and an average household up to 6 per cent more.

Probably not a good time to run an election campaign on “the greatest moral challenge of our generation”. What else could we use, umm, health? Maybe the next generation after Rudd will have some strength of conviction, rather than sense of convenience (if there is a next generation).

I know there is no science proving this theory, but if I did believe it, and believed Rudd’s rhetoric about the ETS, I’d be feeling very betrayed and disappointed right about now. Or I might still just believe...

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

You boys are doing well while I am on a break. as for the CSIRO we all know climate changes nobody disputes this.

We just dispute your reasons for the changes. Sorry no bannanas boys.

Just in case you might be implying or suggesting that the CSIRO doesn't give any reason for the temperature rise:

"It is very likely that human activities have caused most of the global warming observed since 1950

There is greater than 90% certainty that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century. International research shows that it is extremely unlikely that the observed warming could be explained by natural causes alone. Evidence of human influence has been detected in ocean warming, sea-level rise, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns. CSIRO research has shown that higher greenhouse gas levels are likely to have caused about half of the winter rainfall reduction in south-west Western Australia."

(from: http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf )

.
.

Originally Posted by chrisp

Just in case you might be implying or suggesting that the CSIRO doesn't give any reason for the temperature rise:

Originally Posted by chrisp

"It is very likely that human activities have caused most of the global warming observed since 1950

There is greater than 90% certainty that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century. International research shows that it is extremely unlikely that the observed warming could be explained by natural causes alone. Evidence of human influence has been detected in ocean warming, sea-level rise, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns. CSIRO research has shown that higher greenhouse gas levels are likely to have caused about half of the winter rainfall reduction in south-west Western Australia."

(from: http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf )

Imagine that – after being appointed by Rudd’s government, and promised billions of dollars, the new CSIRO leader supports the “idea” that “probably” global warming is caused by humans. Who woulda thunk? Very scientific stuff indeed.

.

.

Thanks to environmentalists people have a bloated idea of human importance on the planet earth.
.
I asked a colleague to come up with some information about the size of humans relative to the size of our planet. If the earth was reduced to the size of an average room (a 3 m diameter sphere) and a human sat upon it, he would not be able to see humans at all. Even if he knelt down and put his eyeball as close as possible, and squinted, he would not make them out. He would need a microscope – or maybe an electron microscope – to detect humans on that 3 m sphere. My colleague did the math, and here is his result. I make further comments below that:
.
.

.
.
As you can see, humans would be twice as small as bacteria at that scale, and the person would need an electron microscope to see them. Also, they occupy a very small part of the surface area of earth, which is mostly ocean, wilderness and desert.
.
Although they have almost no affect on the planet, humans have vivid imaginations. They love to make up myths, from Zeus to Rain Gods, and from UFO’s to ghosts. One of their favourite myths is that they influence the planet’s climate. They may be microscopically insignificant, but they have huge egos.
.

.

Originally Posted by Allen James

Although they have almost no affect on the planet, humans have vivid imaginations. They love to make up myths, from Zeus to Rain Gods, and from UFO’s to ghosts. One of their favourite myths is that they influence the planet’s climate. They may be microscopically insignificant, but they have huge egos.

Allen,

I take it that you think that is a good analogy? If so, I'm pleased that it gives you a nice warm feeling of blissful insignificance (you insignificant so and so. ). By all means, go ahead and do whatever it is that you want, after all you are only a very insignificant part of a very insignificant human race. Whatever you do won't make any real difference at all in the grand scheme of thing. (Have we heard that argument before? )

Back to your analogy, There is a problem. It is not the volume of human bodies on the planet that is the issue here, it is the volume of CO2 that is the issue.

Also, your friends analogy (BTW, is it really the work of your friend, or did you hock it from the internet?) is static model. You need an analogy that shows the accumulation of CO2.

You (or your friend) might like to rework the analogy to allow for the average of 27.2 tonnes of CO2 (equivalent) that each Australian produces per year. The CSIRO Home Energy Saving Handbook uses the analogy of 1 large plastic garbage holds 100 gram of CO2. (The Victorian government uses "black balloons") i.e. factor the volume of 272,000 garbage bags per year per person into your scaled analogy.

.

Originally Posted by chrisp

I take it that you think that is a good analogy?

I provided no analogy; just some facts. Do the math and check the figures for yourself if you have doubts about it.
.

If so, I'm pleased that it gives you a nice warm feeling of blissful insignificance (you insignificant so and so.).

Bacteria (and humans) by themselves are not insignificant, but their effect on various things in the universe is insignificant, as is their size, volume, etc., when compared to the planet Earth. That was made very clear. Which part confused you?
.

By all means, go ahead and do whatever it is that you want, after all you are only a very insignificant part of a very insignificant human race.

This is mischievous misdirection, since humans are not insignificant by themselves, but are insignificant (in size and volume), regarding the planet, as was clearly shown.
.

Back to your analogy,

What analogy did I make? [crickets chirping]
.

There is a problem. It is not the volume of human bodies on the planet that is the issue here, it is the volume of CO2 that is the issue.

No, the problem (as explained) is that environmentalists and their cohorts have created the false impression that humans, along with their buildings and industry, are a big part of the planet. Actually they are a microscopic smear on a few small parts of the planet, and their affect on Earth is virtually zero.
.
Your comments about CO2 are irrelevant, since in the time of the dinosaurs there was many times the amount of CO2 we have now, and all it did was help life proliferate. Everything you have said about C02 in this thread is irrelevant. Man’s microscopic contribution to “pollution” on this planet has been lied about for decades by greenies, and has now become their “science” as well as their religion.
.

.
.

Originally Posted by Allen James

Although they have almost no affect on the planet, humans have vivid imaginations. They love to make up myths, from Zeus to Rain Gods, and from UFO’s to ghosts. One of their favourite myths is that they influence the planet’s climate. They may be microscopically insignificant, but they have huge egos.

Originally Posted by Allen James

.I provided no analogy;

My bad! Sorry! You provided a "myth".

.

Originally Posted by chrisp

My bad! Sorry! You provide a "myth".

Maths is a myth?
.
This is what I expect from Sun God worshipers.

.

Originally Posted by watson

Open again

Good post, and I agree.

.
.

Originally Posted by Allen James

Thanks to environmentalists people have a bloated idea of human importance on the planet earth.
.
I asked a colleague to come up with some information about the size of humans relative to the size of our planet. If the earth was reduced to the size of an average room (a 3 m diameter sphere) and a human sat upon it, he would not be able to see humans at all. Even if he knelt down and put his eyeball as close as possible, and squinted, he would not make them out. He would need a microscope – or maybe an electron microscope – to detect humans on that 3 m sphere. My colleague did the math, and here is his result. I make further comments below that:
.
.

.
.
As you can see, humans would be twice as small as bacteria at that scale, and the person would need an electron microscope to see them. Also, they occupy a very small part of the surface area of earth, which is mostly ocean, wilderness and desert.
.
Although they have almost no affect on the planet, humans have vivid imaginations. They love to make up myths, from Zeus to Rain Gods, and from UFO’s to ghosts. One of their favourite myths is that they influence the planet’s climate. They may be microscopically insignificant, but they have huge egos.
.

.

After putting up the post above I was accused of creating a 'myth'.
.
The simple mathematical facts are that a person 2 metres tall, examining the planet Earth if reduced to a three metre diameter, would need to use an electron microscope to see humans, which would be half the size of bacteria, on that scale. The math provided backs that up.
.
.
Scene: A crowd gathers around a perfect reproduction of the planet Earth, reduced to three metres diameter. It is contained inside a glass room, lit from every direction.
Guide: This is a model of the real planet Earth, and it is identical in every way, but it has been shrunk to three metres diameter – about the size of a bedroom, in width.
Joe Sixpack: Well, it’s impressive. [He goes very close and eyeballs the surface of the sphere] Isn’t this where Melbourne is supposed to be?
Guide: Er, yes.
Joe Sixpack: I can’t see any people.
Guide: Heh heh, no sir, for that you would need an electron microscope. Would you like one?
Joe Sixpack: Okay, sure.
Guide: {Wheels device in and focuses on Melbourne]
Joe Sixpack: Thanks. Oh yeah, I can make out some little dots, along what might be streets.
Guide: Yes, they are humans.
Joe Sixpack: Wow. They’re very small, ain’t they?
Guide: Tiny. Smaller than bacteria, relatively speaking.
Joe Sixpack: [Walks backwards to view entire three metre planet model] That’s amazing!
Guide: What is?
Joe Sixpack: The planet Earth. It’s huge! Compared to those microscopic specks, I mean.
Guide: Oh that’s nothing. In the next room you can see how insignificant the Earth is compared to the Sun.
Joe Sixpack: Really?
Guide: That’s nothing. There are much bigger stars. You really are a newbie to this, aren’t you?
Joe Sixpack: Well, I haven’t had much time for this stuff.
Guide: Okay, fasten your seatbelt. Here we go.
.
.
.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LLfDG0GNvc"]YouTube - The Stars and the Grand Universe[/ame]

[The Stars and the Grand Universe]
.
.
.

Originally Posted by woodbe

These Scientists have been hard at work for the last several years researching the effects of climate change on Butterflies.

I wonder what the relative size of a butterfly would be if the earth was reduced to size of an average room (a 3m diameter sphere)?

Apparently the rescaled relative size has something to do with the contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere by butterflies.

.
.

Originally Posted by chrisp

I wonder what the relative size of a butterfly would be if the earth was reduced to size of an average room (a 3m diameter sphere)?

Originally Posted by chrisp

Apparently the rescaled relative size has something to do with the contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere by butterflies

.
More mischievous misdirection, as the post wasn’t just about size. It was about the fact that environmentalists have created the perception that humans are a BIG part of the planet Earth.
.
In reality they are just a microscopic smear on its surface, in a few places. Most of it is wilderness, desert and ocean, and doesn’t have microscopic humans.
.
Once you realize this, the greenies’ view that humans are “poisoning the planet” is a lot easier to see through.
.
I think the problem has been exacerbated by GPS and satellite photos, Google Earth, etc. People think humans are much bigger than they are.
.
.
.

Originally Posted by Bedford

Gee ya snuck that one in!.......honest I was really bustin', but I don't think I made it measurably deeper.

I'm pleased that someone is reading this thread - and that you found it.

I decided to leave the original text in the post and just [s]strike it out[/s]. Otherwise, as you can see, Allen had already quoted it and I wouldn't want people to think that Allen was nuts or something quoting text that no longer existed.

Originally Posted by chrisp

Just in case you might be implying or suggesting that the CSIRO doesn't give any reason for the temperature rise:

"It is very likely that human activities have caused most of the global warming observed since 1950

There is greater than 90% certainty that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century. International research shows that it is extremely unlikely that the observed warming could be explained by natural causes alone. Evidence of human influence has been detected in ocean warming, sea-level rise, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns. CSIRO research has shown that higher greenhouse gas levels are likely to have caused about half of the winter rainfall reduction in south-west Western Australia."

(from: http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf )

This window dressing is embarrassing. Mainly because with the exception of the last sentence, it has pretty much been cut and pasted from the IPCC. But that is not to say the last sentence is not embarrassing in and of itself, just seehere.

But to save some time in going through and pointing out how much waffle this really is, the one piece of apparently quantifiable information that stands out is the 90% probability statement (actually stated as >90%, which is interesting).

I would be grateful for your explanation as to how this figure was derived. Ideally, its source output should appear to be something like .937 but I would be grateful for your explanation of this probabilities determination?

Actually, rehashing the CSIRO's Penny Sackett reminded me of another doomsday maiden named Dale Arden. You Flash Gordon fans may remember her claim:

"Flash, I love you, but we've only got fourteen hours to save the Earth."

More similarities with AGW Theory found here.

Originally Posted by woodbe

Like Rod, I've had the odd lol moment, but I didn't expect to have one reading our local rag. Andrew Faulkner has a piece in it generally bemoaning the multitude and quality of signs we face in day to day life, with the added electioneering signs we have in SA at the moment.

Anyway, towards the end of the article he points out some issues with the ALP and Liberal signage and then pops out this comment on the quality of Climate Scepticism:



I couldn't find the article online, but it's in the Eastern Courier, March 17, P18. "Too many signs are a bad sign"

So looks like your mob better get to him Rod, he didn't mention climategate at all!



woodbe.

What exactly is a climate sceptic? I'm fairly sure we've got a climate.

But I'm very sceptical of AGW Theory.

Originally Posted by watson

Open again

I guess threads are like minds, they work best when they are open.

This visual presentation below is representative of a scale of forces in our world that are currently unfathomable, and constantly hold my attention as we try to uncover some of the answers.

Originally Posted by Allen James

.
.

After putting up the post above I was accused of creating a 'myth'.
.
The simple mathematical facts are that a person 2 metres tall, examining the planet Earth if reduced to a three metre diameter, would need to use an electron microscope to see humans, which would be half the size of bacteria, on that scale. The math provided backs that up.
.
.
Scene: A crowd gathers around a perfect reproduction of the planet Earth, reduced to three metres diameter. It is contained inside a glass room, lit from every direction.
Guide: This is a model of the real planet Earth, and it is identical in every way, but it has been shrunk to three metres diameter – about the size of a bedroom, in width.
Joe Sixpack: Well, it’s impressive. [He goes very close and eyeballs the surface of the sphere] Isn’t this where Melbourne is supposed to be?
Guide: Er, yes.
Joe Sixpack: I can’t see any people.
Guide: Heh heh, no sir, for that you would need an electron microscope. Would you like one?
Joe Sixpack: Okay, sure.
Guide: {Wheels device in and focuses on Melbourne]
Joe Sixpack: Thanks. Oh yeah, I can make out some little dots, along what might be streets.
Guide: Yes, they are humans.
Joe Sixpack: Wow. They’re very small, ain’t they?
Guide: Tiny. Smaller than bacteria, relatively speaking.
Joe Sixpack: [Walks backwards to view entire three metre planet model] That’s amazing!
Guide: What is?
Joe Sixpack: The planet Earth. It’s huge! Compared to those microscopic specks, I mean.
Guide: Oh that’s nothing. In the next room you can see how insignificant the Earth is compared to the Sun.
Joe Sixpack: Really?
Guide: That’s nothing. There are much bigger stars. You really are a newbie to this, aren’t you?
Joe Sixpack: Well, I haven’t had much time for this stuff.
Guide: Okay, fasten your seatbelt. Here we go.
.
.
.

YouTube - The Stars and the Grand Universe

[The Stars and the Grand Universe]
.
.
.

And this study while also fascinating from a biological perspective, is now going to be subjected to ridicule for the spurious assertions it makes based on trust in authority figures. Do you really think the claims based on this study of nympho butterflies adds any credibility to AGW Theory?

Originally Posted by woodbe

These Scientists have been hard at work for the last several years researching the effects of climate change on Butterflies. Because of our human interest in butterflies, there are good records of the dates of emergence of them going back 65 years.



There's a report on ABC just in but I first heard it on JJJ

Interesting stuff, and supporting evidence again, but not of the proof that will interest Dr Freud - his requires a time machine.

woodbe.

But if you want to talk about butterflies, check this out.

This led Lorenz to realize that long-term weather forecasting was doomed.

And more here.

He also appreciated that in real weather situations, this sensitivity could mean the development of a front or pressure-system where there never would have been one in previous models.

As for time machines, Laplace's Demon negates this need entirely at the first site listed.

"We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at any given moment knew all of the forces that animate nature and the mutual positions of the beings that compose it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit the data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom; for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."

But as we are not omnipotent, we must settle for the unknown. Quantum multiverse theories currently do battle with these same demons, but they are not easily slain. Certainly not by horny aussie students studying horny butterflies, then making spurious assertions.

I highly recommend Lorenz's work to all to read and assess. But in the interim, here's two pretty butterflies, one mathematical and one biological.

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

I guess threads are like minds, they work best when they are open.

But not so open that one's brain falls out ("plop!").

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

But to save some time in going through and pointing out how much waffle this really is, the one piece of apparently quantifiable information that stands out is the 90% probability statement (actually stated as >90%, which is interesting).

I would be grateful for your explanation as to how this figure was derived. Ideally, its source output should appear to be something like .937 but I would be grateful for your explanation of this probabilities determination?

I'm reasonably sure that the 90% statement is probably a direct quote (or close to a direct quote) from the IPCC document. I too thought it sounded 'IPCC-ish' when I read it.

I'm sure you can find the methodology used for the determination of the certainty categories in the IPCC reports.

I take it that you are betting on the <10% probable outcome? If so, do you think it is good and rational reasoning given the scientific evidence?

Is there a motive behind your entrenched 'scepticism'?

.
.

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

What exactly is a climate sceptic? I'm fairly sure we've got a climate.

But I'm very sceptical of AGW Theory.

It seems the AGW church is based on the premise that microscopic man’s anthropogenic warming of a globe far too big for him to even fathom, is so utterly non-debatable, that any opposition to it is the same as “denying climate” itself. This flies in the face of science, since any scientific theory is open to challenge, and will often change as new information comes in. Their labeling of AGW sceptics as ‘climate sceptics’ is akin to labeling round earth theorists as ‘Earth Sceptics’.
.
.
Scene: Inside 3 metre Earth exhibition. A 3 metre perfect reproduction of Earth hangs in the air inside a glass room, lit from all directions, as people examine it, some through electron microscopes.
.
Joe Sixpack: Looking at humans under this electron microscope, they sure look insignificant on this huge planet Earth.
Guide: Yes, and they only occupy a small part of the surface area. Most of the planet is water, desert and wilderness.
Sixpack: Which makes it hard to believe they can be influencing the climate, as some of them claim.
Professor Smith: Well, humans have been claiming that for millennia.
Sixpack: They have? I thought the anthropogenic global warmers only started their church in the last decade or so.
Professor Smith: Well yes, but there have been countless other tribes who worshiped various weather Gods, believing their own human behaviour affected the weather.
Sixpack: There were?
Professor Smith: Of course. You’ve heard of tribes making human sacrifices to appease Sun Gods, or Rain Gods, I take it?
Sixpack: Yes.
Professor Smith: They believed their behaviour could influence the weather. They believed that if they behaved badly, the weather Gods would punish them through climate, by making it either too hot and dry, or too wet and cold, etc. This AGW religion is just the latest version of a human tradition that is as old as man.
Ms. Green: Rubbish. You climate sceptics make me sick.
Sixpack: Climate sceptics? Who’s denying the climate?
Ms. Green: You are. It’s clear man is responsible for global warming.
Sixpack: But your theory is just a theory, and open to debate, is it not?
Ms. Green: No. The issue is closed, and we must make amends.
Professor Smith: Yes, this is true of most weather religions. No debate, and sacrifice is a must.
Sixpack: Heh heh. They’re pretty transparent aren’t they?
Ms. Green: Climate Sceptics! You should be put to the stake and burned!
Professor Smith: Yes, that would appease your god, I suppose!
Sixpack: Lady, you need to see a therapist.
Ms. Green: I have no time for climate deniers! Harumph! [storms off]
Sixpack: Look at that slogan on her jacket. ‘Solar, not nuclear’. Hah!
Professor Smith: What an oxymoron!
Sixpack: Well, she ain’t pretty or smart, that's for sure.
Professor Smith: No I mean . . . oh never mind. She wasn’t exactly eye candy, or smart.
.
.
.

.
.
As an addendum to my last post, I should add that humans didn’t just believe they could influence weather while in primitive tribes. They continued doing this in every religion in the world, and continue doing so to this day.
.
Take a church going farmer in Horsham, Victoria, suffering hardship after years of drought. Every evening when he sits to eat with his family, he says a prayer. Amongst other things it includes, “… and we ask you Lord to bring us rain, so that we can grow our crops, and pay our bills . . .”
.
This man believes his prayer can influence the weather. So he believes HE can influence the weather.
.
Now let’s cross to a Muslim shepherd in Afghanistan. He does exactly the same thing. Bowing to Mecca, he pleads Allah to bring rain, again believing he can influence the weather in this way.
.
Humans have always believed they can influence the weather, ever since the first man believed in a God.
.
Religion took up the lion’s share of this, but these days Atheists are a growing force, especially amongst socialists. So when a group of scientists were employed by various left winged politicians to convince us that man was indeed influencing the weather, and climate, they knew that any attempt to make it religious would make them a laughing stock. So they used weather patterns and CO2 graphs instead. God was replaced with graphs and carbon dioxide.
.
A few hollywierd movies like “The Day After” along with a great deal of media hype, convinced many millions to go along with this latest version of ‘man affects the weather’.
.
It was blown apart by climate-gate, though some AGW followers haven’t caught on to this yet.
.
.
.

Originally Posted by Allen James

Religion took up the lion’s share of this, but these days Atheists are a growing force, especially amongst socialists. So when a group of scientists were employed by various left winged politicians to convince us that man was indeed influencing the weather, and climate, they knew that any attempt to make it religious would make them a laughing stock. So they used weather patterns and CO2 graphs instead. God was replaced with graphs and carbon dioxide.

Fascinating.

Do you have a reference for that quote?

And are you sure it is not the other way around - The deity is in control of all - therefore it doesn't matter what we do.

.
.

Originally Posted by Allen James

Religion took up the lion’s share of this, but these days Atheists are a growing force, especially amongst socialists. So when a group of scientists were employed by various left winged politicians to convince us that man was indeed influencing the weather, and climate, they knew that any attempt to make it religious would make them a laughing stock. So they used weather patterns and CO2 graphs instead. God was replaced with graphs and carbon dioxide.

.

Originally Posted by chrisp

Fascinating. Do you have a reference for that quote?

.
Allen James. When I quote others I reference them.
.
.
.

And are you sure it is not the other way around - The deity is in control of all - therefore it doesn't matter what we do.

I don’t understand the question; please elaborate.
.
I made some factual statements about how Man believes he controls the weather (usually through prayer and ritual), and that this has been going on since the first human believed in God, or Gods. It is a very common and familiar human activity. Do you dispute that?
.
I have to go out again to a job, but I look forward to your reply upon my return.
.
.
.

Originally Posted by Allen James

Allen James. When I quote others I reference them.
.
I don’t understand the question; please elaborate.
.
I made some factual statements about how Man believes he controls the weather (usually through prayer and ritual), and that this has been going on since the first human believed in God, or Gods. It is a very common and familiar human activity. Do you dispute that?

Allen,

you seem to be running a 'we are insignificant' argument to prove or suggest that insignificant mankind couldn't possibly affect the weather on the huge plant Earth.

The analogy

You (or your friend) has already provided a calculation of the approximate ratio of the size of humans to the size of the planet and made reference to the size of bacteria.

You seemed to be offended when I referred to this as an 'analogy' - so I take it that not only are we not on the same page, we are not using the same dictionary.

Firstly, I see two issues with your analogy (sorry to use that word), firstly shouldn't you be comparing the size of a human to the size of the atmosphere around Earth (not the entire planet)? And secondly, as I've stated before, it is not the size of humans that counts, but rather the size of their CO2 production.

Also, the analogy (there's that word again) maybe a little deceiving in another way as the present percentage (volume) of CO2 is quite low (380ppm) so, just maybe, it won't take that much extra CO2 to make a notable difference to the CO2 concentration.

The facts

Anyway, that's enough on debasing your analogy (Oops, that word!), let's look at the facts and see how things stack up.

• CO2 levels have increased from 280ppm to 380ppm in recent times (do you dispute that?).
• The extra CO2 has shown to be almost entirely made from burning fossil fuels - man-made (do you dispute that?)

Therefore your argument that insignificant mankind couldn't make any impact on the huge earth? is false.

Your analogy is a poor one as it does not accord with observed behaviour (CO2 has actually increased due to human activity), or help explain the behaviour (poor model). It uses a wrong size/volume as a base in any case. (i.e. it is using the size of the whole earth rather than just the size of the relatively thin atmosphere).

If you want to peruse this line of argument you will then need to move to the question of whether a seemly small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere can change the climate.

.
.

Originally Posted by chrisp

Allen, you seem to be running a 'we are insignificant' argument to prove or suggest that insignificant mankind couldn't possibly affect the weather on the huge plant Earth.

We are not, by ourselves, insignificant – not by a long shot. I have the highest regard for human beings and their great achievements. I believe they will achieve much more in the future. They may even one day control the weather and climate.
.
However, at this time, in relation to the vast planet we inhabit, our affect on Earth is insignificant, which is not to insult humans. If I were to say that whales have no affect on how hard Mexican cooks work, or that watermelons have no affect on U2 DVD sales, it would not be an attempt to besmirch Mexican cooks or watermelons. It would just be an objective, emotionless fact.
.
.

The analogy

.
You (or your friend) has already provided a calculation of the approximate ratio of the size of humans to the size of the planet and made reference to the size of bacteria.

You seemed to be offended when I referred to this as an 'analogy' - so I take it that not only are we not on the same page, we are not using the same dictionary.

I phoned a colleague to ask for his math on this, as he is a mathematician. I wasn’t offended by your use of the word ‘analogy’, but it was not an analogy, so I corrected you. I merely provided the correct ratio of humans in relation to Earth, to put some perspective into place regarding our relative size. I think environmentalists have created the impression that humans are “choking the planet”, and nothing could be further from the truth.
.
.

Firstly, I see two issues with your analogy (sorry to use that word),

Here is the definition of analogy:
.
“A similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.”
.
Analogy | Define Analogy at Dictionary.com
.
I provided no analogies – just some math concerning sizes. If I talked about the earth being a pumpkin, that would be an analogy.
.
.

firstly shouldn't you be comparing the size of a human to the size of the atmosphere around Earth (not the entire planet)?

How would that help me show how small humans are compared with the Earth? Environmentalists tell us that we “poison the planet” and that we must “save the planet”. They don’t say we must “save the air”.
.
.

And secondly, as I've stated before, it is not the size of humans that counts, but rather the size of their CO2 production.

Again, my posts have nothing to do with CO2. They were about the propaganda taught to our kids about how fragile the planet is, and how humans are “killing” it. They create the impression that humans are a big part of our planet. They are not, and this is what I was showing.
.
.

Also, the analogy

What analogy?
.
.

maybe a little deceiving in another way as the present percentage (volume) of CO2 is quite low (380ppm) so, just maybe, it won't take that much extra CO2 to make a notable difference to the CO2 concentration.

So? Who cares if CO2 goes up?
.
.

Anyway, that's enough on debasing your analogy

If you believe so ardently that it is an analogy, surely you could explain the analogous part of my post. Why didn’t you?
.
.

CO2 levels have increased from 280ppm to 380ppm in recent times (do you dispute that?).

.
The extra CO2 has shown to be almost entirely made from burning fossil fuels - man-made (do you dispute that?)
.
Therefore your argument that insignificant mankind couldn't make any impact on the huge earth? is false.

An increase in CO2 will make no difference to the planet, or to life on earth. The point you have avoided a few times is that Carbon Dioxide was in much higher concentrations at the time of the dinosaurs, with no deleterious effect on life. If anything it stimulated life. At this time your whole argument is based on CO2, and CO2 is great stuff.
.
.
.

Originally Posted by Allen James

If you believe so ardently that it is an analogy, surely you could explain the analogous part of my post. Why didn’t you?

analogy (plural analogies)

1. A relationship of resemblance or equivalence between two situations, people, or objects, especially when used as a basis for explanation or extrapolation.

(From Wiktionary)

You, or your friend, make the following size relationships:

Earth == average sized room
Man == less than a bacteria

Why do you scale it anyway? Could it be that you are trying the explain how relatively insignificant the human race is on a scale that everyone can relate to?

But please don't let semantics get in the way of you arguing your case.

.

Originally Posted by chrisp

analogy (plural analogies)
1.A relationship of resemblance or equivalence between two situations, people, or objects, especially when used as a basis for explanation or extrapolation.
(From Wiktionary)

That’s not bad, but I think Oxford and Cambridge make it even clearer.
.
Oxford Dictionary:
analogy
1 a comparison between one thing and another made to explain or clarify.
2 a correspondence or partial similarity.
.
AskOxford: analogy
.
Cambridge University Press:
analogy
a comparison between things which have similar features, often used to help explain a principle or idea
- He drew an analogy between the brain and a vast computer.
- It is sometimes easier to illustrate an abstract concept by analogy with (= by comparing it with) something concrete.
.
analogous
The experience of mystic trance is in a sense analogous to sleep or drunkenness.
.
analogy - Definition of analogy noun from Cambridge Dictionary Online: Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus
.
So an analogy is comparing one thing with another, different thing. In my case I compared nothing with nothing. I merely stated how well a man could see humans on the earth if it were shrunk to 3 metres while he remained at 2 metres. If you can see any analogous comparison I made, point to it. I noticed you haven't so far.
.
.

You, or your friend, make the following size relationships:
.

Earth == average sized room
.
Man == less than a bacteria

Not quite. It would be:
.
Earth (and its humans), shrunk down to a 3 metre diameter, viewed by a two metre tall man.
.
.

Why do you scale it anyway?

For the same reason a science teacher tells us that when an ant picks up a small grain of sand and walks along, it would be the same as us picking up a car and running at 30 kph. Or when a mechanic says, “If you could stand inside your piston, you would see the walls were all scratched and worn.”
.
When dealing with environmentalists who blow humans way up out of proportion, making it sound like the planet is just a small thing, and we big humans will poison and wreck it in no time, it is worth spelling out that humans are invisible on a 3 metre sized earth, without electron microscopes. That throws cold water on the “We’re poisoning the planet” mob.
.
.

But please don't let semantics get in the way of you arguing your case.

So far that is what you are doing. I made no analogy, yet you insist I did.
.
.
.

Originally Posted by Allen James

An increase in CO2 will make no difference to the planet, or to life on earth. The point you have avoided a few times is that Carbon Dioxide was in much higher concentrations at the time of the dinosaurs, with no deleterious effect on life. If anything it stimulated life. At this time your whole argument is based on CO2, and CO2 is great stuff.

I think we maybe getting somewhere.

You seem to be now accepting that atmospheric CO2 has increased from about 280ppm to about 380ppm due to humankind burning fossil fuels in recent times.

So the question in your mind is now whether the increase in CO2 matters at all?

Is this a fair summation?

.

Originally Posted by chrisp

I think we maybe getting somewhere.

I was 'there' in about 1984, when I realized why greenies were opposed to nuclear power stations and dams.
.

You seem to be now accepting that atmospheric CO2 has increased from about 280ppm to about 380ppm due to humankind burning fossil fuels in recent times.

I didn’t accept it, but I did say it wouldn’t matter, since the amount was so much greater in past times, with no ill effect. If you don’t understand, then here is an analogy:
.
Chrisp: Cancer is going to go through the roof soon.
Allen: Why’s that?
Chrisp: Because of the number of bicycles.
Allen: Oh? I disagree. I don’t believe they will cause a cancer epidemic.
Chrisp: Do you agree that there are more bicycles than people in Australia today?
Allen: It wouldn’t matter if there were, because bicycles don’t have anything to do with it.
Chrisp: I think we may be getting somewhere. You seem to be now accepting that there are more bicycles than people in Australia.
Allen: No, I’m saying that it doesn’t matter how many bicycles there are, because they are not the cause of cancer. I don’t care if the number of bicycles doubles or triples, because cancer is caused by other factors.
.
.

So the question in your mind is now whether the increase in CO2 matters at all?

Huh?
.
From my post, page 61, post 915 of this thread:

Originally Posted by Allen James

.In prior posts I was trying to explain to the greenies that:

Originally Posted by Allen James

"Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then slowly declining with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago."

Originally Posted by Allen James

.
http://www.answers.com/topic/carbon-dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere
.
.
So basically, when it was in much greater quantities we had large populations of enormous dinosaurs and abundant, lush rainforests all over the earth. It’s obvious that CO2 stimulates life and we could do with a lot more of the stuff, as the man in your video shows.

.
I made my position on CO2 clear all the way through this thread.
.
.

The average NSW household will be paying nearly $1000 more per year in electricity bills by 2013 due to the Federal Government's proposed emissions trading scheme (ETS).

The home page is currently polling readers to see if they are happy paying more for electricity under Rudd’s ETS.

Yes: About 6,000

No: About 108,000

So when was the last time Rudd sang the praises of his ETS, or claimed this issue is still the greatest moral challenge of our generation?

Maybe "health" could be the greatest moral challenge of our generation this month?

Originally Posted by woodbe

These Scientists have been hard at work for the last several years researching the effects of climate change on Butterflies. Because of our human interest in butterflies, there are good records of the dates of emergence of them going back 65 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor David Karoly
This is the first time we've been able to link the change in a natural system, like a butterfly, to regional warming and then link that regional warming to increase in green house gases as a result of human activity.

There's a report on ABC just in but I first heard it on JJJ

Interesting stuff, and supporting evidence again, but not of the proof that will interest Dr Freud - his requires a time machine.

woodbe.

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

This visual presentation below is representative of a scale of forces in our world that are currently unfathomable, and constantly hold my attention as we try to uncover some of the answers.



And this study while also fascinating from a biological perspective, is now going to be subjected to ridicule for the spurious assertions it makes based on trust in authority figures. Do you really think the claims based on this study of nympho butterflies adds any credibility to AGW Theory?

But if you want to talk about butterflies, check this out.

This led Lorenz to realize that long-term weather forecasting was doomed.

And more here.

He also appreciated that in real weather situations, this sensitivity could mean the development of a front or pressure-system where there never would have been one in previous models.

As for time machines, Laplace's Demon negates this need entirely at the first site listed.

"We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at any given moment knew all of the forces that animate nature and the mutual positions of the beings that compose it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit the data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom; for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."

But as we are not omnipotent, we must settle for the unknown. Quantum multiverse theories currently do battle with these same demons, but they are not easily slain. Certainly not by horny aussie students studying horny butterflies, then making spurious assertions.

Originally Posted by woodbe

If the cap fits, wear it.



Not having a copy of the research, I'm not able to say one way or the other Doc. Being a joint research project between Melbourne and Monash Unis, I'd expect they engaged in good science practice, and didn't make any spurious assertions at all.

You however have already made up your mind.

What was that you said about open minds again?

woodbe.

Let's run through that again.

Interesting stuff, and supporting evidence again

Do you really think the claims based on this study of nympho butterflies adds any credibility to AGW Theory?

Not having a copy of the research, I'm not able to say one way or the other Doc.

So, you say it's supporting evidence, then when questioned as to it's credibility, can't say one way or the other, as you don't have a copy of the research. So how can you claim earlier it was supporting evidence, then claim you can't say through lack of evidence?

And as for this:

You however have already made up your mind.

What was that you said about open minds again?

My mind is made up on the ridiculous statement you quoted by Karoly who is a rolled gold idiot (and interestingly a contributor to the IPCC). Just read the statement and you will see why.

My mind is constantly open to new ideas and new facts, but is closed to religious dogma, except for it's sociological study as part of the human condition.