Emission Trading and climate change

Page 52 of 377 FirstFirst ... 2 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 102 152 ... LastLast
Results 2,551 to 2,600 of 18819
  1. #2551
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Dress warm.


    Follow the link for a tour venue near you, then cheer or jeer as you prefer.

  2. #2552
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Wholeheartedly agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rod Dyson
    Oh please, spare me so over dramatic.

    Over Dramatic?
    Have you ever been to LA, perhaps Bangkok, maybe Hong Kong?
    Ever lived, worked or visited Central Australia, away from man made activities?

    I've lived, worked or visited all of these places, and I can tell you that the veiw/atmosphere between the over populated toxic emission cities and central Australia is vastly different.
    I can remember standing on my balcony looking down the road in LA and barely being able to see a couple hundred metres. I can aslo remember looking into the night sky and not see a single star due to the smog!

    Compare that with pristine central Australia where you can look into the night sky and it's filled with that many stars that they seem to be almost touching each other.

    Exactly why so many logical people are so turned off by this stuff.

    Many thousands of logical people also believed that Hitler would lead Germany out of depresion and victory at war. Many millions of people died because these so called logical people failed..........

    Where is there any evidence of an impending armageddon?

    I used my eyes, Rod. As I've said many times now.......that's all the evidence I need. I've lived long enough and seen what man has done to the atmosphere to realise that we should seek cleaner alternative ways to generate power...............before it's too late!

    Relax we will not shrivel up, we will surely run out of fossil fuels before we turn the atmosphere into a CO2 soup. LOL



    I'm glad Rod knows the date we'll run out of fossil fuels, would you mind telling the rest of us exactly when this will be?

    From someone who used to work in the oil exploration field, I can assure you that there are huge, vast fields of untapped oil and gas still out there. One of the biggest is under the Rocky Mountains USA. It's only a matter of time before permission is granted to tap it

    You'll forgive me for not following your advice. If you were giving me advice in regard to plastering. I surely would listen. But your not. You have been very consistent in passing on your veiws of the situation based solely on a monetary thing.
    I for one wholeheartedly agree with you on reducing smog and pollution, not just from our cities, but from the entire planet. I too have seen these sights and love my time out in the bush. Something just feels right about sleeping in the dirt and breathing that sweet eucalyptus air.

    But just to clarify, that sweet fresh air is where all the Carbon Dioxide is. As CO2 levels increase, plant life abounds. This is not based on models or idiotic environmental theories, it is a measured fact. One of the fallacies that AGW Theory proponents try to push is that CO2 is now somehow bad for plants. This is like saying that oxygen is bad for animals. What idiots. But they need to paint CO2 as evil, so they will continue to smear it.

    But back to the pollution and smog. This will still be exactly the same no matter what CO2 strategy is introduced, because CO2 is not pollution. This is another idiotic lie that has been sold by these lunatics. That is why they always show smog and pollution during the all the television shows on CO2. Here is what smog is made of (Wiki):

    "Smog," a term coined in 1905 to describe the combination of smoke and fog rising from factory smokestacks during the Industrial Revolution, is mostly comprised of sulphur dioxide (sometimes called "SOX").

    However, since the introduction of the automobile, vehicular emissions and the increased use of fossil fuels for heating and industry have introduced new chemicals to the atmosphere, changing the composition of smog. This is called "photochemical smog."

    Along with sulphur dioxide, the primary pollutants of photochemical smog are volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These primary pollutants interact with the heat of the sun to produce various hazardous chemicals known as "secondary pollutants," which include peroxyacetyl nitrates and tropospheric ozone.

    Photochemical smog is composed of many different compounds, but the three major ones are ozone, PAN and VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds).
    Ozone is written as O3 and is the product of the following reaction:
    O+O2--->O3.

    The singular O is formed when NO2 decomposes because of sunlight
    PAN(peroxyacetylnitrate)is the product of VOCs oxygen and nitrogen oxide.
    VOCs are uncombusted fuels, often the product of engines."


    The failed ETS/CPRS does nothing, nil, zero, zilch, nada to address any of these real pollution issues. And that is one of my bug bears with this nonsense, it is wasting money and time on ridiculous theories, instead of addressing real pollution issues.


    So just remember, when you are breathing all that clean fresh air, that's CO2. When see all that smog, that's NOT CO2. But all that real pollution certainly does create a haze that contributes to something called the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, which distorts our temperature records in ways we are still trying to unravel.

    By the way, they are called non-renewable because they are running out. Economics will dictate we leave these fuel sources long before they have completely run out, because global energy use is skyrocketing, while these non-renewables are plummeting. There are many scientific and economic theories as to when and how this transition will occur, but I guarantee you the economic impetus will kick in to change human technology long before this contrived nonsense.

  3. #2553
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Spinning.

    Lesson 1: Spinning too much will leave you tied up in knots.

    A great read of a government running around in circles wasting our money on ridiculous policies.

    Abandoning the idea because of Senate obstructionism ignores the fact that the Prime Minister could seek to have both houses of Parliament dissolved and then put the matter to the people at an election. If he won that election he could then put his Carbon Pollution Reduction bill to the vote at a joint sitting.

    It's not something anyone would do lightly but it is something you would do if you believed that climate change was the great moral and economic challenge of our age.

  4. #2554
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default My own spurious comparison.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Yes but what does this prove? what does "mostly" mean. Also the degree of certainty on the isoptopes is??

    Yet.......... here is impirical evidence.........

    It sure is affecting the antartic. At this rate the pole will melt in ?? years!!


    Ok had to take out the graph as it was too big.

    Full link here C3: Antarctica: It's Not Melting & Temperature Increase Is Zilch - There's No CO2 Impact
    Nice work Rod, pretty decent temp spike about 400 years ago. All up about 3 full degrees celsius in about 150 years, compared to our recent .7 of a degree in about 150 years. Uh oh, I wonder if it was the cars or the cows that time.

    (Yes people, this is proxy data, we didn't have thermometers back then, and spurious to compare local data to globally averaged, blah, blah, blah... The point is, temperature changes, climate changes, the Planet changes, get used to it, or get off at the next stop.)

  5. #2555
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    and spurious to compare local data to globally averaged, blah, blah, blah...
    It is good to see that you DO know when you are talking crap.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    The point is, temperature changes, climate changes, the Planet changes, get used to it, or get off at the next stop.)
    Natural change I can live with, but unnatural change we need to be responsible about and not continue to spew CO2 into the atmosphere like there is no tomorrow. CO2 isn't as benign or beneficial as Dr Freud likes to make out - it certainly warms the place up.

    (That'll get him going )

  6. #2556
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I for one wholeheartedly agree with you on reducing smog and pollution, not just from our cities, but from the entire planet. I too have seen these sights and love my time out in the bush. Something just feels right about sleeping in the dirt and breathing that sweet eucalyptus air.

    But just to clarify, that sweet fresh air is where all the Carbon Dioxide is. As CO2 levels increase, plant life abounds. This is not based on models or idiotic environmental theories, it is a measured fact. One of the fallacies that AGW Theory proponents try to push is that CO2 is now somehow bad for plants. This is like saying that oxygen is bad for animals. What idiots. But they need to paint CO2 as evil, so they will continue to smear it.

    But back to the pollution and smog. This will still be exactly the same no matter what CO2 strategy is introduced, because CO2 is not pollution. This is another idiotic lie that has been sold by these lunatics. That is why they always show smog and pollution during the all the television shows on CO2. Here is what smog is made of (Wiki):

    "Smog," a term coined in 1905 to describe the combination of smoke and fog rising from factory smokestacks during the Industrial Revolution, is mostly comprised of sulphur dioxide (sometimes called "SOX").

    However, since the introduction of the automobile, vehicular emissions and the increased use of fossil fuels for heating and industry have introduced new chemicals to the atmosphere, changing the composition of smog. This is called "photochemical smog."

    Along with sulphur dioxide, the primary pollutants of photochemical smog are volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These primary pollutants interact with the heat of the sun to produce various hazardous chemicals known as "secondary pollutants," which include peroxyacetyl nitrates and tropospheric ozone.

    Photochemical smog is composed of many different compounds, but the three major ones are ozone, PAN and VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds).
    Ozone is written as O3 and is the product of the following reaction:
    O+O2--->O3.

    The singular O is formed when NO2 decomposes because of sunlight
    PAN(peroxyacetylnitrate)is the product of VOCs oxygen and nitrogen oxide.
    VOCs are uncombusted fuels, often the product of engines."


    The failed ETS/CPRS does nothing, nil, zero, zilch, nada to address any of these real pollution issues. And that is one of my bug bears with this nonsense, it is wasting money and time on ridiculous theories, instead of addressing real pollution issues.


    So just remember, when you are breathing all that clean fresh air, that's CO2. When see all that smog, that's NOT CO2. But all that real pollution certainly does create a haze that contributes to something called the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, which distorts our temperature records in ways we are still trying to unravel.

    By the way, they are called non-renewable because they are running out. Economics will dictate we leave these fuel sources long before they have completely run out, because global energy use is skyrocketing, while these non-renewables are plummeting. There are many scientific and economic theories as to when and how this transition will occur, but I guarantee you the economic impetus will kick in to change human technology long before this contrived nonsense.
    Wow nice response, I agree 100%
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  7. #2557
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,218

    Default

    Cow Power, that'll fix it.

    CVPS Cow Power
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  8. #2558
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Democracy is great.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    Thanks Doc, I think. A little bit of that went over my head but I get the gist of it. I think where both on the same road................eithier that or I've had a couple to many beers whilst out 4 x4 .............

    You know over a carton or two, we could be good friends.............
    Yeh, I think at the end of the day we all want to leave this rock better than we found it, but the joy of democracy is we get to argue about the different ways to achieve this.

    Then once we have the best course of action, we give this to the bureaucracy who comes up with the most politically expedient version which usually turns out to be the most expensive and least effective.

    That's one of the reasons we drink beer.

  9. #2559
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default ETS by stealth.

    What do you do when you have racked up massive debts you can’t pay, and your big new tax falls out of favour. You create another big new tax. The weird thing is, this tax will probably reduce carbon dioxide emissions more effectively than the other one, by directly slowing down iron ore and coal industries without compensation, which will drive retail prices higher. So you get the benefit of taking taxes from the industrial sector, but now you also don’t have to compensate low-income households when these costs get passed through to consumers, so they consume less. Pretty smart move actually.

    Rudd says this in private:

    But spins this in public:

    And he is now officially the spin king:

    And what do international investors think:

    Morgan Stanley's is recommending investors short the Australian Dollar vs. both the U.S. dollar and Singaporean dollar. Their main concerns are that the government's new 'resource super profits tax' on mining companies, such as BHP (BHP), will destroy the mining industry's valuations and create a headwind for Australian economic growth. Australia may be inadvertently hanging itself here... basically the Australian economy weathered the storm better than most economies thanks to its resource industry which continued to fuel China's robust growth. Due to this outperformance, Australia was forced/able to hike interest rates well before everyone else. Yet now... they are killing the driver of economic performance while at the same time being forced to deal with the higher interest rates they thought they could bare thanks to the mining industry driving outperformance.

    That’s why this is so tragically funny and true:



  10. #2560
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default It's good stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    It is good to see that you DO know when you are talking crap.
    Thanks champ, hopefully one day I will be able to repay the compliment.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    Natural change I can live with, but unnatural change we need to be responsible about and not continue to spew CO2 into the atmosphere like there is no tomorrow. CO2 isn't as benign or beneficial as Dr Freud likes to make out - it certainly warms the place up.

    (That'll get him going )
    It might get me going, but it certainly won't get catastrophic global warming going.

    And speaking of natural change, I was wondering if you had managed to clear up this little "natural change" issue for me? I'd be grateful for any assistance (or computer modelling) that could help. I've been looking for this stuff, but can't find a coherent response yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Seeing as you guys can't find any science proving AGW Theory, (unless you've lowered the bar even further to include political opinion ), I thought I'd pose a logistical question.

    If this is a proxy data temperature record, albeit very inaccurate:




    And this is the committment from Copenhagen:


    Then can someone, and I don't care who, please explain to me how in the hell we are going to negate all the "natural" forces that have been driving temperatures up and down for hundreds of millions of years, when we don't even understand how they work yet?

  11. #2561
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default The wrong direction.

    Assuming you believed in AGW Theory, it would make sense to steer us toward "cleaner" energy sources than oil, while we transition to something 100% "clean" and renewable.

    Would you not look like a tax grabbing hypocrite if you actually increased taxes on cleaner energy sources?

    HALF a million drivers will be hit by a new $540 million excise on LPG that was hidden in the fine print of the budget.

    Governments have spent more than $400 million over the past five years encouraging drivers and taxi fleets to convert their vehicles to run on cleaner liquefied petroleum gas, and the LPG industry has argued that it should remain excise-free.

    But the government will impose a 2.5¢ a litre excise from July 2011, rising to 12.5¢ a litre over five years. Over the next four years the new tax will reap about $540 million.

  12. #2562
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default It is dead!

    Why the ETS died:

    Why there will be no resurrection:

    And why we should all give thanks:

    And if anyone is still in any doubt that the ETS/CPRS has gone the way of the dodo, I suggest you email the PM and ask him this question:

    What effect will the CPRS have on the mining sector when it kicks in during 2013, given greater cuts will be required due to the late start, while they are already paying the full 40% profits tax as well?

    If you can supply the treasury modelling on this PM, that would be great.

  13. #2563
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    You really confuse me Head Pin, I have agreed with you for 2 posts in 2 days. Really nice to see a post that makes perfect sense.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  14. #2564
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    You stick with me, Rod and I'll learn ya real good............

    I just knew that if we knocked those rough edges off ya, you'd polish up allright............
    Now lets not get too excited Head Pin we got some work to do
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  15. #2565
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Back to work.

    I also agree that these images represent what may go wrong in the mining and transport of oil. While I agree these incidents are terrible (and emotionally stirring), they will remain unchanged under all actions currently proposed to deal with AGW Theory and its alleged effects.

    By example, this is an oil spill with global action on CO2 emissions and concentrations stable at 450ppm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post

    And this is an oil spill with NO global action on CO2 emissions and concentrations rising over 1000ppm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post


  16. #2566
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Another example.

    And for positive comparison:

    This is a natural environment with global action on CO2 emissions and concentrations stable at 450ppm.




    And this is a natural environment with NO global action on CO2 emissions and concentrations rising over 1000ppm.



    CO2 is an odourless, colourless, invisible, greenhouse gas that is good for plants, and therefore also benefits animals . You can't see it, taste it, or smell it. It is not pollution or "poison" as it is now being taught to our children. Seriously, do you think it is good to teach kids they are breathing out poison everyday that is killing the planet. Do these sicko's have any idea what this can potentially do to children's perceptions of themselves.

  17. #2567
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Apologies for the length.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    Doc, your hung up on the C02 argument.
    It’s not me, it’s the bozo’s at the IPCC, and their band of merry men, blindly following along. It is well documented that I have no issues whatsoever with CO2. As soon as these bozo’s reach a similar conclusion, and our Prime Muppet drops the last pretence of his Enormous Taxation Scheme, this whole thread (and global delusion) will end.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    The picture is a lot bigger than that. It's toxic emissions and the enviourmental disasters associated with gathering these fossil fuels that we should be concerned with.

    The less mining, drilling and transporting means the less chance we have of another enviourmental disaster not to mention the cleaner atmosphere.
    It is also well documented that I support a cleaner environment, I support better controls of pollution, I advocate strongly for serious funding and research into commercial applications of solar energy, I support a transition from coal to nuclear pending this solar breakthrough, I support reducing fossil fuel dependence, primarily for energy security reasons, but also for environmental reasons. Bottom line, I hate pollution with a passion, and the diversion of resources to AGW Theory instead of rectifying these issues pisses me off no end. This is no small amount of money.

    I will provide another example, regarding oil burning pollution being ignored while this irrational nonsense is blatantly lied about to kids, and all fully funded by us stupid taxpayers blindly following along.

    Check this out:

    And this:

    The reaction that works the engine of an automobile is simply a combustion (burning) of petrol (gasoline), diesel oil, or LPG (propane). But because of the way the motor is designed and tuned, the actual composition of exhaust fumes is rather more complicated than that. So ideally the composition might be something like 70% nitrogen, 15% carbon dioxide, 15% water vapour. However, not all of the fuel burns completely. So the exhaust stream may contain carbon monoxide (very poisonous), soot, and unburnt petrol. The other significant material that is present in car exhaust is nitric oxide. When this nitric oxide cools, it can react further with the air to produce nitrogen dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide is a poisonous and corrosive brown gas. It is the substance that reacts in sunlight to start off the very complicated series of reactions that produce photochemical smog (Los Angeles type smog). In cool damp conditions, it can alternatively react with water droplets to produce nitric acid, and acid rain. Leaded petrol is still used in many places (including here in Australia). When petrol burns, the tetraethyl lead produces lead oxide as a very fine dust. This is a poisoning hazard, both in terms of direct inhalation, and in terms of helping maintain a high content of lead in the street dust along busy roads.

    Now based on this information, it would be reasonable to conclude that burning oil/coal/gas produces both benign and toxic/noxious/poisonous gases. We could produce two lists:

    Benign

    Nitrogen
    Water Vapour (a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming-Wiki forgot to mention this)
    Carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming-Wiki remembered to mention this)

    Noxious

    Carbon Monoxide
    Hydrocarbons
    Nitric Oxides
    Nitrogen Dioxides
    Nitric acid (Acid rain)
    Lead oxide
    Ozone
    Unburnt fuel
    Particulate matter (Soot)
    Photochemical smog

    Now watch the animation on this link (click on the Transformer or the days of change logo). This animation also runs in this exact format in television ads screened during prime time viewing. The cute transformer is obviously designed to gets the kids attention. This transformer is also plastered all over our trains here in WA, to reinforce this message to kids. You will need sound.

    Did you hear all those nasty toxic and poisonous substances listed?

    I think we can all agree that pollution sucks. All that remains is that we all agree to spend trillions of dollars on renewable energy and removing pollution, rather than chasing fictional green rabbits based on the opinion of enviro-wacko’s working for the UN.

  18. #2568
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Bugger me Doc.....I'll just have to light up a Fag while I read that one...........Toxic Smoxic..

  19. #2569
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Oops.

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Bugger me Doc.....I'll just have to light up a Fag while I read that one...........Toxic Smoxic..
    Busted by the boss.

    The later it gets, the more I ramble. Maybe I should only log on before breakfast.

  20. #2570
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default A quantum entanglement thought experiment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    I forget what I exactly wrote here. But I do believe there was a legitimate question in there somewhere.
    Let me re-phrase it and see if I can get it past the censor.

    Perhaps it went something like this?

    How can you take a picture of the present or past and then try and pass it off as the future, Doc? Unless your the Doc from "back to the future" me thinks you might be only guessing..................
    Guessing is probably flattering to my rambling. It was more like a thought experiment, crudely plagiarising Schrodinger's Cat. Either of these pictures and associated ratings could exist in the same time and same place depending on the actions contributing to them, but which one is real cannot be known until the event is observed.

    Interestingly, your criticism closely aligns to Einstein's criticism of Schrodinger's original thought experiment, in that reality will always triumph over experiments.

    I think I need more beer.

  21. #2571
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Wasted! (not me, our taxpayer dollars).

    How many millions of dollars is our government borrowing from China to fund these highly educational campaigns. The website below shows how shallow our kids education has become.

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

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


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


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


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


    It is telling that this government is teaching Australian kids to run a spin campaign, rather than...oh, I dunno, maybe learn some science?

  22. #2572
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Kid the kids.

    You see, Abbott tried to teach the kids few home truths about climate change:

    "Last week Tony Abbott (the Australian opposition leader) told school children that it was warmer ”at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth”. This banal line set off a flurry of denial and bluster."

    Then Rudd almost popped a vein in his forehead:

    "…how is it that, in the 21st century, you could support this Leader of the Opposition, who says that the world was hotter in Jesus’ time? How could you actually hold to a belief, in defiance of total science around the world, that somehow in the last 2000 years the world has become cooler, not warmer? How could you stand behind a leader who says that the industrial revolution, in effect, did not happen?"

    Find out who’s lying to the kiddies here:

    (Even if you don’t go the link, it’s not a tough one to call).

  23. #2573
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Just to let you that know you all matter, at least what you say does..........(oh well..do we exempt Headpin )

    Rudd's minders' site has just linked back to the last couple of posts.

  24. #2574
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    and then the Skeptics site just hit it too.

  25. #2575
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Just to let you that know you all matter, at least what you say does..........(oh well..do we exempt Headpin )

    Rudd's minders' site has just linked back to the last couple of posts.
    Interesting what site is it?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  26. #2576
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    G'day Rod...can give you the Skeptics site.........'tother one has disappeared.......looking though.

    Skeptics site:
    Roman Warming (Gullible Rudd steps right in it) « JoNova

  27. #2577
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    You see, Abbott tried to teach the kids few home truths about climate change:

    "Last week Tony Abbott (the Australian opposition leader) told school children that it was warmer ”at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth”. This banal line set off a flurry of denial and bluster."


    I wonder if those "home truths" were 'scripted' comments (aka 'Gospel') or 'heat-of-the-moment' comments?

  28. #2578
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    I wonder if those "home truths" were 'scripted' comments (aka 'Gospel') or 'heat-of-the-moment' comments?
    More likely "scriptured" comments.

    "And you will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free. John 8: 32"

    But seriously, Abbott tells us that politicians sometimes change their minds, engage in hyperbole, and even spin (ie. he tells us the truth) and we feign outrage. But we put up with the spin we are constantly fed below in silence.

    and

    and


    Well may we say God save the spin, because nothing will save the ETS.

  29. #2579
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default We are all matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Just to let you that know you all matter, at least what you say does..........(oh well..do we exempt Headpin )

    Rudd's minders' site has just linked back to the last couple of posts.
    They're probably excited cos their new kiddies climate change propaganda website actually started getting some hits.

    Then realised it's a bunch of old drunken men.

    Mr Watson, please forgive me if this thread gets banned when Conroy's new net filter comes in.

    But if the Men in Black appear at your door, can you please ask them when we outsourced Australia's policy development to communist China.


    I'd be happy to outsource the ETS tax implementation to China, then I know it would never be introduced.

  30. #2580
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Confused Confucius.

    The Chinese aren't worried, they're confused.

    If Rudd claims his big new mining tax will increase mining production starting in 2012 (ie. increased CO2 emissions), but then will implement his ETS big new tax to decrease mining production starting in 2013 (ie. decreased CO2 emissions), then what will be the net effect of these two big new taxes fighting each other to simultaneously lower and raise CO2 emissions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    What effect will the CPRS have on the mining sector when it kicks in during 2013, given greater cuts will be required due to the late start, while they are already paying the full 40% profits tax as well?

    If you can supply the treasury modelling on this PM, that would be great.
    Buggered if I know how this is all supposed to work out???


  31. #2581
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    The Chinese aren't worried, they're confused.

    If Rudd claims his big new mining tax will increase mining production starting in 2012 (ie. increased CO2 emissions), but then will implement his ETS big new tax to decrease mining production starting in 2013 (ie. decreased CO2 emissions), then what will be the net effect of these two big new taxes fighting each other to simultaneously lower and raise CO2 emissions?



    Buggered if I know how this is all supposed to work out???

    Well said.

    Love the cartoon.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  32. #2582
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    I wonder what will happen if this thread reaches 3000 posts and nobody even notices?


  33. #2583
    Golden Member m6sports's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    624

    Default

    So whats so bad about climate Change
    Everyone always complaints when its COLD
    If its warmer people wont use as much Electricity in heating there homes

    So in turn lowering CO2 emissions

    i didnt want to read the last 3004 Posts but thats my contribution

  34. #2584
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    Would anyone else care to comment or elaborate on the Doc's excellent find?.................
    The engineer in me has problems with the size of the mechanism on the valve. Also, if it is a butterfly valve, the valve body is the wrong shape.

  35. #2585
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    Would anyone else care to comment or elaborate on the Doc's excellent find?.................
    Yes....you're all fired.

    oops ....last job.
    Now get back on topic or it'll never reach 4000

  36. #2586
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    I wonder what will happen if this thread reaches 3000 posts and nobody even notices?

    I just assumed someone would secretly gazump the 3000.

    But I don't know if this sham can hold up for another 1k.

  37. #2587
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I just assumed someone would secretly gazump the 3000.

    But I don't know if this sham can hold up for another 1k.
    Don't worry Doc, we'll keep going until Rod and you finally see sense - but I suspect we'll hit 10,000 posts before that though.

  38. #2588
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    Good point, Chris. I guess that's why your on the big bucks down at woolies, hey?
    Absolutely. We couldn't trust just anybody to put those stickers on the fruit and veggies - gee, they have to be on the right way up - and did you know those stickers are self-adhesive and they don't have to be licked?

  39. #2589
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m6sports View Post
    So whats so bad about climate Change
    Everyone always complaints when its COLD
    If its warmer people wont use as much Electricity in heating there homes

    So in turn lowering CO2 emissions

    i didnt want to read the last 3004 Posts but thats my contribution
    This makes more sense than most of the 3004 posts previously.

    We'll have to drag you down to our level.

  40. #2590

  41. #2591
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default It's over Rambo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    This isn't looking good, kids.

    I fear the Doc's "copy" source is scraping the bottom of the barrel...............
    That's because this whole farce is quickly going the way of the dodo.

    I recall some (like Rod ) predicting the demise of this nonsense, but I think even us realists (oops, sceptics) have been amazed at how quickly it has unravelled.

    Maximum kudos to the whistleblower at UEA for Climategate. Who knows how many trillions this person/s saved us. Not to mention the opportunity cost of chasing this imagined threat at the expense of the real environmental issues.

    But it is making life difficult trying to find anyone talking about "the greatest moral, economic and environmental challenge of our generation".

    Especially anyone in our federal government? Did aliens abduct Penny Wong?

  42. #2592
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    This isn't looking good, kids.

    I fear the Doc's "copy" source is scraping the bottom of the barrel...............
    But I am still on a roll.

    From
    Brooks Hanson
    Brooks Hanson is Deputy Editor for physical sciences at Science.
    If the scientific community does not aggressively address these issues, including communicating its process of discovery and recognizing its modern data responsibilities, and if society does not constructively engage science, then the scientific enterprise and the whole of society are in danger of losing their crucial rational relationship.
    And in response Willis Eschenbach

    Well put. The problem is not that Inhofe has said some actions by top climate scientists are unethical and possibly illegal. The problem is that some top scientists acted in unethical and possibly illegal ways. The problem is not that people are sending hateful emails to scientists. It is that climate scientists have poisoned the well by publicly calling for the trial of people with whom they disagree, and then want to complain that people are being mean to them. The problem is not that states are taking to the law to fight bad science, it is that the bad science is so entrenched, and the peer review system has become so much of an old-boys club, that the only way to fight it is in the courts.
    This is the crux of the matter for climate scientists who wish to restore the lost trust: do honest, transparent, ethical science, and let the results fall where they may. Stop larding “scientific” papers with pounds of “might” and “could” and “may” and “possibly” and “conceivably”, we don’t care about your speculations, we want your science. Stop underestimating the errors and overestimating the certainty. Stop making up the “scary scenarios” advocated by Stephen Schneider. Stop calling for trials for people who don’t follow the party line
    Full article here Editorializing about the Editorial | Watts Up With That?

    [quote]

    Also from Willis Eschenbach

    In this situation, the only honest thing a climate scientist can do is to do the best, clearest, and cleanest science possible; to be totally transparent and reveal all data and codes and methods; to insist that other climate scientists practice those same simple scientific principles; and to say “we don’t know” rather than “might possibly have a probabilistic chance of maybe happening” for all the rest. That is the only path to repairing the lost trust between the public and climate science.
    Oh, yeah, and one more thing … apply those principles to scientific editorials as well. Don’t exaggerate, and provide some citations for scientific editorials, trying to trace these vague claims is both boring and frustrating …[quote]

    I whole heartedly agree with every thing Willis Eschenbach says here in his reply to the editorial by Hanson.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  43. #2593
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Chaotic.

    Hey Rod, I really enjoyed this bit:

    "Climate science is a new science, one of the newest. We have only been studying climate extensively for a quarter century or so, and it is an incredibly difficult field of study. The climate is a hugely complex, driven, chaotic, resonant, constructal, terawatt-scale planetary heat engine. It contains five major subsystems (atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, and cryosphere), none of which are well understood. Each of these subsystems has a host of forcings, resonances, inter-reservoir transfers, cycles, and feedbacks which operate both internally and between the subsystems. The climate has important processes which operate on spatial scales from atomic to planet-wide, and on temporal scales from nanoseconds to millions of years. Our present state of knowledge of that system contains more unknowns than knowns."

    But surely it's gotta be simpler than this. If CO2 goes up, then temperature goes up. If CO2 goes down, then temperature goes down.

    This simpler model means we mighty humans can adjust the global temperature very easily, just like an aircon unit.

  44. #2594

  45. #2595
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  46. #2596
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    Oh, OK. Let me re-phrase that.

    The Doc's scraping the bottom of the copy source barrel and Rod's rolling around the the bottom of the copy source barel........................
    Quoting Andrew Bolt and Donald Trump! Their barrel must be very close to empty.


  47. #2597
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Quoting Andrew Bolt and Donald Trump! Their barrel must be very close to empty.

    Now that depends entirely on your perspective now doesn't it.

    Not many left leaning folks like Andrew Bolt because they don't like the truth. Andrew is an opinion writer and says it how he see's it. I don't always agree with him but more often than not he is right.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  48. #2598
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Andrew is an opinion writer and says it how he see's it.
    And that's what grates with me and other here - you are using opinion of others as some sort of basis or support for your opinion. It would be better just to express your opinion and leave Andrew's opinion out of it. If I want Andrew's opinion, I'll read the Hun. I' d rather hear your opinion.

    Mind you, if you are quoting facts, by all means provide a quote, but to me quotes of others opinions are just unnecessary.


  49. #2599
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    And that's what grates with me and other here - you are using opinion of others as some sort of basis or support for your opinion. It would be better just to express your opinion and leave Andrew's opinion out of it. If I want Andrew's opinion, I'll read the Hun. I' d rather hear your opinion.
    Mind you, if you are quoting facts, by all means provide a quote, but to me quotes of others opinions are just unnecessary.


    What are you on about, seriously? This entire AGW scam revolves around opinion. Your scientist are casting an opinion, based on some pretty shoddy data, there is not one fact that proves AGW it is all opinion, and every opinion is just as valid as another. If you don't like to read the opinion of others then don't. </rant>

    I will coninue posting the opinion of others that I agree with here to see if you agree or disagree with that opinion. This is not a test to see how much I know about AGW it is taking in all the information offered and then forming an opinion of your own based on your own perception of the validity of the information you are presented with.

    Personally I have a very good @@@@@@@@ meter and like to call a spade a spade. You can't accept any wrong doing by the climate scientists involved in climate gate, yet it is blatently obvious to most that read the emails. You seem to be happy to defend anyone that shares you belief regardless of how blatently obvious it is to others. That is what I would call denial. How about Mann is his hockey stick the real deal? Was there a medieval warm period? or did it not exist as Mann sugests?

    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  50. #2600
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Opinions rock.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    And that's what grates with me and other here - you are using opinion of others as some sort of basis or support for your opinion. It would be better just to express your opinion and leave Andrew's opinion out of it. If I want Andrew's opinion, I'll read the Hun. I' d rather hear your opinion.
    Actually, I like using reality as the basis or support for my opinion. The change in climate as measured by us humans in the last few thousand years is so stable as to seem boring on a geological time scale.

    As for Mr Bolts opinion, it closely aligns my own, and therefore logic dictates it is superior compared to opposing opinions and should be shared with those less well informed. But on a serious note, he has links to many others stories which makes my posts less verbose, a blessing in anyone's opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Mind you, if you are quoting facts, by all means provide a quote, but to me quotes of others opinions are just unnecessary.

    I guess based on this criteria, you will strongly oppose any references to the IPCC and its conclusions then?


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    It seems that the good Mr James has beaten you to the punch in finding out how the IPCC came up with it's 90% claim of certainty (his link below). Apparantly they just made it up! No maths, no science, just an opinion. Who would have thought?

    "It is sometimes claimed that the IPCC is 90 per cent confident of this claim, but there is no known statistical basis for this claim; it's purely subjective."

    You see, you could have figured this out had you read the link you provided above. I guess you either didn't read it, couldn't figure this out, or figured it out and didn't want to pass on this fact?


    No maths, no science, just an opinion. Who would have thought?
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Gross generalisations and clutching at straws. Who would have thought?

    Lets have a look at the IPPC refernce I gave earlier. Here is a quote:
    "14. Likelihood, as defined in Table 4, refers to a probabilistic assessment of some well defined outcome having occurred or occurring in the future. The categories defined in this table should be considered as having ‘fuzzy’ boundaries. Use other probability ranges where more appropriate but do not then use the terminology in table 4. Likelihood may be based on quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views. The central range of this scale should not be used to express a lack of knowledge – see paragraph 12 and Table 2 for that situation. There is evidence that readers may adjust their interpretation of this likelihood language according to the magnitude of perceived potential consequences [8]."
    Table 4. Likelihood Scale.
    Terminology Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome
    Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence
    Very likely > 90% probability
    Likely > 66% probability
    About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability
    Unlikely < 33% probability
    Very unlikely < 10% probability
    Exceptionally unlikely < 1% probability
    I'd hardly call "quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views", what the article refers to as "purely subjective" as in 'lacking in reality or substance'. But then again, it is you may choose to use that definition when it suits you.

    My comments on this are pedantic - but this is necessary as your argument is based on a pedantic attempt to discredit the IPCC terminology.

    Do you truly believe that the IPCC findings are based upon "No maths, no science, just an opinion" or are you grossly over generalising your opinion too?

    In any case, the 'likelihood' scale is there to assist the reader in understanding the level of consensus within the scientific community and their views on the likely outcomes for their projections.

    I think you are clutching at straws with this as some form of argumentative attempt to claim that the science is unsound.

    As woodbe as often suggests, it would be much more productive to simply point out some sound and reputable science that discredits the AGW theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    "quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views"

    So, which is it?

    Quantitative analysis
    means that the 90% figure is derived from a probability calculation. Be nice if you could dig up the calculations for us to take a look at?

    Elicitation of expert views
    is a real fancy way of saying just an opinion. If you dress up this opinion with some numbers (90%) to make it sound more convincing, some people would refer to this as a sales pitch, I refer to it as the quantification of opinion, or in everyday terms, making --it up.

    So I guess if you can dig up those calculations, I'll stand corrected?


    "Do you truly believe that the IPCC findings are based upon "No maths, no science, just an opinion" or are you grossly over generalising your opinion too?"

    Sorry if it was not clear, I am referring to the claim which you posted from the CSIRO, which is the oft quoted 90% certainty of the IPCC in AGW Theory. As Woodbe is so fond of pointing out, the IPCC does not do science, they are a political body, so are we talking about the opinion of a political body as the backbone supporting this theory?
    And finally, based on this same criteria, at last we have heard the end of the "consensus" argument. For you see, when people agree on something based on a belief as opposed to verifiable facts, they are sharing a similar opinion. So, the consensus nonsensus is purely opinion. How's that for a fact.

Page 52 of 377 FirstFirst ... 2 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 102 152 ... 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
  •