Emission Trading and climate change

Page 53 of 377 FirstFirst ... 3 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 103 153 ... LastLast
Results 2,601 to 2,650 of 18819
  1. #2601
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Quantum entanglement?

    The planets have aligned. What are the odds Andrew Bolt would have written an opinion piece on Michael Mann today?


  2. #2602
    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
    What are you on about, seriously? This entire AGW scam revolves around opinion.

    Yer, yer. I suppose the smoking-cases-cancer claim is just another opinion in your books too?

    There is a world of difference between a collective prevailing scientific view and a view from a newspaper columnist. I know which I prefer.


  3. #2603
    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 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.
    The reason that I posted the post that you quoted wasn't for a scientific rational for proving AGW, but rather to counter act the Anti-AGW propaganda that many/most scientists are now seriously questioning the basis of AGW - they aren't. So called "climategate" has had very little, or no, impact on the science of AGW.

    The "fact" is that the author did a sample literature search and determined the stance of the papers on AGW. The facts are in the numbers presented by the author. These then support the authors view that the scientific community is very much in support/agreement about AGW. What do you base your opinion on?

    Also, the word "opinion" has somewhat different meanings in general use to that in scientific use.

    In general usage, "opinion" is often just a feeling, preference or bias. In scientific usage "opinion" is a considered view only given when the facts support that view.

  4. #2604
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    On the subject of opinions.

    I'd be very interested to know what Humphrey Bear has to say about this ETS.

    Some days I don't make a move unless Humphrey has given his approval...........................
    Humphrey doesn't say anything about anything - he's a mute.

  5. #2605
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Haven't played here in a while there's a series of articles in New Scientist built around the theme of 'Living with Denial' and exploring some of the reasons why science and scientists have in general failed to articulate and communicate effectively to the general community in the last little while. It also explores the culture of denial and why it is an important part of human society.

    Check 'em out
    Living in denial: The truth is our only weapon - opinion - 23 May 2010 - New Scientist
    Living in denial: Questioning science isn't blasphemy - opinion - 22 May 2010 - New Scientist
    ...and there's a few more in the links off to one side

    or listed here http://www.newscientist.com/special/living-in-denial
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  6. #2606
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Haven't played here in a while there's a series of articles in New Scientist built around the theme of 'Living with Denial' and exploring some of the reasons why science and scientists have in general failed to articulate and communicate effectively to the general community in the last little while. It also explores the culture of denial and why it is an important part of human society.

    Check 'em out
    Living in denial: The truth is our only weapon - opinion - 23 May 2010 - New Scientist
    Living in denial: Questioning science isn't blasphemy - opinion - 22 May 2010 - New Scientist
    ...and there's a few more in the links off to one side

    or listed here Special report: Living in denial - New Scientist
    SDB,

    Thank you for providing the links to those articles.

    I have been somewhat perplexed by the rigidity of the anti-AGW sentiment expressed by some. I can fully understand an anti-ETS or anti-carbon-tax view as these are political stances. But the anti-AGW stance goes against the accepted scientific view (i.e. this is not politics).

    I do recall seeing a Q&A program on the ABC awhile back that shed some insight in to the reason some might hold an anti-AGW view of the world.

    The whole transcript of the program can be found at Conservatives, Comedians and Political Correctness | Q&A | ABC TV

    Here is the part I thought was interesting:
    TONY JONES: Well, but is climate change and global warming a conservative idea? Do you think the scientists are conservative or radical?

    WALEED ALY
    : I think they're being scientists. I don't know that, you know - let's just - this is a - let's just say something up front. Let's just all be honest. Most people in this room, unless there are climatologists among us, really have no idea about whether or not climate change is real. What's happening, though, is that we make decisions about whether or not we are going to believe that it is real or not and usually we make those decisions on the basis of what we want the answer to be and that is why you find that at the moment on the conservative side of party politics around the world you are more like to find people who are climate sceptics or denialists because - because that side of politics has overwhelmingly bought into the idea of neo-liberalism and the idea that the free market should be our guiding philosophy. Not just the free market is a good thing, but it's our guiding political philosophy. And when you buy that, climate change becomes very difficult to accommodate. So this becomes an ideological contest for people who are of that persuasion, because the minute they accept the reality of climate change, it destroys the idea that the market is our guiding philosophy, and so they are forced, essentially, to start from a position that says, well, we need to deny this, and then they will look around for data and scientists here and there and so on and nothing amuses me more than seeing bloggers and pundits and columnists and all sorts of - and broadcasters who are not scientists pretending to have scientific debates...

    (The emphasis is mine - for the time-poor readers of this thread.)
    For those of you how are unfamiliar with the Q&A program, Tony Jones is the presenter of the Q&A program. Waleed Aly. who was a guest on that program, is a lecturer in politics at Monash University, where he also works within the Global Terrorism Research Centre.

    I found that this article helps to partly explain why some are somehow translating a scientific problem (or theory) in to a political agenda.

  7. #2607
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Yer, yer. I suppose the smoking-cases-cancer claim is just another opinion in your books too?


    Very very malicious statement there Chrisp. You know from my previous posts that I do not disagree with the smoking causes cancer argument. You can't seem to realize that logical people can differentiate between the validity of arguments on a subject based on facts and opinions from a broad rescource, not simply based on political lines.

    In other words, just because a person has one opinion on a subect that I agree with does not mean I agree with everything that person says. Unlike what you seem so desperate to convey.

    I see truth where ever its told, I do not have a prejudice that precludes me listening and taking heed of what they say, unlike some around here.

    I literally hate it when someone says "what would he know he is only a ..........". Everyone or anyone can have a valid opinion on any subject. I feel very sorry for those who care not to listen just because of a pre-concieved idea that the person can not possibly know something simply due to prejudice.

    Sorry mate you are so wrong.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  8. #2608
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Haven't played here in a while there's a series of articles in New Scientist built around the theme of 'Living with Denial' and exploring some of the reasons why science and scientists have in general failed to articulate and communicate effectively to the general community in the last little while. It also explores the culture of denial and why it is an important part of human society.

    Check 'em out
    Living in denial: The truth is our only weapon - opinion - 23 May 2010 - New Scientist
    Living in denial: Questioning science isn't blasphemy - opinion - 22 May 2010 - New Scientist
    ...and there's a few more in the links off to one side

    or listed here Special report: Living in denial - New Scientist
    Exactly what are skeptic supposed to be denying?

    That climate change is real? No, I doubt that there is anyone that would deny climate change is real.

    That temperatures have increaced over the last 100 years? No, again it is very apparent that temperatures have increased.

    That co2 emissions have increased? No again this is very clear and measureable.

    What most skeptics disagree with is that co2 is the cause of climate change or temperature increases. This is not denial because these are not facts and cannot be proven to be true.

    I don't think it is the sckeptics that are in denial.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  9. #2609
    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
    Very very malicious statement there Chrisp. You know from my previous posts that I do not disagree with the smoking causes cancer argument. You can't seem to realize that logical people can differentiate between the validity of arguments on a subject based on facts and opinions from a broad rescource, not simply based on political lines.

    In other words, just because a person has one opinion on a subect that I agree with does not mean I agree with everything that person says. Unlike what you seem so desperate to convey.

    I see truth where ever its told, I do not have a prejudice that precludes me listening and taking heed of what they say, unlike some around here.

    I literally hate it when someone says "what would he know he is only a ..........". Everyone or anyone can have a valid opinion on any subject. I feel very sorry for those who care not to listen just because of a pre-concieved idea that the person can not possibly know something simply due to prejudice.

    Sorry mate you are so wrong.
    Rod,

    I very much enjoyed reading your post - I'm just not sure if you are responding to me or to yourself!

    The "smoking-causes-cancer" analogy wasn't intended to be malice, but rather a comment that this too is the accept prevailing scientific view. You seem to be able to accept scientific view that smoking causes cancer but you get all up in arms when science says AGW is happening.

    As to political lines, it seems that it is your side that frequently makes, or quotes, political comments (I should underline comment - as "a statement that expresses a personal opinion"). AGW isn't a political issue - it is a scientific issue.

    I agree that everyone can have an opinion - but please understand that it is just an opinion (Opinion: A personal belief or judgement that is not founded on proof or certainty).

    AGW is not an issue to be decided in the political arena - it is nothing to do with politics! It is not like we can simply pass an anti-AGW bill and AGW will go away (just like we can't simply pass a bill that makes smoking harmless). The right or wrong of an ETS is a political issue or matter. An ETS is an example of a political tool to put in place actions to overcome the AGW problem.

    When the prevailing scientific view of the world and my view of the world are are at odds, I'd be seriously question my views.

  10. #2610
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    The ole "Logical People" line again....................

    I'd like to know how Rod defines a logical person outside his beloved ETS mindset.

    You do realise, Rod that history has long list of logical people who failed miserably.

    I guess, if Columbus used his logic we'd still be living on a flat world, hey Rod.

    Fortunately, Columbus ignored all the so called "Logical people" and found the truth...................

    Logical people.........NIL
    ill- logical people.......ONE
    So who really was the logical person here? Prime example of how an 'ill-logical" majority can be proved wrong by a logical few.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  11. #2611
    Mr Sexy Beast dazzler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Northern Rivers NSW
    Age
    55
    Posts
    964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    SDB,


    WALEED ALY [/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=2]: I think they're being scientists. I don't know that, you know - let's just - this is a - let's just say something up front. Let's just all be honest. Most people in this room, unless there are climatologists among us, really have no idea about whether or not climate change is real. What's happening, though, is that we make decisions about whether or not we are going to believe that it is real or not and usually we make those decisions on the basis of what we want the answer to be and that is why you find that at the moment on the conservative side of party politics around the world you are more like to find people who are climate sceptics or denialists because - because that side of politics has overwhelmingly bought into the idea of neo-liberalism and the idea that the free market should be our guiding philosophy. Not just the free market is a good thing, but it's our guiding political philosophy. And when you buy that, climate change becomes very difficult to accommodate. So this becomes an ideological contest for people who are of that persuasion, because the minute they accept the reality of climate change, it destroys the idea that the market is our guiding philosophy, and so they are forced, essentially, to start from a position that says, well, we need to deny this, and then they will look around for data and scientists here and there and so on and nothing amuses me more than seeing bloggers and pundits and columnists and all sorts of - and broadcasters who are not scientists pretending to have scientific debates...



    I found that this article helps to partly explain why some are somehow translating a scientific problem (or theory) in to a political agenda.
    Sums it up pretty good really. Which is probably why this thread has more circle work than a B and S.
    I just love sheepies!

  12. #2612
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Rod,

    I very much enjoyed reading your post - I'm just not sure if you are responding to me or to yourself!
    I am glad you enjoyed it.
    The "smoking-causes-cancer" analogy wasn't intended to be malice, but rather a comment that this too is the accept prevailing scientific view. You seem to be able to accept scientific view that smoking causes cancer but you get all up in arms when science says AGW is happening.
    Ok if not malice it is ignorance.

    You don't seem to be see the difference and the stupidity of this argument. Just because science is right on the question of smoking it does not automatically make it right on AGW or indeed other issues. Science has been proven wrong on many issues over the years. This is a fact now you should get over it and move on to try and explain why science is right on AGW rather than say is is because they are scientist. If so how do you explain the science that says AGW is not happening to any degree that should be cause for alarm they cant be both right? yet the two camps are scientists, your logic fails right here. Oh but wait........ ah! I hear you say..... but but but they are not real scientist. OH BOY give me a break.

    As to political lines, it seems that it is your side that frequently makes, or quotes, political comments (I should underline comment - as "a statement that expresses a personal opinion"). AGW isn't a political issue - it is a scientific issue.


    I agree that everyone can have an opinion - but please understand that it is just an opinion (Opinion: A personal belief or judgement that is not founded on proof or certainty).
    Generally opinions are formed from reading the "facts" and "opinions" of others and then weighing up the relevent information to form your own opinion. No scientist has an opinion on AGW based on certainty. Because in the AGW theory there is NO certainty. just another thing you need to come to terms with.

    [quote}

    AGW is not an issue to be decided in the political arena - it is nothing to do with politics! It is not like we can simply pass an anti-AGW bill and AGW will go away (just like we can't simply pass a bill that makes smoking harmless). The right or wrong of an ETS is a political issue or matter. An ETS is an example of a political tool to put in place actions to overcome the AGW problem.[/quote]

    I agree it should not be a political issue but it has been turned into one by both alarmists and skeptics. So like it or not it is now a political problem.
    When the prevailing scientific view of the world and my view of the world are are at odds, I'd be seriously question my views.
    As headpin nicely pointed out in a post above the prevailing scientific view was that the world was flat. ......... You get the picture.

    As you will see the "prevailing" view on AGW will change as the empirical record keeps refusing to validate the AGW theory.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  13. #2613
    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
    As you will see the "prevailing" view on AGW will change as the empirical record keeps refusing to validate the AGW theory.
    Have you found any? If so, you better let most of the world's scientific bodies know because they must have missed it.

  14. #2614
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dazzler View Post
    Sums it up pretty good really. Which is probably why this thread has more circle work than a B and S.
    Dazzler,

    I liked the quote too. It helped explain some peoples' reactions.

  15. #2615
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Have you found any? If so, you better let most of the world's scientific bodies know because they must have missed it.
    Ho Hum, even Phil Jones recognizes temperatures have not gone up since 1998. Now what were the models predicting?

    I guess its a traversty that they can't explain why temperatures have not gone up!

    Ask Trenberth what he thinks about the travesty..

    Now where was that evidence that matches the predictions?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  16. #2616
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    What Rod claims:

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Ho Hum, even Phil Jones recognizes temperatures have not gone up since 1998. Now what were the models predicting?

    I guess its a traversty that they can't explain why temperatures have not gone up!

    Ask Trenberth what he thinks about the travesty..

    Now where was that evidence that matches the predictions?
    What Phil Jones actually said:
    B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
    Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
    (from: BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones )
    Rod, you make it sound like Phil Jones has said the temperature didn't go up - did he say that?

    But let's not let those annoying facts get in the way of an opinion.

  17. #2617
    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
    Ask Trenberth what he thinks about the travesty..
    Good idea! Let's look. You can find his paper here: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenbert...cs09final2.pdf

    As the publisher has stipulated strict copyright conditions on this paper, I won't quote from it here.

    Why don't you have a look - even skip read it if you want - and see what the overall impression of the author is? I don't think you will find that it supports your implied contention at all.

  18. #2618
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Let's try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    The reason that I posted the post that you quoted wasn't for a scientific rational for proving AGW, but rather to counter act the Anti-AGW propaganda that many/most scientists are now seriously questioning the basis of AGW - they aren't. So called "climategate" has had very little, or no, impact on the science of AGW.

    The "fact" is that the author did a sample literature search and determined the stance of the papers on AGW. The facts are in the numbers presented by the author. These then support the authors view that the scientific community is very much in support/agreement about AGW. What do you base your opinion on?

    Also, the word "opinion" has somewhat different meanings in general use to that in scientific use.

    In general usage, "opinion" is often just a feeling, preference or bias. In scientific usage "opinion" is a considered view only given when the facts support that view.
    I agree, Climategate had little or no impact on the science of AGW Theory (you may choose to start adding the word "Theory" as well. Ignoring the fact it is theoretical doesn't make it real ).

    But the science was always spurious, and still is. I have asked people on this site to present any evidence whatsoever showing that AGW Theory has any empirical evidence proving it, and they cannot. The only conditions I stipulate is that spurious correlations, computer models, and political or scientific "opinions" cannot be included. Suddenly the whole illusion disappears.

    I have posted numerous links to Chapter 9, but no takers.

    No, Climategate had no impact on the science itself, it merely dragged this debacle into the harsh glare of scrutiny.

    As for the consensus article, I will run to 10,000 posts explaining how wrong it is. But to save time, I have already said, I will conceded that 100% of all scientists, all people, all Gods, and all creatures great and small agree that AGW Theory is real. As a self-proclaimed scientist, can you tell me if this in fact makes it real?

    I have also already said what I base my opinion on, it's a place called reality. I've sent invitations to the IPCC, but they don't want to visit.

  19. #2619
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Haven't played here in a while there's a series of articles in New Scientist built around the theme of 'Living with Denial' and exploring some of the reasons why science and scientists have in general failed to articulate and communicate effectively to the general community in the last little while. It also explores the culture of denial and why it is an important part of human society.

    Check 'em out
    Living in denial: The truth is our only weapon - opinion - 23 May 2010 - New Scientist
    Living in denial: Questioning science isn't blasphemy - opinion - 22 May 2010 - New Scientist
    ...and there's a few more in the links off to one side

    or listed here Special report: Living in denial - New Scientist
    I wholeheartedly agree that people who deny the climate has been changing since the Planet formed 4.5 billion years ago have serious issues. These people think it was perfectly stable until 100 years ago when we started the industrial age. Talk about living in denial.

  20. #2620
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    SDB,

    Thank you for providing the links to those articles.

    I have been somewhat perplexed by the rigidity of the anti-AGW sentiment expressed by some. I can fully understand an anti-ETS or anti-carbon-tax view as these are political stances. But the anti-AGW stance goes against the accepted scientific view (i.e. this is not politics).

    I do recall seeing a Q&A program on the ABC awhile back that shed some insight in to the reason some might hold an anti-AGW view of the world.

    The whole transcript of the program can be found at Conservatives, Comedians and Political Correctness | Q&A | ABC TV

    Here is the part I thought was interesting:
    TONY JONES: Well, but is climate change and global warming a conservative idea? Do you think the scientists are conservative or radical?

    WALEED ALY
    : I think they're being scientists. I don't know that, you know - let's just - this is a - let's just say something up front. Let's just all be honest. Most people in this room, unless there are climatologists among us, really have no idea about whether or not climate change is real. What's happening, though, is that we make decisions about whether or not we are going to believe that it is real or not and usually we make those decisions on the basis of what we want the answer to be and that is why you find that at the moment on the conservative side of party politics around the world you are more like to find people who are climate sceptics or denialists because - because that side of politics has overwhelmingly bought into the idea of neo-liberalism and the idea that the free market should be our guiding philosophy. Not just the free market is a good thing, but it's our guiding political philosophy. And when you buy that, climate change becomes very difficult to accommodate. So this becomes an ideological contest for people who are of that persuasion, because the minute they accept the reality of climate change, it destroys the idea that the market is our guiding philosophy, and so they are forced, essentially, to start from a position that says, well, we need to deny this, and then they will look around for data and scientists here and there and so on and nothing amuses me more than seeing bloggers and pundits and columnists and all sorts of - and broadcasters who are not scientists pretending to have scientific debates...

    (The emphasis is mine - for the time-poor readers of this thread.)
    For those of you how are unfamiliar with the Q&A program, Tony Jones is the presenter of the Q&A program. Waleed Aly. who was a guest on that program, is a lecturer in politics at Monash University, where he also works within the Global Terrorism Research Centre.

    I found that this article helps to partly explain why some are somehow translating a scientific problem (or theory) in to a political agenda.
    Waleed Aly is an idiot. Once again, it would take too long to explain in how many ways his thought bubble above is ridiculous. But just for starters, all AGW Theory proponents claim that the free markets are the best way of solving this problem through a price on carbon. So why would free market ideologues be opposed to the concept of AGW Theory? In fact, it is the financial marketeers themselves who have been pushing the idea of global carbon markets harder than the IPCC, as they stand to make trillions from this fiction, literally taxing and trading fresh air. Yes, an idiot.

  21. #2621
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default A better idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    What Rod claims:



    What Phil Jones actually said:
    B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
    Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
    (from: BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones )
    Rod, you make it sound like Phil Jones has said the temperature didn't go up - did he say that?

    But let's not let those annoying facts get in the way of an opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Good idea! Let's look. You can find his paper here: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenbert...cs09final2.pdf

    As the publisher has stipulated strict copyright conditions on this paper, I won't quote from it here.

    Why don't you have a look - even skip read it if you want - and see what the overall impression of the author is? I don't think you will find that it supports your implied contention at all.
    Hey, I've got a better idea.

    Why don't we get all the world's scientists that believe in AGW Theory in one place at one time to present the best scientific evidence they can muster, then present this evidence to most of the worlds leaders, even if it takes days. We can even exclude all science and evidence to the contrary to make the case even more compelling.

    Then the world's leaders can demonstrate how much stock they place in this science by implementing global policies to mitigate any threat they have been convinced may exist.

    Wow, really weird deja vu writing that.

  22. #2622
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Which one?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Yer, yer. I suppose the smoking-cases-cancer claim is just another opinion in your books too?

    Anterograde or retrograde?

    A quick search of this thread will bring it all flooding back.


    Meanwhile, back in AGW Theory Land, reality continually refuses to yield to computer models. Pesky reality, naughty reality.

  23. #2623
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Count me in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post

    I wonder how far we can stretch the boundaries of possible toxic emissions before life on earth is impossible.......................
    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    C02 aside. Won't lowering or eliminating man made toxic emissions into the atmosphere be bettter for all life on earth?
    Hell yeh. As soon as Rudd introduces the Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Nitric Oxides, Nitrogen Dioxides, Nitric acid (Acid rain), Lead oxide, Ozone, Unburnt fuel, Particulate matter (Soot), Photochemical smog pollution reduction scheme (CMHNONDNALOOUFPMPSPRS), he'll get my vote.

    But I don't think spending trillions trying to reduce CO2 (or water vapour) or other benign greenhouse agents is going to help.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post


    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.

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    Is that an exact figure, Doc. Cause I was leaning towards 4.3256 billion years ago.................
    I tend to lose count myself, I was a lot younger back then.

  24. #2624
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default The danger of chasing Unicorns.

    Let's say we all buy into this myth, that CO2 is "poisonous" and going to kill the Planet.

    And in this mythology, continue to ignore the real pollution.

    Then one day, BP and it's mates invent a CO2 splitter, which converts fossil fuel emissions of CO2 into "harmless" emissions. They then fit this new technology to all vehicles and power plants, and we continue to burn fossil fuels with all "toxic" emissions listed above still happily going on. But as we all bought into the CO2 bogeyman, what do we do, say we got cheated because oil companies got rid of the threat we pretended was real.

  25. #2625
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    What most skeptics disagree with is that co2 is the cause of climate change or temperature increases. This is not denial because these are not facts and cannot be proven to be true.

    I don't think it is the sckeptics that are in denial.
    Actually....this part of the 'climate change' mechanism was demonstrated in the 19th century (with respect to CO2 anyway) and continues to be demonstrated in high school classrooms, green house and aquariums around the world to this day.

    Other contributors to the 'greenhouse effect' (such as methane and other complex compounds) have also been proven and scientifically demonstrated - mostly way back in the 20th century.

    If you want....you can do the experiment yourself. Obtain two or three simple relatively air tight containers - a small timber frame with plastic wrap on it is sufficient - and install a thermometer in each. Load one up with plain old air, load another up with air plus a little CO2 (crack a few soda bulbs), load another up with a bit of methane (fart in a jar?). Leave them all in a sunny spot and observe the temperature change in each over time - keep any eye on the outside air temperature as well. Provided that none of the containers leak (especially with ones with added CO2 or methane)....I could pretty much gaurantee that the ones dosed with CO2 or methane will finish up hotter than the plain old air.

    Works for the kids so there's no reason it can't work for you too.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  26. #2626
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Then one day, BP and it's mates invent a CO2 splitter, which converts fossil fuel emissions of CO2 into "harmless" emissions. They then fit this new technology to all vehicles and power plants, and we continue to burn fossil fuels with all "toxic" emissions listed above still happily going on. But as we all bought into the CO2 bogeyman, what do we do, say we got cheated because oil companies got rid of the threat we pretended was real.
    That's actually demonstrably hard to do if you know a little about physics.....splitting CO2....takes a bit of energy and produces (among other things carbon monoxide - which really is poisonous) little of economic value. Going the other way though is much easier (combining it with something else)...plants do it all the time. And so does the chemical industry.

    CO2 is not in itself a poison....the only way it will directly kill a human being is by displacing oxygen - to do that it has to be present in vast quantities (like in a freezer half full of dry ice). In actual fact, oxygen is a far far more toxic substance, pound for pound, than carbon dioxide.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  27. #2627
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Actually....this part of the 'climate change' mechanism was demonstrated in the 19th century (with respect to CO2 anyway) and continues to be demonstrated in high school classrooms, green house and aquariums around the world to this day.

    Other contributors to the 'greenhouse effect' (such as methane and other complex compounds) have also been proven and scientifically demonstrated - mostly way back in the 20th century.

    If you want....you can do the experiment yourself. Obtain two or three simple relatively air tight containers - a small timber frame with plastic wrap on it is sufficient - and install a thermometer in each. Load one up with plain old air, load another up with air plus a little CO2 (crack a few soda bulbs), load another up with a bit of methane (fart in a jar?). Leave them all in a sunny spot and observe the temperature change in each over time - keep any eye on the outside air temperature as well. Provided that none of the containers leak (especially with ones with added CO2 or methane)....I could pretty much gaurantee that the ones dosed with CO2 or methane will finish up hotter than the plain old air.

    Works for the kids so there's no reason it can't work for you too.
    Myth Busters did something similar using small rooms (mini hothouses) instead of containers and, I think, may have used a controlled light source too. From memory, it was a "student" episode and the experiment was conducted by a young teenage boy. I don't think they used methane, but they certainly did use plain air and enhanced CO2 air. The results were as SDB predicts - CO2 loaded air was hotter.

  28. #2628
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Myth Busters did something similar using small rooms (mini hothouses) instead of containers and, I think, may have used a controlled light source too. From memory, it was a "student" episode and the experiment was conducted by a young teenage boy. I don't think they used methane, but they certainly did use plain air and enhanced CO2 air. The results were as SDB predicts - CO2 loaded air was hotter.
    I seem to remeber reading something about this experiment some time ago. I will see if i can dig it up.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  29. #2629
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    I seem to remeber reading something about this experiment some time ago. I will see if i can dig it up.
    Ah here it is BBC botches grade school CO2 science experiment on live TV – with indepedent lab results to prove it | Watts Up With That? Now don't shoot the messenger!

    BTW it is quite clear that co2 is a "greenhouse" gas. The real issue is how much effect has CO2 in isolation has on temperatures. Is CO2 the real cause of temperature fluctuation in our climate, if so how much. If you double the CO2, what will the temperature be?

    In these experiments the CO2 used is far greater that 380 pts per million. All it does is confirms what is already known and that is that CO2 is a green house gas. This does not prove that an increase from 380 ppm to 500 ppm will increase atmospheric temperatures to a degree that will be a danger rather than a benefit to man.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  30. #2630
    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
    Ah here it is BBC botches grade school CO2 science experiment on live TV – with indepedent lab results to prove it | Watts Up With That? Now don't shoot the messenger!

    BTW it is quite clear that co2 is a "greenhouse" gas. The real issue is how much effect has CO2 in isolation has on temperatures. Is CO2 the real cause of temperature fluctuation in our climate, if so how much. If you double the CO2, what will the temperature be?

    In these experiments the CO2 used is far greater that 380 pts per million. All it does is confirms what is already known and that is that CO2 is a green house gas. This does not prove that an increase from 380 ppm to 500 ppm will increase atmospheric temperatures to a degree that will be a danger rather than a benefit to man.
    The MythBusters episode, the "Young Scientist Special", can be found here: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I"]YouTube - Mythbusters confirm carbon dioxide warms air[/ame]

    They used methane too.

    The myth was "Confirmed" - just thought you'd like to know that.

  31. #2631
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    They used methane too.

    The myth was "Confirmed" - just thought you'd like to know that.
    No one I know disputes that cO2 is a green house gas.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  32. #2632
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Apparently there is a Starbucks cup out with an interesting message:
    (I don't know if it is real or a fake.)



    Image from: Demotivational Posters. Rate,create,browse demotivational posters. With 50,000+, Motifake.com is the largest demotivational posters commmunity

  33. #2633
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post

    BTW it is quite clear that co2 is a "greenhouse" gas.

    The real issue is how much effect has CO2 in isolation has on temperatures. Is CO2 the real cause of temperature fluctuation in our climate, if so how much. If you double the CO2, what will the temperature be?

    In these experiments the CO2 used is far greater that 380 pts per million. All it does is confirms what is already known and that is that CO2 is a green house gas. This does not prove that an increase from 380 ppm to 500 ppm will increase atmospheric temperatures to a degree that will be a danger rather than a benefit to man.
    Para 1: that's not what you said in the original quotation

    Para 2: That's not the issue - CO2 does not work in isolation and the boffins are well aware of it and they even take that into account in their analysis. Is it the real cause? On its own? Hell No! It is just one of the major contributing factors along with other 'greenhouse' gases. It actually isn't a very effective greenhouse gas but there's a vast amount of it. Methane is a vastly more effective greenhouse gas (as are many other hydrocarbons and fluorocarbons) but fortunately there's not that much of it in the atmosphere....yet. Atmospheric methane concentrations have been trending upwards for some time now. If CO2 levels double how hot will it get? No idea. Warmer than now certainly. Would the heat rise alone threaten humanity? No. The danger is in the knock-on effects. And they are notoriously hard to imagine and therefore predict.

    Think about the time you shoved a screw bit into your hand, Rod. That alone wouldn't kill you but would you have predicted beforehand that the impact would cause you to go woozy, nearly fall off your stilts and then struggle to find a safe spot because you hadn't thought you might ever fall off your stilts? Now that could've killed you. Same goes with the predictions and responses around our climate...they are tricky & hard to predict...is it such a ridiculous argument to suggest that we put up a bit of scaffolding/risk protection just in case?

    Para 3: Very true. All it proves is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Also true that it is extremely unlikely that the experiment will allow you to predict/model a specific temperature increase for a given CO2 concentration. The point (one of them) that is getting lost here is that it is not the increasing air temperature that will kill you - it is the knock-on effect that such a thing contributes to. Eventually these knock-ons have the capacity to manifest themselves in physical ways that could threaten your way of life...if not your life itself.

    In a typical job site risk analysis...the likelihood remains under discussion but the odds are that something will happen in the next 20 years, the consequence could conceivably be devastating to a large number of people so therefore the risk would be considered 'high', a level that obliges one to take action to reduce risk. Fortunately, there are practical remedial risk abatement options available to those on the job site - we just have to pick one. What would you do? Argue about the risk or consider a least effort risk abatement activity? If the latter then good on you. What harm is a bit of scaffolding?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  34. #2634
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    That's actually demonstrably hard to do if you know a little about physics.....splitting CO2....takes a bit of energy and produces (among other things carbon monoxide - which really is poisonous) little of economic value. Going the other way though is much easier (combining it with something else)...plants do it all the time. And so does the chemical industry.
    I wasn't suggesting this as the way to go, quite the opposite. The actualisation of my thought bubble would be disastrous (luckily sequestration is also proving it's uselessness). Now please don't go steering those greedy corporations in the right direction with suggestions of what would work.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    CO2 is not in itself a poison....
    You obviously didn't see the Transformer.

  35. #2635
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Danger Will Robinson, Danger.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    ...The danger is in the knock-on effects. And they are notoriously hard to imagine and therefore predict...

    ...Eventually these knock-ons have the capacity to manifest themselves in physical ways that could threaten your way of life...if not your life itself...
    So if they are hard to imagine and hard to predict, they could also improve your way of life, and improve your life itself.

    Oh yeh, this is after assuming AGW Theory is not a crock and assuming it makes any discernible difference against the background noise of other variations.

    I'll get one of these ready just in case, but if you mean the knock-on effects predicated on computer models and asumptions, I think we'll be ok.


  36. #2636
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Looks like Anterograde.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Myth Busters did something similar using small rooms (mini hothouses) instead of containers and, I think, may have used a controlled light source too. From memory, it was a "student" episode and the experiment was conducted by a young teenage boy. I don't think they used methane, but they certainly did use plain air and enhanced CO2 air. The results were as SDB predicts - CO2 loaded air was hotter.
    This is a great "controlled" experiment for kids to do, as we know the answer will always be the same. Hence the name "controlled". Google extraneous variables or confounding variables and you will hopefully understand why these results are not generalisable to the real world. Remember this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    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.
    Here's the full read from Rod.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post

  37. #2637
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Lord Monckton wins global warming debate at Oxford Union

    This is an interesting read, a debate in the Oxford Union on AGW was won by the "skeptic by 135 votes to 110.

    The arguments put forward can be read here. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/2...on/#more-19868

    Is it any wonder this is happening. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/sc...25climate.html The Brits are starting to come to their senses it seems.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  38. #2638
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Here's a new-ish CC summary from Barrie Pittock that was published in the journal 'Climatic Change' back in February. The first half provides a potted history of climate change science and includes references to the original (& critical) scientific papers

    Well worth a read ...only 7 pages

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/...1/fulltext.pdf
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  39. #2639
    Vin
    Vin is offline
    Novice
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    SA
    Posts
    46

    Default

    You folks still at it, this will end up the longest thread on the internet, you going for Guinness World Records .

    I guess while your arguing here you ain't driving the car pumping co2 in the atmosphere.

  40. #2640
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vin View Post
    You folks still at it,
    Vin,

    It does seem futile at times, but we are making progress... slooowly...

    From: (page 14)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    One thing is for certain, and that is, there is NO credible scientific link to CO2 controlling temperatures
    To: (page 205)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    No one I know disputes that cO2 is a green house gas.
    So slowly, that I don't think Rod has noticed.

  41. #2641
    Vin
    Vin is offline
    Novice
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    SA
    Posts
    46

    Default

    That looks pretty conclusive to me

    Rod did you really make both of those statements

  42. #2642
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vin View Post
    You folks still at it, this will end up the longest thread on the internet, you going for Guinness World Records .

    Haven't got a hope. This one here Wheeeeewww!! Thats A Relief...... runs to over 137,400 posts and rising
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  43. #2643
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Haven't got a hope. This one here Wheeeeewww!! Thats A Relief...... runs to over 137,400 posts and rising
    Okay guys, gather round, we have a had a bit of a blow, but don't fret, we can can still do it - but we have a big job on our hands. I thought we'd have to make this thread hit 10.000 posts, but SDB has opened our eye - we need to hit 200,000 posts to be in the serious running....

    Here is the plan:
    Rod: stick doggedly to your position - don't waver now mate! You've been doing a great job but the odd crack has been showing of late. Come on! give it 100%.

    Doc: Good work with the multiple string of sequential posts - and doing the night-shift! Keep it up - maybe even try for a whole page at the time. Come on, you can easily do a page! No point doing a single post when you can turn it into 15 instead!

    Heady: keep up the wise cracks - prod them along with a few cutting remarks.

    Woodbe: Come on mate, enough of the nature walk holiday, it is time to get back to work.

    Vin: Welcome to the thread. You've just got warmed up, show us what you can really do mate!

    Dazzler: Enough time on the bench mate! Back on the field and kick a few more goals mate!

    SBD: Welcome to the team. You've shown that you are made of the right-stuff. Come on now, don't sit back now, get out there and post your guts out!
    Gather 'round now (sing together): 200,000 ... 200,000 ... 200,000 ... 200,000 ... Yes! We can do it!

    (Why is Watson groaning )

  44. #2644
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default He started it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    I don't know what getting your toys out will do for ya, Doc. But, you know, if that makes you happy, play with your 'Noah's Ark action set" all day long...............

    Your big on the Flood theme lately, Arks, Unicorns.................
    Maybe the years of evangelical flooding prophecies from Mr Gore (Al Gore Warming (AGW) Theory) is starting to have an effect on me?




    If one of you guys in NSW could run down and check this out for me, I've been hearing it's happening faster than we think.

  45. #2645
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Its Ok Doc.
    I have it on good authority that the wind never blows in Sydney.......it sucks.

  46. #2646
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Do it justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Lord Monckton wins global warming debate at Oxford Union

    This is an interesting read, a debate in the Oxford Union on AGW was won by the "skeptic by 135 votes to 110.

    The arguments put forward can be read here. Lord Monckton wins global warming debate at Oxford Union | Watts Up With That?

    Is it any wonder this is happening. Britons? Fears Turn to Doubts About Climate Change - NYTimes.com The Brits are starting to come to their senses it seems.
    Funny stuff Rod, but you really should do it more justice by cutting and pasting some snippets for those readers who can't read all the links. It also shows how our little forum mirrors the same arguments being made all over the world. Here's some gems:

    "...At one point, Lord Lawson was interrupted by a US student, who demanded to know what was his connection with the Science and Public Policy Institute, and what were the Institute’s sources of funding. Lord Lawson was cheered when he said he neither knew nor cared who funded the Institute...

    ...Ms. Zara McGlone, Secretary of the Oxford Union, opposed the motion, saying that greenhouse gases had an effect [they do, but it is very small]; that the precautionary principle required immediate action, just in case and regardless of expense [but one must also bear in mind the cost of the precautions themselves, which can and often do easily exceed the cost of inaction]; that Bangladesh was sinking beneath the waves [a recent study by Prof. Niklas Moerner shows that sea level in Bangladesh has actually fallen]; that the majority of scientists believed “global warming” was a problem [she offered no evidence for this]; and that “irreversible natural destruction” would occur if we did nothing [but she did not offer any evidence]...

    ...Lord Monckton said that real-world measurements, as opposed to models, showed that the warming effect of CO2 was a tiny fraction of the estimates peddled by the UN’s climate panel. He said that he would take his lead from Lord Lawson, however, in concentrating on the economics rather than the science. He glared at the opposition again and demanded whether, since they had declared themselves to be so worried about “global warming”, they would care to tell him – to two places of decimals and one standard deviation – the UN’s central estimate of the “global warming” that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The opposition were unable to reply. Lord Monckton told them the answer was 3.26 plus or minus 0.69 Kelvin or Celsius degrees. An Hon. Member interrupted: “And your reference is?” Lord Monckton replied: “IPCC, 2007, chapter 10, box 10.2.” [cheers]. He concluded that shutting down the entire global economy for a whole year, with all the death, destruction, disaster, disease and distress that that would cause, would forestall just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 Kelvin or Celsius degrees of “global warming”, so that total economic shutdown for 41 years would prevent just 1 K of warming..."

    See, sounds just like us.

  47. #2647
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Its Ok Doc.
    I have it on good authority that the wind never blows in Sydney.......it sucks.
    You crazy easterners with that old chestnut.

    Talk like that is the reason we now have to put up with Canberra.

    Apologies for the sudden departure earlier, urgent request for net usage was received from local management, who is also responsible for catering. Request was granted.

  48. #2648
    1K Club Member jago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ....
    Posts
    1,411

    Default

    Hello and both feet first ! It doesn't matter if global warming is true or not ... It has already become a @multi billion dollar industry with absolutley no reason to actually prove which is correct, both sides are getting rich, any how by the time they do prove it either way, everybody would have forgotten the original context.
    @
    It's like this thread people get caught in the momentum: @ideology, the challenge fun, point scoring, @boredom, alcohol @missus/hubby won't put out, footballs not on and so on! @ @

    Society is becoming better at "Emperors new clothes" coming up with ways of producing nothing of true value yet charging a fortune for it!@

    And before you ask for my motivation to add to this beast of a thread :@

    The footballs finished I've had way too much to drink the missus is away and I @'m bored and thought I would take on the challenge to score some points as Watson stopped the Daily Planet joke... Www. Dailypla. Only kidding.

    Ciao@

  49. #2649
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default This was peer-reviewed?

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Here's a new-ish CC summary from Barrie Pittock that was published in the journal 'Climatic Change' back in February. The first half provides a potted history of climate change science and includes references to the original (& critical) scientific papers

    Well worth a read ...only 7 pages

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/...1/fulltext.pdf
    I was going to write this off as just another puff piece trotting out the same old lines with no scientific evidence proving AGW Theory, and for the most part this was correct.

    But then I came across items like this:

    “Where does the scientist stop giving advice—at the causal link between cause and effect, or at the logical policy implications which may be clear to us as scientists, but not so clear to decision makers?”

    For a start, are you able to please provide the cause and effect evidence that the good Mr Pittock speaks of? He certainly did not provide any such thing.

    Then can you please explain if you agree scientists are suddenly better placed than policy makers to decide on these “logical policy implications”. Scientific training must have changed since I last checked. I’m not sure if these scientists are really that qualified to design and implement policy outside of the scientific bubble, factoring in issues such as micro and macro economics, energy security, national security, housing and welfare implications, food supply, poverty levels, equity and ethical issues, structural and historical inequalities, population constraints and these effects on future societal reforms, etc, etc, all at the local, national and global levels.

    I know the current Rudd government is not helping my argument through its ineptitude, but I think I feel safer have elected representatives responsible for policy rather than one subset of society claiming to have all the right answers, but none of the evidence.

    This paper alone could take us over the 200,000 posts mark before all this fiction was rebutted.

  50. #2650
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default In, out, in, out...

    Quote Originally Posted by Vin View Post
    You folks still at it, this will end up the longest thread on the internet, you going for Guinness World Records .

    I guess while your arguing here you ain't driving the car pumping co2 in the atmosphere.
    Don't hold your breath.

    No seriously, you gotta keep breathing. I know this is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, but I'm willing to risk it.

Page 53 of 377 FirstFirst ... 3 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 103 153 ... 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
  •