Emission Trading and climate change

Page 60 of 377 FirstFirst ... 10 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 110 160 ... LastLast
Results 2,951 to 3,000 of 18819
  1. #2951
    1K Club Member jago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ....
    Posts
    1,411

    Default Intervention Required

    Docs lost it ...we need you to stop taking the caffiene..pmsl

    Having grew up in London I allways thought Australian cites and towns were dry and hot...well I'm freezing my @@@@ off costal in NSW and having to put up with 1.8 metres of rain last year, with a Dam thats not full!!! So, what water shortage as Doc said just poor management of resources.

    Its not something we will as a planet ever run out of, we in Australia just have to accept that with hindsight our forefathers did not put our cities or farms in the best places and then without a Metroplitian sewer system to collect run off...well!

    The Green movement have since I was a child always tried to sell thier policies by scaring us, we're all going sufer die etc etc unless we adopt this now...if you cannot be positive when selling then you will not reach the wider market, and thats the problem they tend to be dour people even if the message has some weight.

  2. #2952
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Sorry, should have been clearer. When someone mentions "policies" I assume they are talking about
    a political party. I just wanted to point out that it is not only the Green Party that has policies opposing
    dams and coal mining, the LNP has them too. The vast majority of us don't have policies, just different
    points of view.

  3. #2953
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    Thanks Doc, BTW can you please bring Chrisp back in out of the cold, we haven't heard from him for a few days and I'm a bit worried.
    I'm Back! I've been away for a week or so without reliable internet access. I'll try and catch up with this thread. Can anyone let me know if Dr Freud actually posted anything factual to responded to? Hopefully he hasn't been quoting Andrew Bolte.

  4. #2954
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Works for Ben Cousins...

    Appreciate the concern Jago, but the Stillnox will bring me down soon.

    But news just in, a journalist actually figured out what hypocrisy means:

    hypocrisy

    1. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc., contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety
    2. an act or instance of this


    "This points to the more basic assumption underlying both versions of the tax, which amounts to Gillard's (and Kevin Rudd's) even bigger hypocrisy.

    For, rather than struggling with the two clunky variations of the tax's name, there is a much simpler, much more accurate name. It should be called the China Prosperity Tax. Or, perhaps, with all due deference to the events of the 1930s, the China Co-Prosperity Tax.

    In concept, it is based entirely on the belief -- hope? -- that China will keep on booming. That it will consume, and this is crucial: ever more and more of our coal and iron ore.

    No China boom, no high commodity prices as "estimated" by Treasury; no super profits; no resource tax revenues. And, it's worth adding, no budget surplus.
    It is not sufficient for China to maintain some growth in its economy, far less just sustain the level of its current activity. It has to keep growing at around 10 per cent a year, give or take a percentage point or two either way, every year. Even one year of "time out" would be devastating for commodity prices and our tax revenues.

    Gillard's Great Hypocrisy sits at the centre of this Great Expectation: that whatever coal and iron ore we sell to China today, we will be selling rising multiples of them tomorrow, in 2020 and beyond.

    This is coal and iron ore that is embedded carbon dioxide. So, Gillard, and Rudd before her, have built their hoped-for return to budget surplus and future national prosperity on, in effect, demanding that China -- already the world's biggest "polluter" -- pumps ever-rising volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    As it turns our coal and iron ore into, what else: coal-fired power, iron and steel, cement, and whatever. And carbon dioxide.

    So, its OK to help China boost its emissions -- nay demand it do so, using our resources -- while embarking on the most pointless and pointlessly painful attempt to cut our domestic emissions."

    Julia Gillard's big lie at the heart of mining tax coup | The Australian


  5. #2955
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default A direct action plan?

    “In his short tenure in the leader's job, Abbott has destroyed Kevin Rudd's prime ministership. First, he destroyed the emissions trading scheme. Despite the claims of a Rudd autocracy, the former prime minister abandoned the ETS partly because so many backbenchers told him Abbott's campaign against it was killing them in their electorates. As a result, Rudd adopted Abbott's policy on greenhouse gas emissions.”

    So what’s Joolia doing now?

    “Criticism is building that Ms Gillard is moving too quickly to address Labor's policy weaknesses in her haste to clear the deck for an election.

    The government is considering a suite of measures to reclaim support from voters lost to the Greens when Mr Rudd ditched the ETS. These include a controversial idea to place tough new restrictions on all new coal-fired power stations and a national energy-efficiency target.”

    PM Julia Gillard told to slow down on climate | The Australian



  6. #2956
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Have been very quite for a while but I am still lurking!

    BTW why isnt woodbe back yet I miss his banter.

    Should get active again soon, we havn't got this thing licked quite yet but well on the way. Lets see how Gillrudd handles this monster.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  7. #2957
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Many in the mainstream media are attempting to portray The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, just released in the UK, as exonerating the researchers. In fact the main conclusion, buried under pages of rhetoric, confirms that data was presented in a misleading way. Here is the actual text of the conclusion regarding the allegation of impropriety in the presentation of tree ring data:
    On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a “trick” and to “hide the decline” in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was Misleading.
    Unfortunately, the media, including many who remain skeptical of climate change, have missed the main scientific point at question in the tree ring data. The researchers were not trying to hide evidence of a decline in global temperatures over the last decade—we have plenty of actual thermometer readings to show temperatures in recent years.

    What they were trying to hide was the discrepancy between actual temperature readings and the temperatures suggested by tree ring data. They have relied on tree ring data to show that the earth was cooler in the past. If the tree ring data is not reliable (as the discrepancy in recent years would suggest), then maybe the earth was actually hotter in the past than these researchers would have us believe—and perhaps the hot temperatures of recent years do not represent unprecedented global warming but just natural variation in climate.

    The review panel at least acknowledged that the “trick” used to “hide the decline” was misleading. Now let’s see if the media can report the result in a way that is not itself misleading.


    UK Climategate Investigation Conclusion: Hiding the Decline was “Misleading” | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
    Perhaps the media didn't get past the findings where it states "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt"
    and "we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments"
    All on page 11 section 1.3

    Here's a link to the Dutch report which says basically the same thing.
    http://www.pbl.nl/images/500216002_tcm61-48119.pdf

    Bit short on bedtime reading material here.

  8. #2958
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default What do you think?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    Perhaps the media didn't get past the findings where it states "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt"
    and "we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments"
    All on page 11 section 1.3

    Here's a link to the Dutch report which says basically the same thing.
    http://www.pbl.nl/images/500216002_tcm61-48119.pdf

    Bit short on bedtime reading material here.
    Unlike some participants to this thread, I am very keen to have your opinion on the now uncovered conduct of some "scientists" (and I use the term nominally, not in practice).

    I assume you have read the emails themselves and the accounts of many dissenting scientists as to their treatment at the hands of these self appointed eco-oracles. I am sure you are also aware of the findings regarding the intentional avoidance of FOI legislation in the UK. So with all due respect to Muir Russel's opinion, do you believe based on the information available to you that :

    their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt

    ?

  9. #2959
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Snooze time...

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    Perhaps the media didn't get past the findings where it states "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt"
    and "we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments"
    All on page 11 section 1.3

    Here's a link to the Dutch report which says basically the same thing.
    http://www.pbl.nl/images/500216002_tcm61-48119.pdf

    Bit short on bedtime reading material here.
    Keep in mind your bedtime reading only covers select parts of IPCC WG2. The Russell Review was dealing with very constrained review parameters outside of this area (more on this later).

    Also keep in mind that the IPCC held themselves up as unimpeachable, and the entire world had to revolutionise our very way of life based on their “certainty”.

    But here are some excerpts that you may have missed from your bedtime reading:

    PBL – Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

    ...Seven of the investigated 32 conclusions on the regional impacts of climate change contain information that we were unable to sufficiently trace to the underlying chapters in the IPCC Working Group II Report or to the references therein...

    ... We found certain inaccuracies, ranging from (very) small errors in numbers to imprecise literature references. In addition, the PBL has some critical comments to make....

    ... From Table TS.4 readers may mistakenly conclude that 3,000 to 5,000 more heat related deaths could be directly attributed to temperature change (as is the case with the ‘additional people suffering from increased water stress’ also shown in the table). However, the largest part of the 3,000–5,000 range is dependent on expected changes in population sizes and age distributions within cities (C1). With the other drivers remaining constant, temperature change would only be responsible for 300 to 900 more heat-related deaths (this can be calculated from Table 2 in McMichael et al., 2003)...

    ... The average, region-wide, glacier area retreat rate is probably between 0.1 and 0.5% per year. Although the glacier area will shrink substantially this century, especially in the most vulnerable eastern zone of the Himalayas, glaciers (such as Khumbu and Imja), will not disappear entirely, or even mostly, by 2035, as stated in the Working Group II Report...

    ... The Working Group II Report states that 55% of Dutch land area is below sea level. This should have read that 55% of the Netherlands is prone to flooding: 26% of the country is at risk because it lies below sea level and another 29% is susceptible to river flooding...

    .... The scientific uncertainties that the IPCC, including Working Group II, are confronted with, are large and deep...

    ... The IPCC authors were in fact requested to produce a ‘traceable account’ of their assessment of uncertainty in expert judgments in the Fourth Assessment process...It is our general impression that this part of the guidance has never been fully implemented in the assessment process. Also, the option to have separate traceable accounts underlying the reports has not been pursued...

    ... A projected decrease by 50 to 60% in extreme wind and turbulence over fishing grounds was mistakenly represented as a 50 to 60% decrease in productivity as a result of changes in wind and turbulence...

    ... Table 3.3 provides an overview of all newly found errors in referencing in the regional chapters of the Fourth Assessment Working Group II Report. We found four instances of inaccurate referencing, which could and should be repaired by issuing errata...

    ...For instance, the focus in Table SPM.2 of the Synthesis Report is on crops for which yields are likely to be reduced in Africa, but the table does not mention the crops for which yields are likely to increase due to climate change. For Australia and New Zealand, Table SPM.2 shows many risks but only one benefit of climate change (initial benefits for agricultural production in New Zealand)...

    ... However, this information was often not contextualised in the summary statements by also mentioning other impact factors. This was even the case when these other factors were much larger than the impact that was attributable to climate change. To give an example, Arnell (2004) showed that the number of people living in water-stressed watersheds (defined as having less than 1,000 m3 of water per year, per person), even without climate change, would rise strongly over time (a rise of 1.5 to 2 billion people by 2025, globally, compared to 1995, see his Table 5), mainly due to population growth in already water-stressed areas. This increase is much larger than the additional increase related to climate change. Again, some policymakers may wish to see both numbers – that is, changes with and without climate change – within the same context in a summary...

    ... For instance, the projected ‘up to 50%’ reduction in yields in rain-fed agriculture for some countries in Africa, was ultimately based on an untraceable reference (MATUHE, 2001). Given the high importance attached to the statement, this is a major comment...

    ... Yet another example concerns a paper on a projected increase in coffee-leaf miners in Brazil, which was listed in the references of Chapter 13 as ‘submitted’ to Climatic Change, but we found that the paper had never been accepted by this particular journal, which makes this reference untraceable...

    ... Alternatively, it could be argued that policymakers should be presented with a complete picture in the Summaries for Policymakers, not just with negative examples (without suggesting that potential positive effects cancel out potential negatives effects)...

    ... We believe that policymakers (and their analysts) need to see the complete picture at summary level. Positive impacts are important, because they may also become smaller when mitigation measures are introduced. There may be offsets possible between positive and negative impacts of climate change, for instance, in relation to agricultural yields. Although there are justifiable objections against making a cost-benefit analysis of positive and negative impacts, to not mention them would be ‘policy-pre-emptive’...

    ... Finally, some of the comments made and the errors found – including those received through our registration website – were related to the issue of accentuating or even heightening the severity of climate-change impacts. We recommend that the authors of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) be made specifically aware of this issue. Care should be taken with phrasing of statements that could be perceived by readers as heightening the projected impacts of climate change...

    The IPCC Scaremongering?

  10. #2960
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Leave us alone you maniacs.

    Why is that the hardworking people of WA are always being asked to bail out this inept governments debt woes. We've had enough of people smugglers clogging WA jails at our expense, now we have to pay an extra $7 billion to help China increase their carbon dioxide emissions!

    Paying more money to increase carbon dioxide emissions!

    WA greenies are going to be majorly pi55ed off.

    "“Under Kevin Rudd's bad tax, WA was going to be hit for at least $4 billion out of $12 billion,” he says.

    “Under Julia Gillard's dodgy tax deal, negotiated in secret, it will be more like $7 billion out of $10.5 billion.”

    Senator Cormann, who is Chairman of the Senate Fuel and Energy Committee, also claims Prime Minister Gillard prevented Treasury Secretary Dr Ken Henry from answering questions about the tax at a committee hearing during the week.

    “She doesn't want people in Western Australia to know how much we will end up paying as a result of her new tax,” he says."


    Julia Gillard tax would be worse: WA senator | The Australian

  11. #2961
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default That was then.

    A wise man once said "When you change the government, you change the country". The UK has just had a change of government, and the new team are looking to massively reduce budget deficits and national debt levels. The spending in this area will only be made more accountable as time goes on.

    Before the Muir Russell review:

    "...Parliament isn’t the place where climate sceptics go to make friends. Just over a year ago, just three MPs voted against the Climate Act, with 463 supporting it. But events took a surprising turn at Parliament’s first Climategate hearing yesterday.

    MPs who began by roasting sceptics in a bath of warm sarcasm for half an hour were, a mere two hours later, asking why the University of East Anglia’s enquiry into the climate scandal wasn’t broader, and wasn’t questioning “the science” of climate change. That’s further than any sceptic witness had gone.

    In between, they’d wrought an admission from CRU director Phil Jones that he’d written some awful emails, and that during peer review nobody had ever asked to see his raw data or methods.

    Perhaps the Honourable Members had noticed an incongruity. The Vice Chancellor of East Anglia, with Jones seated next to him, had said CRU had made a significant contribution to the human scientific understanding of climate change. Yet the practices of CRU looked more tatty and indefensible as the hearing went on. How could CRU be crucial to the science, but the science could not be discussed? Something was not quite right...

    ...Graham Stringer (Lab) opened up with a “it's nice to meet you having read all your emails over the past few days”...

    ...Jones initially stated that the methods were published in the scientific papers, “there’s no rocket science in them”. He can’t have thanked his boss Acton for butting in to say that CRU was “not a national archive” and had no obligation to preserve the raw temperature data...

    ...Jones had said, "Why should I make the data available when your aim is to find something wrong with it?"...

    ...Jones said that during the peer review process, nobody had ever asked for raw data or methodology...

    ...By this point Jones and Acton appear to have lost the sympathy of the Committee’s Chair, Willis.

    What staggered him, he said, was Acton’s statement that the integrity of the UEA was the most important question. “Surely scientific integrity on the world's leading global question should be the question. Have you not miserably failed?” he asked...

    ...The Information Commissioner for seven years until last summer ,Richard Thomas, was invited to put the FOIA requests in context. Several Jones emails show him vowing to “hide behind” UK FOIA law, briefing University staff to refuse requests to sceptics, and asking colleagues to destroy email.

    The University, in another PR blunder, had objected to a statement from the current IC office that the Climategate emails showed prima facie evidence of criminal activity. They hadn’t been found guilty, they complained. That’s because the IC couldn’t investigate, Thomas pointed out, and again renewed his call for the six month time limit on complaints to be closed...

    ...Ian Stewart (Lab) was determined to show that the FOIA requests were harassment...

    ...Thomas stood firm: “I do not think hassle justifies the deliberate destruction of information.”...

    ...Sir Muir Russell, former VC of Glasgow University, was picked by Acton to head East Anglia’s enquiry into the emails. He too might have been surprised that the questioning was more pointed than anticipated.

    Stringer implied the staff Russell had chosen were inadequate. He noted that the NAS Hockey Stick hearings had “boiled down to McIntyre vs Mann and required the best statisticians in the world. I ask you to look at that again – you may need a statistician.”

    Russell said Michael Mann had emailed him at one minute to midnight and “if that takes us into the statistical area, then fine”. The MPs didn’t look impressed...

    ...Russell said it was a process enquiry not a substance enquiry – one for the great book of bureaucrats’ quotes. He looked alarmed at the prospect of an enquiry looking at climate science. “Where would it end? What kind of questions would people ask?”

    What indeed...

    ...Three hours later, the day closed with three big guns of the scientific establishment and most prominent advocates of warming: former IPCC chair Bob Watson, the Government’s chief scientific advisor John Beddington, and head scientist at the Met Office, Julia Slingo OBE. Since the story broke, Watson has been a prominent in emphasising the "Keep Calm and Carry On" message: that the science is untouched, and cannot be questioned.

    The three were slightly too chummy and jovial, and seemed unaware of the connection MPs had made: that rotten scientists perhaps mean rotten science."



    Climategate hits Westminster: MPs spring a surprise ? The Register

  12. #2962
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default This is now.

    After the Muir Russel review:

    "Parliament was misled and needs to re-examine the Climategate affair thoroughly after the failure of the Russell report, a leading backbench MP told us today.

    "It's not a whitewash, but it is inadequate," is Labour MP Graham Stringer's summary of the Russell inquiry report. Stringer is the only member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology with scientific qualifications - he holds a PhD in Chemistry.

    Not only did Russell fail to deal with the issues of malpractice raised in the emails, Stringer told us, but he confirmed the feeling that MPs had been misled by the University of East Anglia when conducting their own inquiry. Parliament only had time for a brief examination of the CRU files before the election, but made recommendations. This is a serious charge.

    After the Select Committee heard oral evidence on March 1, MPs believed that Anglia had entrusted an examination of the science to a separate inquiry. Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia Edward Acton had told the committee that "I am hoping, later this week, to announce the chair of a panel to reassess the science and make sure there is nothing wrong."

    Ron Oxburgh's inquiry eventually produced a short report clearing the participants. He did not reassess the science, and now says it was never in his remit. "The science was not the subject of our study," he confirmed in an email to Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit.

    Earlier this week the former chair of the Science and Technology Committee, Phil Willis, now Lord Willis, said MPs had been amazed at the "sleight of hand".

    "Oxburgh didn't go as far as I expected. The Oxburgh Report looks much more like a whitewash," Graham Stringer told us.

    Stringer says Anglia appointee Muir Russell (a civil servant and former Vice Chancellor of Glasgow University), failed in three significant areas.

    "Why did they delete emails? The key question was what reason they had for doing this, but this was never addressed; not getting to the central motivation was a major failing both of our report and Muir Russell."

    Stringer also says that it was unacceptable for Russell (who is not a scientist) to conclude that CRU's work was reproducible, when the data needed was not available. He goes further:

    "The fact that you can make up your own experiments and get similar results doesn't mean that you're doing what's scientifically expected of you. You need to follow the same methodology of the process."...

    ...In 2004 Jones had declined to give out data that would have permitted independent scrutiny of their work, explaining that "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

    This policy is confirmed several times in the emails, with Jones also advising colleagues to destroy evidence helpful to people wishing to reproduce the team's results.

    "I think that's quite shocking," says Stringer.

    Thirdly, the University of East Anglia failed to follow the Commons Select Committee's recommendations in handling the inquiry and producing the report.

    Stringer said, "We asked them to be independent, and not allow the University to have first sight of the report. The way it's come out is as an UEA inquiry, not an independent inquiry."

    Stringer also says they reminded the inquiry to be open - Russell had promised as much - but witness testimony took place behind closed doors, and not all the depositions have been published.

    Muir Russell's team heard only one side of the story, failing to call witnesses who were the subjects of the emails - Stephen McIntyre of Climate Audit is mentioned over one hundred times in the archive - who may have given a different perspective. Nor was any active climate scientist supportive of climate change policy but critical of the CRU team's behaviour - Hans Storch or Judith Curry, let alone the prominent sceptics, for example - summoned. Stringer feels their presence would have provided vital context.

    The panel included Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet and a vocal advocate of mitigation against climate change (in 2007 he described global warming "the biggest threat to our future health") and Geoffrey Boulton a climate change advisor to the UK government and the EU, who spent 16-years at the University of East Anglia - the institution under apparently 'independent' scrutiny.

    "Vast amounts of money are going to be spent on climate change policy, it's billions and eventually could be trillions. Knowing what is accurate and what is inaccurate is important."

    "I view this as a Parliamentarian for one of the poorest constituencies in the country. Putting up the price of fuel for poor people on such a low level of evidence, hoping it will have the desired effect, is not acceptable. I need to know what's going on."

    Climategate may finally be living up to its name. If you recall, it wasn't the burglary or use of funding that led to the impeachment of Nixon, but the cover-up. Now, ominously, three inquiries into affair have raised more questions than there were before."

    Parliament misled over Climategate report, says MP ? The Register

  13. #2963
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default What does independent mean?

    Here is what Michael Mann and "The Hockey Stick Team" from RealClimate told the Muir Russell Review that it should find:

    "The ICCER’s remit includes “mak[ing] recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance, and security structures for CRU and the … release of data that it holds”. In developing recommendations on how CRU should release data, you might find it helpful to consider some experience from across the Atlantic.

    In particular, there is much that is instructive in the history of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) regulations under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. These regulations pertain to disclosure of information relating to federally funded research. OMB issued the regulations in response to a 1998 law known as the Shelby Amendment, which directed OMB to write new standards requiring that all data produced under federal grants be available to the public under FOIA procedures.

    The Shelby Amendment provoked an uproar in the scientific community. There was widespread concern that if it were interpreted too broadly, the law would interfere with scientists’ ability to carry out their research. Such concerns were expressed in Congressional testimony by Dr. Bruce Alberts, (who was at the time the President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences). Dr. Alberts warned that, unless the new standards were appropriately limited, they would have a “chilling effect” on scientific collaboration, and would “be used by various special interest groups to harass researchers doing research that these interest groups would like to stop”.

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science voiced similar concerns to OMB, and noted that overly broad disclosure requirements would have “serious unintended consequences for scientists, their institutions, federal funding agencies, and the wider public”.

    Ultimately, after receiving more than 12,000 comments, OMB issued guidelines (reported at 65 Fed. Reg. 14406) that balance the public’s interest in disclosure against scientists’ need for confidentiality and protection from harassment. Under the guidelines, when federally funded, published research is used in developing agency action that has the force and effect of law, “research data” relating to the published findings are available under FOIA.

    “Research data” is defined as “the recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate research findings …”. Expressly excluded from the definition of “research data”, however – and therefore protected from disclosure – are “preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or communications with colleagues”. (Emphasis added.)
    We strongly believe that CRU and other research institutions should operate under similar guidelines, and hope that the ICCER will be able to make such a recommendation."

    Here's what the Muir Russell Review did find:

    "The Review offers the following more general recommendations:

    Definition of research data. There is extensive confusion and unease within the academic community as to exactly how FoIA/EIR should be applied in terms of the materials developed during a research process.

    The Review believes that all data, metadata and codes necessary to allow independent replication of results should be provident concurrent with peer-reviewed publication. However the situation regarding supporting materials such as early drafts, correspondence with research colleagues and working documents is widely regarded as unclear.

    The American experience is instructive here. The so called ―Shelby Amendment in 1998 directed the US ―Office of Management & Budget (OMB) to produce new standards requiring all data produced under Federally funded research to be made available under the US Freedom of Information Act.

    This resulted in great concern within the US Scientific community, expressed through Congressional testimony, that a very broad interpretation of this requirement could seriously impair scientific research and collaboration. In the final OMB guidelines10, recognising these concerns, ―research data is defined as: "the recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate research findings, but not any of the following: preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or communications with colleagues".

    The Review recommends that the ICO should hold consultations on a similar distinction for the UK FoIA/EIR."

    http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

    I can't wait until the UK MP's figure out that their "independent" review is actually a mechanism for US "rotten scientists" to surreptitiously criticise existing UK FOI laws in favour of US laws. This will be fun to watch.

  14. #2964
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Ohhh....the HoT Air this little distraction has generated. Shame we can't actually do anything with it (..the hot air, I mean). Although I'm not sure what we do with the findings of the distraction either.

    Perhaps we can legislate to regulate research......or data collection....or data analysis. I know....don't ask any potentially scary questions!

    In the end....regardless of whether there is or isn't AGW....we certainly haven't really had a intelligent debate one way or the other. Just a human one.

    And that makes me happy. Because it proves George Romero was right.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  15. #2965
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Unlike some participants to this thread, I am very keen to have your opinion on the now uncovered conduct of some "scientists" (and I use the term nominally, not in practice).

    Thanks, and I'm genuinely interested in your opinion also. But if you just want to add copy/pastes from sites I've already read how is that a debate? Why not just tell us what anti AGW sites you find informative and we'll go read them at the original source.

    The point of my post was that the site you quoted ignored the clearly identified findings printed in the front of the report and went and found a quote buried in the body of the document which could be interpreted differently. Even comments on the site accused them of taking it out of context. I can't check it myself as they don't disclose where they lifted the quote from. Isn't that basically deceptive?

    Re the "conduct" of scientists. It seems some of them have tried to keep information from rivals and critics and have generally acted like a***holes. Maybe they kick their dog and cheat on their wives too. Proving that is not the same as faulting the research. We have to play the ball not the man. (got that line from Mr Watson) If you want to discuss flaws in the studies I'm happy to do that, but you have to tell me what document and where the quotes you rely on come from. I am interested in your opinion. (not Andrew Bolts)

  16. #2966
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Be all you can be.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Ohhh....the HoT Air this little distraction has generated. Shame we can't actually do anything with it (..the hot air, I mean). Although I'm not sure what we do with the findings of the distraction either.

    Perhaps we can legislate to regulate research......or data collection....or data analysis. I know....don't ask any potentially scary questions!

    In the end....regardless of whether there is or isn't AGW....we certainly haven't really had a intelligent debate one way or the other. Just a human one.

    And that makes me happy. Because it proves George Romero was right.
    How about we let the scientists do the science, like they have always done. When they figure something out, they can let us know. Until then, they can keep their internal theoretical disputes all to themselves and out of my tax paying pockets.

    Is this the Romero quote you were thinking of?

    “Monkeys are ornery and hard to work with.”

  17. #2967
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Play ball.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    Thanks, and I'm genuinely interested in your opinion also. But if you just want to add copy/pastes from sites I've already read how is that a debate? Why not just tell us what anti AGW sites you find informative and we'll go read them at the original source.

    The point of my post was that the site you quoted ignored the clearly identified findings printed in the front of the report and went and found a quote buried in the body of the document which could be interpreted differently. Even comments on the site accused them of taking it out of context. I can't check it myself as they don't disclose where they lifted the quote from. Isn't that basically deceptive?

    Re the "conduct" of scientists. It seems some of them have tried to keep information from rivals and critics and have generally acted like a***holes. Maybe they kick their dog and cheat on their wives too. Proving that is not the same as faulting the research. We have to play the ball not the man. (got that line from Mr Watson) If you want to discuss flaws in the studies I'm happy to do that, but you have to tell me what document and where the quotes you rely on come from. I am interested in your opinion. (not Andrew Bolts)
    Thanks, and I'm genuinely interested in your opinion also.
    You'll find plenty of it in this thread. No-one's accused me of not airing it sufficiently yet.

    But if you just want to add copy/pastes from sites I've already read how is that a debate?
    This information is not the whole debate, just a part of it, already covered by a wise man
    And several readers of the thread have previously indicated they do not like accessing links, so I provide some text for their benefit (assuming they are still reading ).

    The point of my post was that the site you quoted ignored the clearly identified findings printed in the front of the report and went and found a quote buried in the body of the document which could be interpreted differently. Even comments on the site accused them of taking it out of context. I can't check it myself as they don't disclose where they lifted the quote from. Isn't that basically deceptive?
    The site listed a link to the entire document for anyone to read as they wished after just nine words, long before they even mentioned the quote: "Many in the mainstream media are attempting to portray The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review,..."

    Apologies if I am assuming this, but if you are not aware, you can click on text with underlining and it takes you to another website or location. Once there, the contents indicate Chapter 7 deals with tree ring analysis. Once in Chapter 7, page 60 displays this finding:

    "26. Finding: In relation to "hide the decline" we find that, given its subsequent iconic
    significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the TAR), the figure supplied
    for the WMO Report was misleading in not describing that one of the series was
    truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and
    instrumental data were spliced together. We do not find that it is misleading to
    curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that
    both of these procedures should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but
    certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text."

    As you can see, it clearly states truncation of data, or splicing of data sets are not misleading, as long as these procedures are made plain. In this case, this was not done, therefore this was misleading.

    In general, I don't see this as "basically deceptive". I see this as a person (blogger) putting an opinion forward, then providing full access to the source document so any other interested parties can read it and form their own opinion.

    Re the "conduct" of scientists. It seems some of them have tried to keep information from rivals and critics and have generally acted like a***holes.
    I'm no peer-reviewer, but this doesn't sound like rigorous or honest scientific behaviour to me. Particularly when they claim the entire human species is at stake, it is borderline psychopathic!

    Maybe they kick their dog and cheat on their wives too. Proving that is not the same as faulting the research.
    I feel sorry for the dog, but gotta see the wife before I make a judgement call.

    But you're right, there's plenty of other info in this thread that faults the research all on its own.

    We have to play the ball not the man. (got that line from Mr Watson) If you want to discuss flaws in the studies I'm happy to do that, but you have to tell me what document and where the quotes you rely on come from. I am interested in your opinion. (not Andrew Bolts)
    The ball is "AGW Theory", and I think I have given it a good kicking, with not too many yellow cards on the way.

    Like I said before, plenty of flawed research in this thread if you want to go through it.

    Every one of my posts has the link to the full document it refers to, just click on the underlined bit (not this one, just for demo purposes).

    As I said before, no-one has accused me yet of being shy to put forward my opinion.

    As for "Bolta" as he's affectionately known, if you don't like it, you can ignore it, or rant about it (ignore/rant). Unfortunately he can't be "peer-reviewed" off the internet (not yet anyway ).

    But as John McClane said, "Welcome to the party, pal".

  18. #2968
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    Unlike some participants to this thread, I am very keen to have your opinion on the now uncovered conduct of some "scientists" (and I use the term nominally, not in practice).

    Thanks, and I'm genuinely interested in your opinion also. But if you just want to add copy/pastes from sites I've already read how is that a debate? Why not just tell us what anti AGW sites you find informative and we'll go read them at the original source.

    The point of my post was that the site you quoted ignored the clearly identified findings printed in the front of the report and went and found a quote buried in the body of the document which could be interpreted differently. Even comments on the site accused them of taking it out of context. I can't check it myself as they don't disclose where they lifted the quote from. Isn't that basically deceptive?

    Re the "conduct" of scientists. It seems some of them have tried to keep information from rivals and critics and have generally acted like a***holes. Maybe they kick their dog and cheat on their wives too. Proving that is not the same as faulting the research. We have to play the ball not the man. (got that line from Mr Watson) If you want to discuss flaws in the studies I'm happy to do that, but you have to tell me what document and where the quotes you rely on come from. I am interested in your opinion. (not Andrew Bolts)

    Not looking at the conduct of these scientists and the reasons for it is just putting your head in the sand IMO.

    Like it or not it reflects badly on the results. No one has yet showed us a direct link to CO2 and temperatures yet we want to go out and spend trillions of $ trying to prevent somenthing we are not even certain is happening, With out even knowing if what we do would have any effect in any case. Just blows my mind that people could be that dumb.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  19. #2969
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default We can all pay more to "pollute" more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    Paying more money to increase carbon dioxide emissions!

    WA greenies are going to be majorly pi55ed off.
    The news below is much fairer. At least the whole country gets stung by this farce. Now we can all pay more to create more carbon dioxide emissions.

    "HIGHER electricity prices resulting from Prime Minister Julia Gillard's delay in setting a carbon price will cost Australia $2 billion a year by 2020...

    ...The report says "the increase in prices would occur irrespective of whether a carbon regime is or is not introduced in 2013".

    "They are the costs of uncertainty," it says...

    ...Plans are instead focusing on gas-fired "peaking" power plants, which are cheaper to build but less efficient and more expensive to operate, and potentially more polluting...

    ..."Uncertainty around the price tag on pollution will increase electricity prices, hurt the economy and hit the cost of living for everyday Australians..."

    Carbon price delay fuels power costs | Herald Sun

    If this whole fiasco gets off the ground, , all this extra cash goes into "carbon permits" and "carbon offsets". So who really gets all this money??? Sorry pensioners, not you. Some candidates below.

  20. #2970
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Money actually does grow on trees.

    Amazongate ending:

    "Last week, after six months of evasions, obfuscation, denials and retractions, a story which has preoccupied this column on and off since January came to a startling conclusion. It turns out that one of the most widely publicised statements in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – a claim on which tens of billions of dollars could hang – was not based on peer-reviewed science, as repeatedly claimed, but originated solely from anonymous propaganda published on the website of a small Brazilian environmental advocacy group.

    The ramifications of this discovery stretch in many directions. First, it seems to show that the IPCC – whose reports governments rely on to justify presenting mankind with the largest bill in history – has been in serious breach of its own rules.

    Second, it raises hefty question marks over the credibility of the world’s richest and most powerful environmental pressure group, the WWF, credited by the IPCC as the source of its unsupported claim.

    And third, it focuses attention once more on a bizarre scheme, backed by the UN and promoted by the World Bank, whereby the WWF has been hoping to share in profits estimated at $60 billion, paid for by firms all over the developed world...

    ..This curious episode may also point to another reason why WWF and Woods Hole have been so active in recent years to promote concern over the danger of global warming for the Amazon rainforest.

    As I revealed here on March 20, they have been closely allied in support of a scheme known as REDD (Reduction in Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation of Tropical Forests). Its aim is to turn the CO2 in forest trees into “carbon credits”, saleable on the world market to allow firms to continue emitting CO2.

    Backed by $80 million from the World Bank, WWF, Woods Hole and IPAM are partners in a consortium, supported by the Brazilian government, to protect and manage a vast area of forest in the Tumucumaque region, in return for which they would have the right to sell its carbon credits.

    In 2007 Dr Nepstad published a formula which would allow the carbon contained in the entire forest to be valued at $60 billion.

    Although the REDD scheme was approved in principle at December’s UN Copenhagen conference, two serious snags remain. First, it has yet to be approved in detail (although they still hope to achieve this in Cancun later this year). Second, the US Senate still hasn’t passed its cap and trade bill, which would open up a lucrative new market for anyone involved in carbon trading, such as those with a stake in REDD...


    Amazongate: At last we reach the source - Telegraph


    Are you people getting this yet?

    We breathe out fresh air here in Australia (CO2), and get taxed massively for this.
    Then less developed nations are declared a "carbon offset" zone.
    Then they sell us these offsets for billions of dollars for creating the CO2 that their "carbon offset" designated trees are breathing in.



    And this is supposed to cool a giant lava ball hurtling through space at around 100,000 kms hr, bombarded by massive amounts of radiation from a giant nuclear explosion whose gravitational field we are stuck in.

    This has been happening for billions of years, now we're gonna get taxed for it.

  21. #2971
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Ditto.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Not looking at the conduct of these scientists and the reasons for it is just putting your head in the sand IMO.

    Like it or not it reflects badly on the results. No one has yet showed us a direct link to CO2 and temperatures yet we want to go out and spend trillions of $ trying to prevent somenthing we are not even certain is happening, With out even knowing if what we do would have any effect in any case. Just blows my mind that people could be that dumb.
    You and me both Champ!

  22. #2972
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Not looking at the conduct of these scientists and the reasons for it is just putting your head in the sand IMO.

    Like it or not it reflects badly on the results. No one has yet showed us a direct link to CO2 and temperatures yet we want to go out and spend trillions of $ trying to prevent somenthing we are not even certain is happening, With out even knowing if what we do would have any effect in any case. Just blows my mind that people could be that dumb.

    Rod's word work in reverse context too:

    Not looking at the conduct of these sceptics and the reasons for it is just putting your head in the sand IMO.

    Like it or not it reflects badly on the results. Despite decades of complaint & counter claim, no one has yet showed us an alternative hypothesis to the direct link between greenhouse gases and temperatures. Yet they still want to go out and and spend trillions of $ trying to maintain a lifestyle that we are not even certain is sustainable. With out even considering what the long term impacts might be. Just blows my mind that people could be that dumb.


    ....it's so cool when we are all equally stupid ain't it?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  23. #2973
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    60
    Posts
    173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    ...no one has yet showed us an alternative hypothesis to the direct link between greenhouse gases and temperatures. Yet they still want to go out and and spend trillions of $ trying to maintain a lifestyle that we are not even certain is sustainable...
    But skeptics don't need to show alternative hypotheses - they are not necessarily backing any alternative, just being skeptical about the current hypothesis.

    And maybe they don't put forward an alternative hypothesis about the link between greenhouse gases and temperatures because their either isn't a link or it is far too complex to explain in a forum (gosh, even the scientists can't do it without getting into trouble).

    And maybe they don't want to spend trillions of $ maintaining a lifestyle that is not sustainable but equally they don't want to spend money on something that does not deliver any return - they have acknowledged the need to spend money on things like pollution control/reduction and stopping deforestration, but this doesn't sound as grand as spending money on fixing global warming (or generate as many votes).

    The most frustrating thing about this whole issue is the number of people who STILL claim the science is 'fixed' and 'complete' - as if we ever really know all there is to know about the world we live in.

  24. #2974
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chumley View Post
    The most frustrating thing about this whole issue is the number of people who STILL claim the science is 'fixed' and 'complete' - as if we ever really know all there is to know about the world we live in.
    I suspect it is poor wording as the science is never 'complete' - we are always learning.

    However, the science is clear on AGW - try and find any reputable scientific organisation that has expressed explicit doubt about AGW.

  25. #2975
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    60
    Posts
    173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    I suspect it is poor wording as the science is never 'complete' - we are always learning.

    However, the science is clear on AGW - try and find any reputable scientific organisation that has expressed explicit doubt about AGW.
    Yeah, well tell that to the self-important politicians who stand up and say it is 'complete' - I notice there is no outcry about this from the balanced scientific community.

    And with respect the science is not clear on AGW. The length of this thread is sufficient to see that. There are plenty of people I talk to about this at length who share the lack of clarity in varying degrees from mild suspicion (of scientists in general, of AGW science in particular, and of course of the political/media coverage of anything) to outright hostility. Science hasn't even defined a direct relationship between higher levels of CO2 and temperature variations -- if scientists can't even nail this down, how can they speak with authority on the many complex interactions that make up climate.

    Science has a good track record of discoveries. But it also has a long track record of complete stuff-ups. Who really knows which way this will go, but why should we shell out trillions of $ while we wait for better evidence?

  26. #2976
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chumley View Post
    ......but why should we shell out trillions of $ while we wait for better evidence?
    Because have to do something while we are waiting......and sometimes I'd like a better standard of alcoholic beverage than mere VB whilst I'm waiting for the main course to turn up.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  27. #2977
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chumley View Post
    But skeptics don't need to show alternative hypotheses...
    .....surely you jest?

    'The science' can't merely say "I'm right and thou shalt believe me" and expect to get away with it - as recent events attest. So why should sceptics be able to say "They're wrong and thou shalt believe me" and expect a different reaction?

    Down that road lies madness.

    Oh.....hello....your satnav led you astray too? Very pretty here though eh? Would you like some Krug whilst we are waiting for the mains to arrive?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  28. #2978
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Apologies if I am assuming this, but if you are not aware, you can click on text with underlining and it takes you to another website or location. Once there, the contents indicate Chapter 7 deals with tree ring analysis. Once in Chapter 7, page 60 displays this finding:

    Yes it saves a lot of time when you give a page no. But the section you were originally referring to from the foundry site is actually on page 13. But you're right, the graph was described as "misleading", they also say "the figure in question was a frontispiece (decoration?) and there is no major discussion or emphasis on it in the text". The data used wasn't incorrect, the methodology was sound, no incorrect information was given, they just didn't describe what they did. All the other allegations were found to be groundless. Their critics made a submission to the inquiry and this was the best they could find? One minor stuff up in ten years of work, we should all be so lucky. But the world has moved on, the CRU has been exonerated and the scientists have gone back to work.


    Like I said before, plenty of flawed research in this thread if you want to go through it.
    Is there a discussion anywhere on the differences between the Mann and McIntyre papers? If there is, post a page no. If not I will find some papers on the CO2 stuff that Rod keeps raising and put them up. But not till the weekend.

  29. #2979
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    The news below is much fairer. At least the whole country gets stung by this farce. Now we can all pay more to create more carbon dioxide emissions.

    "HIGHER electricity prices resulting from Prime Minister Julia Gillard's delay in setting a carbon price will cost Australia $2 billion a year by 2020...

    ...The report says "the increase in prices would occur irrespective of whether a carbon regime is or is not introduced in 2013".

    "They are the costs of uncertainty," it says...

    ...Plans are instead focusing on gas-fired "peaking" power plants, which are cheaper to build but less efficient and more expensive to operate, and potentially more polluting...

    ..."Uncertainty around the price tag on pollution will increase electricity prices, hurt the economy and hit the cost of living for everyday Australians..."

    Carbon price delay fuels power costs | Herald Sun

    If this whole fiasco gets off the ground, , all this extra cash goes into "carbon permits" and "carbon offsets". So who really gets all this money??? Sorry pensioners, not you. Some candidates below.
    LOL yes I thought the same when I read this article. Prices to rise either way gotta love it.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  30. #2980
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chumley View Post
    But skeptics don't need to show alternative hypotheses - they are not necessarily backing any alternative, just being skeptical about the current hypothesis.
    Spot on.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  31. #2981
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Equality?

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Rod's word work in reverse context too:

    Not looking at the conduct of these sceptics and the reasons for it is just putting your head in the sand IMO.

    Like it or not it reflects badly on the results. Despite decades of complaint & counter claim, no one has yet showed us an alternative hypothesis to the direct link between greenhouse gases and temperatures. Yet they still want to go out and and spend trillions of $ trying to maintain a lifestyle that we are not even certain is sustainable. With out even considering what the long term impacts might be. Just blows my mind that people could be that dumb.


    ....it's so cool when we are all equally stupid ain't it?
    Some of us are more equal than others.

    Your errors of assumption are truly astounding. Do you seriously believe that if a hypothesis cannot be either proved or disproved, it should be acted upon as if it were fact?

    I'd also be interested in your definition of "direct link"? And once you've defined it, are you speaking for controlled laboratory tests, or real world measures and estimates of our 4.5 billion year old planet? You might want to clarify if this link between CO2 an temperature exists in the absence of all other variables. It's just I'm looking for some cheap heating alternatives. If I lock up the house airtight and pump in heaps of CO2 at night, might get some cheap heating?
    You obviously earn more than me, cos I ain't spending trillions on my lifestyle. I'm just a dude trying to get by.

    With all due respect to the greenie sustainability theory, I don't know if you've been keeping up with current affairs, but the human race ain't dying out. Whatever we've been doing is working f----ing awesomely!

    But apologies for the rambling, caffeine still going, Stillnox will kick in soon, but really curious about that "direct link" stuff?

  32. #2982
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Lifesaver!

    Quote Originally Posted by Chumley View Post
    But skeptics don't need to show alternative hypotheses - they are not necessarily backing any alternative, just being skeptical about the current hypothesis.

    And maybe they don't put forward an alternative hypothesis about the link between greenhouse gases and temperatures because their either isn't a link or it is far too complex to explain in a forum (gosh, even the scientists can't do it without getting into trouble).

    And maybe they don't want to spend trillions of $ maintaining a lifestyle that is not sustainable but equally they don't want to spend money on something that does not deliver any return - they have acknowledged the need to spend money on things like pollution control/reduction and stopping deforestration, but this doesn't sound as grand as spending money on fixing global warming (or generate as many votes).

    The most frustrating thing about this whole issue is the number of people who STILL claim the science is 'fixed' and 'complete' - as if we ever really know all there is to know about the world we live in.
    Mate, what a breath of fresh air! (Oops, forgot CO2 was pollution for a minute there, must remember not to breathe out near the kids ).

    But seriously, I just watched Q&A (why do I torture myself so) and had to listen to some idiot arguing about 5% CO2 reduction targets in Australia saving the planet. I started running the hot bath and was getting the razors out, then I read your post. So thanks, I feel invigorated.

  33. #2983
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default What the?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    I suspect it is poor wording as the science is never 'complete' - we are always learning.

    However, the science is clear on AGW - try and find any reputable scientific organisation that has expressed explicit doubt about AGW.
    However, the science is clear on AGW
    Really? I think we'd all be interested in hearing a summary then? Should be real easy to explain to us nationalistic savages if it is so clear?

  34. #2984
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Jest, he not.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    .....surely you jest?

    'The science' can't merely say "I'm right and thou shalt believe me" and expect to get away with it - as recent events attest. So why should sceptics be able to say "They're wrong and thou shalt believe me" and expect a different reaction?

    Down that road lies madness.

    Oh.....hello....your satnav led you astray too? Very pretty here though eh? Would you like some Krug whilst we are waiting for the mains to arrive?
    'The science' never said any such thing. Eco-fascientists within and associated with the IPCC said this. 'The science' said "Holy Sh--, this is complicated and these hairless apes can't even calibrate thermometers".

    Sceptics (me anyway) also never said any such thing. The word "believe" which permeates this farce is indicative of its religious, as opposed to scientific nature. Just because we believe in something, does not make it real. So yes indeed you are right, down this road lies madness.

    The catch cry of the sceptic throughout scientific history has been "Prove it!".

    P.S. At the risk of stating the obvious again, this is not, and is not required by scientific doctrine to be, an alternative hypothesis.

  35. #2985
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default We should be so lucky.

    After this (not to mention the rest of it highlighted in this thread):

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    Re the "conduct" of scientists. It seems some of them have tried to keep information from rivals and critics and have generally acted like a***holes.
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    But you're right, the graph was described as "misleading",
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    they just didn't describe what they did.
    You subscribe to this:

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    the CRU has been exonerated
    mis·lead·ing Tending to mislead; deceptive.


    ex·on·er·ate 1. To free from blame.

    And as for this sideshow:

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    One minor stuff up in ten years of work,
    Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    Is there a discussion anywhere on the differences between the Mann and McIntyre papers? If there is, post a page no. If not I will find some papers on the CO2 stuff that Rod keeps raising and put them up. But not till the weekend.
    Maybe you could spend the weekend reading the thread from page 1 (ignore my stuff, you won't like it anyway). It will save a lot of time, rather than covering all of this stuff again. I dunno about the others, but if we go down that path, Rrobor might have been right all along.

    But if you can dig up some super secret research that they forgot to mention at Copenhagen showing how CO2 is solely responsible via a causal relationship for the arbitrarily measured 0.7 degrees celsius temperature increase over the last 150 years, I'm sure we will all be very keen for a read.

  36. #2986
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I'd also be interested in your definition of "direct link"? And once you've defined it, are you speaking for controlled laboratory tests, or real world measures and estimates of our 4.5 billion year old planet? You might want to clarify if this link between CO2 an temperature exists in the absence of all other variables. It's just I'm looking for some cheap heating alternatives. If I lock up the house airtight and pump in heaps of CO2 at night, might get some cheap heating?
    For the last time. Again....

    Simple high school physics demonstrates that our atmosphere works like a blanket. Without it there'd be a vacuum and it'd be a little bit chilly - like on the moon. With it we are demonstrably warm and comfortable. The basics of this were demonstrated way back in the first half of the 19th century so we can that the link between 'greenhouse gases' and atmospheric temperature dates from that time. Quite when it was labelled 'the greenhouse effect' I have no idea.

    Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So this is direct link that legitimately considered fundamental by pretty much everyone.

    The next step in the chain is the step from the natural greenhouse effect to anthropogenic global warming. And it's here that Freud and his friends seem to have the greatest drama. And that's fair enough I suppose.

    The basics are that there's four major contributing factors to the natural greenhouse effect that is fundamental to life on Earth. By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect, they are:

    water vapor, 36–70%
    carbon dioxide, 9–26%
    methane, 4–9%
    ozone, 3–7%

    Of these four components, the human species is liberating two from their many sinks and sources in significant quantities - carbon dioxide and methane. And we know through direct measurement that the concentrations of both these compounds in the atmosphere have increased in the last 50 years. From that data, it is relatively easy to determine the volumes of those two things required to increase atmospheric concentrations - they are truly vast - and given the limited number of known sources of either (both natural and unnatural) capable of releasing such quantities....it isn't too tricky to identify the likely contributors.

    Back to the link.....given what we know about the natural greenhouse effect then if we increase the amount of any of the contributing agents in the atmosphere then it is pretty clear (at least to me) that the insulative capacity of the atmosphere will also increase. Thicker blanket, better insulation.

    And this better insulation is being demonstrated by the observation that the global air temperature trend over the last fifty years or so has typically been in the upwards direction.

    Quite where it might end up and when is of course complicated......and this is where I believe where one third of the kerfuffle lies. The second third is occupied by the question of if the temperature rises then what happens. The final third is what can we actually do about it.

    So, in closing, the fundamental link between greenhouse gases and air temperature has been known & demonstrated for almost a century and a half. What is hotly debated is how we have influenced and perhaps skewed the natural process.

    In answer to your question, Freud.....if you pump your house full of CO2 in an effort to heat it....you'll fail. Firstly, you'll be dead. Secondly, it won't heat anything as there's no energy source - but it will slow down further temperature loss from the house compared to a normal breathable atmosphere. But then I reckon you're smart enough to know that for yourself
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  37. #2987
    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
    But if you can dig up some super secret research that they forgot to mention at Copenhagen showing how CO2 is solely responsible via a causal relationship for the arbitrarily measured 0.7 degrees celsius temperature increase over the last 150 years, I'm sure we will all be very keen for a read.
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    So, in closing, the fundamental link between greenhouse gases and air temperature has been known & demonstrated for almost a century and a half.
    Great answer SBD.

    However, I suspect it is a trick question - Freud asked for research that showed that CO2 is solely responsible.

  38. #2988
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Me? Tricky? Never.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Great answer SBD.

    However, I suspect it is a trick question - Freud asked for research that showed that CO2 is solely responsible.
    Where's the trust gone in this relationship?


  39. #2989
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Great answer SBD.

    However, I suspect it is a trick question - Freud asked for research that showed that CO2 is solely responsible.


    Didn't see that. there I go telling people more than they ever wanted to know.....yet again

    Mind you.....who's the numpty (on either side of the lunatic asylum) that would ever suggest CO2 is solely responsible for the greenhouse effect or even AGW?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  40. #2990
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Sorry, Stillnox got me last night.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    For the last time. Again....

    Simple high school physics demonstrates that our atmosphere works like a blanket. Without it there'd be a vacuum and it'd be a little bit chilly - like on the moon. With it we are demonstrably warm and comfortable. The basics of this were demonstrated way back in the first half of the 19th century so we can that the link between 'greenhouse gases' and atmospheric temperature dates from that time. Quite when it was labelled 'the greenhouse effect' I have no idea.

    Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So this is direct link that legitimately considered fundamental by pretty much everyone.

    The next step in the chain is the step from the natural greenhouse effect to anthropogenic global warming. And it's here that Freud and his friends seem to have the greatest drama. And that's fair enough I suppose.

    The basics are that there's four major contributing factors to the natural greenhouse effect that is fundamental to life on Earth. By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect, they are:

    water vapor, 36–70%
    carbon dioxide, 9–26%
    methane, 4–9%
    ozone, 3–7%

    Of these four components, the human species is liberating two from their many sinks and sources in significant quantities - carbon dioxide and methane. And we know through direct measurement that the concentrations of both these compounds in the atmosphere have increased in the last 50 years. From that data, it is relatively easy to determine the volumes of those two things required to increase atmospheric concentrations - they are truly vast - and given the limited number of known sources of either (both natural and unnatural) capable of releasing such quantities....it isn't too tricky to identify the likely contributors.

    Back to the link.....given what we know about the natural greenhouse effect then if we increase the amount of any of the contributing agents in the atmosphere then it is pretty clear (at least to me) that the insulative capacity of the atmosphere will also increase. Thicker blanket, better insulation.

    And this better insulation is being demonstrated by the observation that the global air temperature trend over the last fifty years or so has typically been in the upwards direction.

    Quite where it might end up and when is of course complicated......and this is where I believe where one third of the kerfuffle lies. The second third is occupied by the question of if the temperature rises then what happens. The final third is what can we actually do about it.

    So, in closing, the fundamental link between greenhouse gases and air temperature has been known & demonstrated for almost a century and a half. What is hotly debated is how we have influenced and perhaps skewed the natural process.

    In answer to your question, Freud.....if you pump your house full of CO2 in an effort to heat it....you'll fail. Firstly, you'll be dead. Secondly, it won't heat anything as there's no energy source - but it will slow down further temperature loss from the house compared to a normal breathable atmosphere. But then I reckon you're smart enough to know that for yourself
    This was a great answer, but not really relevant to the topic of AGW Theory.

    But aside from the vague references in your answer, the atmospheric effects described generally explain these phenomena.

    I should have specified rather than assumed the continuity of the discussion would cover it, but the question was referring to the "direct link" of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions to recent arbitrarily measured changes in temperature?

    This is the fun part:

    And this better insulation is being demonstrated by the observation that the global air temperature trend over the last fifty years or so has typically been in the upwards direction.
    Like I said, very vague.

    Wouldn't want to define how it is "demonstrated" and throw some numbers in there by any chance?

    (Oh, yeh, let's just stick to AGW Theory, shall we?)


    Nearly forgot this but:

    In answer to your question, Freud.....if you pump your house full of CO2 in an effort to heat it....you'll fail. Firstly, you'll be dead. Secondly, it won't heat anything as there's no energy source - but it will slow down further temperature loss from the house compared to a normal breathable atmosphere. But then I reckon you're smart enough to know that for yourself
    I dunno about full, I was thinking more about 10,000 parts per million, as opposed to the 385 parts per million outside, or the 450 parts per million we've been told this dangerous poison will reach. 10,000 parts per million should make me nice and drowsy, but as you reckon it's not going to warm anything up, might as well not bother.

    Hell, the crazies at the link below reckon I could go to 20,000 parts per million of pure CO2, but I'm not gonna risk it.

    Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    And I'm flattered, but you've definitely overestimated me, I'm not that smart. A smart person would have jumped on the bandwagon and be making a squillion taxing people for breathing out fresh air, think Stern, Gore, Flannery, etc.etc. These guys are smart, I'm a poor schmuck struggling to heat the house.

  41. #2991
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Humpty Dumpty Numpty

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post


    Didn't see that. there I go telling people more than they ever wanted to know.....yet again

    Mind you.....who's the numpty (on either side of the lunatic asylum) that would ever suggest CO2 is solely responsible for the greenhouse effect or even AGW?
    You mean Numpty's, plural. The list is long and distinguished. But what would you think was the problem if a government policy was called the "Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme".

    "The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) legislation introduced to Parliament on 2 February 2010,puts a price on carbon in an efficient way throughout the economy. It uses a ‘cap and trade’ emissions trading mechanism to limit carbon pollution."

    How does the CPRS work? - Think Change

    Think Numpty?

  42. #2992
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Don't laugh, you could be next.

    I was laughing at this:

    "CULLING the feral animals that burp and fart their way around Australia's outback could eliminate billions of tonnes of carbon emissions, an environmental group says. "

    Culling farting feral animals could curb carbon, Pew says | Herald Sun

    Then I giggled at the irony of greenies advocating killing little animals for breathing and farting.

    Then I gasped when I realised I was a feral animal that burped and farted it's way around Australia's outback.


    Where will these crazies stop?

  43. #2993
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Poor little critters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Appreciate the concern Jago, but the Stillnox will bring me down soon.

    But news just in, a journalist actually figured out what hypocrisy means:

    hypocrisy

    1. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc., contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety
    2. an act or instance of this


    "This points to the more basic assumption underlying both versions of the tax, which amounts to Gillard's (and Kevin Rudd's) even bigger hypocrisy.

    For, rather than struggling with the two clunky variations of the tax's name, there is a much simpler, much more accurate name. It should be called the China Prosperity Tax. Or, perhaps, with all due deference to the events of the 1930s, the China Co-Prosperity Tax.

    In concept, it is based entirely on the belief -- hope? -- that China will keep on booming. That it will consume, and this is crucial: ever more and more of our coal and iron ore.

    No China boom, no high commodity prices as "estimated" by Treasury; no super profits; no resource tax revenues. And, it's worth adding, no budget surplus.
    It is not sufficient for China to maintain some growth in its economy, far less just sustain the level of its current activity. It has to keep growing at around 10 per cent a year, give or take a percentage point or two either way, every year. Even one year of "time out" would be devastating for commodity prices and our tax revenues.

    Gillard's Great Hypocrisy sits at the centre of this Great Expectation: that whatever coal and iron ore we sell to China today, we will be selling rising multiples of them tomorrow, in 2020 and beyond.

    This is coal and iron ore that is embedded carbon dioxide. So, Gillard, and Rudd before her, have built their hoped-for return to budget surplus and future national prosperity on, in effect, demanding that China -- already the world's biggest "polluter" -- pumps ever-rising volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    As it turns our coal and iron ore into, what else: coal-fired power, iron and steel, cement, and whatever. And carbon dioxide.

    So, its OK to help China boost its emissions -- nay demand it do so, using our resources -- while embarking on the most pointless and pointlessly painful attempt to cut our domestic emissions."

    Julia Gillard's big lie at the heart of mining tax coup | The Australian


    Coal and Iron Ore export volumes are skyrocketing even higher than predicted before:


    Thanks Swannie, I guess we gotta kill a whole lot more of those breathing and farting critters now.


  44. #2994
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Uh oh!

    "FIRST the bad news - scientists are now 99 per cent certain mass extinction events on Earth are as regular as clockwork...

    ...According to what they've seen, life on Earth is wiped out every 27 million years.

    It's not going to be global warming that finishes us all off, either.

    Unfortunately for our planet, it passes through a shower of comets every 27 million years, and it very rarely escapes unscathed...

    ...The last one occurred 11 million years ago, so at least Doomsday cult members can now set their clocks for the year 16,002,010, rather than the fashionably Hollywood mark of 2012.

    Which gives us all a little breathing space - if you don't believe in global warming..."


    Life on Earth wiped out every 27 million years - and it's not the fault of Nemesis | Herald Sun

    Stoopid scientists, what would they know.

  45. #2995
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Faster and more powerful than a coal laden locomotive.

    "Excuse me, but what's the tearing hurry? We've had a new Prime Minister for five minutes, but we're being rushed off to an election before we can get her measure. Why? Is there a fear, if the election were delayed until October, the gloss would have worn off and we'd see Julia Gillard in a less hopeful and flattering light?


    Is the new leader's fleeting honeymoon all that stands between Labor and electoral defeat? Is Labor's record in government that bad? Is Tony Abbott such a formidable opponent?


    I'm not impressed by what we've seen of the Gillard government so far. We've seen the triumph of political expediency over good government. From her first day she's left little doubt three running political sores - the mining tax, resentment of boat people and the vacuum left by Labor's abandonment of its emissions trading scheme - needed to be staunched quick smart if the government's re-election were to be secured...


    ...We know, despite her protestations, climate change won't be one of her second-term priorities. She says (correctly) we need to put a price on carbon, but then says she won't get ahead of public opinion and won't act on a carbon price until after 2012. Her next term will be spent doing the explaining that should have been done this term..."


    Gillard In Rush To Call Election


    Better get this election thing over with before Aussies realise our harmless CO2 emissions are going up, up, up and away. Super tax = super emissions.

  46. #2996
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    This was a great answer, but not really relevant to the topic of AGW Theory.
    You're kidding, right? It is exactly the same mechanism. The 'greenhouse effect' is the natural process. AGW is essentially our influence on this same process


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    Wouldn't want to define how it is "demonstrated" and throw some numbers in there by any chance?
    The increasing trend in mean global temperature is demonstrated here by our very own Bureau of Meteorology Global climate variability & change - Time series graphs and you can even get the data upon which the plot below is built. You should check out the actual site (which provides a lot of scope to play with data) but this plot suggests a rising trend in temperature since around 1910 and a 0.4 degree increase over the 1961-1990 mean since 1990.




    The next trick (and the critical part of Frued's argument) is the attribution......what is behind this increasing trend?

    Prime candidates are increased concentrations of greenhouse gases skewing the behaviour of the natural greenhouse effect by holding more heat energy in AND increases in solar energy. Primarily because these are just about the only things that CAN increase mean air temperatures on such a vast scale. Either a thicker blanket or a better heater. This is really simple physics.

    Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases has been widely demonstrated (NASA is just one source http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm).....especially since 1950. For a really up to date look at CO2 measurements keep an eye on AIRS

    In terms of solar energy......the observations over the last few decades indicate that the typical energy output of the sun has increased slightly. But the increase in output has not been enough on its own to account for a statistically significant portion of the sea surface temperature increase that has been observed.....just not enough watts. Some of the latest observations are from here The 'Official' VIRGO Home Page! which is bought together here SOHO Data

    So if it isn't a better heater.........then it must be a better blanket. I know this is a simplistic statement but as I often say.....it's all about basic physics.

    And we move on the the next question......how did the Earth get a better blanket? I'm not going to go there. I'm comfortable with the scientific consensus on this one. It was us.

    The final question is 'what will happen?' Don't know about this one. To be honest I personally don't really care about the details - I'm simply concerned that it will be different to now and likely not in a way that I'm going to consistently enjoy. It is fair enough to say though that this is probably the central social, scientific and political question behind all this debate about AGW.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  47. #2997
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default It's a kind of magic.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    You're kidding, right? It is exactly the same mechanism. The 'greenhouse effect' is the natural process. AGW is essentially our influence on this same process

    The increasing trend in mean global temperature is demonstrated here by our very own Bureau of Meteorology Global climate variability & change - Time series graphs and you can even get the data upon which the plot below is built. You should check out the actual site (which provides a lot of scope to play with data) but this plot suggests a rising trend in temperature since around 1910 and a 0.4 degree increase over the 1961-1990 mean since 1990.

    The next trick (and the critical part of Frued's argument) is the attribution......what is behind this increasing trend?

    Prime candidates are increased concentrations of greenhouse gases skewing the behaviour of the natural greenhouse effect by holding more heat energy in AND increases in solar energy. Primarily because these are just about the only things that CAN increase mean air temperatures on such a vast scale. Either a thicker blanket or a better heater. This is really simple physics.

    Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases has been widely demonstrated (NASA is just one source http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm).....especially since 1950. For a really up to date look at CO2 measurements keep an eye on AIRS

    In terms of solar energy......the observations over the last few decades indicate that the typical energy output of the sun has increased slightly. But the increase in output has not been enough on its own to account for a statistically significant portion of the sea surface temperature increase that has been observed.....just not enough watts. Some of the latest observations are from here The 'Official' VIRGO Home Page! which is bought together here SOHO Data

    So if it isn't a better heater.........then it must be a better blanket. I know this is a simplistic statement but as I often say.....it's all about basic physics.

    And we move on the the next question......how did the Earth get a better blanket? I'm not going to go there. I'm comfortable with the scientific consensus on this one. It was us.

    The final question is 'what will happen?' Don't know about this one. To be honest I personally don't really care about the details - I'm simply concerned that it will be different to now and likely not in a way that I'm going to consistently enjoy. It is fair enough to say though that this is probably the central social, scientific and political question behind all this debate about AGW.
    Are you sure you weren't a contributing author to the IPCC reports? This summary gave me flashbacks to a lot of what they wrote (albeit without the models).

    Let's see, throw some convenient variables around, ignore reality, cast spurious assertions, and when it comes to actually backing AGW Theory with a causal relationship, everyone starts ducking for cover. The IPCC just made up some numbers (literally, just made it up). At least you have plausible deniability, you can just say "I was trusting the consensus".

    I don't trust people easily my friend. When I was first given some ceramic plates and told they would withstand multiple rounds of 7.62, I took them to the range and put multiple rounds of 7.62 into them. They worked just fine. (Swapped for new ones after this btw ). They were heavy b@sta@rds so I figured if they were going to slow me down, there better be a good reason. There was and I wore them.

    Same logic applies here. When these bozo's wanted to weigh me down, I did some research to make sure the weight was worth carrying. Guess what. I ain't wearing this one.

    If you're willing to rely on trusting someone else's opinion, I'll take the fight to them. Because once they change their opinion, then I guess yours will change too.

  48. #2998
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default For those interested.

    I have finally finished "Heaven and Earth" by Ian Plimer.

    It gets a bit heavy in the middle, but well worth the read!

    If you are open minded and want more info about AGW Theory, it's great.

    If you are a devout AGW Theory supporter, you will learn a lot about the science and hate Plimer for explaining it to people. The good news is there are many vagaries and a little hyperbole to pick apart.

    If you are already sceptical, you will probably consider it boringly vindicating.

    More here:

    Heaven and Earth Global Warming... Ian Plimer - $39.95 : Connor Court Publishing, Australian Publisher

    ( I suppose I have to declare I have no vested financial interest in this product. Please get it out of the library).
    Last edited by Dr Freud; 16th Jul 2010 at 03:35 AM. Reason: Late, tired, illiterate, spelling errors.

  49. #2999
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Here we go again.

    I might try this one next, sounds kinda interesting:

    "Activists and even some scientists will tell you that the science behind the expected major warming of the globe is rock solid. In fact, the projections of temperature increases in coming decades are based on entirely unproven forecasting systems which depend on guesses about crucial aspects of the atmosphere behaviour and the all-important oceans. In addition, these forecasts use carbon dioxide emission scenarios that have been generated by economic calculations rather than from science, and parts of which are already hopelessly wrong less than a decade after they were made.

    As Mark Lawson explains in this book, in layman’s language, this lunacy has been compounded by further forecasts based on these already deeply flawed projections and combined with active imaginations, to produce wild statements about what will happen to plant, animal, bird and marine life, as well as coral reefs, hurricanes, sea levels, agriculture and polar ice caps. The books shows that these projections are little more than fantasy.

    On top of all this lunacy activists, aided and abetted by some scientists, have proposed a range of solutions to the supposed problem that are either never going to work, such as an international agreement to cut emissions, or are overly complicated and expensive for no proven return, such as carbon trading systems and wind energy. None of these proposals have been shown to be of any use in reducing carbon emissions, outside of theoretical studies. Where wind energy has been used in substantial amounts overseas the sole, known result has been very expensive electricity for no observed saving in emissions."


    A GUIDE TO CLIMATE CHANGE LUNACY
    bad forecasting, terrible solutions

    Mark Lawson

    Paperback, 286 pages
    Release Date July 26th
    ISBN: 9781921421426


  50. #3000
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default She ain't no watermelon.

    This Red ain't even pretending to be green on the outside.

    "GREEN groups keenly awaiting Julia Gillard's climate change policy are disappointed she mostly ignored the topic in a major agenda-setting speech today...

    ...“This extraordinary situation raises the disturbing prospect that she has no idea how or why she needs to shift the economy from a pollution-dependent footing to a resilient clean economy.”..."

    Gillard speech cops green flak | The Australian

Page 60 of 377 FirstFirst ... 10 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 110 160 ... 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
  •