Emission Trading and climate change

Page 64 of 377 FirstFirst ... 14 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 114 164 ... LastLast
Results 3,151 to 3,200 of 18819
  1. #3151
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Ah, the crux of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post




    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Freud....as the ideal self centred human being that you are....I'm surprised that you use this ridiculous plot as some sort of response. The human timeframe is covered by at most the last pixel on the right hand side....none of what comes before that is irrelevant to the concepts of 'safe' or 'unsafe'...because the human species and its primate predecedents simply weren't there...and they are our concepts....not the environments

    Greens policy is as humanistic as that of any political party.....humans come first (despite what you might imagine). After all, humans are expected by the Greens to vote for the Greens. So when they talk about a safe climate....they mean safe for [s]human civilisation[/s] Greens voters in the first instance....and what they actually mean is ....less risky...
    So, just to clarify your position.

    You accept that the Planet Earth changes constantly, and CO2 levels fluctuate constantly, and temperature levels fluctuate constantly, all very naturally.

    But, as we build giant immovable concrete stuff in silly places and are therefore no longer nomadic, we need to "artificially" or "unnaturally" prevent any changes to the factors found in "the last pixel on the right".

    Sounds like a reasonable plan to me, just a pity it's being sold as a naturalised greenie con job.

    And as for "ideal self centered", my good friend Maslow calls this "self-actualised":


  2. #3152
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default So much for the centrepiece.

    What a rabble, including the "Real Joolia".

    "Prime Minister Julia Gillard's plan for a citizens' assembly on climate change was put forward without Cabinet consultation, the Australian Financial Review reports.

    A number of ministers first heard of the scheme when Ms Gillard announced it 10 days ago, the newspaper said.

    The climate change policy also made no mention of involving stakeholders in talks around an interim carbon price, a subject that had been discussed and approved in cabinet, the AFR added."

    Another leak exposes Gillard’s spin | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog


    They killed Kevvy for this?


  3. #3153
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    So, just to clarify your position.

    You accept that the Planet Earth changes constantly, and CO2 levels fluctuate constantly, and temperature levels fluctuate constantly, all very naturally.
    Yes.....of course....

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    But.....we need to "artificially" or "unnaturally" prevent any changes to the factors found in "the last pixel on the right".
    Actually.....yes. Glad you finally agree. Might make a humanist of you yet....

    We do need to minimise the unnatural changes we are making to the optimum environmental conditions that provided for the development of the human species in the 'last pixel on the right'....like chucking excessive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and raising average atmospheric temperatures.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  4. #3154
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post

    like chucking excessive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and raising average atmospheric temperatures.
    But this is still only a best guess right?

    There is no scientific evidence that mans Co2 will actually increase the temperature by any dangerous amount.

    We are still waiting for this!!

    The best you can do is use some extrapolated figures punched into a pre-programed computer model to "confirm" the scientists best guess. Based on the fact that CO2 is a contributer to the GHE. What is easy to ignore here is the % effect that CO2 has on the GHE and then what contribution Man MadeCO2 is of the total CO2.

    HMMMM something just does not add up here.


    But but but...... the science is settled.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  5. #3155
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Tree ring circus.

    "A STUDY of Arctic cooling cycles suggest warming is linked to solar activity.

    By measuring the rings of 400-year-old Scots pine trees, German researchers at the University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart were able to determine periods of fast-growth activity associated with higher average temperatures.

    They found that temperatures between 1630 and 1840 cooled, then warming in the Arctic began - just after the end of the "Little Ice Age" and 30 years before the start of the Industrial Age.

    The "Little Ice Age" refers to a 300-year cooling effect leading up to the Industrial Age in which the Arctic cooled by 0.4C.

    That phase also coincided with a decline in solar radiation over the same period."

    Arctic trees provide link between solar radiation and global warming | News.com.au


    Ignore the usual tree ring fiasco, but read this article for it's refreshingly correct language such as "is linked"," associated with" and "coincided with".

    No false claims of a causal relationship in sight.


  6. #3156
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Uh oh!

    "THE Earth could be hit by a wave of violent space weather as early as tomorrow after a massive explosion on the sun.

    The explosion happened to be aimed directly towards Earth. "

    Solar fireworks to follow sun blast | Perth Now

    Don't panic, AGW Theory assures us the Sun has no effect on temperature.

  7. #3157
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default I guess we are in the middle of an election.

    This could well be the most ambiguous sentence in thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post

    We do need to minimise the unnatural changes we are making to the optimum environmental conditions that provided for the development of the human species

    Please define:

    Does we mean Australia or the whole species?
    Need or want?
    Minimise means reduce by what quantum?
    What is your definition of unnatural changes, and can we separate any effects of natural ones?
    If natural ones have worse effects do we unnaturally alter these to maintain optimum environmental conditions?
    Exactly which part of the planet inhabited by humans has these optimum environmental conditions?
    How can we convert the whole planet to this?
    Given that the human species has developed in diverse areas of the planet including frozen wastelands to stark deserts, have we not demonstrated remarkable resiliency, even before current technological levels?



    Please explain?

  8. #3158
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    But this is still only a best guess right?

    .....

    But but but...... the science is settled.
    Not a best guess....

    The science associated with AGW and its drivers is certainly settled in the minds of the scientists and the various bodies that fund such research....the science is certainly not settled with respect to the impacts on the biosphere as a result of AGW - sure we have a grasp of the broad implications (eg. basic trends) but not the specific details (the exact whats and whens). Question is...if you already know the trend is heading in the wrong direction then how long do you want to wait....just for the exact number. Bit like standing there looking at a fire front, knowing it is coming in your direction but doing nothing because you aren't sure how hot the flames might be.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  9. #3159
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Please define:

    Does we mean Australia or the whole species?
    Need or want?
    Minimise means reduce by what quantum?
    What is your definition of unnatural changes, and can we separate any effects of natural ones?
    If natural ones have worse effects do we unnaturally alter these to maintain optimum environmental conditions?
    Exactly which part of the planet inhabited by humans has these optimum environmental conditions?
    How can we convert the whole planet to this?
    Given that the human species has developed in diverse areas of the planet including frozen wastelands to stark deserts, have we not demonstrated remarkable resiliency, even before current technological levels?
    Does we mean Australia or the whole species? Species
    Need or want? My opinion is need...but I'd prefer if we didn't have to
    Minimise means reduce by what quantum? Minimise does not mean 'reduce'...never has
    What is your definition of unnatural changes, and can we separate any effects of natural ones? Unnatural in this context means something we contributed to. Yes - but you don't believe me
    If natural ones have worse effects do we unnaturally alter these to maintain optimum environmental conditions? If the end justifies the means....
    Exactly which part of the planet inhabited by humans has these optimum environmental conditions? The word is 'had' - we've already been here for a few hundred thousand years. The bits we live in....it is called the biosphere for a reason
    How can we convert the whole planet to this? Why would we need to? The trouble is we seem to moving away from it!
    Given that the human species has developed in diverse areas of the planet including frozen wastelands to stark deserts, have we not demonstrated remarkable resiliency, even before current technological levels? Bloody oath. We are a remarkable & adaptable species.

    The concern many have is that the species is not the generalist it once was and may not have the capacity to adapt in the face of a fast warming world without losing some or all of the civilisation that continues to drive the development of the species and is most proud of...

    The truth behind scientific concern about AGW is that scientists are not primarily concerned about losing our environmental heritage & biodiversity....they are most worried about losing the collective knowledge & skills bound up in our civilisation - much of which they have contributed to. So in a nutshell, they are selfishly fearful of losing their legacy.....and they are somewhat mystified as to why no-one else wants to recognise the possibility that it could actually happen.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  10. #3160
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,389

    Default

    Arctic trees provide link between solar radiation and global warming | News.com.au

    AAAR Abstract 2668 - Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research

    Here's the link to the original story, published last year. To the Australian that's news I suppose.

  11. #3161
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,389

    Default

    That's why I posted a quote from those you denounce highlighting the hypocrisy of your position that claims they have cornered the market of doomsday scenarios.
    I think that your accusation of hypocrisy is inappropriate and not based on any realistic interpretation of what I posted. If you can show where I have denounced somebody or made a claim that anyone has cornered a market on doomsday scenarios I would be interested to see it. A smiley does not make your remark accurate.

  12. #3162
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Don't panic, AGW Theory assures us the Sun has no effect on temperature.
    That's garbage.........and you know it. Being misleading as well as disingenuous is not helping your cause, Freud.

    The Sun (of course) is the primary driver of temperature on this planet. However, climate science has demonstrated (and continues to demonstrate) that the current (last 50 years) increase in average global air temperatures are not matched/related to a commensurate increase in energy output from the sun.....
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  13. #3163
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    That's garbage.........and you know it. Being misleading as well as disingenuous is not helping your cause, Freud.

    The Sun (of course) is the primary driver of temperature on this planet. However, climate science has demonstrated (and continues to demonstrate) that the current (last 50 years) increase in average global air temperatures are not matched/related to a commensurate increase in energy output from the sun.....
    ........or C02 concentrations.

    Regards inter

  14. #3164
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default It's news to some.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    Arctic trees provide link between solar radiation and global warming | News.com.au

    AAAR Abstract 2668 - Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research

    Here's the link to the original story, published last year. To the Australian that's news I suppose.
    It's certainly news to many AGW Theory proponents I suppose.

    But thanks for link, it also has this:

    "We found a strong positive correlation with summer temperature of July–August (r = 0.58)."

    "...series of observed solar activity indicate that solar activity may have been one major driving factor of past climate on Kola Peninsula."

    Proves my point that it is refreshing to see some numbers represented as a correlation with no hyperbole about "causes", and expressions like "indicate...may have been one". Again, no ridiculous claims around "this is the cause of it".

  15. #3165
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default More semantics, still no science!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I am however well versed in irony. That's why I posted a quote from those you denounce highlighting the hypocrisy of your position that claims they have cornered the market of doomsday scenarios.
    Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assumed your position was that of supporting AGW Theory?

    If so, AGW Theory supporters (as well displayed in this thread) are renowned for supporting doomsday scenarios. I have not seen a single post from you rejecting these doomsday scenarios and scaremongering, so must assume you support them. Was the little girl being hung on the melting ice-block justifiable as you see this cause as being "so serious"? So when you wrote this:

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    Anyway the good news is you won't have to pay the taxes for long. Seems like the god botherers have decided it's all coming to an end....on May 21 2011.
    Request a Free 'Judgment Day May 21, 2011' Bumper Sticker
    Labor has nothing on religions when it comes to fleecing the flock.
    It seems to me that you are denouncing religions of using scaremongering to mobilise action and raise funds. Practices and beliefs which are consistent with your own position. Yet you make no mention of your own position believing in and using the same tactics. Therefore, one of these positions must be false, as you cannot support and denounce the same beliefs at the same time (unless you're George W. Bush ).

    This may help:

    n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies 1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
    2. An act or instance of such falseness.

    tr.v. de·nounced, de·nounc·ing, de·nounc·es 1. To condemn openly as being evil or reprehensible. See Synonyms at criticize.
    2. To accuse formally.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    I think that your accusation of hypocrisy is inappropriate and not based on any realistic interpretation of what I posted. If you can show where I have denounced somebody or made a claim that anyone has cornered a market on doomsday scenarios I would be interested to see it. A smiley does not make your remark accurate.
    As explained above, the accusation of hypocrisy is appropriate and is a realistic interpretation (unless your position is that you do not support AGW Theory).

    Those you denounce are all those people in all religions who you accuse of "fleecing the flock".

    Giving to God is always voluntary and never required. Those who teach Christians otherwise are unloving shepherds, fleecing the flock.


    As for "cornering the market", did you mention all the instances of AGW Theory scaremongering with doomsday scenarios, or did you make it sound like religions alone do this?


    "corner the market - to become so successful at selling or making a particular product that almost no one else sells or makes it"


    And the accuracy makes it accurate, the smiley just makes it friendly.


    But as much fun as these word games are, I don't suppose you'd want to spend some time digging up any proof of AGW Theory? No-one else has had any luck at this either.





  16. #3166
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Uh oh, infighting!

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    From "The Copenhagen Diagnosis":
    However, neither El Niño, nor solar activity or volcanic eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate trends.
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    The Sun (of course) is the primary driver of temperature on this planet.
    Watching you lads sort this out might be as much fun as watching the infighting in this link!

  17. #3167
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Well done!

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    ........or C02 concentrations.

    Regards inter


    Good onya mate, you draw their fire, I'll circle round and give them another dose of reality up the rear.

  18. #3168

  19. #3169
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Ridiculous doesn't even come close.

    What the hell are you Victorians up to?

    "FEARS Victoria's coastline will be swamped by rising sea levels have led to an unprecedented ruling that ended a family's dream beachside development.

    The ruling, blocking plans for eight townhouses in Lakes Entrance, could undermine coastal development worth millions.

    A federal government report last year warned that up to 44,600 homes along Victoria's coast could be destroyed or damaged by rising sea levels over the next century.

    After a four-year battle for planning permission to build the Lakes Entrance townhouses close to the town centre, they have been left with broken dreams and a major financial headache. They had planned to keep some of the homes for themselves and sell the others.

    "We meet all the criteria put in front of us and VCAT knocked us back," Mr Strini said. "We have invested $1 million and this has turned into a nightmare. Our dreams have been shattered."

    In his ruling, VCAT's Ian Potts said the Strini case had brought into focus climate change planning issues, and a cautious approach was needed.

    "This decision effectively rules out almost any developments in existing commercial and residential areas that may be subject to sea level rises within the next 90 years - even if the buildings are above the flood level," he warned."

    Fear of coastal swamping leads to unprecedented ruling on property | Herald Sun


    Better tell those kids in the picture to run away or their parents might also get charged with putting their kids in danger being that close the rising ocean about to swamp them!

  20. #3170
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    ........or C02 concentrations.

    Regards inter
    Really?

    Temperature

    CO2


    NOAA Climate Services
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  21. #3171
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    What the hell are you Victorians up to?
    Being cautious.....planning for the future....minimising potential financial risks to taxpayers with respect to compensation claims......that sort of thing. Sensible people call it thinking ahead so I'm told.


    Observed sea level change in feet

    Old mate should think himself lucky....he might've built the things and then found out he couldn't afford to insure them. Bit like many coastal houses in the SE USA....
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  22. #3172
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Thanks Intertd6, it's working.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Really?

    Temperature

    CO2


    NOAA Climate Services
    Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

    Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available.

    Learn more here:

    Cherry picking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post




    50 years vs 500 million years.

    I don't suppose you have any correlational comparisons (i.e. valid data analysis) to compare how your little cherry pick compares to long term averages? Then a power study to indicate the external validity of your little cherry pick? Or do we just have to trust colourful words and colourful pictures, and just cough up extra taxes to pay back massive government debts for no environmental outcomes?

  23. #3173
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default More pretty colours.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Being cautious.....planning for the future....minimising potential financial risks to taxpayers with respect to compensation claims......that sort of thing. Sensible people call it thinking ahead so I'm told.


    Observed sea level change in feet

    Old mate should think himself lucky....he might've built the things and then found out he couldn't afford to insure them. Bit like many coastal houses in the SE USA....


    Comparison of two sea level reconstructions during the last 500 Ma. The scale of change during the last glacial/interglacial transition is indicated with a black bar. Note that over most of geologic history, long-term average sea level has been significantly higher than today.

    Learn more here:

    Sea level - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Oh yeh, remember this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

    Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available.

    Learn more here:

    Cherry picking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    50 years vs 500 million years.

    I don't suppose you have any correlational comparisons (i.e. valid data analysis) to compare how your little cherry pick compares to long term averages? Then a power study to indicate the external validity of your little cherry pick? Or do we just have to trust colourful words and colourful pictures, and just cough up extra taxes to pay back massive government debts for no environmental outcomes?
    The inconvenient truth indeed!

  24. #3174
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quite hilarious.

    Dr Freud uses a cherry pick to claim a cherry pick.

    The overriding logical fallacy Dr Freud keeps quoting is that reconstructed data from hundreds of millions of years ago 'shows' that current events are not unusual. What he leaves out is that humans were most unusual millions of years ago. (i.e. they didn't exist), and that we have the collective power to alter the climate regardless of what it might do of its own accord.

    And lets not start on the reconstructed data that the sceptics claim to be full of holes when the AGW crowd use it, but somehow acceptable in the hands of a serial denialist. Refer Dr Freud's previous explanation of Hypocrisy.

    As you were.

    woodbe.

  25. #3175
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Same ol' semantics, still no scientific proof!

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Quite hilarious.
    AGW Theory always is.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post

    Dr Freud uses a cherry pick to claim a cherry pick.
    My friend, a walk is supposed to clear the head, and you must have gone for a long walk.

    Please allow me to refresh your memory.

    I am on the record as stating that the planet is 4.5 billion years old. The proxy data set I presented is 500 million years, which is about 11% of the Earth's history. I'll leave it to you to calculate what percentage of the Earth's climate history 50 years is?

    If it is not time scale, but source that you take issue with, I am also on the record as indicating this proxy data is but one source of many, and I continue to urge all people to research all data and make their own minds up about the truth. If you are suggesting that I am cherry picking as I did not post all data available on the internet, then guilty as charged (and Mr Watson is much happier). However, I am happy to rest on my record of urging all people to research and present as much data as they see fit. But we have danced to this tune before your walk my friend:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    My bad Woodbe, it was late and I was rambling again.

    I was perhaps not clear in trying to explain that humans have been roaming the planet for millions of years, and are happy living in both freezing and desert conditions, as demonstrated by our promulgation across the planet (we are a pesky species, just ask Skynet ). If I had to choose between cockroaches and humans to survive the longest, my money is on the humans. I was not intending to mean that we have been measuring temperature for all of this time.

    My views on temperature measurement were briefly summarised in post #7 on page 1 as follows:

    I use the proxy data above in the understanding there are literally hundreds of other proxy data sets that contest these numbers. This is the joys of the frontier of science, we all get to argue about things we don't understand. The only thing that really peeves me is when a politician says "The science is settled on climate change".



    The science is not settled on anything my friend.

    That is why one of my favourite quotes is "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history". Science has constantly been evolving and always will. The periodic table has been "settled" many times in the past, but those inconvenient elements kept popping up and really annoying some scientists. Yet, we still teach children today that the periodic table is now settled. Hence my comments about the dinosaurs living on a flat planet. We now say that prior to Galileo and Copernicus, that people "thought" they lived on a flat earth. They didn't "think" they lived on a flat earth, they "knew" they lived on a flat earth, just as we "know" we live on a round one.

    If facts so fundamental as this can change in concepts so widely accepted by the scientific community, how can the science be settled in a field where all serious members readily admit we don't have all the answers, hence we create the models. I am happy for all this scientific debate to rage, as it does in all areas of science, but I don't want to pay taxes for it.

    That's why I like dinosaurs, they add perspective when people start arguing about what happened to inaccurate temperature measurements between 1920 and 1990.
    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    The overriding logical fallacy Dr Freud keeps quoting is that reconstructed data from hundreds of millions of years ago 'shows' that current events are not unusual. What he leaves out is that humans were most unusual millions of years ago. (i.e. they didn't exist), and that we have the collective power to alter the climate regardless of what it might do of its own accord.
    Don't suppose you have any proof of this in relation this great AGW Theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    And lets not start on the reconstructed data that the sceptics claim to be full of holes when the AGW crowd use it, but somehow acceptable in the hands of a serial denialist. Refer Dr Freud's previous explanation of Hypocrisy.
    Again, my views on the accuracy of proxy data and measured data were clearly outlined on page 1 of this thread. Therefore, my position has been consistent. But I can understand how it may appear hypocritical if you had forgotten earlier posts. Must have been a really long walk.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Hi Rod,

    By all accounts your plastering is flawless, as is your logic. I concur with your sentiments, and look forward to the emotional outbursts and prophesies of the end of the world. But first, allow me to provide some context. Best scientific estimates indicate the planet (Earth) is about 4.5 billion years old (p.s. there was no moon or water then, these arrived a few billion years later).

    I know it hurts, but please keep reading. Us humans arrived about 2 million years ago. Then after lots of banging rocks together, we invented something called a thermometer about 150 years ago. We now have about 100 years of very inaccurate surface temperature data, and a few decades of fairly accurate satellite data (on a planet that's been here 4.5 billion years)

    We have made very inaccurate guesses as far back as we can about the climate before we got here. We call this proxy data in the scientific community (rhymes with poxy)
    Here it is:

    Geological Era---------Million Years Ago----------Carbon Dioxide ppm-----------Av Global Temperature 0C

    Cambrian------------550-------------------------------------6,000----------------------23
    Ordovician-----------470-------------------------------------4,200----------------------23 – 12
    Silurian---------------430--------------------------------------3,500---------------------17 - 23
    Devonian-------------380--------------------------------------2,100---------------------23 – 20
    Carboniferous-------320------------------------------------1,000 - 200--------------20 – 12
    Permian---------------270------------------------------------200 – 1,900--------------12 - 23
    Triassic----------------230------------------------------------1,500-----------------------23 – 22
    Jurassic----------------170------------------------------------2,000----------------------22 – 16
    Cretaceous------------110------------------------------------1,500----------------------16 – 22
    Tertiary------------------40---------------------------------------500------------------------22 – 12
    Present Time-----------0---------------------------------------385-------------------------14 - 16

    The planet (Earth) has naturally cycled between 200 and 6000 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 550 million years (no SUV's or power plants). The average planetary temperature has naturally ranged between 12 and 23 degrees celsius over the last 550 million years (no SUV's or power plants). We, the humans, now intend to maintain carbon dioxide levels at 450 parts per million and average global temperatures at 16 degrees celsius, FOREVER. Just like nature intended? Kevin Rudd thinks getting governments to agree will be challenging. I think getting the planet Earth to agree will be "challenging".

    As a footnote, Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, it is a natural Molecule. Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide (that's one Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms). So is your bloodstream (oh no, scary pollution). You are a carbon based life form. When you breathe out the carbon dioxide, plants breathe it in. Then they breathe out oxygen, you breathe this in. Complicated stuff, huh.


    Just to help you sleep at night, you are stuck on a ball of molten lava that has cooled on the outside due to being stuck in the sub-zero vacuum of space. This ball is hurtling through space at over 100,000 kilometres per hour and no one is driving. Luckily, we are stuck in the gravitational field of a giant nuclear explosion that is slowly expanding, which should disappear in about 1.5 billion years. Gee wiz people, that 2 - 3 degree temperature rise is pretty scary.

    Just remember, the Dinosaurs didn't die out because they farted too much, they died because they were so busy fighting amongst themselves, nobody was watching where they were going, and they crashed into a big rock.
    Please everyone, if we can't keep up, at least try to catch up.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    As you were.
    Now where was I? Oh, that's right, freezing cold and paying much higher heating bills, apparently to stop me from overheating outside.

  26. #3176
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Originally Posted by chrisp
    From "The Copenhagen Diagnosis":
    However, neither El Niño, nor solar activity or volcanic eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate trends.
    Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly
    The Sun (of course) is the primary driver of temperature on this planet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Watching you lads sort this out might be as much fun as watching the infighting in this link!
    Freud - the key word is "trend"

    SBD is correct, the sun is the primary driver. The quote from The Copenhagen Diagnosis is effect says the change in solar output from the sun doesn't explain the temperature changes on earth.

    There is no contradiction between SBD and I - but you already knew that!

  27. #3177
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Really?

    Temperature

    CO2


    NOAA Climate Services
    Now I'm only an average bloke but even I can see that graph on the bottom doesn't match the top for nearly half the time span.
    regards inter

  28. #3178
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default First cab off the rank...

    This sounds good:

    “...From day one under a Coalition government, everyone who uses energy – that’s pensioners, retirees, farmers, families and young people – could live without the threat of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme that would raise prices, damage industries and cost jobs...

    ...I want to address a few words to people thinking of voting Green. I share your concerns for the future of our country and fully accept that we have only one planet to live on.

    The Coalition will definitely meet our 2020 emission reduction targets. But rather than taxing consumers, the Coalition will buy abatements, particularly through soil improvements and tree planting. That way, we’ll improve agricultural productivity as well as reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Coalition, in fact, is now the only major political party with an effective policy to reduce emissions. What we will never do, though, is damage our economy with futile gestures...”

    This doesn’t sound so good:

    “...My friends, within three months, preparations for an emissions reduction fund will be under way and the first recruiting for the Green Army will be about to start...”

    Make up your own mind here:

    I can't wait the next launch, might get more details on the 150 people deciding the Carbon Tax policy for Australia? I'll try to get a gig on this committee, but I'm gonna have to pretend to believe in this scam. Lucky you guys have given me all the AGW Theory arguments, I'll just cut and paste your posts into my application.

  29. #3179
    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
    Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide (that's one Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms).
    It is interesting to see how set some people are in their wrong ways.

    Freud is still posting the scientific fallacy quoted above even though it has been thoroughly disproved early in this thread.

    Just watch Freud try and do a sleight of words again to show the above quote is correct.




  30. #3180
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default You got me.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Freud - the key word is "trend"

    SBD is correct, the sun is the primary driver. The quote from The Copenhagen Diagnosis is effect says the change in solar output from the sun doesn't explain the temperature changes on earth.

    There is no contradiction between SBD and I - but you already knew that!
    Do I get a sentence reduction for an early guilty plea.

    Just trying to spice things up while Rod is off living the dream.

  31. #3181
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Top of the class.

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Now I'm only an average bloke but even I can see that graph on the bottom doesn't match the top for nearly half the time span.
    regards inter
    Based on what most of us have been posting, I'd say you are well above the average of posters in this thread.

  32. #3182
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Another long walk?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    It is interesting to see how set some people are in their wrong ways.

    Freud is still posting the scientific fallacy quoted above even though it has been thoroughly disproved early in this thread.

    Just watch Freud try and do a sleight of words again to show the above quote is correct.



    If you didn't get it before, you certainly won't now.

    But just for kicks, how about we discuss the fact that there is still no evidence proving AGW Theory.

  33. #3183
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,311

    Default

    You are doing a fine Job Freud!

    Cheers Rod
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  34. #3184
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Now I'm only an average bloke but even I can see that graph on the bottom doesn't match the top for nearly half the time span.
    regards inter
    Spot on.....and I'd be worried if it did. And I sure as heck wouldn't present it if they were exactly matched over the same time scale.....it'd be complete and utter tosh.

    The reason why is that we would expect a lag period between the input and the response. As an analogy, when you turn on a light switch there is a delay between the flick of the switch and the ultimate result - activation of the light globe. There are many others - firewood on the fire - lag - heat; blanket on the bed - lag - warmth...

    So it is with CO2 (or any GHG) and air temperature. In this case, the lag is quite a few years as all we are doing is building a better blanket.

    There are corresponding lags between GHG increases and the other biophysical response/s across the planet (anything from a few years to many, many decades) - and this is what is causing all the grief and conjecture about what might happen as a result of that rise in GHG.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  35. #3185
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Freud
    Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide (that's one Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms).


    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    It is interesting to see how set some people are in their wrong ways.

    Freud is still posting the scientific fallacy quoted above even though it has been thoroughly disproved early in this thread.

    Just watch Freud try and do a sleight of words again to show the above quote is correct.



    If my lungs had 70% CO2 in them I'd:
    A) be a scientific miracle;
    B) an anomaly in basic physics;
    C) very dead.


    Perhaps Freud isn't telling us something about himself? Is he actually an alien being? Sent here to keep us arguing amongst ourselves so that we never develop sufficiently to get off this lonely, wet rock and challenge his advanced pan-galatic civilisation....

    Freud - our very own GHG breathing little green man
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  36. #3186
    1K Club Member jago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ....
    Posts
    1,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Quote:
    Perhaps Freud isn't telling us something about himself? Is he actually an alien being? Sent here to keep us arguing amongst ourselves so that we never develop sufficiently to get off this lonely, wet rock and challenge his advanced pan-galatic civilisation....

    Freud - our very own GHG breathing little green man

    Way too funny speakhearsee:

  37. #3187
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    One of my new favorite websites: Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism

    With respect to CO2 and our contribution.....



    Came from here...Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

    worth a squiz and a read.....good stuff on the climate models too How reliable are climate models?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  38. #3188
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Busted!

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Quote:

    Perhaps Freud isn't telling us something about himself? Is he actually an alien being? Sent here to keep us arguing amongst ourselves so that we never develop sufficiently to get off this lonely, wet rock and challenge his advanced pan-galatic civilisation....

    Freud - our very own GHG breathing little green man

    Just look into this light.




  39. #3189
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default What about a pretty picture of rising power bills?

    "VICTORIANS hit with soaring electricity bills could have their power rationed under a smart meter plan.

    Some companies want to "choke" or restrict amounts delivered to homes to help families cope with costs.

    New meters that are being rolled out to every household and small business can ration power to control debt for individual customers.

    "This would allow, for example, sufficient power to be provided at a premises to run a few lights and the fridge only ... either as an alternative to disconnection or as an additional step prior to disconnection.""

    Victorians facing soaring bills could have power rationed | Herald Sun

    Might lose a few bloggers on here?

    Rather have cold beer than computer power.

    Hands up all those supporting Carbon taxes?

  40. #3190
    Small Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Over the rainbow
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    "VICTORIANS hit with soaring electricity bills could have their power rationed under a smart meter plan.

    Some companies want to "choke" or restrict amounts delivered to homes to help families cope with costs.

    New meters that are being rolled out to every household and small business can ration power to control debt for individual customers.

    "This would allow, for example, sufficient power to be provided at a premises to run a few lights and the fridge only ... either as an alternative to disconnection or as an additional step prior to disconnection.""

    Victorians facing soaring bills could have power rationed | Herald Sun

    Might lose a few bloggers on here?

    Rather have cold beer than computer power.

    Hands up all those supporting Carbon taxes?
    Whats that got to do with a carbon tax?? Nothing, way off track again...

  41. #3191
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by andy the pm View Post
    Whats that got to do with a carbon tax?? Nothing, way off track again...
    Don't worry Andy, Dr Freud is just displaying his susceptibility to conspiracy theories.

    Its just a media beat-up Freud. All we're really dealing with here is that with a smart meter, the energy retailers can limit their exposure to customers who habitually live beyond their means and don't pay their bill without actually cutting them off altogether. Its a good thing. You're jumping at shadows still.

    And yea. Nothing to do with carbon taxes or AGW.

    woodbe.

  42. #3192
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Tis the same as having your download/upload speed choked when you exceed your data limit on the interweb. Or your water supply pressure limited at the meter during water restrictions for exceeding water use limits. Neither are good....but that's private industry for you.

    Still not relevant to this thread though...
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  43. #3193
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    From NOAA: Climate Indicators

    The following "climate indicators" present data from each of the datasets featured in the 2009 Climate Assessment Chapter 2 sidebar "How do we know the world has warmed?" by John Kennedy and several other authors. Within each indicator, individual datasets can be toggled off and on for further inspection and zoomed in onto periods of interest. All data used in the sidebar is publicly accessible and the annual data as used in the analysis can be downloaded here.
    This set of indicators was selected as we would unambiguously expect them to increase or decrease if the world were warming. In a warming world, based upon simple physical principles we would expect the following indicators to increase: land surface air temperature, sea-surface temperature, marine air temperature, sea level, tropospheric temperature, ocean heat content and specific humidity. Conversely, we would expect the following indicators to decline: snow cover, sea-ice extent, glacier mass, and stratospheric temperatures. Stratospheric temperature decline is also influenced by ozone depletion.
    See the whole page and clickable graphs here

    woodbe

  44. #3194
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post

    With respect to CO2 and our contribution.....


    Now all you have to do is try & link those increases in CO2 levels to likewise temperature increases in a provable manner.
    As I said a long time ago, I do not dispute that there is now a warming trend in global temps & that CO2 is an indicator, not the cause, but logically the answer lays in the burning of fossil fuels = HEAT, photochemical smog / haze capturing the suns energy in the atmosphere = HEAT.
    regards inter

  45. #3195
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Surely I don't need to explain your own position to you?

    Quote Originally Posted by andy the pm View Post
    Whats that got to do with a carbon tax?? Nothing, way off track again...
    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Don't worry Andy, Dr Freud is just displaying his susceptibility to conspiracy theories.

    Its just a media beat-up Freud. All we're really dealing with here is that with a smart meter, the energy retailers can limit their exposure to customers who habitually live beyond their means and don't pay their bill without actually cutting them off altogether. Its a good thing. You're jumping at shadows still.

    And yea. Nothing to do with carbon taxes or AGW.

    woodbe.
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Tis the same as having your download/upload speed choked when you exceed your data limit on the interweb. Or your water supply pressure limited at the meter during water restrictions for exceeding water use limits. Neither are good....but that's private industry for you.

    Still not relevant to this thread though...
    Lads, if you're going to take a walk on the green side, you could at least get with the greenie program:

    "A properly designed carbon tax would make possible generous compensation schemes for working people and people on welfare faced with rising fuel and electricity prices."

    Five questions about a carbon tax | Green Left Weekly

    "Prices of products and services that use fossil fuels would rise as producers passed their carbon tax costs downstream. For example, electricity produced from coal would gradually get more expensive, while electricity produced from wind would not."

    Price Carbon Campaign

    I even found these greenie sites to avoid your usual ad hominen routines.

    And as for those people on aged and disability pensions habitually living beyond their means, they make me sick. Recharging their electric wheelchairs and running all that medical equipment, watching digital tv all day, greedy pricks.

    Real smart meters, huh!

  46. #3196
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Pretty colours.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    From NOAA: Climate Indicators

    See the whole page and clickable graphs here

    woodbe
    Ooooooh, look at the pretty colours.

    So pretty I forgot to look for a causal relationship.

  47. #3197
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default How is that ol' wind power going?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    "Prices of products and services that use fossil fuels would rise as producers passed their carbon tax costs downstream. For example, electricity produced from coal would gradually get more expensive, while electricity produced from wind would not."
    "HOBART'S new rooftop wind turbines have stopped after two of the blades came loose when they began spinning out of control."

    [Coming loose and spinning out of control, what does that remind me of?]

    "We were scared because we could see people walking on the street below and it looked like the whole assembly might fall right off the building."

    "I Want Energy Director Rob Manson said a safety mechanism was activated that causes the turbines to fold in on themselves.

    "We were very pleased to see the safety mechanism work exactly as it was meant to,'' Mr Manson said."

    "Mr Manson said "excessive amounts of wind'' caused the problem.

    He said the turbines were designed to withstand "cyclonic'' winds of 60m/sec."

    "Fellow council worker Piangpen Narksut was also amazed, but said she hoped they would not be taken down.

    "They were spinning like crazy this morning...

    "But it isn't really that windy today so they obviously need to be properly secured."

    Wind turbines grind to halt Tasmania News - The Mercury - The Voice of Tasmania


    I think the one thing we can all agree on is the amount of spinning going on here.

  48. #3198
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Too little, too late!

    Tradies alert:

    "Our ultimate responsibility is to our members. Those members are the builders, tradespeople and hardworking construction industry folk who build our homes, schools, hospitals, roads and community infrastructure. Without them, our current lifestyle would not exist.

    Our members are concerned that on Election Day many Australians will vote for the Greens without fully understanding the consequences this will have on our economy, infrastructure and ultimately; our way of life.

    Master Builders is taking action because our members are worried about the future of the economy and the long term viability of their industry.

    “The Australian Greens will:
    • Oppose the establishment of new coal-fired power stations, new coal mines and the expansion of existing mines.”(Source: The Australian Greens, Climate Change and Energy Policy, No. 38-39)

    Coal-fired power stations produce 80 per cent of the electricity we use to run our economy. Under Greens policies, Victorian businesses will be subjected to higher electricity bills, risking job security and international competitiveness."

    Think Before You Vote


    No doubt this will be relegated as another "way off track" "media beat up" "not relevant to this thread"?

    A much easier phrase is "inconvenient truth".

  49. #3199
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Crazy talk.

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Now all you have to do is try & link those increases in CO2 levels to likewise temperature increases in a provable manner.

    regards inter
    Uh oh, they're not going to like you.

  50. #3200
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Reality bites hard.

    "Spain's plans to have 2,000 electric cars on the road by the end of 2010 have been dealt a blow as figures showed just 16 have been sold."

    BBC News - Spain's electric car sales off target

    Gee, I wonder why? Maybe all these fruit loop greenies didn't realise making electricity really expensive makes electric cars redundant. Duh.

    Remember this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    "Spain’s Dr. Gabriel Calzada — the author of a damning study concluding that Spain’s “green jobs” energy program has been a catastrophic economic failure — was mailed a dismantled bomb on Tuesday by solar energy company Thermotechnic.

    Here's some info from the study:

    "14. The price of a comprehensive electricity rate (paid by the end consumer) in
    Spain would have to be increased 31% to being able to repay the historic debt
    generated by this rate deficit mainly produced by the subsidies to renewables,
    according to Spain’s energy regulator.

    15. Spanish citizens must therefore cope with either an increase of electricity rates
    or increased taxes (and public deficit), as will the U.S. if it follows Spain’s model."

    Winners!

Page 64 of 377 FirstFirst ... 14 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 114 164 ... 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
  •