Emission Trading and climate change

Page 65 of 377 FirstFirst ... 15 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 115 165 ... LastLast
Results 3,201 to 3,250 of 18819
  1. #3201
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    "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.
    Being so up to date on Spain, you'd know that they are in the grips of a deep recession. Unemployment first quarter 2010 at 20% 50% of under 25's are out of work. No surprise things aren't selling well...

    And EV's in the states? They already have the sports car Tesla and have been chosen by Nissan as a launch market for their all-electric Leaf. Nissan revealed in May that their US pre-orders had already exceeded their production capacity Anyone who suggests that electric cars are not going to be a hit with consumers is simply not paying attention.

    woodbe.

  2. #3202
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    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
    Logically....but not scientifically.

    The heat effect as a result of burning fossil fuels simply isn't sufficient to account for a significant proportion of the total heat gain in the atmosphere.....let alone in our oceans. Simply not enough joules to account for it. From It's waste heat


    As for the photochemical smog and other poluting aerosols....funnily enough, the truth is the opposite to what you suggest. Rather than trapping heat.....it is actually reflecting heat that would otherwise be trapped.

    It's aerosols

    This is why some geoengineers/terraforming proponents have suggested injecting sulphates (could be sulphides?) into the atmosphere to act as a form of sunscreen and buffer to tide us over whilst we presumably get our act together.....unfortunately, there's some recent work that suggests that some potentially nasty feedback effects are likely - though there is way more science to do before anyone can be confident one way or the other.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  3. #3203
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Under Greens policies, Victorian businesses will be subjected to higher electricity bills, risking job security and international competitiveness
    I think what they meant to say is....."Regardless of whose policies we continue under....Victorian businesses will be subjected to higher electricity bills...."

    Can't have a 3% annual CPI increase and not have higher electrcity prices....simple economics.

    Add to that the fact that Victoria hasn't significantly invested in its power generation infrastructure in the last three decades (some of the actual generating equipment dates back to the fifties!).....and the State doesn't actually own or have signigicant control over any of that infrastructure (or the distribution infrastructure)....and we can't fail to escape a significant increase in energy charges if we continue to use grid supplied power.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  4. #3204
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Logically....but not scientifically.

    The heat effect as a result of burning fossil fuels simply isn't sufficient to account for a significant proportion of the total heat gain in the atmosphere.....let alone in our oceans. Simply not enough joules to account for it. From It's waste heat


    As for the photochemical smog and other poluting aerosols....funnily enough, the truth is the opposite to what you suggest. Rather than trapping heat.....it is actually reflecting heat that would otherwise be trapped.

    It's aerosols

    This is why some geoengineers/terraforming proponents have suggested injecting sulphates (could be sulphides?) into the atmosphere to act as a form of sunscreen and buffer to tide us over whilst we presumably get our act together.....unfortunately, there's some recent work that suggests that some potentially nasty feedback effects are likely - though there is way more science to do before anyone can be confident one way or the other.
    Now you might tell us what % of man made Co2 makes up that figure V's natural Co2 and support it with some scientific facts. While you are at it you might then lay out what % of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor and other gases. Then work it back to the % difference man made Co2 makes. Then you go go a step further and work out the % of man made Co2 that Australia contributes. Then possibly you could work out for us the amount of temperature increase is due entirely by man made C02 then by Australia's Co2.

    That should be very easy to do eh!

    Boy while we are on a roll, once you have the scientifically proven figures for that. Maybe we could then work out how much cooler the world would be if Australia reduced emissions by 5% then 10% the 20%. Should be a cinch

    Then I guess the next step seeing that was so easy is to work out the cost per % of reduction to the economy and equate that back to a $ figure per degree of temperature drop that we in Australia can achieve.

    Then we can ask ourselves is it worth it?

    Seeing how the science is settled and all that, this should be a walk in the park.

    Now that would make a lot more sense to a layman like me. Rather than sticking a figure up there with a cute diagram that would have the reader think that it is our factories etc making up all the warming observed over the last centuary. That is if the temperature records are squeaky clean and accurate of course. Not to mention any other natural influences on temperature.

    No long bows beng draw here though, it is cut and dried, all these figures should be readily available considering all the money that has been spent on it.

    Without these figures, what would you say? That we are guessing . But hey that ok lets change our lifestyles and go back to horse and carts, cause our best guess surely justifies it.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  5. #3205
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Now you might tell us what % of man made Co2 makes up that figure V's natural Co2 and support it with some scientific facts. While you are at it you might then lay out what % of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor and other gases. Then work it back to the % difference man made Co2 makes. Then you go go a step further and work out the % of man made Co2 that Australia contributes. Then possibly you could work out for us the amount of temperature increase is due entirely by man made C02 then by Australia's Co2.

    That should be very easy to do eh!
    Rod,

    You will, if you care to read them, find answers to most of your questions at the link provided by SBD. For example: How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Boy while we are on a roll, once you have the scientifically proven figures for that. Maybe we could then work out how much cooler the world would be if Australia reduced emissions by 5% then 10% the 20%. Should be a cinch
    I'm not sure where you got the idea that Australia is supposed to single handily to reduce CO2 and global warming for the whole world?

    It is just a matter of us doing our bit. It is quite a simple concept really - if we all reduce our emissions by 20%, well, emission worldwide will be reduced 20%.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Then I guess the next step seeing that was so easy is to work out the cost per % of reduction to the economy and equate that back to a $ figure per degree of temperature drop that we in Australia can achieve.

    Then we can ask ourselves is it worth it?

    Seeing how the science is settled and all that, this should be a walk in the park.
    Is it only the dollars that count for you? I think it is a great example of where a proper tax regime can benefit mankind as a whole - tax the polluting technologies to put the clean technologies on a more even footing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Now that would make a lot more sense to a layman like me. Rather than sticking a figure up there with a cute diagram that would have the reader think that it is our factories etc making up all the warming observed over the last centuary. That is if the temperature records are squeaky clean and accurate of course. Not to mention any other natural influences on temperature.

    No long bows beng draw here though, it is cut and dried, all these figures should be readily available considering all the money that has been spent on it.

    Without these figures, what would you say? That we are guessing . But hey that ok lets change our lifestyles and go back to horse and carts, cause our best guess surely justifies it.
    It is not guessing Rod, it is science. For some reason you seem to have issues with accepting what is a widely accepted in the scientific community - it also seems that just about every government in the world also accepts AGW as true.

    It is not a matter of "going back" but rather going forward to better and cleaner energy technologies.

  6. #3206
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,389

    Default

    One way of looking at Co2 is on a per capita basis, on those grounds we are in the top ten worst.
    CO2 Emissions (per capita) (most recent) by country

  7. #3207
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,176

    Default

    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.
    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
    I was trying to keep it short with this, but I will have to add a few things, with the burning of fossil fuels add, the burning of forests by clearing & deforestation, when you consider the heat released by burning of forests / fuels in relation to the CO2 produced the former by far outweighs the latter per m3 plus all this being held in a zone close to the earths surface by an insulating cloud which is heating up also. Heat glorious heat
    with photochemical smog / haze, add particlulates, seeing water vapour has the greatest greenhouse effect of all, smog/haze/particles are starting to be considered more serously as a contributer to warming.
    regards inter

  8. #3208
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default The cars are great.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Being so up to date on Spain, you'd know that they are in the grips of a deep recession. Unemployment first quarter 2010 at 20% 50% of under 25's are out of work. No surprise things aren't selling well...

    And EV's in the states? They already have the sports car Tesla and have been chosen by Nissan as a launch market for their all-electric Leaf. Nissan revealed in May that their US pre-orders had already exceeded their production capacity Anyone who suggests that electric cars are not going to be a hit with consumers is simply not paying attention.

    woodbe.
    Gee, Spain had lots of failed green policies, taxpayer subsidies, big deficits, big debts, promises of massive numbers of green jobs, all ending in failure and recession. Does this remind you of anything closer to home?

    And I never said a bad word about electric cars, they are great run off coal or nuclear, until something more practically and economically viable becomes mainstream. The point is failed greenie policies are driving up electricity prices (above CPI and other cost inputs for those having trouble keeping up ) and wasting everyones time and money, and our idiot government are paying for all these rorts with our money.

    And your little pre-orders are based on $99 fully-refundable registrations of interest on a vehicle with up to 30% government rebates. Not exactly sound predictive validity, but then again that's never been a strong point for AGW Theory proponents.

    But hey, if our moronic government give me taxpayer dollars to buy an electric car cheaper than a petrol car, I'll put down a refundable $99 bucks till I get more details.

  9. #3209
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Chk Chk Boom!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Now you might tell us what % of man made Co2 makes up that figure V's natural Co2 and support it with some scientific facts. While you are at it you might then lay out what % of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor and other gases. Then work it back to the % difference man made Co2 makes. Then you go go a step further and work out the % of man made Co2 that Australia contributes. Then possibly you could work out for us the amount of temperature increase is due entirely by man made C02 then by Australia's Co2.

    That should be very easy to do eh!

    Boy while we are on a roll, once you have the scientifically proven figures for that. Maybe we could then work out how much cooler the world would be if Australia reduced emissions by 5% then 10% the 20%. Should be a cinch

    Then I guess the next step seeing that was so easy is to work out the cost per % of reduction to the economy and equate that back to a $ figure per degree of temperature drop that we in Australia can achieve.

    Then we can ask ourselves is it worth it?

    Seeing how the science is settled and all that, this should be a walk in the park.

    Now that would make a lot more sense to a layman like me. Rather than sticking a figure up there with a cute diagram that would have the reader think that it is our factories etc making up all the warming observed over the last centuary. That is if the temperature records are squeaky clean and accurate of course. Not to mention any other natural influences on temperature.

    No long bows beng draw here though, it is cut and dried, all these figures should be readily available considering all the money that has been spent on it.

    Without these figures, what would you say? That we are guessing . But hey that ok lets change our lifestyles and go back to horse and carts, cause our best guess surely justifies it.
    Mate, this is gold.

    If any AGW Theory proponent actually tried to answer these on a serious basis, they would see the futility in their support for the many failed greenie policies advocated thus far. It's just a shame none of them will try to answer these on a serious basis. No doubt lots of pretty words and pictures will pop up, but no numbers yet again.

    Chrisp answered that 20% = 20%, so I guess that's a start.

  10. #3210
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default We're approaching ridiculous speed.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    One way of looking at Co2 is on a per capita basis, on those grounds we are in the top ten worst.
    CO2 Emissions (per capita) (most recent) by country
    I'm glad you said "one way" and not "a good way", so you still have some AGW Theory credibility left after posting this ridiculous argument, that is used often by many AGW Theory proponents.

    By this logic, a country with 1 person emitting 50,000 tonnes of CO2 per capita (total 50,000 tonnes) is a worse "offender" under AGW Theory than a country with 1 billion people each emitting 10,000 tonnes of CO2 per capita (total 10,000,000,000,000 tonnes).

    Population = 1, Per capita = 50,000, Total = 50,000 tonnes.

    Population = 1,000,000,000, Per capita = 10,000, Total = 10,000,000,000,000 tonnes.

    Yeh, I like your logic, we take out the first dude and the planet will be so much better off. The second mob are much lower "per capita".

    Seriously, you guys gotta figure out how your own theory works, none of your pretty pictures show "per capita" CO2 levels and temperature correlation for a reason. When you figure out why, you'll be well on your way to never mentioning this ridiculous statistic again.

  11. #3211
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Texas Ranger?

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    I was trying to keep it short with this, but I will have to add a few things, with the burning of fossil fuels add, the burning of forests by clearing & deforestation, when you consider the heat released by burning of forests / fuels in relation to the CO2 produced the former by far outweighs the latter per m3 plus all this being held in a zone close to the earths surface by an insulating cloud which is heating up also. Heat glorious heat
    with photochemical smog / haze, add particlulates, seeing water vapour has the greatest greenhouse effect of all, smog/haze/particles are starting to be considered more serously as a contributer to warming.
    regards inter
    Man, you gotta be Chuck Norris kinda tough!

    Throwing down a fact like that in this thread.

  12. #3212
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Who woulda thunk?

    "PLANTS can adapt to climate change much better than previously thought, according to a new study."

    Flowers adapt to climate change with genetic switch | The Australian

    Truly amazing, living things adapt to their environment!


  13. #3213
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Camping, cycling, walking, she looks fit?

    Someone needs one of those taxpayer funded electric cars:

    "Senate candidate Lin Hatfield Dodds says she's not environmentally irresponsible for owning a V8 Toyota Landcruiser...

    ...Ms Hatfield Dodds told The Canberra Times that poor public transport options forced her family to buy a second car about two years ago. The other family car was a Toyota Echo. The 4WD was chosen to take the family on monthly camping trips.''I'm not at all worried about driving a four-wheel drive I've always said I don't fit the mould of what people often perceive a green to be,'' she said.

    Both cars' carbon emissions were offset through Greening Australia's Breathe Easy program. According to Greening Australia, a large diesel V8 4WD produces 5.460 tonnes of emissions each year. The recommended offset donation is $191.10.

    ''I drive two cars. I have a Landcruiser and an Echo. Mostly I drive the Echo because I try not to drive the big car around Canberra. That's our car to go camping in and I ride an e-cycle, which is a bicycle with a little battery on it, and I walk,'' Ms Hatfield Dodds said."


    Greens candidate defends 4WD use - Local News - News - General - The Canberra Times

    Ahhh, it's all ok now, it's all being "off-set".

    Maybe she could do the next ultra-triathlon with Mr Rabbit?



  14. #3214
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Speaking of failed greenie policies wasting our money.

    "A STATE Government-backed scheme to use the sun to power towns in Queensland's scorched Outback has run into the dust due to concerns about the light.

    Cloncurry in the state's northwest was meant to be the centrepiece of a radical $30 million plan to use solar energy to heat water and generate electricity, cutting carbon emissions and reliance on diesel – and eventually taking the town off the grid...

    ...The Government, which faces criticism over a series of expensive infrastructure blunders, is blaming the project's failure on concerns about light pollution...

    ..."There was a glare issue exceeding what they consider to be appropriate levels," he said. "If the glare issue cannot be addressed the project will be moved somewhere else in Cloncurry or it will not proceed."


    The State Government earmarked $7 million for the project. Of that, $900,000 had been spent so far, he said..."

    Queensland solar power project in Cloncurry stalls because of bright light of panels | Courier Mail

    BREAKING NEWS:


    You heard it here first people, soon we will all be paying a Light Tax for emitting too much glare from our windows, cars, solar panels etc., also known as "Light Pollution".

    Before you start laughing at your gleaming bald spot, think how ridiculed you would be going back in time and convincing people one day we would tax people for what they breathe out and tax cows for farting and burping.

  15. #3215
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default You have been warned!

    Take heed, once a lucrative tax regime is in place, it it rarely removed by any future government. Remember Labor's rock solid promise to roll back the GST, now they're actually stealing it from the states.

    "Thousands of British businesses will be liable for significant fines and charges under a new government “green tax” scheme.

    Companies that fail to register their energy use by next month will be hit with fines that could reach £45,000 under the little-known rules.

    Those that do participate in the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) initiative by declaring their energy use will face charges for every ton of greenhouse gas they produce.

    These payments are expected to average £38,000 a year for medium-sized firms, and could reach £100,000 for larger organisations.

    ...The Coalition is pressing ahead with the CRC despite Conservative pledges to cut red-tape on businesses..."

    Business facing a wave of green taxes - Telegraph

    Let's play spot the environmental outcome.

  16. #3216
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default More dissention in the AGW Theory ranks.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    Is it only the dollars that count for you? I think it is a great example of where a proper tax regime can benefit mankind as a whole - tax the polluting technologies to put the clean technologies on a more even footing.
    So, what you are saying is that these new carbon taxes will artificially increase current electricity prices much higher, thereby artificially making the "choice" of using renewable energy much more sensible?

    Hmmm, don't stray too far from the herd.

  17. #3217
    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
    Chrisp answered that 20% = 20%, so I guess that's a start.
    Yep, not a bad start!

    I figured that my 20% = 20% is a little closer to the mark than Rod's 20% = zero.


  18. #3218
    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
    So, what you are saying is that these new carbon taxes will artificially increase current electricity prices much higher, thereby artificially making the "choice" of using renewable energy much more sensible?
    Bingo!

    You finally get what carbon tax and emissions trading is all about!

    On a more serious take, the fossil resources we are using to power our homes and our industry are finite - and their by-products are detrimental to the environment (and ultimately to us). We are essentially using up fossil fuel reserves that took millions of years to produce in the matter of a few centuries. At some point we need to change. Do you suggest that we just continue on our merry way until we hit that brick wall - or should we do something different now since we can now see the brick wall ahead? By doing something different, I mean developing and encouraging renewable energy sources.

  19. #3219
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    No long bows beng draw here though, it is cut and dried, all these figures should be readily available considering all the money that has been spent on it.

    Without these figures, what would you say? That we are guessing . But hey that ok lets change our lifestyles and go back to horse and carts, cause our best guess surely justifies it.
    Got Straw Man?

    Good work Rod. Seeing you have already made up your mind on this, you must have run these numbers yourself? Or did you just read a Newspaper Headline you didn't like to decide it was all hogwash?

    Oh, by the way, Your Hero has been getting into trouble with simple things again (simple things like facts and misinformation that is.)

    woodbe.

  20. #3220
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Bingo!

    You finally get what carbon tax and emissions trading is all about!
    Ahem, maybe you could fully answer the questions posed in my previous post seriously like Freud suggested, then we could work our if this is worth it.

    If you produced the figures then maybe a few more people will agree with you. The very fact that a cost/benefit analysis can't be done clearly defining all the parameters, will surely keep people from believing you. Particularly when there is so much info out there that disputes your theory.

    Fancy asking us to "just trust us" this is for your own good, without being able to back it up with some straight forward figures. It is this that make the AGW proponant a laughing stock to so many of us. Come up with some better if you want us to open our wallets.

    It might make you feel good to have a "purpose" and spend your money to prove your worth. But some of us require a bit more solid evidence before spending our money.

    Just show me how an ETS can be justified.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  21. #3221
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Got Straw Man?

    Good work Rod. Seeing you have already made up your mind on this, you must have run these numbers yourself? Or did you just read a Newspaper Headline you didn't like to decide it was all hogwash?

    Oh, by the way, Your Hero has been getting into trouble with simple things again (simple things like facts and misinformation that is.)

    woodbe.
    No Woodbe I just cant help but notice that with all the billions spent on this farce NOBODY has been able to come up with the numbers. So who is the fool here?

    Show me the numbers Woodbe or admit you have nothing other than extrapolated trends pumped into a model with dubious start dates and dubious data to predict something that MIGHT happen in the future, to back up this absolute crock.

    Yes I have made up my mind that it is a total farce, becuase you guys have had years to produce some real evidence that this is fact and yet you continually fail to do so.

    The theory is like a bucket that has so many holes in it that you cant pour enough water into it to get the bucket full. Until you guys come up with some figures to back up what you claim then you are pushing a lost cause.

    Time is against you and time is our friend. The longer sensible people can stall the faithful from taking stupid expensive action that will do NOTHING to reduce global temperatures, (before you skwark show us the figures), the more likely this thing will fall over and we can get on with our lives. We can then focus our attention to real environmental concerns, like REAL polution.

    Seriously though you guys are fast losing ground while you cant come up with the simple figures that will prove AGW. People wake up to this sort of stuff, thankfully.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  22. #3222
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post


    Oh, by the way, Your Hero has been getting into trouble with simple things again (simple things like facts and misinformation that is.)

    woodbe.
    Oh boy, just sooooo tired of this crud.

    I guess what you are trying to say here is that every thing else Monckton says is false or miss-leading? Maybe Tamio is right, I don't know.

    I really don't see how you or anybody else can simply dissregard what a person has to say out of hand, because he may not be right on every thing said.

    By making a big deal of this really points to shallow thinking. It is a blatent attempt to disscredit all he says. This in my book just shows me that you fear what else he has to say. So he must be disscredited at any cost! If he is so wrong about everything, why not challenge everything he says? I can tell you why, because he will make a fool out of "you".

    Here is a challenge for you, why not come back and tell us what he says that is correct? If it is all wrong then tell us why? You could start here http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...hn_abraham.pdf

    Also why would he be MY hero? He is just another person of many who are out there poking more holes in your bucket.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  23. #3223
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Oh boy, just sooooo tired of this crud.

    I guess what you are trying to say here is that every thing else Monckton says is false or miss-leading? Maybe Tamio is right, I don't know.
    Touchy today Rod?

    I'm not trying to say anything, and certainly not asking you to put words in my mouth.

    Just reporting when the denialist poster boys fall in their own slop buckets, which they do with regular monotony.

    Hey, but if they are completely wrong on one thing, they must be nearly right on the rest, right?

    woodbe.

  24. #3224
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Touchy today Rod?

    I'm not trying to say anything, and certainly not asking you to put words in my mouth.

    Just reporting when the denialist poster boys fall in their own slop buckets, which they do with regular monotony.

    Hey, but if they are completely wrong on one thing, they must be nearly right on the rest, right?

    woodbe.
    Nah I'm never "touchy'" as you put it. I find it all a bit amusing actually. How you can defend your position when asked for a clear answer on the numbers is beyond me.

    For if what you believe is true, these numbers should easy to claculate with some degree of accuracy. The fact is no-one can and nor do they want the debate to go this way because it weakens the entire AGW theory. So rather than answer the question the warmers avoid it like poison. Yet if you could answer this, it would kill all arguments.

    While this remains un-answered and warmers keep dodging by throwing up re herrings to discredit any that dissagree with them, you will certainly loose your argument. AGW is being shown how much of a crock it is right here.

    What really amuses me is that so many people are prepared to believe this rubbish without either looking at the arguments against AGW or demanding solid evidence.

    What really amazes me is that so many people are prepared to believe this rubbish after being presented with enough counter argument to at best drop AGW in its tracks, at worst create enough doubt to proceed with caution and wait and see.

    As I say time is on our side, whilst we are sensibly holding off on any major changes to our lives (read ETS), then I am happy to sit back and watch, the warmers make complete fools of themselves, as the empirical evidence unfolds to bury the AGW argument forever.

    I can see an acute shortage of humble pie in the years to come.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  25. #3225
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    For if what you believe is true, these numbers should easy to claculate with some degree of accuracy. The fact is no-one can and nor do they want the debate to go this way because it weakens the entire AGW theory. So rather than answer the question the warmers avoid it like poison. Yet if you could answer this, it would kill all arguments.
    We both know it wouldn't kill all arguments. It would just create more arguments.

    Tell you what Rod, you're so into numbers, show us the numbers you have that prove it isn't so.

    Nice debating tactic - require your opponents to jump through an impossible hoop, and when they cannot, declare yourself the victor.

    woodbe.

  26. #3226
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Explain it to your buddies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    So, what you are saying is that these new carbon taxes will artificially increase current electricity prices much higher?
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Bingo!

    You finally get what carbon tax and emissions trading is all about!
    As can be clearly seen from the start of this thread, this is what this fiasco is all about, that's why I have been arguing against it from the start. Massive increase in energy prices to pay back an idiotic governments debts, with no environmental outcomes.

    But click on the link below, and you can see how you might want to convince your fellow AGW Theory believers of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Lads, if you're going to take a walk on the green side, you could at least get with the greenie program:

    "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."

  27. #3227
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Fight amongst yourselves.

    "VICTORIAN households face electricity price rises of up to 50 per cent - between $600 and $800 a year on average - to cover soaring costs and pollution taxes.

    The savage blow will push average annual bills for typical families towards $2000 by 2013...

    ...Electricity generators had factored in a price on carbon to protect their profits, and consumers had been paying more despite the ETS not being imposed, Mr Polis said..."

    New $800 power slug | Herald Sun

    Who wants to vote for higher electricity prices for no environmental outcome?


  28. #3228
    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
    Massive increase in energy prices to pay back an idiotic governments debts, with no environmental outcomes.
    It is nothing to do with government debt.

    Electricity prices, and fossil fuel prices are on the rise - regardless of who is in government. It isn't politics that is driving up prices!

    Here are some of the reasons:

    • Electricity infrastructure (generators, power lines, etc.) hasn't been updated for many years (decades).
    • The population has been growing.
    • The size of houses have been increasing.
    • The demand for power has been increasing.
    • Peak demand (which determine the 'size' of the infrastructure needed) has been growing even faster.

    We are running out of generating and distribution capacity - this is the main driver of 'smart meters' - it is an attempt to redistribute the load and increase prices, to 'artificially' reduce demand, at times of high load.

    For fossil fuels, it seems that oil is becoming somewhat harder to find and pump out of wells. It is supply and demand.

    ... and then comes AGW ...

    Do you think politicians can somehow prevent the price increases?

  29. #3229
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default I mean this in the nicest possible way.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    We both know it wouldn't kill all arguments. It would just create more arguments.

    Tell you what Rod, you're so into numbers, show us the numbers you have that prove it isn't so.

    Nice debating tactic - require your opponents to jump through an impossible hoop, and when they cannot, declare yourself the victor.

    woodbe.
    This is not a debating tactic, it is called the scientific method.

    I have tried many times to explain this to many AGW Theory proponents, who continually ignore it. This primarily is the fault of the IPCC who themselves have bastardised scientific integrity. Now many people see their methods as being scientifically valid, whereas they have attempted a meta-analysis and instead produced science fiction.

    I do not blame you and others for not realising the error of the IPCC's method, but I do implore you to research and learn the correct scientific method for yourselves.

    Again: If you propose a theory, you need to validate it. It does not stand as "assumed to be reality" until someone disproves it. This is called religion, and is perfectly valid as religious dogma. Just don't call it science.

  30. #3230
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Electricity prices, and fossil fuel prices are on the rise - regardless of who is in government.
    Who owns these fossil fuels and is there a royalty paid on this?
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  31. #3231
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I have tried many times to explain this to many AGW Theory proponents, who continually ignore it. This primarily is the fault of the IPCC who themselves have bastardised scientific integrity. Now many people see their methods as being scientifically valid, whereas they have attempted a meta-analysis and instead produced science fiction.
    Except you know that the IPCC does not do science, they collate it and assemble it into their report. The actual science is done by Scientists independant of the IPCC beavering away at their own research and publishing it in peer reviewed journals. In this thread, you have repeatedly attacked the IPCC's science, knowing that the IPCC does not do the scientific research or publish it.

    Talk about dogma. How many times does this need to be explained in this thread before it sinks in? The IPCC is not a research organisation, it does not do research and it does not publish research.

    woodbe.

  32. #3232
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Australia chooses?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    It is nothing to do with government debt.
    Taxes are revenue. Revenue pays expenses. Expenses higher than revenue equals debt. Increase taxes (greenie carbon ones) increases revenue. Revenues now higher than expenses (including principal and interest payments on debt). Debt then decreases.

    Hope this wasn't oversimplified. A picture may also help:



    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    Electricity prices, and fossil fuel prices are on the rise - regardless of who is in government. It isn't politics that is driving up prices!

    Here are some of the reasons:

    • Electricity infrastructure (generators, power lines, etc.) hasn't been updated for many years (decades).
    • The population has been growing.
    • The size of houses have been increasing.
    • The demand for power has been increasing.
    • Peak demand (which determine the 'size' of the infrastructure needed) has been growing even faster.

    We are running out of generating and distribution capacity - this is the main driver of 'smart meters' - it is an attempt to redistribute the load and increase prices, to 'artificially' reduce demand, at times of high load.

    For fossil fuels, it seems that oil is becoming somewhat harder to find and pump out of wells. It is supply and demand.

    ... and then comes AGW ...
    These costs inputs apply to the market. They are not the artificially introduced greenie carbon taxes added on top of these market influences.

    Can we all please keep up:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    The point is failed greenie policies are driving up electricity prices (above CPI and other cost inputs for those having trouble keeping up ) and wasting everyones time and money, and our idiot government are paying for all these rorts with our money.
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Do you think politicians can somehow prevent the price increases?
    Er, yes! As explained [again] above, market costs apply regardless.

    One side of politics wants to add another lot of greenie carbon taxes on top of these costs.

    The other side does not.

    So yes, politicians can prevent price increases by not adding ridiculous greenie taxes that have no environmental benefit.

    More to the point, we as ordinary citizens get to choose if we want artificially inflated electricity prices for no environmental benefit.

    We choose on Saturday 21 August 2010.

  33. #3233
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Something we can all agree on.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Except you know that the IPCC does not do science

    woodbe.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    This primarily is the fault of the IPCC who themselves have bastardised scientific integrity. Now many people see their methods as being scientifically valid, whereas they have attempted a meta-analysis and instead produced science fiction.
    My friend, we have already agreed on this many times in the past.

    The IPCC certainly do not "do science". They do science fiction.

  34. #3234
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Again: If you propose a theory, you need to validate it.
    You propose an Hypothesis, and then you try and tear it down (falsify it). If you cannot do this, then you work on proving it. If its good enough, and you have done good science, you might get published in a peer review journal.

    It does not stand as "assumed to be reality" until someone disproves it.
    It stands until someone proposes a better Hypothesis that fits the data. If this happens, then the new Hypothesis stands in place of the old one, and the process repeats.

    These are the basics of every peer-reviewed scientific paper, including the many thousands supporting AGW.

    woodbe.

  35. #3235
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default The truth is stranger than fiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Again: If you propose a theory, you need to validate it. It does not stand as "assumed to be reality" until someone disproves it. This is called religion, and is perfectly valid as religious dogma. Just don't call it science.
    Proved that theory yet?

    Or will you also just invent a fictional subjective likelihood scale?

    No my friend, the IPCC certainly does not do science!

  36. #3236
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default No problems with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    You propose an Hypothesis, and then you try and tear it down (falsify it). If you cannot do this, then you work on proving it. If its good enough, and you have done good science, you might get published in a peer review journal.

    It stands until someone proposes a better Hypothesis that fits the data. If this happens, then the new Hypothesis stands in place of the old one, and the process repeats.

    These are the basics of every peer-reviewed scientific paper, including the many thousands supporting AGW.

    woodbe.
    No problems with this process "in general" for many theories running around, but where does the increased taxation in Australia kick into this scientific process?

  37. #3237
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Easy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    No problems with this process "in general" for many theories running around, but where does the increased taxation in Australia kick into this scientific process?
    If you answer Rod's excellent questions, you will invariably also answer my simple one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Now you might tell us what % of man made Co2 makes up that figure V's natural Co2 and support it with some scientific facts. While you are at it you might then lay out what % of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor and other gases. Then work it back to the % difference man made Co2 makes. Then you go go a step further and work out the % of man made Co2 that Australia contributes. Then possibly you could work out for us the amount of temperature increase is due entirely by man made C02 then by Australia's Co2.

    That should be very easy to do eh!

    Boy while we are on a roll, once you have the scientifically proven figures for that. Maybe we could then work out how much cooler the world would be if Australia reduced emissions by 5% then 10% the 20%. Should be a cinch

    Then I guess the next step seeing that was so easy is to work out the cost per % of reduction to the economy and equate that back to a $ figure per degree of temperature drop that we in Australia can achieve.

    Then we can ask ourselves is it worth it?

    Seeing how the science is settled and all that, this should be a walk in the park.

    Now that would make a lot more sense to a layman like me. Rather than sticking a figure up there with a cute diagram that would have the reader think that it is our factories etc making up all the warming observed over the last centuary. That is if the temperature records are squeaky clean and accurate of course. Not to mention any other natural influences on temperature.

    No long bows beng draw here though, it is cut and dried, all these figures should be readily available considering all the money that has been spent on it.

    Without these figures, what would you say? That we are guessing . But hey that ok lets change our lifestyles and go back to horse and carts, cause our best guess surely justifies it.

  38. #3238
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,389

    Default

    I'm glad you said "one way" and not "a good way", so you still have some AGW Theory credibility left after posting this ridiculous argument, that is used often by many AGW Theory proponents.
    There seems to be a bit of confusion about where the boundary lies between the science and the politics. AGW theory proposes that the world is warming at an unprecedented rate and man made fossil fuel emission are a significant cause. But that is about where the science stops.

    Any solutions are a political process. Anyone who believes that the high population poorer nations would willingly agree to incur costs to cut their emissions without equal or greater contributions from wealthier nations would in my view be extremely politically naive.

    In the past I have been able to access the latest research through a friend who worked at the local university. She had free access through work to the journals that normally charge for articles. Some, ,not many, are available in hard copy at the UQ library. Now that she has moved on I have to find another source with the right access. But I am curious as to how others keep up with current research. Do you have similar sources or do you only read the free stuff? Or is your mind made up and you feel that you don't need new information?

  39. #3239
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    In the past I have been able to access the latest research through a friend who worked at the local university. She had free access through work to the journals that normally charge for articles. Some, ,not many, are available in hard copy at the UQ library. Now that she has moved on I have to find another source with the right access. But I am curious as to how others keep up with current research. Do you have similar sources or do you only read the free stuff? Or is your mind made up and you feel that you don't need new information?
    I don't know about others here, but I too have the 'right access' so finding any scientific information is relatively easy.

    For what it is worth, most of the information is in the public domain anyway. I only use the 'right access' to check out some of the indexes for some of those contentious claims or publications. (I'm still awaiting THAT paper that is supposed to appear in Nature )

    Also, for most part, the science has moved on - there isn't any serious scientific question as the whether AGW or real or not. It is just a matter of more information to fine tune the predictions. I'm sure that the first reputable scientific paper that disproves AGW will make the front page of just about every newspaper.

  40. #3240
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Also, for most part, the science has moved on - there isn't any serious scientific question as the whether AGW or real or not. It is just a matter of more information to fine tune the predictions. I'm sure that the first reputable scientific paper that disproves AGW will make the front page of just about every newspaper.
    Your joking right? Here is a link to help you out. http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html

    Sure, just as you cant point to a paper that proves AGW nor do these disprove it. But you cannot claim the science has moved on as if AGW is true. This is a blatent lie. Keep telling porkies about this and drive a few more to look behind the scenes and find out how much of a scam this is.

    When warmers can give a sensible answer to the math questions posed above the warmers might get a bit of credibility, until then you have none, except with the gulible or those with vested interests.

    BTW Woodbe you can see what your nemisis is on about here.Monckton: Why current trends are not alarming | Watts Up With That?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  41. #3241
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,311

    Default

    Woodbe the following is a post in WUWT, it shows how your mates at RC handle critique LOL.

    Ralph says:
    August 14, 2010 at 5:48 am
    Real Climate had a ‘disproof’ of Lord Monckton’s CO2 claims.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/
    But if you look at their figure 4, you will see that Monckton’s ‘fantasy IPCC projections’ are almost exactly the same as the IPCC’s projections. So I am not sure what point they are trying to make.
    I tried to point this out on Real Climate, but four of my five postings were deleted.
    AGW does not brook freedom of speech. You will think what the the Great Comrade tells you to think.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  42. #3242
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Woodbe the following is a post in WUWT, it shows how your mates at RC handle critique LOL.
    Dear Rod.

    WUWT is not a science based site. It's an opinion site started by a TV Weatherman who didn't like what he read in the headlines.

    Allow me to remind you that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

    Once again, Public opinion is fickle, and it is not based on science. It often swings against science because we humans plain don't like to hear things that mean we have to change how we live. I could post previous examples of this behaviour, but a) you already know about them, and b) you don't like them mentioned in the context of AGW.

    woodbe.

  43. #3243
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Ralph says:
    August 14, 2010 at 5:48 am
    Real Climate had a ‘disproof’ of Lord Monckton’s CO2 claims.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/
    But if you look at their figure 4, you will see that Monckton’s ‘fantasy IPCC projections’ are almost exactly the same as the IPCC’s projections. So I am not sure what point they are trying to make.
    I tried to point this out on Real Climate, but four of my five postings were deleted.
    AGW does not brook freedom of speech. You will think what the the Great Comrade tells you to think.
    Here's 'Ralph's' remaining comment:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ralph
    Ralph says:
    7 August 2010 at 9:51 AM
    As your figure 4 demonstrates, Monckton’s CO2 projections are almost exactly the same as the IPCC projections.
    So what, exactly, is the point you are trying to make?
    And if you actually read the RC piece instead of believing what you read on WUWT, you would find this:

    Quote Originally Posted by RC
    Monckton’s rendition is still not an honest representation of anything the IPCC ever published. I can prove this by blowing up the 2000-2010 portion of the graph in Fig. 4. I have done this in Fig. 5, where I have also plotted the actual mean annual global CO2 concentrations for that period. The clear implication of this graph is that even if the A2 scenario did predict atmospheric CO2 evolution (and it doesn’t,) it would actually be a good prediction, so far. In Figures 1 and 2, Lord has simply fabricated data to make it seem like the A2 scenario is wrong.

    So it seems he is trying to jump on Fig. 4. before he read the rest of the discussion, which dealt with his question and answered it succinctly. His very question displays the clear information that he had not read or understood anything past Fig. 4.

    On that basis, I'm not surprised that his posts got deleted. RC is like a honeypot for every crank denialist but if you read the comments, you will see that genuine sceptics get treated with respect.

    woodbe.

  44. #3244
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Your joking right? Here is a link to help you out. Popular Technology.net: 800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

    Sure, just as you cant point to a paper that proves AGW nor do these disprove it. But you cannot claim the science has moved on as if AGW is true. This is a blatent lie. Keep telling porkies about this and drive a few more to look behind the scenes and find out how much of a scam this is.
    Rod,

    It is not a "blatent (sic) lie".

    As in any field, you will find the odd dissenter, but in AGW science - and especially from those who work in the actual field - the level of agreement about the existence of AGW is very high (95% plus). We can go through the statistics again if you like?

    In the scientific community and there is very very little argument about whether AGW is real. Most of the discussion is around topics like why certain politicians are playing political games with the issue.

    Come on Rod. I'm not sure exactly what your issue is with AGW, but it seems to me that it is time for you to come in from the cold.


  45. #3245
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default The right access?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    There seems to be a bit of confusion about where the boundary lies between the science and the politics. AGW theory proposes that the world is warming at an unprecedented rate and man made fossil fuel emission are a significant cause. But that is about where the science stops.

    Any solutions are a political process. Anyone who believes that the high population poorer nations would willingly agree to incur costs to cut their emissions without equal or greater contributions from wealthier nations would in my view be extremely politically naive.

    In the past I have been able to access the latest research through a friend who worked at the local university. She had free access through work to the journals that normally charge for articles. Some, ,not many, are available in hard copy at the UQ library. Now that she has moved on I have to find another source with the right access. But I am curious as to how others keep up with current research. Do you have similar sources or do you only read the free stuff? Or is your mind made up and you feel that you don't need new information?
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    I don't know about others here, but I too have the 'right access' so finding any scientific information is relatively easy.

    For what it is worth, most of the information is in the public domain anyway. I only use the 'right access' to check out some of the indexes for some of those contentious claims or publications. (I'm still awaiting THAT paper that is supposed to appear in Nature )

    Also, for most part, the science has moved on - there isn't any serious scientific question as the whether AGW or real or not. It is just a matter of more information to fine tune the predictions. I'm sure that the first reputable scientific paper that disproves AGW will make the front page of just about every newspaper.
    Are you people mad?

    Are you seriously saying that unless we pay some $20 prescription to some scientific journals, they will withhold the truth from us about the imminent termination of our species?

    From what you two are saying, these lunatics aren't scientist's, they're psychopaths!

    As for political solutions, can you all please start to understand what your own theory claims.

    AGW Theory doesn't care about rich nations, poor nations, per capita contributions and any other blah blah pseudo-politico-scientific speak you want to come up with. AGW Theory works off total contributions. If all your "scientists" have explained this clearly to the world, and they choose to do nothing about it, then we all die. Your own theory states that one nation cannot make a difference, total contributions are the only thing that counts.

    But my personal opinion after studying all the science in this area, is that this whole theory is predicated on spurious computer model output and is a crock!

  46. #3246
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Allow me to remind both of you:

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    As in any field, you will find the odd dissenter, but in AGW science - and especially from those who work in the actual field - the level of agreement about the existence of AGW is very high (95% plus). We can go through the statistics again if you like?

    In the scientific community and there is very very little argument about whether AGW is real.
    Surveys are not scientific proof people.

    Gentleman, just because some people agree on something, this does not make it reality. Once again, this is how religions work (and kudos to their faith). In science, we say prove it?

    But this is a well worn and well ignored path for AGW Theory believers!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Your witty retorts were sorely missed (unlike your views on AGW Theory) . That was some walk. Our country? But enough chit chat...

    Your article starts with this:

    "Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC."

    "a·gree·ment n.

    1. The act of agreeing.
    2. Harmony of opinion; accord.
    3. An arrangement between parties regarding a course of action; a covenant."

    This is not science, but it is wrong and shoddy to pretend that because some people agree that something is real, that this is scientific proof that it is real. It is agreed opinion, not scientific proof. A wise man once said:


    "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
    Anatole France.

    He was very wise, he also said this:

    "An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't."

    Anatole France.



    P.S. Don't spose you took Plimer's "Heaven and Earth" for some light reading on your walk?

  47. #3247
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    But my personal opinion after studying all the science in this area, is that this whole theory is predicated on spurious computer model output and is a crock!
    Hang on, you don't want to pay for access, yet you have studied 'all the science' This is another one of Doc's clangers!

    If you had studied all the science you would know that there is more to the science than what can be predicated on computer model output, spurious or not. You would also not be posting on Internet Forums because you just wouldn't have the time - there are thousands and thousands of journals to read and study...

    haha. Good work Doc, you're destroying your own arguments before we can get to them.

    woodbe.

  48. #3248
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Truly fascinating!

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Here's 'Ralph's' remaining comment:


    And if you actually read the RC piece instead of believing what you read on WUWT, you would find this:



    So it seems he is trying to jump on Fig. 4. before he read the rest of the discussion, which dealt with his question and answered it succinctly. His very question displays the clear information that he had not read or understood anything past Fig. 4.

    On that basis, I'm not surprised that his posts got deleted. RC is like a honeypot for every crank denialist but if you read the comments, you will see that genuine sceptics get treated with respect.

    woodbe.
    And how exactly does this prove AGW Theory?

    No wonder you can't get the poorer nations to agree to act on this wacky theory.

  49. #3249
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Surveys are not scientific proof people.
    Surveys were never offered as scientific proof. Doc.

    The study quoted does show that 97-98% of people who have taken the time and effort to become scientifically competent in the field "support the tenets of ACC as outlined by the IPCC" This is not agreement, its a whole bunch of scientists working independently yet coming to the same conclusions.

    woodbe.

  50. #3250
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Here we go again.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Hang on, you don't want to pay for access, yet you have studied 'all the science' This is another one of Doc's clangers!

    If you had studied all the science you would know that there is more to the science than what can be predicated on computer model output, spurious or not. You would also not be posting on Internet Forums because you just wouldn't have the time - there are thousands and thousands of journals to read and study...

    haha. Good work Doc, you're destroying your own arguments before we can get to them.

    woodbe.
    Yes, more semantic sidetracks to deflect from your lack of any evidence proving AGW Theory.

    "All the science" was not intended to mean every individual scientific research paper written in the last 150 years with a direct or indirect relationship to global atmospheric science.

    It was intended to mean relevant scientific arguments in support of AGW Theory and the articles cited as supporting these arguments. The IPCC is a good repository of some of this information, but a far from comprehensive one.

    Rather than continually rushing down semantic "a-ha" moments of glory, and turning this thread into a tiresome waffle of semantic disclaimers, just show us "all the science" that proves AGW Theory?

    We both know how much of this there isn't.

Page 65 of 377 FirstFirst ... 15 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 115 165 ... 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
  •