PDA

View Full Version : Man-Made Climate Change: Issues and debates



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Capablanca-Fan
09-05-2008, 01:51 PM
It will make a significant difference to NZ's portion of the CO2 levels.
Which is an insignificant portion of the world level. And the opportunity costs of their measures are likely to cause real harm. Bjørn Lomborg (http://www.lomborg.com/cool_it/) is one who doesn't deny warming, but


"argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply—which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent."

Michael Crichton comments on Lomborg's book Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming (http://www.amazon.com/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Global-Warming/dp/0307266923):


Lomborg then works his way through the concerns we hear so much about: higher temperatures, heat deaths, species extinctions, the cost of cutting carbon, the technology to do it. Lomborg believes firmly in climate change—despite his critics, he's no denier—but his fact-based approach, grounded in economic analyses, leads him again and again to a different view. He reviews published estimates of the cost of climate change, and the cost of addressing it, and concludes that "we actually end up paying more for a partial solution than the cost of the entire problem. That is a bad deal."

In some of the most disturbing chapters, Lomborg recounts what leading climate figures have said about anyone who questions the orthodoxy, thus demonstrating the illiberal, antidemocratic tone of the current debate. Lomborg himself takes the larger view, explaining in detail why the tone of hysteria is inappropriate to addressing the problems we face.

In the end, Lomborg’s concerns embrace the planet. He contrasts our concern for climate with other concerns such as HIV/AIDS, malnutrition, and providing clean water to the world. In the end, his ability to put climate in a global perspective is perhaps the book’s greatest value. Lomborg and Cool It are our best guides to our shared environmental future.


Thanks for resorting to name-calling. Now I know that you are losing.
In your dreams.


Who's fellow? Mine? I am not a green devotee.
Yes you are. You support costly measures for little benefit.


Gestures like saving water even though it won't significantly raise the dam levels? Yep, guilty as charged.
Sure, that's your choice. The problem is when it's imposed on me.

Because your cliche could be applied to any number of issues. It's just rhetoric.[/QUOTE]
Not at all. If the green prophets/profits were serious, then they should lead by example. And while lefty greens denounce skeptics of warm-mongering alarmism as being lackeys of Big Oil, they are strangely silent on the huge amounts that warm-mongers will win if governments use force to adopt their alarmism.


I'm not so sure that they won't but let's assume that you are right for a moment. How many countries would it take to make a difference that you would consider significant? How about NZ, Aus, US, and most of Western Europe? On their own, not so much, but together it would be quite significant.
Insignificant compared with China and India (as well as natural sources of CO2). But the costs would be huge and definite, while the benefit would be small at best and debatable at worst.

Also, Europe generates a significant amount of electricity by nuclear fission. It would be hard for us to follow their "green" example while our own greens and Laba are reflexively agaisnt this.

Desmond
09-05-2008, 03:48 PM
Which is an insignificant portion of the world level. So do a decent analysis of a number of coutries who are likely to follow suit. Comparing NZ savings in isolation against the world problem is a waste of time.


And the opportunity costs of their measures are likely to cause real harm. Bjørn Lomborg (http://www.lomborg.com/cool_it/) is one who doesn't deny warming, but


<snip>Just becasue there are other problems does not mean we should not solve this one.


Michael Crichton comments on Lomborg's book <SNIP>I quite like Crichton as a fiction author but I'm surprised you are quoting him. He doesn't deny evolution for a start.

In your dreams.So what is it then? Bad upbringing? Bad manners learned later in life?

Yes you are. You support costly measures for little benefit.Such as?

Sure, that's your choice. The problem is when it's imposed on me.But water restrictions are imposed on you.


Not at all. If the green prophets/profits were serious, then they should lead by example.Not according to you, because unless they are contributing to the emissions at a rate comparable to India or China, you think any contribution they make is meaningless.


And while lefty greens denounce skeptics of warm-mongering alarmism as being lackeys of Big Oil, That is not my position.


Insignificant compared with China and India (as well as natural sources of CO2). But much more significant than the single private jet you love to bang on about.

Capablanca-Fan
09-05-2008, 05:06 PM
So do a decent analysis of a number of coutries who are likely to follow suit. Comparing NZ savings in isolation against the world problem is a waste of time.
Why, when I've shown that nothing that Kiwis can do will make a dent in measurable CO2 levels, even if they went back to the stone age.


Just becasue there are other problems does not mean we should not solve this one.
It does, if the solutions to this one are costly and don't in fact solve anything to a measurable degree, and would likely mean less ability to solve more pressing problems.


I quite like Crichton as a fiction author but I'm surprised you are quoting him. He doesn't deny evolution for a start.
Nobody's perfect.


So what is it then? Bad upbringing? Bad manners learned later in life?
What explains your hypersensitivity?


Such as?
I told you: a cost of at least $1000 for every Kiwi family, and ruining their economy in other ways, and making no measurable difference to CO2 levels.


But water restrictions are imposed on you.
Yes, as a way of covering up their own incompetence, e.g. Chairman KRudd canning the Wolfdene Dam against the advice of experts who predicted that extra water would be needed.


Not according to you, because unless they are contributing to the emissions at a rate comparable to India or China, you think any contribution they make is meaningless.
No, I think that those who are proposing sacrifices by others should lead by example. How dare Laurie David, producer of alGore's discredited film, abuse SUV drivers while flying twice a year on her private jet?

In the case of the leftist Kiwi government, they are imposing sacrifices on their people in the vain hope that they will influence the Chinese and Indians to screw their economy in the same way.


But much more significant than the single private jet you love to bang on about.
Here's the difference: these private jet users (and there are quite a lot (http://michellemalkin.com/2004/08/16/gulfstream-liberals/)) are advocating that we make big sacrifices they are not prepared to make themselves. Greg Norman is another private jet owner who grandiosely declares that his own staff will fly carbon neutral on Qantas (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/norman_let_them_eat_carbon_offsets/). So I say, "you first, hypocrite".

pax
09-05-2008, 05:08 PM
Also, Europe generates a significant amount of electricity by nuclear fission. It would be hard for us to follow their "green" example while our own greens and Laba are reflexively agaisnt this.
Not to mention most of the Libs and a vast majority of the wider population.

Capablanca-Fan
09-05-2008, 06:05 PM
Not to mention most of the Libs and a vast majority of the wider population.
The Libs at the moment are shell-shocked and playing "me too". Not sure about the vast majority of the wider population, but anything's possible as a result of anti-nuclear demagogery.

The point still stands: it is unrealistic for Australia to be as green as Europe when we reject the alternative power source they use — with no ill effects.

Axiom
09-05-2008, 10:43 PM
Gore Confronted On Global Warming Hysteria

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, May 8, 2008



Former Vice-President Al Gore, fresh from exploiting the tragedy in Burma to push more climate change hysteria (since cyclones and storms didn’t exist before global warming), was confronted during a recent speaking event by a group who dared to question the orthodoxy of the church of environmentalism.

We Are Change Ohio gatecrashed a May 4th speech in Columbus Ohio in an attempt to point out that there is no "consensus" on global warming and the debate is far from over

"Hey Al we don’t want your carbon tax, plants need carbon dioxide to breathe!," shouted one.

Gore’s church of environmentalism congregation zealously applauded every time he was forced to respond to hecklers and demanded the miscreants be silent.

"What about the 22,000 scientists that say it’s not true, that it’s caused by the sun?" yelled another, to which the congregation screamed "shut up!" amidst shock that a mere peon would dare question Lord Gore’s climate authodoxy.

After the event the group unfurled a huge banner that read "No Carbon Tax — It’s A Scam," which drew the interest of two of Gore’s security minions who demanded to know who the protesters were.

ake4C8YhUb4


Some of Gore’s supporters were offended that their religion was being criticized and refused to engage in any kind of rational debate and stormed off - perhaps living in denial that there is not a "consensus" on global warming as the corporate media so often likes to falsely claim.

Al Gore’s 20 room private mansion uses 20 times the national U.S. average of gas and electricity, as Gore lavishes himself in his heated swimming pool while poor people and the middle class await the onslaught of carbon taxes to eviscerate any disposable income they have left.




Gore’s claim that global warming is causing increased ferocity of extreme weather events like hurricanes and the deadly cyclone in Burma has been disputed by actual meteorologists and professors.

One of the central philosophies of climate change alarmism and an image that adorned the cover of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth - the contention that global warming causes deadly hurricanes - has been completely discredited by the expert who first proposed it.

Hurricane buff and professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT Kerry Emanuel asserted for over 20 years that global warming breeds more frequent and stronger storms and he shot to prominence just one month before Hurricane Katrina in 2005 when he delivered the "final proof" that global warming was already causing extreme weather events and wrecking livelihoods.

Unfortunately for the church of environmentalism, who ceaselessly profess to have a monopoly on truth and insist that "the debate is over" on global warming, Emanuel has completely recanted his position and now admits that hurricanes and storms will actually decline over the next 200 years and have little or no correlation with global temperature change whatsoever.

In addition, as the Business and Media Institute reports, "In October 2007, CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano disputed Gore’s claim that there is a strong correlation between intense storms and global warming. He explained that “global warming does not conclusively cause stronger hurricanes like we’ve seen,” pointing out that “by the end of this century we might get about a 5-percent increase.”

Hurricane researchers William Gray and Philip Klotzbach of Colorado State University have also discounted man-made global warming as a contributor to increased hurricane activity.

"Long-period natural climate alterations that historical and paleo-climate records show to have occurred many times in the past," are responsible for hurricane patterns according to the researchers.

Capablanca-Fan
10-05-2008, 12:33 AM
Gore Confronted On Global Warming Hysteria
Typical behaviour for a cult leader and his mindless followers.


Al Gore’s 20 room private mansion uses 20 times the national U.S. average of gas and electricity, as Gore lavishes himself in his heated swimming pool while poor people and the middle class await the onslaught of carbon taxes to eviscerate any disposable income they have left.

The likes of local green religionists Boris and Pax are happy to make sacrifices for their cult, just to make a gesture and set an example, and are happy for the cult leaders not to practice the austerity they preach to others.

Capablanca-Fan
11-05-2008, 11:09 AM
Water chief defends new pool (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23676289-952,00.html)
Hannah Martin
Courier Mail, 11 May 2008


Ms Nosworthy is building a "reasonably large" concrete in-ground pool at her $1.35 million Clayfield home, in Brisbane's inner north.

She said there was no reason people couldn't have pools if they stuck to regulations about filling and topping them.

But conservationists have criticised Ms Nosworthy, saying her pool made a mockery of the commission's water saving campaigns and was a slap in the face for Queenslanders doing their best to watch every drop.

Queensland Conservation Council executive director Toby Hutcheon said she was sending "mixed messages".

"There seems to be a big difference between the words of Elizabeth Nosworthy as commissioner, and her actions," Mr Hutcheon said.

"She's recently been on the record as describing water restrictions as extreme and under those circumstances you would think she would not be contemplating building a pool."

Queensland Greens Senate candidate Larissa Waters branded the move as irresponsible.

"It seems a little luxurious in these dry times to be installing a pool," Ms Waters said.



When asked why she was building the pool, Ms Nosworthy responded: "Because I like swimming."

In December 2006 Ms Nosworthy told The Sunday Mail she would consider banning new pools if the state's water crisis worsened.

Yet another example of Green cult leaders demanding sacrifices of their dupes but living in luxury themselves.

Desmond
11-05-2008, 10:26 PM
Why, when I've shown that nothing that Kiwis can do will make a dent in measurable CO2 levels, even if they went back to the stone age.All you have shown is that up to .02% is less than 50%. Well done. Why not do some real anaylsis.


It does, if the solutions to this one are costly and don't in fact solve anything to a measurable degree, and would likely mean less ability to solve more pressing problems.Nope, just muddying the waters tactics from you. If there are 2 problems, budget to solve them both, not solve one and conclude the other is too hard.


Nobody's perfect.But you are quite happy to use him as a reference when it suits and cut him loose at other times.



What explains your hypersensitivity?Oh, don't worry, I am quite used to it from you now, since it is your MO. Just bringing it to your/others' attention.



I told you: a cost of at least $1000 for every Kiwi family, and ruining their economy in other ways, and making no measurable difference to CO2 levels.And where exactly did I suggest/advocate that? :hmm:



Yes, as a way of covering up their own incompetence, e.g. Chairman KRudd canning the Wolfdene Dam against the advice of experts who predicted that extra water would be needed.Nope, introduced by the Liberals.


No, I think that those who are proposing sacrifices by others should lead by example. How dare Laurie David, producer of alGore's discredited film, abuse SUV drivers while flying twice a year on her private jet?

In the case of the leftist Kiwi government, they are imposing sacrifices on their people in the vain hope that they will influence the Chinese and Indians to screw their economy in the same way.


Here's the difference: these private jet users (and there are quite a lot (http://michellemalkin.com/2004/08/16/gulfstream-liberals/)) are advocating that we make big sacrifices they are not prepared to make themselves. Greg Norman is another private jet owner who grandiosely declares that his own staff will fly carbon neutral on Qantas (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/norman_let_them_eat_carbon_offsets/). So I say, "you first, hypocrite".Are you saying that Gore's private jet emits more than the country of NZ as a whole?

Igor_Goldenberg
11-05-2008, 10:47 PM
Are you saying that Gore's private jet emits more than the country of NZ as a whole?
I don't think so :D.
However, he is clearly a hypocrite. Personally I don't mind anyone using a private jet, especially if the pay for it with their own money
. However, by Al Gore standard (which he wants to impose on others!) it's a despicable thing to do.

Capablanca-Fan
11-05-2008, 11:08 PM
All you have shown is that up to .02% is less than 50%. Well done. Why not do some real anaylsis.
I've shown that the most difference the Kiwis could possibly make to world CO2 levels would be undetectable. Yet their leftist government is still enforcing costly sacrifices on its sheeple.


If there are 2 problems, budget to solve them both, not solve one and conclude the other is too hard.
How about getting the best value for money? But expensive measures to make no dent in CO2 levels have an opportunity cost elsewhere and prevent cheaper measures that have practical benefit.


Would you bet your paycheck on a weather forecast for tomorrow? If not, then why should this country bet billions on global warming predictions that have even less foundation?
Thomas Sowell


But you are quite happy to use him as a reference when it suits and cut him loose at other times.
Do you have any actual disagreement with Chrichton here, that you can back up with evidence?


And where exactly did I suggest/advocate that? :hmm:
But my first post in this subthread was on exactly this point, and you blundered in calling it "rubbish".


Nope, introduced by the Liberals.
Yes, and canned by Chairman Rudd. There is a virtual media blackout on KRudd's role in SEQ's current thirst. See the account, Rudd recipe no good in a crisis (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21002760-7583,00.html):


IN December 1989 the first act of Kevin Rudd, the new chief of staff to Queensland's incoming Labor premier, was to cancel plans for the Wolfdene dam. This was despite expert advice that such a dam would be needed for southeast Queensland in the early 21st century.

The experts were dead right. With approximately 70 per cent population growth in southeast Queensland in the intervening period, Brisbane is paying the price for one of the worst infrastructure decisions in modern Australian history. Wolfdene dam would not have changed rainfall patterns but it would have allowed for perhaps 15 years of accumulated water storage, which in turn would have dramatically altered Queensland's capacity to deal with the inevitable ebb and flow of rainfall.


Are you saying that Gore's private jet emits more than the country of NZ as a whole?
Much more than an SUV driver would emit in a year. So since he advocates state coercion to restrict our choices, he should lead by example.

Desmond
11-05-2008, 11:24 PM
I've shown that the most difference the Kiwis could possibly make to world CO2 levels would be undetectable. Yet their leftist government is still enforcing costly sacrifices on its sheeple.Not compared with their current emissions.


How about getting the best value for money? And how exactly does one do that? Perhaps you would like to propose the relative value of a reliable water supply as compared to erradiction of HIV aids.


Do you have any actual disagreement with Chrichton here, that you can back up with evidence?You mean apart from the fact that he is a fiction author?


But my first post in this subthread was on exactly this point, and you blundered in calling it "rubbish".Nowhere did I ever say that NZ should reduce their emissions to 0. In fact I explicitly stated otherwise at least once.



Yes, and canned by Chairman Rudd. There is a virtual media blackout on KRudd's role in SEQ's current thirst. See the account, Rudd recipe no good in a crisis (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21002760-7583,00.html):

[INDENT]IN December 1989 the first act of Kevin Rudd, the new chief of staff to Queensland's incoming Labor premier, was to cancel plans for the Wolfdene dam. This was despite expert advice that such a dam would be needed for southeast Queensland in the early 21st century.huh? 12 years at the helm and Liberals gave us no relief from the drought, 5 mins at the helm and it is Labor's fault?


Much more than an SUV driver would emit in a year. So since he advocates state coercion to restrict our choices, he should lead by example.Point is that you explain away an extire nation's emisions as insignificant, but then in your next breath expect people to listen when you're banging on that a single private jet is pure wickedness.

Desmond
11-05-2008, 11:25 PM
I don't think so :D.
However, he is clearly a hypocrite. Personally I don't mind anyone using a private jet, especially if the pay for it with their own money
. However, by Al Gore standard (which he wants to impose on others!) it's a despicable thing to do.
Well, for my part, I steer pretty well clear of the H word, but you might like to comment on Jono's theory that an entire country's emissions are less significant that a single plane that he cannot stop talking about.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-05-2008, 11:32 PM
Well, for my part, I steer pretty well clear of the H word, but you might like to comment on Jono's theory that an entire country's emissions are less significant that a single plane that he cannot stop talking about.
Could you please point to the post, so I can see a context.

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2008, 12:57 AM
Not compared with their current emissions.
New Zealand is known for its pristine environment. The quasi-Marxist government there still wants to enforce big sacrifices on its sheeple.


And how exactly does one do that? Perhaps you would like to propose the relative value of a reliable water supply as compared to erradiction of HIV aids.
Cost-benefit analysis. Water supply would be more important incrementally. Both make more sense than expensive fixes as per Kyoto.


Nowhere did I ever say that NZ should reduce their emissions to 0. In fact I explicitly stated otherwise at least once.
Can't you understand a simple a fortiori argument?


huh? 12 years at the helm and Liberals gave us no relief from the drought, 5 mins at the helm and it is Labor's fault?
Of course. Labor canned the dam that the Libs had planned as water supply for the growing SEQ population. And it's a state issue not a federal one.


Point is that you explain away an extire nation's emisions as insignificant, but then in your next breath expect people to listen when you're banging on that a single private jet is pure wickedness.
Because of the hypocrisy and the issue of force. Yes, NZ's Kyoto sacrifices are insignificant for CO2 reduction, but are being forced on people anyway. Your hero alGore also supports force for people who are less polluting than he is to make sacrifices he isn't prepared to impose on himself. What part of "those who want to force others to make sacrifices should lead by example" don't you lefties understand?

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2008, 01:11 AM
Why are the greens so hopeless? (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_are_the_greens_so_hopeless/)
Andrew Bolt – Monday, May 12, 08 (12:03 am)
Physicist Lubos Motl notes that the global warming green believers have been thrashed in debates at TalkClimateChange (http://discuss.greenoptions.com/), so is running this multiple-choice poll:

Why are the Greens weak in debates?

Greens are fundamentally wrong and it is not possible to coherently defend untrue theses
Greens are so obsessed with the change that they don’t bother to learn the status quo
Green advocates are less educated or less intelligent
Greens are a little reticent and less passionate
Greens have less at stake
Greens are so overwhelmed by their huge plans that they don’t bother to study the details
Skeptics are under intense pressure and intimidation that simply forces them to be very good to survive


Go here (http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/05/why-are-green-advocates-failing-in.html)to tick a box and help Motl understand. The last time I looked, the first answer was the way the most popular. I kind of lean to the second as well.

Desmond
12-05-2008, 09:56 AM
Cost-benefit analysis. Water supply would be more important incrementally. Both make more sense than expensive fixes as per Kyoto.So how many million deaths does it take to be more important than the ability to water one's lawn or take a long shower?


Can't you understand a simple a fortiori argument?But your costs do not follow in that case.



Of course. Labor canned the dam that the Libs had planned as water supply for the growing SEQ population. And it's a state issue not a federal one.Then why blame Rudd?


Because of the hypocrisy and the issue of force. Yes, NZ's Kyoto sacrifices are insignificant for CO2 reduction, but are being forced on people anyway. Your hero alGore also supports force for people who are less polluting than he is to make sacrifices he isn't prepared to impose on himself. What part of "those who want to force others to make sacrifices should lead by example" don't you lefties understand?He's hardly my hero, in fact you seem to talk about him far more than anyone else I know. And anyway, I don't know how you can keep a straight face and say that his jet is such a wicked beast, when it pollutes less than NZ, and you don't want NZ to reduce its emissions.

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2008, 10:57 AM
So how many million deaths does it take to be more important than the ability to water one's lawn or take a long shower?
But sanitary water supply in the third world makes a huge difference. And it would be cheaper than all the money spent on futile fixes of CO2 increases.


Then why blame Rudd?
Because when he was chief of staff to the State Labor government, his first act was to can this damn project. He was also called "Dr Death" for his actions with QLD Health. But the doting Leftmedia had a virtual blackout on his dismal record in the state.


And anyway, I don't know how you can keep a straight face and say that his jet is such a wicked beast, when it pollutes less than NZ, and you don't want NZ to reduce its emissions.
Evidently rank hypocrisy doesn't bother you, and neither the use of force to impoverish the masses while the spruikers pollute far more.

Really, how clear do I have to make it: NZ's quasi-Marxist government should not FORCE its people to make sacrifices which will make no measurable difference to CO2 levels even if they were 100% effective. Globull warm-mongers who preach at us to make sacrifices should begin with themselves, since they are much worse offenders.

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2008, 06:01 PM
Real intelligence failures (http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080518/COMMENTARY/673994116/)
By Richard W. Rahn
Washington Times 18 May 2008

What do you think was the most costly intelligence failure of all time? No, was is not the world's leading intelligence agencies' failure to notice that Saddam had few, if any, weapons of mass destruction. It was the failure of many leading climate model builders to be modest enough about their predictions, and the politicians' and media's failure to ask the tough questions of these climate experts.

As a consequence of what we now know was an overblown global-warming scare, everyone on the planet is paying substantially more for food and fuel than is necessary.

Despite the prediction of all the major climate models, the Earth has been getting cooler since 1998. At first, it was not considered a big deal because temperatures fluctuate from year to year. However, the drop has now been going for a decade, with another big drop last year.

The global warming zealots have just been handed another rude shock, when the peer-reviewed journal, Nature, reported on May 1 that according to a new (and hopefully improved) climate model, global surface temperatures may not increase over the next decade.

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2008, 06:03 PM
Eco-friendly claims for ‘hybrid’ cars dismissed as gimmickry (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3958376.ece)
Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter


Cars promoted as eco-friendly were criticised yesterday for pumping out up to 56 per cent more carbon dioxide than the manufacturers claim.

Three models, including the Honda Civic hybrid, performed so badly in tests that their environmental claims were dismissed as a gimmick.

A further five vehicles, including Volkswagen’s Polo BlueMotion, hailed as Britain’s greenest car when it was claimed that it emitted less than 100 grams of CO2 per km (g/km), failed to match the claims made by their makers.

Road tests were carried out by Auto Express magazine, which accused manufacturers of attempting to cash in on concerns about global warming.

David Johns, the magazine’s editor, said that demand for eco-friendly cars was rising rapidly but it could be hard for consumers to determine what was “truly green or just pure gimmick”.

...

The Honda Civic hybrid, regarded widely as one of the lowest emitting cars, performed the worst in the tests.

Instead of the 109g/km of CO2 claimed in the makers’ specifications, it was found to put out 171g/km. The testers said its electric motor was “not strong enough to propel the oddball four-door Civic on its own” and they concluded that the vehicle “failed to match the firm’s economy claims”.

The second car labelled a gimmick was the Lexus GS450h, leased by David Cameron, the Conservative leader. It managed fuel consumption of 26.7 miles per gallon (mpg) in the road test compared with the claimed 35.8 mpg – meaning higher carbon emissions. Diesel rivals were said to “produce similar emissions and better economy”.

Skoda’s Fabia Greenline was condemned because its emissions were higher than two other less bulky super-minis that use the same 1.4 litre diesel engine – the Polo BlueMotion and Seat’s Ibiza ECOmotive.

Capablanca-Fan
21-05-2008, 01:28 PM
Brr! The climate cools for reality-deniers (http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/719126/brr-the-climate-cools-for-realitydeniers.thtml)
by Melanie Phillips
20 May 2008

... [Lawrence Solomon] has written a book, provocatively entitled The Deniers, in which he shows that not only is the fabled climate change ‘consensus’ itself a sham but the so-called MMGW ‘deniers’ are by far the more accomplished and distinguished scientists than those pushing the theory as a settled and incontrovertible truth. A number of them indeed, are so eminent they were used as experts by the IPCC — but then came to realise that this was an innately corrupted process and that even some of their own work was being abused and distorted in order to promulgate the false doctrine of MMGW.

Among those he cites are Dr Edward Wegman, chairman of the National Academy of Science’s Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics and the granddaddy of statisticians, who administered the definitive coup de grace to the ‘hockey stick curve’ research that underpinned the whole IPCC doomsday prognosis by showing that its author Dr Michael Mann (an impressive authority in his own field of paleoclimatology) had made a catastrophic statistical error (and had thus managed to ‘lose’ several hundred years of climate history including the Little Ice Age) which vitiated his entire study; Dr Richard Tol, an author with all three IPCC working groups and who called the Stern review of the economics of climate change ‘preposterous’; Dr Christopher Landsea, a former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones and another IPCC author, who discovered that the IPCC was telling lies about the relationship between climate change and hurricanes; Dr Duncan Wingham, Director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, who revealed that Antarctic ice was expanding, not contracting; Dr Robert Carter, former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University Queensland, who says science was never about ‘consensus’ and that there are many sides to the climate change debate; Dr Richard Lindzen, a much garlanded professor of meteorology at MIT and another IPCC author, who says that the IPCC’s politicised summary of its defining 2001 report created the false impression that climate models were reliable when the report itself indicated precisely the opposite, with numerous problems with the models including those arising from the effects of clouds and water vapour; Dr Vincent Gray, a participant in the IPCC science reviews who has described the IPCC process as a ‘swindle’; Dr Syun-Ichi Akasofu, founding director of the International Arctic Research Centre of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who says the world’s temperature has shown a linear progression since the 17th century and that 20th century warming was nothing to do with carbon dioxide but the planet’s emergence from the Little Ice Age;

Zbigniew Jaworowski, former chairman of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, who says the IPCC’s ice-core research is wrong and that therefore it has

based its global warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false;
David Bromwich, head of the Polar Meteorology Group of the Byrd Polar Research Centre, who says

It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now;
Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, who says climate change computer models are profoundly flawed and that

blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate ‘realistic’ simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate sceptic... There exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies;
Dr Antonino Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, who says the IPCC models are

incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view;
and Dr Tom Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and another IPCC reviewer, who says

most leading geologists throughout the world know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible
and that climate change scientists have launched

a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil-fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction’.
Ouch.

Spiny Norman
21-05-2008, 02:19 PM
Bolt was at it again in the Herald Sun today, with Flannery in his sights.

pax
21-05-2008, 03:11 PM
Bolt was at it again in the Herald Sun today, with Flannery in his sights.
This time, I suspect, Flannery had it coming. His latest suggestion (as reported at least) came out of the nutcase box.

Spiny Norman
21-05-2008, 03:19 PM
You mean the "lets fill the atmosphere with sulphur to mitigate global warming" idea? Yeah, pretty goofy ... I only did high school chemistry, but I thought that idea was rather daft.

Garvinator
22-05-2008, 11:31 PM
Jono, what was your reaction to this article ;) :cool:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23739433-953,00.html


KEVIN Rudd and his team cost taxpayers almost $500,000 in business-class airfares, lavish hotels and bizarre expenses at the UN climate summit in Bali.

Millionaire Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was only in Bali for two nights in December but his tab included $39,051 in hospitality costs, $5255 in ground transport, $1081 in accommodation and $1125 for an accompanying doctor.

The Opposition said most working families would be disgusted by Mr Rudd's extravagance.

The signing of the Kyoto Protocol ahead of the summit was Mr Rudd's first major symbolic act but the full cost for the five ministers, 12 ministerial staff and 35 bureaucrats will not be known until Environment Minister Peter Garrett provides his total bill and the Defence Department reveals how much it cost to operate a jet for Mr Rudd.

The price tag to date of almost $500,000 was revealed in a question on notice by Liberal frontbencher Nick Minchin, whose staff said they were "shocked" by the cost.

"Why did the Prime Minister need five ministers, 12 ministerial staff and 35 bureaucrats to go to Bali?" a spokesman said yesterday.

"If Senator Wong did all the negotiating, why did the others go?

"Why was Mr Garrett there when he has has no responsibility for Kyoto? Why did the Treasurer have to go? Why did the Trade Minister go?

Ordinary Australian families who would have saved to go on a $1000 package holiday to Bali would be disgusted (and) especially when they see that Mr Rudd spent $39,000 just on hospitality."

But the biggest spender was the Climate Change Department – 18 climate change bureaucrats were sent to the conference for up to 17 days and ran up a bill of $73,325 in travel, $69,644 in accommodation and $61,934 in other expenses.

Trade Minister Simon Crean lodged an expense of $10.01 for laundry and taxpayers also paid $458.14 to hire a car for his wife, Carole. Mrs Crean also received $131.66 under the spouse hospitality program.

Two unnamed ministerial staff for Treasurer Wayne Swan were in Bali for four days and spent almost $10,000 in travel, $2640 in accommodation and almost $1000 in "other expenses".

A spokesman for Mr Rudd said the high accommodation costs were affected by the late organisation of Australia's delegation because of the timing of the 2007 federal poll and demand for accommodation.

"Consistent with long-standing practice the Prime Minister hosted a reception for Australian participants at the conference in Bali including members of the Australian Government delegation, representatives of non-government organisations and the media," he said.

Officials travelling overseas were entitled to business class travel.

"We are advised that it was necessary for the Australian Consulate-General in Bali to hire a car to facilitate Mrs Crean's program."

Desmond
23-05-2008, 08:05 AM
$500k is probably not all that much when you consider that over 50 people attended. Whether they all needed to go, I don't know.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-05-2008, 11:23 AM
If global warming hysteria confined itself to lavish conferences, research grants, etc., it would not bother me (after all, it is not that much compare to other government waste expenditure).
However, when they try to justify their relatively minor waste of money by actually implementing some suggestions, it makes me really concerned, as it will cost us dearly.

Capablanca-Fan
27-05-2008, 03:31 PM
Jeroen van der Veer, chief executive of Shell, points out some home truths unpalatable to greenies (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3985479.ece):


We are searching for new sources of oil and gas because we are convinced that fossil fuels will remain the predominant source of the world’s energy for many decades to come…

We at Shell think demand will continue to grow in the years ahead, thanks in large measure to continued strong economic growth in places like China and India. I might add, that is what underpins the recent increase in prices of a whole range of commodities, not just oil. …

The world will need vast amounts of extra energy in the coming decades to support economic growth and reduce poverty. By 2050, energy demand could more than double as the world’s population rises and developing countries expand their economies …

Let me give you some examples of the difficulty of scaling up renewables. For instance, if we were to replace all of today’s coal-generated electricity with wind farms — at typical wind farm load factors — that would require a land area equivalent to 3 times the entire area of France. And if every house in Britain had a 4-m² solar PV panel set up on the roof, it would only generate the same amount of electricity in a year as half of a modern, 1-gigawatt nuclear power station. For context, in 2005/06, Britain’s maximum demand was 63 gigawatts.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-05-2008, 04:23 PM
And if every house in Britain had a 4-m² solar PV panel set up on the roof, it would only generate the same amount of electricity in a year as half of a modern, 1-gigawatt nuclear power station.
Unfortunately, it is the greatest drawback of the solar panels, they cover huge area for the amount of energy generated. What happens underneath the cover is also a concern, it might have very undesirable ecological effect. Solar panels have to improve their efficiency (power vs area covered) to become a viable alternative.

It seems that nuclear and, in some cases, hydro power are the only "green" options that are economically competitive.

pax
27-05-2008, 04:45 PM
It seems that nuclear and, in some cases, hydro power are the only "green" options that are economically competitive.
Nothing will ever compete economically with coal (nuclear included) for as long as it remains completely free to spew unlimited volumes of CO2 and pollutants into the atmosphere.

Capablanca-Fan
27-05-2008, 06:49 PM
It seems that nuclear and, in some cases, hydro power are the only "green" options that are economically competitive.
Hydro is green, but greenies whinge anyway! And even though they claim to support wind power, überlefty Teddy Kennedy objected to a windfarm that might have been a speck in the distance but would still obstruct his precious view.

Capablanca-Fan
27-05-2008, 06:51 PM
Nothing will ever compete economically with coal (nuclear included) for as long as it remains completely free to spew unlimited volumes of CO2 and pollutants into the atmosphere.
Volcanoes also spew far more CO2 than anything we do. Forest fires caused because greenies ban clearing of dried brush have also spewed copious amounts. China and India will continue to spew CO2 regardless of what we do, because they want prosperity too.

pax
28-05-2008, 01:46 AM
Volcanoes also spew far more CO2 than anything we do.
The latest in a long series of fictions from the "let's sit on our arses and let the climate go to shit" brigade.

Annual CO2 from Volcanoes according to the USGS: 130 million tonnes (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html)

CO2 emitted in Australia per year: 330 million. Worldwide: 24 billion. (http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/cli_cou_036.pdf)

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2008, 02:05 AM
The latest in a long series of fictions from the "let's sit on our arses and let the climate go to shit" brigade.
You mean like those in the 1970s who squealed about a coming Ice Age.

Anyway, that came from geologist Ian Plimer, a bigoted misotheistic creation hater, so presumably Pax would like him.

Professor Plimer hits carbon dioxide doomsayers at Paydirt confab (http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page38?oid=49496&sn=Detail)


Professor Ian Plimer, a renowned educator and author, told the Paydirt 2008 Uranium Conference in Adelaide today that the blame factor applied to CO2 in causing global warming was wrong.

The University of Adelaide Professor of Mining Geology said: "Humans have adapted to life on earth ranging from ice sheets to mountains to tropics and have survived far warmer and far colder climates than currently being experienced or forecast by the climate doomists.

"We need to be far more realistic and educative about where the CO2 comes from that we blame as the causative factor behind global warming.

"The human contribution is minor. The majority of CO2 in the crustal atmospheric layers comes from volcanoes, earthquakes, pulling apart of the ocean floor, metamorphism, hot flushes of the Earth, ocean degassing, plant bacteria and comets," he explained.

"Super volcanoes such as Toba, Yellowstone, and Taupo have been the worst offenders. Just one volcano alone, Milos (Greece), produces 2% of the Earth's CO2 atmospheric levels from a hot spring the size of a table", according to Plimer. "Few people realise that water vapour in the atmosphere provides 96% of the greenhouse effect, raising temperature from minus 18 degrees to 15 degrees Celsius."

Ian Plimer: Stop Climate Change (http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/PlimerNov2007.html)


The climate change cacophony demonstrates that the community knows little about how our dynamic evolving planet works. A little bit of basic geology would be a good start. An understanding of the processes of science would be another good start. Science is married to evidence that derives from observation, calculation, measurement and experiment. Scientists argue about the validity of this evidence and whether the evidence is in accord with everything else that has been validated. Science then tries to explain the evidence with a theory. Theories are refuted with new thinking and new evidence. Science is evolutionary, self-adjusting, anarchistic and bows to no authority. Science has no moral, political or religious view about anything.

The current President of the Royal Society told us that the science on human-induced global warming is settled. A previous President of the Royal Society also used his authority, this time to inform us that it is impossible for heavier than air machines to fly!

Science is not about consensus or belief, these words are those of politics and religion. Science is a celebration of uncertainty. Scepticism and criticism are valued and information from all different disciplines is integrated in an attempt to understand the world around us. Because the current theory on human-induced climate change is not in accord with validated geology and astronomy, then the theory must be rejected. However, the idea that wealthy western humans change global climate is an attractive ascientific idealistic political idea and this idea is currently promoted with great missionary zeal.

The tail has wagged the dog and squeaky wheels and a sensationalist media have forced both major political parties, against their better judgment, to make political comments about climate change. These comments have nothing to do with science. They are pragmatic political survival.

What is interesting is that the squeaky wheels are in affluent western countries that have lost the religious structure to society. Climate change has become the new dogmatic religion and woe betide heretics, sinners and the wealthy. We are all now to pay papal carbon indulgences to the Archbishops of climate change (on the condition that such payments only hurt a little).

pax
28-05-2008, 02:21 AM
Do you always post an entire page of rubbish when someone has caught on to your bullshit? :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

pax
28-05-2008, 02:25 AM
Riiight. So when you said that Volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans you meant they produce more CO2 across the billions of years of history of the human planet? :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

I guess that's a bit of a problem given that you believe the earth is 6000 years old :owned: :owned: :owned:

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2008, 09:34 AM
Do you always post an entire page of rubbish when someone has caught on to your bullshit? :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:
Blame Ian Plimer, your fellow anticreationist bigot, for the volcano claim.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-05-2008, 11:06 AM
Riiight. So when you said that Volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans you meant they produce more CO2 across the billions of years of history of the human planet? :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

I guess that's a bit of a problem given that you believe the earth is 6000 years old :owned: :owned: :owned:
Good joke, but volcanoes actually do produce more CO2 per year (on average) then human. As a matter of fact, much more.
I heard an argument that it's a different kind of CO2 with different greenhouse effect, but couldn't understand it.:D :D :D

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2008, 11:34 AM
Good joke, but volcanoes actually do produce more CO2 per year (on average) then human. As a matter of fact, much more.
Yes, Plimer was talking about annual production.


I heard an argument that it's a different kind of CO2 with different greenhouse effect, but couldn't understand it.:D :D :D
I don't think that there could be a different kind, unless it was isotopically different which indeed would have a different IR absorption spectrum, but it's highly unlikely.

Spiny Norman
28-05-2008, 02:27 PM
Freeman Dyson reviews two new books on human-induced global warming:
www.nybooks.com/articles/21494


Here are the net values of the various policies as calculated by the DICE model. The values are calculated as differences from the business-as-usual model, without any emission controls. A plus value means that the policy is better than business-as-usual, with the reduction of damage due to climate change exceeding the cost of controls. A minus value means that the policy is worse than business-as-usual, with costs exceeding the reduction of damage. The unit of value is $1 trillion, and the values are specified to the nearest trillion.

The net value of the optimal program, a global carbon tax increasing gradually with time, is plus three—that is, a benefit of some $3 trillion.

The Kyoto Protocol has a value of plus one with US participation, zero without US participation.

The "Stern" policy has a value of minus fifteen, the "Gore" policy minus twenty-one, and "low-cost backstop" plus seventeen.

What do these numbers mean? $1 trillion is a difficult unit to visualize. It is easier to think of it as $3,000 for every man, woman, and child in the US population. It is comparable to the annual gross domestic product of India or Brazil. A gain or loss of $1 trillion would be a noticeable but not overwhelming perturbation of the world economy. A gain or loss of $10 trillion would be a major perturbation with unpredictable consequences.

The main conclusion of the Nordhaus analysis is that the ambitious proposals, "Stern" and "Gore," are disastrously expensive, the "low-cost backstop" is enormously advantageous if it can be achieved, and the other policies including business-as-usual and Kyoto are only moderately worse than the optimal policy. The practical consequence for global-warming policy is that we should pursue the following objectives in order of priority. (1) Avoid the ambitious proposals. (2) Develop the science and technology for a low-cost backstop. (3) Negotiate an international treaty coming as close as possible to the optimal policy, in case the low-cost backstop fails. (4) Avoid an international treaty making the Kyoto Protocol policy permanent. These objectives are valid for economic reasons, independent of the scientific details of global warming.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-05-2008, 02:59 PM
Nothing will ever compete economically with coal (nuclear included) for as long as it remains completely free to spew unlimited volumes of CO2 and pollutants into the atmosphere.

Not true. There are many factors influencing production cost that are not static.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-05-2008, 03:01 PM
Hydro is green.
Not always. Depends on where and how it's build.

pax
28-05-2008, 03:19 PM
Yes, Plimer was talking about annual production.

Not according to your quote.

If you want to back up your claim with actual figures, go right ahead. Either that, or tell me why my figures are wrong.

pax
28-05-2008, 03:20 PM
Good joke, but volcanoes actually do produce more CO2 per year (on average) then human. As a matter of fact, much more.

Would you like to back that up with some actual numbers or research?

pax
28-05-2008, 03:23 PM
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp4/question458.html


"As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2. Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from anthropogenic sources. For more detail, see Morse and Mackenzie, 1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates."

pax
28-05-2008, 03:25 PM
http://www.hawaiinews.com/archives/volcano_watch/000440.shtml


"Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value."

pax
28-05-2008, 03:27 PM
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html


"Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed the estamated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced."


Can we put this particular furphy to rest now?

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2008, 06:20 PM
Can we put this particular furphy to rest now?
You'd better tell your fellow misotheist Plimer then.

pax
28-05-2008, 06:48 PM
You'd better tell your fellow misotheist Plimer then.
I have nothing whatsoever to do with Plimer, neither am I a "misotheist". However, your quote of Plimer could be interpreted as saying that volcanoes have contributed more than humans to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (as opposed to annual emissions) - which is, of course, an entirely different proposition.

Do you now admit you were wrong?

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2008, 06:59 PM
I have nothing whatsoever to do with Plimer, neither am I a "misotheist".
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


However, your quote of Plimer could be interpreted as saying that volcanoes have contributed more than humans to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (as opposed to annual emissions) — which is, of course, an entirely different proposition.
It would make no sense of the context of Plimer's argument, which involves current eruptions and the silliness of chicken-littling about man-made CO2.


Do you now admit you were wrong?
I wonder if Plimer has something up his sleeve, e.g. groupthink by government departments on warm-mongering.

Axiom
28-05-2008, 07:19 PM
Every adult in Britain should be forced to carry 'carbon ration cards', say MPs

David Derbyshire
UK Daily Mail
Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Every adult should be forced to use a 'carbon ration card' when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy, MPs say.

The influential Environmental Audit Committee says a personal carbon trading scheme is the best and fairest way of cutting Britain's CO2 emissions without penalising the poor.

Under the scheme, everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights.

Anyone who exceeds their entitlement would have to buy top-up credits from individuals who haven't used up their allowance. The amount paid would be driven by market forces and the deal done through a specialist company.



MPs, led by Tory Tim Yeo, say the scheme could be more effective at cutting greenhouse gas emissions than green taxes.

But critics say the idea is costly, bureaucratic, intrusive and unworkable.

The Government says it supports the scheme in principle, but warns it is 'ahead of its time'.

The idea of personal carbon trading is increasingly being promoted by environmentalists. In theory it could be used to cover all purchases - from petrol to food.

For the scheme to work, the Government would need to give out 45million carbon cards - each one linked to a personal carbon account. Every year, the account would be credited with a notional amount of CO2 in kilograms.

Axiom
28-05-2008, 07:22 PM
Correlation of Carbon Dioxide with Temperatures Negative Again

Joseph D’Aleo
Ice Cap
Tuesday, May 27, 2008

The temperatures over the last century correlated positively with carbon dioxide in the early 20th century but that warming was acknowledged even by the IPCC to be largely natural and minimally anthropogenic.

A negative correlation existed from the early 1930s to the late 1970s as temperatures cooled. This included three decades of the post war economic boom. A very strong positive correlation resumed after the Great Pacific Climate shift in the late 1970s. Data here is the USHCN Version 2.
http://www.************.com/images/may2008/270508graph1.jpg
After 1998, temperatures stopped rising and since 2002 have been falling now into the 7th year. Meanwhile CO2 has continued to rise (9.69 ppm or 2.6%) although the Mauna Loa surface data has actually paused this year with the La Nina inspired cooling. The monthly global data is plotted here for Hadley and UAH MSU along the monthly seasonally adjusted CO2 from NOAA ESRL for Mauna Loa. There is no smoothing here of the monthly data. The correlation (Pearson coefficient, r) for the Hadley and CO2 is now a negative (minus 0.4) and for the MSU UAH (minus 0.21). As we have noted, this MAY mark the start of another cooling interlude as predicted by the 60-70 year cycles of the PDO and AMO, and diminished solar.

http://www.************.com/images/may2008/270508graph2.jpg

The on again, off again nature of this correlation suggests that carbon dioxide is not the driving factor in our climate. See pdf here.

pax
28-05-2008, 07:29 PM
It would make no sense of the context of Plimer's argument, which involves current eruptions and the silliness of chicken-littling about man-made CO2.
His argument doesn't make sense. On this at least, I agree.


I wonder if Plimer has something up his sleeve, e.g. groupthink by government departments on warm-mongering.

Translation: "Wrong? Me? Never in a million six thousand years".

Capablanca-Fan
29-05-2008, 05:33 PM
Czech President Klaus ready to debate Gore on climate change (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/208338,czech-president-klaus-ready-to-debate-gore-on-climate-change.html)

But Gore is too busy making bucketloads of cash from his crusade (http://newsbusters.org/node/11149)to care about facts.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-05-2008, 10:10 AM
What produces more CO2, patrol or gas? (as a car fuel)

pax
30-05-2008, 10:35 AM
What produces more CO2, patrol or gas? (as a car fuel)
Unleaded (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=lpg+petrol+co2&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)produces more CO2.

Spiny Norman
30-05-2008, 11:10 AM
Every adult in Britain should be forced to carry 'carbon ration cards', say MPs
<snip>
Under the scheme, everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights.
Anyone who exceeds their entitlement would have to buy top-up credits from individuals who haven't used up their allowance.
I can just see it now ... people being mugged for their carbon credits ... :rolleyes:

Axiom
30-05-2008, 04:43 PM
Senate To Push Carbon Tax Enslavement Bill
05-29-2008
www.roguegovernment.com
Lee Rogers



The establishment is getting ready to push forward with Joe Lieberman’s proposed carbon credit enslavement bill. The bill otherwise known as America’s Climate Security Act of 2007 or S 2191 will give the Environmental Protection Agency draconian powers to implement a carbon credit system here in the United States. Read my full analysis of the bill here. This is nothing more than a carbon tax and the bill intends to reduce the amount of available carbon credits on a year to year basis starting in the year 2012. This will effectively make it more difficult for small and medium sized businesses to compete with the large multinational corporations who will have the resources to deal with this ridiculous enslavement tax. The threat of man made carbon emissions causing global warming is a documented fraud. Over 31,000 scientists have recently come forward refuting the claims of Al Gore and others who are promoting this lie. The fact that the corporate controlled media can continue to promote this huge lie as propaganda to pass this carbon credit initiative is utterly insane.

According to the Seattle Post Intelligencer, debate is scheduled to begin on this legislation next week.

For years the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works was the burial ground for legislation addressing among other things coal powered electricity generation. The U.S. has about a quarter of the world's known supply of coal and coal is the primary source of electricity in this country. (Hydroelectric power is not as prominent elsewhere as in this region.) It is commonly said that reducing the emissions of coal used to generate electricity is vital to controlling greenhouse gas emissions here. Most seem to believe that this is the cornerstone to any effective policy. In December the committee, with a Democratic majority, passed America's Climate Security Act of 2007 and the bill will be debated in the Senate next week.

The Republicans are split on this bill. Larry Craig and other Republicans did all he could to prevent the bill from getting out of committee. The bill though is sponsored by Joe Lieberman and John Warner. (Warner is on the committee.)

Even though there is absolutely no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, it is pretty clear that the establishment is hell bent on pushing this thing through. The majority of Democrats are going to support this bill and if the Republicans are split on this bill, it means it will pass the U.S. Senate relatively easy. It doesn’t matter that the vast majority of Americans oppose the measures in this bill. The establishment wants this carbon credit initiative passed so they can effectively enslave the majority of free humanity.

The GOP has said that they are going to try to form some opposition to this bill, but in reality it will be nothing more than a staged debate. This piece of legislation is going to get passed and any opposition will be for the purposes of the theater played out in the media to make the masses believe that we actually have Senators that represent the people.

San Francisco has already passed a carbon tax on businesses which is just a warm up for what we are going to see across this country if S 2191 gets passed. It is incredibly insane that these people are going forward with an agenda to establish a system of carbon credits on the basis of man made carbon emissions causing global warming. With over 31,000 scientists many with high level degrees refuting the doomsday claims of Al Gore, this global warming crap along with this carbon tax push is becoming more and more of a sick joke.

Capablanca-Fan
31-05-2008, 02:25 PM
“Forget climate change, we should spend on nutrition” (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4033272.ece)
Times (UK) 31 May 2008


Malnutrition should be the world’s major priority for aid and development, a panel of eight leading economists, including five Nobel laureates, declared yesterday.

The provision of supplements of vitamin A and zinc to children in developing countries, to prevent avoidable deficiencies that affect hundreds of millions of children, is the most cost-effective way of making the world a better place, the Copenhagen Consensus initiative has found.

Three other strategies for improving diets in poor nations were also named among the top six of 30 challenges assessed by the project, which aims to prioritise solutions to the world’s many problems according to their costs and benefits.

Efforts to control global warming by cutting greenhouse gas emissions, however, were rated at the bottom of the league table, as the economists considered the high costs of such action were not justified by the payoffs. Research into new low-carbon technologies, such as solar and nuclear fusion power, was ranked as more worthwhile, in 14th place.

Capablanca-Fan
04-06-2008, 12:15 PM
Dr Dennis Jensen (PhD in materials engineering on ceramics and former research scientist with the CSIRO) had the temerity to challenge the religious faith of the Layba/Greens, and unfortunately of too many spineless Coalition MPs and churchian bishops (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-future-of-the-planet-is-in-our-hands-20080603-2l48.html) too, in this speech in parliament (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warming_faith_defied_in_parliament/):


I have many charts showing the global temperature as measured by four groups, including the Hadley centre, whose data is officially used by the IPCC. This data shows that the temperature has flatlined over the last 10 years. Observation does not fit theory and yet the theory is deemed correct.

...

Keith Briffa, a lead author of the IPCC, in the chapter relating to tree proxy data had this to say of the divergence problem:

In the absence of a substantiated explanation for the decline, we make the assumption that it is likely to be a response to some kind of recent anthropogenic forcing. On the basis of this assumption, the pre-twentieth century part of the reconstructions can be considered to be free from similar events and thus accurately represent past temperature variability.
In other words, we do not know how the hell to explain the post-1960 data, so we will just blame humans and accept that all the earlier data is correct because that fits neatly with our paradigm. This is what a friend of mine refers to as ‘situating the appreciation rather than appreciating the situation’. You make the facts fit the theory when you should make the theory fit the facts.

...

This whole issue of anthropogenic global warming has all the classic hallmarks of religion. There are the high priests—the Gores, the Flannerys et cetera of the world, who talk the talk but are utterly hypocritical when it comes to walking their talk. There is the concept of original sin, being industry and carbon dioxide, and the whole issue of penance or paying the price for your actions. This is the way we have to pay for the use of industry which is emitting carbon dioxide. The high priests, however, can get away with their profligate lifestyle by buying indulgences, also known as carbon credits, and so continue to sin. Hence, we have Flannery jetting here, there and everywhere and Gore, similarly, with just one of his residences—one of three, I might add—consuming 20 times as much energy as the average American household. That is how concerned he is about global warming in reality.

The media indulge the high priests, castigating the many heretics who dare to differ. Yet they let the high priests off, not scrutinising their statements as the media should. Take Flannery’s suggestion, for example, of putting sulphur into the atmosphere, using terribly polluting aircraft to disperse it. What a delicious irony! For those who know a bit of chemistry, what happens when you mix sulphur, water and oxygen? You get sulphuric acid, also known as acid rain. I guess that is the price that we need to pay for our sin. But why has the media not lampooned Flannery, who is supposed to be a global warming expert scientist of the highest order, for such a ridiculous proposal? It is political correctness of the highest and most unconscionable order.

Spiny Norman
05-06-2008, 03:42 PM
If this is correct:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

then reducing our CO2 emissions is madness. Its interesting to look at predictions like this one from NASA:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm

as they were out ... we are not yet at solar minimum and we're half way through 2008. Stand by for more global cooling as a result (the longer the solar cycle, the more cooling we'll see over the coming decade).

Igor_Goldenberg
05-06-2008, 03:46 PM
If this is correct:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

then reducing our CO2 emissions is madness.
IMHO, reducing our CO2 emissions is a good thing.
Reducing it any cost is madness.

Spiny Norman
05-06-2008, 04:08 PM
IMHO, reducing our CO2 emissions is a good thing.
Only if its true that the earth really is warming. If its cooling, then we need more CO2, as plants (a) grow faster; and (b) require less water, when CO2 levels are higher. It'd be needed to ensure that we can feed everyone in a cooler world where big food exporters like Canada progressively lose arable land to ice/snow and shortened growing seasons.

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2008, 04:15 PM
IMHO, reducing our CO2 emissions is a good thing.
Reducing it any cost is madness.
And that has to be a key issue, overlooked by the green religionists. Poverty would cost many more lives than warming.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-06-2008, 04:49 PM
Only if its true that the earth really is warming. If its cooling, then we need more CO2, as plants (a) grow faster; and (b) require less water, when CO2 levels are higher. It'd be needed to ensure that we can feed everyone in a cooler world where big food exporters like Canada progressively lose arable land to ice/snow and shortened growing seasons.
It might be correct, however I would be cautious about artificial (e.g. man-made) attempt to engineer climate (whether to stop global warming or global cooling). CO2 emitted while burning fossils goes with other toxic waste that neither improve the quality of air we breath, nor benefits our ecosystem in any other way.
Deliberately reducing the amount of energy we consume will bring more harm then good. However, I always welcome more environmentally friendly alternatives to coal burning power plant(nuclear power plant, hydro power plant given certain conditions are met, even gas burning power plant), as long as they are viable and not shoved down our throats by zealots in power.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-06-2008, 04:50 PM
Only if its true that the earth really is warming. The link between temperature and CO2 level is still not clear.

Axiom
06-06-2008, 12:21 AM
Drop 'middle-class' academic subjects says schools adviser

By Laura Clark
Daily Mail

Children should no longer be taught traditional subjects at school because they are 'middle class'

Children should no longer be taught traditional subjects at school because they are "middle-class" creations, a Government adviser will claim today.

Professor John White, who contributed to a controversial shake-up of the secondary curriculum, believes lessons should instead cover a series of personal skills.

Pupils would no longer study history, geography and science but learn skills such as energy- saving and civic responsibility through projects and themes.

He will outline his theories at a conference today staged by London's Institute of Education - to which he is affiliated - to mark the 20th anniversary of the national curriculum.

Last night, critics attacked his ideas as "deeply corrosive" and condemned the Government for allowing him to advise on a new curriculum.

Professor White will claim ministers are already "moving in the right direction" towards realising his vision of replacing subjects with a series of personal aims for pupils.

But he says they must go further because traditional subjects were invented by the middle classes and are "mere stepping stones to wealth".


More...

* Top university first to make all applicants sit entrance exam due to A-level dumbing down

The professor believes the origins of our subject-based education system can be traced back to 19th century middle-class values.

While public schools focused largely on the classics, and elementary schools for the working class concentrated on the three Rs, middle-class schools taught a range of academic subjects.

These included English, maths, history, geography, science and Latin or a modern language.

They "fed into the idea of academic learning as the mark of a well-heeled middle- class", he said last night.

The Tories then attempted to impose these middle-class values by introducing a traditional subject-based curriculum in 1988.

But this "alienated many youngsters, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds", he claimed.

The professor, who specialises in philosophy of education, was a member of a committee set up to advise Government curriculum authors on changes to secondary schooling for 11 to 14-year-olds.

The reforms caused a row when they were unveiled last year for sidelining large swathes of subject content in favour of lessons on issues such as climate change and managing debt.

Professor White wants ministers to encourage schools to shift away from single-subject teaching to "theme or project-based learning".

Pupils would still cover some content but would be encouraged to meet a series of personal aims. The curriculum already states some of these but is "hampered" by the continued primacy of subjects.

The aims include fostering a model pupil who "values personal relationships, is a responsible and caring citizen, is entrepreneurial, able to manage risk and committed to sustainable development".

Critics claim theme-based work is distracting and can lead to gaps in pupils' knowledge.

Tory schools spokesman Nick Gibb said Professor White's view was "deeply corrosive". He added: "In the world we are living in, we need people who are better educated, not more poorly educated, more knowledgeable about the world, not less so.

"This anti-knowledge, anti-subject ideology is deeply damaging to our education system. It is this sort of thinking that has led to the promotion of discredited reading methods, the erosion of three separate sciences and the decline of mathematics skills.

"I just find it astonishing that someone with his extreme views has been allowed to advise the Government on education policy."

pax
06-06-2008, 12:44 AM
I'm all for sensible energy efficiency (good insulation and such), but this is ridiculous:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23814233-2,00.html

Throw away your electric toothbrush or alarm clock and save 48 grams of CO2 a day :rolleyes:

Spiny Norman
06-06-2008, 10:21 AM
I'm all for sensible energy efficiency (good insulation and such), but this is ridiculous:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23814233-2,00.html
Throw away your electric toothbrush or alarm clock and save 48 grams of CO2 a day :rolleyes:
Pax ... its reached the status of religion ... we must persecute the unbelievers ... make them confess, or be burned at the stake! In the meantime, we'll all gather together, hold hands, sing songs about the environment, and have a global "Throw away your electric toothbrush" day, sponsored by Al Gore, Cate Blanchett and any number of useless, posturing celebrities.

I do the things that are sensible: I turn off lights that aren't needed, I turn down my heating and put on a jacket or jumper, etc. I do these things because they are obvious and have a sensible financial payoff via reduced power/gas bills.

Does anyone yet understand that Rudd+Co are likely to:
(a) implement carbon trading fully, pushing up fuel by ~15c/litre (thus hurting "working families"); or
(b) implement carbon trading partially, exempting fuel, thus neutering the trading scheme's effectiveness

Help me understand this guys. How does "trading" carbon reduce anything? That's just a euphemism for taxing carbon ... and sure enough, Labor in power ... if it moves tax it.

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2008, 11:59 AM
Exactly. And the leading preachers don't practice, e.g. they fly in private jets and live in energy-guzzling mansions.

As you say, why should Layba hinge about high petrol prices and impose this silly FoolWatch, when high prices should be exactly what they should want as a sacrifice to their green religion?

Market pricing of water and power would encourage voluntary self-rationing and other sensible saving measures such as insulation. There is also something to be said for solar heating of water, since that is a very efficient process and would save a big chunk of the electrical bill.

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2008, 12:08 PM
The Chilling Costs of Climate Catastrophism (http://quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=3936)
Ray Evans
Quadrant Magazine
Volume LII Number 6, June 2008


His [Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic and Ph.D. in economics] constant theme is the threat which the “warmists”, as he describes them, pose to freedom. Here is a characteristic Klausian description of this threat:


“Global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth-versus-propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the ‘established’ truth, although a lot of people—including top-class scientists—see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities.
“As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.”

In the paper President Klaus gave at the Heartland Institute conference held in New York in March, attended by more than 500 highly qualified people in climate science, economics and public policy, he concluded with these comments:


“As a politician who personally experienced communist central planning of all kinds of human activities, I feel obliged to bring back the already almost forgotten arguments used in the famous plan-versus-market debate in the 1930s in economic theory (between Mises and Hayek on the one side and Lange and Lerner on the other); the arguments we had been using for decades until the moment of the fall of communism. The innocence with which climate alarmists and their fellow travellers in politics and media now present and justify their ambitions to mastermind human society belongs to the same fatal conceit. To my great despair, this is not sufficiently challenged, neither in the field of social sciences, nor in the field of climatology. The social sciences, especially, are suspiciously silent.
“The climate alarmists believe in their own omnipotency; in knowing better than millions of rationally behaving men and women what is right or wrong. They believe in their own ability to assemble all relevant data into their Central Climate Change Regulatory Office equipped with huge supercomputers, and in the possibility of giving adequate instructions to hundreds of millions of individuals and institutions and in the non-existence of an incentive problem (and the resulting compliance or non-compliance of those who are supposed to follow these instructions).
“We have to restart the discussion about the very nature of government and about the relationship between the individual and society. Now it concerns the whole of mankind, not just the citizens of one particular country. To discuss this means to look at the canonically structured theoretical discussion about socialism (or communism), and to learn the uncompromising lesson from the inevitable collapse of communism eighteen years ago. It is not about climatology. It is about freedom.”

VACLAV KLAUS has given us a salutary reminder of the seriousness of the danger Australia is now facing from the “warmists”. Both the Rudd government and the federal Opposition, currently led by Brendan Nelson, have promised us an emissions trading scheme; in the case of Prime Minister Rudd, by 2010. The responsibility of advising the federal and state governments on how such a decarbonisation regime should be established lies with Professor Ross Garnaut, a noted economist and diplomat, and a passionate advocate on the benefits of free trade and of the advantages of an ever-closer relationship between Australia and China.

The Garnaut Inquiry has issued two interim reports and Garnaut has given a number of papers to professional audiences in recent months. Three observations emerge from immersion in these documents.

The first is the childlike, unquestioning belief which Garnaut has in the IPCC story of global warming caused by anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, which, if not curtailed, will result in climatic and economic disaster for the whole world. Many people have noted the religious-like quality of faith in this story of human sin (particularly of Western mankind); the calamitous consequences following failure to repent; and the possibility of redemption through repentance and sacrifice under the wise guidance of green prophets such as Al Gore, James Hansen, Bob Brown, Peter Garrett, and now Ross Garnaut.

The second is the refusal to face the political reality posed by Chinese and Indian “intransigence” in the face of demands from the West, the EU in particular, to decarbonise their economies. India and China are embarked on trajectories of extraordinary and historically unprecedented economic growth. China is commissioning two new coal-fired power stations every week. Both countries are also operating and building nuclear power stations. China has ten operating nuclear power plants, one under construction, and six planned; India has fifteen operating nuclear power stations, eight under construction, and four planned. These are not countries devoid of technological and scientific expertise. The idea that they should give up their dash to modernity has been repeatedly and emphatically rejected by their most senior political leaders.

The third is the Orwellian use of the words market and price to persuade people to accept a degree of control over their lives which is unprecedented in the Anglosphere, except in time of war. This control is the necessary consequence of permanent decarbonisation regimes which will dramatically lower living standards.

The foundation on which the Garnaut (and Stern) prescriptions for global decarbonisation are based has to be repeated. It is taken as given that global temperatures have increased, are increasing, and will continue to increase to catastrophic levels because, and only because, mankind is emitting greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide in particular, and that these emissions have caused atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to rise, and global temperatures to increase as a consequence.

Then Evans points out:


The most serious longer-term consequence, however, of the current state of the debate is the embargo the Victorian government has placed on the development of a brown-coal-to-distillate industry in the Latrobe Valley, an industry which could provide liquid fuel for Australia on the scale of the North West Shelf or Bass Strait.

The coal-to-distillate process was invented by two German chemists, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, in the 1920s, and was used by the Nazi regime and Imperial Japan to provide liquid fuels for their war machines… Victoria’s brown coal is well suited for this technology, since it is free of sulphur. The brown coal reserves in Gippsland are vast, and the only barrier to very large private sector investment in such a project is the insistence by the Victorian government (which stands to gain enormous royalties from such a development) that no emissions of carbon dioxide will be allowed.

Current estimates of the long-term marginal cost of distillate from a modern Fischer–Tropsch process using Gippsland brown coal are typically $50 per barrel. This is very attractive at a time when world oil prices are moving between $100 and $120 per barrel....

These facts are not widely known… If the people of Victoria knew that their state had the energy equivalent of the North West Shelf locked up in the brown coal reserves of Gippsland, and the only thing standing in the way of its development was Green hatred of carbon dioxide, then the political climate would change.

Interesting that Resources Minister Martin Ferguson, who knows the crassness of Foolwatch before Chairman Rudd forced him to do an about-face, might put his weight behind such sensible technology (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2265526.htm):


JANE COWAN: Today, in a strategic speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, Martin Ferguson will throw the Government’s weight behind technologies known as “coal to liquids” and “gas to liquids”.

MARTIN FERGUSON: Overseas already we’ve got clear gas to liquids plants, for example in Qatar and Malaysia. They are selling diesel blends to over 3000 retail sites. We’ve got to basically do everything we can to encourage the development of this frontier industry in Australia.

pax
06-06-2008, 12:12 PM
Help me understand this guys. How does "trading" carbon reduce anything? That's just a euphemism for taxing carbon ... and sure enough, Labor in power ... if it moves tax it.
Well it's pretty plain that carbon emissions will not be reduced in any meaningful way while they remain completely free. There needs to be a financial incentive to invest in low carbon technologies and to make serious inroads into efficiency. A carbon tax or "cap and trade" system can be implemented in a revenue neutral way, so it doesn't have to be a simple tax grab.

But I agree with you - given the huge noise over the last few weeks over a few cents on petrol, it seems exceptionally unlikely that the Rudd government will do anything effective about carbon emissions.

Spiny Norman
06-06-2008, 02:18 PM
Bolt claims in the Herald Sun today that there are thousands upon thousands of scientists who have signed some kind of dissent statement about global warming. Does anyone know what this is about? If I recall correctly, he said there were 31,000 names on the list (could that be correct, or did I misread it)?

Axiom
06-06-2008, 03:38 PM
Bolt claims in the Herald Sun today that there are thousands upon thousands of scientists who have signed some kind of dissent statement about global warming. Does anyone know what this is about? If I recall correctly, he said there were 31,000 names on the list (could that be correct, or did I misread it)?
quite correct

Axiom
07-06-2008, 02:00 AM
‘Global Warming’ Laws Would Sink America’s Society and Economy!

Gordon Bishop
newsbyus
Friday, June 6, 2008

The crazed ‘Global Warming’ crowd is scaring Americans with their “The sky is falling, the sky is falling” propaganda, which has nothing to do with sound, credible science.

In fact, most of America’s professional meteorologists who forecast our daily weather reports reject ‘Global Warming’ on the grounds that it is “junk science!”

Simply put, where’s the scientific data that ‘Global Warming’ can wipe out civilization and destroy our Planet Earth?



The Reality (meaning the ‘real world’) is that Mother Earth has experienced tens of thousands of ‘Global Warming’ cycles since our solar system and universe where formed some 5 billion years ago. That event is known as the “Big Bang!” theory. An old friend of mine, Dr. Arno Penzias, came up with the “Big Bang” theory while running the ATT/Bell Labs research in Holmdel, New Jersey (Exit 114 – Garden State Parkway). Penzias is the recipient of the Nobel Prize in Astrophysics in the mid-1970s.

‘Global Warming’ is caused by our sun’s depletion of helium. We need that heat to stay alive and produce the food for humans to consume.

When the helium is all burned out, we can say “Bye-Bye Earth, Bye-Bye our solar system and Bye-Bye human beings.”

It ‘ain’t gonna’ happen in our lifetime, or thousands of generations from now. So cool off, folks, and let Mother Nature play out her natural cycles of life and death.

Nothing is Forever, including the human race, which has been around only a few thousand years.

Yes, we the people, started surfacing some 20,000 years ago – that is, the homo sapien species: The Wise Man, also known as Homo Erectus (walking on two legs and not climbing and swinging around on trees like monies).

Before then, we were still evolving and developing as primates (if you believe in Darwin’s theory, which many biblical believers do not.).

The latest political propaganda coming out of Congress is legislation to combat global warming by reducing carbon dioxide in the air, which actually poses “extraordinary perils” for Americans and the economy, according to a new study from the Heritage Foundation, a fiscally conservative nonprofit organization.

The study, produced by Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis (CDA), forecasts severe consequences – including crushing energy costs, millions of jobs lost and falling household income – if Congress enacts the so-called Lieberman-Warner bill.

Sponsored by U.S. Senators Joseph Lieberman (an Independent representing Connecticut) and John Warner (a Republican from Virginia), and titled America’s Climate Security Act, the bill sets strict limits on emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide. Fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, diesel and jet fuels) are the major sources of carbon dioxide. Humans also emit CO2 when they exhale, as do animals.

The fossil fuels targeted by what the report calls the “the most expensive environmental undertaking in history. Fossil fuels produce 85 percent of the energy powering the economy.

“The burden would be shouldered by the average America,” the study concludes. “The bill would have the same effect as a major new energy tax – only worse. Increases are set by forces beyond legislative control.”

Rising prices for electricity, natural gas and home heating oil would drive the typical consumer’s total annual energy bill higher and higher—$938.63 more in 2030 than 2012 after adjusting for inflation. That’s about six weeks worth of groceries now for a typical family of four, according to U.S. Department Labor data.

When initial investment ends, annual employment losses after 2013 would exceed a half-million jobs – approaching one million in both 2016 and 2017 – as a result of what the analysts describe as “an extraordinary level of economic interference by the federal government.”

Factory jobs would decline sharply, reaching 2.3 million lost jobs in durable-goods manufacturing in 2029 as the changes forced the economy rapidly away from that sector.

Much-promised “green collar” jobs can’t make up for such losses, the report says.

The nation’s economic output – which today stands at $14 trillion – begins to decline sharply by 2018 because of higher energy prices. Cumulative losses to gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030, adjusted for inflation, run from $1.7 trillion o as high as $4.8 billion.

Hold on to your wallets, folks! Big Government is about become even BIGGER GOVERNMENT!

Once again, God Bless America and we battered mortals.

Capablanca-Fan
09-06-2008, 12:08 PM
Die for the sake of the planet (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/die_for_the_sake_of_the_planet/)
by Andrew Bolt.

Professor Anne Barbeau Gardiner is astonished by Gaia prophet James Lovelock’s new book (http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0608-gardiner), The Revenge of Gaia:


Lovelock assures us that he does not agree with the “totalitarian greens, sometimes called eco*fascists,” who want to see most of the human race “eliminated” by genocide so as to leave a “perfect Earth for them alone.” That’s a relief. But wait—he then tells us that if we survive the current crisis, our next goal must be to forcibly reduce our numbers: “If we are to continue as a civilization that successfully avoids natural catastrophes, we have to make our own constraints on growth and make them strong and make them now.” As it is, we are unintentionally at war with Gaia and must agree to “wartime” rationing and temporary “loss of freedom.” Strong constraints? Loss of freedom? What’s the difference between this and ecofascism? And how far down will our population have to plummet to satisfy Gaia? Actually, Lovelock states that something like nine-tenths of our population must vanish...
Lovelock’s bottom line:


Our “primary obligation is to the living Earth. Humankind comes second.”

Igor_Goldenberg
11-06-2008, 11:06 AM
Lovelock ... tells us that if we survive the current crisis, our next goal must be to forcibly reduce our numbers.

Actually, Lovelock states that something like nine-tenths of our population must vanish...


I don't mind as long as it's voluntary and the likes of Lovelock lead by example.
But the sad reality is that the would be prophets aim to be in the one-tenth that stays.

Kevin Bonham
11-06-2008, 05:37 PM
Professor Anne Barbeau Gardiner is astonished by Gaia prophet James Lovelock’s new book (http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0608-gardiner), The Revenge of Gaia:

I got a servlet exception, whatever that is, for that link.

I suspect the difference between Lovelock's view and what he refers to as "ecofascism" is that Lovelock might support the use of force to impose birth control, but would not support the use of force to kill off those who have already been born. But I find that a strange use of "ecofascist" on his part if so, because many would use the term far less restrictively than that, and with good reason, since any totalitarian system in which all liberties are subordinate to "the environment" (in place of "the race"/"the State") could well attract the label by loose analogy.

In Bolt's article there is a link to the ABC's "Planet Slayer" website where there is a calculator you can use to work out when you should die. (http://www.abc.net.au/science/planetslayer/greenhouse_calc.htm) Amusing in a way but a deeply irresponsible piece of work given the sensitive issues surrounding youth suicide and the ABC deserves harsh criticism for having this sort of stuff on its website. This also got a big run in Crikey today.

Axiom
12-06-2008, 02:13 PM
Faux’s Smith: Global Warming Deniers “A Little Crazy”

Kurt Nimmo

June 10, 2008



At the end of a Faux News segment on a man who found himself trapped in a portable toilet, anchor Shep Smith compared people who get stuck in toilets to “people who deny the whole global warming thing” and are “just a little crazy, you know?”

In other words, when it comes to the globalist warming scam, there is no difference between the “libs” at MSNBC and the neocons at Faux. Sure, the corporate media networks like to pretend there is a yawning difference, but this is simply a dog and pony show, part and parcel of the phony right-left political paradigm, a massive distraction as the globalists consolidate and centralize power.

“Proponents of a system of world government and the tyrannical measures that accompany it have seized upon the popular issue of global warming to advance long existing plans for global governance,” writes Daniel Taylor. “World government has been the desire of power hungry organizations and the individuals running them for many years. The Bilderberg Group, CFR, Trilateral Commission, and their think tanks like the Club of Rome are all such organizations.”




Shep and Faux are doing the bidding of the Club of Rome, the neo-Malthusian “think tank” that supposedly published the greatest environmentalist book in history, Limits to Growth, which sold 30 million copies in more than 30 translations. The Club of Rome includes as members people as Al Gore, Maurice Strong, Mikhail Gorbachev, Bill Clinton, Ted Turner, George Soros, Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, Bill Gates, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, and the Big Kahuna of globalism, David Rockefeller. In a later Club of Rome work, The First Global Revolution, we read: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Except, of course, the above mentioned humans and their minions.

So it comes as no surprise Murdoch’s Faux is on the fake climate change bandwagon, instructing his hirelings to drop the global warming message here, there, and everywhere, including a segment about a guy trapped in a porta-potty.

Kevin Bonham
12-06-2008, 07:28 PM
In Bolt's article there is a link to the ABC's "Planet Slayer" website where there is a calculator you can use to work out when you should die. (http://www.abc.net.au/science/planetslayer/greenhouse_calc.htm)

On my other forum, which is much more left-leaning than this one, and quite green, I started a thread about this. Thus far 2/16 who have answered have said that the calculator said they could "live forever"; another got over 50, and most have been under 30.

Kevin Bonham
12-06-2008, 11:00 PM
I just wrote this on said other forum while smacking down a troll; I figure it deserves a wider audience:


Some illiberal global warming zealots have suggested that it should be a crime to deny that global warming is happening. I will do them a deal: I will support their proposal if at the same time it becomes a crime to call someone a global-warming denier when they are not, and the penalty for that crime is a lifetime ban from public debate. :) :) ;)

Aaron Guthrie
13-06-2008, 05:28 AM
On my other forum, which is much more left-leaning than this one, and quite green, I started a thread about this. Thus far 2/16 who have answered have said that the calculator said they could "live forever"; another got over 50, and most have been under 30.As far as I can tell, the method they use is to work out what they reckon you use, and then see how many years it takes on that average to reach "your share". There is a fairly obvious flaw to this- most people don't (for example) earn much money when they are kids.

Capablanca-Fan
13-06-2008, 04:23 PM
A filthy rip-off of clean-cut Kiwis (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23671681-5001031,00.html)

By Tim Blair, 10 May 2008


ASK most people about Kyoto and they will blame her for marrying John and breaking up the Beatles.

But if you'd asked New Zealand government officials a few years ago, they'd have told you Kyoto was going to make their country rich.

Kiwis believed joining the Kyoto Protocol — as Australia did earlier this year — would lead to carbon earnings of $500 million. Instead, the poor little place (which only generates 0.2 per cent of the world's human-caused CO2) faces a Kyoto bill of around $1 billion.

The really cool part is that — under the Byzantine Kyoto protocol — most of the $1 billion will go to Russia, which generates about 6 per cent of CO2 (more than Japan and India).
So a clean, non-polluting small country has to pay a gigantic smogtropolis. Makes sense.

Having shaken down the Shaky Isles for all that carbon cash, are the Russians at least using it to buy solar buggies and hemp shopping bags?

The hell they are. In fact, they're even refusing to accept any caps on carbon emissions beyond 2012, when Kyoto II kicks in.

"Our emerging middle class demands lots of energy," said Russia's Kyoto czar, Vsevolod Gavrilov, "and it is our job to ensure comfortable supply. We don't plan to limit the use of fuel for our industries. We don't think this would be right." Ha! Take that, Helen Clark.

In other komical Kyoto kapers, Greece has been suspended from UN carbon trading for breaking greenhouse gas reporting rules and Canada faces investigation — by the UN's sinister Kyoto "enforcement branch" — for the same thing.

Canada, by the way, has overshot its Kyoto target by 25 per cent. Under UN rules, this means they have to hand over their entire country to Malta.

The UK Government has missed some 60 per cent of the environmental targets set since 1997, according to a report released this week, and we are warned in Australia of fuel costs rising by 10c a litre to cover the Rudd Government's emissions trading scam.

Japan — where the Kyoto Protocol was hatched — will easily blow out its own Kyoto target (meant to cut emissions by 6 per cent, the amount has actually grown).
Meanwhile, China has medium-term plans for 500 new coal-fired power plants, rendering pointless any Western carbon reductions.

Capablanca-Fan
13-06-2008, 04:56 PM
You hippy-crites! When it comes to saving the planet do celebrities practise what they preach? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-564215/You-hippy-crites-When-comes-saving-planet-celebrities-practise-preach.html)
By TOM SYKES
Daily Mail (UK) 6 May 2008

E.g. Barbra Streisand preaches that we should run our dishwasher only on a full load, and various other "simple" ways to save the planet. But she happily flew from Manchester to London on a private jet.

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, as well as Leonardo DiCaprio, drive a Prius to be eco-conscious. But they also love their private jet travel. Just as people said about KRudd's corrupt corporate welfare to Toyota: driving a Prius really more about looking envirofriendly than being that.

Capablanca-Fan
19-06-2008, 01:04 PM
‘Global warming is not our most urgent priority’ (http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/767021/global-warming-is-not-our-most-urgent-priority.thtml)
James Delingpole
Spectator (UK) 11 June 2008

Bjørn Lomborg, the controversial Danish economist, tells James Delingpole that it is better to spend our limited funds on saving lives than on saving the planet.

Lomborg’s basic argument — as laid out in his bestsellers, The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It! — is that the world isn’t in nearly as bad a mess as the eco-doomsayers claim it is. And before we do anything too drastic to try to make things better, we ought first to ascertain what its most pressing problems are, rather than throw good money after hopeless causes.

Lomborg’s latest venture is a body he has founded called the Copenhagen Consensus. Funded mainly by the Danish government, this research panel comprises 50 leading economists, including five Nobel Laureates, and has spent two years applying cost benefit analysis methods to a list of global challenges — disease, pollution, conflict, terrorism, climate change, water and so on.

Its conclusions are hardly likely to win Lomborg new fans in the eco movement, for global warming comes so far down the list of urgent priorities that it doesn’t make the top ten. Far better to spend our limited pool of development aid money, say the economists, on schemes like micronutrient supplements (vitamin A and zinc) for malnourished children. For an annual outlay of only $60 million this would result in yearly benefits (through improved health, fewer deaths, increased earnings) worth more than $1 billion.
Also high on the list are unglamorous things like expanded immunisation coverage for children; deworming programmes in Third World schools; and community-based nutrition promotion. Number two on the recommended list is the — highly unlikely given resistance from the US and the EU — implementation of the Doha development agenda. Ending the trade tariffs, in other words, which are immeasurably to the developing world’s disadvantage.

‘It’s true that in the battle between exciting problems and boring problems we are defenders of the boring problems,’ agrees Lomborg, when I suggest that polar bears on melting ice caps tug the heartstrings far more effectively than flyblown African urchins. ‘Our uphill task is to try to show that problems involving the greatest pictures and the cutest animals are not necessarily the most pressing issues.’

This is the sort of dull pragmatism that so often gets Lomborg into trouble. People will read him saying that the threat to polar bears has been somewhat exaggerated, given that their global population has increased fivefold since the 1960s, and they’ll think: ‘Heartless, evil Bush shill, probably in the pay of Big Oil.’ Whereas all Lomborg is actually saying in his remorselessly logical, Danish statistics professor’s way, is: ‘Let’s take emotion and hysteria and fluffy white fur out of the argument and try to seek the objective truth.’
Ah, but what do economists know anyway? Aren’t decisions regarding the environment, nutrition and so on better left to experts in those fields? ‘But if you ask a malaria expert where the money is best spent, you shouldn’t be too surprised if the answer is malaria,’ says Lomborg. ‘What economists can do which natural scientists cannot is, in effect, to put the prices on the menu. They are not saying, “You should pick this meal or that meal.” What they are saying is, “If you pick the lobster, you’ll have less to spend on everything else.”’

The principal question Lomborg encounters is, ‘Why should we have to pick and choose? Why shouldn’t we be able to do it all?’ He even heard this line from a US congressman, who said, ‘I can understand why a small country like Denmark has to focus on priorities, but America is so big.’ ‘I had to remind him that even though the US is indeed a lot bigger, it still seemed to me that in the last 50 years it hadn’t yet fixed all the problems in the world.’

What non-economists tend to have difficulty understanding, says Lomborg, is the concept of marginal benefit. ‘We tend to think in terms of absolute magnitude, so people will say, “Global warming is overall a bigger problem than micronutrition so we should deal with that first.” But what economists say is, “No. If you can spend a billion dollars and save 600,000 kids from dying and save about two billion people from being malnourished, that’s a lot better than spending the same amount to postpone global warming by about two minutes at the end of the century.”’

...

Where he thinks the green movement has got things badly wrong is in attempting to shut down any form of critical opposition.

‘You cannot have a conversation about the biggest policy argument of the day, and then say that one side isn’t allowed to debate,’ says Lomborg. He thinks the greens have also done their cause a great disservice by talking up the climate change threat. ‘You can overplay your cards and screech so loudly that you end up losing the argument.’

The battle for common sense, though, is far from over. His worry is that the next Kyoto update — the Copenhagen summit in 2009 — will prove yet another wasted opportunity where politicians set themselves ever higher pie-in-the-sky targets on carbon emissions. ‘The danger is not that we’re not going to meet these targets, because I take that as granted — of course we’re not going to meet them, just as we didn’t after Kyoto in 1997.

Capablanca-Fan
20-06-2008, 12:49 PM
Sending Tokyo aid needed here (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/sending_tokyo_aid_needed_here/)
Andrew Bolt
20 June 2008


The Rudd Government gives $35 million to a Japanese car company that doesn’t need it, but takes $5 million from an Australian one that sure does (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23892705-2702,00.html) — to build something even better than the government is buying:


Permo-Drive chairman Colin Henson has written to the company's 1900 shareholders, telling them the company must be put into liquidation — and the Rudd Government's first budget was blamed.

The company was counting on a $5 million grant from the small business development program Commercial Ready, which was axed in the budget.

The company's executives were furious. "It seems very unfair of the federal Government to take away that opportunity from an Aussie company like Permo-Drive, yet, at the same time, announce a $35million fuel-saving hybrid subsidy to Toyota, a wealthy multinational company," Mr Henson wrote.

He told The Australian yesterday that while Toyota president Katuaki Watanabe had appeared nonplussed when asked what his company would do with the $35million federal grant, announced this month and immediately matched by a similar offer from the Victorian Government, Permo-Drive knew exactly what it would do with the $5million.

"That is the betterment of a technology that has been developed and proven in Australia," Mr Henson said.

He said a British venture capital company was prepared to put in $7.5million on condition that the business was successful in its application for the CR grant.

"A number of our potential investors were attracted by the fact that the company had the opportunity to claim under the Commercial Ready grants," Mr Henson said.

"When they were scrapped, those investors evaporated."

Permo-Drive's technology is based on a hydraulic brake, which stores the energy released when a truck is slowing down by compressing gas in cylinders.

The truck then uses the power from the release of the gas when it is accelerating. It is ideal for rubbish trucks, postal vans and commercial delivery vans, which stop frequently.

Chief engineer Chris Marshall said the system was much lighter and cheaper than battery-based hybrid systems.

Permo-Drive was preparing its application for a Commercial Ready grant when the $700million-a-year program was axed in the budget. The program fell victim to the Government's razor gang after criticism from the Productivity Commission that it gave taxpayer funds to companies that would have gotten their technology to market anyway.

In its past 10 months, the program helped 125 small businesses get new products into production, ranging from a new design for orchestral harps to a mining drill.

UPDATE:


Reader Roger says hybrid cars are a perfect target for another green health scare (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/automobiles/27EMF.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)— you know, with claims like “driving a Prius will drive you mad — no, really”. Or “drive green and go sterile”.

Oh, wait…

UPDATE 2:


Another test of the Prius (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2007/06/30/nosplit/mfprius30.xml), and another embarrassing report on it’s fuel savings.

Capablanca-Fan
25-06-2008, 12:22 PM
Hybrid cars ‘cost $50 more to run’ (http://www.theage.com.au/environment/hybrid-cars-cost-50-more-to-run-20080624-2w65.html)
Barry Park
The Age, 25 June 2008


Fuel for thought for potential hybrid car buyers is the revelation that the Toyota Prius, which uses an electric motor to help the petrol engine, costs about $50 a week more to run than its closest petrol equivalent, a Toyota Corolla small hatch, and up to $5 a week more than a mid-sized four-cylinder Toyota Camry.

The Honda Civic hybrid costs about $23 a week more to run than its four-cylinder petrol equivalent, the survey shows.

That should change when the hybrid Camry stars rolling off Toyota's local assembly line in two years, Mr Case says.

The Camry hybrid is expected to cost about $4000 more than its petrol equivalent, compared with the Civic and Prius, which cost about $10,000 more than their petrol equivalents and add substantially to ownership costs.

pax
25-06-2008, 12:37 PM
Fuel for thought for potential hybrid car buyers is the revelation that the Toyota Prius, which uses an electric motor to help the petrol engine, costs about $50 a week more to run than its closest petrol equivalent, a Toyota Corolla small hatch, and up to $5 a week more than a mid-sized four-cylinder Toyota Camry.

The only way you could possibly get to $50 a week is by including capital costs (or depreciation), which is clearly preposterous. Nobody expects it to be cheaper to own a Prius than a Corolla.

Capablanca-Fan
25-06-2008, 12:42 PM
The only way you could possibly get to $50 a week is by including capital costs (or depreciation), which is clearly preposterous. Nobody expects it to be cheaper to own a Prius than a Corolla.
It's important that people realize that fuel is one of the lowest expenses of owning a car. But even without that, as shown by other posts here, it's not clear that Prius is even that miserly on fuel.

pax
25-06-2008, 01:16 PM
It's important that people realize that fuel is one of the lowest expenses of owning a car. But even without that, as shown by other posts here, it's not clear that Prius is even that miserly on fuel.
4-5L/100 is pretty decent (http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=104663&catId=100462&tid=100008&p=2&title=Hybrid+cars). It's approximately half the fuel use of a similarly sized car.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-06-2008, 11:22 AM
4-5L/100 is pretty decent (http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=104663&catId=100462&tid=100008&p=2&title=Hybrid+cars). It's approximately half the fuel use of a similarly sized car.
Those figures are misleading. Usually driving in the city consumers 1-2L/100km then those tests show.
However, for Prius this difference turned out to be much more then 1-2L/100km. I don't know why. It is still more fuel effective then all petrol car, but to a lower degree then claimed.

Capablanca-Fan
26-06-2008, 02:41 PM
Dr James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York:


"CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370521,00.html)."

pax
26-06-2008, 08:03 PM
Those figures are misleading.

Why are they misleading? Do you have better ones? These are figures from tests by a consumer organisation, not figures from the manufacturer.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-06-2008, 09:56 AM
Why are they misleading? Do you have better ones? These are figures from tests by a consumer organisation, not figures from the manufacturer.
I already explained why it's misleading. The difference between the test and the real life was reported to be higher for Prius then petrol car.

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2008, 11:07 AM
I already explained why it's misleading. The difference between the test and the real life was reported to be higher for Prius then petrol car.
And is it even the best value for money among hybrids, e.g. the much cheaper Honda Civic Hybrid, or the Commodore hybrid in the pipeline? So what can justify Chairman Rudd throwing $35 million of OUR money at the stupendously wealthy Toyota company to promote their hybrids above the other ones?

pax
27-06-2008, 11:17 AM
I already explained why it's misleading. The difference between the test and the real life was reported to be higher for Prius then petrol car.

by whom?

pax
27-06-2008, 11:17 AM
or the Commodore hybrid in the pipeline?

It's a bit hard to evaluate a car that doesn't even exist yet..

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2008, 12:16 PM
It's a bit hard to evaluate a car that doesn't even exist yet..
Neither does the Toyota Camry hybrid, but KRudd still tries to winners with our money.

And it is NOT hard to evaluate Prius v Honda Civic Hybrid. Prius is slightly more economical, but the far cheaper Honda makes it better value for money.

pax
27-06-2008, 01:29 PM
Neither does the Toyota Camry hybrid, but KRudd still tries to winners with our money.

You don't have any argument from me here. An investment such as the $35m proposed makes sense if it actually makes the difference between the manufacturing coming here or not. In this case, it seems unlikely that it actually made any difference at all.


And it is NOT hard to evaluate Prius v Honda Civic Hybrid. Prius is slightly more economical, but the far cheaper Honda makes it better value for money.

We weren't talking about value for money. I certainly don't dispute that point. The Camry will also be much better value for money than the Prius. But that is to be expected, since the Prius was the first of it's kind.

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2008, 03:54 PM
Some current polling by Essential Research (PDF LINK) (http://www.pollbludger.com/EssentialReport_230608.pdf) contains a fascinating finding.

I have previously pointed to a need for some caution with this firm's findings as they are relatively new on the block but in this case the figures quoted are so dramatic that they demand notice; a handful of points of method error wouldn't shift results this spectacular.

The following question was asked:


In terms of addressing climate change issues, do you think the Rudd Government is doing too much, doing too little or doing not enough to tackle the climate change problem?

4% of respondents said doing too much, 56% said doing too little, 40% said doing enough.

What was interesting was the party breakdown:

Those supporting Labor: 3% said doing too much, 39% too little, 58% enough.
Those supporting Coalition: 7% said doing too much, 67% too little, 26% doing enough

This suggests either:

* that Coalition supporters overwhelmingly believe that climate change is a real problem and therefore the Coalition needs to clearly indicate it is serious about the issue or risk losing votes.

or

* that many Coalition supporters display tribal animosity towards Labor that will cause them to accuse Labor of doing too little over an issue even if they do not know about the issue or actually do not think it is an issue at all.

Spiny Norman
27-06-2008, 04:24 PM
Interesting suggestions/conclusions KB. Picking between the two, I would lean towards the latter explanation ... but I think a lot of Coalition voters think that Kevin07 is a kind of con-man/swindler who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk (i.e. big talk on climate change, not a whole lot of convincing action to back it up, or perhaps that the actions of the federal government are contradictory -- such as the solar rebate policy switch).

Igor_Goldenberg
27-06-2008, 04:38 PM
by whom?

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2006/10/prius_mileage_1.html
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/used_car_reviews/article3552994.ece
They report 30-50% higher consumption, while all petrol car usually have 10% higher consumption then the lab test.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-06-2008, 04:40 PM
This suggests either:

* that Coalition supporters overwhelmingly believe that climate change is a real problem and therefore the Coalition needs to clearly indicate it is serious about the issue or risk losing votes.

or

* that many Coalition supporters display tribal animosity towards Labor that will cause them to accuse Labor of doing too little over an issue even if they do not know about the issue or actually do not think it is an issue at all.

or both

Igor_Goldenberg
27-06-2008, 04:45 PM
Interesting article. (http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/08/does-my-prius-help.html)
I did not check the numbers, leave it to those that want to, but the main point is:
Petrol consumption of the car is not the only factor contributing to the CO2 emission. The manufacturing process might carry even bigger weight.

Electric battery to even out fuel consumption is a very good idea that has a future. Just don't get religious about it (as green zealots do).

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2008, 05:09 PM
Interesting suggestions/conclusions KB. Picking between the two, I would lean towards the latter explanation ... but I think a lot of Coalition voters think that Kevin07 is a kind of con-man/swindler who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk (i.e. big talk on climate change, not a whole lot of convincing action to back it up, or perhaps that the actions of the federal government are contradictory -- such as the solar rebate policy switch).

That may well be how they perceive him, but would someone who was a genuine climate change contrarian (of some stripe or other*) say that Rudd was doing "too little" on climate change? I do not think so; a genuine sceptic would say he is doing too much because it is not an issue.

* For the purposes of this post I include those who do not believe climate change is happening, those who do not believe it is primarily human-driven, and those who do not believe it is a significant issue requiring major action.

If it is primarily the "tribal animosity" angle, then this suggests that the Coalition can take a pro-active stance without risking much support.

We may in the future see Labor as the party that talks on the issue yet does relatively little while the Coalition promote stronger action. Of course in this case industry will support Labor.

Spiny Norman
27-06-2008, 05:13 PM
That may well be how they perceive him, but would someone who was a genuine climate change contrarian (of some stripe or other*) say that Rudd was doing "too little" on climate change? I do not think so; a genuine sceptic would say he is doing too much because it is not an issue.
Depends. I'm a contrarian. I would argue that, if KRudd is genuine about climate change, then he's doing too little ... of course, I would prefer it if he wasn't doing much at all, but since the question wasn't clear ...

I'm just a sample of one. I doubt there are enough INTx's in the survey to skew it significantly. But I do happen to think that way.

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2008, 06:08 PM
I'm just a sample of one.

Well, I'm also a sample of one, and if a pollster asks me if a politician is doing too much/enough/too little about a problem that I don't think is a problem, then I will most certainly say they are doing too much! (Unless they are doing absolutely nothing, of course, in which case I will say they are doing enough.)

The question would need to have been much more carefully worded to get the most informative response out of the respondents*, but I still think that more than 50% of Coalition voters saying Rudd is not doing enough on climate change is an eye-opener.

* Actually I would prefer a "what problem?" option in the question, rather than the question asserting a problem which some respondents may not believe exists.

pax
27-06-2008, 07:37 PM
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2006/10/prius_mileage_1.html
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/used_car_reviews/article3552994.ece
They report 30-50% higher consumption, while all petrol car usually have 10% higher consumption then the lab test.

The former (some random blogger) supposedly gets only 34mpg. That is such ridiculously poor performance that I suspect something is wrong with the test or the car or the measurements. The latter is a mostly highway test, which works against the Prius most of the time. These Top Gear style challenges are only interesting if the result is not what you expect, so I suspect the test was deliberately staged so that the BMW would win or at least so that the result would be close - otherwise, who would write an article about it?

I have to say that I would believe the tests of a neutral consumer group over both of the above every time.

Another neutral test (from 2004):
https://www.aaa.asn.au/roadtests/reports/269.pdf

Average 5.1L/100km

Aaron Guthrie
27-06-2008, 11:26 PM
* Actually I would prefer a "what problem?" option in the question, rather than the question asserting a problem which some respondents may not believe exists.On a liberal interpretation the problem could be that the world is spending effort on climate change. Thus Rudd is doing too little by way of not arguing against the rest of the world.


Our polling indicates that most people believe that minor parties and independents holding the balance of power in the Senate is a good for Australia (45%).Now that is a liberal interpretation of "most"! (Or maybe these most/worst type words are changing their meaning. I recently had a whinge to the ABC when they ran a story (taken from the APF) which said x was the worst, when x was a member of a larger group which was said to be the worst group.)

I would have answered "no" to the restaurant/nightclub question because when I read it I only saw it asking about a nightclub. It took me a while to twig to what they were talking about.

There isn't an "indifferent" option on the first question which doesn't make sense to me. People must choose between "somewhat favourable" and "somewhat unfavourable" and "don't know". So that might skew things.

They asked people if they though Kevin Rudd was "demanding".

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2008, 11:46 PM
(Or maybe these most/worst type words are changing their meaning. I recently had a whinge to the ABC when they ran a story (taken from the APF) which said x was the worst, when x was a member of a larger group which was said to be the worst group.)

:D I think here they are carrying on in the strong tradition of Morgan Research, who notoriously accompany their opinion poll results with interpretations that are not at all supported by their data.


There isn't an "indifferent" option on the first question which doesn't make sense to me. People must choose between "somewhat favourable" and "somewhat unfavourable" and "don't know". So that might skew things.

I think pollsters assume genuine uncertainty will either go to the "don't know" category or else splatter evenly. Certainly I have rarely seen a separate "indifferent" category, although I have sometimes seen "don't know/no opinion" or similar.

Aaron Guthrie
27-06-2008, 11:51 PM
I think pollsters assume genuine uncertainty will either go to the "don't know" category or else splatter evenly. Certainly I have rarely seen a separate "indifferent" category, although I have sometimes seen "don't know/no opinion" or similar.If it is a consistent way of doing things then it probably doesn't matter much. However, uncertainty isn't the same as indifference. I'm not sure if "indifference" is the right word. I am thinking of the person who is just right in the middle of "somewhat favourable" and "somewhat unfavourable". The person who is not indifferent to the issue, but that thinks, say, Rudd is not doing a good enough job to get a favourable opinion, and not a bad enough one to get an unfavourable one.

Kevin Bonham
28-06-2008, 12:03 AM
How about "ambivalent"?

Aaron Guthrie
28-06-2008, 12:08 AM
How about "ambivalent"?No, I don't mean uncertain. I mean someone that is determinately smack bang in the middle of "favourable" and "unfavourable". If the options were "good" and "bad" maybe "fair" would be the option I am after.

Kevin Bonham
28-06-2008, 12:11 AM
Fair enough! Ideally therefore there should be an option for Rudd's performance being neither good nor bad, an option for it being both good and bad in roughly equal measures, and an option for someone just not knowing!

Ian Murray
28-06-2008, 11:38 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/06/27/north.pole.melting/index.html

Kaitlin
28-06-2008, 12:36 PM
too right... I want my money back - its freezing here today :|

Igor_Goldenberg
28-06-2008, 05:53 PM
The former (some random blogger) supposedly gets only 34mpg. That is such ridiculously poor performance that I suspect something is wrong with the test or the car or the measurements. The latter is a mostly highway test, which works against the Prius most of the time. These Top Gear style challenges are only interesting if the result is not what you expect, so I suspect the test was deliberately staged so that the BMW would win or at least so that the result would be close - otherwise, who would write an article about it?

I have to say that I would believe the tests of a neutral consumer group over both of the above every time.

Another neutral test (from 2004):
https://www.aaa.asn.au/roadtests/reports/269.pdf

Average 5.1L/100km

If you read those links carefully you'd notice where they talk about the difference between the consumption they experienced and advertised consumption (about 30%). Whether BMW or Prius wins is of a little interest to me. My personal experience is 13L real consumption versus 12L advertised, which is about 10%. On my previous car it was about the same (12.7 vs 11.5). If the real consumption of Prius is 6.5 instead of 5, then my car consumes twice as much, not 2.4 times as much - difference of 20% (they are different class anyway).

Igor_Goldenberg
28-06-2008, 06:11 PM
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/06/27/north.pole.melting/index.html

" There are some positive aspects to the ice melting, he said. Ships could use the Northwest Passage to save time and energy by no longer having to travel through the Panama Canal or around Cape Horn.
advertisement"

What a CO2 saving!

Axiom
28-06-2008, 09:20 PM
" There are some positive aspects to the ice melting, he said. Ships could use the Northwest Passage to save time and energy by no longer having to travel through the Panama Canal or around Cape Horn.
advertisement"

What a CO2 saving!:lol: :clap: :lol: :clap: :lol: :clap:

Capablanca-Fan
01-07-2008, 04:27 PM
The basic, bottom-line reality (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudd_means_to_hurt1/)that all the Government’s blather of “compensation’’ cannot — or should not — hide:


IF an emissions trading scheme doesn’t hurt, it won’t work (http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23951051-31037,00.html), economist Chris Richardson says.

The pain is the point — to make the cheapest, but gassier, power too expensive to keep using. And if the Government promises no pain, then why have Rudd’s scheme at all?

But still journalists won’t ask even more fundamental questions, such as:


If the world has stopped warming, why have Rudd’s scheme at all?
If world emissions will keep soaring whatever we do, why have Rudd’s scheme at all?
If the biggest emitters — and our competitors — have no intention of cutting their own gases, why have Rudd’s scheme at all?
If the price of coping with any warming is much less than the price of trying to stop it, why have Rudd’s scheme at all?


So juvenile is this debate that none of these questions are yet being asked as they should be. But at least let’s not have any more pointless debate about whether people will be hurt or not. They sure will be. That’s the big idea.

Southpaw Jim
01-07-2008, 04:56 PM
Ah, the Tragedy of the Commons.

pax
01-07-2008, 06:47 PM
The basic, bottom-line reality (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudd_means_to_hurt1/)that all the Government’s blather of “compensation’’ cannot — or should not — hide:


IF an emissions trading scheme doesn’t hurt, it won’t work (http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23951051-31037,00.html), economist Chris Richardson says.

The pain is the point — to make the cheapest, but gassier, power too expensive to keep using. And if the Government promises no pain, then why have Rudd’s scheme at all?

This is misleading. Compensation for increased costs can be incorporated without diluting the effectiveness of the scheme.

For example (illustrative purpose only - I am not advocating this proposal) - suppose you put $1.50 a litre tax on the price of petrol, and then gave that money back in lump sums to families, truck operators or whoever. The end results could well be that most people are not financially worse off, but still have a very significantly increased incentive to reduce petrol consumption.

Obviously such a system would have a lot of difficulties, but the point is that it is possible to increase the incentives without making the overall financial burden worse.

Capablanca-Fan
02-07-2008, 08:54 AM
Gore's Home Still Guzzling Energy (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/gore_home_energy/2008/06/17/105394.html?s=al&promo_code=6539-1)

17 June 2008

In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former vice president’s home energy use surged more than 10 percent, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month — 1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations — at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.

Capablanca-Fan
02-07-2008, 09:07 AM
Blow to good intentions (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23954821-7583,00.html)
Janet Albrechtsen
The Australian 2 July 2008

Pushing an emissions trading system without warning people about the cost increases was always going to create a tricky political problem. But our own Hey Jude Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, exacerbated the inevitable political backlash. By framing climate change in soaring terms as the single biggest moral issue of our time, Rudd ensured that the climate change roller-coaster was always going to crash down to earth when cost finally entered the equation.

It's only in the past fortnight that Labor cabinet ministers have been admitting that the introduction of an emissions trading system will be the single biggest change to our modern lifestyle in decades. Forget opening up of the Australian economy, they say. Forget workplace deregulation. Forget the GST. This is going to be the most daunting challenge for the Prime Minister if the Government sticks to its guns over mitigating the effects of climate change.

The sledgehammer realisation of the costs of the emissions trading system and other measures has kicked off a renewed call for a genuine debate over nuclear energy in Australia. While the Rudd Government has said "N.O." to nuclear power, this issue will not go away.

At the Australian American Leadership Dialogue in Washington last week, climate change dominated discussion. One participant was the 26-year-old new boss of the Australian Workers Union, Paul Howes, who took over when Bill Shorten went into parliament last year. Howes says that the support for an emissions trading system is not as strong as many people think. "Once you educate the public about the costs they will have to wear, voter support will drop away. We need to be realistic about the subsidies that will be required for business. Handing out wads of cash to working families is not going to alleviate the pain of a loss of jobs. If we are going to reduce emissions and have jobs in society, we need to secure baseload power, and until the technology for that is available we need a genuine bipartisan approach to developing nuclear power in Australia."

Unfortunately, as another dialogue participant, former treasurer Peter Costello, remarked, we are still locked in a frothy climate debate to the point where the Oscars in Hollywood now claim to be carbon neutral. Huh? A huge light and sound extravaganza that is beamed to 100 million TV sets, where stars fly in on their private jets, travel in stretch limousines? We all love being climate change advocates, Costello said, as long as it doesn't affect our lifestyle.

Access Economics director Chris Richardson cut to the chase yesterday, telling ABC radio that "the whole idea of carbon pricing is that if it doesn't hurt it won't work". A politician serious about climate change ought to welcome higher fuel prices to change our behaviour. Drive less, use less fuel, emit lower levels of carbon gases. You haven't heard any politician say that. The political backlash would be too scary. No wonder it wasn't raised during the election last November in Australia.

Spiny Norman
03-07-2008, 11:42 AM
Wall Street Journal column: Global Warming as Mass Neurosis

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486841811817591.html?mod=todays_columnists


Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited. Now it's time for political scientists, theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in.

What, discredited? Thousands of scientists insist otherwise, none more noisily than NASA's Jim Hansen, who first banged the gong with his June 23, 1988, congressional testimony (delivered with all the modesty of "99% confidence").

But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years, never mind that "80% to 90% of global warming involves heating up ocean waters," according to a report by NPR's Richard Harris.

The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere's coldest in decades. In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse resumes in 2020.

This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science.

So let's stop fussing about the interpretation of ice core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations.

The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore – population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations – and global warming provides a justification. One wonders what the left would make of a scientific "consensus" warning that some looming environmental crisis could only be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to "patriarchal" science; curtains to the species.

A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.

And surely it is in keeping with this essentially religious outlook that the "solutions" chiefly offered to global warming involve radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly upon the earth and so on. A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence.

Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?

As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.

In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, "morbid-minded" religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion.

pax
03-07-2008, 11:50 AM
But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954.

Yet another American who believes that the "globe" doesn't stretch any further than mainland USA :rolleyes:

Spiny Norman
03-07-2008, 12:03 PM
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Iain%20Murray%20-%20Economic%20Response%20to%20Global%20Warming%20-%20FINAL_WEB.pdf

Ref: page 4 graph.

Cost of unabated global warming: US$22T (T=trillion)

Total cost if Stern's recommendations adopted: US$35T

Total cost if Gore's recommendations adopted: US$44T

So ... apparently its cheaper by half if the problem is just plain ignored.

pax
03-07-2008, 01:03 PM
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Iain%20Murray%20-%20Economic%20Response%20to%20Global%20Warming%20-%20FINAL_WEB.pdf


Yeah and the CEI is an unbiased party when it comes to climate change :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Spiny Norman
03-07-2008, 02:03 PM
Yeah and the CEI is an unbiased party when it comes to climate change :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
... about as unbiased as the IPCC probably ... ;)

Spiny Norman
11-07-2008, 02:16 PM
Bwahahahaha! This:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23991257-25717,00.html

is the funniest thing I've read in ages!


Doomed to a fatal delusion over climate change

PSYCHIATRISTS have detected the first case of "climate change delusion" - and they haven't even yet got to Kevin Rudd and his global warming guru.

Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children's Hospital say this delusion was a "previously unreported phenomenon".

"A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events."

(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore and Sir Richard Brazen, but I digress.)

"The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies."

But never mind the poor boy, who became too terrified even to drink. What's scarier is that people in charge of our Government seem to suffer from this "climate change delusion", too.

...

and on it goes. Read the whole thing. It'll cheer you up!

Aaron Guthrie
11-07-2008, 03:51 PM
Bwahahahaha! This:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23991257-25717,00.html

is the funniest thing I've read in ages!Because mental illness is hilaaaaarious.

Spiny Norman
11-07-2008, 04:44 PM
Because mental illness is hilaaaaarious.
... as long as its someone else's ... ;)

Xoote
12-07-2008, 12:28 AM
this is a debate that has been going on for ever now..

Southpaw Jim
16-07-2008, 09:02 AM
Rudd likely to cut fuel excise to offset carbon trading scheme impact on motorists (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24027312-601,00.html)

Spiny Norman
16-07-2008, 09:51 AM
Rudd likely to cut fuel excise to offset carbon trading scheme impact on motorists (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24027312-601,00.html)
Why? What's the point of that? Isn't the whole idea of the carbon tax to increase prices so that people can't afford to use the product in the same way as they did previously?

Oh, that's right, I get it now ... this is a political exercise ... Nelson offered to cut excise ... Rudd poo-poo'd Nelson's committment ... now Rudd is going to do the very thing he poo-poo'd.

What a disgrace ... :wall:

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2008, 10:43 AM
Of course, it's ALL politics with Chairman KRudd, who elevates gestures over efficiency. Kyoto itself is a gesture, which hasn't worked for most of its signatories. FoolWatch is another gesture, which KRudd blundered on with despite advice that it would make no difference, and might even make things worse for consumers. As you say, if we must reduce CO2, then it's moronic to try to make fossil fuels cheaper.

Southpaw Jim
16-07-2008, 11:19 AM
Why? What's the point of that? Isn't the whole idea of the carbon tax to increase prices so that people can't afford to use the product in the same way as they did previously?
As an economist, I'm in two minds about this - I'm tending to view it as analagous to the introduction of the GST - the replacement of narrow-based, inefficient and distortionary taxes, with one broad-based efficient tax (ie the GST).

As for the incentive, well it's applying to the whole economy (well, that's the idea anyway - let's see today's Green Paper for the exceptions to the rule), transport's only one part of that - so this doesn't invalidate the entire scheme (compare, eg, with the exemptions to the GST for food, etc). Plus, if the $0.30 rise in petrol in the last year isn't enough incentive to change your behaviour, then an emissions trading scheme isn't likely to make much difference to you. Personally I don't reckon prices will influence motorists until petrol hits $5-10/L... :eek:

BTW, it's not a carbon tax, but a trading scheme. Slightly different economic mechanism ;)

Southpaw Jim
16-07-2008, 11:20 AM
Of course, it's ALL politics with Chairman KRudd, who elevates gestures over efficiency. Kyoto itself is a gesture, which hasn't worked for most of its signatories. FoolWatch is another gesture, which KRudd blundered on with despite advice that it would make no difference, and might even make things worse for consumers. As you say, if we must reduce CO2, then it's moronic to try to make fossil fuels cheaper.
So you disagree with cutting the fuel excise? :P

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2008, 11:27 AM
So you disagree with cutting the fuel excise? :P
No. I said that if CO2 emissions were a danger, then it's silly to make petrol cheaper. I don't accept the conditional, but KRudd accepts it dogmatically.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2008, 11:30 AM
As an economist, I'm in two minds about this - I'm tending to view it as analagous to the introduction of the GST - the replacement of narrow-based, inefficient and distortionary taxes, with one broad-based efficient tax (ie the GST).

....

BTW, it's not a carbon tax, but a trading scheme. Slightly different economic mechanism ;)
A carbon tax seems better (more like the GST, introduced by the former Prime Minister you loathe). Emissions trading seems like a bureaucratic boondoogle. Again, this presupposes that Australia should cripple our economy at all in a gesture that will be totally wasted as long as China and India continue to increase their emissions. See this post (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=202628&postcount=318)about how moronic it is to think that we can ever influence the totalitarian Chinese government to do the right thing.

Southpaw Jim
16-07-2008, 11:49 AM
A carbon tax seems better
Why?

I'm not sure there's a "right" answer here, btw. A cap and trade system places a national upper limit on emissions, I'm not sure a tax would achieve that. The main advantage I can see of a tax is that it'd be simpler to administer.

FYI whilst I tend to the view that observable climate change phenomena are probably anthropogenic (given where the balance of scientific opinion appears to lie), I presently remain a skeptic.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2008, 12:36 PM
I'm not sure there's a "right" answer here, btw. A cap and trade system places a national upper limit on emissions, I'm not sure a tax would achieve that. The main advantage I can see of a tax is that it'd be simpler to administer.
Yes, and less easy to rort. A carbon tax would be transparent, and exploit the principle: tax something and you get less of it.


FYI whilst I tend to the view that observable climate change phenomena are probably anthropogenic (given where the balance of scientific opinion appears to lie), I presently remain a skeptic.
There's hope for you yet :P There is also the issues of:

Even granting that global warming climate change is man made, will it be harmful (more people die of cold than heat; many crops flourish in warmth)?
Even if the overall effect is negative, will measures to combat it cause more harm (poverty is more harmful to health than warmth, opportunity costs since more efficient life-saving measures lose funding).

Southpaw Jim
16-07-2008, 02:21 PM
Yes, and less easy to rort. A carbon tax would be transparent, and exploit the principle: tax something and you get less of it.
But conversely, a cap and trade scheme is more efficient and probably involves less compliance costs for business.


There's hope for you yet :P
Ah, but are you truly a skeptic, or a denialist in skeptic's sheepskin, like the loathed former PM? :P


Even granting that global warming climate change is man made, will it be harmful (more people die of cold than heat; many crops flourish in warmth)?
The modelling I've seen predicts scenarios that include less fishing catches due to warmer waters, and forecasts of disruption to the SE Asian monsoonal system, with consequent impacts on the productivity of the Asian rice crops.

Ok, now time to go and read the Green Paper (for work)... :eek:

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2008, 02:52 PM
AFAIK, fuel excise was originally to fund the roadwork. It is reasonable as usage of the roads is proportional to the fuel consumed. However, I have a feeling that money raised from the excise and road funding went separate ways long time ago.

Carbon tax is different issue. IMHO it's counter-productive and harmful.
In any case, rising oil price is a great incentive to switch to alternative energy source and a good natural regulating mechanism.

Southpaw Jim
16-07-2008, 03:15 PM
AFAIK, fuel excise was originally to fund the roadwork. It is reasonable as usage of the roads is proportional to the fuel consumed. However, I have a feeling that money raised from the excise and road funding went separate ways long time ago.
It was originally hypothecated (ie it had to be spent on roads), but hasn't been for several decades (since the 70s?). It now goes into Consolidated Revenue - arguably some or all of it is spent on roads, but there's no way of knowing if this is the case.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2008, 04:22 PM
AFAIK, fuel excise was originally to fund the roadwork. It is reasonable as usage of the roads is proportional to the fuel consumed. However, I have a feeling that money raised from the excise and road funding went separate ways long time ago.
A blatant tax grab.


In any case, rising oil price is a great incentive to switch to alternative energy source and a good natural regulating mechanism.
Of course, letting the market work is best, and high fuel prices have already caused less driving. But KRudd is on record rejecting the market in favour of government control of the economy.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2008, 10:12 PM
A blatant tax grab.


Why? It's a closest proximity to "user pays" system.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2008, 10:59 PM
Why? It's a closest proximity to "user pays" system.
No, I mean now, when much of the excise just goes into government coffers. If it all went to road-related funding, it would be closer to "user pays" as you say.

Axiom
18-07-2008, 03:34 PM
Column - Seven graphs to end the warming hype

Australia Herald Sun | Look for yourself. These are the seven graphs that show the world hasn’t warmed for a decade, and has even cooled for several years. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_seven_graphs_to_end_the_warming_hype/


American Physical Society Disputes Climate Change “Myth of Consensus”

Daily Tech | Organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists reverses its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warmin g+Debate/article12403.htm

Axiom
20-07-2008, 04:27 AM
Channel 4 to be censured over controversial climate film

Watchdog finds documentary was unfair to scientists but did not mislead viewers

* Owen Gibson, media correspondent
* The Guardian,
* Saturday July 19, 2008
* Article history



The former chief scientist Sir David King and the IPCC complained about Channel 4’s film The Great Global Warming Swindle. Photograph: Owen Humphreys/PA

Channel 4 misrepresented some of the world's leading climate scientists in a controversial documentary that claimed global warming was a conspiracy and a fraud, the UK's media regulator will rule next week.

In a long-awaited judgment following a 15-month inquiry, Ofcom is expected to censure the network over its treatment of some scientists in the programme, The Great Global Warming Swindle, which sparked outcry from environmentalists. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/19/channel4.climatechange

Capablanca-Fan
20-07-2008, 10:37 AM
See Andrew Bolt's take on this nonsense (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/swindle_film_did_not_mislead/).

Capablanca-Fan
20-07-2008, 11:31 AM
Seven graphs that show that global warming has stopped, and that we were warmer 1000 years ago (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/files/080718%20oped%20bolt%20global%20cooling.pdf)

Andrew Bolt's commentary and insights (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/as_i_was_saying_on_insiders_this_morning/)

Kevin Bonham
20-07-2008, 07:03 PM
Andrew Bolt's commentary and insights (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/as_i_was_saying_on_insiders_this_morning/)

Some of his "insights" are pretty bizarre.

He says:


since 1998—an unusually warm year thanks to the “El Nino” pool of warmer water in the Pacific—the world’s temperature dropped back to a steady plateau, followed by a few years of cooling.

Which actually isn't anything like what the graph shows at all. For the years 1999-2007 it shows a general upward trend, and that occurring mostly across values that are unusually high by pre-1998 levels. And his "cooling" seems to be a single year (2007) only.

Then re the third graph he claims that "the seas have stopped rising" but the graph doesn't show that at all; his claimed "fall" in the past two years is just because there were two extremely high spikes in that period; discount those and there would be a gentle rise. If you took a line of best fit it might be flat for the last three years overall but against such a strong and persistent trend it's hardly compelling evidence that the process has ceased.

The sea ice one is another with a general downhill trend counteracted by one extremely good year; need to watch this for a few years before drawing any conclusions.

I'm all for proper scrutiny of whether global warming results have been proven but this should also apply to claims that results have been disproven.

Wonder if he has any graphs on glaciers.

Spiny Norman
21-07-2008, 10:33 AM
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/WashingtonPolicymakersaddress.pdf

Pacific Decadal Oscillation enters "cool mode" ... particularly note page #2 and compare IPCC forecasts of warming with the actual, measured results which are showing cooling.

Capablanca-Fan
21-07-2008, 01:36 PM
No smoking hot spot (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html)

David Evans 18 July 2008


I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

Capablanca-Fan
22-07-2008, 05:26 PM
Poor people can't worry about global warming (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/14/do1401.xml)
By Janet Daley
Telegraph (UK) 14/07/2008

This article is from the UK, but the same principles apply here:


...

What we are up against is not just grab-a-headline, ill-thought out, desperate policy-making on the hoof — although there is plenty of that. It is something larger: a crisis of political coherence is what I would call it, being of a philosophical bent. You may think that too high-flown and abstract, so let me put it in concrete terms.

There are two prevailing fashions dominating the political scene, whose aims and effects are in direct contradiction with one another. But that does not prevent virtually all of the political parties in the Western democracies from attempting to embrace both at the same time.

They are global warming and the mission to eradicate poverty. What scarcely any leader seems prepared to admit (although they are all coming bang up against the reality of it) is that the objectives and tactics involved in forwarding the cause of preventing global warming are inimical to the cause of fighting poverty on a national and an international level.

Have a look at life in a place like Glasgow East (as many goggle-eyed media types are doing for the first time) and ask yourself: "What are the people here likely to say to you if you tell them that the most important issue for life in Britain is how to get more people to recycle their rubbish?"

There is not just a question of how actual environmental legislation is likely to affect the daily lives of poorer people (making their cars, fuel, home heating and food cost more) but of the apparent disregard for what they would regard as national priorities: when you are jobless and the rising cost of transport makes it inconceivable for you to travel to look for work; when the cost of decent food is climbing out of your reach, and your household energy bills are unaffordable, you are unlikely to see the contentious arguments for long-term climate change as the most urgent item on the political agenda.

Global warming is a worry that can be indulged by the richer sections of the populations of the richer countries.

Never mind Glasgow East, there is a damned good reason why the governments of India and China, whose populations are only just discovering the joys of economic growth and the mass prosperity that it brings, should be unhelpful when their rich, self-regarding counterparts try to drag them into agreements which would trap them in the endemic poverty they have endured for generations.

A freeze on further use of the cheaper routes to wealth production (which involve the more carbon-emitting fuels) and those wasteful paths to modern development which the West was happy to tread before it scared itself silly over a slight rise in global temperature, would mean reversing the startling progress that is pulling the peoples of India and China out of material deprivation — and the despair that accompanies it.

Not to mention the peoples of Africa who have scarcely begun their journey and whose frequent descent into mass starvation is rightly seen - by the same politicians who were, until about 20 minutes ago, demanding that world food crops be turned into fuel — as the great conscientious crusade of the generation.

...
Green taxes almost always take the form of extra charges which take no account of income — whether it is vehicle excise duty or water metering — and that means that they affect the poor much more than the rich. Special compensation schemes in which the very poor get some relief simply create another poverty trap in which any improvement in earnings means a loss of benefit: the last thing we need in a country already overly dependent on benefits.

We are about to reach the end of this political game: "incoherence" may be a fancy word bandied about by political policy obsessives like me, but voters know a contradiction when they see one — especially when they end up paying for it. You can be the party of the environment or you can be the party of the poor, but you can't be both — at least not at the same time.

Desmond
23-07-2008, 10:26 AM
No smoking hot spot (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html)

David Evans 18 July 2008

This is an interesting article.

Capablanca-Fan
27-07-2008, 12:43 PM
Art Raiche, former Chief Research Scientist of the CSIRO, says the organisation’s fear-mongering over climate change can’t be trusted:


Sadly, over the last decade, CSIRO has transformed itself from a once-respected research institute into a highly centralised, government enterprise (oxymoron?), replete with intersecting layers of expensive management, focused on continual reorganisation. Scientific independence has been lost, with scientists reduced to the status of process workers. Initiative is still permitted provided that it can pass through a complex set of business criteria set by managers who, for the most part, would lack the competence to hold similar jobs in private industry .

For this reason CSIRO no longer attracts top young scientists except as an employer of last resort. In this case, they leave as soon as opportunity permits. Most of the good senior people have left either through better job opportunities, retirement or redundancy. Corporate memory from its productive years has been erased in a quite deliberate fashion. It employs a much higher percentage of second and third rate people than was the case two decades ago. In short, much of CSIRO can now be regarded as a sheltered workshop.

As an example, consider the Garnaut Report, possibly the longest economic suicide note in Australia’s history. It is based on the dire predictions of CSIRO’ s modelling programs.

...

But CSIRO ignores these reservations and continues its role in hopes that they prove that organisation’s relevance by scaring the populace. Those who are interested in this subject, should read an important article in the Melbourne Age from Bill Kininmonth, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation. He is author of Climate Change: A Natural Hazard (Multi-science Publishing, 2004

http://business.theage.com.au/why-so-much-climate-change-talk-is-hot-air-20080707-34iz.html


read more (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/csiro_heavy_says_dont_trust_csiros_scares/).

Kevin Bonham
29-07-2008, 11:33 PM
There were some interesting findings in a Newspoll on climate change released today. Unfortunately the questions were not properly designed to get the most out of it (sigh!) but we do know the following (from memory without the results in front of me):

* Almost everyone (well over 80%) thinks climate change is happening.

* Of the almost everyone, about a third think it is entirely human-driven and very few think it is entirely natural. Unfortunately the majority were lumped as thinking some of it was human-driven. A breakdown of whether some means most, about half, or a small proportion would have been extremely useful here.

* Those expressing skeptical responses tend to be pro-Coalition.

Adamski
30-07-2008, 09:55 PM
See Andrewe Bolt's blog (again) at http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_pige_in_a_poke_would_be_a_better_bet/P40/
Talks about how easy it is to twist poll results = like 77% of Australians support Rudd's drive to tackle climate change. This poll has similar problems to the one referred to by KB.
The best part of this blog entry is the classic YouTube piece from Yes Minister at the end of the article.:P

Kevin Bonham
30-07-2008, 10:14 PM
See Andrewe Bolt's blog (again) at http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_pige_in_a_poke_would_be_a_better_bet/P40/
Talks about how easy it is to twist poll results = like 77% of Australians support Rudd's drive to tackle climate change. This poll has similar problems to the one referred to by KB.

Actually Bolt doesn't demonstrate any particular problems or any twisting with that poll at all. He simply has problems believing it.

He may be right, because people are notoriously prone to say "yes" to pollsters on feelgood questions where there is some stigma attached to a negative response, and this is a very difficult thing to get around. But I'm not sure that's all there is to it.

Bolt asks:

Can it really be true that so many people want to pay more than they know for something they don’t understand, don’t know will work and don’t see other countries wanting to touch?

I'd say it can in principle be true and the question is: is it?

Axiom
30-07-2008, 10:27 PM
Where is the public debate , all we get is one side at a time , never the battle between both sides ?
Think about this , as it starkly reveals the lack of debate in general about major issues.

Rincewind
30-07-2008, 10:40 PM
Countering a climate of scepticism

The evidence and reviews support the case for global warming, argues scientist Roger Jones

Roger Jones wrote this piece (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24097594-25192,00.html) which appeared in the Higher Ed supplement of The Australian today.

pax
30-07-2008, 10:54 PM
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

It doesn't say what sort of consultant he was. Since David Evans is an electrical engineer and not a climate scientist, I suspect he was not working in a scientific capacity but rather a technical one.

Capablanca-Fan
31-07-2008, 02:50 AM
Countering a climate of scepticism

The evidence and reviews support the case for global warming, argues scientist Roger Jones

Roger Jones wrote this piece (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24097594-25192,00.html) which appeared in the Higher Ed supplement of The Australian today.
Hardly anything of substance here, just more CSIRO self-justification for their climate funding. See for example CSIRO: A Limited Hang out?? (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3338#comments)
By Steve McIntyre

Rincewind
31-07-2008, 09:02 AM
Hardly anything of substance here, just more CSIRO self-justification for their climate funding.

I agree it is low on substance and there is zero content on the heart of the issue as I see it. Putting human produced carbon emissions into the models.

pax
31-07-2008, 11:30 AM
It doesn't say what sort of consultant he was. Since David Evans is an electrical engineer and not a climate scientist, I suspect he was not working in a scientific capacity but rather a technical one.
In fact, Dr David Evans was writing software for the Greenhouse Office. As such, one should not be misled into believing he is some sort of climate expert.

Capablanca-Fan
31-07-2008, 01:39 PM
I agree it is low on substance and there is zero content on the heart of the issue as I see it. Putting human produced carbon emissions into the models.
And Australia's is 1.5% of global emissions. Why should we wreck our economy if China and India will continue to grow their emissions which will swamp any savings we make? Indeed, the effect of KRudd's scheme will be even less, because a number of our countries will relocate to those places so there will be no global savings anyway.

Capablanca-Fan
31-07-2008, 01:41 PM
In fact, Dr David Evans was writing software for the Greenhouse Office. As such, one should not be misled into believing he is some sort of climate expert.
But Dr Evans' point is that all the predictions rely on modelling, with which he had much to do, and the models just haven't matched the actual data. That's why he has turned from a climate change believer into a skeptic.

pax
31-07-2008, 03:29 PM
But Dr Evans' point is that all the predictions rely on modelling, with which he had much to do, and the models just haven't matched the actual data. That's why he has turned from a climate change believer into a skeptic.


"In 1999, he got married but then crashed on the stock market and had to get a job. He started working as a consultant for the Australian Greenhouse Office where he wrote the software which the Australian Government uses to calculate its land-use carbon accounts for the Kyoto Protocol. Entitled FullCAM, the software models forests and agricultural systems and their exchanges of carbon with the atmosphere. It models individual plots, estates of plots, and spatial arrays of plots connected to spatial information such as rainfall, temperature, soil type, farming practices, and satellite images of clearing and revegetation."

He wrote software for carbon accounting, which has very little to do with the actual science of climate change.

He may or may not be right, but I cannot see any evidence that he is an expert on the subject. If he is right, I wonder why we have not seen the same argument put by actual climate science experts.

Capablanca-Fan
01-08-2008, 02:23 AM
What chance now for carbon pact? (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/1,9191,24103931-664,00.html)
31 July 2008


Terry McCrann points out that the collapse of the latest talks to liberalise world trade just makes Chairman Rudd’s stupid gesture politics even more asinine:

CHINA didn’t just bury the trade negotiations overnight Tuesday. It killed any prospect of a global agreement to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

This makes Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) an even more pointless exercise in utter - but nevertheless potentially devastating - futility.

We would set about cutting global emissions by almost undetectable amounts while China would be pumping out 10 or 100 times as much.

But nevertheless ‘achieving’ two big outcomes. Imposing great costs on ordinary and every Australian, and destroying the economy.

In an exercise in classic, that’s unintended, krudd irony, the prime minister described the collapse of the trade talks as a ‘body blow’ to the world economy.

Yes, prime minister. Given that the collapse will do arguably one-hundredth of the damage to the world economy that your ETS scheme would do if you got your way and had it globally imposed.

Capablanca-Fan
18-08-2008, 01:12 PM
60 Minutes is actually fairly balanced (http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=614370), and asks Chairman Rudd tough questions and gives time to those who haven't genuflected to the warming faith. Unfortunately they allowed him to get away with "4000 IPCC scientists". More like 2500 at most, and a number of those 2500 don’t stand by the IPCC conclusion on man’s effect on the climate (http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32), and others were not even consulted over the report’s main "finding" (http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC_review_updated_analysis.pdf).

Spiny Norman
18-08-2008, 02:33 PM
I like PM Rudd's false dichotomy at the end of that article:

PM KEVIN RUDD: Look at your kids in the eye tonight and ask yourself this question - "If we have this much evidence available to us now "on climate change and just refuse to act, "then what are the consequences for them?" The alternative, however, is to just stick your head in the sand and hope it all goes away.
It might be an alternative, but its not the only alternative ... so to him I say: Baloney!

Desmond
18-08-2008, 02:50 PM
David Evans chats with 60 mins viewers: (http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=616122)


Dr David Evans: Australian weather patterns are dominated by the pacific decadal osolation (PDO), there are periods of about 40-50 years when El-Nino dominate and there are period of about 40 years or so when lanigo dominate. The result is that Australian's weather systems goes for about 40 years or so of drought, and then 40 years of so of floods. As far as I am aware, this pattern hasn't changed and will probably continue into the future. Satellite data since 1979 indicate that the Southern hemisphere has no existed any global warming, as it happens, global warming is a pheromone that only effects the Northern hemisphere. Global warming and weather are influence by clouds, rain and water vapour all these issues are very closely tired together. I don't think any one fully understands them yet.(my bolding) :eek:

Spiny Norman
18-08-2008, 03:38 PM
Phee-u-ee!!!

Capablanca-Fan
18-08-2008, 03:40 PM
David Evans chats with 60 mins viewers: (http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=616122)

(my bolding) :eek:
But was "pheromone" a bad transcript (so not an error by Dr Evans at all) or was it really his slip of the tongue. Should go on mangled sayings ;)

Desmond
18-08-2008, 03:44 PM
But was "pheromone" a bad transcript (so not an error by Dr Evans at all) or was it really his slip of the tongue. Should go on mangled sayings ;)I wasn't meaning to highlight that word, but rather that global warming is a northern hemisphere thingy. I didn't know that. Is that correct?

Spiny Norman
18-08-2008, 04:03 PM
According to David Archibald:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

(ref: page 1) ... yes, satellite data shows the northern hemisphere slightly warmer, and the southern hemisphere the same as it was 30 years ago.

pax
18-08-2008, 04:17 PM
I wasn't meaning to highlight that word, but rather that global warming is a northern hemisphere thingy. I didn't know that. Is that correct?
It's garbage, as far as I can gather. NCDC publish collated data for Northern and Southern hemispheres here (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html). There is no graph of the Southern data, so I plotted it.

http://www.paxmans.net/temp/temp_anomaly2.png

There is an excellent correlation between the Northern and Southern averages.

Spiny Norman
18-08-2008, 04:18 PM
Steve McIntyre quotes the same data:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=831

Spiny Norman
18-08-2008, 04:20 PM
pax, did you graph the satellite dataset ... or something else? its alleged that the land figures are contaminated by urban heat island effect, so the reliable figures to use are the satellite datasets (of which we have almost 30 years of data).

pax
18-08-2008, 04:26 PM
But was "pheromone" a bad transcript

Looks like the whole thing is a completely mangled transcript. 60 minutes should sack whoever is responsible and hire someone who can actually speak English (or write it at least).



Dr David Evans: Australian weather patterns are dominated by the pacific decadal osolation (PDO), there are periods of about 40-50 years when El-Nino dominate and there are period of about 40 years or so when lanigo dominate. The result is that Australian's weather systems goes for about 40 years or so of drought, and then 40 years of so of floods. As far as I am aware, this pattern hasn't changed and will probably continue into the future. Satellite data since 1979 indicate that the Southern hemisphere has no existed any global warming, as it happens, global warming is a pheromone that only effects the Northern hemisphere. Global warming and weather are influence by clouds, rain and water vapour all these issues are very closely tired together. I don't think any one fully understands them yet.

pax
18-08-2008, 04:31 PM
pax, did you graph the satellite dataset ... or something else? its alleged that the land figures are contaminated by urban heat island effect, so the reliable figures to use are the satellite datasets (of which we have almost 30 years of data).

If you read the link, you will see that it is surface data. Contaminated or not, it is sufficient to see that Northern and Southern temperature data is very well correlated.

Spiny Norman
18-08-2008, 04:34 PM
If you read the link, you will see that it is surface data. Contaminated or not, it is sufficient to see that Northern and Southern temperature data is very well correlated.
Then it would seem the claim doesn't apply to that dataset, but rather to the satellite data ...

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2008, 12:08 AM
Looks like the whole thing is a completely mangled transcript. 60 minutes should sack whoever is responsible and hire someone who can actually speak English (or write it at least).

ABC transcripts are also quite often mangled. I wonder if some of these things are done by some kind of dodgy voice-recognition software rather than actual human beings.

Capablanca-Fan
19-08-2008, 01:27 PM
No wonder the warm-mongers don't want a debate: the last debate actually changed the minds of the audience (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5AC1C0D6-802A-23AD-4A8C-EE5A888DFE7E) (57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a “crisis” to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of skepticism) and we can't have that!

Skeptical quotes from Novelist Michael Crichton:


"I would like to suggest a few symbolic actions that right—might really mean something. One of them, which is very simple, 99% of the American population doesn’t care, is ban private jets. Nobody needs to fly in them, ban them now. And, and in addition, [APPLAUSE] "Let’s have the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets. They must get their houses off the [electrical] grid. They must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously? [APPLAUSE]"

"I suddenly think about my friends, you know, getting on their private jets. And I think, well, you know, maybe they have the right idea. Maybe all that we have to do is mouth a few platitudes, show a good, expression of concern on our faces, buy a Prius, drive it around for a while and give it to the maid, attend a few fundraisers and you’re done. Because, actually, all anybody really wants to do is talk about it."

"I mean, haven’t we actually raised temperatures so much that we, as stewards of the planet, have to act? These are the questions that friends of mine ask as they are getting on board their private jets to fly to their second and third homes. [LAUGHTER]"

"Everyday 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty. There are, a third of the planet doesn’t have electricity. We have a billion people with no clean water. We have half a billion people going to bed hungry every night. Do we care about this? It seems that we don’t. It seems that we would rather look a hundred years into the future than pay attention to what’s going on now. I think that's unacceptable. I think that’s really a disgrace."
Skeptical quotes of University of London’s emeritus professor of biogeography Philip Stott:


"What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his house. [LAUGHTER] But it is a very serious point."

"In the early 20th century, 95% of scientists believe in eugenics. [LAUGHTER] Science does not progress by consensus, it progresses by falsification and by what we call paradigm shifts."

"The first Earth Day in America claimed the following, that because of global cooling, the population of America would have collapsed to 22 million by the year 2000. And of the average calorie intake of the average American would be wait for this, 2,400 calories, would good it were. [LAUGHTER] It’s nonsense and very dangerous. And what we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes."

“And can I remind everybody that IPCC that we keep talking about, very honestly admits that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind climate change. Well let’s use an engineer; I don’t think I’d want to cross Brooklyn Bridge if it were built by an engineer who only understood 80% of the forces on that bridge. [LAUGHTER]”

Axiom
19-08-2008, 05:54 PM
/\ /\ /\ /\

nice post jono

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


..... the warm-mongers make me angrier by the day.

Jono good to see you've seen through the propaganda on this subject, i would only ask that you re examine your belief systems re other major lies like our western militarist propaganda and the war on terror.

Spiny Norman
27-08-2008, 12:04 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295

... and there was I thinking the science was settled ...

Spiny Norman
27-08-2008, 04:19 PM
Another bit of light entertainment:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/chuck_it_again_schmidt.pdf


Serial, serious failures of the computer models of climate
Schmidt does not rebut my point that the computer models upon which the UN’s climate panel unwisely founds its entire case have failed and failed and failed again to predict major events in the real climate. The models had not projected the current multidecadal stasis in “global warming”:

no rise in temperatures since 1998;
falling temperatures since late 2001;
temperatures not expected to set a new record until 2015 (Keenlyside et al., 2008);
nor (until trained ex post facto) did they predict the fall in TS from 1940-1975;
nor 50 years’ cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the Arctic (Soon, 2005);
nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006; Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007);
nor the behavior of the great ocean oscillations (Lindzen, 2007),
nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age;
nor the decline since 2000 in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC, 2007);
nor the active 2004 hurricane season;
nor the inactive subsequent seasons;
nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously);
nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solanki et al., 2005);
nor the consequent surface “global warming” on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and even distant Pluto;
nor the eerily-continuing 2006 solar minimum;
nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8 °C in surface temperature from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century

Axiom
27-08-2008, 05:43 PM
Another bit of light entertainment:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/chuck_it_again_schmidt.pdf
reminds me of the absurd conclusions derived from NIST's computer modelling of the collapse of building 7 , coming up with the fanciful "thermal expansion" theory !

Kevin Bonham
27-08-2008, 09:20 PM
The models had not projected the current multidecadal stasis in “global warming”:

Did the models make explicit attempts to predict temperatures over such a short time frame as the years leading up to 2008, and if so what were the predictions?

I'm more than a little wary of sceptics who make claims based on the record of the last 5-10 years without discussing the impact of the well-known multi-year-cycle El Nino/La Nina on what they are talking about. Actually whenever a sceptic fails to discuss the oscillation at all, I dismiss their contribution. This is not to say that the oscillation cannot be accommodated within a sceptical position, but being able to discuss it seems a fair prerequisite for being considered to have the slightest clue about the issue.

Spiny Norman
28-08-2008, 07:33 AM
Monckton has a reasonable "bio" and has published sceptical articles which have been peer reviewed.

Lord Christopher Monckton, UK, - Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley was Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986, and gave policy advice on technical issues such as warship hydrodynamics (his work led to his appointment as the youngest Trustee of the Hales Trophy forthe Blue Riband of the Atlantic), psephological modeling (predicting the result of the 1983 General Election to within one seat), embryological research, hydrogeology (leading to the award of major financial assistance to a Commonwealth country for the construction of a very successful hydroelectric scheme), public-service investment analysis(leading to savings of tens of billions of pounds), public welfare modeling (his model of the UK tax and benefit system was, at the time, more detailed than the Treasury's economic model, and led to a major simplification of the housing benefit system) and epidemiological analysis. On leaving 10 Downing Street, he established a successful specialist consultancy company, giving technical advice to corporations and governments. His two articles in the Sunday Telegraph late in 2006 debunking the climate-change "consensus" received more hits to the newspaper's website than almost any other in the paper's history before the volume of hits caused the link to crash.
Have you read the paper above? Keep in mind that its a rebuttal of specific claims. If you want to read his views on global warming generally, you'd need to Google for them.

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2008, 10:44 PM
Have you read the paper above? Keep in mind that its a rebuttal of specific claims.

Indeed more specifically it is a rebuttal of a rebuttal to specific claims.

I found his original paper as well as the one you linked to and I see that he demonstrated that projections of temperature in a paper by Hansen (1988) that was adopted/agreed with by IPCC (1990) are wrong. Given the advancement of the debate since I am surprised he does not debunk more recent examples in the same light.

However it is also amusing to note that in his original article he certainly does mention the El Nino oscillation and accuses IPCC's modelling of failing to take account of it (which is one possible reason for the errors he refers to).


psephological modeling (predicting the result of the 1983 General Election to within one seat),

!!!

But of course psephology has nothing to do with climate science whatsoever, except in countries with optional voting.

Impressive as that feat is, I would be more impressed if he was trumpeting that he had done the same thing for 1993.

I get the impression he's a pretty bright cookie.

Spiny Norman
29-08-2008, 06:04 AM
Heh heh ... yeah, I thought you'd perk up at the psephological reference. :lol: Yes, it doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with climate science "as such", however he seems to be quite a modelling expert, hence his interest in the modelling side of climate predictions. Undoubtedly a bright chappie.

Capablanca-Fan
29-08-2008, 01:00 PM
Andrew Bolt points out that more people die of cold weather than hot, so global warming might actually save lives (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_sick_of_the_scare/):

Here, for instance, is a recent Adelaide University study—Temperature and direct effects on population health in Brisbane, 1986-1995 — published in the Journal of Environmental Health:


“Death rates were around 50-80 per 100,000 in June, July, and August (winter), while they were around 30-50 per 100,000 in the rest of the year.

“It is understandable that more deaths would occur in winters in cold or temperate regions, but even in a subtropical region . . . a decrease in temperatures (in winters) may increase human mortality.”

It’s the same story over in New Zealand, a University of Otago study confirmed last year:


“From 1980-2000, around 1600 excess winter deaths occurred each year with winter mortality rates 18 per cent higher than expected from non-winter rates.”

So winters kill and, yes, your growing suspicions are indeed correct: global warming could cause fewer people to die from the temperature.

Of the many studies I could quote, here is one from the British Medical Journal in 2000, by scientists from Britain, Italy, the Netherlands and Finland, that also explains why a cold snap is deadlier than a heat wave:


“All regions showed more annual cold-related mortality than heat-related mortality . . .

“Some of those who died in the heat may not have lived long if a heatwave had not occurred. Mortality often falls below baseline for several days after the end of a heatwave . . . indicating that some of the people dying during the heatwave were already close to death . . .

“Falls in temperature in winter are closely followed by increased mortality, suggesting that most excess winter deaths are due to relatively direct effects of cold on the population.”

Heat carries off those already dying, but cold kills the healthy, too.

Concludes that study:


“Our data suggest that any increases in mortality due to increased temperatures would be outweighed by much larger short-term declines in cold related mortalities.”

Got that? Rising temperatures will actually be healthier.

A review article by University of London researchers in the Southern Medical Journal three years ago makes the same point:


“The rise in temperature of 3.6F expected over the next 50 years would increase heat-related deaths in Britain by about 2000 but reduce cold-related deaths by about 20,000.”

Kevin Bonham
29-08-2008, 09:21 PM
Yes, it doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with climate science "as such", however he seems to be quite a modelling expert, hence his interest in the modelling side of climate predictions. Undoubtedly a bright chappie.

Psephologists are more impressed by a track record of repeated close predictions with relatively few big misses than a single near bullseye. It would be interesting to know if he's applied the same model to subsequent elections and with what results. Unfortunately it seems like he ran that model because he was employed by the Thatcher administration to do so, rather than as part of an ongoing process.

pax
29-08-2008, 10:09 PM
Andrew Bolt points out that more people die of cold weather than hot, so global warming might actually save lives (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_sick_of_the_scare/):

I wish you guys would make up your minds.. One minute it's "global warming is not happening", next it's "global warming might happening, but it's not man made", then it's "global warming might be happening, and it might be man-made, but think of the great bananas" :owned: :owned: :owned:

Igor_Goldenberg
30-08-2008, 01:02 AM
I wish you guys would make up your minds.. One minute it's "global warming is not happening", next it's "global warming might happening, but it's not man made", then it's "global warming might be happening, and it might be man-made, but think of the great bananas" :owned: :owned: :owned:
I think we've been there before, check post 658 (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=191292&postcount=658)

Capablanca-Fan
05-09-2008, 02:49 PM
Solar Panels 'Take 100 Years to Pay Back Installation Costs'Solar Panels Take 100 Years to Break Even, Say Surveyors (http://www.redorbit.com/modules/news/tools.php?tool=print&id=1541562)

Even one of their own lobbyists estimated 13 years, which is highly optimistic.

Capablanca-Fan
07-09-2008, 08:07 PM
Garnaut exposes Rudd: doing nothing is actually cheaper (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/garnaut_exposes_rudd_doing_nothing_is_actually_che aper/)
Andrew Bolt – Sunday, September 07, 08 (06:16 pm)

Kevin Rudd repeatedly claims (http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2008/speech_0294.cfm)we cannot afford to do nothing about global warming:


All are familiar with the fact that the economic cost of inaction on climate change is far greater than the economic cost of action on climate change.

But Piers Akerman discovers that Rudd is now contradicted even by his own global warming guru, Professor Ross Garnaut (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24304472-5001030,00.html):


In his July 4 draft, [Garnaut] stated that the cost of no mitigation — that is, if no action were taken on so-called greenhouse gases — would be minus 0.7 per cent of GDP in 2020.

In his new paper he presents three scenarios for carbon-emission reductions by 2020.

At an “as-soon-as-possible’’ level of 450 ppm (parts per million) he says the cost would be minus 1.6 per cent of GDP.

At the “first best’’ conditional offer of 550 ppm the cost would be minus 1.1 per cent of GDP.

If a second-best “Copenhagen compromise’’ was followed, the cost would be minus 1.3 per cent of GDP.

It is highly revealing that in presenting his first specific trajectories and estimated costs of emissions reduction, Professor Garnaut has found that the cost of reducing emissions is greater than the cost of doing nothing — although that is not how he sold his paper.

Southpaw Jim
07-09-2008, 09:49 PM
But Piers Akerman discovers that...
he still gets paid for misrepresenting things. I don't mind the Bolter, but quoting hAckerman is really scraping the bottom of the op-ed barrel.

I think it's fairly damned obvious that Rudd, in talking about the costs of doing nothing, was talking of a greater timeframe than 2020.

What, perchance, does Garnaut say about the effect of unmitigated climate change on GDP by 2100? How about its effect on consumption? Wages? Did you read Garnaut's report? :doh:

What does the MMRF modeling say about GNP growth to 2100 assuming we engage in mitigation to achieve 550ppm CO2 equivalents?

Or do you unquestioningly believe what hAckerman says? :hmm:

stevenlhs
08-09-2008, 09:21 AM
I think he's made some astute recommendations. Both Rudd/Garnaut are familiar with how Beijing will be viewing this.

The 'conservative target' is probably designed at bringing the Chinese to the table. Without a global agreement, this whole thing is a bit of a shambles.

I do also think that nuclear should be on the table, that there is a case for removing the RET imposed on electricity sector (let the market decide), and that some of the industries crying out for compensation don't have a case.

Getting a global ETS may also be a bit too tough - why not carbon tax?

Capablanca-Fan
08-09-2008, 09:32 AM
he still gets paid for misrepresenting things. I don't mind the Bolter, but quoting hAckerman is really scraping the bottom of the op-ed barrel.
Evidently you swallow anything by that master of gesture politics, Chairman KRudd, who was only too willing to swallow anything by Garnaut, in turn only too willing to swallow the IPCC produced by the monumentally currupt thugocracy, the UN.

But Blind Freddie's deaf guide dog could discern that it's crass to screw up our economy when it won't make a blind bit of difference as long as China and India are expanding their economies and producing more CO2.

Southpaw Jim
08-09-2008, 09:42 AM
Getting a global ETS may also be a bit too tough - why not carbon tax?
The aim isn't to get a global ETS - although that has advantages in that emissions permits can be traded.

The aim is to get global agreement on an emissions cap (ie 550ppm), and how countries meet that (tax, ETS, whatever) is up to them. Garnaut is recommending 550ppm more because 450/400ppm is simply unfeasible given global growth momentum. It can't be done.

Jono - I haven't swallowed anything by either Rudd or Garnaut. I'm simply pointing out the facts - Garnaut's report does not prove Rudd was misleading anyone about the costs. It quite clearly states that the costs of doing nothing will be 8 per cent of GDP, 10 per cent of GNP and consumption, and 12 per cent of wages by 2100. It also states that the MMRF modeling shows that, under the 550ppm mitigation strategy, GNP growth will be slowed by about -0.2% until about 2060, and thereafter GNP growth actually benefits to the tune of about +0.2%.

Whether climate change is happening, and whether the IPCC work can be trusted are separate matters entirely from the point that hAckerman was attempting to obfuscate. I am skeptical, but I'm not a denialist.

stevenlhs
08-09-2008, 10:50 AM
[QUOTE=Southpaw Jim]The aim isn't to get a global ETS - although that has advantages in that emissions permits can be traded.

Here's an interesting read about a global carbon market, put out by the Potsdam Institute in Germany.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/publications-1/PIK_Linking%20ETS_2007_engl-1.pdf

Capablanca-Fan
09-09-2008, 07:07 PM
It's official: the world is cooling, not warming (http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2008aug30_cover.html)
To cut CO2 emissions to combat a non-existent threat will end up hurting the world's poor, writes Peter Westmore.

Southpaw Jim
09-09-2008, 10:13 PM
Hmm, quoting an article from a "news" site that appears to be a right-wing Judeo-Christian propaganda machine, whose policy on the environment is:


Acceptance of our obligation not to squander the resources we have inherited and to leave them in good condition, but opposition to treating trees and animals as being equal to human beings.

? and Jono complains about the leftist media... hardly an impartial commentator!

I make no comment on the work of the Danish scientists, except to say that it is not accepted fact that there is a causal link between sun cycles and Earth temperatures AFAIK.

And certainly, the oceanographers that my father used to work alongside at CSIRO seem to be strongly of the view that there's something going on with ocean temperatures that is not natural. I tend to be more persuaded by their opinions, rather than unverifiable internet sources on the topic.

Part of the problem with this is that there's no single discipline of climate science. To have a hope of understanding what might be happening, you need to be an expert in physics, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, chemistry, etc.

More worryingly, the same article quotes Arthur Robinson's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Robinson_(chemist)) Global Warming Petition Project, as having over 30,000 scientists petitioning against Kyoto etc. This appears to be a rebirthing of his Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine) fraudulent Oregon Petition (http://www.desmogblog.com/infamous-oregon-global-warming-petition-alive-and-well) from 1998, a con which also involved one scientist linked to the tobacco industry, two scientists linked to the petrochemical industry, and his son, Zachary. All with the assistance of the Exxon-backed George C Marshall Institute. Understandably, the misleading nature of this "petition", which included Dr Geri Halliwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geri_halliwell) as a signatory, was disavowed by the National Academy of Sciences.

Here's one from a week or so ago, especially for Jono: Mann's Hockey Stick is alive and kicking! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7592575.stm)

Capablanca-Fan
10-09-2008, 12:00 AM
Hmm, quoting an article from a "news" site that appears to be a right-wing Judeo-Christian propaganda machine,
Our lefty evidently prefers left-wing misotheism propaganda machines.


whose policy on the environment is:
Rather than the lefties whom Czech president and Ph.D. economist Václav Klaus nailed as looking for an excuse to control people's lives, which Lefty Jim loves:


“Global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth-versus-propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the ‘established’ truth, although a lot of people—including top-class scientists—see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities.

“As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.”


? and Jono complains about the leftist media... hardly an impartial commentator!
At least conservatives are open about being conservative. The Leftmedia are blind to their own bias.


More worryingly, the same article quotes Arthur Robinson's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Robinson_(chemist)) Global Warming Petition Project, as having over 30,000 scientists petitioning against Kyoto etc.
Like these (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/17/32-000-deniers.aspx)?


a con which also involved one scientist linked to the tobacco industry, two scientists linked to the petrochemical industry, and his son, Zachary.
Algore himself was a long-term tobacco promoter (http://www.realchange.org/gore.htm), hypocrite!


All with the assistance of the Exxon-backed George C Marshall Institute.
Ah, right, like a typical lefty, "Exxon funding baaaad, far greater government funding for the warm-mongering agenda, good.


Here's one from a week or so ago, especially for Jono: Mann's Hockey Stick is alive and kicking! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7592575.stm)
Ignoring all the problems with it, both statistical (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html)(the same pattern was produced using Mannian methods even with noise entered as data) and historical (ignoring the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age (http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf))

Spiny Norman
10-09-2008, 06:33 AM
Here's one from a week or so ago, especially for Jono: Mann's Hockey Stick is alive and kicking! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7592575.stm)
Only in Mann's mind. Perhaps it would be worthwhile reading some of the critical analysis of Mann's latest rubbish:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3573

Here's an example comment on Mann from one climate researcher:

I have spent the last two days immersed in climate reconstruction. The further I get the worse it gets. I can't wait to see how these curves are weighted compared to the rest.

I really had no idea that the science was this crazy. I can't get my head around how you throw out perfectly good data which has a poor fit at the end of a graph while keeping other perfectly good data using the same method which happens to have an upslope. It gives you a better hockey stick but I don't see how it's justified. Also, why would you keep known bad data? The more confused I get the more clear the answer gets.

I noticed he uses a single sided P correlation for eliminating most of the data, am I correct in saying that a single sided positive slope correlation rejects data with a negative slope component more strongly? Does anyone know how that is justified?

Southpaw Jim
10-09-2008, 08:39 AM
Our lefty evidently prefers left-wing misotheism propaganda machines.
Ah, the 'm' word. Does that make you a misoconservationist?



Rather than the lefties whom Czech president and Ph.D. economist Václav Klaus nailed <snip>
Obfuscatory, attempting to divert attention from the clearly anthropocentric view of the environment espoused by Mr Westmore and his website.


At least conservatives are open about being conservative. The Leftmedia are blind to their own bias.
Ah yes. It may be an independent media source, but because it clashes with Jono's worldview, it's clearly part of the Leftmedia and doesn't know it...


Like these?
What, another blogger citing Seitz and Robinson? Pfft. Wonder where he sourced his "facts" from...

It's well documented that the definition of "scientist" required by the petition is very broad, that your scientific qualifications don't have to have any relevance to climate-related sciences (how many medical doctors are signatories?), and that you don't even have to list your employing organisation.

Even I could sign the damned thing!!!

And I don't consider myself to know enough about the scientific evidence to say either way whether anthropogenic climate change is, or is not, occurring.


Algore himself was a long-term tobacco promoter, hypocrite!
Funny. The only people who ever mention Al Gore, who everyone knows to be an activist, not a scientific authority, are denialists like yourself.


Ah, right, like a typical lefty, "Exxon funding baaaad, far greater government funding for the warm-mongering agenda, good.
Strange that I don't trust a petrochemical company's motives in supporting a fraudulent petition that rails against the Kyoto protocol and the theory of climate change. Conflict of interest, much?


Ignoring all the problems with it, both statistical (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html)(the same pattern was produced using Mannian methods even with noise entered as data) and historical (ignoring the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age (http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf))
Oh, I don't set too much store in Mann's work, I'm well aware of his statistical issues. I just thought you'd have fun with it ;)

Capablanca-Fan
10-09-2008, 10:10 AM
Ah, the 'm' word. Does that make you a misoconservationist?
Who says I hate genuine conservation, as opposed to envirofascism that will screw the economy and hurt the poor disproportionately (KRudd married to a millionaire won't feel the pain of hugely increased fuel and electricity costs; alGore will grow even filthier rich).


Obfuscatory, attempting to divert attention from the clearly anthropocentric view of the environment espoused by Mr Westmore and his website.
Better anthropocentric than misanthropic like that fraudulent doom-monger Paul R. Ehrlich and his modern-day clones like Eric Pianka (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4246) and John Reid (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4853).


And I don't consider myself to know enough about the scientific evidence to say either way whether anthropogenic climate change is, or is not, occurring.
Good. Then why gamble with our economy?

Likewise, most of the IPCC bureaucrats and Layba politicians haven't a clue about the science. But with a chance to increase control of people's lives and rake in more tax, how could they refuse?


Funny. The only people who ever mention Al Gore, who everyone knows to be an activist, not a scientific authority, are denialists like yourself.
Yet his lying film was compulsory viewing in schools in a number of countries, including the UK before a court found 11 errors (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5417/).


Strange that I don't trust a petrochemical company's motives in supporting a fraudulent petition that rails against the Kyoto protocol and the theory of climate change. Conflict of interest, much?
And of course, global warm-mongers funded by government have no conflict of interest although they dare not anger their paymasters.


Oh, I don't set too much store in Mann's work, I'm well aware of his statistical issues. I just thought you'd have fun with it ;)
I.e. a bluff. Typical of warm-mongers.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-09-2008, 10:28 AM
And certainly, the oceanographers that my father used to work alongside at CSIRO seem to be strongly of the view that there's something going on with ocean temperatures that is not natural.
Must be big oil/freemason/zionist conspiracy in their quest for world government. Axiom will probably have more first-hand information on the matter:D

On a serious note - what exactly is goring on with the ocean temperatures?

Southpaw Jim
10-09-2008, 12:59 PM
Who says I hate genuine conservation
Who says I hate genuine religion, as opposed to religio-political propaganda?


alGore will grow even filthier rich
There you go mentioning Gore again. Your obsession, not mine.


And I don't consider myself to know enough about the scientific evidence to say either way whether anthropogenic climate change is, or is not, occurring.

Good. Then why gamble with our economy?
This is the problem. We’re potentially gambling with our childrens’ future. I don’t like that thought. As Garnaut says, it’s a diabolical problem.

Personally, I’d rather suffer a small hit to GDP than risk permanent environmental damage. It’s kind of like insurance – you don’t like paying for it, but if your house burned down due to a rare electrical fault and wasn’t insured…


Funny. The only people who ever mention Al Gore, who everyone knows to be an activist, not a scientific authority, are denialists like yourself.

Yet his lying film was compulsory viewing in schools in a number of countries, including the UK before a court found 11 errors.
There you go again, trotting out the same old stuff about Gore. You’re pretty much the only person on here that pays attention to him.

Do many climate scientists cite Gore when talking about anthropogenic climate change? I suspect not. He’s just a straw man that denialists like to trot out to support their arguments.


And of course, global warm-mongers funded by government have no conflict of interest although they dare not anger their paymasters.
You’re beginning to sound like Axiom.


Originally Posted by Southpaw Jim
Oh, I don't set too much store in Mann's work, I'm well aware of his statistical issues. I just thought you'd have fun with it

I.e. a bluff. Typical of warm-mongers.
You are missing the distinction between ‘bluff’ and ‘wind-up’…


On a serious note - what exactly is goring on with the ocean temperatures?
My limited understanding of the work that’s been done is that there’s been found to be warming in the surface temperatures in the Southern Ocean. There is also significant cooling and increased salinity of the deep ocean waters. These may/will have an effect on the level of nutrients in the water, the incidence of phytoplankton in the surface waters, and therefore reduce fish stocks. The warming of the surface waters will also impact on ice formation/melting in the Antarctic.

Capablanca-Fan
10-09-2008, 02:14 PM
Who says I hate genuine religion, as opposed to religio-political propaganda?
I.e. you don't hate genuine religion, stipulatively defined as that which is for all practical purposes indistinguishable from your own atheistic lefty faith.


There you go mentioning Gore again. Your obsession, not mine.
My obsession? How about the NoBull Peace Prize, educrats who force-feed his crockumentary to schoolkids ...


This is the problem. We’re potentially gambling with our childrens’ future. I don’t like that thought. As Garnaut says, it’s a diabolical problem.
Yet it is dangerous to base policy on just one man's opinions.


Personally, I’d rather suffer a small hit to GDP than risk permanent environmental damage. It’s kind of like insurance — you don’t like paying for it, but if your house burned down due to a rare electrical fault and wasn’t insured…
Insurance is one thing, crippling our economy is quite another. And it won't make a blind bit of difference to world CO2 levels as long as China and India intend to grow their economies using fossil fuels. All it will do it drive our own industries over there, with no global change in CO2 emissions.


You’re beginning to sound like Axiom.
I was trying to sound like Thomas Sowell in his book Knowledge and Decisions, praised by Hayek and Friedman. It is folly to think that only private money is corrupting, but not government money. Sowell has applied this to warm-mongering:


Academics who jump on the global warming bandwagon (http://townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=global_warming_swindle&ns=ThomasSowell&dt=03/15/2007&page=full&comments=true)are far more likely to get big research grants than those who express doubts — and research is the lifeblood of an academic career at leading universities.

Environmental movements around the world are committed to global warming hysteria and nowhere more so than on college and university campuses, where they can harass those who say otherwise.
...

Sometimes it is not the data but the money that is used to limit who can do studies on controversial issues (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1682075/posts). Advocates of "global warming" have access to all sorts of government research money but skeptics and critics can depend on no such largess and may even be risking their careers by angering bureaucrats who have staked a lot on this crusade and who control the purse strings.

Sowell also points out non-monetary incentives in this book, and has applied it to warm-mongers (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=976):


Politicians and government bureaucrats have been trying for well over a decade to sell a doomsday scenario of global warming, which would enhance the powers of — you guessed it — politicians and bureaucrats.

It is reminiscent of the 70s doom-mongering about overpopulation, widespread famines in the West, and a coming global ice age.


You are missing the distinction between ‘bluff’ and ‘wind-up’…
That this absurd hockey stick has influenced government policy in such a costly way is no wind-up matter.

Capablanca-Fan
11-09-2008, 05:08 PM
On a trajectory to nowhere (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24326897-36281,00.html)
Terry McCrann
11 September 2008

The Garnaut report on climate change. ...

Or an exercise in utter futility? Further, futility that is both mindless and dishonest; and yet would impose real and significant costs on Australia and all Australians, living and future.

Costs imposed simply and only to demonstrate our bona fides to a world presumably waiting on our leadership.

The new left 21st century version of the cultural cringe.

...

Broadly, that if the world agreed to target 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we should commit to cutting our emissions in 2020 by 25 per cent from 2000 levels.

That if the world agreed to target 550ppm, we should aim to cut by 10 per cent. And if there was no agreement we should still aim to cut by 5 per cent.

What could be more realistic than that? Tying what we did to what the world did. Carefully balancing maximum — if not optimum — climate outcomes against economic cost to Australia.

...

If there was no global agreement — Garnaut actually defines it as the developed world plus China — why on earth should we still cut?

A course that Garnaut himself estimates would cost the equivalent of 1.3 per cent of GDP in 2020. A cost, that is actually way too low, because of dodgy discounting.

We would be cutting and hurting ourselves — not just the overall economy, but people directly with the higher prices charged for energy — to absolutely no point.

Businesses and industries would leave Australia, to go to places where there were no or limited restrictions on carbon emissions.

In short, we would still get all the climate impact of rising carbon emissions, while paying a unique and pointless cost.

The report itself actually if unintentionally damns such stupidity. It says (p21): "The optimal level of Australian mitigation effort — the level that maximised the incomes and wealth of Australians — is easily calculated. It would be zero."

That's to say, forget about all those angels on the head of a pin calculations about the various costs and benefits of different reduction strategies, one thing is crystal clear.

Doing nothing maximises our wealth and income over every other alternative.

...

First, that whatever we do in Australia is completely, completely, irrelevant to any climate outcome. Importantly in this context of a national psychosis of cognitive dissonance, irrelevant further to our local climate.

People actually believe that if we cut our emissions, we will save the Barrier Reef.

Sorry, our emissions can go to zero, and the Reef is still hostage to what the rest of the world does. Actually to what China does.

The basic point is that if we cut, and hurt Australians, it will make no difference if the rest of the world/China keeps on keeping on.

What tends not to be discerned, is the opposite. That if we cut and the rest of the world also cuts, our cuts still make absolutely no difference.

Garnaut is exactly wrong when he characterises this as a classic prisoners dilemma. There is no dilemma. We can get no benefit, no benefit, from cutting. Whatever the rest of the world does.

And that's the second unarguable point, which even Garnaut does not argue. To cut carbon emissions is to hurt. You can play around with models, but that is simply undeniable.

Put the two together, and the reality is clear. We certainly shouldn't embark on gratuitous cuts.

...

Aaron Guthrie
11-09-2008, 07:04 PM
Garnaut is exactly wrong when he characterises this as a classic prisoners dilemma. There is no dilemma. We can get no benefit, no benefit, from cutting. Whatever the rest of the world does.But that is exactly the point. In prisoners dilemma's the best option for an individual is always to betray their fellow prisoner. But the best option for both (in total years spent in prison) is that neither cheats. So that our best option is always to cut doesn't show this is not a prisoners dilemma.

Southpaw Jim
11-09-2008, 09:24 PM
Oh look, Jono's quoting yet another right-wing hack who's selectively quoting Garnaut. Quelle suprise.

Here's the passage from pp.21 and 22 about Australia in the global context in full:


6 DOES AUSTRALIA MATTER FOR GLOBAL MITIGATION?
Only effective global action can solve the climate change problem. Australia is the source of only 1.5 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. So does Australian action have any effect on global warming?

If our own mitigation efforts had no effect at all on what others did, we could define our own targets and trajectories, and approaches to their realisation, independently of others’ perceptions or reactions. We could enjoy the benefits of reduced risk of climate change from others’ actions, without accepting our share of the costs. The optimal level of Australian mitigation effort—the level that maximised the incomes and wealth of Australians—is easily calculated. It would be zero. That is not far from the stance of Australian policy until recent times.

Whether we like it or not, Australia matters.

Australia’s relevance to the international policy discussion has been apparent in the period since early 2001. The fact that Australia had joined the Bush administration in not ratifying the Kyoto agreement that we had each negotiated was a key fact in the American domestic discussion. Australia was presented as evidence that the Bush administration was not alone in developed countries.

All countries, Australia and the United States among them, agreed in United Nations meetings in Kyoto in 1997, that all developed countries would accept certain obligations. While the Review’s analysis demonstrates that, going forward, a substantial majority of the increment of emissions will come from developing countries (Chapter 4, Draft Report), the international community has agreed that the first steps in mitigation would be taken by developed countries. This gives every developed country a veto on substantial progress on global mitigation: the failure of any one of them to do what it said that it would do, would make it unlikely that the necessary following steps would be taken by major developing countries. We played that veto card.

There are more general reasons why Australia may be influential to global outcomes.

There is a role for countries of substantial but moderate weight—for ‘middle powers’—in taking the initiative in leading global diplomacy on issues in which they have major interests. Global warming passes the interest test for Australia, as we are likely to be the developed country that is most damaged by a failure of effective global action. Australia—at times for good and at times for ill—has demonstrated on many issues at many times in history that it is effective in a ‘middle power’ diplomatic role, developing ideas to shape international cooperation, and persuading others that cooperation is in their own interest. APEC is one example.

Australia has some unusual diplomatic assets in the developing countries that are centrally important to successful global mitigation policy. Chinese policy is crucial to a successful global outcome. A history of close and productive cooperation on domestic and international policy through the reform period gives Australia a strong base for cooperation with China. The close and well-developed relationships with Indonesia (the world’s third largest emitter of greenhouse gases in absolute terms) and Papua New Guinea (a large emitter in per capita terms, and one playing a global leadership role among less developed countries on greenhouse emissions policies) raise special opportunities.

The world, and especially developing countries, needs models of successful transition to low emissions while maintaining economic growth. Australia’s established market economy and economic dynamism, with particular skills and natural resources in areas of special importance to the low-carbon economy, will be assets in making a successful transition, showing that it can be done.

Although it may miss our attention, others notice, and think it relevant, that Australia’s economic strength in the early 21st century derives to a considerable degree from the higher terms of trade associated with the strong economic growth in Asian developing countries. They notice that strong growth in the Asian economies, and exceptional Australian prosperity, is the other side of the coin to the heightened urgency of the global warming problem.

Because Australia matters, we cannot contribute positively to an effective global agreement, and at the same time pick a trajectory for our own country’s reduction in greenhouse gases that keeps costs low for us, without assessing whether this would be consistent with a global agreement to solve the problem.

This has implications for the emissions reductions that we would need to accept as part of a global agreement to limit concentrations to 450 ppm. The simple arithmetic, as explained in Section 5, says that a 450 stabilisation objective would require global emissions to fall by 50 per cent by 2050 for the world as a whole. As demonstrated in Chapters 4, 11, 12 and 13 of the Draft Report, the huge momentum of developing countries’ emissions growth makes it impossible for that global goal to be reached without developed countries accepting much deeper cuts than 60 per cent.

It would help Australians to face some of these realities if we were more realistic about where we stand among developed countries in taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is claimed by many Australians—some who want their country to be in a leadership position, and some who do not—that we are, or are about to be, ahead of other developed countries on greenhouse gas abatement.

Australia is in no danger of leading the world in greenhouse gas mitigation. In comprehensive national efforts at mitigation, it ranks behind all of the 27 European countries.
There's more on pages 23 and following, but you get the picture.

Oh, and Manga's right. It is a Prisoner's Dilemma. Garnaut's point is that if the whole world acts independently of each other, nothing will be achieved. The cooperation that is impossible in the Prisoner's Dilemma is crucial to defeating the problem. In the Dilemma, communication is not possible. Garnaut is saying that in the present circumstances, countries can only communicate through their actions.

McCrann misses the point. True, our cuts will make no difference to global emissions per se. But actions speak louder than words..

And Jono obviously still hasn't bothered to read Garnaut's reports.

If anyone else is interested, they can be found here! (http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/pages/reports,-papers-and-specialist-submissions)

Capablanca-Fan
11-09-2008, 10:45 PM
Oh look, Jono's quoting yet another right-wing hack who's selectively quoting Garnaut.
Terry McCrann a right wing hack? Must be Lefty Jim's term for anyone who isn't a lefty.


McCrann misses the point. True, our cuts will make no difference to global emissions per se. But actions speak louder than words..
But our actions won't speak at all Anyone who thinks that huge Chine and India will screw their economies because low-population Australia wants to commit economic seppuku has kangaroos bouncing around in the top paddock.


And Jono obviously still hasn't bothered to read Garnaut's reports.
Chairman KRudd's handpicked warm-monger who hasn't a clue about science?

Southpaw Jim
11-09-2008, 11:07 PM
Chairman KRudd's handpicked warm-monger who hasn't a clue about science?
I'm fine with you criticising Garnaut if you want to, but do us all a favour and stop quoting media articles that are selective and misleading - it's just plain irritating.

Criticise Garnaut for what he says, not what News Ltd would like people to think he says :wall:

Oh, and just quietly, I don't think Garnaut actually thinks China will sign up - but the guy's got a job (ie Terms of Reference (http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/GarnautClimateChangeReviewTermsofReference2007/$File/Garnaut%20Climate%20Change%20Review%20Terms%20of%2 0Reference%202007.pdf)) to do.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-09-2008, 10:43 AM
Oh, and Manga's right. It is a Prisoner's Dilemma. Garnaut's point is that if the whole world acts independently of each other, nothing will be achieved. The cooperation that is impossible in the Prisoner's Dilemma is crucial to defeating the problem. In the Dilemma, communication is not possible. Garnaut is saying that in the present circumstances, countries can only communicate through their actions.


I agree, it is a "Prisoner's Dilemma". Actually, it is "tragedy of the commons" (which is a more general case).
Tragedy of the commons is used to show why communism does not work without forced coercion. In case of global warming it means proposed solution will not work without world government that can force sovereign nations to do as it's pleased.

Conspirologist would say it's a quest by big oil/freemason/zionist, etc. etc. group to establish new world order. I personally do not think so, but it's a bonanza for bureaucrats and special interest groups (that are de facto rulers of the developed democratic countries) around the world.

IMHO, there is a lot of environmental problems (with far worse implications then global warming) that each country can address on their own. Most of them would not even require a massive government interference, just a few smart changes. However, it leaves no place for heroes quest (a la Al Gore), luxurious Bali conference, huge research grant, numerous committees and, which is also very important, feeling that one is saving the whole planet. It just requires diligent work, mostly on local levels.

Tragedy of the common is not something to be dismissed lightly. It shows major underlying problems. It also means that any cost of proposed solution must be multiplied many times to get realistic figure. Most likely it'll mean that the cost of doing nothing is far less then cost of any proposed solution.

My summary - clean the water, clean the air, solve other environmental problem, then look at the climate change.

And another point - global warming activist should seriously check their egos if they think we should make a drastic change to the Earth climate instead of adapting to inevitable changes that happen irrespectively of human activity.

Capablanca-Fan
13-09-2008, 12:14 PM
Oh, and just quietly, I don't think Garnaut actually thinks China will sign up - but the guy's got a job (ie Terms of Reference (http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/GarnautClimateChangeReviewTermsofReference2007/$File/Garnaut%20Climate%20Change%20Review%20Terms%20of%2 0Reference%202007.pdf)) to do.
The Olympics should show how moronic it is to expect China to follow Australia's lead on committing economic suicide combatting climate change. Remember, the Olympics were supposed to supposed to influence China into Western notions of tolerance; instead, Western journalists were influenced to helping China gag criticisms of its human rights abuses.

It's also dangerous to base policy on one man, esp. one who faces no consequences for being wrong.

Capablanca-Fan
18-09-2008, 10:22 AM
Greenwashing a jury (http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2076951/greenwashing-a-jury.thtml)
Mealnie Phillips
The Spectator, 11 September 2008


Britain’s astounding retreat from reason is now legitimising anarchy. A jury has solemnly decided that it is ok to break the law and cause more than £35,000 criminal damage to a coal-fired power station because of the threat of man-made global warming. The Independent reports:

In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage. Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a ‘lawful excuse’ to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change.
...
And yet a British jury thinks it justifies criminal damage and suspending the rule of law. Such is the power of brain washing. Terrifying.

Kevin Bonham
18-09-2008, 09:31 PM
*sigh* I'd say this proves that juries can be silly, but so can judges in plenty of similar cases involving activists.

Of course, it could be that the prosecution was incompetent.

Spiny Norman
22-09-2008, 03:44 PM
For those interested in following the progressive destruction (or otherwise) of the Arctic ice pack, this website is the best I've yet found, as its updated daily:

http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Spiny Norman
24-09-2008, 10:31 AM
Mann and hockey sticks ... selective use of data in order to skew results:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/online-experiment-with-the-latest-hockey-stick/

Spiny Norman
24-09-2008, 10:41 AM
Or perhaps this might tickle your fancy ... a statistical analysis conducted by, gasp, a real bloody statistician (Professor level, no less):
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/09/06/do-not-smooth-times-series-you-hockey-puck/

Mann's hockey stick is looking sick. Then there's this little gem ... it seems our own CSIRO is getting caught up in the statistical analysis wars:
http://landshape.org/stats/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/article.pdf


In a statistical re-analysis of the data from the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report, all climate models failed standard internal validation tests for regional droughted area in Australia over the last century. The most worrying failure was that simulations showed increases in droughted area over the last century in all regions, while the observed trends in drought decreased in five of the seven regions identified in the CSIRO/Bureau of Meteorology report. Therefore there is no credible basis for the claims of increasing frequency of Exceptional Circumstances declarations made in the report. These results are consistent with other studies finding lack of adequate validation in global warming effects modeling, and lack of skill of climate models at the regional scale.

Capablanca-Fan
01-10-2008, 05:57 PM
Eat kangaroo to help combat climate change: Ross Garnaut (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24428038-601,00.html)
Samantha Maiden and Christian Kerr
The Australian, 1 October 2008

Kevin Bonham
01-10-2008, 10:02 PM
Eat kangaroo to help combat climate change: Ross Garnaut (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24428038-601,00.html)
Samantha Maiden and Christian Kerr
The Australian, 1 October 2008

There are extremely strong environmental arguments for Australians eating more roo and wallaby meat irrespective of climate change. Cattle are very damaging in Australia in terms of the amount of land needed to support them, the degree of alienation of the environment involved in doing so, and their impact on bush areas they are permitted into.

I don't go out of my way to get roo but if it is on the menu at a restaurant I will frequently choose it over species not native to Aus.

Rincewind
01-10-2008, 10:08 PM
I don't go out of my way to get roo but if it is on the menu at a restaurant I will frequently choose it over species not native to Aus.

My brother hit one the other day. It made a sizable dent in the truck he was driving. He didn't go out of his way to get it either.

Desmond
02-10-2008, 08:58 AM
I don't mind eating roo now and then, but I don't think I will be changing my dietary habits just because Ross Garaut sez so.

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2008, 09:17 AM
I don't mind eating roo now and then, but I don't think I will be changing my dietary habits just because Ross Garaut sez so.
I've eaten it before, and it wasn't too bad. But I doubt that I could persuade my wife, and I still prefer lamb and rare beef steak.

During the Depression, many Australians hunted rabbit. This might be a necessary skill once more, if our economy turns out to be as shaky as the Yanx'.

Capablanca-Fan
13-10-2008, 10:29 AM
Malcolm Talkbull now faults Howard for denying the global warming faith (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24485168-953,00.html):


"What the former government failed to recognise was that Kyoto had become a sacramental issue. It had become a very symbolic issue," he told The Courier-Mail

Capablanca-Fan
22-10-2008, 11:15 AM
Emeritus Professor Chris Ollier (http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Mountains-Cliff-Ollier/dp/0415198909), a geologist of the University of Western Australia, sees clear parallels between global warming science and Lysenkoism (http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/Entries/2008/10/17_Guest_Essay%3A_Lysenkoism_and_GW_.html), Stalin’s own bogus neo-Lamarckian evolutionary ”science”:


Work first through political organisations;
Claim that the science is settled. There is nothing to debate;
Disregard, or deny, all the accumulating evidence that the predictions might be wrong;
Demonise the opposition (Mendelian geneticists; ‘Global Warming’ Deniers);
Victimise the opposition (execution and exile; loss of jobs or research funds, public and media humiliation);
Relate to a current ideology (Stalinism; Environmentalism);
Support a vast propaganda machine; and,
Create a huge bureaucracy where many people have careers dependent upon ‘the ruling concept’.

Spiny Norman
26-10-2008, 07:37 AM
Claims that the Arctic would soon be "ice free" are looking a bit sick this year. Whilst last year (2007) things did substantially melt away, this year (2008) things are rapidly icing up again, and it would appear that the Actic will be back to roughly average again soon. Graph here:
http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

Looks like the polar bears are safe for another year at least.

Spiny Norman
30-10-2008, 06:03 PM
30 years of global warming go "poof":
http://www.nationalpost.com/893554.bin

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx


On the same day (Sept. 5) that areas of southern Brazil were recording one of their latest winter snowfalls ever and entering what turned out to be their coldest September in a century, Brazilian meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart explained that extreme cold or snowfall events in his country have always been tied to "a negative PDO" or Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Positive PDOs -- El Ninos -- produce above-average temperatures in South America while negative ones -- La Ninas -- produce below average ones.

Dr. Hackbart also pointed out that periods of solar inactivity known as "solar minimums" magnify cold spells on his continent. So, given that August was the first month since 1913 in which no sunspot activity was recorded -- none -- and during which solar winds were at a 50-year low, he was not surprised that Brazilians were suffering (for them) a brutal cold snap. "This is no coincidence," he said as he scoffed at the notion that manmade carbon emissions had more impact than the sun and oceans on global climate.

<snip>

Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, "It's practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling," as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an "almost exact correlation" between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost "no correlation at all with CO2."

An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, "Man-made global warming is junk science," explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration ... This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number."

Other international scientists have called the manmade warming theory a "hoax," a "fraud" and simply "not credible."

While not stooping to such name-calling, weather-satellite scientists David Douglass of the University of Rochester and John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville nonetheless dealt the True Believers a devastating blow last month.

For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide."

Igor_Goldenberg
31-10-2008, 08:26 AM
30 years of global warming go "poof":

I think it is self evident from the graph that the curve is going to make a U-turn and go up sharply, thus confirming global warming hypothesis.

Capablanca-Fan
31-10-2008, 09:17 AM
Britons snowed (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/britons_snowed/)
Andrew Bolt
30 Oct 2008

Inside the British Parliament:


The UK Climate Change Bill passed another hurdle last night as MPs voted by a massive majority of 460 to back the amended bill …

Meanwhile, on the roof of the British Parliament:


Snow came down in London - the first October dusting since 1934.

Desmond
31-10-2008, 09:40 AM
Britons snowed (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/britons_snowed/)
Andrew Bolt
30 Oct 2008

Inside the British Parliament:


The UK Climate Change Bill passed another hurdle last night as MPs voted by a massive majority of 460 to back the amended bill …

Meanwhile, on the roof of the British Parliament:


Snow came down in London - the first October dusting since 1934.:lol:

Kevin Bonham
31-10-2008, 07:53 PM
Inside the British Parliament:


The UK Climate Change Bill passed another hurdle last night as MPs voted by a massive majority of 460 to back the amended bill …

Meanwhile, on the roof of the British Parliament:


Snow came down in London - the first October dusting since 1934.

Of course, supporters of climate change theory would have no issue with this, since they generally propose that climate will become warmer overall but also more erratic.

The quote above does however remind me of the time in 1986 Tasmanian Premier Robin Gray, who was rather fond of strong-arm tactics, was accused of being a dictator and responded "The day I am a dictator there will be snow on the post office steps". A few months later Hobart had its heaviest snowfall in several decades and the post office steps did not escape a dusting.

Capablanca-Fan
05-11-2008, 09:06 PM
I just received cute pics of my Kiwi nieces and nephew playing in snow, with the caption Snow in November!!

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2008, 02:17 PM
The price of dissent on global warming (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24700827-7583,00.html)
David Bellamy,
The Australian 25 November 2008


WHEN I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didn't believe what we were being told about global warming, I had no idea what the consequences would be. I am a scientist and I have to follow the directions of science, but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my opinions.

According to official data, in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that? The sad fact is that since I said I didn't believe human beings caused global warming, I've not been allowed to make a television program.

My absence has been noticed, because wherever I go I meet people who say: "I grew up with you on the television, where are you now?"
...

The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. I'm still an environmentalist, I'm still a Green and I'm still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world. But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming "problem" that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world. Being ignored by the likes of the BBC does not really bother me, not when there are bigger problems at stake.

I might not be on TV any more but I still go around the world campaigning about these important issues. For example, we must stop the destruction of tropical rainforests, something I've been saying for 35 years.

Mother nature will balance things out, but not if we interfere by destroying rainforests and overfishing the seas. That is where the real environmental catastrophe could occur. David Bellamy is a botanist, author of 35 books, and has presented 400 television programs.

Spiny Norman
01-12-2008, 09:53 AM
Does the solar system's movements around its centre of gravity provide a more reasonable and more accurate predictor of both sunspot cycles and global warming?

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

Capablanca-Fan
13-12-2008, 12:54 PM
Another Tax and More Politics: The ETS Proposed for Australia (http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/12/another-tax-and-more-politics-the-ets-proposed-for-australia/)
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D.

I am the Chair of The Australian Environment Foundation and we are planning an Internet campaign to oppose the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) proposed for Australia on the basis:


An ETS will not change the global temperature;
Will force many clean and green Australian industries overseas; and
Will make Australians poorer; while it is generally richer, not poorer nations that are better able to protect their natural environment.


We have a fundraising target of A$30,000 and already we have already raised just over $11,000 from donations. So we need another A$19,000.

The campaign website will be designed to help build a large online community; providing a place for action as well as information. Those who log on will be able to source information quickly as well as find their local MP so they can send him/her a message.

The website will be designed so that more than one campaign can be running at a time — and old campaigns can be archived. The campaign opposing the ETS will be just the first. The Australian Environment Foundation wants to be able to take a stand, and importantly help its members and supporters be heard, when decisions are being made against the weight of evidence.

So far donations have ranged from $25 to $2,000. Please make a contribution.

If you can make a financial contribution, please go to our website and donate through the PayPal facility using your credit card. http://www.aefweb.info/ .

If you prefer to use Internet banking: Australian Environment Foundation, BSB No: 013 308 Account No: 4978 00416.

Alternatively, send a cheque to the Australian Environment Foundation, PO Box 274, Deakin West, ACT 2600.

There is nothing honest or clever about the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme. It is just another tax and more politics.

Southpaw Jim
15-12-2008, 01:08 PM
Without commenting on the Australian Environment Foundation's stance on the ETS, I'd like to make the point that the Foundation is a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs (a conservative think-tank) to lobby on environmental issues in the interests of business. Amongst other things, they promote the interests of the logging industry, and are partly funded by Timber Communities Australia - a very one-eyed industry lobby group. They also promote the use of nuclear power and actively campaign against the concept of climate change.

In sum, the Foundation is hardly an environmental organisation as most people would think of one. But they probably are Jono's ideal "greenie group" :P

Southpaw Jim
15-12-2008, 01:19 PM
Will force many clean and green Australian industries overseas
Hang on, how in the hell does this make sense?

If they're clean and green, how does an ETS affect them?? Much less affect their profitability so much as to drive them offshore??

:eek: :wall:

Capablanca-Fan
15-12-2008, 03:05 PM
Hang on, how in the hell does this make sense?

If they're clean and green, how does an ETS affect them?? Much less affect their profitability so much as to drive them offshore??
Should be obvious (although not to a lefty devotee of the global warm-mongering faith): these are relative terms. They can be clean and green by most standards, yet still not clean and green for the Green-stapo that currently controls the government. They could easily relocate to China and India where they would be a breath of fresh air in those countries, so to speak, although still taxed horribly by the KRudd/PWong zealots. Similarly, the clean and green country NZ was also forced to pay billions of Kyoto dollars to dirtier countries like Russia.

Capablanca-Fan
15-12-2008, 03:13 PM
Without commenting on the Australian Environment Foundation's stance on the ETS, I'd like to make the point that the Foundation is a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs (a conservative think-tank)
How evil. Lefty think tanks are OK of course. Greenies are great, even though they are really watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside).


to lobby on environmental issues in the interests of business. Amongst other things, they promote the interests of the logging industry, and are partly funded by Timber Communities Australia - a very one-eyed industry lobby group. They also promote the use of nuclear power
What, do you prefer solar power or some such pie in the sky? One reason that some European countries are so "green" is precisely that much of their electricity is generated by nuclear powe.


and actively campaign against the concept of climate change.
More likely, the scaremongering and the huge opportunity costs of spending billions of fighting it compared with other far more efficient life-saving measures.


In sum, the Foundation is hardly an environmental organisation as most people would think of one. But they probably are Jono's ideal "greenie group" :P
They are, since wealth enables live-saving and environmentally sound practises. It's no accident that China and India are building more coal-fired stations, precisely because the increased energy will have far more benefits and costs. The only problem with wealth is that people who have plenty of it can indulge in pushing loopy policies since they won't have to bear the costs, as Sowell points out in The oldest fraud (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110504.asp).

Southpaw Jim
15-12-2008, 03:43 PM
How evil. Lefty think tanks are OK of course. Greenies are great, even though they are really watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside)
I didn't say there was anything wrong with right-wing think-tanks per se. I was just pointing out their political affiliation, since they don't seem to wish to advertise it themselves.

However, I'm not aware of any lefty think-tanks that masquerade as something they're really not for the purposes of FUD lobbying.


They can be clean and green by most standards, yet still not clean and green for the Green-stapo
Examples of high-emissions-but-otherwise-clean-and-green industries that would move offshore to avoid an ETS?

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2008, 10:56 AM
I didn't say there was anything wrong with right-wing think-tanks per se. I was just pointing out their political affiliation, since they don't seem to wish to advertise it themselves.
And one way the Leftmedia shows its bias is by always mentioning whether a person or think thank is "conservative" but never when they are "liberal".

A policy of slow strangulation (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24805600-5000117,00.html)
Terry McCrann
16 December 2008


THE government’s anti-carbon white paper is Kevin Rudd’s long, very long, national suicide note… It can achieve absolutely nothing, in terms of any perceived climate outcomes, but it will hurt all Australians and damage the economy…

There are three devastatingly critical consequences of building the whole edifice of the ETS - Emissions Trading Scheme - even with an initial supposedly innocuous target.

The first is the edifice itself. A whole new structure of regulation and bureaucracy. And huge opportunities for main-chancers to play profitable games around the carbon permits.

Boy, could we see them already. They were falling out of the trees yesterday to 'welcome' and 'comment on' the scheme; salivating at the prospect of billions of dollars of economic rents to be plucked.

...

Secondly, even at the low-start it triggers a massive increase in the government's behaviour as taxer and redistributor.

In each of its first two years the government will get around $12 billion from issuing permits. These 'permits' are a tax is a tax is a tax.

The revenue they will raise will be greater than the last — and I do mean ‘the last’ — round of tax cuts. And in succeeding years, the revenue starts to accelerate.

The government though is not intending to keep the money. But to dole it back out to offset the impact of the increased cost of carbon emissions.

Like with petrol. We'll have to pay more to use petrol. But, in the ultimate craziness, we'll be compensated for that extra cost! How exactly does that persuade anyone to switch to an alternative?

So on the key levels of actually changing behaviour, the scheme won't have any impact. On another it will have a deadly impact.

It will stop the building of another single coal-fired power station. Whether black or brown, the most sensible form of power generation in Australia.

While of course China will happily build many more, and take our coal to power them. Or somebody else's coal.

There will be two consequences. Less electricity and more erratic electricity as the grid tries to incorporate a dramatic expansion in useless wind 'power'.

In short, in time, electricity rationing just like the water rationing most of our cities have experienced — or now are. And random blackouts.

It is a nonsense, and depressingly confirms how theology has supplanted rational analysis even in Treasury, to claim this embarks on a replay of the tariff reductions of the 1980s.

Those were to remove artificially imposed costs on the Australian economy. The ETS is precisely the opposite: to impose artificial costs on the Australian economy.

... Rudd becomes the first prime minister to specifically set out to make Australia and Australians poorer.

Desmond
16-12-2008, 11:19 AM
Speaking of media bias, is The News Hour with Jim Lehrer left-biased, right-biased, or pretty much balanced?