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
16-12-2008, 11:24 AM
Speaking of media bias, is The News Hour with Jim Lehrer left-biased, right-biased, or pretty much balanced?
Don't know enough about that one, sorry, since I've never watched it.

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2008, 11:25 AM
Reuters analysis (http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSTRE4BE1ON20081215) of Chairman KRudd's grandiose ETS:


The only clear, outright winners from Australia’s climate-change policy unveiled on Monday are the accountants and lawyers who will have to make sense of it.

Losers, on the other hand, are everywhere.

Desmond
16-12-2008, 11:48 AM
Don't know enough about that one, sorry, since I've never watched it.You might be interested in their discussion on the auto industry bailout.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/sbblago_12-12.html

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2008, 01:48 PM
You might be interested in their discussion on the auto industry bailout.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/sbblago_12-12.html
Thanks for that, as well as for the Blagojevich scandal discussion on the same page.

Spiny Norman
20-12-2008, 10:24 AM
Prof. Bob Carter talks on climate change (strongly recommended watching!):

Part #1:
FOLkze-9GcI

Part #2 of 4:
vN06JSi-SW8

Part #3 of 4:
iCXDISLXTaY

Part #4 of 4:
bpQQGFZHSno

Spiny Norman
20-12-2008, 10:47 AM
... also this ... part #1:

NFHZOYtAztU

and part #2:

W9IHKfzDdn8

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2008, 12:48 AM
Pretty good those above!

Here's something that Lomborg also pointed out: we have more to fear from cold than warmth, so maybe global warming might be a good thing!

The Deadliest U.S. Natural Hazard: Extreme Cold (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/18/the-deadliest-us-natural-hazard-extreme-cold/)

Of course we all know that the human race has historically done better during warm periods. While we’ve seen a sloght warming in the last century, we’ve also seen a worldwide improvement in the human condition.

Warm - what’s not to like?

Spiny Norman
01-01-2009, 07:39 AM
I knew it had been a cold December down here in VIC:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/temp_maps.cgi?variable=maxanom&area=nat&period=month&time=latest

Capablanca-Fan
13-01-2009, 04:12 PM
Thank God for Carbon: Overview (http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/TGFC-Overview.php)
Ray Evans

Despite the gravity of the economic crisis arising from the collapse of financial and credit markets in the US and from thence to Europe and to the rest of the world, the Rudd Government continues to proceed with drafting legislation which will require emitters of carbon dioxide, notably coal-fired power stations, to purchase permits to continue to operate. This scheme of decarbonisation is based on the notion that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (the consequence of burning fossil fuels) have caused, and will continue to cause, global warming. Because 'carbon' fits more easily into newspaper headlines than does 'carbon dioxide', carbon has been substituted for carbon dioxide in political discourse, and has become the target of legislation.

In Europe, such a scheme, known as an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), has led to rapidly increasing energy costs and severe political tensions between EU nations and between governments and their peoples. An ETS is a euphemism for a carbon tax, but because in Australia it will be a tax imposed primarily on our energy-intensive industries, it will have particularly adverse consequences for our export industries and our import-competing industries. Many rural and urban enterprises will collapse. Investment in our energy-intensive industries will cease, and within a few years electricity blackouts will become commonplace. Britain is now facing this prospect in the forthcoming northern winter.

The arguments advanced in support of restructuring Australia's industries to a 'carbon restricted' economy are based on the theory that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic climate change. It is claimed that burning fossil fuels during the twentieth century has caused global temperatures to rise and that unless these emissions are drastically curtailed the world will reach a 'tipping point' that will trigger 'runaway global warming'. It is claimed that it will be the end of the world as we have known it for thousands of years.

...

The conclusion that carbon dioxide is a pollutant has no scientific foundation, and when carbon itself is regarded as a 'pollutant' the situation is utterly non-scientific. Furthermore, attempts to decarbonise the Australian economy in order to forestall climate catastrophe will have zero impact on our climate, but will be very damaging to our economy.

Capablanca-Fan
19-01-2009, 05:08 PM
Global Warming: Truth or Propaganda? (http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/global-warming-truth-or-propaganda)
Originally published in Financial Times.

Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, argues in the Financial Times (http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/global-warming-truth-or-propaganda) that ambitious environmentalism is the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity.

Mr Klaus writes that "global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem" and the issue "is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature."

Do you agree? Or do small climate changes demand far-reaching restrictive measures?

Following an overwhelming response from readers, Mr Klaus has answered a selection of questions from the hundreds that were submitted (http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/global-warming-truth-or-propaganda).
...
Mr. Klaus, I believe, has asked the wrong question, and in doing so, is in danger of under-cutting his main point, which is the danger to personal freedom of a top-down, single-government approach to managing the problem of global warming. Instead of trying to ask, is global warming a REAL problem?, Mr Klaus should ask - and then provide his answer - the question: Assuming global warming is a REAL, global issue, how can we manage this problem on a global scale while also expanding personal freedom and economic welfare? I would be very interested in hearing his response to this question.
Robert Bruegel, Denver, Colorado

Vaclav Klaus: I ask myself several questions. Let's put them in the proper sequence:

Is global warming a reality?
If it is a reality, is it man-made?
If it is a reality, is it a problem? Will the people in the world, and now I have to say "globally", better-off or worse-off due to small increases of global temperature?
If it is a reality, and if it is a problem, can men prevent it or stop it? Can any reasonable cost-benefit analysis justify anything - within the range of current proposals - to be done just now?
Surprisingly, we can say yes - with some degree of probability - only to the first question. To the remaining three my answer is no. And I am not alone in saying that. We are, however, still more or less the silent or silenced majority.
...

pax
19-01-2009, 06:29 PM
Surprisingly, we can say yes - with some degree of probability - only to the first question. To the remaining three my answer is no. And I am not alone in saying that. We are, however, still more or less the silent or silenced majority.
...

[ ] silent
[ ] majority

Bruce Oates
28-01-2009, 10:47 AM
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration today claim that climate change is irreversable for the next 1000 years.
That's a broad statement & not allowing for scientific advances that will be
possible over that period.

MichaelBaron
28-01-2009, 11:33 AM
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration today claim that climate change is irreversable for the next 1000 years.
That's a broad statement & not allowing for scientific advances that will be
possible over that period.

I am not a scientist but I am amazed that someone regards future developments to be predictable in such long run.

Spiny Norman
28-01-2009, 12:24 PM
Given that Greenland used to be green back about 1000AD when it was used for farming, and within a few hundred years that totally changed (the Middle Ages warm period disappeared) ... I'm surprised they can predict that with any certainty whatsoever.

The questions I have about such predictions: What model did they use to predict this? Have they run this model backwards in time using historical data ... and if they did, was it accurate?

Bruce Oates
28-01-2009, 01:54 PM
Quote
"Geoengineering to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere was not considered in the study. “Ideas about taking the carbon dioxide away after the world puts it in have been proposed, but right now those are very speculative,” said Solomon" Unquote

Sorry I did not see this in the initial short statement, but still ideas even
100 years from now could completely solve the problems.

Capablanca-Fan
28-01-2009, 06:16 PM
Any reason for the new thread, Bruce, rather than the existing one on the topic (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6637)?

Bruce Oates
28-01-2009, 09:55 PM
Didn't see it Jono, thanks for pointing me there. :confused:

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2009, 10:06 AM
California's claim of green jobs and prosperity is a sham. The crass environazi regulations cause "some of the highest energy prices in the country—nearly twice the national average" (http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_californias_environmentalism.html) so "heavy manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries have been fleeing the Golden State in droves for lower-cost locales." So CA now has huge unemployment:

California's 'Green Jobs' Experiment Isn't Going Well (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123336500319935517.html)
Stephen Moore
Wall Street Journal, 31 Jan 2009

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was all smiles in 2006 when he signed into law the toughest anti-global-warming regulations of any state. Mr. Schwarzenegger and his green supporters boasted that the regulations would steer California into a prosperous era of green jobs, renewable energy, and technological leadership. Instead, since 2007—in anticipation of the new mandates—California has led the nation in job losses.

The regulations created a cap-and-trade system, similar to proposed federal global-warming measures, by limiting the CO2 that utilities, trucking companies and other businesses can emit, and imposed steep new taxes on companies that exceed the caps.... Now, as the Golden State prepares to implement this regulatory scheme, employers are howling. It’s become clear to nearly everyone that the plan’s backers have underestimated its negative impact and exaggerated the benefits....

Harvard’s Robert Stavins, chairman of the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s economic advisory committee under Bill Clinton, told me that “...The report (recommending this emissions trading) was severely flawed and systematically underestimated costs.” ...

Meanwhile, the state is losing jobs, a lot of them. California’s unemployment rate hit 9.3% in December, up from 4.9% in December 2006… The state has the fourth-highest housing foreclosure rate in the nation, has lost more businesses than any state in recent years, and is facing a $40 billion deficit. With cap and trade firmly in place, the economic situation is only likely to get worse.

Bruce Oates
02-02-2009, 10:36 AM
California's claim of green jobs and prosperity is a sham. The crass environazi regulations cause "some of the highest energy prices in the country—nearly twice the national average" (http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_californias_environmentalism.html) so "heavy manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries have been fleeing the Golden State in droves for lower-cost locales." So CA now has huge unemployment:

California's 'Green Jobs' Experiment Isn't Going Well (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123336500319935517.html)
Stephen Moore
Wall Street Journal, 31 Jan 2009

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was all smiles in 2006 when he signed into law the toughest anti-global-warming regulations of any state. Mr. Schwarzenegger and his green supporters boasted that the regulations would steer California into a prosperous era of green jobs, renewable energy, and technological leadership. Instead, since 2007—in anticipation of the new mandates—California has led the nation in job losses.

The regulations created a cap-and-trade system, similar to proposed federal global-warming measures, by limiting the CO2 that utilities, trucking companies and other businesses can emit, and imposed steep new taxes on companies that exceed the caps.... Now, as the Golden State prepares to implement this regulatory scheme, employers are howling. It’s become clear to nearly everyone that the plan’s backers have underestimated its negative impact and exaggerated the benefits....

Harvard’s Robert Stavins, chairman of the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s economic advisory committee under Bill Clinton, told me that “...The report (recommending this emissions trading) was severely flawed and systematically underestimated costs.” ...

Meanwhile, the state is losing jobs, a lot of them. California’s unemployment rate hit 9.3% in December, up from 4.9% in December 2006… The state has the fourth-highest housing foreclosure rate in the nation, has lost more businesses than any state in recent years, and is facing a $40 billion deficit. With cap and trade firmly in place, the economic situation is only likely to get worse.

Sounds like the green policy is working, soon all their citizens will be living
under trees.

Capablanca-Fan
02-02-2009, 11:02 AM
Sounds like the green policy is working, soon all their citizens will be living under trees.
Yep, and global warming is likely to cause one in 12 British pensioners to die this winter (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/save_the_planet_kill_the_kids/), the coldest in 13 years, thanks in part to high energy prices worsened by warm-mongering zealotry.

Capablanca-Fan
04-02-2009, 01:43 PM
Heaven and Earth: Global Warming: The Missing Science (http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=7&products_id=103)
Ian Plimer


The hypothesis that humans can actually change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy. The hypothesis is rejected.

A new ignorance fills the yawning spiritual gap in Western society. Climate change politics is religious fundamentalism masquerading as science. Its triumph is computer models unrelated to observations in nature. There has been no critical due diligence of the science of climate change, dogma dominates, sceptics are pilloried and 17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance.

Recommended by Václav Klaus,
President of the EU, 2009:


"This is a very powerful, clear, understandable and extremely useful book. Ian Plimer fully exploits his unique scientific background in geology, his life-long academic experience, and his broad, truly interdisciplinary knowledge to dismantle the currently popular, politically correct but rationally untenable and indefensible position that the Earth is approaching catastrophic climate change and that we have to react – at all costs – to prevent it.

Professor Plimer argues that the undergoing climate change is not unprecedented in history and that the temperatures in the 20th Century are not outside the range of natural variability. He rejects the unscientific idea that the explanation of climate change can be reduced to one variable (CO2), the proposition that there is a strong relationship between measured temperature and CO2 emissions, and the almost religious belief that we will stop climate change by reducing CO2 emissions. He rightly assumes that humans will be able to adapt to any future coolings or warmings.

He also convincingly criticizes the UN, the IPCC, UK and US politicians as well as “Hollywood show business celebrities”. He strictly distinguishes science and environmental activism, politics and opportunism. The book I wrote two years ago “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” comes to very similar conclusions but I have to say that if I’d had a chance to read Professor Plimer’s book, my book would have been better."

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2009, 07:10 PM
Yep, and global warming is likely to cause one in 12 British pensioners to die this winter (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/save_the_planet_kill_the_kids/),

Likely? This is a claim by a pensioner lobby group; do you have any evidence as to what is the basis for their views?

Bruce Oates
05-02-2009, 09:46 AM
Likely? This is a claim by a pensioner lobby group; do you have any evidence as to what is the basis for their views?

Jono has an enormous time investment in religious matters, I don't think he
will have time for a British pensioner survey.
Some of them choose to wear kilts & live in cold old stone houses, that would
not help.
I heard some zoo's were shutting down due to the financial crisis, maybe reverting back
to animal skins for warmth is worth consideration or we can send them some wood-chips. :whistle:

Capablanca-Fan
05-02-2009, 06:46 PM
Flip-flop Flannery is a climate change opportunist (http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090205-Flip-flop-Flannery-is-a-climate-change-opportunist.html)
Clive Hamilton
Crikey 5 Feb 2009.

Capablanca-Fan
06-02-2009, 09:31 AM
Jono has an enormous time investment in religious matters, I don't think he
will have time for a British pensioner survey.
Some of them choose to wear kilts & live in cold old stone houses, that would
not help.
I heard some zoo's were shutting down due to the financial crisis, maybe reverting back
to animal skins for warmth is worth consideration or we can send them some wood-chips. :whistle:
Andrew Bolt writes in Killed in a green frenzy (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_killed_in_a_green_frenzy/) today:


Let’s look instead at Britain, now having its coldest winter in 13 years.

So vulnerable are the elderly to cold that a World Health Organisation report last year estimated that 40,000 Britons died every winter, and these “excess winter deaths are related to poor housing conditions—insufficient insulation, ineffective heating systems and fuel poverty”.

That’s right: 40,000 Britons die each year in the cold, often because they’re too poor for warming. Compare that to the just 50 Australians who may have died in the worst heatwave in a century.

The British Facility of Public Health even says it expects 8000 Britons to die for each degree that the cold dips below the winter average. And this winter is so severe that the National Pensioners Convention has warned that one in 12 old people may perish.

What’s true of England is true everywhere. The British Medical Journal in 2000 reported a study by scientists in Britain, Italy, Holland and France who found that “all regions showed more annual cold-related mortality than heat-related mortality”.

They concluded: “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.”

Understand, Clive? Rising temperatures will actually save lives.

Indeed, University of London researchers calculated in the Southern Medical Journal that in Britain, at least, a big warming over the next 50 years “would increase heat-related deaths in Britain by about 2000 but reduce cold-related deaths by about 20,000”.

So let’s agree on the evidence: cold is the real killer, and airconditioning saves us in summer, just as central heating can save the frail in winter.

Bruce Oates
06-02-2009, 10:44 AM
I agree with that Jono, even in Tasmania with our relatively mild winters
old folks with weakened immune systems die from cold related problems.
I did not know that many British pensioners were too poor to afford
heating, they would be safer volunteering for duty in Iraq.

There must be a lot of countries poorer than Britian that have cold
winter climates. Poor nutrition & cold would be a double whammy.

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2009, 10:41 PM
I certainly agree that there is a tendency for global-warming doom-mongers to look primarily at the expected harm to be caused by global warming and ignore positive side effects.

Spiny Norman
20-02-2009, 06:02 AM
This is only indirectly to do with global warming ... however I have for some time been visiting the USA's "National Snow and Ice Data Center" (NSIDC) and watching the growth/reduction in size of the Arctic ice cap.

A few people (not here) had been making much of the idea that "the ice cap is shrinking rapidly", that "its unprecedented collapse signals global warming" and so on. Fair enough, that might well be the case. Then I found this at the NSIDC:


February 18, 2009
Satellite sensor errors cause data outage

As some of our readers have already noticed, there was a significant problem with the daily sea ice data images on February 16. The problem arose from a malfunction of the satellite sensor we use for our daily sea ice products. Upon further investigation, we discovered that starting around early January, an error known as sensor drift caused a slowly growing underestimation of Arctic sea ice extent. The underestimation reached approximately 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) by mid-February. Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality control measures prior to archiving the data. See below for more details.

We have removed the most recent data and are investigating alternative data sources that will provide correct results. It is not clear when we will have data back online, but we are working to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.

Good on them for owning up. So this year's "maximum" ice cap extent, which had been looking a bit low, now turns out to be not so low after all (by around 500,000 kms^2.

Now we can all get some sleep ... the polar bears are safe after all (not that they were ever really in danger, but that's another story).

Capablanca-Fan
23-02-2009, 05:46 PM
Dear Mr Rudd: cool it (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dear_mr_rudd_cool_it/)
Andrew Bolt
23 Feb 09

The Australian Environment Foundation of Jennifer Marohasy [Ph.D. environmental biologist] is inviting you to sign a petition to be presented to Parliament by Dennis Jensen, co-winner of this blog’s Best Politician of 2008 (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/julia_gillard_is_this_blogs_top_pollie/):

This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the fact that:


We live on a dynamic planet; natural climate change occurs all the time.
As a nation we need appropriate infrastructure and planning to protect against climate change including long-term warming or cooling and severe weather related events such as cyclones, droughts and bushfires.
Global temperature increased slightly in the late 20th century and has been decreasing since 1998. Neither the warming nor the cooling is of an unusual rate or magnitude.
Cutting carbon dioxide emissions in Australia will result in no measurable change in future climate. Australia contributes less than 1.5% of global emissions.
The introduction of a Carbon Trading Scheme represents a major economic intervention that will drive Australian industries and jobs overseas.

Petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that the Government:


Invest appropriately in measures to ensure that Australia is well prepared for climate change and severe weather events including drought and floods.
Not attempt to stop global climate change by introducing a Carbon Trading Scheme.
Sign here (http://petitions.listentous.org.au/sign/index/pid/16).

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2009, 03:19 PM
Science test 'has political leaning' (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25169394-5013404,00.html)
Justine Ferrari, Education writer
The Australian, 11 March 2009

A HIGHLY regarded international test run by the OECD has been accused of ideological bias for eliciting students’ beliefs about the environment and sustainable development, rather than knowledge of the underlying science of issues such as greenhouse gases and acid rain…

PISA is conducted in Australia by the Australian Council for Educational Research. Its chief executive Geoff Masters said the purpose of science courses was to develop a concern for the environment in students


"This is a science test," [the Brooking Institute] says. "Stick to the science. Scientific knowledge can be measured without eliciting the political pursuits to which students would put science to use." The report argues separating beliefs from knowledge is dangerous.

...

On environmental sustainability, students were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with statements that included making regular emission checks a condition of using a car, and producing electricity from renewable sources as much as possible even if it increased the cost. Agreement was taken as students having a stronger sense of responsibility, which PISA says is correlated with better scores in the science test.

Spiny Norman
11-03-2009, 03:49 PM
the purpose of science courses was to develop a concern for the environment in students
and there you have it ... concern=emotion ... their job is to generate emotion about the environment ... now THAT doesn't read so well any longer, does it?

Capablanca-Fan
16-03-2009, 08:18 AM
Czech and EU President Blasts Global Warming Alarmism

Czech President Vaclav Klaus says many global warming advocates are more interested in money than they are in climate change.

Speaking at the opening session of the Second International Conference on Climate Change last week in New York, Klaus — who is also President pro-tem of the European Union — warned that politicians have “succeeded in creating incentives which led to the rise of a very powerful rent-seeking (http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/rent-seeking_behavior) group.


“These people are interested neither in temperature, CO2, competing scientific hypotheses and their testing, nor in freedom or markets. They are interested in their businesses and their profits — made with the help of politicians.”

They will profit, he said, from trading the licenses to emit carbon dioxide, and from constructing unproductive wind, solar and similar equipment able to generate electricity only with high levels of subsidies.

They will also make money from doing research, writing and speaking about global warming.

At the New York conference, sponsored by the Heartland Institute and attended by more than 700 scientists, Klaus declared that “there is no fixed and stable relationship between measured temperature and CO2 emissions.


“The believers in this hypothesis are not able to explain why the global temperature increased from 1918 to 1940, decreased from 1940 to 1976, increased from 1976 to 1998 and decreased from 1998 to the present, irrespective of the fact that people have been adding increasing amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere.”

He said global warming alarmists “want to change us and our behavior. Their ambition is to control and manipulate us.”

The global warming debate “has not made any detectable progress and the much needed, long overdue exchange of views has not yet started. All we see and hear are uninspiring monologues.


“It reminds me of the frustration people like me felt in the Communist era. Whatever you said, any convincing and well prepared arguments you used, any relevant data you assembled — no reaction. It all fell into emptiness. Nobody listened.

“They didn't even try to argue back. They considered you a naive, uninformed and confused person, an eccentric, a complainer, someone not able to accept their only truth. It is very similar now.”

Recalling his experience at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, he said he spent three hours at a closed session with about 60 people — heads of state and “experts” like Al Gore, Tony Blair and Kofi Annan.


“It was a discouraging experience. You looked around in vain to find at least one person who would share your views. There was no one.

“All the participants of the meeting took man-made global warming for granted, were convinced of its dangerous consequences, and more or less competed in one special discipline — whether to suggest a 20, 30, 50 or 80 percent CO2 emissions cut as an agreed-upon, world-wide project. It was difficult to say anything meaningful and constructive.”

Newsmax reported earlier that during the Davos conference in January, Klaus said: "I'm very sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the competing theories. I do listen to them.


"Environmentalism and the global warming alarmism is challenging our freedom. Al Gore is an important person in this movement."

Klaus concluded in New York: “The environmentalists speak about ‘saving the planet.’ From what? And from whom? One thing I know for sure: We have to save it — and us — from them.”

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2009, 10:48 AM
2009 Conference Website 'Welcome' page
The world’s largest-ever gathering skeptics of global warm-mongering took place in New York City on March 8-10, 2009, to confront the issue, “Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis?”
The complete program for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, including links to videos and PowerPoint presentations as they become available, is here. A copy of the printed program from the conference, which includes cosponsor information and brief biographies of all speakers, can be downloaded in Adobe’s PDF format here.
About 800 scientists, economists, legislators, policy activists, and media representatives attended the event, which took place at the New York Marriott Marquis Hotel. Produced by The Heartland Institute and 60 co-sponsoring organizations, the conference is devoted to answering questions overlooked by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The IPCC concluded global temperatures may already have reached crisis proportions, and that human activity was a key driver in raising temperatures, primarily because of the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But the 80 speakers at the Heartland conference presented a substantially different viewpoint. “The number of people registered for this event is nearly twice as many as attended the 2008 conference,” noted Heartland President Joseph Bast. “And the presenters at this year’s conference are the elite in the world among climate scientists. We will be delighted to demonstrate once again the breadth and high quality of support that the skeptical perspective on climate change enjoys.”
Headliners among the 80 presenters included:

Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and of the European Union. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, he declared, “Environmentalism and the global warming alarmism is challenging our freedom. I’m afraid that the current crisis will be misused for radically constraining the functioning of the markets and market economy all around the world.”
American astronaut Dr. Jack Schmitt—the last living man to walk on the moon—a geologist Ph.D. who has contended he has seen “too many of [my] colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a human-caused global warming.”
William Gray, Colorado State University, who claims global warming alarmists have hijacked the American Meteorological Society.
Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world’s leading experts in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves.
Stephen McIntyre, primary author of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data. He is a devastating critic of the temperature record of the past 1,000 years, particularly the work of Michael E. Mann, creator of the infamous “hockey stick” graph. That graph—thoroughly discredited in scientific circles—supposedly proved that mankind is responsible for a sharp increase in greenhouse gases.
Arthur Robinson, curator of a global warming petition signed by more than 32,000 American scientists, including more than 10,000 with doctorate degrees, rejecting the alarmist assertion that global warming has put the Earth in crisis and is caused primarily by mankind.
Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville, principal research scientist and team leader on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
Don Easterbrook, professor of geology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington, who will present new data showing “the most recent global warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of global cooling.”

The Heartland Institute, a 25-year-old national nonpartisan think-tank based in Chicago, said all of the event’s expenses will be covered by admission fees and individual and foundation donors to Heartland. No corporate dollars or sponsorships earmarked for the event were solicited or accepted.
Co-sponsors do not pay any fee or donation to Heartland to be a co-sponsor. Heartland hasn’t received funding from either the Koch or Scaife foundations in at least a decade.

See also Shallow science and its victims (http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3444021/shallow-science-and-its-victims.thtml)
Melanie Phillips
Spectator, 15 March 2009

Spiny Norman
18-03-2009, 03:06 PM
Bwahahahahaha! Its colder than they thought:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/answer_colder_than_they_thought/

Now that's rather hilarious, don't you think?!

Spiny Norman
22-03-2009, 06:19 AM
Reposted from Bolt's blog:

Ian Murray
23-03-2009, 08:47 AM
International Scientific Congress on Climate Change, Copenhagen 10-12 March 2009
http://climatecongress.ku.dk

Key Messages from the Congress

12 March 2009

Copenhagen, Denmark: Following a successful International Scientific Congress Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions attended by more than 2,500 delegates from nearly 80 countries, preliminary messages from the findings were delivered by the Congress' Scientific Writing Team. The conclusions will be published into a full synthesis report June 2009. The conclusions were handed over to the Danish Prime Minister Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen today. The Danish Government will host the UN Climate Change Conference in December 2009 and will hand over the conclusions to the decision makers ahead of the Conference.

The six preliminary key messages are:

Key Message 1: Climatic Trends
Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.

Key Message 2: Social disruption
The research community is providing much more information to support discussions on "dangerous climate change". Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk. Temperature rises above 2C will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century.

Key Message 3: Long-Term Strategy
Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid "dangerous climate change" regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of crossing tipping points and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult. Delay in initiating effective mitigation actions increases significantly the long-term social and economic costs of both adaptation and mitigation.

Key Message 4 - Equity Dimensions
Climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world. An effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and a common but differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable.

Key Message 5: Inaction is Inexcusable
There is no excuse for inaction. We already have many tools and approaches - economic, technological, behavioural, management - to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to decarbonise economies. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to alter our energy economy now, including sustainable energy job growth, reductions in the health and economic costs of climate change, and the restoration of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services.

Key Message 6: Meeting the Challenge
To achieve the societal transformation required to meet the climate change challenge, we must overcome a number of significant constraints and seize critical opportunities. These include reducing inertia in social and economic systems; building on a growing public desire for governments to act on climate change; removing implicit and explicit subsidies; reducing the influence of vested interests that increase emissions and reduce resilience; enabling the shifts from ineffective governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society; and engaging society in the transition to norms and practices that foster sustainability.

About the congress
The International Scientific Congress on Climate Change is taking place in Copenhagen 10 - 12 March. More than 2,000 participants are registered. The congress has received almost 1,600 scientific contributions from researchers from more than 70 countries. The preliminary conclusions from the congress will be presented Thursday 12 March at the closing session of the congress and will be developed in a synthesis report to be published in June this year. The synthesis report will be handed over to all participants at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) in December in Copenhagen by the Danish Government. It is organized by International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU):

* Australian National University
* ETH Zürich
* National University of Singapore
* Peking University
* University of California, Berkeley
* University of Cambridge
* University of Copenhagen
* University of Oxford
* University of Tokyo
* Yale University

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2009, 09:08 AM
Yes, the usual rent-seeking suspects that want to restrict our freedoms and increase their own power and wealth. Yet it's incontrovertible that more people die of excessive cold than excessive heat. That's why doom-mongers were squealing in the 1970s about a coming global ice age.

Ian Murray
23-03-2009, 09:31 AM
...more people die of excessive cold than excessive heat...
Name ten

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2009, 09:50 AM
Name ten

From Saving' the planet may deny heat, cooling for the frail (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25014517-5000117,00.html) by Andrew Bolt:


So vulnerable are the elderly to cold that a World Health Organisation report last year estimated that 40,000 Britons died every winter, and these "excess winter deaths are related to poor housing conditions -- insufficient insulation, ineffective heating systems and fuel poverty".

That's right: 40,000 Britons die each year in the cold, often because they're too poor for warming. Compare that to the just 50 Australians who may have died in the worst heatwave in a century.

From Bjørn Lomborg's Cool It! (http://www.lomborg.com/cool_it/sample/)


When 2,000 people died from heat in the United Kingdom, it produced a public outcry that is still heard. However, the BBC recently ran a very quiet story telling us that deaths caused by cold weather in England and Wales for the past years have hovered around 25,000 each winter, casually adding that the winters of 1998-2000 saw about 47,000 cold deaths each year. The story then goes on to discuss how the government should make the cost of winter fuel economically bearable and how the majority of deaths are caused by strokes and heart attacks.

It is remarkable that a single heat-death episode of 35,000 from many countries can get everyone up in arms, whereas cold deaths of 25,000 to 50,000 a year in just a single country pass almost unnoticed. Of course, we want to help avoid another 2,000 dying from heat in the United Kingdom. But presumably we also want to avoid many more dying from cold.

For Europe as a whole, about 200,000 people die from excess heat each year. However, about 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold. That is more than seven times the total number of heat deaths. Just in the past decade, Europe has lost about 15 million people to the cold, more than 400 times the iconic heat deaths from 2003. That we so easily neglect these deaths and so easily embrace those caused by global warming tells us of a breakdown in our sense of proportion.

Ian Murray
23-03-2009, 11:17 AM
Only Andrew Bolton could equate global warming with creating a balmier climate for the elderly

For some of the less desirable effects see http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-impacts-interactive.html

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2009, 11:50 AM
That's right: 40,000 Britons die each year in the cold, often because they're too poor for warming. Compare that to the just 50 Australians who may have died in the worst heatwave in a century.

For what it's worth, it's probably a lot more than 50 - it will be a while before official figures are compiled but one study estimated at least 200 (http://www.theage.com.au/national/heatwave-left-hundreds-dead-20090221-8ea4.html) and even that could be conservative.

useless patzer
23-03-2009, 12:35 PM
I wonder how many of these deaths, whether due to heat or cold, would have happened had supposedly advanced nations like in Europe or Australia been willing to invest in adequate public housing for their people? And by adequate, I mean with insulation and heating/aircondition systems.

Spiny Norman
23-03-2009, 01:18 PM
International Scientific Congress on Climate Change, Copenhagen 10-12 March 2009
http://climatecongress.ku.dk
Key Messages from the Congress
<SNIP>
Key Message 1: Climatic Trends
Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.
I think this paragraph is misleading, in light of the bit I have bolded. What does that bit mean exactly?

Global mean surface temperatures are misleading due to urban heat island effect (and effect which has now been demonstrated in peer-reviewed papers). Satellite-sensing systems of atmospheric temperatures are far more reliable, however we only have about 30 years worth of data to work with on that front, so the jury is still out.

What sea level rise?

Cannot comment on ocean and ice sheet dynamics (I know nothing about them, other than that the Antartic ice sheet is growing, and the predicted demise of the Greenland ice sheet has yet to be demonstrated.

Cannot comment on ocean acidification.

What extreme climatic events? Its my understanding that the number of strongest category hurricanes/cyclones is not increasing.

Stats, stats, stats ... I need more stats ... only then will I become a believer. I refer gentle readers to the preceding graph I posted. Where is the evidence of a worst-case IPCC scenario? Certainly not in THAT data. So where is it?

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2009, 03:04 PM
I wonder how many of these deaths, whether due to heat or cold, would have happened had supposedly advanced nations like in Europe or Australia been willing to invest in adequate public housing for their people? And by adequate, I mean with insulation and heating/aircondition systems.
How many would have been prevented if the very sorts of leftist governments you love hadn't made fuel more expensive, raising the cost of adequate heating/airconditioning? Yet the Greenstapo want to raise the costs even more. Such leftist governments have also made housing more unaffordable by restricting the supply of land under such Orwellian names as "open space", "green belt", "farming preservation", "smart building" laws.

useless patzer
23-03-2009, 03:34 PM
How many would have been prevented if the very sorts of leftist governments you love hadn't made fuel more expensive, raising the cost of adequate heating/airconditioning? Yet the Greenstapo want to raise the costs even more. Such leftist governments have also made housing more unaffordable by restricting the supply of land under such Orwellian names as "open space", "green belt", "farming preservation", "smart building" laws.

What sort of argument is this? Energy prices are dictated by the laws of supply and demand. As for housing being unaffordable, it certainly has become a lot more unaffordable after a decade of government by those notorious commies led by John Howard.

If you knew what you were talking about, then you would be aware that land supply in Australia is dominated by local governments, who have an interest in restricting the supply of land to serve the interest of ratepayers, who thereby see the values of their houses go up. It's not about Greenstapo at all, but short-term mercenary values of local politicians.

Spiny Norman
23-03-2009, 04:10 PM
I have a suggestion, and its a semi-serious one:

Gunner, Jono, myself, Adamski, and a few other non-leftists should get together and buy ourselves an island. We then secede from Australia, ban all forms of coercive taxation and government interference ... and live happily ever after, each of us minding our own business, except when we get together for drinks on Friday afternoons (and birthdays!).

Basil
23-03-2009, 04:16 PM
I have a suggestion, and its a semi-serious one:

Gunner, Jono, myself, Adamski, and a few other non-leftists should get together and buy ourselves an island. We then secede from Australia, ban all forms of coercive taxation and government interference ... and live happily ever after, each of us minding our own business, except when we get together for drinks on Friday afternoons (and birthdays!).
Or we can just wait the prescribed period and watch the populace (yup even the part-time lefties who will flower into those having a clue) throw the fools out. It will happen!

Adamski
23-03-2009, 04:19 PM
I have a suggestion, and its a semi-serious one:

Gunner, Jono, myself, Adamski, and a few other non-leftists should get together and buy ourselves an island. We then secede from Australia, ban all forms of coercive taxation and government interference ... and live happily ever after, each of us minding our own business, except when we get together for drinks on Friday afternoons (and birthdays!).Tasmania?

Rincewind
23-03-2009, 04:23 PM
I have a suggestion, and its a semi-serious one:

Gunner, Jono, myself, Adamski, and a few other non-leftists should get together and buy ourselves an island. We then secede from Australia, ban all forms of coercive taxation and government interference ... and live happily ever after, each of us minding our own business, except when we get together for drinks on Friday afternoons (and birthdays!).

If you're looking for donations, I'm willing to chip in. :)

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2009, 05:11 PM
Or we can just wait the prescribed period and watch the populace (yup even the part-time lefties who will flower into those having a clue) throw the fools out. It will happen!
Yet it didn't happen on Saturday despite the polls. How much damage will be done before part-time lefties morph into having a clue?

Basil
23-03-2009, 05:21 PM
Yet it didn't happen on Saturday despite the polls. How much damage will be done before part-time lefties morph into having a clue?
Will answer both of those in a politico thread later tonight - espesh comment of the polls and the result.

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2009, 05:24 PM
What sort of argument is this? Energy prices are dictated by the laws of supply and demand.
Ah, so you're not quite as silly as I thought. You're right of course, although far too many demagogues blame high prices on "greed". All the same, governments raise prices by imposing ever increasing taxes (funny how lefties never call the government greedy for wanting more of our money).


As for housing being unaffordable, it certainly has become a lot more unaffordable after a decade of government by those notorious commies led by John Howard.
Yet it's the Layba State governments who control land supply, and this lack of land has been by far the greatest factor in the property boom (see Bob Day (former national president of the Housing Industry Association), “The Source of the Housing Crisis”, Quadrant 53(454):44–49, March 2009). We see the same problem in America: the most expensive areas are those with the most restrictive land laws and rent control laws (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell020702.asp).


If you knew what you were talking about, then you would be aware that land supply in Australia is dominated by local governments, who have an interest in restricting the supply of land to serve the interest of ratepayers, who thereby see the values of their houses go up.
That's certainly part of it, as Sowell notes (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell083005.asp). Also, councils have an excuse to jack up the rates, and state governments confiscate more in stamp duty.

Ian Murray
23-03-2009, 06:01 PM
...Stats, stats, stats ... I need more stats ... only then will I become a believer. I refer gentle readers to the preceding graph I posted. Where is the evidence of a worst-case IPCC scenario? Certainly not in THAT data. So where is it?

There were several hundred presentations to the conference - publication of full transcripts is not due till June. However you can find abstracts of each and session details at http://climatecongress.ku.dk/programm

Ian Murray
23-03-2009, 07:02 PM
Stern: Climate change deniers are 'flat-earthers'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/10/nicholas-stern-accuses-climate-change-deniers
10 March 2009


Economist Nicholas Stern (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/man-for-all-seasons/2007/03/23/1174597882670.html?page=fullpage) warns of 'absolute lunacy' of do-nothing approach of Czech president Václav Klaus and fellow climate change sceptics

Climate change deniers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10) are "ridiculous" and akin to "flat-earthers", according to Sir Nicholas Stern, who advised the government about the economic threat posed by global warming. The respected economist compared climate naysayers to those who deny the link between smoking and cancer or HIV and Aids in the face of mounting scientific evidence.

Stern — who prepared his influential report (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/oct/30/economy.uk) to the UK Treasury in 2007 at Gordon Brown's request — said the evidence that human-induced climate change was occurring was "crystal clear".

"If you look at all the serious scientists in the world, there is no big disagreement on the basics of this ... it would be absolute lunacy to act as if climate change is not occurring," he said.

His comments came in response to news that the Czech president Václav Klaus would this week attend a New York conference (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/09/climate-change-deniers) of climate change naysayers from around the world. Stern said Klaus was "totally confused on this issue" and liked to "gather rather confused people around him".

The US-based Heartland Institute (http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/newyork09.html), which had been funded by Exxon Mobil until 2006, launched its gathering of more than 70 participants in an event entitled 'Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis?'

Lord Stern addressed a large conference in London yesterday, organised by the Department for International Development, where he said the battle against poverty and the management of climate change were the "two great challenges of the 21st century ".

"We know that greenhouse gases are rising. And we know the [global] temperature is rising. We can look back through ice-core data and see over 800,000 years, relationships between carbon dioxide and the temperature of the world," he told the Guardian.

"So those people who deny the importance of climate change are just wasting their time. They're also being diversionary because if we don't act the risks are enormous."

Asked if the public debate on the issue was being won, he said: "Those who say that climate change doesn't exist are being understood as the flat-earthers that they are, as the people who deny the link between smoking and cancer, as the people who denied the link between HIV and AIDS.

"They are marginal and they are ridiculous. And they are very confused."

He admitted that while some time still had to be spent dealing with "the silly arguments that [deniers] put", discussions around the world had moved on and were focused on the details of "reducing emissions and managing the impact of climate change".

His comments will be bolstered this week by President Barack Obama's directive that American government agencies should pick advisers based on expertise, not political ideology. The move was hailed by scientists who felt the previous administration had filled agencies with supporters who shared George Bush's scepticism about climate change.

In 2007 a US committee on oversight and government reform published a report documenting systematic efforts "to censor climate scientists (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/16/greenpolitics-georgebush) by controlling their access to the press and editing testimony to Congress" by the Bush administration.

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2009, 07:47 PM
Stern: Climate change deniers are 'flat-earthers'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/10/nicholas-stern-accuses-climate-change-deniers
10 March 2009
What would he know? He's just a Chicken Little commissioned by a socialist government looking for an excuse to grab more power and more tax money from its people.

Even if the weather were warming, it's not at all clear that it would be a bad thing, let alone that trying to prevent it isn't a cure worse than the disease. And of course, it's moronic for us to cripple our economies while China and India are building more CO2-emitting power stations.


He admitted that while some time still had to be spent dealing with "the silly arguments that [deniers] put", discussions around the world had moved on and were focused on the details of "reducing emissions and managing the impact of climate change".
Ah yes, the tactic of lefties everywhere: declare that the debate is over.


His comments will be bolstered this week by President Barack Obama's directive that American government agencies should pick advisers based on expertise, not political ideology.
Obamov not picking on ideology? :lol: :lol: April Fool's day is not till next week. His canning of adult stem cell research was purely ideological, given that this is the only sort of stem cell research that has actually produced cures (http://creation.com/president-obama-okays-funding-embryonic-stem-cell-research-but-removes-adult-stem-cell-funding).

Ian Murray
23-03-2009, 08:33 PM
What would he know? He's just a Chicken Little commissioned by a socialist government looking for an excuse to grab more power and more tax money from its people

But you're an admirer Václav Klaus who is a Neddy Nobody! -



Czech President Vaclav Klaus says many global warming advocates are more interested in money than they are in climate change.

Speaking at the opening session of the Second International Conference on Climate Change last week in New York, Klaus — who is also President pro-tem of the European Union — warned that politicians have “succeeded in creating incentives which led to the rise of a very powerful rent-seeking group.
“These people are interested neither in temperature, CO2, competing scientific hypotheses and their testing, nor in freedom or markets. They are interested in their businesses and their profits — made with the help of politicians.”

He may be European Union President on rotation and President of the Czech Republic, but he speaks for neither - their positions are made clear here (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/future_action.htm) and here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090312/sc_afp/czecheuenvironmentklauspolitics_20090312205819).


Even if the weather were warming, it's not at all clear that it would be a bad thing, let alone that trying to prevent it isn't a cure worse than the disease. And of course, it's moronic for us to cripple our economies while China and India are building more CO2-emitting power stations.

The flat-earther stance - head in the sand and hope it goes away.


Obamov not picking on ideology? His canning of adult stem cell research was purely ideological, given that this is the only sort of stem cell research that has actually produced cures.

What on earth does that have to do with selecting experts in a field rather than political appointees?

Ian Murray
23-03-2009, 09:30 PM
This is only indirectly to do with global warming ... however I have for some time been visiting the USA's "National Snow and Ice Data Center" (NSIDC) and watching the growth/reduction in size of the Arctic ice cap.

A few people (not here) had been making much of the idea that "the ice cap is shrinking rapidly", that "its unprecedented collapse signals global warming" and so on. Fair enough, that might well be the case. Then I found this at the NSIDC:

Good on them for owning up. So this year's "maximum" ice cap extent, which had been looking a bit low, now turns out to be not so low after all (by around 500,000 kms^2.

Now we can all get some sleep ... the polar bears are safe after all (not that they were ever really in danger, but that's another story).

However the sensor drift error persisted for only five weeks (in Jan - Feb).

"The extent of Arctic sea ice is seen as a key measure of how rising temperatures are affecting the Earth. The cap retreated in 2007 to its lowest extent ever and last year posted its second- lowest annual minimum at the end of the yearly melt season. The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said."
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2009, 09:51 PM
He may be European Union President on rotation and President of the Czech Republic, but he speaks for neither - their positions are made clear here (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/future_action.htm) and here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090312/sc_afp/czecheuenvironmentklauspolitics_20090312205819).
More politics. Who says the Czech environmentalism minister speaks for the Czech Republic? Klaus rightly compares the modern Greenstapo with the freedom-deniers in the Communist regime he suffered under.


The flat-earther stance - head in the sand and hope it goes away.
The scaremongering stance of the rent-seekers and freedom-restricters - dismiss any opposition and hope that no one notices the naked emperor. Never mind that Australia could cease ALL its CO2 emissions without making a detectable change in world CO2 levels, while China and India laugh all the way to the international bank -- aided by many of our companies who move there.


What on earth does that have to do with selecting experts in a field rather than political appointees?
His idea of "experts in the field" are those who accept globull warm-mongering ideology. And my point was that Obamov is far more ideological in his appointments than GWB ever was. But as far as lefties are concerned, leftism isn't an ideology but obvious fact.

Ian Murray
23-03-2009, 11:19 PM
More politics. Who says the Czech environmentalism minister speaks for the Czech Republic? Klaus rightly compares the modern Greenstapo with the freedom-deniers in the Communist regime he suffered under.
Czech policy documents are available here (http://www.env.cz/AIS/web-en.nsf/pages/Climate_Change), conforming with EU climate change policy

The bios of Stern (http://www.hsbc.com/1/2/newsroom/news/news-archive-2007/biography-sir-nicholas-stern) and Klaus (http://www.hrad.cz/cms/en/prezident_cr/klaus.shtml) hardly support your belief that Stern is a lightweight and Klaus a global leader.


The scaremongering stance of the rent-seekers and freedom-restricters - dismiss any opposition and hope that no one notices the naked emperor. Never mind that Australia could cease ALL its CO2 emissions without making a detectable change in world CO2 levels, while China and India laugh all the way to the international bank -- aided by many of our companies who move there
The naysayers are plaintive voices in the wilderness, outnumbered overwhelmingly by scientists in multiple disciplines confirming the dangers.

China has a climate chage policy (http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/File188.pdf) while India is moving slowly (http://www.pewclimate.org/international/country-policies/india-climate-plan-summary/06-2008) in the right direction. It would be moronic to wait for them to lead the world - the onus is on the developed countries to start the ball rolling

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2009, 11:38 PM
The bios of Stern (http://www.hsbc.com/1/2/newsroom/news/news-archive-2007/biography-sir-nicholas-stern) and Klaus (http://www.hrad.cz/cms/en/prezident_cr/klaus.shtml) hardly support your belief that Stern is a lightweight and Klaus a global leader.
Oh right, president of his country and a Ph.D. economists and "He has published over 20 books on general social, political and economic themes, and has been awarded a number of international prizes and honorary doctorates from universities all over the world."


The naysayers are plaintive voices in the wilderness, outnumbered overwhelmingly by scientists in multiple disciplines confirming the dangers.
More likely, camp following group thinkers who have reached their consensus by counting heads -- heads that reached their own consensus by counting heads. Of course, there are huge amounts of government funds to be gained by toeing the alarmist party line. Anyway, majority vote counting is politics not science.


China has a climate chage policy (http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/File188.pdf) while India is moving slowly (http://www.pewclimate.org/international/country-policies/india-climate-plan-summary/06-2008) in the right direction.
Yeah, right. As if they are going to stop building more CO2-emitting power-stations, no matter what their policies say. They are just telling the UN thugocracy what it wants to hear.


It would be moronic to wait for them to lead the world - the onus is on the developed countries to start the ball rolling
It's moronic for those countries with tiny CO2 emissions to be so narcissistic as to think that they should be world leaders with gesture politics that make no measurable differnce, while the huge emitters do nothing.

Ian Murray
24-03-2009, 05:28 AM
Oh right, president of his country and a Ph.D. economists and "He has published over 20 books on general social, political and economic themes, and has been awarded a number of international prizes and honorary doctorates from universities all over the world."
Rather paltry alongside Stern's credentials, you'll have to agree. Klaus is a politician, Stern is an economist.


More likely, camp following group thinkers who have reached their consensus by counting heads -- heads that reached their own consensus by counting heads. Of course, there are huge amounts of government funds to be gained by toeing the alarmist party line...
Sez you. Your camp is where there is money to be made. In the US alone 15% of Washington lobbyists are working on climate control issues -
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/climate_change
http://thehill.com/business--lobby/climate-changea-hot-play-for-lobbyists-2007-05-08.html


Yeah, right. As if they are going to stop building more CO2-emitting power-stations, no matter what their policies say. They are just telling the UN thugocracy what it wants to hear.
It's not lip service - they are working on it (https://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/SID-3F57FECB-B53ADC44/cpa/hs.xsl/14131_31174_ENA_HTML.htm). The pressure is on them


It's moronic for those countries with tiny CO2 emissions to be so narcissistic as to think that they should be world leaders with gesture politics that make no measurable differnce, while the huge emitters do nothing.
The huge emitters are not doing nothing. Everyone has a role to play

Spiny Norman
24-03-2009, 05:59 AM
However the sensor drift error persisted for only five weeks (in Jan - Feb).
Yes, it has now been corrected. This year's ice cap maximum was approximately 500,000 kms^2 greater than the 2007 maximum. Its current size is around 1,000,000 kms^2 greater than at the same time during that record-setting year. There is obviously plenty of natural variability in the ice cap climate system. The only question is how much of the changes we observe are genuinely the result of human inputs to the climate system.

We're also currently in a deep, deep solar minimum. Honestly, there are so many inputs to the climate, I think the IPCC's attempts to scientifically discern human inputs from the vast array of natural inputs are little more than wishful thinking or tea-leaf reading.

But they have made predictions. See earlier graph. We should watch them over an extended period. Either the results will be within the ranges they have predicted (meaning their models work), or they will be higher (meaning the problem is likely worse than they thought), or they will be lower (meaning their models are broken).

I think the evidence now coming in is trending towards the latter. Perhaps there is human-induced warming. Stands to reason there is SOME impact. But is it causing global catastrophe? How much of a problem are we trying to fix? Can we fix it? Or are we wasting precious resources that ought to be spent on, for example, primary health care and clean water in developing nations? Again, I suspect we're doing the typical western, scientific, "know it all" thing ... we're wasting our resources and this is costing lives.

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2009, 09:47 AM
Rather paltry alongside Stern's credentials, you'll have to agree. Klaus is a politician, Stern is an economist.
Klaus is a Ph.D. economist and knows first hand about the excuses communists made to restrict freedom and stifle economic growth, and sees a strong parallel with the modern Greenstapo. Stern is a lackey for the socialist UK government and knows which side he must support.


Sez you. Your camp is where there is money to be made.

You've gotta be kidding. Private companies can't compete with government largesse. There are also plenty of greedy green rent-seekers (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/green_greed/) who depend on government regulations and subsidies, and limousine lefties pouring billions into green projects (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mcknight_may_be_righter_than_he_thinks/). alGore himself has made millions from warm-mongering.


The huge emitters are not doing nothing. Everyone has a role to play
Yet China and India have made it clear that they are not going to stop building more CO2-emitting power stations. They are not going to impoverish their own people further. Yet Australia makes no detectable difference.

As SK points out, there are far better ways to spend money that would really save lives, so there is a huge opportunity cost in this green spending.

Capablanca-Fan
27-03-2009, 11:26 AM
Professor Bjørn Lomborg exposes how moronic some Green religionists are in today's Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25247677-7583,00.html):


When asked to extinguish electricity, people turn to candlelight. Candles seem natural, but are almost 100 times less efficient than incandescent light globes, and more than 300 times less efficient than fluorescent lights. If you use one candle for each extinguished globe, you’re essentially not cutting CO2 at all, and with two candles you’ll emit more CO2. Moreover, candles produce indoor air pollution 10 to 100 times the level of pollution caused by all cars, industry and electricity production.

Capablanca-Fan
30-03-2009, 05:12 PM
Obama’s warming isn’t (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/obamas_warming_isnt/)
Andrew Bolt
30 March 2009

Barack Obama does a Tim Flannery (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_crowing_over_the_fires/), implicitly blaming the North Dakota floods on global warming:


I actually think the science around climate change is real. It is potentially devastating. … If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota (http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/111873), and you say to yourself, ‘If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there,’ that indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously.

Watts Up With That (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/29/north-dakota-floods-aggravated-by-global-warming/)checks the NOAA temperature records:


In fact, temperatures in North Dakota have been running about 5-10 degrees below normal for the entire winter and spring.

Again I ask: if the evidence for apocalyptic man-made global warming is so overwhelming, why do the believers need to tell so many porkies?

Desmond
30-03-2009, 07:41 PM
Doesn't seem to me that he is blaming the flood on global warming, but rather he is saying it would be worse if sea levels were higher.

Ian Murray
30-03-2009, 09:14 PM
Doesn't seem to me that he is blaming the flood on global warming, but rather he is saying it would be worse if sea levels were higher.
Precisely. Bolt the Dolt has totally misinterpreted the statement, by design or by idiocy, and his avid readers have blithely followed suit

Capablanca-Fan
31-03-2009, 12:49 PM
Lefties like Ian Murray will not let mere facts get in the way of their globull warm-mongering faith.

pax
31-03-2009, 04:44 PM
Lefties like Ian Murray will not let mere facts get in the way of their globull warm-mongering faith.
The facts are plain on the page, yet you do not see (or choose not to see) what is right in front of your eyes.

Spiny Norman
31-03-2009, 05:13 PM
I actually think the science around climate change is real. It is potentially devastating. … If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota, and you say to yourself, ‘If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there,’ that indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously.

The answer, right now, given a 2 degrees increase, is that North Dakota will be 3-8 degrees less than the long term average.

If Obama was referring to an increase of 2 degrees over the long-term average, that might have a significant impact.

I can see both sides of the argument ...

However it would seem also that just about any disaster can be blamed on global warming with impunity ... its not possible to prove that it didn't cause the disaster ... just as its not possible to prove that it did. Useless political posturing if you ask me.

Kaitlin
04-04-2009, 12:50 AM
Daylight Warming..... ends on the 5th of April this year
:evil:

Spiny Norman
04-04-2009, 02:59 AM
Our sun is now in the deepest solar minimum for around a century:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

This has significant implications for global climate. Will be interesting to see whether it continues throughout 2009 ...

Capablanca-Fan
08-04-2009, 12:21 PM
Column: Save the planet! Fry a pensioner (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_save_the_planet_fry_a_pensioner/)
Andrew Bolt, 8 April 2009

THE green jihad against airconditioners must stop. Too many elderly Australians have died already.

Victoria’s chief health officer, Dr John Carnie, this week said some 374 Victorians may have been killed by the January heat wave, most of them old.

In South Australia, the toll is estimated at 80.

Just how many died because power blackouts knocked out their airconditioning is not known. And I doubt either government will ever say.

But what we are told is that both states now have plans to cut off the airconditioning — or make it too costly for pensioners to use — just when the heat is at its most lethal and the lives of the elderly hang in the balance.



Trouble is, airconditioning actually saves the lives of the elderly and sick. They are the first to die in extreme temperatures, as we saw as far back as Black Friday in 1939, when 438 people died from heat over just a few days, and despite the much smaller population.

That’s why Council of the Ageing chief executive John Yates pleaded in January: “If you have air conditioning, use it … It could be literally fatal for the older people not to.”

Senior Victorians Minister Lisa Neville now concedes much the same, promising the Brumby Government will next time help councils cope with further heatwaves by “providing a cool place of respite” to older residents.

But in my house, Lisa, a “cool place of respite” is next to our airconditioner. So here’s an idea: how about building a more reliable power supply and making airconditioners cheaper for the poor?

Sensible, you’d think. But not in a country so fiercely green that the Rudd Government has specifically banned schools from installing airconditioning with the $14 billion it’s giving them to fix facilities and build school halls.

So here’s what’s planned instead.

Victoria will soon lead a national roll-out of smart meters meant to force us to use less power during the peak period — from 2pm to 8pm on working days, just when temperatures tend to be highest.

Charging extra for peak power will alone drive up the cost of ducted cooling to as much as $11 for those six hours — too high for some pensioners.

But worse is that the price could rocket even higher if the distributors want to slash demand to stop blackouts. Then ducted cooling could cost as much as $78 — a price few aged pensioners could afford.

Even worse is the plan by ETSA Utilities, South Australia’s main electricity distributor, to install remote-controlled switches in homes so it can turn off the compressors of airconditioners when power use is too high. As in during a heatwave.

So just as the heat gets too much for the old or weak, some technician in an ETSA office far away can cut their airconditioning with a flick of a switch.

That’s potentially murder by remote control — simply because a government is too sluggish and green-crazed to build a power supply that will cope with hot days and keep people alive.

Desmond
08-04-2009, 01:12 PM
Sensible, you’d think. But not in a country so fiercely green that the Rudd Government has specifically banned schools from installing airconditioning with the $14 billion it’s giving them to fix facilities and build school halls.

Is this true? Madness.

Capablanca-Fan
08-04-2009, 01:14 PM
Sensible, you’d think. But not in a country so fiercely green that the Rudd Government has specifically banned schools from installing airconditioning with the $14 billion it’s giving them to fix facilities and build school halls.
Is this true? Madness.
Yes it's true. A primary school teacher in Bundaberg even told me that she was verboten to bring her own portable A/C.

Naturally the education ministers and bureaucrats won't do without it.

Another advantage of homeschooling.

TheJoker
09-04-2009, 02:36 AM
Column: Save the planet! Fry a pensioner (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_save_the_planet_fry_a_pensioner/)
Andrew Bolt, 8 April 2009

THE green jihad against airconditioners must stop. Too many elderly Australians have died already.

I guess that one way to fix the problem of an ageing population and global warming at the same time.... :hmm: Hmmm doesn't seem ethical.... but then agan we could just use Sowell's cost benefit approach (used to justify torture) and forget about ethics:eek:

Capablanca-Fan
09-04-2009, 01:59 PM
I guess that one way to fix the problem of an ageing population and global warming at the same time.... :hmm: Hmmm doesn't seem ethical....
Of course not.


but then agan we could just use Sowell's cost benefit approach (used to justify torture) and forget about ethics:eek:
Shows you don't understand this a bit. But then Lefties hate Sowell viscerally, especially race grievance mongers. The cases Sowell mentioned were those who overtly threatened to kill millions. The above case is sacrificing innocent old and frail people to Greenstapo ideology.

Ian Murray
09-04-2009, 03:12 PM
Charging extra for peak power will alone drive up the cost of ducted cooling to as much as $11 for those six hours - too high for some pensioners.

But worse is that the price could rocket even higher if the distributors want to slash demand to stop blackouts. Then ducted cooling could cost as much as $78 - a price few aged pensioners could afford.

Reality check, Andrew: Aged pensioners cannot afford to install ducted air conditioning regardless of operating costs

Capablanca-Fan
09-04-2009, 05:52 PM
Reality check, Andrew: Aged pensioners cannot afford to install ducted air conditioning regardless of operating costs
What if it was there already? Typical Leftygreen obfuscation.

Ian Murray
09-04-2009, 08:17 PM
What if it was there already? Typical Leftygreen obfuscation.

How many people have ducted a/c in their homes, do you think? Do you? We don't. It's a luxury item costing $6000 - $12000 to instal.

Bolt mischievously infers that's what the average pensioner has (he adds no caveats to the contrary) and his faithful followers lap it up without a second's thought

Capablanca-Fan
09-04-2009, 08:40 PM
How many people have ducted a/c in their homes, do you think?
But what if they do? Should their lives be sacrificed on the Green altar?


Do you? We don't. It's a luxury item costing $6000 - $12000 to instal.
Me neither. Some old folks' homes may, and if a Greestapo bureaucrat decrees a huge cost increase or turns it off remotely, more people could die.


Bolt mischievously infers that's what the average pensioner has (he adds no caveats to the contrary) and his faithful followers lap it up without a second's thought
Typical Leftygreens have a Pavlovian visceral response to anything sensible said by a critic of the Leftygreen faith, and ignore the greater risk of human tragedy because of hatred of home A/C (by politicians and bureaucrats in airconditioned offices of course).

Ian Murray
09-04-2009, 10:19 PM
But what if they do? Should their lives be sacrificed on the Green altar?
And you say I'm obfuscating! It's about avoiding blackouts caused by peak demand exceeding capacity, not sacrifices on green altars. Increases in baseload capacity are coming (www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=a01zqgfb6pLI&refer=australia) but the extra capacity won't be on line next summer, or the next ... Note that the industry has been privatised - electricity generation is in private hands, not government.

Air conditioner running costs at optimal settings vary widely - typical costs are:
* 1750 watt - approx running cost will be between 4.5 to 6.2 cents per hour
* 5000 watt - approx running cost will be between 13.8 to 19.4 cents per hour
* 8800 watt - approx running cost will be between 22.7 to 31.8 cents per hour
Source www.thisplace.com.au/priceguide/aircond.htm

Using those figures the cost for those peak six hours per day is between 27c and $1.91. Andrew Bolt doesn't reveal the source of his figures, but an increase to the $11 per day he quotes would entail a peak tariff increase of somewhere between 575% and 4000%. A brave call by a distributing company!

In any case one would imagine existing pensioner concessions would continue to apply


Typical Leftygreens have a Pavlovian visceral response to anything sensible said by a critic of the Leftygreen faith, and ignore the greater risk of human tragedy because of hatred of home A/C (by politicians and bureaucrats in airconditioned offices of course).
Let me know when he says something sensible

Ian Murray
10-04-2009, 12:13 PM
Andrew Bolt:
Even worse is the plan by ETSA Utilities, South Australia’s main electricity distributor, to install remote-controlled switches in homes so it can turn off the compressors of airconditioners when power use is too high. As in during a heatwave.

So just as the heat gets too much for the old or weak, some technician in an ETSA office far away can cut their airconditioning with a flick of a switch.

That’s potentially murder by remote control - simply because a government is too sluggish and green-crazed to build a power supply that will cope with hot days and keep people alive.
Again Andrew is talking through his hat, or more netherly regions. The 'peak-buster' remote switch being trialled successfully in volunteers' homes by ETSA switches off the compressor for a few minutes while the fan/s continue to circulate cool air.

The home's comfort level is not affected, and use of the switches will be voluntary (although there will be a cost benefit for users). The end result is obviating the need for extra peakload infrastructure, the cost of which would be borne by customers via their eletricity bills.

See
www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25253023-661,00.html
www.etsautilities.com.au/public/download.jsp?id=7515
www.etsautilities.com.au/public/download.jsp?id=7517

So why did Andrew Bolt, Jono's 'sensible critic', omit the pertinent details published by his own newspaper? Was he unaware of how the devices actually work and guilty of sloppy research and journalism? Or did he choose to cause mischief and alarm by spreading misinformation to maintain his reputation for controversy? Either way he is far from a reliable source.

Ian Murray
10-04-2009, 12:32 PM
And as for Andrew Bolt's scaremongering over the smart meter rollout:


Victoria will soon lead a national roll-out of smart meters meant to force us to use less power during the peak period - from 2pm to 8pm on working days, just when temperatures tend to be highest.

See a factsheet (http://yourdevelopment.org/factsheet/view/id/56) on smart metering

Ian Murray
12-04-2009, 12:47 AM
:Originally Posted by Boris
Quote:Originally Posted by Andrew Bolt
Sensible, you’d think. But not in a country so fiercely green that the Rudd Government has specifically banned schools from installing airconditioning with the $14 billion it’s giving them to fix facilities and build school halls.

Is this true? Madness.

Yes it's true. A primary school teacher in Bundaberg even told me that she was verboten to bring her own portable A/C.

Naturally the education ministers and bureaucrats won't do without it.

Another advantage of homeschooling.

No, not true - Andrew Bolt misinforming and rabble-rousing again.

There are a number of programs being funded under the three-year $14.7 billion Building the Education Revolution scheme. One of them, commencing this year, provides $1.3 billion "to undertake construction of small scale
infrastructure and/or minor refurbishment projects. Projects that can be approved for funding under this element of BER include:
- refurbishment of buildings
- construction or upgrades of fixed shade structures
- covered outdoor learning areas
- sporting grounds and facilities
- green upgrades (water tanks) and insulation
- specialised infrastructure support for students with disabilities or special needs
Funding for purchase of equipment rather than small scale infrastructure or minor refurbishment may not be approved by the Commonwealth. Funding can not be used for installation or refurbishment of air conditioning or heating."

Yet to come is the $12.4 billion program to build or refurbish large scale infrastructure in primary schools, K-12s and special schools, including libraries and multipurpose halls. Air conditioning is eligible for funding under this program.

www.economicstimulusplan.gov.au/_media/09_BERupdatenewsletter.pdf
www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25105229-12377,00.html

Kaitlin
12-04-2009, 01:54 AM
This afternoon there was a show on tv about contential drift. And from that I deduced that ..as long as there isnt another "plancea" or whatever the greek is for only one big land mass.. we will all be ok with warming.

Because.. the sea is the best moderator of tempature. Cooling breezes come from it and also it stores warmth during the day and relases it at night to make sure things dont get too cold.

So with warming it might be ok and we cant stop it now anyways... but with cool it wouls be a differnt matter..

..so its time to panic of cyclic change - if instead of just being summer to winter.. we get BIG summers to BIG winters... were doomed :(

Capablanca-Fan
12-04-2009, 02:04 AM
No, not true - Andrew Bolt misinforming and rabble-rousing again.
More likely, a Leftygreen who has never seen a tax or green imposition he didn't like.


...
Funding for purchase of equipment rather than small scale infrastructure or minor refurbishment may not be approved by the Commonwealth. Funding can not be used for installation or refurbishment of air conditioning or heating."
Right then!


Yet to come is the $12.4 billion program to build or refurbish large scale infrastructure in primary schools, K-12s and special schools, including libraries and multipurpose halls. Air conditioning is eligible for funding under this program.
So what about A/C for classrooms?

Ian Murray
13-04-2009, 01:41 PM
More likely, a Leftygreen who has never seen a tax or green imposition he didn't like.
Andrew Bolt said: "But not in a country so fiercely green that the Rudd Government has specifically banned schools from installing airconditioning with the $14 billion it’s giving them to fix facilities and build school halls."
Q. Is this statement true?
A. No

Despite the attempted spin by his apologist Jono, the truth remains - any 'facts' provided by Andrew Bolt cannot be accepted without question. See also posts 1083-85 above, refuting more of his 'facts', all from only one of his newspaper columns.

Capablanca-Fan
14-04-2009, 01:52 PM
"President Obama has said that the science of global warming is 'beyond dispute,' and therefore settled. This is the justification for the imposition of a carbon cap-and-trade system that will cost $2 trillion. But Obama does not understand science. 'Settled science' is an oxymoron, and anyone who characterizes science as 'settled' or 'indisputable' is ignorant not only of science, but also history and philosophy. Aristotle, who lived and wrote in the fourth century B.C., was one of the greatest geniuses the world has ever known. He invented the discipline of logic, and founded the sciences of ecology and biology. Aristotle's physics were accepted as correct for nearly two thousand years. ... Aristotle taught that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Over the centuries, a few unreasonable persons expressed skeptical concerns. But the consensus was that the physics of motion were described by Aristotle's dicta. The science was settled. Around the year 1591, an irascible young instructor at the University of Pisa demonstrated that Aristotle was wrong. He climbed to the top of the tower of Pisa and dropped cannonballs of unequal weight that hit the ground simultaneously. Aristotelean professors on the faculty were embarrassed. The university administration responded by not renewing Galileo's contract, thus ridding themselves of a troublemaker who challenged the accepted consensus. ... President Obama, a lawyer and politician, would now have us believe that the process of history has stopped. For the first time, scientific knowledge is not provisional and subject to revision, but final and settled. Skepticism, which has been the spur to all innovation and human progress, is unacceptable and must be condemned. But in fact, it is our awareness of what we do not know that determines our scientific level. ... Knowledge begins with skepticism and ends with conceit." --University of Oklahoma geologist David Deming (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1502&status=article&id=324081052281380&secure=1&show=1&rss=1)

Ian Murray
14-04-2009, 04:05 PM
It is noteworthy that the Australian Coal Association, representing Australian black coal mining companies, recognises the fact of global warming and the part played by coal in the process.


The greenhouse effect

Naturally occurring greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – the most common being water vapour – help regulate the earth’s temperature by trapping solar radiation. This “greenhouse effect” has warmed our planet for millions of years.

Without any greenhouse gases, scientists judge the average earth temperature would be more like -15ºC, instead of a relatively comfortable 14ºC. But most scientists judge that the increasing concentration of human-induced greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is warming the planet.

They consider it essential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from sources such as fossil fuels in order to prevent or reduce the risk of greenhouse effect-related climate change.

The planet Venus, a near twin in size to the earth, is an extreme example of the greenhouse effect. Its very dense atmosphere, composed primarily of carbon dioxide gas, which traps the heat from the sun during the day and prevents the surface from cooling at night. As a result, average surface temperatures on Venus are over 460ºC.

http://www.newgencoal.com.au/default.aspx?utm_source=consumer-recruitment&utm_medium=edm&utm_campaign=quant-apr09

Capablanca-Fan
14-04-2009, 06:18 PM
It is noteworthy that the Australian Coal Association, representing Australian black coal mining companies, recognises the fact of global warming and the part played by coal in the process.
Hardly the only example of the unholy alliance between Big Government and Big Business (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/big_bedfellows_big_government.html). The latter is not a friend of the free market, but is only too happy for Big Government to increase regulation that hurts its smaller competitors.

Garvinator
18-04-2009, 10:11 PM
http://www.optuszoo.com.au/article/news/news_latest/news_latest_ndm/7404820/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away.html


Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away
Apr 18, 2009 7:02pm Article from news.com.au

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread belief that global warming is melting it away.

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.

However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps. In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland.

Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise.

Mr Garrett insisted global warming was causing ice losses throughout Antarctica. "I don't think there's any doubt it is contributing to what we've seen both on the Wilkins shelf and more generally in Antarctica," he said.

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.

Ian Murray
18-04-2009, 10:57 PM
EPA finds GHG health risk under Clean Air Act

After a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed finding Friday that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare.

The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment period, identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat.

“This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations. Fortunately, it follows President Obama’s call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation,” said Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “This pollution problem has a solution – one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.”

As the proposed endangerment finding states, “In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”

EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.


The proposed endangerment finding now enters the public comment period, which is the next step in the deliberative process EPA must undertake before issuing final findings. Today’s proposed finding does not include any proposed regulations. Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, EPA would conduct an appropriate process and consider stakeholder input. Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0EF7DF675805295D8525759B00566924

Spiny Norman
19-04-2009, 04:57 AM
Ian, surely if CO2 were truly a pollutant, then removing it completely from the air would make our air better. Yet if that happened, all life would perish. With the other 5 pollutants mentioned, you could remove them and our air would indeed be better. Surely this clearly indicates that its in a quite different category of gas?

Capablanca-Fan
19-04-2009, 10:22 AM
Just another government bureaucracy trying to increase its power over people's lives. Nothing to see here; move on.

Ian Murray
19-04-2009, 03:02 PM
Ian, surely if CO2 were truly a pollutant, then removing it completely from the air would make our air better. Yet if that happened, all life would perish. With the other 5 pollutants mentioned, you could remove them and our air would indeed be better. Surely this clearly indicates that its in a quite different category of gas?
On that basis you could equally argue that a 100% CO2 atmosphere would be perfect.

The EPA finding noted these effects on human welfare:
The scientific analysis also confirms that climate change impacts human health in several ways. Findings from a recent EPA study titled “Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone,” for example, suggest that climate change may lead to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant. Additional impacts of climate change include, but are not limited to:
increased drought;
more heavy downpours and flooding;
more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires;
greater sea level rise;
more intense storms; and
harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems.

In proposing the finding, Administrator Jackson also took into account the disproportionate impact climate change has on the health of certain segments of the population, such as the poor, the very young, the elderly, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or a few resources.

Increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 add to the greenhouse effect and hence to global warming. See http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/greenhouse/ for a diagrammatic explanation of the greenhouse effect

The CO2 levels are increasing, vide the observatory data from Hawaii attached (from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html), ergo the increased carbon dioxide is harmful to human welfare

Spiny Norman
19-04-2009, 03:18 PM
Not really ... its clear to me that there is a range of CO2 that is acceptable. The graph above shows that we've changed from .00032 to .00038, so suggesting that we could be talking about 100% CO2 is just a furphy. Its a trace gas. Tiny. Almost insignificant for the purposes of breathing, but absolutely critical for the purposes of growing plants. Its not a pollutant. Never will be.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2009, 02:57 PM
Beware the climate of conformity (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/beware-the-climate-of-conformity-20090412-a3ya.html?page=-1)
Paul Sheehan
Review of Heaven And Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science by Ian Plimer
SMH 13 April 2009


Much of what we have read about climate change, he argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modelling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive". Errors and distortions in computer modelling will be exposed in time. (As if on cue, the United Nations' peak scientific body on climate change was obliged to make an embarrassing admission last week that some of its computers models were wrong.)



Is dangerous warming occurring? No.

Is the temperature range observed in the 20th century outside the range of normal variability? No.

The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

"To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable — human-induced CO2 — is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly. Yet when astronomers have the temerity to show that climate is driven by solar activities rather than CO2 emissions, they are dismissed as dinosaurs undertaking the methods of old-fashioned science."

Over time, the history of CO2 content in the atmosphere has been far higher than at present for most of time. Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rise. It does not create a temperature rise. CO2 is not a pollutant. Global warming and a high CO2 content bring prosperity and longer life.



"But evidence no longer matters. And any contrary work published in peer-reviewed journals is just ignored. We are told that the science on human-induced global warming is settled. Yet the claim by some scientists that the threat of human-induced global warming is 90 per cent certain (or even 99 per cent) is a figure of speech. It has no mathematical or evidential basis."


Ian Murray
21-04-2009, 08:05 PM
…Much of what we have read about climate change, he argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modelling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive"...

Certainly computer (i.e. mathematical) climate modelling is an inexact science with the number of variables involved. However it is reckless to dismiss the projections of the majority of researchers in earth and related disciplines - where there's smoke there's fire.


Is the temperature range observed in the 20th century outside the range of normal variability? No.

No? The observed data (not modelling) indicates that atmospheric CO2 levels are now some 30% higher than any time within the last 650,000 years (see attached diagram). The spike at the far right of the diagram represents the last 200 years, i.e. since the industrial age created significant CO2 emissions from human activity. Ice drilling cores show that the Antarctic temperature over the last 420,000 years matches the CO2 variations during and between ice ages, with the same spike over the last century.


The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

Solar activity is but one of our climate drivers, and a relatively stable one at that. In the short term the 11-year solar flare cycle changes the amount of radiation we receive by +- 0.1%. The current cycle peaks in 2011-12. The earth's orbital eccentricity creates much greater solar effects but that's a 100,000 year cycle.

www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/scycle.html
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_earth.html#orbitchange

Spiny Norman
22-04-2009, 05:28 AM
The observed data (not modelling) indicates that atmospheric CO2 levels are now some 30% higher than any time within the last 650,000 years (see attached diagram).
... yet global temperatures were much warmer than today less than 1,000 years ago, when Greenland was actually green.

Which shows that there other reasons for global warming. Its not all about CO2. The idea that CO2 drives global warming (as opposed to just responding to it) is a very new hypothesis, driven by computer modelling.

I have little faith in the computer models ... as when they run them restrospectively they cannot replicate known data. If they can't do that, why should we trust them when they make predictions for the future?

Looking again at your graph above: it seems to me that the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rises ... AND ... CO2 levels stay high for quite some time after the temperature has started dropping. So this graph actually supports the hypothesis that CO2 responds to warming and doesn't drive it.

Capablanca-Fan
22-04-2009, 12:53 PM
Even Leftygreen apologist Ian Murray's own graph (post #1099) shows that temperatures rose before the CO2 increased. Real scientists know that causes generally precede effects :P

Capablanca-Fan
22-04-2009, 03:05 PM
Green Jobs Myths (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1358423)

Morriss, Andrew P., Bogart, William T., Dorchak, Andrew and Meiners, Roger E., Green Jobs Myths (March 12, 2009). U Illinois Law & Economics Research Paper No. LE09-001; Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-15. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1358423

Abstract:
A rapidly growing literature promises that a massive program of government mandates, subsidies, and forced technological interventions will reward the nation with an economy brimming with green jobs. Not only will these jobs improve the environment, but they will be high paying, interesting, and provide collective rights. This literature is built on mythologies about economics, forecasting, and technology.

Myth: Everyone understands what a green job is.

Reality: No standard definition of a green job exists.

Myth: Creating green jobs will boost productive employment.

Reality: Green jobs estimates include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions that do not produce goods and services for consumption.

Myth: Green jobs forecasts are reliable.

Reality: The green jobs studies made estimates using poor economic models based on dubious assumptions.

Myth: Green jobs promote employment growth.

Reality: By promoting more jobs instead of more productivity, the green jobs described in the literature encourage low-paying jobs in less desirable conditions. Economic growth cannot be ordered by Congress or by the United Nations. Government interference - such as restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests - will generate stagnation.

...

Myth: Government mandates are a substitute for free markets.

Reality: Companies react more swiftly and efficiently to the demands of their customers and markets, than to cumbersome government mandates.

Myth: Imposing technological progress by regulation is desirable.

Reality: Some technologies preferred by the green jobs studies are not capable of efficiently reaching the scale necessary to meet today's demands and could be counterproductive to environmental quality.

In this Article, we survey the green jobs literature, analyze its assumptions, and show how the special interest groups promoting the idea of green jobs have embedded dubious assumptions and techniques within their analyses. Before undertaking efforts to restructure and possibly impoverish our society, careful analysis and informed public debate about these assumptions and prescriptions are necessary.

Ian Murray
23-04-2009, 12:38 PM
... yet global temperatures were much warmer than today less than 1,000 years ago, when Greenland was actually green..
The Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Current data indicates that the period was not as warm as the last century - www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

Actually Greenland's ice cap is hundreds of thousands of years old and covers over 80% of the island. The vast majority of land not under an ice sheet is rock and permafrost in the far north. Just how different could it have been only 1000 years ago?


Which shows that there other reasons for global warming. Its not all about CO2. The idea that CO2 drives global warming (as opposed to just responding to it) is a very new hypothesis, driven by computer modelling.
Not so new, greenhouse effect research dates from the 1820s - see www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Modelling has come a long way - see http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm#L_0751
Excerpts:

The decades of work by teams of specialists, backed up by immense improvements in computers and data, had gradually built up confidence in the prediction of global warming. It was largely thanks to their work that, as the editor of Science magazine announced in 2001, a "consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in the history of science."

Other scientists were studying various kinds of evidence of past climates back to the ice ages, indeed back to the Cretaceous era and earlier still, lining up ancient temperatures with greenhouse gas levels and other influences such as aerosols blown into the atmosphere from volcanoes. By 2006 they had arrived at fairly consistent numbers for how the mean global temperature connected with the level of CO2. The numbers agreed comfortably with the IPCC computer modelers' consensus

For all the millions of hours the modelers had devoted to their computations, in the end they could not say exactly how serious future global warming would be. They could only say that it was very likely to be bad, and it just might be an appalling catastrophe


I have little faith in the computer models ... as when they run them restrospectively they cannot replicate known data. If they can't do that, why should we trust them when they make predictions for the future?
An over-simplification. The models are not perfect, but they do replicate known data - see www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

"...every year that goes by with an ever increasing global mean temperature trend is one more year of success for the climate models that tell us this will continue to happen until CO2 concentrations stop rising. As well, the predicted acceleration of the rise is also apparent, though to be fair decades will need to pass before confirmation of this is unarguable.

But putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant predictions of enhanced greenhouse gas warming that have been made and confirmed:

* the warming at the surface should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere and this has indeed been observed
* as well as surface temperatures warming, models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid and upper troposphere even while satellite readings seemed to disagree. But it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed
* models expect warming of ocean surface waters as is now observed
* models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation. This has been detected
* models predict sharp and short lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this.
* models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region and this is happening"
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/models-are-unproven.php


Looking again at your graph above: it seems to me that the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rises ... AND ... CO2 levels stay high for quite some time after the temperature has started dropping. So this graph actually supports the hypothesis that CO2 responds to warming and doesn't drive it.

Even Leftygreen apologist Ian Murray's own graph (post #1099) shows that temperatures rose before the CO2 increased. Real scientists know that causes generally precede effects
Of course higher temperatures increase atmospheric CO2 - no surprises there. I'll explain shortly in another post

Capablanca-Fan
23-04-2009, 04:42 PM
The Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Current data indicates that the period was not as warm as the last century - www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
Of course, warm-mongering zealots have to abolish this historically documented MWP in favour of the discredited hockey stick, otherwise they wouldn't be able to tax and control the masses so much. See Medieval Warm Period Rediscovered (http://www.************.com/medieval-warm-period-rediscovered.html).


Of course higher temperatures increase atmospheric CO2
Missing the point, just like his hero alGore: the cause and effect of CO2 and temperature increase are the opposite to what that deceitful propaganda film claims (http://creation.com/the-great-global-warming-swindle-debate).


- no surprises there. I'll explain shortly in another post
As I am a Ph.D. physical chemist, I doubt that you could tell me anything I don't know in that area. It's very simple though: gas solubility in liquids decreases with increasing temperature. This is because the higher the temp, the greater the average kinetic energy, so more gas molecules have enough energy to break the gas-liquid intermolecular bonds. Or think about it as Le Chatelier's principle applied to the gas-liquid equilibrium (whether by condensing or dissolving): any disturbance makes the system shift in a way that counteracts this disturbance. So cooling a system favours the exothermic direction of the equilibrium, which is a gas becoming a liquid. The effect is greater with CO2 than say O2 because the CO2 undergoes some chemical reaction with the water as well: H20 + CO2 ↔ H+ + HCO3- ↔ 2H+ + CO3--.

Ian Murray
23-04-2009, 05:15 PM
Looking again at your graph above [Post 1099]: it seems to me that the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rises ... AND ... CO2 levels stay high for quite some time after the temperature has started dropping. So this graph actually supports the hypothesis that CO2 responds to warming and doesn't drive it.
Under the natural carbon cycle CO2 is diffused between the atmosphere and the oceans. The diffusion into the ocean is greater with lower temperatue and greater into the atmosphere with higher temperature (e.g polar waters absorb more CO2 than tropical waters). So atmospheric CO2 levels increase naturally as global temperatures rise. It doesn't happen instantly of course - there is a time lag between each event.

What is not natural is the amount of anthropogenic (human-driven) CO2 now being added to the atmosphere, 6.5 petagrams (6.5 billion tonnes) in 2000 from burning fossil fuels. At a projected annual increase of 1.8% through till 2030, it will then reach 11 Pg per year. Deforestation adds another 1-2 Pg annually.

In the long term (i.e. millenia) the oceans will continue to absorb and convert CO2 to carbonates, ending up as sedimentary rock and marine life sediment.

In the short term the surplus CO2 remains in the atmosphere, acting as a greenhouse gas and triggering further global warming. The earth is likely to very likely (in the scientific sense) to become and remain less habitable until our CO2 emissions are reduced (voluntarily or when the coal, oil and gas reserves dry up) and the natural balance is restored.

Of course once the atmosheric levels start declining, it won't be over - the oceans will then start diffusing their surplus CO2 back into the air.

Earth will abide, but it could be an uncomfortable place to live for quite a while.

www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_cycle
www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3409400041.html
www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm
www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#iceage
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/30/i12/html/12learn.html
www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/105.htm
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf

Capablanca-Fan
23-04-2009, 06:32 PM
Here's still more proof that the biggest warm-mongers are also among the biggest CO2 polluters (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/put_the_rocket_under_flannery/): Tim Flummery, Sir Richard Brazen, and now the Hopeychanger-in-Chief Hussein Obamov. Faithful followers of the GreenFaith like Ian should spend less time preaching to us GreenHeathens on ChessChat and more time telling their GreenProphets to practise what they preach.

Ian Murray
23-04-2009, 10:39 PM
Of course, warm-mongering zealots have to abolish this historically documented MWP in favour of the discredited hockey stick, otherwise they wouldn't be able to tax and control the masses so much. See Medieval Warm Period Rediscovered (http://www.************.com/medieval-warm-period-rediscovered.html).
Your link doesn't work, but have another look at mine, showing the IPCC plot revised in 2007 (copy attached). No hockey stick - the MWP and Little Ice Age are clearly shown (For those who came in late, 'hockey stick' story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3569604.stm))


Missing the point, just like his hero alGore: the cause and effect of CO2 and temperature increase are the opposite to what that deceitful propaganda film claims (http://creation.com/the-great-global-warming-swindle-debate).
My hero? Methinks you protesteth too much - I've never mentioned his name, nor have I seen the film

The unmissed point is that increased atmospheric CO2 is an effect of higher temperatures and also a GHG causing global warming (see Post 1105).


As I am a Ph.D. physical chemist, I doubt that you could tell me anything I don't know in that area. It's very simple though: gas solubility in liquids decreases with increasing temperature. This is because the higher the temp, the greater the average kinetic energy, so more gas molecules have enough energy to break the gas-liquid intermolecular bonds. Or think about it as Le Chatelier's principle applied to the gas-liquid equilibrium (whether by condensing or dissolving): any disturbance makes the system shift in a way that counteracts this disturbance. So cooling a system favours the exothermic direction of the equilibrium, which is a gas becoming a liquid. The effect is greater with CO2 than say O2 because the CO2 undergoes some chemical reaction with the water as well: H20 + CO2 ↔ H+ + HCO3- ↔ 2H+ + CO3--.
Thank you for validating my post

Ian Murray
23-04-2009, 11:03 PM
Here's still more proof that the biggest warm-mongers are also among the biggest CO2 polluters (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/put_the_rocket_under_flannery/): Tim Flummery, Sir Richard Brazen, and now the Hopeychanger-in-Chief Hussein Obamov. Faithful followers of the GreenFaith like Ian should spend less time preaching to us GreenHeathens on ChessChat and more time telling their GreenProphets to practise what they preach.
You still reading the Herald-Sun? No wonder you can't spell peoples' names :)

Capablanca-Fan
24-04-2009, 11:33 AM
You still reading the Herald-Sun? No wonder you can't spell peoples' names :)
No, because I went to a government school :P

Ian Murray
24-04-2009, 11:49 PM
Ongoing global warming research .....

Spiny Norman
25-04-2009, 10:53 AM
Here's a graph for you ... see if you can spot the correlation and tell me what's causing the warming of the late 20th century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.svg

Spiny Norman
25-04-2009, 10:59 AM
Scientists quietly moving the goalposts:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/25/space-weather-prediction-center-moves-the-solar-cycle-goalpost-again/

Spiny Norman
25-04-2009, 11:05 AM
... AND ... as an answer to those who still don't believe that "its the sun, stupid!" ... I offer the following peer-reviewed research:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JA012989.shtml

which in the summary notes:


Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea-level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th century, and the sea-surface temperature variations. Each of the records can be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one.

Maybe some of those climate scientists will have to adjust their models ...

Ian Murray
25-04-2009, 07:50 PM
Industries Buried Internal Findings
Climate Wording Cut From Public Report (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403331.html?wpisrc=newsletter)

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 25, 2009

A group funded by fossil-fuel-dependent companies that argued for years that human-generated greenhouse gases were not driving global warming was advised by its own scientists that this was the case, according to documents submitted as part of an ongoing lawsuit between auto manufacturers and states seeking to regulate vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions.

The Global Climate Coalition, a group of representatives of the oil, auto and coal industries, spent years telling the public that the link between human activity and climate change was too uncertain to justify U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 treaty aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions. In 1995, however, a "primer" on the issue produced by the organization's own scientific experts concluded that "the scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied."

This language was deleted from the primer when the group released it to the public.
...

In a sign of how much has changed over the past dozen years, former members of the defunct industry group now endorse a cap-and-trade bill to curb emissions.

"The utility industry doesn't dispute the science or the need for federal legislation," said Dan Riedinger of the Edison Electric Institute. "Our focus is on urging lawmakers to enact a climate bill that cuts emissions but also protects our customers from sharply higher costs."

Ian Murray
25-04-2009, 09:59 PM
Here's a graph for you ... see if you can spot the correlation and tell me what's causing the warming of the late 20th century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.svg
The graph may be accurate (or may not), but as a Wikipedia entry summarised as:

Summary
Description English: Numbers of sunspots since 1610.[1][2] Several periodic cycles are evident, most notably the 11 year (131 ± 14 month) cycle....
Source Self-made using gnuplot.
Date 1 Aug 2008
Author (not named)

it cannot reasonably be regarded as a reliable source

Ian Murray
25-04-2009, 10:20 PM
Scientists quietly moving the goalposts:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/25/space-weather-prediction-center-moves-the-solar-cycle-goalpost-again/

That blog was dated 25 Feb, prefaced by:
"SWPC has just made a change in their solar cycle predictions in the middle of the month without any preannouncement. Both Sunspot and F10.7cm predictions were altered significantly."

The explanation is given on the SWPC site www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle -

"Recent Changes to Solar Cycle Values and Plots

March 2, 2009 -- The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has not issued any updates to their prediction. However, the Space Weather Prediction Center, and the Chair of the Prediction Panel decided to implement what they believe to be an obvious change to the plotted data. The two predictions, of maximum being either a SSN of 90 or a SSN of 140 remain intact. Once the date of solar minimum is known, that is all the information needed to arrive at a prediction curve. The panel prediction of solar minimum in March, 2008 has been eclipsed. Minimum will now occur no earlier than August, 2008. For every month beyond March 2008 that minimum slips, it is necessary to shift the prediction curves by the same amount. SWPC commenced doing so in mid-February and will continue to do so, unless or until the prediction panel sets a new predicted date for the time of solar minimum."

Ian Murray
26-04-2009, 12:47 AM
... AND ... as an answer to those who still don't believe that "its the sun, stupid!" ... I offer the following peer-reviewed research:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JA012989.shtml
which in the summary notes:

Maybe some of those climate scientists will have to adjust their models ...
All that abstract seems to tell us is that solar irradiation has been amplified somehow according to studies of data dating from around 1950(?). The paper itself is not freely available.

We know from satellite measurements (http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant) that there has been no unusual increase in solar activity since 1978 (i.e. since data collection by satellites began).

So there is no correlation between recent solar activity and recent global warming (http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006Temp_data.htm).

See also
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades

Ian Murray
26-04-2009, 09:29 AM
Scientists: Pace of Climate Change Exceeds Estimates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/14/AR2009021401757.html)
By Kari Lydersen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 15, 2009


CHICAGO, Feb. 14 -- The pace of global warming is likely to be much faster than recent predictions, because industrial greenhouse gas emissions have increased more quickly than expected and higher temperatures are triggering self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms in global ecosystems, scientists said Saturday.

"We are basically looking now at a future climate that's beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model simulations," Christopher Field, founding director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Field, a member of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said emissions from burning fossil fuels since 2000 have largely outpaced the estimates used in the U.N. panel's 2007 reports. The higher emissions are largely the result of the increased burning of coal in developing countries, he said.

Unexpectedly large amounts of carbon dioxide are being released into the atmosphere as the result of "feedback loops" that are speeding up natural processes. Prominent among these, evidence indicates, is a cycle in which higher temperatures are beginning to melt the arctic permafrost, which could release hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere, said several scientists on a panel at the meeting.

...

Field said the U.N. panel's next assessment of Earth's climate trends, scheduled for release in 2014, will for the first time incorporate policy proposals. It will also include complicated models of interconnected ecosystem feedbacks.

The panel's last report noted that preliminary knowledge of such feedbacks suggested that an additional 100 billion to 500 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions would have to be prevented in the next century to avoid dangerous global warming. Currently, about 10 billion tons of carbon are emitted each year.

Edit: Article was quoted in full, inadvertently breaching copyright and forum rules - now truncated.

The article also includes report of the reduced ability of terrestrial and marine ecosystems to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The annual rate of athropogenic emissions with a peak in 2030, as mentioned in Post 1105, seems to be just about here already

Ian Murray
27-04-2009, 09:56 PM
Post 1098 carried extracts from a review of Prof Ian Plimer's latest book -


Beware the climate of conformity (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/beware-the-climate-of-conformity-20090412-a3ya.html?page=-1)
Paul Sheehan
Review of Heaven And Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science by Ian Plimer
SMH 13 April 2009

Prof Robert Manne calls for balance -

Cheerleading for zealotry not in the public interest (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25380219-7583,00.html)

Robert Manne | April 25, 2009
Article from: The Australian


LAST week, The Weekend Australian published three pieces enthusiastically welcoming the publication of Ian Plimer's new anti-climate science book, Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science: an overwhelmingly favourable editorial, a lengthy interview with the author and a column by Christopher Pearson of gushing praise. In these three pieces not one word of criticism of Plimer was to be found.

It might have been supposed that the editors of this newspaper would wonder about the capacity for fair-mindedness of a geologist who describes the entire climate science community as "the forces of darkness"; who recently told Adelaide's The Advertiser that his book would singlehandedly "knock out" not one or several but "every argument we hear about climate change"; and who, in earlier work, had spent considerable energy trying to prove that Noah's Ark was a myth, the intellectual equivalent of a zoologist seeking to dispose of the belief that the serpent in the Garden of Eden could really have spoken to Eve.

...

On the question of human causation of climate change, the central point that Plimer challenges, there are among the scientists two broad camps.

In one camp are the tens of thousands of climate scientists in many discrete disciplines who, despite differences of emphasis and interpretation on many questions, regard it as now beyond doubt that, through the release into the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, human beings have been responsible for post-industrial global warming. The work of these scientists has been summarised in four cautious reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In the most recent, the IPCC argued that the evidence for human causation of climate change was unequivocal.

In the other camp are a few dozen scientists who are best described as global warming pseudo-sceptics. Most do not publish in the refereed climate science academic journals. Some have been financed by greenhouse gas-emitting industries and provided with moral support by anti-global warming lobby groups.

Many regard the work of the tens of thousands of climate change scientists as fraudulent and the IPCC as a sinister and vast international conspiracy. Plimer is a typical member of this camp.

Over climate change, citizens face an apparently acute dilemma. The question of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the Earth's future is by far the most important issue our generation faces. Yet those of us who are not trained scientists are in no position to make independent judgments on the fundamental scientific issues for ourselves.

This dilemma is relatively easy to resolve. In regard to the science of climate change, as Clive Hamilton has put it, the only decision citizens have to make is not what to believe but who. We can place our trust either in the tens of thousands of climate scientists whose work has been published in the relevant scientific journals and summarised by the IPCC, or in the few dozen pseudo-sceptics who dismiss mainstream climate science as a politically correct, rent-seeking hoax.

...

The consensual views of the climate scientists are our only reliable guide to the causes of global warming or what the impact of greenhouse gas emissions is likely to be. However, they cannot tell us what, given this knowledge, we must do. This is a decision that citizens must make within the framework of the democratic political process.

If the scientists are right, humanity is at present marching, with eyes wide open, towards disaster. The future of the planet now depends on whether human beings are capable of rising to the challenge of global warming.

Many industries that rely on fossil fuel emissions are working hard to safeguard their interests by convincing citizens of nations such as Australia to delay the tough decisions that must now be made.

Pseudo-sceptical scientists such as Plimer, who falsely help to convince citizens that the scientific knowledge in this field is fiercely disputed and basically unsettled, are among their most valuable assets.

It goes without saying that Plimer has every right to publish whatever it is he believes. However, for the editors of this newspaper to give books such as his the kind of enthusiastic welcome hundreds of others published in this country every year cannot dream of receiving and, even more, to treat their publication as important events, seems to me a grave intellectual, political and moral mistake.

Robert Manne is professor of politics at LaTrobe University in Melbourne.

Capablanca-Fan
27-04-2009, 10:48 PM
Prof Robert Manne calls for balance -
What would non-scientist grievance-mongering Manne know? And his idea of "balance" is quashing all dissent from the warm-mongering and "stolen gneration" shakedown industries. News flash: Plimer's book IS the balance!

Kevin Bonham
28-04-2009, 12:32 AM
Prof Robert Manne calls for balance -

[..]

It might have been supposed that the editors of this newspaper would wonder about the capacity for fair-mindedness of a geologist who describes the entire climate science community as "the forces of darkness"; who recently told Adelaide's The Advertiser that his book would singlehandedly "knock out" not one or several but "every argument we hear about climate change"; and who, in earlier work, had spent considerable energy trying to prove that Noah's Ark was a myth, the intellectual equivalent of a zoologist seeking to dispose of the belief that the serpent in the Garden of Eden could really have spoken to Eve.

Manne's comments about Plimer vs Noah's Ark are very dubious here. Plimer's major engagement re said Ark was attacking a specific claim to have found Noah's Ark, and Plimer's primary contribution was to claim, on the basis of his expertise as a geologist, that the claimed Ark was a naturally occurring geologic structure, a syncline. No doubt Plimer does believe the Ark is a myth and I would expect that he would have argued that from time to time - but it's not the "considerable energy" Plimer is known for.

Looks like in his desire to portray Plimer as one who habitually speaks outside his area of expertise, Manne has himself made inaccurate claims about a subject he would appear to be inexpert on (the bio of Prof Plimer) in which case Manne's attack has not merely failed but also rebounded on itself.


In the other camp are a few dozen scientists who are best described as global warming pseudo-sceptics.

And this is also going much too far in the direction of trying to dismiss opposition since while the opposition may be small it is not that small.


Robert Manne is professor of politics at LaTrobe University in Melbourne.[/INDENT]

And if he believes his own arguments he should be sticking to what he knows too, rather than suggesting that he, as a non-scientist (and not any kind of expert in philosophy or history of science either), is in a position to say whether a near-consensus among relevant scientists should be believed or not.

I don't disagree with all Manne says (unremarkable as it all is) but he does his case a disservice by arguing it in such a shoddy manner and resorting to unnecessary cheapos.

It also bothers me that Manne is so determined to knock down Plimer that he's even willing to dismiss the value of scientific commentary on the plausibility of biblical stories just for the sake of a bogus ad hominem. Of course, whether "X strongly appears scientifically impossible" implies "X is probably myth" is a statement that some will consider to follow and some will not, but for many who discuss the veracity or otherwise of Scripture it is very much relevant.

Ian Murray
28-04-2009, 09:16 AM
...I don't disagree with all Manne says (unremarkable as it all is) but he does his case a disservice by arguing it in such a shoddy manner and resorting to unnecessary cheapos....
He does go over the top, doesn't he? I was quite increulous about some of his comments, but the article was worth posting just to stir the pot :)

Kevin Bonham
28-04-2009, 03:51 PM
I do find the strange alliances provoked by "misotheist" Plimer's appearance as a global-warming sceptic/denialist (take your pick!) to be very amusing.

Capablanca-Fan
28-04-2009, 03:54 PM
Manne's comments about Plimer vs Noah's Ark are very dubious here. Plimer's major engagement re said Ark was attacking a specific claim to have found Noah's Ark, and Plimer's primary contribution was to claim, on the basis of his expertise as a geologist, that the claimed Ark was a naturally occurring geologic structure, a syncline.
Yet he got that wrong, because it was a mud flow. Creationist Ph.D. geologist Andrew Snelling got it right, then Plimer followed suit but still took credit—see documentation in Who really sunk the Noah’s Ark site? (http://creation.com/article/4133) by Cameron Horn, 1997. And of course, although CSF (now CMI) had explicitly rejected this "ark" site in a detailed 1992 article (http://creation.com/article/194), Plimer dishonestly persisted years later in claiming it was a crucial creationist argument.


It also bothers me that Manne is so determined to knock down Plimer that he's even willing to dismiss the value of scientific commentary on the plausibility of biblical stories just for the sake of a bogus ad hominem. Of course, whether "X strongly appears scientifically impossible" implies "X is probably myth" is a statement that some will consider to follow and some will not, but for many who discuss the veracity or otherwise of Scripture it is very much relevant.
This is rank hypocrisy, because Manne's allies in the MMM (Mendacious Mainstream Media) cheered Plimer for just this. See Plimer–Roberts Court Case: Media Mendacity (http://creation.com/article/4128).


I do find the strange alliances provoked by "misotheist" Plimer's appearance as a global-warming sceptic/denialist (take your pick!) to be very amusing.
We've noted this with amusement too, as all his erstwhile friends in the MMM have turned on him now that he's attacking the PC establishment rather than being its mouthpiece :P

Kevin Bonham
28-04-2009, 04:44 PM
Yet he got that wrong, because it was a mud flow. Creationist Ph.D. geologist Andrew Snelling got it right, then Plimer followed suit but still took credit—see documentation in Who really sunk the Noah’s Ark site? (http://creation.com/article/4133) by Cameron Horn, 1997. And of course, although CSF (now CMI) had explicitly rejected this "ark" site in a detailed 1992 article (http://creation.com/article/194), Plimer dishonestly persisted years later in claiming it was a crucial creationist argument.

So if Plimer was sloppy and naughty then (and I don't think there's that much "if" about it) what's changed now?


We've noted this with amusement too, as all his erstwhile friends in the MMM have turned on him now that he's attacking the PC establishment rather than being its mouthpiece :P

Well, he did get that one surprisingly favourable MMM review from someone previously sympathetic to the global warming case, so maybe his former status carries some weight after all.

I would be interested to know what the breakdown of organised atheist/sceptic groups is in terms of positions of members on global warming.

Spiny Norman
28-04-2009, 06:06 PM
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Spiny Norman
28-04-2009, 06:17 PM
Here's a beauty, courtesy of that paragon of truth, the ABC, trying to do a number on Plimer:


MARGOT O’NEILL: The claim that global temperatures have dropped since 1998, thus disproving a warming trend, is one of many rejected emphatically by one of the world’s climate scientists, David Karoly.

DAVID KAROLY, UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE: Temperatures have dropped a very small amount since 1998, both in surface temperatures and in atmospheric temperatures measured from satellites. But that doesn’t mean that global warming has stopped.

Bwahahah!

Ian Murray
28-04-2009, 06:31 PM
So if Plimer was sloppy and naughty then (and I don't think there's that much "if" about it) what's changed now? ...
OK, so Plimer and Manne are discredited. I can live with that.

Kevin Bonham
28-04-2009, 07:47 PM
Here's a beauty, courtesy of that paragon of truth, the ABC, trying to do a number on Plimer:


MARGOT O’NEILL: The claim that global temperatures have dropped since 1998, thus disproving a warming trend, is one of many rejected emphatically by one of the world’s climate scientists, David Karoly.

DAVID KAROLY, UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE: Temperatures have dropped a very small amount since 1998, both in surface temperatures and in atmospheric temperatures measured from satellites. But that doesn’t mean that global warming has stopped.

Bwahahah!

Here's the next sentence of Karoly's that you didn't quote:


The temperatures, if we average from 1998 to 2008, they're warmer than the previous 10 years, or the 10 years before that, or any 10-year period over at least the last 150 years.

Furthermore, 1998 is argued as having been exceptionally hot because of El Nino considerations, in which case if there is gradual warming it may take several more years for that year to be surpassed. Looking at a single year and then drawing a line after that does not prove that there is no long-term trend.

The constant focus on 1998 by the "sceptics" frustrates me because it is a case of them not really understanding and addressing the opposing argument. That's not to say the opposing argument is necessarily true, just that attacking something that isn't actually it is a waste of time.

Spiny Norman
02-05-2009, 04:32 PM
Antarctica is getting colder:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25416631-11949,00.html

Ian Murray
02-05-2009, 11:11 PM
Antarctica is getting colder:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25416631-11949,00.html
According to The Australian, but disputed in the article by BOM which collects weather data at Australian bases in Antarctica

The British Antarctic Survey on which The Australian relies for its story publishes data on temperatures at 18 bases. The starting point of available data varies, but nothing less than a 35-year sample from bases indicates that all are recording an annual warming trend, except Halley, Mawson, Molodezhnaya and the South Pole.

Satellite data collection from 1981 shows a near-continental warming trend (see diagram)

Sources
http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/public/icd/gjma
http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/public/icd/gjma/trends2006.col.pdf
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239

Kaitlin
03-05-2009, 07:03 PM
Antarctica is getting colder:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25416631-11949,00.html

..cause its comming into winter time :rolleyes:

Ian Murray
03-05-2009, 07:30 PM
..cause its comming into winter time :rolleyes:
Interestingly, on average temperatures, autumn is the coldest season at most Antarctic bases (see www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/public/icd/gjma/trends2006.col.pdf).

For today's weather down there see www.wunderground.com/global/AA.html

However we're not so interested in daily or seasonal weather as we are in long term trends in temperature - is Antactica actually getting warmer over time? Only in the last few decades have we had access to reliable data collected via satellite, automatic weather stations (90-odd of them now in operation, cf 550 in Australia) and meteorologists at the manned bases

upldiscovered
04-05-2009, 11:15 AM
Correction........Global warning....SWINE DEAL(swindle)

Ian Murray
04-05-2009, 12:00 PM
Correction........Global warning....SWINE DEAL(swindle)
I prefer the science rather than metaphysics

Capablanca-Fan
04-05-2009, 12:14 PM
Rudd delays ETS (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudd_delays_ets/)
Andrew Bolt, 4 May 09

Kevin Rudd goes cool on saving the planet:


The Federal Government is today expected to announce that it is delaying the introduction of its emissions trading scheme by a yea (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/04/2559899.htm?section=business)r.

The ABC understands that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is about to announce that the scheme will be delayed until 2011… The Government is also understood to be considering other changes, including a lower cap on the price of carbon.

Forget now setting the world an example. Forget now this kind of cant, which Rudd was still preaching less than a month ago:


The Government’s climate change strategy is being implemented step by step, recognising the urgency of the environmental and the economic imperative for action (http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2009/speech_0914.cfm)… The Government believes that the economic cost of inaction on climate change is far greater than the cost of action and that sustained inaction imperils our economy and the global economy.

Now Rudd still claims the world is heating to hell, thanks to man, but perhaps we can wait, after all.

Rudd should be pilloried for promising an urgent fix we couldn’t afford and a scheme that wouldn’t work to a problem that isn’t there and which he said couldn’t wait, only now to drop it for a year - or almost certainly long\

...

Yet Rudd has revealed just how gutless and tactically incompetent the Opposition has been on this issue.

I have warned senior Liberals for some time that Rudd would probably delay his ludicrous scheme until after the election, thus making his position on emissions trading little different to that of Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/14/2516293.htm), who has also called for the ETS to be delayed, and then better “designed”, whatever that may mean to voters.

Now what? The party should have said from the start that it would not sacrifice a single Australian job for a scheme that wouldn’t work to fix a problem that may not even be there. Risky, yes, given that much of the media is still on the global warming bandwagon, but is its present cautious strategy working any better?

...

Capablanca-Fan
05-05-2009, 09:24 AM
Plimer: critics haven't bothered to read his book, and don't argue the science (Hot-air doomsayers (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25429080-7583,00.html), 5 May 09):

IN Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science, I predicted that the critics would play the man and not discuss the science. Initial criticism appeared before the book was released three weeks ago.

Well-known catastrophists criticised the book before they actually received a review copy. Critics, who have everything to gain by frightening us witless with politicised science, have now shown their true colours. No critic has argued science with me…

Despite having four review copies, ABC’s Lateline photocopied parts of chapters and sent them to an expert on gravity, a biologist and one who produces computer models. These critics did not read the book in its entirety. The compere of Lateline claimed that he had read the book yet his questions showed the opposite…

In The Age (Insight, May 2), David Karoly claims that my book “does not support the answers with sources”. Considering that the book has 2311 footnotes as sources, Karoly clearly had not read the book. Maybe Karoly just read up to page 21, which showed that his published selective use of data showed warming but, when the complete set of data was used, no such warming was seen.

Robert Manne (The Weekend Australian, Inquirer, April 25-26) claims to be a great democrat yet demonises dissent on a matter of science. He is not a scientist. The gains made in the Enlightenment, the scientific method, history and integrated interdisciplinary science are all ignored in an ideological push to remodel the economy.

Primary producers should be very worried about an emissions trading scheme underpinned by incomplete science. Unions in industrial centres may even make conditional financial support of the ALP because the workforce they represent will be lambs to the slaughter with an ETS.

Capital city ABC and newspaper media outlets have treated the public with disdain. They have used arrogant pompous scientists who talk down to the public and yet these scientists forget that the public employs them. My critics are never asked: Who funds them? What have they to gain by following their party line? Why have they ignored a huge body of contrary science? What are their political associations? What unelected groups support them? Yet I am constantly asked these questions.

...

In the past, climate change has never been driven by CO2. Why should it be now driven by CO2 when the atmospheric CO2 content is low? The main greenhouse gas has always been water vapour. Once there is natural global warming, then CO2 in the atmosphere increases. CO2 is plant food, it is not a pollutant and it is misleading non-scientific spin to talk of carbon pollution. If we had carbon pollution, the skies would be black with fine particles of carbon. We couldn't see or breathe. Climate Change Minister Penny Wong appeals to science yet demonstrates she does not have a primary school understanding of science.

...

Kevin Bonham
05-05-2009, 09:35 PM
My critics are never asked: Who funds them? What have they to gain by following their party line? Why have they ignored a huge body of contrary science? What are their political associations? What unelected groups support them? Yet I am constantly asked these questions.

Whether Plimer is right about this issue or not, these comments are a very accurate picture of the way environmental movements and green-leaning hacks in journalism often operate. Those on the green side of the fence are not quizzed about their vested interests. Pro-green scientists who call for further research or remedial work on an issue are not lambasted for failing to disclose that they would be very likely to be hired to do it if that research was conducted, but a scientist who expresses a pro-industry viewpoint can expect to not only be lambasted for any industry connections they have whether these are declared or not, but also to be falsely accused of industry connections they do not have.

Capablanca-Fan
06-05-2009, 11:42 AM
KRudd and his minions told us that we had to reduce emissions without delay, as the cost of omission would be far worse, but now he's delayed it for a year (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_rudds_warming_fraud_squad/).

But it's now widely acknowledged (even by die-hard warm-mongering alarmists (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13)), the rise in carbon dioxide usually comes around 800 years after (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/04/co2-lags-temperature-how-alarmists.html)the rise in temperatures, totally refuting alGore's self-enriching agitprop. From Fischer et al, Science 12 March 1999: p. 1712 | DOI: 10.1126/science.283.5408.1712 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5408/1712):


“Atmospheric CO2 concentrations show a similar increase for all three terminations, connected to a climate-driven net transfer of carbon from the ocean to the atmosphere. The time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions.”

Mokum
06-05-2009, 12:56 PM
(even by die-hard warm-mongering alarmists (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13))

I don't see how that article "totally refuting alGore's self-enriching agitprop". It explains it quite well to me. Here it is:

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.


The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]

In any case, all that data should be meaningless if indeed you believe the Earth is no more than 6000 years old, shouldn't it?

Capablanca-Fan
06-05-2009, 02:09 PM
I don't see how that article "totally refuting alGore's self-enriching agitprop". It explains it quite well to me. Here it is:
Yet even this had to admit that CO2 didn't initiate the warming, but allegedly amplified it after warming had been caused by something else!


In any case, all that data should be meaningless if indeed you believe the Earth is no more than 6000 years old, shouldn't it?
It's quite acceptable to argue from an opponent's premises, e.g. in reductio ad absurdum.

Mokum
06-05-2009, 04:35 PM
It's quite acceptable to argue from an opponent's premises, e.g. in reductio ad absurdum.

Be my guest. You are presenting data which, if you follow it to its logical conclusion, means that your young earth beliefs are absurd. I agree. Either the data you present is meaningless, or your 'young earth' beliefs are wrong. I guess you will dismiss the data showing the earth to be much older than 6000 years. Which means you are quite willing to do whatever it takes to win an argument, even if you know you are misleading your audience. Which is cheap.

Capablanca-Fan
06-05-2009, 04:59 PM
Be my guest. You are presenting data which, if you follow it to its logical conclusion, means that your young earth beliefs are absurd. I agree.
No, I am using data that even granting your billions-of-years dogma, the data shows that CO2 didn't cause warming but the reverse. But you warm-mongering alarmists will say anything to justify more government funding of their research and control of the population. That is, when it suits them. I.e. KRudd claimed that we couldn't wait, but now has put his economy-killing CO2 emissions rorting trading scheme on hold.

Mokum
06-05-2009, 07:24 PM
No, I am using data that even granting your billions-of-years dogma
You are using data that only granting my billions-of-years dogma makes any sense, as the graphs plot data with 50.000 year intervals. I have no problem with that graph, and the article you linked explains things very reasonably. You must have problems with that graph, given your young earth beliefs, and in other discussions would dismiss it out of hand, yet you don't hesitate using it when it suits you, accusing others using data only when it suits them.

Capablanca-Fan
06-05-2009, 07:42 PM
You are using data that only granting my billions-of-years dogma makes any sense, as the graphs plot data with 50.000 year intervals.
Since that is the paradigm that you and alGore are working from, I was showing that even granting that, the "CO2 causes warming" is contradicted even by the graph composed within your paradigm.


I have no problem with that graph, and the article you linked explains things very reasonably.
Explains things away, more likely. In reality, something else than CO2 is the initiator of temperature rises.


You must have problems with that graph, given your young earth beliefs, and in other discussions would dismiss it out of hand, yet you don't hesitate using it when it suits you, accusing others using data only when it suits them.
Criticisms by me are superfluous, since they are based on data you and other warm-mongers accept. Why fight a battle on two fronts? Rather, it makes sense to accept just for the sake of argument that the long ages are right, and battle on this common ground.

Rincewind
06-05-2009, 10:05 PM
Leigh Dayton got stuck into Plimer today in the Australian.

Denialist ark a wobbly craft (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25433327-25192,00.html)

Some of her arguments are a little silly at points though, likening (AFAICT) CO2's effect on global temperature with cyanide's effect on biological respiratory systems.

Desmond
07-05-2009, 12:16 PM
You are using data that only granting my billions-of-years dogma makes any sense, as the graphs plot data with 50.000 year intervals. I have no problem with that graph, and the article you linked explains things very reasonably. You must have problems with that graph, given your young earth beliefs, and in other discussions would dismiss it out of hand, yet you don't hesitate using it when it suits you, accusing others using data only when it suits them.I don't see any problem with Jono accepting the opponent's premise to refute it on some other grounds, even though he ultimately disputes the premise too. They are two seperate issues that can be argued seperately. Sometimes it is more expedient to do it that way than to refute the entire premise.

Capablanca-Fan
07-05-2009, 12:55 PM
Leigh Dayton got stuck into Plimer today in the Australian.
Yet another of his doting admirers who turned on him after he dared to attack the establishment; compare Plimer–Roberts Court Case: Media Mendacity (http://creation.com/article/4128).


Some of her arguments are a little silly at points though, likening (AFAICT) CO2's effect on global temperature with cyanide's effect on biological respiratory systems.
Yeah, well, she is an anthropologist by training. One respondent pointed out:

Cyanide is poisonous in trace amounts. CO2 is an inert gas that has anesthetic [properties] at very high concentrations and headache inducing qualities at 7-10% concentration. CO2 in atmosphere is 0.04%

The first comment was:

The article is rather religous in its overtones — as an earth scientist myself I find the whole warming belief apparatus very disturbing — its very like religious fundamentalism in its language and approach. I read numerous papers and scientific journals and have found little support for the IPCC — they have made many predictions based on their computer programs made by people not in their correct fields. All IPCC predictions have been wrong and we hear all of these fudging arguments from ideologically captured magazines run by journalists like New Scientist and Nature who know nothing about earth sciences. Its a bit like our government's so called experts — Garnaut is a failed economic forecaster and Nick Stern is the world's worst bank manager. The government knows that people with relevant qualifications will say their greenhouse ideology is bunkum, so it wont consult them.

Hehehe, from Andrew Bolt's column The publishers who rejected Plimer’s bestseller (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_publishers_who_refused_a_sceptical_bestseller/)


[Plimer] "produced best-sellers such as Telling Lies for God (Random House, around 23,000 copies) and A Short History of Planet Earth (ABC Books, around 16,000 copies),"

Compare my Refuting Evolution (http://creation.com/store_redirect.php?sku=10-2-110) with 500,000 copies, or Refuting Compromise (http://creation.com/store_redirect.php?sku=10-2-164) with 100,000 ... ;)

Capablanca-Fan
07-05-2009, 04:03 PM
It seems that the much vaunted Prius doesn't get as many mpg as claimed (http://www.wired.com/cars/coolwheels/news/2009/05/plugins0506), so it's really the car for those who want to assert their moral superiority:


Seattle has outfitted more than a dozen Toyota Prius hybrids with new plug-in technology to squeeze even better fuel efficiency from the eco-wonder.

City officials were intrigued by data suggesting ... would routinely see 100 mpg using readily available battery packs installed in the trunk… (But) having racked up some 17,000 miles, the plug-in Prius hybrids are averaging just 51 mpg. That’s raising uncomfortable questions about the value and effectiveness of plug-in technology, even as President Obama pledges to have 1 million of them on the road by 2015.

Mokum
07-05-2009, 09:48 PM
I don't see any problem with Jono accepting the opponent's premise to refute it on some other grounds, even though he ultimately disputes the premise too. They are two seperate issues that can be argued seperately. Sometimes it is more expedient to do it that way than to refute the entire premise.
Accepting someone's premise for the sake of an argument is one thing, volunteering a premise you don't accept at all when it suits you to try to make a point is something else. But it's no big deal, it was only a lighthearted comment which Jono took seriously and tried to refute with his weird logic.

Capablanca-Fan
08-05-2009, 12:32 AM
Accepting someone's premise for the sake of an argument is one thing, volunteering a premise you don't accept at all when it suits you to try to make a point is something else. But it's no big deal, it was only a lighthearted comment which Jono took seriously and tried to refute with his weird logic.
Just because you don't understand basic logic like reductio ad absurdum, don't project your deficiencies on me. BTW, it was first alGore's graph, which didn't show what he claimed on his dishonest film.

Mokum
08-05-2009, 01:31 PM
Just because you don't understand basic logic like reductio ad absurdum, don't project your deficiencies on me. BTW, it was first alGore's graph, which didn't show what he claimed on his dishonest film.
Sure. Hope you feel better.

Capablanca-Fan
09-05-2009, 12:38 AM
Another green fund bites the dust in bear market (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,,25444756-30538,00.htm)
Victor Bivell
The Australian, 8 May 09

THE bad news keeps coming for Australian international environmental equity funds and their investors. The latest is that DWS Investments has closed its Global Climate Change Fund.

Australian international environmental funds are a new sector of the fund management industry that have tried hard to get off the ground. But after two years and the global financial crisis they are still struggling… All the six retail funds that began (in 2007) have faced difficulties and three have now closed.

Capablanca-Fan
09-05-2009, 01:12 PM
A licence to tell warming lies (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_licence_to_tell_warming_lies/)
Andrew Bolt. 9 May 09

Harvard University PhD candidate Monika Kopacz insists global warming scientists have a duty to lie:


It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention (http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/magazine/12letters-t-THECIVILHERE_LETTERS.html&OQ=_rQ3D2&OP=2e871f4cQ2FQ20K,_Q20Q5BlHvNllQ3FCQ20CQ24Q242Q20 Q24Q5CQ20qCQ20Q7CdTdQ7BSQ5D,Q20qCI,Q3FQ3F,NvQ7DQ3F Q7D3zi6!.!pziPibpi33iPnQ3EXQ3FQ7CI). So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.

We’ve heard such admissions before, of course:


Professor Stephen Schneider, global warming guru at Stanford University (said) ”we have to offer up scary scenarios (http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/2007/01/30/warmie-doc-offer-up-scary-scenarios/), make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

Then there was this defence of (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/latest_column1/#224608) — and allegedly by — Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery. And this use of the warmists’ licence to exaggerate by Robyn “100 metres” Williams (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warming_williams_exaggerates_again/).

Capablanca-Fan
09-05-2009, 01:18 PM
Forget clean air, keep coal fires burning (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25450102-5018012,00.html)
Terry McCrann, 9 May 09

McCrann argues that if KRudd's propaganda is right that we must not delay with saving the planet, and that many greeb jobs will be created, then it's absurd to postpone emission tradings scheme. This politically motivated postponement shows that he doesn't really believe his own propaganda, so the who idea should be canned.


ON Tuesday night Wayne Swan is apparently going to unveil a $60 billion budget deficit, give or take the odd billion or ten, between not so much friends as between the robbed Peter and the paid Paul.

A year ago the new Treasurer was unveiling surpluses as far as the analytical eye could see -- just under $22 billion for the financial year just concluding and just under $20 billion for 2009-10.

The extraordinary $80 billion-odd turnaround from black to red ink in the course of just 12months should give a lot of people pause on a number of fronts.

The single most important is probably not factored into many, if any, calculations. That it makes an overwhelming case that the Government's emissions trading scheme shouldn't just be postponed but abandoned completely.

The postponement makes no sense in terms of the Government's own beliefs, or the beliefs that it purports to collectively hold and which are apparently, indefensibly and disturbingly, shared by Treasury head Ken Henry and his right hand man, David Gruen.

A year ago we were being told that there was not a moment to lose, so far as the ETS was concerned. It had to start in 2010 — even delaying it to 2011, as suggested by the Opposition, was unacceptable.

...

(W)hat has gone largely unremarked is that the postponement makes no sense in terms of the Government’s own rhetoric/beliefs about the economic consequences of the ETS.

The reason for the postponement is our current economic troubles. Yet the Government and its Treasury advisers keep telling us that the sooner we start on the ETS, the better our economy will be. “Green” jobs will sprout like the harvest after the spring rains. The postponement suggests the Government is somewhat less than confident this will prove true…

This goes to the more fundamental issue, and one that Treasury should understand but apparently doesn’t. Why are we one of, if not the biggest, emitters of carbon dioxide per head of population?… It comes from our near total reliance on coal-fired power stations—which gives us the cheapest and most reliable electricity in the world. And, to a lesser extent, our mining and export of minerals, especially coal and iron ore…

In arguably the most extraordinary economic policy decision—based on the most inept policy advice—in our nation’s history, the Rudd Government proposes to attack the industries in which we have our greatest comparative advantage.

Kevin Bonham
09-05-2009, 02:50 PM
A licence to tell warming lies (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_licence_to_tell_warming_lies/)
Andrew Bolt. 9 May 09

Harvard University PhD candidate Monika Kopacz insists global warming scientists have a duty to lie:


It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention (http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/magazine/12letters-t-THECIVILHERE_LETTERS.html&OQ=_rQ3D2&OP=2e871f4cQ2FQ20K,_Q20Q5BlHvNllQ3FCQ20CQ24Q242Q20 Q24Q5CQ20qCQ20Q7CdTdQ7BSQ5D,Q20qCI,Q3FQ3F,NvQ7DQ3F Q7D3zi6!.!pziPibpi33iPnQ3EXQ3FQ7CI). So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.

Actually this is yet another example of Bolt either suffering comprehension failure or else engaging in wilful context-twisting quote-mining. Here is her full post:


“The Civil Heretic” was a perfect example of what Freeman Dyson disagrees with: blatant and unfounded exaggeration. Dyson is not a “global-warming heretic”; he does not dispute the science. He simply says, and rightfully so, that the science is both uncertain and very much exaggerated. It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.

It is crystal-clear from the full quote that Kopacz is (i) agreeing that a lot of exaggeration goes on, (ii) rather than endorsing that exaggeration, explaining the forces that cause others to resort to it, (iii) criticising the tendency to bracket those who criticise exaggeration under the heading of sceptics.

Bolt's misrepresentation of the views stated by Kopacz probably isn't actionable but it deserves to be, for sheer stupidity if nothing else. He has unfairly attacked someone who is actually making points that with a calmer attitude he might have been able to effectively use in his favour.

Ian Murray
09-05-2009, 09:52 PM
Actually this is yet another example of Bolt either suffering comprehension failure or else engaging in wilful context-twisting quote-mining. ...
Bolt's misrepresentation of the views stated by Kopacz probably isn't actionable but it deserves to be, for sheer stupidity if nothing else. He has unfairly attacked someone who is actually making points that with a calmer attitude he might have been able to effectively use in his favour.
Bolt is a disgraceful example of the worst type of bottom-feeding gutter journalist. He has no regard for truth at all - I still can't get over the tissue of lies he concocted for his Fry a Pensioner article (see around #1083-1088).

Ian Murray
09-05-2009, 09:58 PM
From the same source (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/magazine/12letters-t-THECIVILHERE_LETTERS.html?_r=2) as Bolt's:-


Freeman Dyson’s views on climate change are theoretical and are not derived from crampons-on-the-ground, sun-on-the-face field experience. Real-world studies from hundreds, if not thousands, of field scientists around the globe and across a broad range of disciplines confirm that climate is changing due to human impact. It is now clear that if climate-change forecasters have erred, they have done so by being too conservative, not too alarmist. A fast-changing earth is rapidly outstripping former predictions. Dyson’s airy ruminations have no home in the physical world of cause and effect. He does a grave disservice to the future of my children and your readers’ children by diverting the general public, which is easily overwhelmed, from one of the most monumental issues of this, or any other, era.

JAMES BALOG
Director, Extreme Ice Survey
Boulder, Colo.

Capablanca-Fan
10-05-2009, 12:23 AM
Bolt is a disgraceful example of the worst type of bottom-feeding gutter journalist.
Try some of your fellow lefties at Daily Kos and the like if you want to see gutter journalism, e.g. the foul way they treated a beauty contestant who expressed the same view of marriage as the Obamessiah himself (http://townhall.com/Columnists/BillOReilly/2009/05/09/the_destruction_of_miss_california) (but they know he didn't really mean it so he's OK).


He has no regard for truth at all -
Yeah, truth = Leftism, and how dare a journalist dare not to be a mouthpiece for Layba.


I still can't get over the tissue of lies he concocted for his Fry a Pensioner article (see around #1083-1088).
IM hasn't seen an increase in government control of our lives that he doesn't like.

As for Monika Kopacz, yes, she doesn't seem at all happy with the exaggerations and willingness to label ‘denier’, but still seems to say, “but how else can they get attention, political action and financing?” It is as much a criticism of the politicians and readers for reacting only to exaggeration as the scientists willing to exaggerate.

Spiny Norman
10-05-2009, 05:37 AM
... Real-world studies from hundreds, if not thousands, of field scientists around the globe and across a broad range of disciplines confirm that climate is changing due to human impact ...
JAMES BALOG
Director, Extreme Ice Survey
Boulder, Colo.
James is being a little free and easy with the facts.

Studies by field scientists can show that climate is changing, yes. The idea that the climate is changing due to human impact is a hypothesis which is supported by computer modelling, not by field observations.

Many of those of us who are happy enough to be labelled skeptics on this topic are skeptical about (1) the computer modelling; and (2) the strength and even the direction of the link between human CO2 emissions and climate change (does CO2 drive warming, or does warming drive CO2).

Given that the IPCC predicted increasing temperatures in its reports, yet current temperatures are NOT following their predictions, the ability of the (current set of) computer models to accurately predict climate over decadal timeframes has been falsified. Their models just are not comprehensive enough. Their knowledge of how cloud cover both contributes to and reacts to temperature changes is inadequate at this point, though they are working on it and perhaps one day they will have better models.

But if they cannot predict weather over 10-year timeframes, I have no reason to expect that they will get any better if they project their predictions over 100-year timeframes.

If/when their models get better, I am happy to review my skepticism and revist my doubts about human-induced climate change via CO2 emissions.

Kevin Bonham
10-05-2009, 09:50 PM
Given that the IPCC predicted increasing temperatures in its reports, yet current temperatures are NOT following their predictions,[..]

But if they cannot predict weather over 10-year timeframes,[..]

Can you give specific examples of failed IPCC predictions of increased temperature over timeframes shorter than 10 years, bearing in mind the issue of the impact of natural cycles? Also it would be helpful to see the units of these failed predictions (if any) - do they refer to annual temperatures or to rolling averages?

Spiny Norman
11-05-2009, 05:47 AM
... specific examples ... bearing in mind the issue of the impact of natural cycles?
All you have to do is just look at their graphs ... they all go up, up, up ... never down.
Currently, world temperatures are trending down.
The IPCC predictions therefore fail to take into account the current trend (which is manifestly a natural one).
If the models were able to take into account the natural variability (and they knew what that variability's causes were) then their models would show some down as well as up.
Don't need to be more specific than that to show that their models need more work.

Ian Murray
11-05-2009, 10:48 AM
...Currently, world temperatures are trending down.
The IPCC predictions therefore fail to take into account the current trend (which is manifestly a natural one)....
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies collates and analyses global surface air temperatures (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp) (raw data (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt)).

Graphically represented (see attached) the global trend is clearly upwards, not downwards (the base line used is 1951-1980)

Basil
11-05-2009, 12:32 PM
Do we know why there was a noticeable increase between 1900 and 1940?
Do we know why there was a net drop between 1940 and 1975?

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2009, 01:37 PM
All you have to do is just look at their graphs ... they all go up, up, up ... never down.

False.

If you look at the projection graphs from different models for different scenarios here (http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-5.htm) (2001) and here (http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/syr/spm5.jpg) (2007) it is clear that the computer models used do indeed project short-term up and down patterns in response to known cycles, as part of a general rising trend.


Currently, world temperatures are trending down.

Only on a year to year basis in the very short term and only if you fail to adjust them for the cycles. Rolling averages do not support the claim of a downward trend.


If the models were able to take into account the natural variability (and they knew what that variability's causes were) then their models would show some down as well as up.

This is exactly what occurs as the graphs I linked to show.


Don't need to be more specific than that to show that their models need more work.

It may well be that close examination of the results between 2001-08 shows that several of the 2001 models need reconsideration but you clearly do need to be more specific than just making incorrect claims that the projections show no down.

Capablanca-Fan
11-05-2009, 03:47 PM
The Weekend Australian publishes a dismissive review of Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth by Michael Ashley which has all the usual alarmist ingredients, in the following order:

ad hominem attacks (despite claims to the contrary);
choosing one isolated fact and then trying to discredit it;
extrapolating ingredient 2 to the entire book;
ignoring the main arguments completely; and
hints at censorship.


See this response (http://australianclimatemadness.blogspot.com/2009/05/australian-michael-ashley-reviews-ian.html). I note that many such attacks are rather reminiscent of his own gutter tactics in years gone by (http://creation.com/plimer-allegations-concluded-baseless-and-unsupported-by-the-facts) ...

Ian Murray
11-05-2009, 04:03 PM
Do we know why there was a noticeable increase between 1900 and 1940?
The early part of the century saw greater solar activity and little in the way volcanic cooling effect

To understand climate change, you need to factor in all the various forcings that influence global temperature. In the early 20th century, while CO2 levels were much smaller, solar activity was on the rise. Also, after a burst of volcanic activity in the late 18th century [e.g. Krakatoa 1883], there was a relative quiet volcanic period in the early 20th century. These were two dominant factors in the warming from 1900 to 1940.

However, both factors have played little to no part in the warming since 1975. Solar activity has been steady since the 50's. Volcanoes have been relatively frequent in the last few decades and if anything, have exerted a cooling effect that has somewhat masked the CO2 warming effect.
www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century.htm

Ian Murray
11-05-2009, 04:08 PM
I'm getting a 404 when trying to submit this reply. I hived off the answer to the first question, which got through OK (above post). I'll tinker with the following wording to try to work around the block


Do we know why there was a net drop between 1940 and 1975?

After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2°C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again.

The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639

Ian Murray
11-05-2009, 04:10 PM
Deleted from above reply and trying again:
The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century

The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols....

Ian Murray
11-05-2009, 04:14 PM
So the offending text is in here somewhere - try a bit more tinkering


UPDATE: The apparent sudden drop in temperatures in 1945 now seems due to using mainly US ships to collect sea surface temperature data to using mainly UK ships. The two fleets used a different method.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639


Footnote: With the advent of satellite reading of ocean surface temperatures from around 1980, data became much more consistent

Noticeable in the chart are the cooling effects of the eruptions at Mt St Helens (1980) and Pinatubo and Mt Hudson (1991)

Spiny Norman
11-05-2009, 06:47 PM
Footnote: With the advent of satellite reading of ocean surface temperatures from around 1980, data became much more consistent
Indeed! I'll become convinced if it can be shown that the temps are pushing upwards consistently. If there are extended flat lines or downward trends, I'll believe that the "human-induced CO2 raises causes the warming" hypothesis has been falsified. I'm really only interested in the satellite data, and then only with the atmospheric (above surface) layers, not the surface readings. Urban heat island contamination is the main reason why I find the surface temperature records to be unreliable (I understand this is fairly well documented now).

Interesting that "solar forcing" is offered as the cause for earlier in the century warming/cooling ... when I've raised the sunspot cycle as a player here I've been poo-poohed with "it can't be solar forcing, its too small". Either it is, or it isn't. I wish people would make their mind up.

Spiny Norman
11-05-2009, 06:49 PM
Also, re: the sunspot cycle, the concensus of scientists working with/at NASA about a year ago was that the next cycle would be very strong. Just a few days ago they suddenly backed off that and are instead saying that it will be quite weak. Glad they've been open about it ... but I wish they'd just stick to their predictions and then, later, say "we got it very, very wrong, by THIS much". Solar cycle predicting seems to be on a par with reading tea leaves ...

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2009, 06:56 PM
Indeed! I'll become convinced if it can be shown that the temps are pushing upwards consistently. If there are extended flat lines or downward trends, I'll believe that the "human-induced CO2 raises causes the warming" hypothesis has been falsified.

How extended does the flat line or downward trend need to be before you believe that it has been falsified?

Ian Murray
11-05-2009, 08:06 PM
...I'm really only interested in the satellite data, and then only with the atmospheric (above surface) layers, not the surface readings. Urban heat island contamination is the main reason why I find the surface temperature records to be unreliable...
To avoid heat island distortion, the Goddard Institute weighs regional urban and non-urban data, or disregards data from urban met stations where there are no balancing rural stations.


The GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data are modified in two steps to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed. In step 1, if there are multiple records at a given location, these are combined into one record; in step 2, the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

kjenhager
11-05-2009, 08:11 PM
Cities to sizzle as islands of heat

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6256520.ece

Ian Murray
11-05-2009, 08:58 PM
...Interesting that "solar forcing" is offered as the cause for earlier in the century warming/cooling ... when I've raised the sunspot cycle as a player here I've been poo-poohed with "it can't be solar forcing, its too small". Either it is, or it isn't. I wish people would make their mind up.
Not the sunspot cycle but total irradiance reaching us, which levelled out decades ago:

The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.

However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

You read that right. The study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness for global warming today.

This is confirmed by direct satellite measurements that find no rising trend since 1978, sunspot numbers which have leveled out since 1950, the Max Planck Institute reconstruction that shows irradience has been steady since 1950 and solar radio flux or flare activity which shows no rising trend over the past 30 years.
www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Spiny Norman
12-05-2009, 04:36 AM
How extended does the flat line or downward trend need to be before you believe that it has been falsified?
Its one of those things that "you know it when you see it". I'm not a scientist, nor yet a climatologist. So I can't put numbers on it. It stands to reason that CO2 has some effect, but being a trace gas, I am skeptical about its impact. we may yet find ourselves slipping into a mini ice age like the Dalton minimum, or worse yet, a real ice age ... and if so, we'll need all the CO2 we can get in order to promote plant growth.

Kevin Bonham
12-05-2009, 05:28 PM
Its one of those things that "you know it when you see it". I'm not a scientist, nor yet a climatologist. So I can't put numbers on it.

But a scientist at least will know that you need a decline that cannot be explained by short-term cycles and we have not gone far enough since the 1998 one-year maximum to say that we have reached such a point, nor have we even seen any decline in rolling averages. So to say we were anywhere near falsification based on decline would be way premature.

This is one of the problems with the debate (and also with the green sacred cow the "precautionary principle"). If evidence that might falsify the prevailing theory is going to show up, it will probably take at least a decade to get there. But if the prevailing theory is correct, then doing nothing for that decade may be very harmful. However if the prevailing theory is wrong, then taking account of it for that decade may also be very harmful, so in a policy situation what do you do? And the answer politicians find is that you sit in the middle, pander to low-level alarm then address it with token measures.

I find both sides of the online debate disappointing for the most part. Too many of the "sceptics" have a simplistic understanding of the theory they are objecting to and hence imagine that certain arguments are knock-downs when they're not. Too many of the alarmists, despite supposedly having science on their side, can't stick to debating the science and prefer to try to marginalise dissenting views in general by labelling all dissenting views as denialist, even those that clearly are not.

Spiny Norman
12-05-2009, 06:05 PM
Yeah, the trouble with 1998 is that it was such a ridiculous high due to the El Nino. That kind of masks everything for a few years either side of it, assuming that you're loooking at trends based not on point data but some kind of smoothed average. For me, if I had to pick a number, another 3-4 years of flat or gradually trending down temps would be enough to push me over the edge from "skeptical" to starting to claim "falsified". However I fully expect such an event, if it occurs, to result in masses of revisions to models, and more research based on "what is causing the cooling" rather than trying to pin everything on CO2. I fully expect that as climatologists learn more about cloud behaviour, and factor in more sun activity (which I think they have been underestimating), the models will get better, and possibly the CO2 threat will diminish. Hopefully we haven't committed to economic suicide before those lessons are learned.

Kevin Bonham
12-05-2009, 06:34 PM
Yeah, the trouble with 1998 is that it was such a ridiculous high due to the El Nino. That kind of masks everything for a few years either side of it, assuming that you're loooking at trends based not on point data but some kind of smoothed average.

But the rolling averages were still climbing after 1998 was out of the mix. Perhaps this will no longer be the case after the unexpectedly cool 2008 goes into the mix, or perhaps not.


For me, if I had to pick a number, another 3-4 years of flat or gradually trending down temps would be enough to push me over the edge from "skeptical" to starting to claim "falsified".

A few more years of global temperatures around the 2008 mark and I would agree with that. Just the post-1998 trend line appearing flat would not do it for me though; we would need to see what things looked like after the next projected maximum, assuming it arrives.

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2009, 06:53 PM
Yet our government wants to bet billions of dollars that the warming trend is dangerously high. Or does it, come to think of it, given its cynical delaying move?

Capablanca-Fan
15-05-2009, 09:38 AM
Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and the EU, explains how his country managed to slash greenhouse gases, in Fantasy leads to economic decline (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25482877-7583,00.html):


I AM surprised at how so many people nowadays in Europe, the US and elsewhere have come to support policies underpinned by hysteria over global warming, particularly cap-and-trade legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and subsidies for "green" energy sources. I am convinced that this is a misguided strategy: not only because of the uncertainty about the dangers that global warming might pose, but also because of the certainty of the damage that these proposed policies aimed at mitigation will impose.

...

The old, outmoded heavy industries that were the pride of our communist regime were shut down — practically overnight — because they could not survive the opening of the economy. The result was a dramatic decline in CO2 emissions.

The secret behind the cut in emissions was economic decline. As the economies of the Czech Republic and other central and eastern European countries were rebuilt and began to grow again, emissions have naturally started to increase. It should be clear to everyone that there is a very strong correlation between economic growth and energy use.

So I am amazed to see people going along with the fashionable political argument that policies such as cap-and-trade, government mandates, and subsidies for renewable energy can actually benefit an economy… This is a fantasy. Cap-and-trade can only work by raising energy prices. Consumers who are forced to pay higher prices for energy will have less money to spend on other things.

Ian Murray
16-05-2009, 09:39 AM
Empire of Carbon (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&em)

by Paul Krugman (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Nobel Prize winner for economics
The New York Times, May 14, 2009

...
The scientific consensus on prospects for global warming has become much more pessimistic over the last few years. Indeed, the latest projections from reputable climate scientists border on the apocalyptic. Why? Because the rate at which greenhouse gas emissions are rising is matching or exceeding the worst-case scenarios.

And the growth of emissions from China — already the world’s largest producer of carbon dioxide — is one main reason for this new pessimism.

China’s emissions, which come largely from its coal-burning electricity plants, doubled between 1996 and 2006. That was a much faster pace of growth than in the previous decade. And the trend seems set to continue: In January, China announced that it plans to continue its reliance on coal as its main energy source and that to feed its economic growth it will increase coal production 30 percent by 2015. That’s a decision that, all by itself, will swamp any emission reductions elsewhere.

So what is to be done about the China problem?
...

Capablanca-Fan
16-05-2009, 11:02 AM
Empire of Carbon (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&em)

by Paul Krugman (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Nobel Prize winner for economics
The New York Times, May 14, 2009

...
The scientific consensus on prospects for global warming has become much more pessimistic over the last few years. Indeed, the latest projections from reputable climate scientists border on the apocalyptic. Why? Because the rate at which greenhouse gas emissions are rising is matching or exceeding the worst-case scenarios.

And the growth of emissions from China — already the world’s largest producer of carbon dioxide — is one main reason for this new pessimism.

China’s emissions, which come largely from its coal-burning electricity plants, doubled between 1996 and 2006. That was a much faster pace of growth than in the previous decade. And the trend seems set to continue: In January, China announced that it plans to continue its reliance on coal as its main energy source and that to feed its economic growth it will increase coal production 30 percent by 2015. That’s a decision that, all by itself, will swamp any emission reductions elsewhere.

So what is to be done about the China problem?
...
Well, yeah. There is no point in Australia crippling its economy and throwing thousands out of work and raising prices proportionately on our poorest citizens, when our total emissions are a just a whiff compared with China's increase. So much for KRudd's narcissistic bloviating about leading by example.

Basil
16-05-2009, 11:11 AM
So much for KRudd's narcissistic bloviating about leading by example.
Sufficient to
a) satisfy his ideological wet dreams, and importantly to
b) suck in a nation of drongos long enough to vote for him (coz they wanted to believe in cake and eat it soooooooooooooo badly). Saps :hand:

Spiny Norman
16-05-2009, 01:21 PM
Sooner we pack him (KRudd) off to the UN, the better. They deserve each other! :lol:

If I had to pick a replacement, I'd go for Lindsay Tanner. Strikes me as a thoughtful sort of chap, steady, solid, not given over to much mindless pontificating.

2nd choice, I'd go with Julia Gillard. She's so left wing, she's almost a Red, but at least with her there would be a consistent position taken to policy, unlike KRudd's ever shifting sand which blows one day towards fiscal conservatism, the next towards Keynesian pump priming.

Ian Murray
16-05-2009, 01:58 PM
Well, yeah. There is no point in Australia crippling its economy and throwing thousands out of work and raising prices proportionately on our poorest citizens, when our total emissions are a just a whiff compared with China's increase. So much for KRudd's narcissistic bloviating about leading by example.
Actually Australia is a major player, being one of the top four CO2 exporters (as its pre-emission component, carbon, in coal and gas).

Capablanca-Fan
16-05-2009, 02:16 PM
Actually Australia is a major player, being one of the top four CO2 exporters (as its pre-emission component, carbon, in coal and gas).
About 1/5% of the world's total anthropogenic emissions. And we are more dependent on CO2-producing energy sources. Europe has plenty of nuclear power for example.

Ian Murray
16-05-2009, 02:49 PM
About 1/5% of the world's total anthropogenic emissions. And we are more dependent on CO2-producing energy sources. Europe has plenty of nuclear power for example.
Looking at coal, over 7% of global consumption is Australian domestic and by proxy (2005 data - 158m tonnes coal burnt here plus 233mt exported, of world total around 5500mt)

Capablanca-Fan
16-05-2009, 05:15 PM
James Delingpole (Spectator, UK) says mocking greens is a public duty (http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/columnists/3614893/you-know-it-makes-sense.thtml) because of their arrogance and the great harm their policies will do to the economy:


Obviously there’s a part of me that kind of enjoys this. As Americans love Coca-Cola and Islamists love death, so I love baiting greens and liberals and most especially liberal greens. But I don’t do it just for fun, you know. In fact I don’t even do it mainly for fun. The reason I rail so often against so many tenets of the green faith — from biofuels to carbon trading to the ludicrous attempts to get polar bears designated as an endangered species — is because I sincerely believe they are among the greatest current threats to the advancement of humankind. Yes, that’s right: greens aren’t the solution. They’re public enemy number one....

Here is what’s so terrifying about the modern green movement: its complete refusal to accept that anyone who disagrees with it can be anything other than wilfully perverse, certifiably insane or secretly in the pay of Big Oil. This is true within the mainstream media too…

My purpose here is not to convince any green waverers of the justice of my cause, merely to point up the quite nauseating arrogance and bullying self-righteousness with which the modern green movement cleaves to its ideological position. Indeed, it doesn’t even think of its ideological position as an ideological position any more, but as a scientific truth so comprehensively proven that there is no longer need for any debate.

Spiny Norman
18-05-2009, 06:20 PM
IPCC lead author dumps a bucket on them:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/?postversion=2009051412

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2009, 12:53 PM
Solar power kills jobs. So Rudd announces … (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/solar_power_kills_jobs_so_rudd_announces/)
Andrew Bolt, 20 May 09

A university study into Spain’s world’s-best renewable energy scheme finds that green power kills jobs — and solar power kills most of all:


No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources....

The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 ($1.03 million) to create each “green job”, including subsidies of more than €1 million ($1.8 million) per wind industry job… The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created (http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf)....

Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics (solar), 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro… These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain’s approach but instead are largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy sources…

The high cost of electricity due to the green job policy tends to drive the relatively most energy-intensive companies and industries away, seeking areas where costs are lower.

The study, by Spain’s Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, should make any fool think twice before pouring millions of government money into solar energy. But not one fool:

Australia is planning to build the world’s largest solar power station (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42485/178/), with three times the generating capacity of the California plant that has been the biggest to date.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the photovoltaic plant would cost A$1.4 billion (US$1 billion) and will have an output of 1,000MW — equivalent to that of one coal-fired power station. He said he wanted Australia to be a ‘solar leader’ rather than a ‘solar follower’.

How many jobs did you kill today, Mr Rudd?

TheJoker
22-05-2009, 12:19 PM
A university study into Spain’s world’s-best renewable energy scheme finds that green power kills jobs — and solar power kills most of all:


No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources....

The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 ($1.03 million) to create each “green job”, including subsidies of more than €1 million ($1.8 million) per wind industry job… The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created (http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf)....

Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics (solar), 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro… These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain’s approach but instead are largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy sources…

The high cost of electricity due to the green job policy tends to drive the relatively most energy-intensive companies and industries away, seeking areas where costs are lower.


The high initial costs of capital infrastructure of renewable energy means that return on investment is not possible in the short-term therefore unliklley to attract private investment. But the report did highlight that the on-going labour needs of renewable energy plants were significantly less than there fossil fuel counter-parts, which should indicate savings in the long-term. Particularly as the cost of the technology infrastrucuture declines (which it inevitably will). This may mean the in the long run it may well be more efficient. Better analysis is needed to determine that which includes the likley reduction in capital costs over time and the likley increases in fossil fuel costs. The paper only focuses on the outcomes to date it doesn't look at the likley future outcomes.


As for driving out energy intensve industries, I don't think that is a long-run issue either they will forced to innovate and become more energy efficient.

Actually there is a theory in innovation management that suggests a great way to force innovation and efficiency gains is create a gap between the resources available and the outcomes required. We often see it when budgets are reduced but firms still manage to generate the same output levels by getting rid of the dead wood.

Spiny Norman
23-05-2009, 12:40 PM
This is well worth reading:
http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Archibald2009E&E.pdf

Archibald is directly contradicting the IPCC and is making predictions for decreasing global temperatures over the next few decades, based on solar cycles returning to something like the Dalton Minimum.

They cannot both be right. Perhaps both can be wrong. It will be interesting to watch to see whether:
(a) the next solar cycle matches to his predictions; and if it does
(b) whether global temperatures follow suit

I like this stuff. Making bold predictions = bold science. They're falsifiable predictions within a reasonable timeframe (say, 20-30 years). Archibald will one day be seen as either a prophet without honour, or just another one of those "anthropogenic global warming denier kooks". ;)

Kevin Bonham
23-05-2009, 01:25 PM
IPCC lead author dumps a bucket on them:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/?postversion=2009051412

I found this interesting and am trying to get a response from the alarmists on another site about it, thus far without success.

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2009, 01:48 PM
Greenstapo leader Bob Brown looks to Denmark's windy power as an inspiration (http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/governments-greenhouse-plan-fossilised-brown), although the Danes have the most expensive electricity in Europe (http://www.financialpost.com/m/blog.html?b=fpcomment&e=the-myth-of-the-danish-green-energy-miracle&s=Blogs). But Terry McCrann points out in A modern climate fairy tale from Denmark (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25537952-664,00.html):


First, Denmark is only able to get as much as 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources, mostly wind, because it is hooked up to the grids of Sweden, Germany and Norway. Because when the wind don’t blow, it’s got to get power from somewhere… But the power from Sweden and Germany comes from nuclear and coal…

The second inconvenient truth is that with all its energy purity — for all that power from wind — Denmark has cut its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by all of …?

Well, actually, it hasn’t. The latest data from the European Energy Agency (EEA) — no evil right-wing climate sceptic — shows that in 2006 Denmark’s GHG emissions were 1.7 per cent above its base year emissions. Denmark has some work to do to get to the 21 per cent reduction over the 2008-12 period, it committed to under Kyoto.

Spiny Norman
31-05-2009, 07:18 AM
Yet another prediction about the solar cycle has emerged:


May 29, 2009: An international panel of experts led by NOAA and sponsored by NASA has released a new prediction for the next solar cycle. Solar Cycle 24 will peak, they say, in May 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots.

"If our prediction is correct, Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78," says panel chairman Doug Biesecker of the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center.

Now given that they got their last two predictions horribly wrong, I am not sure that I should set too much store by their current one ... however they are (now) at least in line with Soviet research which has predicted for several years that the next cycle will be much smaller.

However the Soviets have also attached a second prediction: namely, that this will in turn result in a colder earth and an event similar to the Dalton Minimum.

So lets see ... should only take 5-10 years to work out who is right ... those who correlated global warming with CO2 ... and those who correlated it with the sunspot cycle.

I'm betting on the latter. Anyone for a poll?

Spiny Norman
02-06-2009, 04:33 AM
D. Roy Spencer explains why the climate models of the IPCC have gotten it wrong ... they have incorrectly modelled that increasing temperature will interact with cloud cover and produce a positive feedback ... whereas recent evidence shows that cloud cover is a strongly negative feedback in the climate system:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/a-layman%e2%80%99s-explanation-of-why-global-warming-predictions-by-climate-models-are-wrong/

TheJoker
02-06-2009, 11:21 AM
Interesting point that seems to be neglected in the argument is that we will eventually have to switch to alternate forms of energy due to fossil fuel being a finite resource. Surely there is an economic cost involved whenever we have to switch.

Regardless of global warming it would see to make long-term planning sense to create heavy incentives to invest in non-fossil fuel energy sources. Renewables seem to be the best area for R&D since they don't carry the same risks as nuclear energy.

Private Industry is notoriously short-term in its planning nature. Long-term planning in the private sector is usually considered 5-years. I think the government has a responsibility to plan for the long-term and create appropriate incentives for the private sector to work towards those strategic objectives.

From what I can gather the most significant risk of a global conflict is competition for energy resources. It would seem on face value that regardless of global warming investment and incentives for renewable energies would be an important strategic objective.

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2009, 11:37 AM
Regardless of global warming it would see to make long-term planning sense to create heavy incentives to invest in non-fossil fuel energy sources. Renewables seem to be the best area for R&D since they don't carry the same risks as nuclear energy.
What risks? How many people have been killed by a nuclear power station, compared to coal mining. Even solar cell production uses dangerous chemicals and emits CO2.


Private Industry is notoriously short-term in its planning nature. Long-term planning in the private sector is usually considered 5-years.
Yet government planning needs only to be for the next election. Private industries are likely to plan for the long term esp. if they are owner/manager who wants a long-term income stream.


I think the government has a responsibility to plan for the long-term and create appropriate incentives for the private sector to work towards those strategic objectives.
Government and plan are two words that should strike fear into the heart when they appear together. Many government-industry partnerships have been disastrous, while private industry was successful. E.g. US government railroads were expensive and poorly made, while James J. Hill built the Great Northern Railroad without a penny of Federal aid. Cornelius Vanderbilt made a fortune when his private steamship company defeated the government-private Fulton NY/NJ steamship-transport monopoly by offering lower rates, earning a reputation for his punctuality, investing in faster and larger ships and providing ancillary services such as concessions.

This is documented in Burton Folsom's book The Myth of the Robber Barons. This “divides the entrepreneurs into two groups market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs. The market entrepreneurs, such as Hill, Vanderbilt, and Rockefeller, succeeded by producing a quality product at a competitive price. The political entrepreneurs such as Edward Collins in steamships and in railroads the leaders of the Union Pacific Railroad were men who used the power of government to succeed. They tried to gain subsidies, or in some way use government to stop competitors. The market entrepreneurs helped lead to the rise of the U. S. as a major economic power. By 1910, the U. S. dominated the world in oil, steel, and railroads led by Rockefeller, Schwab (and Carnegie), and Hill. The political entrepreneurs, by contrast, were a drain on the taxpayers and a thorn in the side of the market entrepreneurs. Interestingly, the political entrepreneurs often failed without help from government they could not produce competitive products. The author describes this clash of the market entrepreneurs and the political entrepreneurs. In the Mellon chapter, the author describes how Andrew Mellon an entrepreneur in oil and aluminum became Secretary of Treasury under Coolidge. In office, Mellon was the first American to practice supply-side economics. He supported cuts on income tax rates for all groups. The rate cut on the wealthiest Americans, from 73 percent to 25 percent, freed up investment capital and led to American economic growth during the 1920s. Also, the amount of revenue into the federal treasury increased sharply after tax rates were cut. The Myth of the Robber Barons has separate chapters on Vanderbilt, Hill, Schwab, Mellon, and the Scrantons. The author also has a conclusion, in which he looks at the textbook bias on the subject of Robber Barons and the rise of the U. S. in the late 1800s. This chapter explores three leading college texts in U. S. history and shows how they misread American history and disparage market entrepreneurs instead of the political entrepreneurs.”

He shows how “Cornelius Vanderbilt defeated the Fulton NY/NJ steamship-transport monopoly by offering lower rates, earning a reputation for his punctuality, investing in faster and larger ships and providing ancillary services such as concessions. You will also learn about how Andrew Carnegie was obsessed with cutting costs, which led to him profitably carting off tons of steel shavings discarded from a competing steel plant owned by the Scrantons. Other business heroes covered in depth in this book are James J. Hill (who built the Great Northern Railroad without a penny of Federal aid) ...”

TheJoker
02-06-2009, 12:49 PM
What risks? How many people have been killed by a nuclear power station, compared to coal mining. Even solar cell production uses dangerous chemicals and emits CO2.

I was referring to the risk of proliferation of nuclear technology, problem involved with waste disposal and long-term risk of contanmination due to incorrect waste disposal. Particulary if you are going to have third world countries with nuclear power plants.



Yet government planning needs only to be for the next election. Private industries are likely to plan for the long term esp. if they are owner/manager who wants a long-term income stream.

It is true that short-termist government planning is also a problem, but government is in a better position to plan long term, since there are less short term pressures (i.e. quarterly results). Private industries are not likely to plan for the long-term. Most private industry planning is reactive not proactive. Take GM for example, or the world's most successful brand Coke, who is consistently losing market share both where notriously slow to adapt to emerging trends. Bear and Stearns is another example. Take a reality check very few businesses have any owner input into the real decision-making process. Corporate boards are largely focusing on compliance and disclosure these days and not long-term planning and sustainability. CEO's are generally focused on short-term results as this is what there remuneration is based on. Most CEO's are contracted for a short tenure (3 years).

Owners (i.e. shareholders) often have little or no input in planning. For example most people have no idea about the exact companies their super is invested in let alone monitor the long-term planning.

This is why a lot of people are calling for Boards to become more full-time, since they often don't have the resources to tackle both short and long term issues.



Government and plan are two words that should strike fear into the heart when they appear together.

So you are implying governments shouldn't plan:rolleyes:

Only a minarchist who don't recognise the role of government would make such a statement. Thankfully minarchists are few and far between.

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2009, 03:16 PM
I was referring to the risk of proliferation of nuclear technology, problem involved with waste disposal and long-term risk of contanmination due to incorrect waste disposal. Particulary if you are going to have third world countries with nuclear power plants.
This has no bearing on whether Australia should have them, exploiting its comparative advantage in uranium. A number of European countries are "green" precisely because they generate much of their electricity with nuclear energy.


It is true that short-termist government planning is also a problem,
We see this in the "stimulus"; KRudd won't have to worry about paying back the huge debt; his grandchildren will.


but government is in a better position to plan long term, since there are less short term pressures (i.e. quarterly results).
No, just frequent elections. Thomas Sowell pointed out that killing the goose that laid the golden egg can be a viable election strategy as long as it doesn't die until you're out of office and no one finds your prints on the murder weapon.


Private industries are not likely to plan for the long-term.
Yes they are: their owners want to have a long-term income. Many were built with initial short-term sacrifices.


Most private industry planning is reactive not proactive. Take GM for example,
Yes, let's. The unions have destroyed it, so it has really become a health insurance provider that makes cars on the side that hardly anyone wants to buy. Other car companies actually make cars that customers want enough to buy with their own money, and are fine.


Owners (i.e. shareholders) often have little or no input in planning. For example most people have no idea about the exact companies their super is invested in let alone monitor the long-term planning.
That's why I said owner/managers. They are often a good company to invest in, since the managers' interests align with the shareholders'.


So you are implying governments shouldn't plan:rolleyes:
Pretty much, except for their proper functions of protecting life and property and enforcing contracts. Hayek pointed out the "fatal conceit" of governments thinking that they have enough information to plan an economy.


Only a minarchist who don't recognise the role of government would make such a statement. Thankfully minarchists are few and far between.
Yet as I pointed out, major railways and steamship lines were built without a dime of public money, and were higher quality. That's because they had to serve customers paying with their own money, rather than having to please politicians and bureaucrats.

pax
02-06-2009, 03:39 PM
Yet as I pointed out, major railways and steamship lines were built without a dime of public money, and were higher quality. That's because they had to serve customers paying with their own money, rather than having to please politicians and bureaucrats.

Which major railway are you talking about? The transamerican railway was built by private companies, but paid for by enormous land grants (millions of acres) which were bonded or sold to raise the humungous capital required to build it. AFAIK the transaustralian railway was built by the government.

TheJoker
02-06-2009, 04:10 PM
This has no bearing on whether Australia should have them, exploiting its comparative advantage in uranium. A number of European countries are "green" precisely because they generate much of their electricity with nuclear energy.

Waste disposal is certainly a concern.



No, just frequent elections. Thomas Sowell pointed out that killing the goose that laid the golden egg can be a viable election strategy as long as it doesn't die until you're out of office and no one finds your prints on the murder weapon..

Same applies to executive managers if it leads to improvement in short-term results that translate into bonuses. They will be long gone before the shit hits fan.


Yes they are: their owners want to have a long-term income. Many were built with initial short-term sacrifices.

Except as pointed out the are owners rarely invovled in company management.



that makes cars ... that hardly anyone wants to buy. Other car companies actually make cars that customers want enough to buy with their own money, and are fine..

Who do you think makes the decisions what what type cars will be manufacutered in the plants. Management not employees or unions. GM managment didn't plan for chaning consumer trends. The failure was due to a lack of sales not a lack of production. Lack of sales due to poor strategic decisions. Trying to blaim unions just demonstrates that you got a huge set of blinkers on!



That's why I said owner/managers. They are often a good company to invest in, since the managers' interests align with the shareholders'..

To be honest I thought you by owner/manager you meant owner or manager.

How many Fortune 500 companies have an owner/manager?



Pretty much, except for their proper functions of protecting life and property and enforcing contracts. Hayek pointed out the "fatal conceit" of governments thinking that they have enough information to plan an economy.

Same could be said about managing a global corporation, doesn't mean that no plan is better than a plan with limitations.



Yet as I pointed out, major railways and steamship lines were built without a dime of public money, and were higher quality. That's because they had to serve customers paying with their own money, rather than having to please politicians and bureaucrats.

IIRC government funding accounts for about 50% of the total R&D funding in the USA (and 35% of industrial R&D funding), resulting in breakthroughs internet and the semi-conductor etc.

Investment in R&D is essentially long-term planning and the number one contributor is government. Why can government afford to invest more in R&D than any single firm. Simple difussed cost across the entire community, rather than adding costs to existing products. Limited competition governments can increase taxes without a huge fear of losing customers, since migration to another country is usually expensive. If a private firm must either reduce profits to invest in R&D which may not be in investor interests as most investors are interested in more than 5-10 year returns. Or they add the cost to the price of existing products which may cause customers to switch to competitors. Private R&D invovles concerntrated costs and concerntrated benefits (because of intelectuall property, patents etc). Publicly funded R&D involves diffused costs and diffused benefits (e.g. we dont have to pay royalties to use the internet).

IMO at least some amount of R&D into energy generation needs to be publically funded.

Spiny Norman
02-06-2009, 06:11 PM
Interesting point that seems to be neglected in the argument is that we will eventually have to switch to alternate forms of energy due to fossil fuel being a finite resource. Surely there is an economic cost involved whenever we have to switch.
I agree on the cost argument. However government subsidies are not needed if we are proposing to change over based on costs. The market will drive that soon enough. Government subsidies would seem to be required only if there are non-economic arguments driving the need for change.

TheJoker
03-06-2009, 12:57 AM
I agree on the cost argument. However government subsidies are not needed if we are proposing to change over based on costs. The market will drive that soon enough. Government subsidies would seem to be required only if there are non-economic arguments driving the need for change.

Not if the costs are significantly long-term. Energy producers won't start to investing in renewables until the price of fossil fuels sky rocket. Since R&D expenditure would increase the current cost of electricity. Energy is a commodity that is there is no way for the consumer to differentiate between source or brand, companies compete soley on price and therefore probably can afford to invest significantly in R&D otherwise they'd lose competitive advantage.

By pricing carbon you make investment in renewables more cost effective in the short-term, so that by the time fossil fuels run out, renewables are cost effective. Either way you pay th cost of investing in the techonolgy to make it efficient. Government ca create incentives for that investment to happen now.

In terms of driving innovation on sure fire method is create a gap between resources and outcomes. Therefore requiring energy producers to meet renewable energy targets will fuel innovation. Same process happens in business where people are given less resources (e.g. employees) to meet the same budget targets. Humans have an uncanny knack to find more efficient ways of doing things when pressured.

Spiny Norman
03-06-2009, 05:43 AM
Not if the costs are significantly long-term. Energy producers won't start to investing in renewables until the price of fossil fuels sky rocket.
Prices of fossil fuels are already starting to sky rocket (e.g. oil). And there is already heaps of investment in renewables. I'd put it to you that the market is responding appropriately to the situation from an economic perspective. Its only if you look at it from a perspective of belief in human-induced climate change that the speed of transition to renewables doesn't seem fast enough.

TheJoker
03-06-2009, 10:48 AM
Prices of fossil fuels are already starting to sky rocket (e.g. oil). And there is already heaps of investment in renewables. I'd put it to you that the market is responding appropriately to the situation from an economic perspective. Its only if you look at it from a perspective of belief in human-induced climate change that the speed of transition to renewables doesn't seem fast enough.

If that's the case why do many military analysts predict a high possiblility of a a global conflict over fossil fuel resources?

Why do so many governments see a key strategic measure is to buy up as many fossil fuel rights as possible?

I put it to you that under-investment/lack of development in renewables is already recognised as threat. The global warming issue IMO is a welcome catalyst that may stimulate R&D investment.

Capablanca-Fan
03-06-2009, 12:12 PM
Why do so many governments see a key strategic measure is to buy up as many fossil fuel rights as possible?
Of course, America could just drill for oil in the bleak Alaskan wilderness and off-shore, if it were not for the Greenstapo bans.


I put it to you that under-investment/lack of development in renewables is already recognised as threat. The global warming issue IMO is a welcome catalyst that may stimulate R&D investment.
But the oil shock in the 70s stimulated the same sort of expensive boondoggles which led nowhere.

TheJoker
03-06-2009, 12:39 PM
But the oil shock in the 70s stimulated the same sort of
expensive boondoggles which led nowhere.

It's not the 70's anymore. There is already a reasonable baseline for renewable energy. Fossil fuel energy is unsustainable, meaning a switch to other forms of energy is inevitable.

Capablanca-Fan
03-06-2009, 12:57 PM
It's not the 70's anymore.
Yet a lot of the policies are quite like them.


There is already a reasonable baseline for renewable energy. Fossil fuel energy is unsustainable, meaning a switch to other forms of energy is inevitable.
No it's not. There are plenty of untapped supplies, as I've already mentioned. And as long as they don't repeat Carter's price controls, any lessening of supply will result in higher prices, providing an incentive to find more oil or switch to alternatives.

No need for expensive government boondoggles. I've already pointed out that Spain's solar energy program has cost many more jobs than it's created, and that Denmark's wind power has made its electricity more expensive and less dependable without even making the country greener.

TheJoker
03-06-2009, 03:48 PM
No it's not.

Yes it is there are only a finite amount of fossil fuels it is unsustainable. A switch to alternatives is inevitable. You can argue about when the resources might be expended but no that it is indefinitely sustainable.


I've already pointed out that Spain's solar energy program has cost many more jobs than it's created.

Mainly because renewable energy plants require less labour to maintain. That is a bonus since in time those human resources will deployed elsewhere in the economy thus boosting output.


Denmark's wind power has made its electricity more expensive and less dependable without even making the country greener.

As pointed out earlier more expensive energy will simply be a catalyst for more energy efficient process and equipment.

In terms of Denmark increasing their CO2 emissions, did renewable energy contribute to this, or as I suspect to be the case did growth in energy demand? Had all Denmark's energy consumption been supplied by fossil fuels instead would they have had higher CO2 emissions?

I suspect it did make the country greener relative to what it would have been had it not adopted wind power. Do you have anything to suggest otherwise?

Spiny Norman
03-06-2009, 06:16 PM
If that's the case why do many military analysts predict a high possiblility of a a global conflict over fossil fuel resources?
Why do so many governments see a key strategic measure is to buy up as many fossil fuel rights as possible?
Is that relevant to the current discussion? From time to time certain governments have coveted others' resources. If they decide to fight over fossil fuel, so what? I don't see the link to the economic argument which says that as fossil fuels become scarce and increase in value, the market is increasingly incentivised to find and promote alternatives. The concidence that certain governments might choose to steal others' resources rather than buy them seems irrelevant.

TheJoker
03-06-2009, 11:39 PM
Is that relevant to the current discussion? From time to time certain governments have coveted others' resources. If they decide to fight over fossil fuel, so what? I don't see the link to the economic argument which says that as fossil fuels become scarce and increase in value, the market is increasingly incentivised to find and promote alternatives. The concidence that certain governments might choose to steal others' resources rather than buy them seems irrelevant.

The point is that the market is not developing substitutes at an appropriate rate otherwise countries wouldn't be bothered doing all they can to secure fossil fuel resources. If the market were developing sufficient alternatives to cope with future shortages there wouldn't be a need to rush around trying to secure current resources, there certainly wouldn't be a need to go to war over fossil fuel resources. Those with more intitmate knowledge of the supply and demand outlook than you or I dont seem to have faith that the market will seamlessly deliver alternatives as you suggest.

It's not irrelevant at all. Unlike what your post implies, governments dont go around buying up global resource rights willy nilly, they certainly wouldn't go to war over resources unless they were of major strategic value.

Desmond
09-06-2009, 07:34 PM
If you have a full kettle but only require enough boiling water for one cup, is it better to tip some water out (waste water) or boil the lot (waste electricity)?

Spiny Norman
10-06-2009, 05:41 AM
Boil the lot and then tip out what you don't need ... :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2009, 09:15 AM
If you have a full kettle but only require enough boiling water for one cup, is it better to tip some water out (waste water) or boil the lot (waste electricity)?
A Green fanatic would pour out what he didn't need over his garden, or into another receptacle, then boil what he needed.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-06-2009, 09:32 AM
If you have a full kettle but only require enough boiling water for one cup, is it better to tip some water out (waste water) or boil the lot (waste electricity)?
It depends on whether water is already boiled or not. We always try to keep some boiled water at home (can add to a very hot tea or just drink). Therefore the solution is:
1. If the water is not boiled, boil the full kettle and keep the leftover.
2. If the water is already boiled, store the extra water and boil what you need.
3. If you don't remember, assume it's not boiled.

Anyway, that's what I usually do.

Basil
10-06-2009, 09:34 AM
If you have a full kettle but only require enough boiling water for one cup, is it better to tip some water out (waste water) or boil the lot (waste electricity)?

A lefty would
- at huge public expense
- study the situation (they don't have a clue)
- call for other opinions (protect against what would will inevitably be the incorrect decision if left to their own devices - they're not very experienced commercially)
- commission a device to pour (and pay for it with debt)
- proclaim great vision in dealing with the problem
- celebrate with a T-shirt, a flight to share findings, a party monument and finally create some urban myth of success for the digestion of the next batch of willing teenagers

A righty would
approximate some calculations in his head aiming for optimal outcome, taking into account his experiences (perhaps pouring some, perhaps not. Perhaps sell/ donate some of the balance of extra boiled. Then move on to the next problem.

Desmond
10-06-2009, 10:09 AM
Boil the lot and then tip out what you don't need ... :lol::lol:

Spiny Norman
10-06-2009, 06:32 PM
Here's an interesting political development: www.climatesceptics.com.au

They claim to be the world's first political party that is up-front (or "in your face") skeptical about climate change.

I have registered my email address with them, as I am interested to see what they are all about (and it might be a useful one-stop-shop or clearing house for skeptical information relating to Australia).

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2009, 08:47 PM
New Kiwi book Air Con (http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/04/free-preview-of-ian-wisharts-new-book-air-con.html) by Ian Wishart:

“I started reading this book with an intensely critical eye, expecting that a mere journalist could not possibly cope with the complexities of climate science … [But] He gives chapter and verse for almost everything he says and he has been far more far-ranging in searching the web than anyone else I know. The book is brilliant. The best I have seen which deals with the news item side of it as well as the science. He has done a very thorough job and I have no hesitation in unreserved commendation. It has come along at the time we most need it and I hope it is published and publicized widely.” — Dr Vincent Grey, IPCC expert reviewer.

“Air Con demonstrates, with hundreds of scientific references, that "global warming" was not, is not, and will not be a global crisis; that, even if per impossibile it might be, it is far more cost-effective to adapt as and if needed than to attempt to mitigate ‘global warming’ by cutting emissions of carbon dioxide; and that all attempts at mitigation would serve only to imprison the very poorest in their poverty, thereby perversely increasing world population and consequently the ‘carbon footprint’ of humankind, achieving an outcome precisely the opposite of that which was (however piously) intended.

“The UN, Mikhail Gorbachev, Jacques Chirac, and other world-government wannabes are plotting to establish nothing less than a global, bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship under the pretext that it is necessary to ‘Save The Planet’. Ian Wishart's book demonstrates that there is not the slightest scientific reason for the new, quasi-religious belief that The Planet needs Saving. The new religion is merely an excuse for world government. World government will not, repeat not, be democratic government.

“The ‘global warming’ debate is not really a debate about climatology — it is a debate about freedom. It is the aim of the growing world-government faction among the international classe politique to take away our hard-won freedom and democracy forever. I commend this timely book, which makes the scientific arguments comprehensible to the layman. Those who read it will help to forestall the new Fascists and so to keep us free.” — Lord Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, former adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2009, 08:51 PM
Here's an interesting political development: www.climatesceptics.com.au

They claim to be the world's first political party that is up-front (or "in your face") skeptical about climate change.

I have registered my email address with them, as I am interested to see what they are all about (and it might be a useful one-stop-shop or clearing house for skeptical information relating to Australia).
Might be worth giving #1 preference to, if incandescent-lightbulb–banner TalkBull keeps up his moronic "me too but wait another year" instead of opposing KRudd's economy-destroying ETS.

Rincewind
10-06-2009, 09:05 PM
Here's an interesting political development: www.climatesceptics.com.au

They claim to be the world's first political party that is up-front (or "in your face") skeptical about climate change.

Looks interesting. Thanks for the link.


I have registered my email address with them, as I am interested to see what they are all about (and it might be a useful one-stop-shop or clearing house for skeptical information relating to Australia).

That website seemed a little too focused to be a one stop shop. You might like to check out http://www.skeptics.com.au/ Then again you might not.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-06-2009, 10:15 PM
Here's an interesting political development: www.climatesceptics.com.au

They claim to be the world's first political party that is up-front (or "in your face") skeptical about climate change.

I have registered my email address with them, as I am interested to see what they are all about (and it might be a useful one-stop-shop or clearing house for skeptical information relating to Australia).

Last state election(or the previous one, don't remember:) ) I was trying to choose between Libs and Labs (didn't like either). Then decide on a litmus test: rank the party according to how low they put the Greens on how to vote card, i.e I would rank the party that gives Green lowest preference #1 and so on. Still don't remember what was the order. If state parties are going to be so uninspiring next election, those sceptics might get my primary vote:D :D

Kevin Bonham
11-06-2009, 01:23 PM
Last state election(or the previous one, don't remember:) ) I was trying to choose between Libs and Labs (didn't like either). Then decide on a litmus test: rank the party according to how low they put the Greens on how to vote card, i.e I would rank the party that gives Green lowest preference #1 and so on. Still don't remember what was the order. If state parties are going to be so uninspiring next election, those sceptics might get my primary vote:D :D

I would be a bit careful about doing this at a Senate election. Senate election preference deals are often not much about ideology and more about trying to get elected. It is very hard-nosed and ideology often goes completely out the window. Usually when one party accuses another party of preferencing someone they shouldn't have, that party was trying to deal with the same party themselves.

Capablanca-Fan
11-06-2009, 01:25 PM
That website seemed a little too focused to be a one stop shop. You might like to check out http://www.skeptics.com.au/ Then again you might not.
I suspect that TSK was referring to warm-mongering skepticism not all forms of it.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-06-2009, 01:26 PM
I would be a bit careful about doing this at a Senate election. Senate election preference deals are often not much about ideology and more about trying to get elected. It is very hard-nosed and ideology often goes completely out the window. Usually when one party accuses another party of preferencing someone they shouldn't have, that party was trying to deal with the same party themselves.
It was state election. In Victoria upper house election is similar to lower house.
On federal level there are enough issues to make a clear choice (and greens go last in any case:) )

Capablanca-Fan
11-06-2009, 04:04 PM
(and greens go last in any case:) )
That's what I do too :)

Kevin Bonham
11-06-2009, 04:22 PM
Last place on my ballot paper is much too hotly contested for any party to monopolise it.

Ian Murray
17-06-2009, 10:33 PM
I'm back, fresh from a few weeks' state-trotting running regional interschool tournaments.

This week's news is the climate change report concentrating on current and future effects in USA - www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts - with a Christian Science Monitor report at http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/06/16/global-warming-affecting-every-corner-of-the-us-report-says/

Igor_Goldenberg
18-06-2009, 09:46 AM
Last place on my ballot paper is much too hotly contested for any party to monopolise it.
Looks like Greens are doing much better job in my electorate.

Capablanca-Fan
18-06-2009, 10:48 AM
Looks like Greens are doing much better job in my electorate.
At monopolizing last place in the ballot? I had no problems putting them there.

Ian Murray
19-06-2009, 08:44 AM
At monopolizing last place in the ballot? I had no problems putting them there.
Pauline Hanson is an automatic choice for last on my ballot paper

Igor_Goldenberg
19-06-2009, 10:23 AM
Pauline Hanson is an automatic choice for last on my ballot paper
Who is Pauline Hanson? Nobody knows such a name in my electorate. Is it some rabid socialist from the North?

Capablanca-Fan
19-06-2009, 05:34 PM
Who is Pauline Hanson? Nobody knows such a name in my electorate. Is it some rabid socialist from the North?
Well, she is quite leftist in her economics, e.g. against free trade, so I would not place her highly. But I would place her above the incompetent State Labor in QLD, since they managed to ruin our state in the pre-recession boom time. This contrasts with Howard/Costello who saved a surplus for a rainy day. Placing Hanson last is for politically correct trendy lefties (and some Coalition appeasers) who want to appear morally superior.

Ian Murray
19-06-2009, 06:08 PM
Placing Hanson last is for politically correct trendy lefties (and some Coalition appeasers) who want to appear morally superior.
There must be a lot of them about, judging by Hanson's poor electoral performances of late

Capablanca-Fan
20-06-2009, 01:59 PM
There must be a lot of them about, judging by Hanson's poor electoral performances of late
Non sequitur: she would have done poorly if she was 2nd or 3rd on most ballots. In any case, it's hard to see how a Hanson government would have wrecked QLD any more than Layba has.

Capablanca-Fan
24-06-2009, 06:03 PM
Nick Xenophon: why I won’t vote for the ETS
23 JUN 2009

[And he's not one of these evil deniers; he actually believes the alarmism, but rightly doesn't trust the government to take then redistribute billions of dollars]

The federal government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is the worst type of political compromise.

It will not achieve the carbon pollution reduction targets needed to seriously address Australia’s contribution to climate change, and yet it will create unprecedented and unnecessary government interference in the economy.

The government’s environmental targets are pitifully low because the proposed scheme is so economically disruptive. It’s like the government has decided to shoo flies with a baseball bat, but it means they can’t shoo too many flies in case they knock somebody out.

What’s needed is a better designed scheme which will have less impact on the economy, allowing for better environmental outcomes.

A proper CPRS should be designed to encourage the economy away from “dirty energy” towards “clean energy”. To do this, any sensible model must make clean energy more attractive that dirty energy.

But what the government’s scheme does is tax all emitters, dirty and clean, with the dirty industries taxed more.

The threshold of taxation begins at zero so everyone is taxed and everything gets more expensive. The government will collect billions of dollars and then to mitigate the price increases caused by its scheme it will give some of the money it has collected back to emitters and consumers.

We are meant to trust this government and future governments to do this fairly, avoiding favouritism or political patronage.

But this process will make many industries reliant on government largesse year in and year out, which is subject to change at any time depending on the political environment.

This will not create an environment where industries feel secure to spend the billions needed to adopt green technologies. I favour a design that sets the threshold between clean and dirty industries. Modelling has been prepared for me on this by economists at Frontier Economics who have also conducted modelling for the New South Wales Labor government on the Federal Government’s CPRS.

Under the alternative design, dirty energy becomes more expensive and clean energy becomes cheaper, giving the right incentives to transform Australia to a low carbon economy.

And best of all you don’t have the federal government collecting billions of dollars it then has to re-distribute. The alternative scheme eliminates this wasteful churn of cash through the economy.

For me, the problem began with the government’s Green Paper on the CPRS. In it, the Federal Government’s proposed scheme had been modelled, but there was scant modelling of alternatives.

The government was acting a bit like a used car salesman who will only let you test drive one model. If we are going to reach a political consensus on this issue it is vital that alternative schemes are thoroughly modelled and debated.

The issue of man-made global warming is real and urgent. We must act now but we shouldn’t rush to adopt a poorly designed scheme that will damage the economy and not adequately help the environment.

Capablanca-Fan
28-06-2009, 05:33 PM
George Reisman to environmentalists (http://georgereisman.com/blog/2008/02/word-to-environmentalists.html):
The best way to cope with any warming is via the free market
19 Feb 2008

...

Even if you are absolutely convinced that human activities are responsible for global warming and, if nothing is done, will ultimately result in an intolerable rise in temperature, there is a very simple test that you need to apply. Pretend, for just a moment, that that same global warming is coming about independently of human activities, that it is strictly the product of natural forces. Then ask yourself, what would be the best fundamental method of coping with it? Maintaining a free market or establishing a centrally planned socialist system?

More fundamentally, what is the appropriate method for Man to use in dealing with Nature in general? Is it the motivated and coordinated human intelligence of all individual market participants that is provided by a free market and its price system? Or is it the unmotivated, discoordinated chaos in which one man, the Supreme Dictator, or a handful of men, the Supreme Dictator and his fellow members of the Central Planning Board, claim a monopoly on human intelligence and on the right to make fundamental decisions?

Suppose even that the warming caused by Nature were such that what was required to deal with it was some sort of space program, perhaps emitting thousands of tiny mirrors that would prevent some sunlight from reaching the earth by reflecting it back into space. Suppose further that as a practical matter, given our present state of social organization, the only realistic means of carrying out such a program was through governmental action—a kind of public works project, as it were. In which circumstances, would such a program be more likely to be feasible: in those of the primitive economies characteristic of third world countries or in those of advanced industrial economies? And would they not be more likely to be feasible in an economy substantially more advanced than our own is at present?

The answer to the question of how best to cope with intolerable global warming caused by Nature is obviously the maintenance of the free market, not its replacement by Socialist central planning. Indeed, the answer is to make the free market freer than it now is—as much freer as is humanly possible. This is because while the primary reason for advocating a free market is the greater prosperity and enjoyment it brings to everyone in the course of his normal, everyday life, a major, secondary reason is to have the greatest possible industrial base available for coping with catastrophic events, whether those events be war, plague, meteors from outer space, intolerable global warming, or a new ice age.

In effect, what the environmentalists would have us do as the means of preparing for coping with a coming global warming is analogous to the imaginary absurdity of the United States in the 1930s having reduced its economy to the level, say, of Poland’s economy. Then, when World War II came, our country would have had to fight the war with horses instead of tanks and planes. In the same way, the environmentalists would have us cope with global warming by waving little fans instead of using air conditioners, refrigerators, and freezers.

...

TheJoker
29-06-2009, 12:40 AM
George Reisman to environmentalists (http://georgereisman.com/blog/2008/02/word-to-environmentalists.html):
.

Pure Spin that goes to heart the of the golden rules of spin:

1. Simplify

2. Exagerate

kjenhager
30-06-2009, 05:43 PM
7W-BePJOLbw

TheJoker
30-06-2009, 09:23 PM
7W-BePJOLbw

That was interesting, thanks. It nice to hear what at least appears on the surface to be a reasonable arguement against the threat of global warming. Unformtnately it is as infeasable for me to verify his claims as those made in Al Gore's doco, whichalso appear on the surface to be well reasoned.

Of course from decision making point of view it's not necessary to deal in absolutes. One only needs to gather enough information to make a reasonable risk assessment. Considering the nature of castrophe predicted by some it would only need a very samll probability of being accurate to warrant some sort of risk reduction activity. Particularly if that activity has a low cost.

I haven't seen anybody state that the pollution caused by burining fossil fuels is beneficial, even if it doesn't cause global warming it certainly is something to be discouraged, one only needs visit a major city in China to realise such. IMO pollution is an externality that should be taxed, regardless of the type (air pollution, water pollution etc). By pricing pollution you create an incentive for the market to develop new technologies that pollute less. Money has been shown to be fantastic movitator on countless occassions.

kjenhager
30-06-2009, 09:47 PM
That was interesting, thanks. It nice to hear what at least appears on the surface to be a reasonable arguement against the threat of global warming. Unformtnately it is as infeasable for me to verify his claims as those made in Al Gore's doco, whichalso appear on the surface to be well reasoned. A good starting point for further research perhaps ?


Of course from decision making point of view it's not necessary to deal in absolutes. One only needs to gather enough information to make a reasonable risk assessment. Considering the nature of castrophe predicted by some it would only need a very samll probability of being accurate to warrant some sort of risk reduction activity. Particularly if that activity has a low cost.so stay indoors during lightning season ??


I haven't seen anybody state that the pollution caused by burining fossil fuels is beneficial, even if it doesn't cause global warming it certainly is something to be discouraged, one only needs visit a major city in China to realise such. IMO pollution is an externality that should be taxed, regardless of the type (air pollution, water pollution etc). By pricing pollution you create an incentive for the market to develop new technologies that pollute less. Money has been shown to be fantastic movitator on countless occassions.
well now that is another issue entirely !
just don't blur the picture with the polluting smog of mis-argument ! :cool:

TheJoker
30-06-2009, 10:05 PM
A good starting point for further research perhaps ?

Unforntunately don't have the time.


so stay indoors during lightning season ??

I certainly don't play golf in a thunderstorm.;)

But you could equally argue that the statistical proabablity of a building burning down in the CDB was so small so as not to warrant the installation of fire escapes or taking out insurance for such an event. However if it does happen the cost is so high we decide to have such risk reduction strategies in place. In fact the whole insurance industry works on the fact that people are willing to spend more on risk reduction than the cost of the event multiplied by the statistical probability.

So for me the arguement is really whether to engage in some form of risk reduction, but simply how much to spend on said risk reduction.



well now that is another issue entirely !
just don't blur the picture with the pollution smog of mis-argument ! :cool:

It's only irrelevant those interested in the absolutes of the arguement, those considering risk reduction strategies such as the pricing of carbon emission should consider as many potential benefits/costs of that decision as feasable.

Capablanca-Fan
09-07-2009, 03:19 AM
We all know that KRudd's global warm-mongering economy-killing scheme won't make the slightest detectable difference to global temperatures. And now the head of the US Environmental Protection Agency admits that American efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions won’t really slash carbon dioxide levels either (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,530503,00.html).

Capablanca-Fan
11-07-2009, 12:31 PM
Rudd gives Copenhagen talks little hope (http://www.theage.com.au/environment/global-warming/rudd-gives-copenhagen-talks-little-hope-20090710-dg48.html)
Matt Wade and Paola Totaro
The Age, 11 July 2009

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd has been overheard pouring cold water on world leaders’ chances of hammering out critical climate change limits in Copenhagen - just hours after US President Barack Obama called for global optimism.

In an embarrassing gaffe, Mr Rudd’s comments were picked up by Australian TV microphones that had been allowed in briefly to film bilateral talks with Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, who is to host the Copenhagen summit in December. This is the vital meeting at which world leaders aimed to hammer out a united agreement with developing nations for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

“Right now I don’t think we are on track to get an agreement at Copenhagen,” Mr Rudd told Mr Rasmussen. “There are too many problems.”

Desmond
11-07-2009, 12:37 PM
Rudd gives Copenhagen talks little hope (http://www.theage.com.au/environment/global-warming/rudd-gives-copenhagen-talks-little-hope-20090710-dg48.html)
Matt Wade and Paola Totaro
The Age, 11 July 2009

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd has been overheard pouring cold water on world leaders’ chances of hammering out critical climate change limits in Copenhagen - just hours after US President Barack Obama called for global optimism.

In an embarrassing gaffe, Mr Rudd’s comments were picked up by Australian TV microphones that had been allowed in briefly to film bilateral talks with Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, who is to host the Copenhagen summit in December. This is the vital meeting at which world leaders aimed to hammer out a united agreement with developing nations for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

“Right now I don’t think we are on track to get an agreement at Copenhagen,” Mr Rudd told Mr Rasmussen. “There are too many problems.”Was it a gaffe, or intentional murder of the agreement by self-fulfilling prophecy?

Garvinator
14-07-2009, 11:08 AM
Was it a gaffe, or intentional murder of the agreement by self-fulfilling prophecy?
Or when it all falls over Krudd can then say later that it was not his fault and that he was pushing for agreement and was a leader in this area.

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2009, 09:12 AM
Now alGore is comparing the fight against the alleged warming with the fight against the Nazis (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6658672.ece). Where are the journos picking him up for Godwin's Law or Reductio ad Hitlerum?

Al Gore and friends create climate of McCarthyism (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25783305-7583,00.html), says Bjorn Lomborg.