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

Ian Murray
12-02-2010, 10:43 PM
Could it be that government will collect 40.6 billions and pay out 39.1 billions?
lol

Spiny Norman
13-02-2010, 04:59 AM
from the press release:
"... the Coalition plan relies too heavily on sequestration through soil carbon – a high-risk approach considering soil carbon cannot currently be included in Australia’s greenhouse accounts"
Yes, quite ... obviously what's really important is not actually doing something about putting carbon back into the soil and having a tangible effect on atmospheric CO2 ... what's important is making sure that we get the global green tax CO2 accounting right.

Sheesh! They are completely missing the point about direct action policies.

Ian Murray
13-02-2010, 10:36 AM
Yes, quite ... obviously what's really important is not actually doing something about putting carbon back into the soil and having a tangible effect on atmospheric CO2 ... what's important is making sure that we get the global green tax CO2 accounting right.

Sheesh! They are completely missing the point about direct action policies.
It is irresponsible to factor in dependence on a process which is nowhere near commercially viable

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2010, 10:40 AM
Some say that Ka Le is haunted—and it is. But it’s haunted not by Hawaii’s legendary night marchers. The mysterious sounds are “Na leo o Kamaoa"-- the disembodied voices of 37 skeletal wind turbines abandoned to rust on the hundred-acre site of the former Kamaoa Wind Farm…

The ghosts of Kamaoa are not alone in warning us. Five other abandoned wind sites dot the Hawaiian Isles—but it is in California where the impact of past mandates and subsidies is felt most strongly. Thousands of abandoned wind turbines littered the landscape of wind energy’s California “big three” locations—Altamont Pass, Tehachapin (above), and San Gorgonio—considered among the world’s best wind sites…

California’s wind farms—then comprising about 80% of the world’s wind generation capacity—ceased to generate much more quickly than Kamaoa. In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/wind_energys_ghosts_1.html). Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills...

pax
25-02-2010, 12:52 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/22/2826604.htm?site=thedrum


Last week, Media Watch became embroiled in a war of words with Sunday and Daily Telegraph columnist Piers Akerman.

Mr Akerman seems to think it's all about our disapproval of his climate change scepticism. It isn't. It's about what's good journalism, and what's bad.

In last Monday's program, I drew our viewers' attention to an article in the UK newspaper, The Independent, about a sentence purportedly written by the British climate scientist and former chairman of the IPCC, Sir John Houghton. Watch or read our piece here, and read The Independent here.

Sir John is alleged to have said this: "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen."

...

Media Watch reported, and confirmed, The Independent's discovery that the first traceable use of the quote, anywhere in the world, was in a column by Piers Akerman in Sydney's Sunday Telegraph. Read it here.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-03-2010, 08:29 AM
Fossil fuels 'better for environment' than so-called green fuel (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/fossil-fuels-better-for-environment-than-so-called-green-fuel/story-e6frg6so-1225835805419)


The British government study's findings show that the Department of Transport's target for the level of biofuel in all fuel sold in Britain will result in millions of hectares of forest being logged or burnt down and converted to plantations. The study, likely to force a review of the target, concludes that some of the most common biofuel crops fail to meet the minimum sustainability standard set by the European Commission.


The EC has conducted its own research, but is refusing to publish the results. A leaked internal memo from the EC's agriculture directorate reveals its concern that Europe's entire biofuels industry, which receives almost pound stg. 3 billion ($5bn) a year in subsidies, would be jeopardised if indirect changes in land use were included in sustainability standards. A senior official added to the memo in handwriting: "An unguided use of ILUC (indirect land use change) would kill biofuels in the EU."

Well, it's quite simple actually. Just remove land use change from the accounting. If in doubt how to do it, ask IPCC or CRU for advice.


Last year, 127 million litres of palm oil was added to British diesel, including 64 million litres from Malaysia and 27 million litres from Indonesia. Kenneth Richter, biofuels campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said: "The billions of subsidy for biofuels would be better spent on greener cars and improved public transport."
In fact billions of subsidy for biofuels would be better not taxed from people in the first place, but that's beyond the grasp of green activist.

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2010, 02:44 PM
Wind power is not only very expensive, it doesn't even reduce CO2 emissions. It's a big con, promulgated by the usual "Baptist and Bootlegger" coalition of the Greenstapo "do-gooders" and the special interests—wind turbine makers—who hope to make money they couldn't in a free market.

Wind power is a complete disaster (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx#ixzz0hoYhsrBS), by Michael Trebilcock, Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto:


There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions… Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).

Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery…

Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”

Spiny Norman
11-03-2010, 04:08 PM
Wind power seems to be more about assuaging the consciences of climate change believers, rather than making an actual difference.

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2010, 04:18 PM
Wind power seems to be more about assuaging the consciences of climate change believers, rather than making an actual difference.
Most leftopathic policies are aimed at making leftard politicians, bureaucrats, and activists feel morally superior; it's no biggie that the people ostensibly helped by their programs end up even worse off. And of course, leftards bear no cost; they are generous only with other people's money. For example, Africa is poorer after trillions of dollars of foreign "aid" over decades, really meaning poor people from rich countries forced to donate to rich despots from poor ones. But it might earn our generous leaders high positions in the UN.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-03-2010, 08:31 AM
What is the contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect in comparison to other gases and water vapour?
Is the amount and effect of water vapour connected in any way to human activity?
Is it correct that IPCC and global warming models do not take water vapour into account?

Ian Murray
12-03-2010, 09:05 AM
What is the contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect in comparison to other gases and water vapour?
Is the amount and effect of water vapour connected in any way to human activity?
Is it correct that IPCC and global warming models do not take water vapour into account?
The amount of water in the planetary biosphere is fixed - there is no anthropogenic water vapour being added to the atmosphere.

Capablanca-Fan
12-03-2010, 12:50 PM
The amount of water in the planetary biosphere is fixed - there is no anthropogenic water vapour being added to the atmosphere.
That's nonsense. Any time you boil water you're adding to AWV by definition.

What you probably meant to say is that the absorption of infrared by water vapour has reached saturation level in the wavelengths absorbed, so additional water vapour would have no effect.

But water vapour accounts for over 90% of the "greenhouse" IR absorption. This is something very well known to Ph.D. vibrational spectroscopists like me. We always exclude water of any phase from our IR spectrometer because water absorbs so strongly.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-03-2010, 01:02 PM
The amount of water in the planetary biosphere is fixed - there is no anthropogenic water vapour being added to the atmosphere.
Thanks for the info, but how is it relevant to my questions?

Ian Murray
12-03-2010, 01:27 PM
That's nonsense. Any time you boil water you're adding to AWV by definition.
There is no new water being added to the system - it's all part of the existing water cycle

Capablanca-Fan
12-03-2010, 01:52 PM
There is no new water being added to the system - it's all part of the existing water cycle
It is new water vapour. Furthermore, burning any hydrocarbon adds new water.

Ian Murray
13-03-2010, 01:51 PM
It is new water vapour. Furthermore, burning any hydrocarbon adds new water.
Of course - obviously so. The mug layman like myself can be confused by such statements as:
"There will never be any more freshwater on Earth than there is now. No new water is being made and water can’t escape from the Earth. The water we use is recycled over and over again."
SA Water (http://www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/Education/OurWaterSystems/The+Water+Cycle.htm)

Someone has kindly done the sums at NewScientist (http://www.last-word.com/content_handling/show_tree/tree_id/1929.html), indicating that the water derived from all burnt fossil fuels has raised sea levels by some 8.5 micrometres

Capablanca-Fan
13-03-2010, 02:13 PM
Of course - obviously so. The mug layman like myself can be confused by such statements as:

"There will never be any more freshwater on Earth than there is now. No new water is being made and water can’t escape from the Earth. The water we use is recycled over and over again."
SA Water (http://www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/Education/OurWaterSystems/The+Water+Cycle.htm)
Good grief, government bureaucracies can't even get simple chemistry right.

Someone has kindly done the sums at NewScientist (http://www.last-word.com/content_handling/show_tree/tree_id/1929.html), indicating that the water derived from all burnt fossil fuels has raised sea levels by some 8.5 micrometres
OK, here are the sums for burning octane petrol:

C8H18 + 12.5O2 → 8C02 + 9H2O.
Due to the high temp, the water will be in the gas phase. So the hydrocarbon burning generates more water vapour than CO2. The lower the molar mass of the fuel, in general, the higher the relative mole fraction of H2O produced. E.g. take methane:

CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O

Patrick Byrom
13-03-2010, 08:21 PM
What is the contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect in comparison to other gases and water vapour?
Is the amount and effect of water vapour connected in any way to human activity?
Is it correct that IPCC and global warming models do not take water vapour into account?

Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas, but the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is constant for a given temperature - you can add more, but it simply condenses out again. So the main contributor to an enhanced greenhouse effect is CO2, followed by methane.

If the temperature of the atmosphere increases, then it can hold more water vapour, so this amplifies any change in temperature. Human activity can increase the atmospheric temperature in a number of ways, the most obvious being adding CO2.

This is a good link for this subject:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

Global warming models do include the effect of water vapour and other gases, as you can read in mind-numbing detail in Chapter 2 of the IPCC report:
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

Igor_Goldenberg
13-03-2010, 09:25 PM
Thanks.

Capablanca-Fan
16-03-2010, 05:30 PM
Professor Mark Perry splatters one of the worst warm-mongers, the notorious population bombardier Paul R. Ehrlich (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/03/40-years-later-air-quality-has-never.html):


Earth Day (April 22) is only six weeks away, and I just noticed that the (US) EPA recently updated air quality data for 2008 and thought it was worth featuring now in anticipation of the 40th anniversary of Earth Day:

Predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970:

“Air pollution is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone,” Paul Ehrlich in an interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.

Ehrlich also predicted that in 1973, 200,000 Americans would die from air pollution, and that by 1980 the life expectancy of Americans would be 42 years.

“By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...” Life magazine, January 1970.

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from the intolerable deteriorations and possible extinction,” New York Times editorial, April 20, 1970.

The world will be “...eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age,” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970....

MP: Here we are 40 years later, the U.S. population has increased by more than 50%, traffic volume (miles driven) in the U.S. has increased 160%, and real GDP has increased 204%; and yet air quality in the U.S. is better than ever - nitrous dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and lead have all decreased between 46% and 92% between 1980 and 2008 [see chart on site]

Igor_Goldenberg
17-03-2010, 08:55 AM
Ehrlich must be happy he did not enter wager on those predictions.

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2010, 06:56 PM
Liars, cheats, thieves: the terrible truth about the mean greens (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/7458105/Liars-cheats-thieves-the-terrible-truth-about-the-mean-greens.html)
The right-on brigade has been unmasked. About time too, says Iain Hollingshead
Daily Telegraph, UK, 17 Mar 2010

Every now and again there comes along a scientific study that proves beyond reasonable doubt what you instinctively know to be true: wine is good for you, exercise is dangerous, and self-righteous environmentalists are lying, cheating, thieving degenerates.

I’m exaggerating only a little. Do Green Products Make Us Better People? (http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/facBios/file/Green%20Products%20Psych%20Sci.pdf), a paper in the latest edition of the journal Psychological Science, argues that those who wear what the authors call the “halo of green consumerism” are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal. Faced with various moral choices — whether to stick to the rules in games, for example, or to pay themselves an appropriate wage — the green participants behaved much worse in the experiments than their conventional counterparts. The short answer to the paper’s question, then, is: No. Greens are mean.

The authors, two Canadian psychologists, came up with an intriguing explanation for this. “Virtuous acts,” they write, “can license subsequent asocial and unethical behaviour.” It’s the yin-yang theory of psychology, or “compensatory ethics”, to give it its proper name. Buy an organic potato, then go home and beat your wife with The Guardian.

Capablanca-Fan
27-05-2010, 10:05 AM
Going 'Green' (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/john-stossel/2010/05/26/going-green/)
By John Stossel

....

Maybe the electric car is the next big thing?

"Electric cars are the next big thing, and they always will be."

There have been impressive headlines about electric cars from my brilliant colleagues in the media. The Washington Post said, "Prices on electric cars will continue to drop until they're within reach of the average family."

That was in 1915.

In 1959, The New York Times said, "Electric is the car of the tomorrow."

In 1979, The Washington Post said, "GM has an electric car breakthrough in batteries, now makes them commercially practical."

I'm still waiting.

"The problem is very simple," Bryce said. "It's not political will. It's simple physics. Gasoline has 80 times the energy density of the best lithium ion batteries. There's no conspiracy here of big oil or big auto. It's a conspiracy of physics."

Igor_Goldenberg
29-05-2010, 10:32 PM
Scientists at academy row over climate sceptic policy (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/scientists-at-academy-row-over-climate-sceptic-policy/1843775.aspx)

President of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Professor Batterham is not a global warming sceptic. He said ' we need to drastically reduce CO2 or face runaway temperature rise''. But he "does not believe the science is settled" and welcomes the debate.
That was enough to spark anger among members.

antichrist
30-05-2010, 10:20 AM
Whether the science is settled or not we know that there massive changes that have been recorded since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

This should guide us to be careful and modest in our actions. Beginning with all unnecessary car trips being discouraged, change to smaller cars for when cars are essential and only people with a proven need for a car being allowed such.

At the same time public transport be improved where necessary.

The second item is population control. Humans have stuffed the planet, it is not only our lifestyle but the number of us. I have witnessed in 3rd world countries where people are on subsistance but have still wrecked the environment due to there ever-increasing numbers. Needless to say that their standard of living is shocking and there was no necessity in them been born. They have only added to the species unhappiness and suffereing.

I am related to conservative people who are scientists and they are really concerned for the planets condition, esp of the greenhouse effect. They are true to their science and don't let it be contaminated by their politics.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-06-2010, 09:21 PM
What’s drowning is not Tuvalu but the alarmists (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/whats_drowning_is_not_tuvalu_but_the_alarmists/)

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2010, 01:27 AM
At the same time public transport be improved where necessary.
Yet this is a massively expensive boondoggle that many people don't use, because it is not convenient. Cars enable one to go where and when one wants to go. Leftards hate that, since they love to make decisions for other people.


The second item is population control.
Who does the controlling, and will they lead by example?


Humans have stuffed the planet, it is not only our lifestyle but the number of us.
Crap. Every person in the world could fit into an area the size of England, with more than 20 square metres each.


I have witnessed in 3rd world countries where people are on subsistance but have still wrecked the environment due to there ever-increasing numbers. Needless to say that their standard of living is shocking and there was no necessity in them been born. They have only added to the species unhappiness and suffereing.
Overpopulation is a myth. Many of the wealthy countries have a huge population density, while many poor countries are sparsely populated. West Germany was more densely populated than East, and South Korea more than North. Poverty is caused not by too many people but by a lack of rule of law and unfree markets.

A real population expert, Nicholas Eberstadt, in an article ‘Doom and Demography’ (Wilson Quarterly, Winter 2006), pointed out that the population growth of the last century was caused mainly by reduction of mortality, especially in infancy:

‘It was not because people suddenly started breeding like rabbits—rather, it was because they finally stopped dying like flies. Between 1900 and the end of the 20th century, the human life span likely doubled, from a planetary life expectancy at birth of perhaps 30 years to one of more than 60. By this measure, the overwhelming preponderance of the health progress in all of human history took place during the past 100 years.’
He also pointed out that a high population has improved conditions:

‘Troubled as the world may be today, it is incontestably less poor, less unhealthy, and less hungry than it was 30 years ago. And this positive association between world population growth and material advance goes back at least as far as the beginning of the 20th century.’
The real problem is that about 80 countries, comprising 40% of the world's population, have a birth rate below replacement, about 2.1%

antichrist
07-06-2010, 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
At the same time public transport be improved where necessary.

Jono
Yet this is a massively expensive boondoggle that many people don't use, because it is not convenient. Cars enable one to go where and when one wants to go. Leftards hate that, since they love to make decisions for other people.

AC
what rubbish all your posts. It could never be justified in use of resources and pollution that a 100kg person (for example) needs a ton, polluting vehicle to ferry them around.

Of course man did not survive before a hundred years ago without such car and pollution. Man has survived from day one without a polluting machine and will do again, and many already do. Those with an green conscious - that you with a Christian conscious does not seem to appreciate.

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2010, 06:27 PM
Humans have stuffed the planet, it is not only our lifestyle but the number of us.

As if anyone is in any doubt that AC is an insincere and hypocritical troll, on another thread he claimed that the purpose of life is to leave offspring! :owned:

antichrist
11-06-2010, 11:15 PM
As if anyone is in any doubt that AC is an insincere and hypocritical troll, on another thread he claimed that the purpose of life is to leave offspring! :owned:

Ofcoure it is, but like everything else in life in moderation. Whereas you have gone extreme the other direction - if everybody copied you there would be no human race in about a hundred years. And the planet would be much better off for it by the way. So unintentionally you are an excellent environmentalist.

Up to recent times, without adequate birth control and women being able to control their bodies, the overpopulation was controlled by famines and wars, but we are trying to be more sofisicated now.

Maybe the baby killing (if the Caananites really did it) was a form of birth control?? Some of the Pacific Islanders had habits similar to that as a form of birth control. They would place the baby where the tide is going out never to be seen again. It would be easy for them to imagine and actually experience that on their tiny islands that a lot of numbers just could not be catered for. That would be where homosexuality could be seen as an advantage. You won't hear that on TV or late night live.

Spiny Norman
12-06-2010, 07:20 AM
As if anyone is in any doubt that AC is an insincere and hypocritical troll, on another thread he claimed that the purpose of life is to leave offspring! :owned:
I don't see how life can have any purpose given his worldview. It just is what it is ...

antichrist
12-06-2010, 01:08 PM
I don't see how life can have any purpose given his worldview. It just is what it is ...

What do you mean no purpose, I have just finished stating what purpose in life is - to leave offspring. My world view is irrelevant. Even non-sentient(?) creatures have a purpose.

And it is not just what it is. The world view I see can be challenged and changed - it is dynamic. That is why I bother getting arrested occasionally for a bit of excitement in life.

What world view do theists have - that some unprovable being rules the universe - I would not call that a world view, that is a mockery.

As a lifelong campaigning environmentalist I have plenty of purpose in life as well as producing offspring - and staying on topic to avoid the global warming.

Spiny Norman
12-06-2010, 05:34 PM
What do you mean no purpose, I have just finished stating what purpose in life is - to leave offspring.
You seem to be switching from an observation (that creatures leave offspring) to a moral statement of sorts. Purpose is a particular hallmark of a designer.

Please explain this purpose. Who or what contained this purpose prior to the existence of the first living creature. But no smuggling in design words, and no smuggling in of morality either, because creatures were obviously breeding an leaving offspring long before there was any human morality.

Desmond
12-06-2010, 07:05 PM
You seem to be switching from an observation (that creatures leave offspring) to a moral statement of sorts. Purpose is a particular hallmark of a designer.

Please explain this purpose. Who or what contained this purpose prior to the existence of the first living creature. But no smuggling in design words, and no smuggling in of morality either, because creatures were obviously breeding an leaving offspring long before there was any human morality.
Could be confusing "greater purpose" with "purpose" perhaps?

antichrist
12-06-2010, 07:42 PM
You seem to be switching from an observation (that creatures leave offspring) to a moral statement of sorts. Purpose is a particular hallmark of a designer.

Please explain this purpose. Who or what contained this purpose prior to the existence of the first living creature. But no smuggling in design words, and no smuggling in of morality either, because creatures were obviously breeding an leaving offspring long before there was any human morality.

I did not imply at all that it is a moral statement, it is an animalistic statement, and psychological as well and probably many oather kinds of statements.

NOt having off spring could be seen as a moral statement for environmental reasons. Having offspring was considered a moral statement a few years ago, we were advised to have one extra for the country.


Rubbish purpose is the particular hallmark of a designer! You must prove the designer first before it can have essence. Purpose is how evolution has guided us to perform in ways that are helpful for the survival of the species.
I suppose now will you come out with rubbish that evolution must be a designer/being? But I know you must have your fairies in the garden - as Freud called it "a psychological crutch".

(Quote Spicy Norman
Please explain this purpose. Who or what contained this purpose prior to the existence of the first living creature. But no smuggling in design words, and no smuggling in of morality either, because creatures were obviously breeding an leaving offspring long before there was any human morality)


I don't smuggle in anything, least of all a stupid god who can't get anything right.


Of course there was purpose before human creatures, all animals have purpose - to survive. Do we hear of animals committing suicide - I have not anyway. But I have seen animal mothers smother their new born sick pups, as they are programmed to do by the evolutionary urges that come with protecting the gene pool. It may even be empathy as well because she realises that the pup cannot develop and look after itself. Also it leaves more feed etc for the healthier pups to survive better.

It is those shocking leftards who want to supply social welfare and keep such human new born alive when their parents without nanny states would have to dispose of them in a "humane" manner.

So how much can I charge for this imp scientific lesson? Put the cheque in the mail please.

Spiny Norman
13-06-2010, 09:04 AM
Could be confusing "greater purpose" with "purpose" perhaps?
Him, or me? At any rate, if AC didn't mean purpose in its normal sense, he should have used the word "function". One function of a living creature is to leave offspring. That is an entirely unremarkable observation though. The idea of purpose is far more interesting.

Spiny Norman
13-06-2010, 09:08 AM
I did not imply at all that it is a moral statement, it is an animalistic statement, and psychological as well and probably many oather kinds of statements.
If its an animalistic statement (I assume by this its just an observation of what actually happens), you should have used the word "function" I think.

As for morality, there were many other living creatures in existence well before human beings existed. So unless you're prepared to argue that ancient bacteria are capable of morality, and offer some evidence that shows that they do in fact act in that way, then this is just a flight of fancy which is every bit as silly as the things which you attribute (incorrectly) to others.


oOt having off spring could be seen as a moral statement for environmental reasons. Having offspring was considered a moral statement a few years ago, we were advised to have one extra for the country.
Quite irrelevant. You weren't qualifying your statements earlier just to cover human life. Are you doing so now?

If you are, then "the purpose of HUMAN life is to leave offspring" is not far off the biblical command to "multiply and fill the whole earth". It might be in fact the first time that I am in danger of agreeing with you on anything.

Desmond
13-06-2010, 09:42 AM
Him, or me? At any rate, if AC didn't mean purpose in its normal sense, he should have used the word "function". One function of a living creature is to leave offspring. That is an entirely unremarkable observation though. The idea of purpose is far more interesting.
You. When you say "purpose is the hallmark of a designer" and then talk about using the word in its normal sense, well the only conclusion I can reach is that you have a different understanding of what the word means than I do.

Spiny Norman
13-06-2010, 05:51 PM
My understanding of the meaning of the word purpose is simple (and, I presume, in common with everyone else here). "Purpose" requires "intention". In other words, not an action that occurs without intent, such as a chemical reaction or something which is instinctive; rather, an action that occurs where there is intent, such as the actions of an intelligent agent.

Intelligence does not have to be great to produce action, but the number of animals other than humans which are known to be capable of purposeful action is much smaller than the total number of known species. Animals which I know about that are capable of limited purposeful behaviour include humans, crows, parrots, and so on. But not bacteria.

For example, an animal which desires to mate can take the appropriate actions ... but it is very debateable whether such actions have purpose in the sense of wishing to produce offspring. It is pretty clear that the vast majority of such mating is instinctual, not purposeful.

So in the vast majority of animals, given the definition I wrote above, the actions which they take which end up producing life are not purposeful. So when AC makes claims about the "purpose of life" without introducing any qualifications to the scope of his claim, his claim is, quite frankly, nonsense.

antichrist
13-06-2010, 05:58 PM
If its an animalistic statement (I assume by this its just an observation of what actually happens), you should have used the word "function" I think.

As for morality, there were many other living creatures in existence well before human beings existed. So unless you're prepared to argue that ancient bacteria are capable of morality, and offer some evidence that shows that they do in fact act in that way, then this is just a flight of fancy which is every bit as silly as the things which you attribute (incorrectly) to others.


Quite irrelevant. You weren't qualifying your statements earlier just to cover human life. Are you doing so now?

If you are, then "the purpose of HUMAN life is to leave offspring" is not far off the biblical command to "multiply and fill the whole earth". It might be in fact the first time that I am in danger of agreeing with you on anything.


ACAS far as we know we are the first reasoning creature (except for God sorry, Devil & angels etc) and morality was created and evolved as humans witnessed what attitudes helped our species survive.


Get off my back, I am not going to argue whether to use word function or purpose - you are beginning to sound like FG7 - a real nagger. Come off it I am an environmentalist, to fill the whole earth with people is the most stupid thing I have heard. I can remember when parts of Australia were sparce with people now we have polluted everywhere with people who are destroying so much.

Why don't you just ask your God to switch the temp of the Earth to what it was pre-industrial revolution and also same ingredients before pollution. And also to cause car exhausts not to cause pollution in any manner. And also to replace all the species that have become extinct in past couple hundred years I would like to see that.

The only purpose I can see for creationists and polluters is to be total deliberate idiots.

Desmond
13-06-2010, 06:31 PM
My understanding of the meaning of the word purpose is simple (and, I presume, in common with everyone else here). "Purpose" requires "intention". In other words, not an action that occurs without intent, such as a chemical reaction or something which is instinctive; rather, an action that occurs where there is intent, such as the actions of an intelligent agent.

Intelligence does not have to be great to produce action, but the number of animals other than humans which are known to be capable of purposeful action is much smaller than the total number of known species. Animals which I know about that are capable of limited purposeful behaviour include humans, crows, parrots, and so on. But not bacteria.

For example, an animal which desires to mate can take the appropriate actions ... but it is very debateable whether such actions have purpose in the sense of wishing to produce offspring. It is pretty clear that the vast majority of such mating is instinctual, not purposeful.

So in the vast majority of animals, given the definition I wrote above, the actions which they take which end up producing life are not purposeful. So when AC makes claims about the "purpose of life" without introducing any qualifications to the scope of his claim, his claim is, quite frankly, nonsense.I think yours is a reasonable interpretation. I don't think it is the only one. To me it just means function, or perhaps primary function. Intention is not necessarily implied.

Spiny Norman
14-06-2010, 09:14 AM
I think yours is a reasonable interpretation. I don't think it is the only one. To me it just means function, or perhaps primary function. Intention is not necessarily implied.
I've thought a lot more about this overnight. You are right to point out that there are possibly multiple uses/meanings of the word Purpose.

Taking your example, that of Function ... here's why I think that its not particularly helpful in the example that AC used, and why I think that its not what he meant.

Take a functional organ which we call a heart. One can make the claim that: "The (functional) purpose of the human heart is to pump blood". At first blush, this is quite correct. However a heart also does other things. Purely in terms of Function, some hearts also:
-- have valves which cause less efficient pumping of blood
-- suffer from "heart disease" caused by excessive cholesterol
-- suffer from "heart failure" (a "heart attack") which results in death

So if I am to describe the (functional) purpose of a human heart, I can quite accurately say:
-- the purpose of the human heart is to pump blood
-- the purpose of the human heart is to have faulty valves
-- the purpose of the human heart is to get heart disease
-- the purpose of the human heart is to fail and cause death

Only if you smuggle in morality, that is to say, you introduce what the human heart OUGHT to do, rather than describing what in fact it does, are you then entitled to say:

-- faulty valves are a corruption of purpose (or "proper function")
-- heart disease is a corruption of purpose
-- heart failure is bad because it causes death

It is for that reason that I assume that AC was making a value judgement by saying that the purpose of life was to leave offspring. If he was making a purely Functional observation, his statement would be factually wrong, because some living creatures in fact leave no offspring.

Only if he is making the moral judgement that leaving offspring is preferable (or the result of Proper Function) compared with leaving no offspring, would his statement be saying anything at all worthwhile. As a simple observation about the behaviour of some (not all) living creatures, it was quite unremarkable.

Spiny Norman
14-06-2010, 09:20 AM
ACAS far as we know we are the first reasoning creature (except for God sorry, Devil & angels etc) and morality was created and evolved as humans witnessed what attitudes helped our species survive.
Parrots are known to be able to count and distinguish colours, and to interact with humans using verbal commands. e.g. some parrots are observed to correctly answer questions such as "How many?" and "Which one is green?" and so on. Crows are observed to have learned use tools such as sticks to achieve goals, such as extracting food from a confined space.

So your first statement is incorrect. Unless instead of just "reasoning" you mean "moral reasoning" ... in which case, you may well be correct.

Your statement that "morality was created and evolved..." is a statement of faith, not of scientific evidence; I'm happy for you to keep this as an article of your faith, just as long as you don't expect others who don't share your view of human origins to have to have the same faith as you.

Desmond
14-06-2010, 09:56 AM
Take a functional organ which we call a heart. One can make the claim that: "The (functional) purpose of the human heart is to pump blood". At first blush, this is quite correct. However a heart also does other things. Purely in terms of Function, some hearts also:
-- have valves which cause less efficient pumping of blood
-- suffer from "heart disease" caused by excessive cholesterol
-- suffer from "heart failure" (a "heart attack") which results in death

So if I am to describe the (functional) purpose of a human heart, I can quite accurately say:
-- the purpose of the human heart is to pump blood
-- the purpose of the human heart is to have faulty valves
-- the purpose of the human heart is to get heart disease
-- the purpose of the human heart is to fail and cause death
I would not consider those things to be functions. I would view them as conditions or attributes.

Spiny Norman
14-06-2010, 10:23 AM
I would not consider those things to be functions. I would view them as conditions or attributes.
So on what basis do you separate them out? Given two hearts, one functioning with valves that push through sufficient blood to keep a person alive, and the other functioning with valves that don't, how do you determine what is "proper function", from which, presumably, you then derive "functional purpose"?

I don't see that it can be based on what the majority of hearts in fact do, since a majority might conceivably be riddled with heart disease. How do you separate observed functionality from proper functionality without introducing a moral judgement as to the value of one kind of functionality over another kind?

Desmond
14-06-2010, 12:04 PM
So on what basis do you separate them out? I think the main clue is how you wrote it.
-- the purpose of the human heart is to pump blood [to do something; this is a function]
-- the purpose of the human heart is to have faulty valves [to have something; this is an attribute]
-- the purpose of the human heart is to get heart disease [to get something; this is a condition]
-- the purpose of the human heart is to fail and cause death [I suppose you could argue this is a function or perhaps the ceasing of one]

Spiny Norman
14-06-2010, 12:31 PM
Okay, then lets reduce it just to pumping blood, so as to eliminate any possibility of mistaking function for attributes or conditions.

Heart #1 pumps enough blood to support a human life. Heart #2 does not.

When considering these two hearts, and without introducing any moral judgement, on what basis is heart #1 considered to be fulfilling its purpose and heart #2 failing to fulfil its purpose? Doesn't it become a completely arbitrary decision without a moral framework to support it?

Or is it the case that pumping just any amount of blood is sufficient to satisfy the test of fulfilling its purpose? That would be a very odd conclusion to reach.

Desmond
14-06-2010, 01:53 PM
Okay, then lets reduce it just to pumping blood, so as to eliminate any possibility of mistaking function for attributes or conditions.

Heart #1 pumps enough blood to support a human life. Heart #2 does not.

When considering these two hearts, and without introducing any moral judgement, on what basis is heart #1 considered to be fulfilling its purpose and heart #2 failing to fulfil its purpose? Doesn't it become a completely arbitrary decision without a moral framework to support it?

Or is it the case that pumping just any amount of blood is sufficient to satisfy the test of fulfilling its purpose? That would be a very odd conclusion to reach.
I think as you said the heart's purpose, or its primary function, is to pump blood. Undoubtably some do that better than others.

Whether or not a heart that pumps as you say enough blood is fulfilling its purpose is an interesting question. Fulfilling the purpose is I think not necessarily crucial for understanding what the purpose of something is. For example, take an idle hammer. The hammer's purpose is to bang nails into things. An idle one isn't doing that. But that does not change its purpose.

Spiny Norman
14-06-2010, 02:21 PM
Difference with a hammer is that the purpose is defined by the designer. So its purpose is clear. Not so sure your example holds in the case of objects where the claim is that (a) they are not designed (such as life, which claim of course I dispute); combined with (b) they have a purpose.

If you take the following quote from Dawkins (from "River Out of Eden") at face value:


The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

then he clearly believes there is inherently no such thing as "purpose". If the universe lacks purpose, then any one of its parts must also lack purpose. Otherwise, if any one of the parts had purpose, then the whole would also contain purpose in some measure.

Now you can argue that he's talking about moral purpose, since he mentioned evil and good. However I think he's talking about purpose generally. Things just are what they are; they are not what they are for any reason whatsoever. The fact that certain things combine to make life possible is just chance/coincidence.

Desmond
14-06-2010, 02:38 PM
Difference with a hammer is that the purpose is defined by the designer. So its purpose is clear. Not so sure your example holds in the case of objects where the claim is that (a) they are not designed (such as life, which claim of course I dispute); combined with (b) they have a purpose.It makes no difference in the context I was using it. The point is that if something has a purpose or function it need not be performing that at every moment. Similarly an old heart starting to fail, its purpose does not suddenly change even though its effectiveness might.


If you take the following quote from Dawkins (from "River Out of Eden") at face value:

then he clearly believes there is inherently no such thing as "purpose". If the universe lacks purpose, then any one of its parts must also lack purpose. Otherwise, if any one of the parts had purpose, then the whole would also contain purpose in some measure.

Now you can argue that he's talking about moral purpose, since he mentioned evil and good. However I think he's talking about purpose generally. Things just are what they are; they are not what they are for any reason whatsoever. The fact that certain things combine to make life possible is just chance/coincidence.I haven't read this and it's hard to get context from a one sentence grab. He would seem to be using the word purpose with the underlying assumption of intent.

Capablanca-Fan
16-06-2010, 02:00 AM
How Not to Pay For Damages from the Oil Spill (http://www.burtfolsom.com/?p=680)
Burt Folsom, 14 June 2010

Yes, the BP oil spill is a disaster. And BP needs to reach in its deep pockets to compensate businesses and restore the Gulf Coast. But should BP set up an “independently administered fund” to cover claims for people and businesses in the Gulf Coast damaged by the oil spill? That is the current proposal by the Obama administration—that BP set up a large fund that will be, in effect, administered by government officials, who will listen to people presenting financial claims from the oil spill.

The “independently administered fund” idea is a stinker for two reasons. First, it separates the sinner from the restoration. In other words, BP causes a disaster but government officials hand out checks for damages. That reinforces the false notion that capitalists cause problems and government solves them. In fact, government helped cause this problem, as Dick Morris has explained, by creating tax incentives for deep water drilling and environmental laws that discouraged the safer shallow water drilling. Yes, BP made mistakes, but let BP through legal means pay for the mistakes it committed. And change government laws that create perverse incentives for deep water drilling.

Second, whenever government officials have a big pot of cash to distribute, the process always becomes politicized. There is never an exception to this rule: Friends of the party in power are rewarded; enemies are punished. …

Capablanca-Fan
19-06-2010, 12:20 AM
Obama and the Vision Thing (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/charles-krauthammer/2010/06/18/obama-and-the-vision-thing/)
By Charles Krauthammer, 18 June 2010

...
Pedestrian is beneath Obama. Mr. Fix-It he is not. He is world-historical, the visionary, come to make the oceans recede and the planet heal.

How? By creating a glorious, new, clean green economy. And how exactly to do that? From Washington, by presidential command and with tens of billions of dollars thrown around. With the liberal (and professorial) conceit that scientific breakthroughs can be legislated into existence, Obama proposes to give us a new industrial economy.

But is this not what we've been trying to do for decades with ethanol, which remains a monumental boondoggle, economically unviable and environmentally damaging to boot? As with yesterday's panacea, synfuels, into which Jimmy Carter poured billions.

Notice that Obama no longer talks about Spain, which until recently he repeatedly cited for its visionary subsidies of a blossoming new clean energy industry. That's because Spain, now on the verge of bankruptcy, is pledged to reverse its disastrously bloated public spending, including radical cuts in subsidies to its uneconomical photovoltaic industry.
...
We haven't run out of safer and more easily accessible sources of oil. We've been run off them by environmentalists. They prefer to dream green instead.
...

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2010, 01:47 PM
I find the following piece amusing and with unusual twist:

Climate Institute say Libs climate-change policies would be more effective (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/climate-institute-say-libs-climate-change-policies-would-be-more-effective/story-e6frg6n6-1225892352521)

The Climate Institute has declared that the Coalition's policies would more effectively tackle climate change than those announced so far by the government.

The think tank's analysis concludes that, under Labor, Australia's emissions levels would increase 21 per cent by 2020 from 2000, while under the Coalition, they would rise by just 7 per cent.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2010, 03:21 PM
I find the following piece amusing and with unusual twist:

Climate Institute say Libs climate-change policies would be more effective (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/climate-institute-say-libs-climate-change-policies-would-be-more-effective/story-e6frg6n6-1225892352521)

The Climate Institute has declared that the Coalition's policies would more effectively tackle climate change than those announced so far by the government.

The think tank's analysis concludes that, under Labor, Australia's emissions levels would increase 21 per cent by 2020 from 2000, while under the Coalition, they would rise by just 7 per cent.
Heheheh ;) So will the Greens give preferences to the Coalition as a result? I doubt it, because they are really Watermelons: Green on the outside, Red on the inside.

Kevin Bonham
16-07-2010, 04:37 PM
Well, Labor's policy is yet to be actually announced, so that is basically what the announcement boils down to: at this moment the Coalition have a climate change policy (even though their leader doesn't believe in it) while Labor do not (even though theirs probably does.)

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2010, 04:46 PM
Well, Labor's policy is yet to be actually announced, so that is basically what the announcement boils down to: at this moment the Coalition have a climate change policy (even though their leader doesn't believe in it) while Labor do not (even though theirs probably does.)
I am actually quite sceptical about Climate Institute estimation, Labor or Lib policy on environment. Whatever policy cost less is the least evil.
But the piece itself is amusing!

antichrist
22-07-2010, 05:23 PM
I am actually quite sceptical about Climate Institute estimation, Labor or Lib policy on environment. Whatever policy cost less is the least evil.But the piece itself is amusing!


In one way I tend to agree with you. The governemnt policy should not give any money to polluters - the opposite, that will cause prices to rise and discourage such practises and consumption, and eventualy new cleaner methods will arise and hopefully eventually be cheaper once the new capital costs have been re-imbursed.

I agree thats there needs to be an upheaval of how society fuctions and its values. That is why leadership is necessary. But it can be done. During Australia's prolonged drought many ordinary people inconvenienced themselves to save water. To go without many unnecessary car trips is not much of an inconvenience at all.


Once there is a profit in making non-polluting cars they will be made.

Garvinator
23-07-2010, 12:41 AM
Did somebody say useless 20/20 summit:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/climate-change-action-linked-to-summit-of-ordinary-aussies/story-fn5z3z83-1225895819673


ABOUT 150 ordinary Australians would be randomly chosen to develop the nation's response to climate change under a re-elected Gillard Government.

Julia Gillard will today pledge to set up a Citizens' Assembly to spend 12 months examining the evidence on climate change, the case for action and the consequences of putting a price on emissions.

In a headland speech in Brisbane, the Prime Minister will try to convince voters that she has learnt from Kevin Rudd's mistakes. She will say she will lead the debate and Labor is committed to revisiting a price on carbon pollution but not until at least 2012.

So thats it folks, after all the experts have given opinions either way and the evidence has been debated time and again through other scientific study, peer review and so forth, now the best the Gillard Government is PROPOSING, is to leave it to 150 ordinary citizens to decide what to do about climate change.

And of course I am sure there will be quite a few Libs and Nats in that lot, right ;) :lol:

I will call it now, put this in the he said it thread if you want to later, that this has nothing to really do with meaningful action on climate change and all it has to do with is that later on Gillard can stall again by saying that the recommendations of the lay people are unworkable etc etc blah blah. What a crock!!!

Kevin Bonham
23-07-2010, 03:04 AM
Urgh. What a dreadful policy. Smart politics maybe but reminds me of Tasmania Together (http://www.tasmaniatogether.tas.gov.au/). Can this election possibly get any dumber?

ER
23-07-2010, 07:29 AM
So thats it folks, after all the experts have given opinions either way and the evidence has been debated time and again through other scientific study, peer review and so forth, now the best the Gillard Government is PROPOSING, is to leave it to 150 ordinary citizens to decide what to do about climate change.


Urgh. What a dreadful policy. Smart politics maybe but reminds me of Tasmania Together. Can this election possibly get any dumber?

http://jimtwelves.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/julia-gillard-abc.jpg

It's called public participation in decision making! It's also a smart move! If the policy is successful I 'd claim popular victory inspired by the Govt! If it fails I 'd claim 'you were in it, wear it now! :P

Spiny Norman
23-07-2010, 08:07 AM
We already have 150 ordinary Australians who can help decide policy; its called Parliament.

More futile blathering and idiotic policy pronouncements.

God help us all.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-07-2010, 09:21 AM
We already have 150 ordinary Australians who can help decide policy; its called Parliament.


That's the most brilliant reply I have ever seen in politics!!!!!
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

antichrist
23-07-2010, 10:42 AM
That's the most brilliant reply I have ever seen in politics!!!!!
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

If it is such winner (and I agree it should be) then why didn't Howard consult it and win before committing Australia to unjust and illegal wars. Chew on that one.

TheJoker
23-07-2010, 11:55 AM
What a stupid policy!!!

What's next 150 ordinary Australian's to set interest rates

antichrist
23-07-2010, 01:26 PM
Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
We already have 150 ordinary Australians who can help decide policy; its called Parliament.



AC
Exactly, which is why the governor general should not have sacked Gough Whitlam, because Whitlam had the numebers in parliament. That action was legally questionable whereas the axing of Rudd was completely legal.

So one person knocked off a sitting PM - aren't you going to crow about that

Basil
23-07-2010, 02:07 PM
She's divine, isn't she?
Yes, despite having no top lip, a backside that bigger than the national deficit and a voice that doubles as an industrial power tool, I'd say she's a real looker.

Desmond
23-07-2010, 02:14 PM
Yes, despite having no top lip, a backside that bigger than the national deficit and a voice that doubles as an industrial power tool, I'd say she's a real looker.
lmfao

antichrist
23-07-2010, 02:15 PM
Yes, despite having no top lip, a backside that bigger than the national deficit and a voice that doubles as an industrial power tool, I'd say she's a real looker.

Now Howard, if Hockey was running for PM would you say the same bout his backside - that would make Julia's look like Paris Hilton - but then again she is not in a beauty parade. I am sure that you agree with me that Serena Williams is a lot more desirable.

Basil
23-07-2010, 02:27 PM
Now Howard, if Hockey was running for PM would you say the same bout his backside
I would if Elliott were running around (mindlessly :D) asserting Hockey's good looks.

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2010, 03:42 AM
We already have 150 ordinary Australians who can help decide policy; its called Parliament.

More futile blathering and idiotic policy pronouncements.

God help us all.

From Yes Prime Minister episode "Power to the People":

Agnes Moorhouse [ultra-left local councillor]: "Animals have rights too, you know. A battery chicken's life isn't worth living. Would you want to spend your life packed in with six hundred other desperate, squawking, smelly creatures, unable to breathe fresh air, unable to move, unable to stretch, unable to think?"

Sir Humphrey Appleby [cynical head civil servant]: "Certainly not! That's why I never stood for Parliament."

antichrist
25-07-2010, 10:27 AM
I recently read that for US to cater for countering the Green house effect it will cost households (or individuals) between $100 and $150 pa, yet rightwingers are crowing about it. God all bloddy mighty, how much do they spend on killing people all around the world in illegal wars and invasions

Desmond
27-07-2010, 10:30 AM
news.ninemsn.com.au poll

Should a citizens' assembly decide climate change policy?
Yes 47,259
No 101,457

antichrist
27-07-2010, 11:20 AM
Well news came out in yesterday's SMH that the 3 inquiries in that Climategate affair showed that the science of greenhouse still holds up completely. The scientists had sort of batted down due to freedom of info requests that were so numerous and onerous that they were impossible to fulfil and still do their work. Or something like that.

Climategate helped to scuttle the Copenhagen conference but the problem of the earth being devestated still exists and there is no attempted resolution.

It is obvious that the conversatives on this board do not care a rat's arse about their grand children's living environment and future health.

Capablanca-Fan
27-07-2010, 12:01 PM
Well news came out in yesterday's SMH that the 3 inquiries in that Climategate affair showed that the science of greenhouse still holds up completely. The scientists had sort of batted down due to freedom of info requests that were so numerous and onerous that they were impossible to fulfil and still do their work. Or something like that.
Yeah, right, pull the other one.


Climategate helped to scuttle the Copenhagen conference
Great.


but the problem of the earth being devestated still exists and there is no attempted resolution.
More scaremongering.


It is obvious that the conversatives on this board do not care a rat's arse about their grand children's living environment and future health.
Typical leftard argument: disagree with a leftist policy, and you must hate the people this policy is ostensibly designed to help. In reality, we care about the poverty, jobs lost, technology hindered, and government expansion that would surely result from the Copenhagen proposals.

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2010, 12:56 PM
news.ninemsn.com.au poll

Should a citizens' assembly decide climate change policy?
Yes 47,259
No 101,457

Those online polls are pretty useless but on this one real polling is picking up a similar reaction.

I think though that in this case the question is a bit loaded. As I understand it the function of the assembly is to attempt to build consensus for a recommendation, not to enact policy.

antichrist
27-07-2010, 07:59 PM
Well KB you have come good as to if global warning will affect the snails - as a counter to Jono 2 posts up.

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2010, 08:21 PM
Well KB you have come good as to if global warning will affect the snails - as a counter to Jono 2 posts up.

I can't see why that would be a counter to what Jono's saying, so it looks like this is just more of your usual tactic of trying to start fights.

The broader issue of climate change is bound to affect many snails. There is one recent apparent extinction (http://www.wildlifeextra.com.au/go/news/purple-snail.html#cr) that appears to have been caused by changing weather patterns, specifically reduced rainfall. That said, extinction of land snails from small islands is a depressingly common event and climate change is currently way down the list of reasons why the poor things snuff it.

In my own research over the last 20+ years I have not yet noticed any evidence of climate change impacts on the snails I look at. A fellow snail scientist here (no longer with us) believed that an out-of-range record for a species of freshwater mussel was a almost certainly caused by climate change but I disagreed with him.

antichrist
27-07-2010, 08:46 PM
[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]I can't see why that would be a counter to what Jono's saying, so it looks like this is just more of your usual tactic of trying to start fights.

AC
Not at all, I expected to look up the SMH article on line and see what I saw, that there is no controversy concerning the science of global warming that was supposedly uncovered by Climategate.

Surely it is a very imp announcement. I see Jono's article as all being anti-environment and that was where I expected you to take issue.

Do you agree with Jono that the climate alarmists are scaremongers?

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2010, 02:17 AM
Left-wing environmentalist scientist bails out of global warming movement: Declares it a “corrupt social phenomenon...strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass.”

VWVXarkPOAo&feature=player_embedded

Kevin Bonham
28-07-2010, 03:00 AM
Interesting character. His views on climate change rate only a minor note on his Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Rancourt).


Do you agree with Jono that the climate alarmists are scaremongers?

I think that climate change is real and probably primarily human-caused but that much of the public commentary about its likely impacts is both exaggerated and biased towards the negatives.

I don't think the sky will fall if we wait a few more years in search of community consensus, I just don't think that consensus will arrive and that Gillard's way of going about it is a remarkably silly and intellectually bankrupt one if it could.

Ian Murray
28-07-2010, 06:32 PM
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2010 was the warmest on record at 16.2°C (61.1°F), which is 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F). The previous record for June was set in 2005.

June 2010 was the fourth consecutive warmest month on record (March, April, and May 2010 were also the warmest on record). This was the 304th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last month with below-average temperature was February 1985.

State of the Climate - Global Analysis - June 2010 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=6&submitted=Get+Report)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center

Capablanca-Fan
29-07-2010, 01:36 AM
More confirmation bias, typical of warm-mongers. But they have to explain away the freaky snows in all US states but Hawaii last northern Winter.

Kevin Bonham
29-07-2010, 01:48 AM
More confirmation bias, typical of warm-mongers. But they have to explain away the freaky snows in all US states but Hawaii last northern Winter.

I don't think they do actually since the belief that climate change is real entails not uniform warming but warming on average accompanied by more erratic weather. Thus "freaky snows" are consistent with the pattern provided it is against an overall backdrop of temperature increase.

Spiny Norman
29-07-2010, 06:18 AM
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2010 was the warmest on record at 16.2°C (61.1°F), which is 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F). The previous record for June was set in 2005.

June 2010 was the fourth consecutive warmest month on record (March, April, and May 2010 were also the warmest on record). This was the 304th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last month with below-average temperature was February 1985.

It was a warm year all through last year and into the first 1/2 of this one ... mostly because its an El Nino year. There are graphs you can get here:

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

You need to look at CH05, which is the 14400 foot measurement, as this is the height where the global warming signature is supposed to show up. Currently it is at record highs.

I've been watching it for a number of years now. I tend not to consider any evidence from the compromised weather stations any longer, unless they are well, well away from cities (and incidentally, its my understanding that most of those country stations are showing very little in the way of a consistent upward trend).

Just watching, and waiting ... and turning as many lights off as I can in the meantime (not because of warming though; because of electricity prices!).

Desmond
29-07-2010, 10:49 AM
It was a warm year all through last year and into the first 1/2 of this one ... mostly because its an El Nino year. Presumably it has not been El Nino every month since 1985 though.

Spiny Norman
29-07-2010, 05:44 PM
Presumably it has not been El Nino every month since 1985 though.
No, it hasn't; but neither has it been warming continuously since then:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

I think the jury is still out (for me it is anyway).

Desmond
29-07-2010, 06:39 PM
No, it hasn't; but neither has it been warming continuously since then:OK the warming is not necessarily continuous, but 304 months of higher than average temperatures seems to be extremely compelling evidence for a trend.

Spiny Norman
29-07-2010, 07:06 PM
OK the warming is not necessarily continuous, but 304 months of higher than average temperatures seems to be extremely compelling evidence for a trend.
So what is the average? How is it calculated?

Garvinator
29-07-2010, 08:14 PM
Just watching, and waiting ... and turning as many lights off as I can in the meantime (not because of warming though; because of electricity prices!).
Increased prices will always be a more effective method of changing people's behaviour than any talk of having to do something for the environment.

Desmond
29-07-2010, 08:19 PM
So what is the average? How is it calculated?
Interesting how we go from a) me pointing out that your explanation of a 25 year trend with a 1 year explanation doesn't make sense, to b) you asking me to do research for you.

Ian Murray
29-07-2010, 10:50 PM
OK the warming is not necessarily continuous, but 304 months of higher than average temperatures seems to be extremely compelling evidence for a trend.
Not long on a cosmic scale, but 304 consecutive months is starting to look and smell like a trend

Spiny Norman
30-07-2010, 06:23 AM
Interesting how we go from a) me pointing out that your explanation of a 25 year trend with a 1 year explanation doesn't make sense, to b) you asking me to do research for you.
I figured you must know, since you quoted the figure. At least point me to the source. If you don't know, that's okay, just say so.

The source I quoted shows ups and downs over a relatively short period (circa 40 years), but its the best record we've got. Its directly measured by satellite, so it is not the result of dodgy extrapolations or unproven methodologies such as tree ring counting. It is unpolluted by urban heat island effect.

We know the world was hotter back well before man started burning fossil fuels (when Greenland was green). Nobody knows what caused that, so we don't know whether any current warming might also have an as-yet-unknown cause.

We know that the world was a lot colder in the previous few centuries, when the Thames River used to freeze over, and so on. The suspicion is that sunspot activity (or more accurately, the lack of it) around that time was the main driver.

We know that El Nino events cause rises in measured atmospheric temperatures. We know that when El Nino events pass, the world cools.

We know that the Earth radiates huge amounts of energy away into space. We know that as the Earth heats up, the amount radiated increases. And we know that how much cloud cover there is affects significantly both incoming and outgoing radiation.

We are currently going into a very low sunspot activity period (source: the Space Weather Prediction Centre, USA: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle) and these guys have had to revise downwards their estimates for the current solar cycle on multiple occasions now, because their computer models just aren't predicting what the sun is actually doing ... and there are reasonable predications from scientists that this will work against any man-made warming in the coming few decades. We might even get global cooling.

We know that back in the 70's, credible scientists were warning of: global cooling (yes, a new ice age). Never happened. Why? Because they were cherry picking data and the earth's climate is vastly more complex than they were aware.

So who do we believe. The scientists telling us we're at risk of cooling? Or the ones telling us we're at risk of warming?

To sum up: there's a whole lot going on ... and to try to pin it all on man-made CO2 emissions is just silly. It may well be a factor. I suspect its probably a whole lot smaller of a factor than scientists will admit, mostly because they have their snouts in the money trough and have never had it so good, with BILLIONS of public money being thrown at them.

Oh yes ... we also know that some of those scientists, indeed, some of the most high profile ones, have misused data and have tried to cover up their misuse when others tried to expose it as dodgy (or, even stronger, as downright fraudulent). Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. If people are misusing the data, then the data doesn't stack up the way they want it to ... and that means that its nothing like a slam dunk argument.

I smell a con. But I can't prove it. Yet.

Desmond
30-07-2010, 09:10 AM
I figured you must know, since you quoted the figure.I restated the figure Ian gave. He gave a link to the source.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-08-2010, 09:59 AM
Have you watched Happy Feet? (http://qld.greens.org.au/media-releases/unhappy-feet-mackay-and-moreton-voters-aren2019t-oceans-apart-mr-abbott)


“Anyone’s who’s seen the animated children’s film Happy Feet would know
that overfishing is the biggest threat facing our fishing and tourism
industries – not sanctuaries.


Is the rest of Green policies also based on children cartoons?

Spiny Norman
04-08-2010, 06:28 AM
I told my kids about this one last night over dinner. Managed to get about 2 minutes of conversation out of them, so that was a bonus. We all had a bit of a chuckle.

But of course, if overfishing is the biggest threat facing our fishing and tourism industries, then, by watching Happy Feet, people who believed that Happy Feet was presenting mostly truthful information would know that fact ... the only question then is whether their knowledge about overfishing is justified knowledge (I would argue that it wasn't, though true knowledge nevertheless).

Igor_Goldenberg
12-08-2010, 09:23 AM
Flowers adapt to climate change with genetic switch (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/flowers-adapt-to-climate-change/story-e6frg6nf-1225904127986)



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

The study suggests the risk of mass extinction because of global warming has been overstated.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-08-2010, 09:24 AM
Labor 'voter' on show really a candidate (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/labor-voter-on-show-really-a-candidate/story-fn59niix-1225904125523)


PUBLIC broadcaster SBS has been embarrassed after a Labor candidate appeared as a member of a studio audience.

In its panel discussion show Insight on Tuesday night, the man represented himself as being an ordinary Labor voter.

Hugh Zochling, the Labor contender for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's northern Sydney seat of Warringah, spoke strongly on the show in support of the government's response to the global financial crisis.

"If this was a US audience, one in 10 people in this room would have lost their homes and probably another one in 10 (would) owe more on their mortgage than their house is worth," he said

When asked about his voting intentions by host Jenny Brockie, Mr Zochling replied: "I'm going to support Labor, definitely."

Pressed further, Mr Zochling said he had supported Labor "for a long time, since I figured it out", but did not identify himself as a party member or candidate.

Surprise? After SA election this year - hardly.

Kevin Bonham
12-08-2010, 12:23 PM
The study suggests the risk of mass extinction because of global warming has been overstated.[/INDENT][/INDENT]

No surprises there for me; I have been saying for a long time that extinction risk assessments based on climate change are often founded on unsound science and tend to be extremely overblown.

That said, there are bound to be some casualties, and often changes in rainfall patterns are a bigger risk than temperature change.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-10-2010, 05:17 PM
Royal Society issues new climate change guide that admits there are 'uncertainties' about the science (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316469/Royal-Society-issues-new-climate-change-guide-admits-uncertainties.html)


The UK’s leading scientific body has been forced to rewrite its guide on climate change and admit that it is not known how much warmer the Earth will become.

The Royal Society has updated its guide after 43 of its members complained that the previous version failed to take into account the opinion of climate change sceptics.

Now the new guide, called ‘Climate change: a summary of the science’, admits that there are some ‘uncertainties’ regarding the science behind climate change.

And it says that it impossible to know for sure how the Earth's climate will change in the future nor what the possible effects may be.


If you listen to our pollies, especially Greens and Labor, the man-made global warming is an established fact.
Go figure.

Desmond
01-10-2010, 05:48 PM
Royal Society issues new climate change guide that admits there are 'uncertainties' about the science (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316469/Royal-Society-issues-new-climate-change-guide-admits-uncertainties.html)


The UK’s leading scientific body has been forced to rewrite its guide on climate change and admit that it is not known how much warmer the Earth will become.

The Royal Society has updated its guide after 43 of its members complained that the previous version failed to take into account the opinion of climate change sceptics.

Now the new guide, called ‘Climate change: a summary of the science’, admits that there are some ‘uncertainties’ regarding the science behind climate change.

And it says that it impossible to know for sure how the Earth's climate will change in the future nor what the possible effects may be.


If you listen to our pollies, especially Greens and Labor, the man-made global warming is an established fact.
Go figure.
about 12 seconds of your time and an abilitiy to type google.com might have found you the article here (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Froyalsociety.org%2FWorkArea%2FDow nloadAsset.aspx%3Fid%3D4294972963&ei=ZpClTKm2CIrWvQO_v9TwDA&usg=AFQjCNHgPajgp72N_h1Or9ymzmzxnBxLjg), where in context the comment was:

There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes
are substantial. It is important that decision makers have access to climate science of the highest quality, and can take account of its findings in formulating appropriate responses.

but don't let reading the paper get in the way of a sensationalist headline.

Rincewind
01-10-2010, 09:13 PM
Any scientific finding is ultimately tentative (which is not the same as being uncertain). It is the tentative nature of science that makes it so good compared to the opposition. New findings are not ignored because they don't agree with orthodoxy, if established the new findings become orthodoxy. However if you want immutable "truth" then you should comfort yourself with fairy stories.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-10-2010, 02:34 PM
about 12 seconds of your time and an abilitiy to type google.com might have found you the article

but don't let reading the paper get in the way of a sensationalist headline.
An ability to read a linked article to he end would spare you from googling.
"The new guidance still makes it clear that human activity is one of the likely causes for climate change but now does so in a more considered way."
Which point of admission that "science is not settled" is disputed by the paper?

Desmond
02-10-2010, 02:56 PM
An ability to read a linked article to he end would spare you from googling.Can you read that article quicker than you can type google? Anyway the point is that the headline was not representative of the paper.

"The new guidance still makes it clear that human activity is one of the likely causes for climate change but now does so in a more considered way."
Which point of admission that "science is not settled" is disputed by the paper?But what part of the science are you saying is "not settled"? In that context the uncertainty refers to the degree of future warming.
Not uncertainty that the planet is warming.
Not uncertainty that the warming is caused "largely by human activity"
Just uncertainty about the size of the warming.

Which just makes nonsense of your by line "If you listen to our pollies, especially Greens and Labor, the man-made global warming is an established fact."
Go figure."

Spiny Norman
02-10-2010, 05:22 PM
I would encourage those interested in a comprehensive survey of human knowledge about historical climate change to obtain a copy of Prof. Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth: the missing science. I'm reading it at the moment and am barely at the end of the first chapter. I'm drowing in facts and figures, but he makes a pretty compelling case that the current warming is nothing at all unusual, that previous changes were greater and just as rapid.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-10-2010, 05:43 PM
Can you read that article quicker than you can type google? Anyway the point is that the headline was not representative of the paper.
But what part of the science are you saying is "not settled"? In that context the uncertainty refers to the degree of future warming.
Not uncertainty that the planet is warming.
Not uncertainty that the warming is caused "largely by human activity"

Uncertainty refers to all above.

antichrist
05-10-2010, 07:52 PM
The results came out of the inquiry into Climategate, the result being that the "blockading" does not the effect the science element of climate change at all.

So all that hulobaluu was for nothing.

It is not only global warming, it is also the resultant changing rain patterns that is currently causeing havoc in Russia and Pakistan - and many other side effects.

As well as that, there is the wiping out of an extremely number of species due to loss of habitat etc. All because of similar and overlapping pressures that cause climate change.

Why is the human so lazy and/or selfish that they dont want to give up their unnecessary cars for other species and for future generations of their own offspring.

Capablanca-Fan
20-10-2010, 03:28 PM
Spain's Solar Deals on Edge of Bankruptcy as Subsidies Founder (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-18/spanish-solar-projects-on-brink-of-bankruptcy-as-subsidy-policies-founder.html)
By Ben Sills, Bloomberg, Oct 18, 2010

antichrist
20-10-2010, 03:43 PM
So what Jono, didnt read the whole lot coz no need to, they probably imported them from China and blah blah. But work out instead how many billion has gone into nuke power station research that will never be paid back, and the nuke waste must be stored for millons of years, then come back to us. Plus nuke bomb material is a freeby bonus. Those terrorists will love that stuff when they get hands on it. Get their hands on solar panels so what?

Igor_Goldenberg
05-11-2010, 09:09 AM
Export coal: our power gift to Asia (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/export-coal-our-power-gift-to-asia/story-fn59niix-1225948045127)


SOUTH Korea and Taiwan are managing to produce cheaper power than Australia, even though they have to ship the Australian coal that fires their furnaces.

In self-sufficient Australia, households are paying one-third more for electricity than those in Taiwan and South Korea - two of the biggest buyers of Australian coal.

Residential power prices in Australia have surged 12.4 per cent in the past year, four times the rate of inflation.

Australia is now paying more for power than some of the countries to which it ships its coal, who also happen to be trade competitors.

Ian Murray
06-11-2010, 01:03 PM
Export coal: our power gift to Asia (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/export-coal-our-power-gift-to-asia/story-fn59niix-1225948045127)


SOUTH Korea and Taiwan are managing to produce cheaper power than Australia, even though they have to ship the Australian coal that fires their furnaces.

In self-sufficient Australia, households are paying one-third more for electricity than those in Taiwan and South Korea - two of the biggest buyers of Australian coal.

Residential power prices in Australia have surged 12.4 per cent in the past year, four times the rate of inflation.

Australia is now paying more for power than some of the countries to which it ships its coal, who also happen to be trade competitors.
The article goes on to say:

While Australian households paid relatively more for their electricity than their Asian counterparts, industrial customers paid similar amounts for power: 8.4c in Australia, 7c in Korea and 8.2c in Taiwan.

But in Japan, the biggest buyer of Australian coal, industrial power prices were double Australia's at 14.3c, with households paying 21c.

So it's our homeowners who are being gouged, while our industrial users retain their sweet deals. So what's new.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-11-2010, 01:10 PM
So it's our homeowners who are being gouged, while our industrial users retain their sweet deals. So what's new.
But why our homeowners (or anyone for that matter) have to pay for green madness?

Ian Murray
06-11-2010, 05:39 PM
But why our homeowners (or anyone for that matter) have to pay for green madness?
A view not supported by the article you quote.


...electricity infrastructure built in the 1960s and 70s required costly upgrades to cope with the surge in demand.

"The big drivers (of higher bills) are replacing infrastructure built in the 1960s and 70s and the need to expand the network, because customers are using more air-conditioners and bigger appliances," he said.

"The network hasn't been designed to cope with it.

"And all the (electricity) businesses are at that phase in the business cycle where they need substantial reinvestment.

Spending billions of dollars to build new power stations and grid upgrades is not going to reduce power pricing. Quite the opposite - the costs will be passed on to consumers via their electricity bills

Igor_Goldenberg
06-11-2010, 08:16 PM
Spending billions of dollars to build new power stations and grid upgrades is not going to reduce power pricing. Quite the opposite - the costs will be passed on to consumers via their electricity bills
That's correct.
However, the major component of price increase is a demand of certain amount of "green" energy in the grid.
BTW, who pays for solar panel subsidy and 60c feed-in tariff?

Also, to invest in plant upgrade requires, apart of funding, some degree of certainty. Any business would be very hesitant to invest if they can be shut down tomorrow. For example, Greens demand closure of Hazelwood power plant. Bramby government promised to shut down "only" one generator (out of four). It would be madness to invest any significant amount in such a climate.

antichrist
06-11-2010, 08:23 PM
That's correct.
However, the major component of price increase is a demand of certain amount of "green" energy in the grid.
BTW, who pays for solar panel subsidy and 60c feed-in tariff?

Igor, when you become a pensioner you will appreciate that 60c feeder - coz it has been determined that pensioners who make a profit dont have to declare it as income to lower their pension.

But Igor I agree with you. It should not have been piecemeal and expensive. It should have been massive new solar systems like performed in China that are a fraction of the cost of the individual ones. One reason for the quicker compo for the solar is that the price of solar collectors has come down dramatically as now imported from China. I don't see why once the solar unit is sufficiently paid off that the compo be lowered to a more realistic level.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-11-2010, 09:35 PM
Readers in revolt against warmist magazine (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/readers_in_revolt_against_warmist_magazine/) (thanks to Andrew Bolt).


I doubt that Scientific American expected these results (http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=ONSUsVTBSpkC_2f2cTnptR6w_2fehN0orSbxLH1 gIA03DqU_3d) from its survey (http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=taking-the-temperature-climate-chan-2010-10-25) of readers after all its alarmist preaching (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=special-report-climate-change):
http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/ipcc_thumb.jpg

antichrist
06-11-2010, 09:38 PM
well Igor, that is what the Koch brothers hoped to achieve, along with capitalists and too lazy consumers - their great grandchildren won't thank them

Rincewind
06-11-2010, 10:01 PM
Readers in revolt against warmist magazine (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/readers_in_revolt_against_warmist_magazine/) (thanks to Andrew Bolt).

Awwww. That's sweet. Andrew and Iggy actually think online polls are meaningful.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-11-2010, 10:38 PM
Awwww. That's sweet. Andrew and Iggy actually think online polls are meaningful.
Rincewind,
We are well aware of your strong grasp of logic and powerful intellect, no need to demonstrate it over and over again.

antichrist
06-11-2010, 11:01 PM
If you could talk to the animals they would tell us that humans are the biggest probalem on earth and should be severely culled and stopped from pollutting and ruining the rivers

Rincewind
06-11-2010, 11:03 PM
Rincewind,
We are well aware of your strong grasp of logic and powerful intellect, no need to demonstrate it over and over again.

Online polls are riddles with problems including controlling the honesty of responses. Manipulation by people completing multiple times (either in person or progammatically) and self-selection bias makes it an almost pointless exercise anyway.

To demonstrate the stupidity of this particular poll you need look no further than question 8.

How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?

78.7% percent of the respondents answered "nothing". :lol:

Kevin Bonham
06-11-2010, 11:03 PM
If you could talk to the animals they would tell us that humans are the biggest probalem on earth and should be severely culled and stopped from pollutting and ruining the rivers

Cats, rats, dogs, and many others would probably disagree.

And if the plants could talk to you they'd probably be pretty keen on getting rid of a lot of the animals.

antichrist
06-11-2010, 11:06 PM
How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?

78.7% percent of the respondents answered "nothing". :lol:

that is why I have been a human-hater for about 40 years - so selfish

Rincewind
06-11-2010, 11:10 PM
that is why I have been a human-hater for about 40 years - so selfish

Or else the person manipulating the poll read at an Iggy level of comprehension.

Rincewind
06-11-2010, 11:14 PM
And if the plants could talk to you they'd probably be pretty keen on getting rid of a lot of the animals.

Of course the nematodes would disagree.

Kevin Bonham
06-11-2010, 11:15 PM
How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?

78.7% percent of the respondents answered "nothing". :lol:

Based on the results of the other questions, this is presumably because they consider the risk to be negligible.

Rincewind
06-11-2010, 11:22 PM
Based on the results of the other questions, this is presumably because they consider the risk to be negligible.

That isn't what the question asked.

Kevin Bonham
06-11-2010, 11:29 PM
That isn't what the question asked.

I think it is, in a way. For instance, if someone asked me:

"How much would you be prepared to pay to forestall the risk of antichrist hugely embarrassing you by correctly remembering the details of a moderation decision more than six minutes old?"

... then I'd answer "Nothing", because I would assess the risk at zero if not lower.

The question is badly worded because on the one hand it implies there is a definite risk, and on the other leaves the respondent free to decide that risk is vanishingly low.

The survey as a whole is a stupid survey (both because it is an opt-in online survey at all and because of design issues) and I wonder why Scientific American bothered.

antichrist
06-11-2010, 11:33 PM
Cats, rats, dogs, and many others would probably disagree.

And if the plants could talk to you they'd probably be pretty keen on getting rid of a lot of the animals.

But us humans have the gas chambers for our so-called pets - just visit the RSPCA

Kevin Bonham
06-11-2010, 11:34 PM
But us humans have the gas chambers for our so-called pets - just visit the RSPCA

Irrespective of the number of cats and dogs we kill, these species as a whole benefit enormously from our presence (as do the rest of the cartel of cosmopolitan human-introduced species).

antichrist
06-11-2010, 11:37 PM
Irrespective of the number of cats and dogs we kill, these species as a whole benefit enormously from our presence (as do the rest of the cartel of cosmopolitan human-introduced species).

But we have taken those animals away from their mothers when they are kids (stolen generation over again) and they think that we are their parents???? We are ruddy crazy - and now humans are even picking up their dogs warm poo - we have gone whacky believe you me

Rincewind
06-11-2010, 11:39 PM
Regarding the respondents to the question. I agree the question could be made clearer but the use of catastrophic make the intention pretty clear that a vanishing risk is not what they intend to measure. However this just one of the many reasons why online polls are pretty worthless. Especially self-selected ones without good controls for poll manipulation.


The survey as a whole is a stupid survey (both because it is an opt-in online survey at all and because of design issues) and I wonder why Scientific American bothered.

The declining quality of Scientific American over the last couple of decades is significant and lamentable. Nowadays they are still ranked above Who Magazine and TV Week, but only just.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-11-2010, 09:00 AM
Online polls are riddles with problems including controlling the honesty of responses. Manipulation by people completing multiple times (either in person or progammatically) and self-selection bias makes it an almost pointless exercise anyway.
The pint of Bolt's blog was to show the failure of "Scientific American" to convince it's readers. I wonder how you came to conclusion this poll should mean anything else.


To demonstrate the stupidity of this particular poll you need look no further than question 8.

How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?

78.7% percent of the respondents answered "nothing". :lol:

The stupidity of the poll (conducted by "Scientific American") is the point of the article. Pity you missed it.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-11-2010, 09:06 AM
Irrespective of the number of cats and dogs we kill, these species as a whole benefit enormously from our presence (as do the rest of the cartel of cosmopolitan human-introduced species).
And that's the main reason I don't have time for the likes of PETA.

Rincewind
07-11-2010, 12:33 PM
The stupidity of the poll (conducted by "Scientific American") is the point of the article. Pity you missed it.

Seemed to me the point of Bolts article was to say even with the SciAm laying it on thick with global warming scare-mongering, the people responding to the poll are not convinced. My point is is poll is meaningless since it was more than likely manipulated by a small number of people not representative of the readership of SciAm. Hence Bolt's headline "Readers in revolt against warmist magazine" is off the mark. An accurate headline would be "A small number of people manipulate yet another online poll".

Igor_Goldenberg
07-11-2010, 12:39 PM
Seemed to me the point of Bolts article was to say even with the SciAm laying it on thick with global warming scare-mongering, the people responding to the poll are not convinced.
Correct.

My point is is poll is meaningless since it was more than likely manipulated by a small number of people not representative of the readership of SciAm. Hence Bolt's headline "Readers in revolt against warmist magazine" is off the mark. An accurate headline would be "A small number of people manipulate yet another online poll".
It could have been manipulated (like any poll). but do you have any evidence that it was actually manipulated?

Rincewind
07-11-2010, 12:54 PM
It could have been manipulated (like any poll). but do you have any evidence that it was actually manipulated?

To claim the poll is significant regarding the views of the SciAm readership you are claiming it was not manipulated. As there was no control to speak of on manipulation, do you have any evidence that it was not manipulated? If not then the poll can be disregarded.

Since Bolt is making the claim (in his headline) it is up to him to substantiate the integrity of the figures. They are not correct unless evidence of manipulation can be found. They are dubious unless a substantive effort is made to prevent manipulation.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-11-2010, 01:11 PM
To claim the poll is significant regarding the views of the SciAm readership you are claiming it was not manipulated. As there was no control to speak of on manipulation, do you have any evidence that it was not manipulated? If not then the poll can be disregarded.

Since Bolt is making the claim (in his headline) it is up to him to substantiate the integrity of the figures. They are not correct unless evidence of manipulation can be found. They are dubious unless a substantive effort is made to prevent manipulation.
In my view online polls generally reflects (more or less accurate) the opinion of the readers of the site. No more, no less. I need evidences to the contrary to disregard it.
Scientific American conducted the poll, so it takes full responsibility for ending up with the egg in their face, unless they prove poll is manipulated.

Rincewind
07-11-2010, 02:58 PM
In my view online polls generally reflects (more or less accurate) the opinion of the readers of the site.

As usual you are spouting exactly the opposite of the truth.

If you are basing your argument on the outcome of a poll then it is the onus of those making the case (you as proxy for Bolt) that the poll is meaningful. As their seemed to be no control for manipulation, or truthful answering or even contextualising the questions for those who cannot read, the egg is on the faces of those making the claim.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-11-2010, 05:22 PM
As usual you are spouting exactly the opposite of the truth.

If you are basing your argument on the outcome of a poll then it is the onus of those making the case (you as proxy for Bolt) that the poll is meaningful. As their seemed to be no control for manipulation, or truthful answering or even contextualising the questions for those who cannot read, the egg is on the faces of those making the claim.
You never miss an opportunity to embarrass yourself, don't you?
I didn't conduct this poll, neither Andrew Bolt or readers of his blog who spotted it. It was conducted by Scientific American. If it's ended up contrary to their wishes, flying in their collective face, it's not my (or Bolt's, or anyone else) problem. Did Scientific American even claim the poll was manipulated?
Resorting to conspiracy theory when something contradicts your blinkered world-view is quite pathetic.

Kevin Bonham
07-11-2010, 05:28 PM
Did Scientific American even claim the poll was manipulated?

Yes, or at least one of their editors does. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=misreading-climate-change-on-scient-2010-10-28 where an editor writes "It's unfortunate—although in hindsight not surprising—that certain people would take the opportunity to manipulate the results by repeat voting."

antichrist
07-11-2010, 06:25 PM
It seems like the standard of poll that I would put up - would you like another one of my unique polls by the way

Igor_Goldenberg
07-11-2010, 06:27 PM
Yes, or at least one of their editors does. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=misreading-climate-change-on-scient-2010-10-28 where an editor writes "It's unfortunate—although in hindsight not surprising—that certain people would take the opportunity to manipulate the results by repeat voting."
So, what stopped them from putting some simple measure like preventing multiple vote from the same IP? And they didn't substantiate their claim of repeat voting (or that repeat voting was contrary to their expectation).
One way or another, it's quite an embarrassment to Scientific American.

antichrist
07-11-2010, 06:30 PM
eVen if we do discuss it, is anyone here going to actually do anything to help the environment - I doubt it, so just a lot of hot air

Rincewind
08-11-2010, 01:13 AM
You never miss an opportunity to embarrass yourself, don't you?

:lol: Looks like you have all the egg on your face over this one. :owned:

antichrist
08-11-2010, 05:04 AM
Cats, rats, dogs, and many others would probably disagree.

And if the plants could talk to you they'd probably be pretty keen on getting rid of a lot of the animals.

Now you are sounding like Prince Charles who talks to his plants, and those extreme environmentalists who believe that trees have feelings so we should not cutting them.

antichrist
08-11-2010, 05:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
If you could talk to the animals they would tell us that humans are the biggest probalem on earth and should be severely culled and stopped from pollutting and ruining the rivers


KB
Cats, rats, dogs, and many others would probably disagree.

And if the plants could talk to you they'd probably be pretty keen on getting rid of a lot of the animals.
__________________


And that's the main reason I don't have time for the likes of PETA.

Igor, how I understand what you are implying or can conclude from your point is that PETA is against home pets (coz they are native animal holocausters) and that you support these native animal holocausters.

And/or you support plant rights so much that you don't think that plants should be eaten (or crushed) by animals.

Ian Murray
08-11-2010, 08:14 AM
So, what stopped them from putting some simple measure like preventing multiple vote from the same IP?
Survey Monkey (http://www.surveymonkey.com) (used for the poll) can be configured to allow one response per IP address only, but allowing infinite responses from public computers (schools, colleges, libraries, internet cafes etc)

Rincewind
08-11-2010, 08:42 AM
Survey Monkey (http://www.surveymonkey.com) (used for the poll) can be configured to allow one response per IP address only, but allowing infinite responses from public computers (schools, colleges, libraries, internet cafes etc)

Regardless on the policy for public access IP addresses, IP restrictions are technically so easy to circumvent even Axiom can do it. Hence IP restriction provides an almost zero barrier from poll manipulation because anyone suitably motivated to actually bother manipulating a poll can figure out how to get around it in five minutes.

Desmond
08-11-2010, 08:57 AM
Regardless on the policy for public access IP addresses, IP restrictions are technically so easy to circumvent even Axiom can do it. Hence IP restriction provides an almost zero barrier from poll manipulation because anyone suitably motivated to actually bother manipulating a poll can figure out how to get around it in five minutes.
Another way to do it is to write a cookie to the voter's computer as they vote. The problem with that though is that the voter can find and delete that cookie if they really want to and vote again.

Rincewind
08-11-2010, 09:57 AM
Another way to do it is to write a cookie to the voter's computer as they vote. The problem with that though is that the voter can find and delete that cookie if they really want to and vote again.

Again the resistance presented to someone motivated enough to manipulate a poll in the first place is practically nil.

Remember we are talking about a poll on global warming. An issue which gets a lot of people like Igor worked up. An issue which motivated some people to very serious hacking of email servers in the so-called climate-gate. Manipulating an online poll which may have had IP and cookie mechanisms to prevent manipulation is not in the same league.

Other ineffective options are...
- confirmation text in the form of an image
- email registration and confirmation

Both present more of a barrier than IP or cookie "protection" but again programmatic methods to overcome either are not rocket science.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-11-2010, 10:06 AM
Again the resistance presented to someone motivated enough to manipulate a poll in the first place is practically nil.

Remember we are talking about a poll on global warming. An issue which gets a lot of people like Igor worked up. An issue which motivated some people to very serious hacking of email servers in the so-called climate-gate.
Sprawling more conspiracy theories. If it does not conform to your views, must be the work of some wicked climate deniers:doh: :doh:

Rincewind
08-11-2010, 10:28 AM
Sprawling more conspiracy theories. If it does not conform to your views, must be the work of some wicked climate deniers:doh: :doh:

Iggy-baby,

What you consistently fail to understand is

(1) No conspiracy is even necessary a poll can be skewed by 4,000 votes by a single individual.

(2) You are the one (via Bolt) making claims that the poll means something. Since you are making the claim it is up to you to show that the data is representative of something like what is claimed. Since online polls are frequently manipulated and and there is no reason to think this is any different.

Over to you. Either prove that the votes are meaningful of stop making claims based on them. Carrying on getting your knickers in a twist over a freeped poll just makes you look sillier and sillier.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-11-2010, 02:24 PM
Iggy-baby,

What you consistently fail to understand is

(1) No conspiracy is even necessary a poll can be skewed by 4,000 votes by a single individual.

(2) You are the one (via Bolt) making claims that the poll means something. Since you are making the claim it is up to you to show that the data is representative of something like what is claimed. Since online polls are frequently manipulated and and there is no reason to think this is any different.

Over to you. Either prove that the votes are meaningful of stop making claims based on them. Carrying on getting your knickers in a twist over a freeped poll just makes you look sillier and sillier.

You failed to understand very simple thing: whether poll was manipulated or not is irrelevant. Scientific American (and you in the process of defending it) made itself a laughing stock unless they can prove that poll was manipulated in a certain way. In this case "laughing stock" can be downgraded to silly.

Rincewind
08-11-2010, 10:05 PM
You failed to understand very simple thing: whether poll was manipulated or not is irrelevant.

Nice bait and switch... not.

Whether the poll was manipulated or not is irrelevant to me because I am not making any claims regarding it. Likewise, SciAm are disregarding it because they believe it to have been manipulated.

You and Bolt however as crowing about it and therefore since the claim is "Readers in revolt against warmist magazine" (the title of Bolts blog entry) you should justify why you are making a song and dance about a poll with zero credibility at being representative of readers views.


Scientific American (and you in the process of defending it) made itself a laughing stock unless they can prove that poll was manipulated in a certain way. In this case "laughing stock" can be downgraded to silly.

Since you are too obtuse to realise that the onus of proof lies with those making the claim we will have to agree to disagree on this point. As stated numerously before, SciAm held the poll and have reason to believe it was manipulated therefore they disregard it as being representative.

If you want to use the poll either show that it is representative or if you want to continue pretending that x% of SciAm readers believe anything like the view of the manipulators of that poll, then hold your own poll with proper control preventing manipulation.

Finally to make this clear so that even you can understand. I have not defended SciAm in this thread. I'm not a big fan of the magazine and in fact a few posts back I lamented what I perceive to be a gradual lowering of standards in the magazine going back over the last two decades. This poll is a case in point, it was poorly conceived, poorly implemented and the article from which it was derived is (in my opinion) not a very good piece.

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2010, 01:36 AM
US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life' (http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/global-warming-is-the-greatest-fraud.html)

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.

...

The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

...

antichrist
14-11-2010, 06:11 AM
Jono, when are you going to write something yourself instead of just copying other cats. Is that how you done are your thesis etc I am only rhetorically asking. Was it a nasty habit you adopted when doing your assignments?

When your ilk finish stuffing up this earth we can't go running to someone else for another planet - like you do for your arguments.

Desmond
14-11-2010, 08:12 AM
US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life' (http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/global-warming-is-the-greatest-fraud.html)

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.

...

The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

...Geez how old is this guy? Served in WW2, been on the Society membership list for 67 years. Is it really surprising that he missunderstood some terms used in emails in the so-called ClimateGate?

pax
14-11-2010, 03:45 PM
In my view online polls generally reflects (more or less accurate) the opinion of the readers of the site. No more, no less. I need evidences to the contrary to disregard it.
Scientific American conducted the poll, so it takes full responsibility for ending up with the egg in their face, unless they prove poll is manipulated.

If you believe that, then Ron Paul would have won the US presidential election in a landslide. It's pretty obvious that particular poll was manipulated. Just as obviously as if a Daily Telegraph online poll showed a massive swing to the Greens.

antichrist
14-11-2010, 06:54 PM
I am half way through a SMH article on Dick Smith's conversion to environmentalism, climate change worrier, the limits of materialism, consumerism, populaton growth etc.

What is amazing is the response he got from top dogs in the business and political world when he brought such things up.

The sympathisers were too afraid of the Murdoch press to come out in public. Some business leaders agreed with him but did not want to do anything just yet - maybe in a 100 years yeah. They all had some excuse without just saying the truth - uninterfered with profits. The elephant in the room to quote Axiom.

I don't believe that the sceptics really believe their position either. They just adopt it to be against who they perceive to be left wingers and environmentalists - even they are closed environmentalists - like some gays they cannot out themselves or consider themselves to be such. I can well understand the gays coz of their family atmosphere and not everyone is strong willed.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-11-2010, 09:12 PM
If you believe that, then Ron Paul would have won the US presidential election in a landslide.
Which online poll do you refer to?

It's pretty obvious that particular poll was manipulated.
What hard evidences (apart from being uncomfortable with the results) do you have?


Just as obviously as if a Daily Telegraph online poll showed a massive swing to the Greens.
It would show a massive swing among Daily Telegraph online readers, which is, of course, not reflective of general population. What is your point?

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2010, 10:04 AM
If you believe that, then Ron Paul would have won the US presidential election in a landslide. It's pretty obvious that particular poll was manipulated. Just as obviously as if a Daily Telegraph online poll showed a massive swing to the Greens.
Yet SciAm is one of the leading spruikers of warm-mongering, yet its own poll showed that lots of people are sick of this.

pax
15-11-2010, 11:04 AM
Which online poll do you refer to?

Pretty much all of them. There were dozens of online polls showing Ron Paul as the leading Republican contender.



What hard evidences (apart from being uncomfortable with the results) do you have?

There is no hard evidence one way or the other, but the results are dramatically at odds with properly conducted polls (e.g Gallup, Rasmussen). What evidence do you have that the poll represents a fair reflection of the views of SA readers?



It would show a massive swing among Daily Telegraph online readers, which is, of course, not reflective of general population. What is your point?

No it wouldn't. It would show a view only among the people that chose to participate in the survey. For example, it would be very easy for an activist group like GetUp to manipulate the results for their own purposes.

pax
15-11-2010, 11:05 AM
Yet SciAm is one of the leading spruikers of warm-mongering, yet its own poll showed that lots of people are sick of this.

No. It didn't show anything of the sort.

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2010, 12:19 PM
The great global warming scam just got worse (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_great_global_warming_scam_just_got_worse/)
Andrew Bolt
13 November 2010

The European Commission is planning to clamp down on a €2 billion ($2.8 billion) carbon trading scam involving the deliberate production of greenhouse gases which the fraudulent manufacturers are then paid to destroy.

The Climate Change Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, says the use of these carbon permits, from industrial gas projects in China, could be banned because of their ‘’total lack of environmental integrity’’.

Billions of euros worth of the controversial permits were used between 2008-09 in the European Union’s emission trading scheme, in which companies must exchange pollution permits for emissions produced.

The scheme allows some of those permits to be bought in from developing countries.

The most popular of these so-called offsets come from projects that destroy the greenhouse gas HFC-23, a byproduct of the manufacture of the refrigerant gas HCFC-22.

The Environmental Investigation Agency said in June that many Chinese chemical companies were manufacturing HCFC-22 primarily to earn money from destroying HFC-23, which can be five times the value of the refrigerant gas the plants are ostensibly set up to create.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-11-2010, 12:44 PM
Pretty much all of them. There were dozens of online polls showing Ron Paul as the leading Republican contender.
On which site? The online poll normally reflects the opinion of the site readers.
Look at online poll on Herald Sun and The Age web site - usually complete opposite despite respondents living in the same city.



There is no hard evidence one way or the other, but the results are dramatically at odds with properly conducted polls (e.g Gallup, Rasmussen). What evidence do you have that the poll represents a fair reflection of the views of SA readers?
Was the Gallup or Rasmussen poll taken among SA readers or general population?


No it wouldn't. It would show a view only among the people that chose to participate in the survey.
Which are the people who normally visit the site.

I'll agree that online poll cut out the overwhelming (some times!) majority that does not give a damn one way or another.


For example, it would be very easy for an activist group like GetUp to manipulate the results for their own purposes.
Easy indeed. They might even done so on some occasion. But I have no evidence whatsoever to accuse them of doing so (that is not to say I wouldn't gloat if any evidences surfaced:lol: )

pax
15-11-2010, 05:07 PM
On which site? The online poll normally reflects the opinion of the site readers.

On *all* sites. The Ron Paul activists manipulated every single opt-in poll they could find, on all the major media sites. This was well known at the time.



Was the Gallup or Rasmussen poll taken among SA readers or general population?
What do you think?


Which are the people who normally visit the site.

Except when they're not.

Let's just all agree that we have no evidence to say whether this particular poll means anything or not.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-11-2010, 05:14 PM
What do you think?

That's hardly an answer



Let's just all agree that we have no evidence to say whether this particular poll means anything or not.
Well, I agree that it could've been manipulated.

Do you agree that irrespectively of it being manipulated or not it was an embarrassment (one way or another) to SciAm?

pax
15-11-2010, 05:20 PM
That's hardly an answer
I thought the answer was pretty obvious.



Well, I agree that it could've been manipulated.

Fine.



Do you agree that irrespectively of it being manipulated or not it was an embarrassment (one way or another) to SciAm?

Not unless they claim their polls have a particular significance. It's certainly an embarrassment to anyone who claims that the poll says anything meaningful about the views of SciAm readers.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-11-2010, 10:04 PM
I thought the answer was pretty obvious.
I wouldn't ask if it was obvious to me.


Not unless they claim their polls have a particular significance.
Are you saying SciAm conducts a meaningless poll that has no significance?

It's certainly an embarrassment to anyone who claims that the poll says anything meaningful about the views of SciAm readers.
How come?

antichrist
15-11-2010, 10:15 PM
The great global warming scam just got worse (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_great_global_warming_scam_just_got_worse/)
Andrew Bolt
13 November 2010

The European Commission is planning to clamp down on a €2 billion ($2.8 billion) carbon trading scam involving the deliberate production of greenhouse gases which the fraudulent manufacturers are then paid to destroy.

The Climate Change Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, says the use of these carbon permits, from industrial gas projects in China, could be banned because of their ‘’total lack of environmental integrity’’.

Billions of euros worth of the controversial permits were used between 2008-09 in the European Union’s emission trading scheme, in which companies must exchange pollution permits for emissions produced.

The scheme allows some of those permits to be bought in from developing countries.

The most popular of these so-called offsets come from projects that destroy the greenhouse gas HFC-23, a byproduct of the manufacture of the refrigerant gas HCFC-22.

The Environmental Investigation Agency said in June that many Chinese chemical companies were manufacturing HCFC-22 primarily to earn money from destroying HFC-23, which can be five times the value of the refrigerant gas the plants are ostensibly set up to create.


Jono, from day one, the environmental movement (plus myself) thought that whole scheme was a farce just to get around real action to save the environment.

So no skin off my nose, but am wearing my backside out on my bike pushing up big hills.

pax
16-11-2010, 02:12 PM
I wouldn't ask if it was obvious to me.

Do Morgan Stanley poll the readers of Women's Weekly?



Are you saying SciAm conducts a meaningless poll that has no significance?

Pretty much, yes (as do nearly all news sites). It's a poll for entertainment and to stimulate debate, not a poll that can be used to prove anything.



How come?

Because it is very well known that online "opt-in" polls cannot validly prove anything, so anyone that assigns them great weight or significance is probably an idiot.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-11-2010, 03:47 PM
Do Morgan Stanley poll the readers of Women's Weekly?
No idea what are you talking about


Because it is very well known that online "opt-in" polls cannot validly prove anything, so anyone that assigns them great weight or significance is probably an idiot.
And what about those that conduct it?

Igor_Goldenberg
19-11-2010, 11:39 AM
IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth” (http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html)



Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated.

pax
19-11-2010, 02:06 PM
And what about those that conduct it?

If they have a brain, they are doing it for purposes other than obtaining information: e.g for entertainment, to stimulate debate, for some pretty graphics to put on the front page. If they think they are doing it for information, then they are idiots.

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2010, 04:14 PM
Jono, from day one, the environmental movement (plus myself) thought that whole scheme was a farce just to get around real action to save the environment.

AC, most commendable. Bjǿrn Lomborg said much the same thing in his book Cool It!, or at least that it was a distraction from much more important improvements we could make to the environment.

Kevin Bonham
20-11-2010, 06:09 PM
So, what stopped them from putting some simple measure like preventing multiple vote from the same IP?

It doesn't work if people are determined to stack the vote. With many broadband connections via a given ISP, every time you reset the connection you get a new IP number. Also you can use proxy servers to keep dodging IP blocks and voting from new IPs. Pretty easy really.


And they didn't substantiate their claim of repeat voting (or that repeat voting was contrary to their expectation).
One way or another, it's quite an embarrassment to Scientific American.

They hardly needed to substantiate it given that it is so well known that online polls are stack targets. This one was a particularly obvious stack target. Perhaps they could have provided useful evidence about the scale of the stack but as noted above this is sometimes difficult to do.

In my view they are just ninnies for running a poll that used a discredited method in the first place and I hope they are embarrassed and will learn not to repeat the exercise.


Now you are sounding like Prince Charles who talks to his plants, and those extreme environmentalists who believe that trees have feelings so we should not cutting them.

Actually you were the one who started this whole talk-to-the-animals line. :hand:

Spiny Norman
07-12-2010, 06:14 AM
Courtesy of Watts Up With That:

Spiny Norman
07-12-2010, 06:15 AM
and another:

Igor_Goldenberg
09-12-2010, 08:24 AM
Cancun attendees fall for "dihydrogen monoxide" trick (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/cop16-attendees-fall-for-the-old-dihydrogen-monoxide-petition-as-well-as-signing-up-to-cripple-the-u-s-economy/#more-29077)
They also happy to sign a petition to reduce American GDP by 6%.
TzZ_Zcp4PwY

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2010, 03:53 AM
Cancun attendees fall for "dihydrogen monoxide" trick (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/cop16-attendees-fall-for-the-old-dihydrogen-monoxide-petition-as-well-as-signing-up-to-cripple-the-u-s-economy/#more-29077)
They also happy to sign a petition to reduce American GDP by 6%.
TzZ_Zcp4PwY
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Rincewind
10-12-2010, 08:23 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think we should likewise start petitions to ban oxidane and hydroxylic acid. Both of those are at least as dangerous as DHMO.

Ian Murray
10-12-2010, 04:21 PM
I think we should likewise start petitions to ban oxidane and hydroxylic acid. Both of those are at least as dangerous as DHMO.
Certainly something should be done - as a bare minimum there should be health warnings on packaged odidane.

For an expose on its insidious incursions into everyday life and the resulting risks, see Why is oxidane so deadly? (http://quezi.com/11668)

Hobbes
12-01-2011, 09:28 PM
cdxaxJNs15s

Basil
12-01-2011, 10:00 PM
LIKE!

Lefties make me wanna puke. Carry on!

Capablanca-Fan
15-01-2011, 06:31 AM
Good one!

Basil
20-01-2011, 01:48 AM
Global Warming Is Dead, Let's Move On. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/global-warming-is-dead-lets-move-on/story-e6frg71o-1225990501249)

Desmond
20-01-2011, 08:54 AM
Global Warming Is Dead, Let's Move On. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/global-warming-is-dead-lets-move-on/story-e6frg71o-1225990501249)
:lol: nice send up

antichrist
20-01-2011, 11:23 AM
Global Warming Is Dead, Let's Move On. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/global-warming-is-dead-lets-move-on/story-e6frg71o-1225990501249)

records of worldwide temperatures have been kept since beginning of industrial revolution, and it is always up. If we are not certain we still should be reducing temperatures coz if there is harm well then it is too late once the harm has been caused. Yes it will affect lazy inactive people's lifestyles, but that could be the best thing to happen to them, make them get on a bike and off their big backsides.

Spiny Norman
20-01-2011, 11:38 AM
records of worldwide temperatures have been kept since beginning of industrial revolution, and it is always up.
Any chance at all you might actually check facts before posting your rubbish? Idiot.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-01-2011, 01:51 PM
Any chance at all you might actually check facts before posting your rubbish? Idiot.
Do you take seriously anything he posts?

Spiny Norman
20-01-2011, 03:01 PM
Do you take seriously anything he posts?
I hope against hope that he might regain rationality, even if only for a brief moment, and realise how hopeless some of his claims are. :lol:

Garvinator
20-01-2011, 03:18 PM
I hope against hope that he might regain rationality, even if only for a brief moment, and realise how hopeless some of his claims are. :lol:
Foot fault, that should be- realise how hopeless ALL of his claims are!

antichrist
20-01-2011, 10:04 PM
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

This can say it better than I can, and I expect RW and KB to come to the rescue.

But I was relying solely on my brother-in-law scientific freak who still has his high school science text books from 1958 that state such - now who can claim to still have their HS text books?

And you can all gang up on me as much as you wish - coz I consider you all just educated idiots.

Spiny Norman
21-01-2011, 06:39 AM
Try again ... from that page you quoted:

"The data set begins in 1880 because observations did not have sufficient global coverage prior to that time."

You made claims about the industrial revolution, which started circa 1700 :hand:

Igor_Goldenberg
21-01-2011, 08:17 AM
I hope against hope that he might regain rationality, even if only for a brief moment, and realise how hopeless some of his claims are. :lol:
I am sorry to point out a logical inaccuracy (that little pedant inside me doesn't want to go to sleep):
"Regain rationality" assumes that the rationality was present at some point in time, which is yet to be proven.

Spiny Norman
21-01-2011, 08:57 AM
records of worldwide temperatures have been kept since beginning of industrial revolution, and it is always up.
Just so we're clear, since the industrial revolution started around the year 1700, your statement contains two glaring errors (not bad for one sentence):

1. records of worldwide temperatures have NOT been kept since the beginning of the industrial revolution ... evidence? ... lets start with the link you provided (!) which observed "The data set begins in 1880 because observations did not have sufficient global coverage prior to that time." ... and perhaps I should spell this out, just in case you're confused ... the year 1700 came before the year 1880.

It is interesting that the longest individual continuous temperature record commenced circa 1650 (Central England). Just in case you hadn't noticed, last December (2010) was their coldest since records began (about 350 years).

What is NOT surprising is that some of these new record low temperatures (which have also been measured in Russia and elsewhere) happen to coincide with the current extraordinarily low sunspot cycle. The latest set of predictions from NASA about Cycle 24's peak (and they have now had 6 tries at getting it right) say that this cycle will be the weakest since the Maunder Minimum.

So if you want to know why temperatures have been increasing during the 20th century, try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

2. temperatures DROPPED during the Dalton minimum (1790-1830) which also coincided with low solar activity, thus providing further confirmation that the major driver of earth's climate is the sun (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum)

So if you're going to post something exhorting people to "take action" about CO2 emissions, the least you could do is get the first sentence factually correct.

Spiny Norman
21-01-2011, 09:10 AM
But I was relying solely on my brother-in-law scientific freak who still has his high school science text books from 1958 that state such - now who can claim to still have their HS text books?
Maybe you should suggest he read the latest peer-reviewed research:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/20/surface-temperature-uncertainty-quantified/

There's a lovely graph there that shows cooling from roughly 1940 to 1970.

But more importantly, there's also this fascinating quote:


The ±0.46 C lower limit of uncertainty shows that between 1880 and 2000, the trend in averaged global surface air temperature anomalies is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C at the 1σ level. One cannot, therefore, avoid the conclusion that it is presently impossible to quantify the warming trend in global climate since 1880.

I'd better spell out for you what that means. We might be warming (probably are); we might NOT ... and even if we are, we don't know whether the problem is LESS THAN or MORE THAN what our measurements are showing us.

So much for certainty and "facts" about global warming. Some think we might be entering a new cooling phase. Really low solar cycles might be driving that over the next 20-30 years. If we do get cooler, this will harm us much more than a bit of warming ... lower crop production for example.

While I think of it, did I mention that the last few years have shown FALLING sea levels, not rising levels? Hmmm ... just the opposite of what warming models predict ... though it remains to be seen whether this falling in sea level is sustained long term.

Rincewind
21-01-2011, 09:18 AM
It is interesting that the longest individual continuous temperature record commenced circa 1650 (Central England). Just in case you hadn't noticed, last December (2010) was their coldest since records began (about 350 years).

What is NOT surprising is that some of these new record low temperatures (which have also been measured in Russia and elsewhere) happen to coincide with the current extraordinarily low sunspot cycle. The latest set of predictions from NASA about Cycle 24's peak (and they have now had 6 tries at getting it right) say that this cycle will be the weakest since the Maunder Minimum.

Isolated minima do not a global temperature trend make. Russia also experienced heat waves before the cold winter. This seems to fit rather well with the climate scientists who say global warming will lead to more extreme weather events.

According to the World Meteorological Organisation 2010 was one of the three warmest years on record - up there with 1998 and 2005.

http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/201101/3117897.htm?desktop

So if you are saying sun spot activity is now at an 'extraordinarily' low level then...

Spiny Norman
21-01-2011, 09:32 AM
So if you are saying sun spot activity is now at an 'extraordinarily' low level then...
... we should expect a gradually decreasing trend in global temperatures over the next 10-20 years, perhaps longer.

Rincewind
21-01-2011, 09:37 AM
... we should expect a gradually decreasing trend in global temperatures over the next 10-20 years, perhaps longer.

It would be great if true but I don't think 2010 is anything to get excited about. Even December - which was cold in some regions was also abnormally warm in others - like Eastern Canada and Greenland.

Spiny Norman
21-01-2011, 09:43 AM
I don't disagree with what you are saying ... individual locations will show varying results ... though I still do find it surprising that the Central England measurements shows their lowest results ever at a time when everything is supposed to be warming up.

Attached is the satellite measurements, which clearly show the last couple of El Nino events (most recently 2009-ish). If we're taking bets, I predict that within 2 years (by end of 2012) we will be solidly in negative territory again showing a cooling trend overall since the big El Nino around 1998.

Desmond
21-01-2011, 09:56 AM
Maybe you should suggest he read the latest peer-reviewed research:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/20/surface-temperature-uncertainty-quantified/

There's a lovely graph there that shows cooling from roughly 1940 to 1970.
I'm confused. Are you simultaneously trying to claim that

1. the temperature anomolies are not statistically significant, and
2. those temperature anomolies show cooling for a portion of the period.

because if you are, you appear to be trying to have it both ways.

Rincewind
21-01-2011, 11:31 AM
I think we should likewise start petitions to ban oxidane and hydroxylic acid. Both of those are at least as dangerous as DHMO.

I see that The Uni of Canberra has moved on this idea.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/20/3117523.htm

Spiny Norman
21-01-2011, 12:31 PM
I'm confused. Are you simultaneously trying to claim that

1. the temperature anomolies are not statistically significant, and
2. those temperature anomolies show cooling for a portion of the period.

because if you are, you appear to be trying to have it both ways.
Based on the measurements to date:

* cooling during the Dalton Minimum; then
* warming until about 1940; then
* slight cooling until 1970; then
* warming until 2000; then
* ??? seems pretty flat since then, and not enough time has passed to determine whether we are warming or cooling or going flatline

That's all based on the measurements. On that evidence, there has been some warming in the 20th century. I don't know anyone who denies that. There has been a few decades of overall cooling that is unexplained. We may also be entering into a new period of zero temperature increase, or possibly even cooling ... based on the measurements.

Having said that, the question can be asked (and has been) whether the measurements of the warming are statistically significant. That paper I referred to says that the warming is not enough to be statistically significant. It is within the bounds of conceivable measurement error. Ditto for any cooling.

Its thus possible that there has been little or no warming. Its also possible that the warming is much greater than measured.

Separately you can look at anomalies. If there are a lot more record highs than record lows, that would tend to support the warming view. When people rabbit on about unprecedented temperatures they tend to cherry pick events that support their particular overall view. Warmists will highlight new highs; "deniers" will highlight new lows.

So I think it would be advisable for both sides of the 'debate' to take a chill pill and watch to see what develops. Both need to be prepared to examine (and not just hand wave and dismiss) contrary evidence to their preferred position.

And when politicians get involved and start dipping their hands into my pockets to take my hard earned money to aleviate a problem which might not even be a problem, and then they pillory my skepticism and make out as if I am bringing the world to a premature end as a result, I not only get more skeptical, but I also start getting pretty damn angry.

So when AC lobs in here spreading bullshit and all sorts of misinformation, that's more than I can bear.

Desmond
21-01-2011, 04:59 PM
GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE CHANGE (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_etal.pdf) - Hansen et al December 2010


Contrary to a popular misconception, the rate of warming has not declined. Global temperature is rising as fast in the past decade as in the prior 2 decades, despite year‐to‐year fluctuations associated with the El Niño‐La Niña cycle of tropical ocean temperature.

Spiny Norman
22-01-2011, 06:03 AM
Sorry, I stopped believing just about anything Hansen says after his famous 'hockey stick' graph was shown to be a fraud.

EDIT: by "his" I mean the one he promoted; it was Mann et al who actually produced it (you can feed computer-generated random data to the process Mann used and still generate hockey-stick graphs).

Desmond
22-01-2011, 07:03 AM
Sorry, I stopped believing just about anything Hansen says after his famous 'hockey stick' graph was shown to be a fraud.

EDIT: by "his" I mean the one he promoted; it was Mann et al who actually produced it (you can feed computer-generated random data to the process Mann used and still generate hockey-stick graphs).
How convenient for you.

antichrist
22-01-2011, 05:06 PM
well well, page 7, planet warms to a record is the headline.

last year 2010 was equal to the hottest on record, the World Meteorological Organisation has confirmed.
the ten warmest years since modern measurement began in 1850 have now all occurred since 1998.

say no more
yes I will

there is only about 25 miles of atmosphere above our earth so what should we expect with about a billion cars spewing out their pollution, coal power stations etc etc.

we are the very sick species of biology - what a shame when we know exactly the damage we are doing. All religions are bulldust in comparison to the moral leadeship to what is needed here.

now carry on pollutioning human idiots

Rincewind
22-01-2011, 05:28 PM
there is only about 25 miles of atmosphere above our earth

25 miles is around 40 km which is well within the stratosphere.

There is no distinct line where the atmosphere stops and space begins but the extent of the earth's atmosphere and the beginning of space is generally taken to be the Karman line which is 100 km above the surface of the earth. Putting it just out of the the mesosphere which extends to an altitude of around 80-85 km.

Spaceships re entering earth generally experience atmospheric effects before crossing the Karman line.

antichrist
22-01-2011, 05:44 PM
does the 40km point have any significance? Is that where sort of solid 100% atmosphere ends?

do you think we are stupid for poisoning our environment?

Rincewind
22-01-2011, 05:53 PM
does the 40km point have any significance? Is that where sort of solid 100% atmosphere ends?

If the atmosphere was solid at any altitude we would be in trouble.

Density decreases with altitude starting from the first kilometre and people can suffer from altitude sickness without leaving the surface of the earth so I fail to see your point.

As far as I know 40 km is nothing special. Weather balloons generally get up to 40km and even a bit more maybe 50 maximum.

antichrist
22-01-2011, 06:06 PM
do you think we are stupid for poisoning our environment?

and grossly irresponsible?

and immoral?

Rincewind
22-01-2011, 08:03 PM
do you think we are stupid for poisoning our environment?

Every organism has an environmental impact of some measurable magnitude. Perhaps if you were to properly define your terms I might be able to make sense of your question.


and grossly irresponsible?

Not sure of the purpose of this bit. Has improving the lifespan of individuals from 40 to over 70 been grossly irresponsible? Without modern agriculture and medicine you would likely be dead by now.


and immoral?

Compared with what?

antichrist
22-01-2011, 09:05 PM
.................Compared with what?

[QUOTE=Rincewind]Every organism has an environmental impact of some measurable magnitude. Perhaps if you were to properly define your terms I might be able to make sense of your question.

ac
you are sounding like FG7 asking for everything to be defined. Well for e.g., petroleum (and byproducts) pollution and coal pollution are quite responsble for poisoning our atmosphere. Surveys of particles in air, sea and land proves this. Considering that that pollution also effects humans with more diseases, eg. asthma, tumors etc, and animal and flora species, are we stupid for causing such that comes back to haunt us and other species?

RW
Not sure of the purpose of this bit. Has improving the lifespan of individuals from 40 to over 70 been grossly irresponsible? Without modern agriculture and medicine you would likely be dead by now.


AC
it is clear that I meant grossly irresponsible in the context of pollutioning environment not the perceived benefits of such. We did not have to have such a large population that would have resulted in a smaller pollution footprint and thus less irresponsible position. i dont think modern medicine cause much environmental damage, could be opposite in the context that we may be destroying species of plant etc that could have necessary medical ingredients. As we achieved longer life spans we should have simultaneously brought in population control. A lot of modern agriculature is unsustainable in the long term so it has two sides. We can "permanently" damage the environment so what has given us greater population etc could result in lesser population in the future so cancel each other out.

AC
are immoral?

RW
Compared with what?

AC
is it necessarily for morals to be compared with something? Compared to not poisoning our environment because it is not necessary. Or at least to a lot lesser extent of environmental damage.

Rincewind
22-01-2011, 11:38 PM
If you can't be bother quoting in a reasonable way, I can't be bothered replying. Come back when you are able to (a) say something sensible and (b) able to express it in a readable format.

antichrist
23-01-2011, 01:16 PM
If you can't be bother quoting in a reasonable way, I can't be bothered replying. Come back when you are able to (a) say something sensible and (b) able to express it in a readable format.

sure sour grapes of a losing deal - if you keep coming the raw prawn I may take my business elsewhere

Kevin Bonham
23-01-2011, 01:32 PM
sure sour grapes of a losing deal - if you keep coming the raw prawn I may take my business elsewhere

It's so quiet over there lately you would mostly just be talking to yourself if you did. :P

Spiny Norman
26-01-2011, 08:45 AM
How convenient for you.
Well, I'm not the only one who is suspicious of Hansen's prognostications.


It is hopeless to expect that Hansen could possibly analyze data objectively – all he has in his head is “CO2 climate forcing” and everything else has to be “forced” into that ridiculous paradigm. It makes no difference to him that the predictions of his past half-baked computer models based on “CO2 climate forcing” were completely wrong.

Desmond
26-01-2011, 10:37 AM
Well, I'm not the only one who is suspicious of Hansen's prognostications.
Sure, be suspicious but don't just wave it away. Is there any actual problem with his paper?

I wonder if you are as suspicous of blog posts from some website called wattsupwiththat.

Spiny Norman
26-01-2011, 01:59 PM
I'm skeptical of both sides ... but far the 'deniers' are winning the 'debate' because the disaster predictions from the 'warmists' of the past few decades have proven to be just hot air.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-01-2011, 06:03 PM
I wouldn't call then "deniers". Most of them merely express healthy scepticism and don't buy bullshit from hypocrites alarmists.

Desmond
26-01-2011, 06:25 PM
I'm skeptical of both sides ... but far the 'deniers' are winning the 'debate' because the disaster predictions from the 'warmists' of the past few decades have proven to be just hot air.
You must be talking about the pop culture debate, not the science.

antichrist
26-01-2011, 06:38 PM
I'm skeptical of both sides ... but far the 'deniers' are winning the 'debate' because the disaster predictions from the 'warmists' of the past few decades have proven to be just hot air.

I have heard that the Russian drought and Pakistani flood could very well be caused by climate change, the change effects the wind patterns

Spiny Norman
27-01-2011, 06:03 AM
I have heard that the Russian drought and Pakistani flood could very well be caused by climate change, the change effects the wind patterns
Latest peer-reviewed research contradicts what you have heard. Your information sources are obviously rather poor ...

Igor_Goldenberg
27-01-2011, 08:28 AM
You must be talking about the pop culture debate, not the science.
If you take out pop culture debate from warming alarmists, there isn't much left.
It is quite disappointing, as climate deserves a serious unbiased study that is not presupposed on global warmists mantra.

BTW, I am sure climate is changing (constantly). And we, the humans, do have impact on the climate (as we have impact on environment).
The questions are:
1. How is it changing?
2. How it is affected by human?
3. What is the magnitude of that effect?

We all know the answer from our green/left comrades. However, this answer is firmly based on their belief and they failed to back it up with data and reason. Their credibility is shot to pieces, which makes it hard to take seriously any output they produce (even though they might be occasionally right in some details).

The most scary thing is when politicians try to take it further and use it as an excuse for their (mostly leftist) agenda. The proposed measures are obviously counter-productive even within global warming paradigm they so uncritically subscribe to.

Latest example - Gillard refusing to consider nuclear power, at the same time pushing environmentally dangerous wind power and not very environmentally friendly solar power.

antichrist
27-01-2011, 08:33 AM
Latest example - Gillard refusing to consider nuclear power, at the same time pushing environmentally dangerous wind power and not very environmentally friendly solar power

AC

Igor, there are no nasty left-overs with wind and solar that have to be safely stored for hundreds of thousands of years. As well they cant be misused to create nuke weapons as many countries have "llegally" and immorally done.

So there is a slight difference you must concede - have any windmills or solar panels caused a Chernoble or 3 Mile Island yet?

Spiny Norman
27-01-2011, 08:57 PM
Glaciers in Himalayas not melting (another prediction gone astray).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-because-of-climate-change-report-finds.html

Capablanca-Fan
28-01-2011, 05:06 AM
Latest example - Gillard refusing to consider nuclear power, at the same time pushing environmentally dangerous wind power and not very environmentally friendly solar power
Its ridiculous that we have such abundant uranium and don't use it because of the scientifically illiterate left.


Igor, there are no nasty left-overs with wind and solar that have to be safely stored for hundreds of thousands of years. As well they cant be misused to create nuke weapons as many countries have "llegally" and immorally done.
This doesn't make wind and solar power viable.


So there is a slight difference you must concede - have any windmills or solar panels caused a Chernoble or 3 Mile Island yet?
But the deaths from these are far less than those in coal mines or in building the Hoover Dam. Solar power manufacture produces toxic silicon chloride as a by-product.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-01-2011, 07:25 AM
Solar power manufacture produces toxic silicon chloride as a by-product.
And wind farms make vast areas uninhabitable (due to extreme sound problem).

Desmond
28-01-2011, 09:18 AM
Glaciers in Himalayas not melting (another prediction gone astray).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-because-of-climate-change-report-finds.html
What you should have said was, Some glaciers in Himalayas not melting in spite of global warming, and the authors investigated why that was.


"Our study shows that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover for understanding glacier retreat, an effect that has so far been neglected in predictions of future water availability or global sea level," the authors concluded.

Garvinator
28-01-2011, 09:20 AM
Glaciers in Himalayas not melting (another prediction gone astray).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-because-of-climate-change-report-finds.htmlDo you mean Glaciers in Himalayas are not melting, or, Glaciers in Himalayas are not melting at the rapid rate predicted?

Igor_Goldenberg
28-01-2011, 09:50 AM
Do you mean Glaciers in Himalayas are not melting, or, Glaciers in Himalayas are not melting at the rapid rate predicted?
I think it meant that Glaciers in Himalayas are melting, but only during the summer. And they are growing during the winter.:lol: :lol: :lol:

Spiny Norman
28-01-2011, 05:05 PM
What you should have said was, Some glaciers in Himalayas not melting in spite of global warming, and the authors investigated why that was.
Of those investigated, the majority were actually increasing, not melting.

What we" were told by the IPCC, that paragon of scientific virtue, was that the Himalayan glaciers were disappearing and would all be gone within a few decades. Just more alarmist bullshit. Not peer reviewed. No scientific basis. Just bullshit, plain and simple.

Desmond
28-01-2011, 06:23 PM
Of those investigated, the majority were actually increasing, not melting. From the abstract of the actual paper, Spatially variable response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change affected by debris cover (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1068.html):


Controversy about the current state and future evolution of Himalayan glaciers has been stirred up by erroneous statements in the fourth report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Variable retreat rates and a paucity of glacial mass-balance data make it difficult to develop a coherent picture of regional climate-change impacts in the region. Here, we report remotely-sensed frontal changes and surface velocities from glaciers in the greater Himalaya between 2000 and 2008 that provide evidence for strong spatial variations in glacier behaviour which are linked to topography and climate. More than 65% of the monsoon-influenced glaciers that we observed are retreating, but heavily debris-covered glaciers with stagnant low-gradient terminus regions typically have stable fronts. Debris-covered glaciers are common in the rugged central Himalaya, but they are almost absent in subdued landscapes on the Tibetan Plateau, where retreat rates are higher. In contrast, more than 50% of observed glaciers in the westerlies-influenced Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya are advancing or stable. Our study shows that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover for understanding glacier retreat, an effect that has so far been neglected in predictions of future water availability or global sea level.
So some glaciers seems a reasonable qualifier of what you said, which implied most glaciers or all glaciers which just aint borne out by the paper.

antichrist
29-01-2011, 01:41 AM
well in Friday's Herald they are reported as melting for another 50 days last year. The worse on record I think they reported.

Spiny Norman
29-01-2011, 05:44 AM
Reading it again, I would agree and should rephrase as "the majority of Himalayan glaciers are not retreating", which is not the same as what I first posted ... however I think the point about the IPCC's first set of claims still stands (it was bullshit).

Desmond
29-01-2011, 07:41 AM
Reading it again, I would agree and should rephrase as "the majority of Himalayan glaciers are not retreating", which is not the same as what I first posted ... Sorry but majority simply isn't what was written. The "more than 50%" bit that you've honed in on is not an overall statement but a statement about a subset, specifically "more than 50% of observed glaciers in the westerlies-influenced Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya". Yet other subsets are much less, "More than 65% of the monsoon-influenced glaciers that we observed are retreating", and "[debris] are almost absent in subdued landscapes on the Tibetan Plateau, where retreat rates are higher". So you can't just turn around and say "majority". And that is actually the point of the article. That retreat rates vary. It's right there in the title.



however I think the point about the IPCC's first set of claims still stands (it was bullshit).I don't disagree. And the IPCC appears to have admitted that was a mistake previously and don't stand by it.

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2011, 08:16 PM
I saw this question by Igor over in the other place where nobody bothered to answer it:


Maldives government demanded action from global community to stop climate change because it would lead to rising sea level and drowning of the nation.
Why are they building new airport at sea level?

Firstly, it's actually an upgrade for an already-existing airport, the reason for the upgrade being that the current one is outdated and isn't up to scratch by global standards.

Secondly if sea level rise does become an issue then it really doesn't matter where they put it. The reason for this is that there is no point in the Maldives that is naturally more than a few metres above sea level. Land can be reclaimed and artificially elevated by a couple of metres (as is the case in this situation) and that is more critical than the actual location.

Thirdly the present rate of sea level change is very gradual. If catastrophic climate change causes a 5-10 m rise (which some scientists studying global warming project could happen) this is unlikely to happen in any great hurry. You might as well ask why people keep living on volcanos and earthquake faults or even next to the Brisbane River.

Of course the real reason for the Maldives' positioning was very likely political but there is nothing in the building of a new airport that is incompatible with their claimed beliefs.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-02-2011, 09:04 AM
Secondly if sea level rise does become an issue then it really doesn't matter where they put it. The reason for this is that there is no point in the Maldives that is naturally more than a few metres above sea level. Land can be reclaimed and artificially elevated by a couple of metres (as is the case in this situation) and that is more critical than the actual location.

Thirdly the present rate of sea level change is very gradual. If catastrophic climate change causes a 5-10 m rise (which some scientists studying global warming project could happen) this is unlikely to happen in any great hurry. You might as well ask why people keep living on volcanos and earthquake faults or even next to the Brisbane River.
Then you would build airport at "a few metres above sea level" rather then at sea level.

Of course the real reason for the Maldives' positioning was very likely political ...
My point exactly.

Kevin Bonham
07-02-2011, 11:10 AM
Then you would build airport at "a few metres above sea level" rather then at sea level.

That assumes you have enough land at that altitude to make a difference. The maximum altitude in the whole country is 2.4 metres ASL. It really doesn't make a difference where they put the thing.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-02-2011, 01:45 PM
That assumes you have enough land at that altitude to make a difference. The maximum altitude in the whole country is 2.4 metres ASL. It really doesn't make a difference where they put the thing.
Then why bother spending fortunes if it's going to be underwater soon? (unless they don't really believe it).

Kevin Bonham
07-02-2011, 01:55 PM
Then why bother spending fortunes if it's going to be underwater soon? (unless they don't really believe it).

How soon is soon? As I said in a previous post you might as well ask why people keep living on volcanos and earthquake faults or even next to the Brisbane River. It is often profitable to invest for the short term even if that infrastructure might not last 100 years.

I don't think anyone can really know whether large sea level rises over the next few hundred years will occur or not. It's still speculative - but it is a possibility.

Spiny Norman
07-02-2011, 04:02 PM
Historically speaking, sea levels have changed by anywhere up to 600m, what with ice ages and warm periods and what not. I doubt that anything humans could conjure via CO2 would even remotely approach that.

We ought to be more worried about the fact that, overall, the world is progressively cooling ... each warm period is (overall) less warm than the one that preceded it (hence the cooling trend) ... and there are far more extinction events associated with cold periods than with warm periods.

We have a lot to fear from the cold (starvation for one). Not a lot to fear from heat.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-02-2011, 04:19 PM
How soon is soon? As I said in a previous post you might as well ask why people keep living on volcanos and earthquake faults or even next to the Brisbane River. It is often profitable to invest for the short term even if that infrastructure might not last 100 years.

I don't think anyone can really know whether large sea level rises over the next few hundred years will occur or not. It's still speculative - but it is a possibility.
You are talking about hundreds years - fair enough. But Maldives government was talking about years or, at most, decades.

Kevin Bonham
07-02-2011, 04:25 PM
But Maldives government was talking about years or, at most, decades

What, exactly, did they say?


... and there are far more extinction events associated with cold periods than with warm periods.

Except that our current biota are in many cases more adapted to cold (through having lived through it in the relatively recent past) than to heat. If global temperatures drop by a few degrees, that's nothing that they haven't survived before. But it's already perhaps about as warm as it's been for millions of years - and nudging if not exceeding the peak of the last 20,000 at the least - so a few degrees of additional warming now will give some species something they're not used to at all.

Many either won't be critically affected or will adapt, but there are some that apparently can't. I'll give an example from an outing I went on this weekend. Three of Tasmania's 16 skink species are alpine endemics. They're closely related to some of the species that occur widely below the treeline. The species occurring below the treeline (one of them abundant in my backyard) breed every year. However, that reproductive strategy fails in very cold environments; the young aren't developed enough to survive through the winter. So in the very cold environments, the three alpine species have emerged, and they have a strategy of breeding every two years, with the young carried for over a year and born at a time when they have more time to develop.

If it's warm enough for annual breeding to work, the annual breeding skink breeds faster than the two-year-cycle one. As a result of this it outcompetes it. So on many mountains here there is a line - above the line, two-year-cyclers; below the line, annual breeders, with a very small zone of overlap.

If the climate warms even slightly, the line moves up the mountain. This is happening, measurably, over the last few decades on Mt Wellington even though the local rate of climate change is not that fast. Once the line reaches the top of a given mountain, the two-year-cycle species has nowhere left to go where its competitor does not survive, and therefore, in theory, snuffs it on that mountain. With enough temperature increase, in theory, it snuffs it off every mountain.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-02-2011, 04:50 PM
What, exactly, did they say?

During Copenahgen conference they were complaining about being drowned if warming does not stop. Did they put a specific time frame? Not sure.
They also held an underwater cabinet meeting to show how dire their case is.
According to this article (http://www.actionasia.com/actionasia/Articles/index.jsp?aid=790) they are talking between 8-10 and fifty years.

Spiny Norman
07-02-2011, 05:33 PM
But it's already perhaps about as warm as it's been for millions of years ...
But that can't be correct, as the following were all substantially warmer than today:

-- Medieval Warm Period
-- Roman Warm Period
-- Minoan Warm Period

All those within the last few thousand years.

Desmond
07-02-2011, 07:08 PM
But that can't be correct, as the following were all substantially warmer than today:

-- Medieval Warm Period
-- Roman Warm Period
-- Minoan Warm Period

All those within the last few thousand years.
Source?

Spiny Norman
07-02-2011, 07:15 PM
Source?
The source I used was Prof. Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth: global warming the missing science.

To support that assertion, here's a graph prepared by a fairly well-known skeptic David Archibald:

http://climate.geologist-1011.net/HoloceneTemperatures.png

Average near-surface temperatures of the northern hemisphere during the past 11,000 years compiled by David Archibald after Dansgaard et al. (1969) & Schönwiese (1995).

I lifted that from a website that I found via a Google search ... http://climate.geologist-1011.net/ ... I haven't verified the sources quoted, but they seem to be easily verifiable if you're interested:

Dansgaard, W., Johnsen, S.J., Moller, J., 1969, "One thousand centuries of climatic record from Camp Century on the Greenland Ice Sheet.", Science v. 166(3903), pp.377-381.

Schönwiese, C., 1995, "Klimaänderungen: Daten, Analysen, Prognosen", Springer, Heidelberg

Desmond
07-02-2011, 08:09 PM
The source I used was Prof. Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth: global warming the missing science.

To support that assertion, here's a graph prepared by a fairly well-known skeptic David Archibald:

http://climate.geologist-1011.net/HoloceneTemperatures.png

Average near-surface temperatures of the northern hemisphere during the past 11,000 years compiled by David Archibald after Dansgaard et al. (1969) & Schönwiese (1995).

I lifted that from a website that I found via a Google search ... http://climate.geologist-1011.net/ ... I haven't verified the sources quoted, but they seem to be easily verifiable if you're interested:

Dansgaard, W., Johnsen, S.J., Moller, J., 1969, "One thousand centuries of climatic record from Camp Century on the Greenland Ice Sheet.", Science v. 166(3903), pp.377-381.

Schönwiese, C., 1995, "Klimaänderungen: Daten, Analysen, Prognosen", Springer, Heidelberg
Seriously? Mr 1011's bio lists a "4x4 certificate" :lol:

Anyway, your graph there appears to be on the up at the end, and already about in line with the Medieval Warm Period. So I'd say your "substantially warmer" is bunk. But when is that graph ending exactly? I guess if it's based on papers written in '69 and '95 it might not be exactly cutting edge.

Guess what, there are more recent papers available, are you aware of them? Basically it seems that there is insufficient evidence to really know how widespread the MWP was.


Hemispheric Temperatures in the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html)

A number of studies that have attempted to produce very large spatial-scale reconstructions have come to the same conclusion: that medieval warmth was heterogeneous in terms of its precise timing and regional expression (Crowley and Lowery, 2000; Folland et al., 2001; Esper et al., 2002; Bradley et al., 2003a; Jones and Mann, 2004; D’Arrigo et al., 2006). ...

The evidence currently available indicates that NH [Northern Hemisphere] mean temperatures during medieval times (950–1100) were indeed warm in a 2-kyr context and even warmer in relation to the less sparse but still limited evidence of widespread average cool conditions in the 17th century (Osborn and Briffa, 2006). However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th century as a whole, during any period in medieval times (Jones et al., 2001; Bradley et al., 2003a,b; Osborn and Briffa, 2006).

Also this graph (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/box-6-4-figure-1.html) might be worth a look.