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

Rhubarb
20-09-2011, 11:01 AM
Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1549444)

Dan M. Kahan, Hank Jenkins-Smith, Donald Braman

Abstract
Why do members of the public disagree - sharply and persistently - about facts on which expert scientists largely agree? We designed a study to test a distinctive explanation: the cultural cognition of scientific consensus. The "cultural cognition of risk" refers to the tendency of individuals to form risk perceptions that are congenial to their values. The study presents both correlational and experimental evidence confirming that cultural cognition shapes individuals' beliefs about the existence of scientific consensus, and the process by which they form such beliefs, relating to climate change, the disposal of nuclear wastes, and the effect of permitting concealed possession of handguns. The implications of this dynamic for science communication and public policy-making are discussed.

That's excellently observed - now I know why right-wing and left-wing cretins are the way they are, even in the face of all scientific evidence. Of course such a study would never apply to me.


EDIT: So I re-read parts of the study and of course it has completely addressed my smart-arse objections so I guess I apologise culturally for whatever its worth....

Capablanca-Fan
20-09-2011, 03:30 PM
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming
FoxNews.comn September 14, 2011

The global warming theory left him out in the cold.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring." …

Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signers of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.

Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009.

Capablanca-Fan
20-09-2011, 03:36 PM
Should those companies be getting any subsidies? No.
Do I support removal subsidies to them? Yes.
Agreed.


However, we need to ask two different questions:

Do they (oil. farms, Boeing, etc.) need subsidies to survive? No.
Do green schemes need subsidies to survive? Yes.

Which means the former aren't scam, but green schemes are.
Exactly.

And Boeing is trying to open up a plant in South Carolina, which would created over a thousand new jobs, in a right-to-work. But Obamov's union buddies in the government bureaucracy NLRB are blocking this (http://patriotupdate.com/8529/boosting-unions-at-the-expense-of-jobs); so makes a mockery of Obamov's latest "If you love me, then help me pass this jobs bill now"—at >$230,000 per job (http://patriotupdate.com/12293/obama-predicts-his-plan-will-cost-235263-per-job)!

The history of government subsidies is bleak, compared to that of private ingenuity:


Solyndra – Founded in 2005; received $528 million in government subsidies in 2009.
Result: Bankrupt in 2011. The Chinese and others made solar panels better and cheaper.
Samuel Langley – Tried to build first airplane in history. In 1900, U.S. government funded two flight attempts.
Result: Both times, Langley crashed his plane into the Potomac River. Shortly thereafter, the Wright brothers flew a plane with their own money.
Union Pacific Railroad – Founded in early 1860s with government money to build part of a transcontinental railroad.
Result: Bankrupt, and some officers of the railroad convicted of bribing Congressmen. The Great Northern Railroad then built a transcontinental railroad with no corruption and no federal subsidies.
Edward Collins Steamship Company – Founded in 1840s to go from New York to England, and also received government subsidies in 1840s and 1850s.
Result: Bankrupt in 1858. Cornelius Vanderbilt successfully built ships to go from New York to England with no subsidies.
Government operated fur company – Founded in 1795 with federal money to compete with the British.
Result: Near bankruptcy, and shut down in 1822. John Jacob Astor built the American Fur Company in 1808 and flourished with no federal subsidies.
Major source: Burton W. Folsom, Jr., The Myth of the Robber Barons (http://www.burtfolsom.com/?p=1344), 6th edition, (Young America’s Foundation, 2010)


Hardly surprising:

The question is: Who do we trust to spend the billions of dollars it will take to get our economy moving again?

The people who create our jobs, or the people who created our national debt? — Senator Jim DeMint, R-SC (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/09/soaking-rich-always-dries-middle-class)

But Leftards like IM have unbridled faith in big government.

Rincewind
20-09-2011, 05:22 PM
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming
FoxNews.comn September 14, 2011

Wow! An 82-year-old, experimental, condensed-matter physicist has resigned over global warming? He probably comes from some country which is quite cool anyway and can do with all the help it can get. At least for the foreseeable future.

Capablanca-Fan
30-09-2011, 07:38 AM
Climategate analysis (http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/)
by John P. Costella
B.E.(Elec.)(Hons.) B.Sc.(Hons.) Ph.D.(Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed.


Climategate has shattered that myth. It gives us a peephole into the work of the scientists investigating possibly the most important issue ever to face mankind. Instead of seeing large collaborations of meticulous, careful, critical scientists, we instead see a small team of incompetent cowboys, abusing almost every aspect of the framework of science to build a fortress around their “old boys’ club”, to prevent real scientists from seeing the shambles of their “research”. Most people are aghast that this could have happened; and it is only because “climate science” exploded from a relatively tiny corner of academia into a hugely funded industry in a matter of mere years that the perpetrators were able to get away with it for so long.

To assist the reader in getting “up to speed” with the various characters in this saga, I have color-coded their emails, as described below. To make the emails understandable to any normal person, I have edited out scientific jargon, expanded acronyms, and inserted explanatory comments where I thought it necessary. All of my comments, and the editing that I have done to the excerpts, is in black.

Unlike the Climategate perpetrators themselves, however, I have made all the raw data—the emails themselves, in unredacted raw text format—available on this site; and the heading for each email contains a link to that original email. Thus, if you believe that I have excerpted from the email unfairly, or out of context, then you can simply read the original email to determine if that is the case.

Rincewind
30-09-2011, 12:41 PM
Climategate analysis (http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/)
by John P. Costella
B.E.(Elec.)(Hons.) B.Sc.(Hons.) Ph.D.(Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed.

That is an impressive collection of acronyms. I assume this is the same guy who jumped the gun on the superluminal neutrino story and then wrote a several page retraction which you linked to in another thread.

pappubahry
30-09-2011, 02:11 PM
That assassinationscience.com is a pretty cool website - it has several PhD's writing for it.

Rincewind
30-09-2011, 04:31 PM
That assassinationscience.com is a pretty cool website - it has several PhD's writing for it.

Yeah but mostly it is just James Fetzer. :P

Capablanca-Fan
01-10-2011, 01:12 AM
Lies, deception and carbon tax (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/lies-deception-and-carbon-tax/story-fn7078da-1226146005701)
by: Henry Ergas From: The Australian September 26, 2011

START with what is uncontested. First, once carbon emitters are issued permits, those permits will be property they own, so any government that abolishes them will have to pay compensation, possibly in the billions of dollars.

Second, entitlements created by statute may be found by the High Court to be property even if that is not specified in the legislation creating them. But specifying it in the legislation, as the government intends, makes that outcome, and the need to pay compensation, far more certain.

Third, a future government could not get around the need to pay compensation simply by mandating a zero carbon price. This is because that would almost certainly require rejecting the Climate Change Authority's recommended abatement trajectory. But unless that government could convince both houses of parliament to adopt another abatement target, such a rejection triggers a default pricing mechanism. And far from reducing the carbon price, the legislated mechanism could increase it by up to 10 per cent in a single year.

Fourth, nor could a future government get its way by modifying the membership of the Climate Change Authority.

Rather, the legislation creating the authority limits the number of members it can have: unlike, for example, that establishing the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission. And a government has little scope to dismiss members once they have been appointed. The new government would therefore be stuck with its predecessor's authority. …

Capablanca-Fan
05-10-2011, 11:18 PM
Is Solyndra the Tip of the Iceberg? (http://www.burtfolsom.com/?p=1390)
Burt Folsom, 4 Oct 2011


“That is the way business works,” responded Obama press secretary Jay Carney to a question about the $535 million failed government loan to the now bankrupt Solyndra. But isn’t that really the way government works? Why would senators and congressmen—few of whom know much about business—have the savvy to take other peoples’ money and pick winners from losers in what Jay Carney called “cutting-edge technology?”

What is the historical record on this? Have politicians made good investments in new technology before? No, the government’s record is one of almost total failure.

The first example is in airplane technology. Politicians argued in 1900 that the U.S. had a special national interest in inventing a flying machine because of the implications for national defense. Congress subsidized Samuel Langley, the president of the Smithsonian Institution and author of a book on aerodynamics, to make two attempts. Both of Langley’s experimental machines crashed into the Potomac River, and he suggested that more federal funding was needed. But nine days after his last failure, the Wright Brothers, two bicycle mechanics from Dayton, Ohio, successfully flew the first airplane in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, with no federal funding. …

Of course, this is applicable to KRudd's crass green boondoggles like the housing insulation fiasco.

Ian Murray
07-10-2011, 07:33 PM
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s320x320/302947_10150394449722354_630097353_10141778_605695 796_n.jpg

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2011, 12:30 AM
Cult of Global Warming Is Losing Influence (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/michael-barone/2011/10/24/cult-of-global-warming-is-losing-influence/)
By Michael Barone, October 24, 2011

...
All the trappings of religion are there. Original sin: Mankind is responsible for these prophesied disasters, especially those slobs who live on suburban cul-de-sacs and drive their SUVs to strip malls and tacky chain restaurants.

The need for atonement and repentance: We must impose a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, which will increase the cost of everything and stunt economic growth.

Ritual, from the annual Earth Day to weekly recycling.

Indulgences, like those Martin Luther railed against: private jet-fliers like Al Gore and sitcom heiress Laurie David can buy carbon offsets to compensate for their carbon-emitting sins.

Corporate elitists, like General Electric's Jeff Immelt, profess to share this faith, just as cynical Venetian merchants and prim Victorian bankers gave lip service to the religious enthusiasms of their days. Bad for business not to. And if you're clever, you can figure out how to make money off it.

Believers in this religion have flocked to conferences in Rio de Janeiro, Kyoto and Copenhagen, just as Catholic bishops flocked to councils in Constance, Ferrara and Trent, to codify dogma and set new rules.
...

Rincewind
25-10-2011, 08:03 AM
Believers in this religion have flocked to conferences in Rio de Janeiro, Kyoto and Copenhagen, just as Catholic bishops flocked to councils in Constance, Ferrara and Trent, to codify dogma and set new rules.

So the argument is Global Warming is a religion because people travel to conferences? :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
27-10-2011, 08:43 AM
Professor Richard A. Muller, arguing the case of global warming (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html?m od=europe_opinionHis), wrote:


We discovered that about one-third of the world's temperature stations have recorded cooling temperatures, and about two-thirds have recorded warming. The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming. The changes at the locations that showed warming were typically between 1-2ºC, much greater than the IPCC's average of 0.64ºC.

Any physicist must have studied at least rudimentary statistics and regression analysis, which means the above error is likely to be a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Rincewind
27-10-2011, 10:11 AM
Any physicist must have studied at least rudimentary statistics and regression analysis, which means the above error is likely to be a deliberate attempt to mislead.

What error?

Igor_Goldenberg
27-10-2011, 02:52 PM
What error?
Indeed, it's not an error, but a very obvious and clumsy trickery.

Rincewind
27-10-2011, 03:00 PM
Indeed, it's not an error, but a very obvious and clumsy trickery.

The quote from Richard Muller would seem to be reporting exactly what he is saying. Of the stations showing warming the increase is typically 1-2 degrees.

There is nothing tricky about that. Are you claiming the figures are wrong or that he is concealing some pertinent facts? Or is it you just believe he is a shyster and will claim he is being misleading even when what he says is factual and it contains all of the relevant facts?

Igor_Goldenberg
27-10-2011, 03:16 PM
The quote from Richard Muller would seem to be reporting exactly what he is saying. Of the stations showing warming the increase is typically 1-2 degrees.

What does this information tell about the trend of the global temperature?


There is nothing tricky about that. Are you claiming the figures are wrong or that he is concealing some pertinent facts? Or is it you just believe he is a shyster and will claim he is being misleading even when what he says is factual and it contains all of the relevant facts?

Are you trying to pretend that you don't see trickery and misleading conduct?
Or you genuinely don't understand it's a trickery and misleading conduct?

Rincewind
27-10-2011, 03:28 PM
What does this information tell about the trend of the global temperature?

The author made no claim about the global trend in the section you highlighted.


Are you trying to pretend that you don't see trickery and misleading conduct?
Or you genuinely don't understand it's a trickery and misleading conduct?

I'm unconvinced at this stage that the passage is even misleading, let alone deliberately misleading. If the trickery is as obvious and clumsy as you claim, then you should have no trouble identifying it.

It seems to me that you probably have implication confused with inference. You seem to be claiming that the author is implying a falsehood. If so, perhaps it would help if you tell us what that supposed implication is.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-10-2011, 05:40 PM
The author made no claim about the global trend in the section you highlighted.
In this case, what useful and relevant information did he try to convey?

Rincewind
27-10-2011, 06:16 PM
In this case, what useful and relevant information did he try to convey?

He conveyed the information that two thirds of the weather stations recorded an increase in temperature, and the increase in temperature recorded at those stations was typically from 1 to 2 degrees.

Kevin Bonham
27-10-2011, 07:02 PM
The piece seems completely reasonable to me and the author even says "How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that." If the author was a card-carrying "warmist" as implied, then a statement blaming the impact on humans and predicting dire effects would have been far more likely.

Igor may believe that there was an attempt to claim that warming is occurring at a rate higher than the IPCC average, but I don't read it like that at all. Rather, if that information wasn't provided, it would be easy for someone to dispute the IPCC average and say that a third of the stations show cooling therefore global warming can't be as severe on average as claimed. The information that the stations that do show warming run well above the IPCC rate serves as an antidote to that sort of response. I think though it would have been more useful to also state an average change over the whole set of stations (eg counting cooling stations as negative).

Rincewind
27-10-2011, 07:14 PM
Igor may believe that there was an attempt to claim that warming is occurring at a rate higher than the IPCC average, but I don't read it like that at all. Rather, if that information wasn't provided, it would be easy for someone to dispute the IPCC average and say that a third of the stations show cooling therefore global warming can't be as severe on average as claimed. The information that the stations that do show warming run well above the IPCC rate serves as an antidote to that sort of response.

Indeed and statistically they must if the mean warming is mostly right.


I think though it would have been more useful to also state an average change over the whole set of stations (eg counting cooling stations as negative).

I believe this is handled by the next to last paragraph which says


When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-10-2011, 08:57 AM
He conveyed the information that two thirds of the weather stations recorded an increase in temperature, and the increase in temperature recorded at those stations was typically from 1 to 2 degrees.
And what does it tell about the temperature?

Rincewind
28-10-2011, 10:24 AM
And what does it tell about the temperature?

It says what I've already repeated about the temperature measured at those stations. It makes no claims about the overall global temperature. Later in the article Richard Muller says his results are close to the already published data on warming. So the typical 1-2 degree increase at stations that showed warming is not being presented as the global trend. It is just stating the typical warming at the subset of the data which showed a temperature increase.

Unless you can make a argument that the statement was misrepresenting the facts in some way, then your original claim of it even being misleading is unsubstantiated. Of course if you can't get to first base then you can't show that there was any deliberate intention to mislead.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-10-2011, 08:21 PM
It says what I've already repeated about the temperature measured at those stations. It makes no claims about the overall global temperature. Later in the article Richard Muller says his results are close to the already published data on warming. So the typical 1-2 degree increase at stations that showed warming is not being presented as the global trend. It is just stating the typical warming at the subset of the data which showed a temperature increase.
If it tells nothing about global temperature, what is the value of this information (unless it tries to make a false impression that the global trend lies between 1 and 2 degrees)?

Igor_Goldenberg
28-10-2011, 08:32 PM
Igor may believe that there was an attempt to claim that warming is occurring at a rate higher than the IPCC average, but I don't read it like that at all. Rather, if that information wasn't provided, it would be easy for someone to dispute the IPCC average and say that a third of the stations show cooling therefore global warming can't be as severe on average as claimed. The information that the stations that do show warming run well above the IPCC rate serves as an antidote to that sort of response. I think though it would have been more useful to also state an average change over the whole set of stations (eg counting cooling stations as negative).

If he analysed so many observation, why didn't he at least tell what is the mean and standard deviation? And why did he decided to publish only those figures despite them being completely irrelevant?

Rincewind
28-10-2011, 10:46 PM
If it tells nothing about global temperature, what is the value of this information (unless it tries to make a false impression that the global trend lies between 1 and 2 degrees)?

The assertion is not worthless and makes no attempt to be passed as a proxy for the global temperature trend. As I mention above the article explicitly says in the penultimate paragraph that the global trend his group calculated is very close to the value published by the other climate groups.

The value of providing this information is (as Kevin points out above) to prevent a naive analysis of the cooling and warming trend ratio to downplay the effects of global warming more generally. The benefit of providing the information that approximately one third of weather stations reported cooling is important because it explains how some people may experience a local cooling trend at the same time that the global temperature average is warming.

Rincewind
28-10-2011, 10:49 PM
If he analysed so many observation, why didn't he at least tell what is the mean and standard deviation? And why did he decided to publish only those figures despite them being completely irrelevant?

As per my last post, those figure are completely relevant and are not claimed to be proxies for the global trend and in fact the article explicitly says the overall trend is very close to the existing estimates.

If you want more details the full details are available from the website (link below) where you can read the papers that have been submitted for review/publication.

There is also a two page summary here: http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct

littlesprout85
29-10-2011, 12:25 AM
Hmmmmmm,

Seems to sproutums that the world is starting to heat up- thats a fact, weather it is short term or mid term or sprouts doomsday prediction where the northpole is da last ice cube floating in Axioms martini :eek: Doesnt really matter. Mankind will destroy it regardless of how fast or how slow, its kinda like dr.suss movie da Lorax.:eek:

-Sprout85 =)

Igor_Goldenberg
02-11-2011, 07:50 PM
If the author was a card-carrying "warmist" as implied

Looks like Muller is widely portrayed as "born-again warmist".

Rincewind
02-11-2011, 10:33 PM
Looks like Muller is widely portrayed as "born-again warmist".

More like a scientist who had questions about the methodology which he has studied and is now satisfied that the other scientists actually were careful and largely correct in their original analysis.

Kevin Bonham
03-11-2011, 12:33 AM
Looks like Muller is widely portrayed as "born-again warmist".

By people seeking to dismiss his comments? If so, neither surprising nor relevant.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-11-2011, 09:45 AM
By people seeking to dismiss his comments? If so, neither surprising nor relevant.
No, by warmist camp. That's the expression I got from the comments to the article.

Rincewind
03-11-2011, 09:57 AM
No, by warmist camp. That's the expression I got from the comments to the article.

How does that make the comments "by warmist camp"?

Kevin Bonham
03-11-2011, 10:40 AM
I can't even find the expression in the comments although loading and searching them is a rather slow business.

Ian Murray
05-11-2011, 07:41 AM
Biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gqM8km0TY9gPWqJRTxqy31aO3G9A?docId=ffc4bdbae ca549c8a98aadb2ce3f247c)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.

The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago....

Hobbes
05-11-2011, 08:51 AM
Biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gqM8km0TY9gPWqJRTxqy31aO3G9A?docId=ffc4bdbae ca549c8a98aadb2ce3f247c)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.

The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago....

And therefore the temperatures are correspondingly higher than the worst case scenarios outlined four years ago? Oh wait...

Capablanca-Fan
05-11-2011, 11:00 AM
And therefore the temperatures are correspondingly higher than the worst case scenarios outlined four years ago? Oh wait...
Actually, in the USA we have been having freak cold snaps.

Ian Murray
05-11-2011, 12:21 PM
Actually, in the USA we have been having freak cold snaps.
Although Arizona through to Georgia (http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/) remain in severe drought. Rising average global temperature produces different effects on the climate in different regions. That's why it's called climate change. For example, melting polar ice could weaken the Gulf Stream and its warming effect on the American and European seaboards.

Ian Murray
08-11-2011, 06:50 AM
The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html)
There were good reasons for doubt, until now.
by Richard Muller
Wall Stree Journal
21 Oct 2011


...Without good answers to all these complaints, global-warming skepticism seems sensible. But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer....

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.

Capablanca-Fan
08-11-2011, 02:29 PM
The new Dark Age begins today (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/the_new_dark_age_begins_today/)
Piers Akerman, November 08, 2011

The passage of the Carbon Dioxide tax through the Senate today will mark Day One of Year Zero for the Australian economy.
Tuesday,November 8, 2011, will be forever remembered as the day when the Labor-Green-Independent minority government deliberately voted to put the nation into reverse.
It will be recalled as the day when Australians were whacked with an artificial impost designed to handicap their growth, reject wealth creation and mortgage the future of their children to placate ideologically driven Green cultists.
This is the day when the momentum of history went backward.
This is the day the Western tradition of science-backed advancement of the human condition was rejected in favour of paganism. …

Igor_Goldenberg
08-11-2011, 03:58 PM
The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html)
There were good reasons for doubt, until now.
by Richard Muller
Wall Stree Journal
21 Oct 2011


...Without good answers to all these complaints, global-warming skepticism seems sensible. But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer....

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.


See post 2014 (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=320208&postcount=2014) from 27/10.

Whether he is right or not, the arguments in the article are questionable.

Ian Murray
08-11-2011, 08:25 PM
Whether he is right or not, the arguments in the article are questionable.
Says who? He's a physicist and high-profile climate sceptic, who now confirms that the globe is warming based on his own team's research.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/27/can-these-scientists-end-climate-change-war
http://econews.com.au/news-to-sustain-our-world/us-climate-sceptic-agrees-global-warming-is-real/

Rincewind
08-11-2011, 09:32 PM
Says who?

Don't be igorant, Ian. Muller made claims that represented exactly what he meant and what's more he had evidence to back them up. Further more all the detailed findings and datasets are available for download from the Berkeley group's website.

With obvious and clumsy trickery like that the denialists were... well... in denial.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-11-2011, 09:42 PM
Says who? He's a physicist and high-profile climate sceptic, who now confirms that the globe is warming based on his own team's research.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/27/can-these-scientists-end-climate-change-war
http://econews.com.au/news-to-sustain-our-world/us-climate-sceptic-agrees-global-warming-is-real/
Looks like you didn't even read the post.
And RW looks like a rare example of mathematician who doesn't have a clue about regression analysis.

Rincewind
08-11-2011, 10:22 PM
And RW looks like a rare example of mathematician who doesn't have a clue about regression analysis.

And Igore is that all too common of internet animal, that craps on about a claim he has totally failed to even remotely make as if it was a proven fact - while at the same time confusing the term mathematician with statistician.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-11-2011, 11:58 PM
And Igore is that all too common of internet animal, that craps on about a claim he has totally failed to even remotely make as if it was a proven fact - while at the same time confusing the term mathematician with statistician.
I don't expect in-depth knowledge of statistics, but I thought rudimentary understanding is expected from someone with PhD in maths.
However, if you don't have one, don't try to argue the obvious.

Ian Murray
09-11-2011, 07:30 AM
Looks like you didn't even read the post.
I've read them all. All data and findings of the BEST team are freely available at http://berkeleyearth.org/resources.php - you might like to contribute to the peer review by pointing out the errors.

Rincewind
09-11-2011, 09:04 AM
you might like to contribute to the peer review by pointing out the errors.

Ian, Iggy's only possible contribution to science is to act as a warning to other.

Ian Murray
09-11-2011, 10:04 AM
Ian, Iggy's only possible contribution to science is to act as a warning to other.
And there was I thinking he had intuitively identified a flaw that a team of scientists had missed completely during the four years they spent on the project.

Rincewind
09-11-2011, 10:35 AM
And there was I thinking he had intuitively identified a flaw that a team of scientists had missed completely during the four years they spent on the project.

Well so he believes, but you have to appreciate the effects of Iggy-reality to follow his arguments.

It is interesting that Iggy links to post #2014 above since in that post he makes the unsubstantiated claim that the Muller article made an error which Iggy said was likely on purpose to intentionally mislead. After calling him up on it in the next post he reworded his fantasy to "a very obvious and clumsy trickery".

At present Iggy has been singularly unable to demonstrate either an error, trickery or indeed anything that is even remotely misleading. Sadly, I fear the only one who misunderstood the statements was Iggy.

Ian Murray
09-11-2011, 10:48 AM
Actually I dips me lid to Muller. He was publicly sceptical of the results of the other lead agencies, and conducted his own research to obtain valid results. On discovering they were identical with the others, he admits he was wrong and makes his data transparent, inviting peer review. The science is more important to him than the volte-face.

Rincewind
09-11-2011, 10:58 AM
Actually I dips me lid to Muller. He was publicly sceptical of the results of the other lead agencies, and conducted his own research to obtain valid results. On discovering they were identical with the others, he admits he was wrong and makes his data transparent, inviting peer review. The science is more important to him than the volte-face.

Yep as a scientist that is what he does. Check the results of others and publish his findings. No doubt the conservative anti-action on climate change blogs will be putting spin on it like Iggy's "born-again warmist".

However his findings are of particular embarrassment to the anti-action crowd who were touting Muller as the guy who would expose the "lie". Like all good conspiracy theories, however, inconvenient evidence can always be incorporated into the conspiracy.

Ian Murray
09-11-2011, 05:51 PM
Yep as a scientist that is what he does. Check the results of others and publish his findings. No doubt the conservative anti-action on climate change blogs will be putting spin on it like Iggy's "born-again warmist".

However his findings are of particular embarrassment to the anti-action crowd who were touting Muller as the guy who would expose the "lie". Like all good conspiracy theories, however, inconvenient evidence can always be incorporated into the conspiracy.
As a scientist is expected to do, of course. But then you get the non-peer-reviewed ramblings of the likes of Prof Ian Plimer.

Rincewind
09-11-2011, 06:35 PM
As a scientist is expected to do, of course. But then you get the non-peer-reviewed ramblings of the likes of Prof Ian Plimer.

Maybe the more mathematical the discipline the better. :)

Igor_Goldenberg
11-11-2011, 09:09 PM
It was fun watching those two pissing in their (or each other?) pockets.
What exactly BEST found that would support global warning hysteria in general and, say, Gillard's CO2 tax in particular?

Rincewind
11-11-2011, 09:19 PM
It was fun watching those two pissing in their (or each other?) pockets.
What exactly BEST found that would support global warning hysteria in general and, say, Gillard's CO2 tax in particular?

Awwww Iggy... what's wrong? All the evidence stacking up against you? :lol:

antichrist
11-11-2011, 10:57 PM
there was a large article in the business section of thursdays or wednesday herald, it stated that both govt and opposition had the same goals in climate control the only difference was the funding. The LIbs to take it from all taxpayers whilst the Labour was recycling company money and leaving the ordinary taxpayer alone.

Ian Murray
11-11-2011, 11:14 PM
What exactly BEST found that would support global warning hysteria in general and, say, Gillard's CO2 tax in particular?
I've become tired of answering your inane questions and having my answers ignored. Count me out in future.

Goughfather
11-11-2011, 11:50 PM
I've become tired of answering your inane questions and having my answers ignored. Count me out in future.

You've got to that point too? I wonder whether all of us ignoring Igor would actually make him go away ...

littlesprout85
12-11-2011, 12:50 AM
always get a kick outta watching a battle in the trenches. Sprouty thinks its a bit funny how Jono is saying there isnt a warming crises when ems is in the state of GA now transplanted from da lands down unders. Jono hasnt had enough time to see that those so called storms & snow in GA have been like that forevers(sprouty use to live in GA).

KB's is correct that its called climate change instead of somethang else cause it isnt going to be warm everywhere at once until close to the endb in Axioms martini.It cold for a while cause the temp of the ice cube is melting at a predictible rate into the warmth of the liquid surroundings of da martini glass. U can predict & see the rate of melting for example - if the freezer is breaking downs & its cycle is getting weaker & weaker then the ice in da box is getting wetter & staying longer in a melted state, eventually the freezer totally breaks down and the ice box is flooded -A typical man will see the signs of the doom & gloom coming his way- but still ems will wait til its broke to get off his lazy hump & fix it proper like.

Jono is right that there is a change going onz, Sprouty was in Michigan alot the past year & the great lakes region is now in a Canadan cycle of weather & is kinda cut off from the rest of the states. Most of Michigans Storms are now coming from outta the north instead of an west to eastern flow.So Michigan now is getting the rains & snows like it use to be 25 yrs ago.

Awsome u would think-but there is a downside- in the southwest From cali past tx hotter than normal & dryer -So much dryer that the crops are failing here bigtimez. This warming trend in the sw states has been going onz for over 10 yrs now & its starting to spread farther & farther east. Soon it will effect GA -lol so u might just get that secret wish Jono.Sprouty remembers bigtimez that GA was awfully hot & sticky most of the time until Freak snowstorms/ Ice storms hit in the winter. Also u get Hurricans coming up the sea board alot.:eek:

-Sprout85 =)

Rincewind
12-11-2011, 01:36 AM
I've become tired of answering your inane questions and having my answers ignored.

Someone else who has become tired of having their questions igored.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-11-2011, 10:23 AM
All the evidence stacking up against you?

I've become tired of answering your inane questions and having my answers ignored. Count me out in future.
If you guys provided some evidences or answers in the first place....

Rincewind
13-11-2011, 10:27 AM
If you guys provided some evidences or answers in the first place....

Ian posted the link in post #2049. Awaiting your considered reply.

Ian Murray
13-11-2011, 11:29 PM
If you guys provided some evidences or answers in the first place....
I provide answers to issues which you raise and then avoid, e.g.

http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=319316&postcount=34
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=320758&postcount=398

Ian Murray
15-11-2011, 10:23 PM
Ex-skeptic tells US Congress climate change is real (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jAHyJV2z4v-2UEOo6bYAFQQaROVw?docId=CNG.87699d35984c3444a0e0ba 764eddfb45.7e1)

By Kerry Sheridan (AFP) – 14 hours ago

WASHINGTON — A prominent climate change skeptic told Congress on Monday he no longer doubts that global warming is real and caused by humans, and joined other scientists in urging action to stop it.

Physicist Richard Muller, director of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, whose two-year research was funded in part by a foundation formed by the conservative billionaire Koch brothers, said he could find no bias in other studies.

"We confirm that over the last 50 years, temperature has risen 0.9 degrees Celsius, or 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit. This is the same number that the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says."

Muller told the House Committee on Natural Resources that while he remains cautious about the extent to which humans have played a role, he now hopes other climate skeptics will come on board with his findings....

Ranking committee Democrat Ed Markey lamented the United States' failure to act and applauded Australia's recent approval of a carbon tax to force its coal-fired power stations and other major emitters to "pay to pollute."

"Other countries are taking the threat seriously. Australia just passed a set of bills designed to reduce carbon pollution and positioned their country to compete in the global clean energy race," Markey said....

Desmond
16-11-2011, 04:27 PM
Ex-skeptic tells US Congress climate change is real (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jAHyJV2z4v-2UEOo6bYAFQQaROVw?docId=CNG.87699d35984c3444a0e0ba 764eddfb45.7e1)

By Kerry Sheridan (AFP) – 14 hours ago

WASHINGTON — A prominent climate change skeptic told Congress on Monday he no longer doubts that global warming is real and caused by humans, and joined other scientists in urging action to stop it.

Physicist Richard Muller, director of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, whose two-year research was funded in part by a foundation formed by the conservative billionaire Koch brothers, said he could find no bias in other studies.

"We confirm that over the last 50 years, temperature has risen 0.9 degrees Celsius, or 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit. This is the same number that the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says."

Muller told the House Committee on Natural Resources that while he remains cautious about the extent to which humans have played a role, he now hopes other climate skeptics will come on board with his findings....

Ranking committee Democrat Ed Markey lamented the United States' failure to act and applauded Australia's recent approval of a carbon tax to force its coal-fired power stations and other major emitters to "pay to pollute."

"Other countries are taking the threat seriously. Australia just passed a set of bills designed to reduce carbon pollution and positioned their country to compete in the global clean energy race," Markey said....Yes, actual sceptics can be convinced by evidence. Apologists on the other hand...

Ian Murray
17-11-2011, 01:40 PM
Standing on the outside looking in: a Washington insider reviews the carbon tax (http://theconversation.edu.au/standing-on-the-outside-looking-in-a-washington-insider-reviews-the-carbon-tax-4210?utm_source=The+Conversation+Daily+updates&utm_campaign=a97078fa21-DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email)

...Australia represents the richest resource of renewable energy in the world. You have solar penetration that is 20 times greater than the US and most other countries, power that can be captured by solar photovoltaic panels – concentrated solar geothermal. You have wind power in vast areas of this country – power that can be harvested cheaply and quickly.

There is enough clean, renewable, cheap solar and wind energy in Australia to supply the entire world’s electricity demand. There’s enough to end Australia’s dependence on dirty coal, on transport fuel that is fouling our air, emissions that are making Australia the largest polluter of greenhouse gases per capita in the entire world.
...
Here in Australia you understand the crisis. It has produced tragic flooding in Queensland, deadly drought and bushfires throughout the country, unprecedented typhoons, and record heat. You’ve seen your water supply threatened, and your farmers have seen their very livelihoods endangered.

And now, with the carbon price legislation, you have taken action. Those who believed the US would lead in meeting the challenge of climate change have been disappointed.

The US government has not led and effective leadership is nowhere in sight. We are stuck in the mud of partisan bickering and deadly brinksmanship, and it has us sinking to the bottom.

Here in Australia the story could have gone the same way. You have an extraordinarily powerful mining industry that pulled out all the stops to discredit and defeat the carbon tax legislation. This well-funded bullhorn of denial even inspired death threats against several Australian climate scientists, researchers whose only crime was exploring and telling the truth about the science of climate change.

But the Australian story is having a different ending than ours in the US. Last week your government passed an extraordinary measure creating a long-overdue price on carbon, establishing a means to fund new renewable energy projects, and setting meaningful targets for CO₂ emissions.

Australia, like the US, is sorely in need of courageous political leadership: a willingness to stand up to raw partisan power, to do battle with those of your own party, even if it costs an election.

Your former PM Malcolm Fraser did that, and the conservative Prime Minister John Howard did so after the tragic Port Arthur Massacre of 1996, facing down his party establishment to enact new gun control laws.

And in the current climate fight Independent Tony Windsor and others stood up against their conservative counterparts and aligned with the Labor Party to pass this critical legislation.

This measure will not in itself solve the climate crisis. There is so much difficult and complicated work to be done throughout the world. Vast amounts of capital must be committed to new wind and solar projects. Power transmission grids must be modernised or built from scratch.
...
Australia will be helping lead the world out of this crisis, sending a powerful message that, yes, it can be done. Despite all the barriers, despite all the bitter, misleading opposition, Australia is leading the world toward a brighter, more sustainable future.

Even though victory is at hand there are storm clouds brewing. The leader of the Federal Opposition, Tony Abbott, has vowed to reverse the carbon price and targets. To me, this is grossly irresponsible politics, but it is also tragically short-sighted.
...
Politics is more than a sporting event. What our countries cry out for – what the world needs – is bipartisan leadership, the willingness of our politicians, once elected, to put statesmanship ahead of short-term party brinksmanship, to govern with reason and discipline and courage.

A naïve dream? I hope not.

Hobbes
17-11-2011, 02:36 PM
Roy Neel is an Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University and a long-time staffer for former Vice-President Al Gore.
Uh huh.

Further comedy quotes by your climate expert from the linked article:


The political environment here in Australia is fascinating. For a start, you require people to vote! Not only are you required to vote for a candidate, you have to rank the rest of the candidates as well!

If we had had that system in America there probably would have been no Bush-Cheney White House, no Iraq invasion, no suppression of climate science … but don’t get me started.


A long time ago I moved to Washington to join my friend Al Gore as he entered political life and began fighting established interests (often tilting at windmills, as we like to say). One of those windmills was the growing threat of climate change.

He didn’t get a lot of credit for that work over the next 25 years and in 2000 he lost the presidential race in the most closely contested (and disputed) election in our country’s history.

That was a bitter defeat, one that some of us will forever believe was suffered not at the hands of voters but as a result of a tragically misguided Supreme Court decision.

That decision, made by the US Supreme Court in December 2000, overruled the state of Florida’s decision to recount ballots, ending the vote count, and throwing the election to George W. Bush.

The world has not recovered.


But when it became clear the country was waking up to the threat of climate change, powerful corporate and ideological interests opened their war chests. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars to distort, disrupt, and discredit the scientific consensus that has firmly established the devastating results of massive greenhouse gas emissions.

Sounds as though this fellow has a similar attitude about conspiracies to Axiom!

Desmond
19-11-2011, 07:35 AM
But when it became clear the country was waking up to the threat of climate change, powerful corporate and ideological interests opened their war chests. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars to distort, disrupt, and discredit the scientific consensus that has firmly established the devastating results of massive greenhouse gas emissions.
Sounds as though this fellow has a similar attitude about conspiracies to Axiom!I don't know this fellow well enough to comment more generally, but at least he is not alone in this conspiracy theory. cf Merchants of Doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt):

It identifies parallels between the climate change debate and earlier controversies over tobacco smoking, acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. Oreskes and Conway write that in each case "keeping the controversy alive" by spreading doubt and confusion after a scientific consensus had been reached, was the basic strategy of those opposing action.

I've not read the book yet but heard positive things about it.

Hobbes
19-11-2011, 01:18 PM
IPPC scientists test the Exit doors (http://tinyurl.com/7oyef8r)


This is another big tipping point on the slide out of the Great Global Scam. IPCC scientists — facing the travesty of predictions-gone-wrong — are trying to salvage some face, and plant some escape-clause seeds for later. But people are not stupid.

A conveniently leaked IPCC draft is testing the ground. What excuses can they get away with? Hidden underneath some pat lines about how anthropogenic global warming is “likely” to influence… ah cold days and warm days, is the get-out-of-jail clause that’s really a bombshell:


“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability."

Translated: The natural climate forces are stronger than we thought, and we give up, we can’t say whether it will get warmer or colder in the next twenty years.

This multipurpose prediction means that in the future, if it’s colder, they’re right; if it’s warmer, they’re right; and they have it covered for more or less storms, floods, droughts, blizzards and frost too.

Patrick Byrom
19-11-2011, 07:55 PM
IPPC scientists test the Exit doors (http://tinyurl.com/7oyef8r)


This is another big tipping point on the slide out of the Great Global Scam. IPCC scientists — facing the travesty of predictions-gone-wrong — are trying to salvage some face, and plant some escape-clause seeds for later. But people are not stupid.

A conveniently leaked IPCC draft is testing the ground. What excuses can they get away with? Hidden underneath some pat lines about how anthropogenic global warming is “likely” to influence… ah cold days and warm days, is the get-out-of-jail clause that’s really a bombshell:


“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability."

Translated: The natural climate forces are stronger than we thought, and we give up, we can’t say whether it will get warmer or colder in the next twenty years.

This multipurpose prediction means that in the future, if it’s colder, they’re right; if it’s warmer, they’re right; and they have it covered for more or less storms, floods, droughts, blizzards and frost too.

You no longer need to rely on Hobbes' report of Jo Nova's report of The Australian's report of a BBC report of a leaked document :eek: - the actual draft report is available: http://ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ipcc34/SREX_FD_SPM_final.pdf.

It has a small, but significant, change in the sentence reported above (my italics): "Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame [the coming two to three decades] is uncertain."

Of course, not being able to accurately predict climate extremes doesn't mean that scientists don't know if 'it will get warmer or colder in the next twenty years':


It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur in the 21st century on the global scale.

antichrist
20-11-2011, 01:35 PM
It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur in the 21st century on the global scale

AC
if that is the case then it is simple, lesser cold winters means bugs galores in the vegatable and fruit growing crops, which could mean less food in the markets and/or a multitude of extra chemicals to control such bugs

Ian Murray
20-11-2011, 11:14 PM
You no longer need to rely on Hobbes' report of Jo Nova's report of The Australian's report of a BBC report of a leaked document :eek: - the actual draft report is available: http://ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ipcc34/SREX_FD_SPM_final.pdf.

It has a small, but significant, change in the sentence reported above (my italics): "Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame [the coming two to three decades] is uncertain."

Of course, not being able to accurately predict climate extremes doesn't mean that scientists don't know if 'it will get warmer or colder in the next twenty years':
The 20-30 year window under examination is a miniscule period in terms of climate change. All IPCC GHG scenarios forecast a temperature rise of around 1oC in that time frame. The cumulative effects from then through to 2100 then get scary (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futuretc.html)

To put the time frame into perspective, the last global warming extinction event, the Permian event 250 million years ago which wiped out 90% of marine life and 70% of land-based life, lasted 200,000 years, with extinctions spread over 20,000 years.

antichrist
20-11-2011, 11:22 PM
The 20-30 year window under examination is a miniscule period in terms of climate change. All IPCC GHG scenarios forecast a temperature rise of around 1oC in that time frame. The cumulative effects from then through to 2100 then get scary (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futuretc.html)

To put the time frame into perspective, the last global warming extinction event, the Permian event 250 million years ago which wiped out 90% of marine life and 70% of land-based life, lasted 200,000 years, with extinctions spread over 20,000 years.

and what was the temp difference?

Ian Murray
21-11-2011, 08:28 AM
and what was the temp difference?
Atmospheric in higher latitudes +10C to +30C
Ocean +8C
Atmospheric CO2 +2000ppm

antichrist
21-11-2011, 02:19 PM
Atmospheric in higher latitudes +10C to +30C
Ocean +8C
Atmospheric CO2 +2000ppm

from your link:
Temperature Change Projections

Due to uncertainties about future emissions and concentrations of greenhouse gases, their net warming effect in the atmosphere, and the response of the climate system, estimates of future temperature change are uncertain. With these caveats in mind, the IPCC made the following projections of future warming (IPCC, 2007):

The average surface temperature of the Earth is likely to increase by 2 to 11.5°F (1.1-6.4°C) by the end of the 21st century, relative to 1980-1990, with a best estimate of 3.2 to 7.2°F (1.8-4.0°C) (see Figure 1). The average rate of warming over each inhabited continent is very likely to be at least twice as large as that experienced during the 20th century.

The red is the vital part, we can already see the ice caps melting, with more temp rise snowy mountains will disappear a lot earlier resulting in permanent rivers becoming only temporary - massive upheaval in most of Asia.
All Indo-China will devastrated. Tens or hundreds of millions will be uprooted and maybe over time just die out as they cannot be supported. This will result in wars over resources just as in the Middle East with Israel versus the Arab countries. (mods I am requesting permission for this last sentence)

Capablanca-Fan
28-11-2011, 02:02 PM
Gillard’s tax now more than double Europe’s as carbon trading crashes (http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/gillarads_tax_now_more_than_double_europes_as_carb on_trading_crashes/)
Andrew Bolt, 27 Nov 2011

Julia Gillard will next year impose a carbon dioxide tax of $23 a tonne. Meanwhile, the price on the only vaguely comparable national scheme has plummted to less than half that price:


European Union carbon permits and U.N.-backed credits collapsed to record lows (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=PNXCSPT2:IND) on Thursday, extending this week’s sharp price slide as fears of a slowing economy sapped demand in the markets that are heavily supplied with emissions units.

It was also a signal that market participants are losing confidence in the flagging EU carbon market, the world’s biggest cap-trade scheme, traders and analysts said…

Front-year carbon permits called EU Allowances (EUAs) closed 6.6 percent lower at 7.91 euros ($10.54) a tonne (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/24/us-carbon-price-record-low-idUSTRE7AN0UJ20111124), after touching an all-time low of 7.80 euros earlier.

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2011, 05:55 AM
Our carbon tax future has started (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/our-carbon-tax-future-has-started/story-e6frfig6-1226188102426?sv=a0a1a07dd623e3105b546c4c2c0c18ac)
by: Terry McCrann
Herald Sun, November 08, 2011

THE $1 billion chemical plant, $10 billion-plus of future exports, and 150-plus high-skilled jobs that will be killed by Julia Gillard and Bob Brown's carbon tax are just its first victims.

There will be many, many more -- as the plants and jobs go off to China, our direct competitor Canada which has walked away from a carbon tax, and anywhere but Australia.

But those obvious losses will be only a small part of the pointless cost of the tax. We will all be victims, every single Australian, as we will all suffer from Gillard and Brown's shared determination to take us back to the 19th century.

Well actually, that's Brown's determination. He makes no secret of his desire to turn off the 20th century lights, figuratively speaking.



As I've written before, you could close Australia down completely, presumably shipping most of us to some foreign 'home,' reducing our carbon dioxide emissions all the way to zero, and it would make not the slightest difference to the world's climate future.

Right now we emit around 600 million tonnes of CO2 a year. Have a guess how much China increased its emissions in 2010?

Just under 700 million tonnes. And almost certainly the same again this year. And it'll be the same next year.

Just let that sink in. In just one year, China increased its CO2 emissions by more than our ENTIRE EMISSIONS.

And we of course are not intending to cut our emissions anywhere close to zero, or even significantly.

At least we can be grateful that Gillard drew the line at the 19th century, declining to take us all the way back to a pre-1788 future.

We are aimed at cutting our emissions by just 5 per cent by 2020. As against China increasing its emissions by at least 1000 per cent of our total by 2020.



But a futility that will directly hurt every single Australian, as the story we exclusively reported yesterday of the now no-longer proposed $1 billion Coogee methanol plant so exactly captured.

Coogee said the carbon tax made it uncompetitive and unviable. Further and even more pointedly, Coogee's chairman Gordon Martin explained how the equivalent plant in China produced four times the CO2 emissions.

This was because they were coal-based while Coogee's existing plant at Laverton and the planned expansion would both use natural gas.

So not only do we fail to get any real cuts. The plant just gets built in China. But by driving it to China we increase emissions fourfold.

And last year, according to Martin, China built eleven of these plants.

Did I say a definition of futility? Add, almost unimaginable stupidity.


Rincewind
30-11-2011, 10:25 AM
Last decade equals warmest on record: UN (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-29/past-15-years-warmest3a-un/3702564)

Thirteen of the warmest years recorded have occurred within the last decade and a half, the United Nations' World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said.

Hobbes
30-11-2011, 10:46 AM
Lots of good stuff here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/).

Rincewind
30-11-2011, 11:22 AM
My favourite piece by Anthony Watts is

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/06/briggs-on-berkeleys-best-plus-my-thoughts-from-my-visit-there/

About Richard Muller's BEST analysis...


And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise.

- Anthony Watts, 6 March, 2011

Hobbes
30-11-2011, 12:07 PM
Last decade equals warmest on record: UN (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-29/past-15-years-warmest3a-un/3702564)

Thirteen of the warmest years recorded have occurred within the last decade and a half, the United Nations' World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said.

More Met Office Spin About Annual Temperatures (In Time for Durban) (http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4449-more-met-office-spin-about-annual-temperatures-in-time-for-durban.html)

Rincewind
30-11-2011, 01:26 PM
More Met Office Spin About Annual Temperatures (In Time for Durban) (http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4449-more-met-office-spin-about-annual-temperatures-in-time-for-durban.html)

I haven't looked all that closely at this article but it seems to be a whine about the UK Meteorological Office and not the World Meteorological Organisation, who were the original source of the report in the story at the ABC.

Rincewind
30-11-2011, 01:43 PM
This was also reported in the popular media recently...

Scientists sound alarm over Southern Ocean warming (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-29/southern-ocean-waters-warming/3700532)

New research shows the Southern Ocean is storing more heat than any other ocean in the world.

Desmond
08-12-2011, 12:27 PM
My favourite piece by Anthony Watts is

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/06/briggs-on-berkeleys-best-plus-my-thoughts-from-my-visit-there/

About Richard Muller's BEST analysis...


And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise.

- Anthony Watts, 6 March, 2011Watts' site is pretty badly biased, despite what he claims.

Rincewind
08-12-2011, 02:22 PM
Watts' site is pretty badly biased, despite what he claims.

I'm not familiar with all of the material on his site but my impression is that he seems to make some careful measurements. However he is too wedded to his hypothesis to listen to what the data is saying.

Ian Murray
08-12-2011, 08:55 PM
Solar Power Much Cheaper to Produce Than Most Analysts Realize, Study Finds (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111207132916.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop _environment+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+News+--+Top+Environment%29)

..."Many analysts project a higher cost for solar photovoltaic energy because they don't consider recent technological advancements and price reductions," says Joshua Pearce, Adjunct Professor, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering. "Older models for determining solar photovoltaic energy costs are too conservative."

Dr. Pearce believes solar photovoltaic systems are near the "tipping point" where they can produce energy for about the same price other traditional sources of energy....

Hobbes
12-12-2011, 08:30 AM
Quote:
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

I'm putting this up here so we can come back to this thread in 5-6 years and see who is looking like being right.

Just bumping post 1284 (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=258120&postcount=1284)

Hobbes
12-12-2011, 08:32 AM
Professor Bunyip linked to this article (http://www.theage.com.au/national/its-not-drought-its-climate-change-say-scientists-20090829-f3cd.html):


August 30, 2009

SCIENTISTS studying Victoria's crippling drought have, for the first time, proved the link between rising levels of greenhouse gases and the state's dramatic decline in rainfall.

A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change.


Oops!

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2011, 04:33 PM
The Deceit at Durban
Senator Cory Bernardi

The Green Labor left and the profiteers of climate change catastrophe have been hailing their most recent international junket as an outstanding success.

In reality, the Durban gathering of the carbon dioxide fear mongers was a spectacular failure but that won’t stop the true believers from trying to justify their futile crusade against climate change.



The ‘success’ of Durban is an agreement to negotiate by 2015 whether to reach an agreement by 2020 about emissions reduction. This is a sure sign that there will be no international action on carbon dioxide emissions under a government led by Julia Gillard.

But that hasn’t stopped her team from signing up to an international ‘Carbon Fund’ run by unelected bureaucrats allocating taxpayers’ money to those it determines are the climate change oppressed. At a time when our government continues to borrow in excess of $100 million every single day, we will now be mortgaging the future of the next generation so we can send billions of dollars to some contrived overseas organisation. Given the track record of rorts and waste in the climate change space, one can hardly be optimistic about how this money will be utilised.

Hobbes
23-12-2011, 09:37 AM
This article is from the SMH, would you believe! (Perhaps the reporter will have to attend counselling sessions and re-education camp!)

Dam level hits 10-year high (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/dam-level-hits-10year-high-20111223-1p7rk.html)


Warragamba Dam levels have exceeded 80 per cent for the first time in nearly 10 years.

...

In April 2005, when the dam was at little more than 40 per cent of its capacity, the environmentalist Tim Flannery said it might be in terminal decline. It had only two years' supply.

...

Debbie Low, a spokeswoman for the Sydney Catchment Authority, says dam levels are typically affected by factors such as consistency of rainfall, soil moisture and evaporation caused by summer heat.

But they are also affected by political decisions and have political consequences.

Water had previously been transferred to Warragamba from the full Tallowa dam on the upper Shoalhaven River.

But the previous state Labor government cut off these transfers in 2008 and imposed a three-year moratorium. Excess water from Tallowa was instead diverted to surrounding rivers, which flowed into the sea. Transfers were resumed briefly in September but have since been cut off.

Had the transfers continued over this period, Warragamba would be close to full, according to projections obtained by the Herald.

...

Rincewind
23-12-2011, 11:36 AM
This article is from the SMH, would you believe! (Perhaps the reporter will have to attend counselling sessions and re-education camp!)

Dam level hits 10-year high (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/dam-level-hits-10year-high-20111223-1p7rk.html)


Warragamba Dam levels have exceeded 80 per cent for the first time in nearly 10 years.

...

In April 2005, when the dam was at little more than 40 per cent of its capacity, the environmentalist Tim Flannery said it might be in terminal decline. It had only two years' supply.

...

Debbie Low, a spokeswoman for the Sydney Catchment Authority, says dam levels are typically affected by factors such as consistency of rainfall, soil moisture and evaporation caused by summer heat.

But they are also affected by political decisions and have political consequences.

Water had previously been transferred to Warragamba from the full Tallowa dam on the upper Shoalhaven River.

But the previous state Labor government cut off these transfers in 2008 and imposed a three-year moratorium. Excess water from Tallowa was instead diverted to surrounding rivers, which flowed into the sea. Transfers were resumed briefly in September but have since been cut off.

Had the transfers continued over this period, Warragamba would be close to full, according to projections obtained by the Herald.

...




Is there a reason the Shoalhaven river systems should have to suffer because Sydney's population growth has outstripped the investment in infrastructure?

Ian Murray
23-12-2011, 07:46 PM
Is there a reason the Shoalhaven river systems should have to suffer because Sydney's population growth has outstripped the investment in infrastructure?
Au contraire, the Sydney Catchment Authorit (http://www.sca.nsw.gov.au/publications/awqmr08/stream/streamvari/talldam)y is required to release environmental flows and to release water to meet the needs of Shoalhaven City Council.

Rincewind
23-12-2011, 10:14 PM
Au contraire, the Sydney Catchment Authorit (http://www.sca.nsw.gov.au/publications/awqmr08/stream/streamvari/talldam)y is required to release environmental flows and to release water to meet the needs of Shoalhaven City Council.

Yes as it should. However if Tallowa water is continually pumped up to Warragamba these releases would be more difficult to sustain. It seemed the reporter in previous article was trying to invoke outrage at water "flowing into the sea". However there are a lot of estuarine habitats which require such flows to survive.

Capablanca-Fan
07-02-2012, 02:57 PM
A chance for David Cameron to end the climate change madness (http://melaniephillips.com/a-chance-for-david-cameron-to-end-the-climate-change-madness)
Melanie Phillips
Daily Mail, 6 February 2012


For there is no scientific basis whatever for the climate change alarmism that is behind the whole carbon reduction obsession.

The theory of man-made global warming is nothing other than a scam based on dodgy computer modelling, misrepresentation of scientific evidence and outright frauds.

For the past ten years there has been no warming of the climate. It was warmer back in the Middle Ages. Hundreds of climate?related scientists, among them some of the most distinguished in their fields, have been saying for years that the theory is simply nonsensical.

Only recently yet another batch of 16 scientists, including such luminaries as Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and Henk Tennekes, former director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Service, signed a statement that ‘there’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonise” the world’s economy’.

Yet British households and industries are being sacrificed on the altar of this false religion.

Rincewind
07-02-2012, 04:37 PM
William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology

Is this claim true? I thought Kininmonth was the head of the National Climate Centre which is the service arm of the Bureau and therefore would not be "head of climate research".

Certainly if you read his bio at the end of his report Unmasking “An Inconvenient Truth” (Feb 2007) it says


He was an employee of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology for 38 years and for 12 years was head of its National Climate Centre.

Now that doesn't contradict Phillips claim but it is odd for Kininmonth himself not to mention it in his bio as it would be a more relevant to the substance of the report than being head of the NCC.

Desmond
13-02-2012, 05:31 PM
JJSA0iZ_xeA

Capablanca-Fan
19-02-2012, 01:25 PM
:lol: :lol:

antichrist
19-02-2012, 01:43 PM
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108237

Thatcher gave excellent accepting danger of global warming and other ecological dangers
-----------------------------------------------------------

1990 Nov 6 Tu
Margaret Thatcher
Speech at 2nd World Climate Conference
Document type: public statement

Themes: Environment, Foreign policy (International organisations), Foreign policy (Middle East), Science and technology, Energy, Foreign policy (development, aid, etc)
[INTRODUCTION]

Mr. Chairman, Your [King Hussein ] Majesty of Jordan, President Koller, Distinguished Colleagues, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
May I begin by thanking Heads of Agencies and Organisations for sponsoring this Second World Climate Conference, and indeed all those connected with it. It is a most important event for all our countries and I wish you success in your endeavours.
Mr. Chairman, since the last World War, our world has faced many challenges, none more vital than that of defending our liberty and keeping the peace. Gradually and painstakingly we have built up the habit of international cooperation, above all through the United Nations. The extent of our success can be seen in the Gulf, where the nations of the world have shown unprecedented unity in condemning Iraq's invasion and taking the measures necessary to reverse it.
But the threat to our world comes not only from tyrants and their tanks. It can be more insidious though less visible. The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations.
Our ability to come together to stop or limit damage to the world's environment will be perhaps the greatest test of how far we can act as a world community. No-one should under-estimate the imagination that will be required, nor the scientific effort, nor the unprecedented co-operation we shall have to show. We shall need statesmanship of a rare order. It's because we know that, that we are here today.
[MAN AND NATURE: OUT OF BALANCE]

For two centuries, since the Age of the Enlightenment, we assumed that whatever the advance of science, whatever the economic development, whatever the increase in human numbers, the world would go on much the same. That was progress. And that was what we wanted.
Now we know that this is no longer true.
We have become more and more aware of the growing imbalance between our species and other species, between population and resources, between humankind and the natural order of which we are part.
In recent years, we have been playing with the conditions of the life we know on the surface of our planet. We have cared too little for our seas, our forests and our land. We have treated the air and the oceans like a dustbin. We have come to realise that man's activities and numbers threaten to upset the biological balance which we have taken for granted and on which human life depends.
We must remember our duty to Nature before it is too late. That duty is constant. It is never completed. It lives on as we breathe. It endures as we eat and sleep, work and rest, as we are born and as we pass away. The duty to Nature will remain long after our own endeavours have brought peace to the Middle East. It will weigh on our shoulders for as long as we wish to dwell on a living and thriving planet, and hand it on to our children and theirs.[fo 1]
[THE IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH]

I want to pay tribute to the important work which the United Nations has done to advance our understanding of climate change, and in particular the risks of global warming. Dr. Tolba and Professor Obasi deserve our particular thanks for their far-sighted initiative in establishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The IPCC report is a remarkable achievement. It is almost as difficult to get a large number of distinguished scientists to agree, as it is to get agreement from a group of politicians. As a scientist who became a politician, I am perhaps particularly qualified to make that observation! I know both worlds.
Of course, much more research is needed. We don't yet know all the answers. Some major uncertainties and doubts remain. No-one can yet say with certainty that it is human activities which have caused the apparent increase in global average temperatures. The IPCC report is very careful on this point. For instance, the total amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere each year from natural sources is some 600 billion tonnes, while the figure resulting from human activities is only 26 billion tonnes. In relative terms that is not very significant. Equally we know that the increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere date from the start of the industrial revolution. And we know that those concentrations will continue to rise if we fail to act.
Nor do we know with any precision the extent of the likely warming in the next century, nor what the regional effects will be, and we can't be sure of the role of the clouds.
There is a continuing mystery about how atmospheric carbon, including the small extra contribution from human sources, continuing mystery about how that is being absorbed: is most of it going into the ocean, as used to be thought? Or is it being increasingly absorbed by trees or plants, of soils, especially in the northern hemisphere? These are questions that need answers, sooner rather than later.
Global climate change within limits need not by itself pose serious problems—our globe has after all seen a great deal of climate change over the centuries. And it's notable that the blue-green algae which dominated the Precambrian period at the dawn of life are still major components of the marine phytoplankton today. Despite the climate changes of many millions of years, these microbes have persisted on earth virtually unchanged, pumping out life-giving oxygen into the atmosphere and mopping up carbon dioxide.
The real dangers arise because climate change is combined with other problems of our age: for instance the population explosion; — the deterioration of soil fertility; — increasing pollution of the sea; — intensive use of fossil fuel; — and destruction of the world's forests, particularly those in the tropics.[fo 2]
Britain will continue to play a leading role in trying to answer the remaining questions, and to advance our state of knowledge of climate change. This year, we have established in Britain the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research for this purpose. We need to improve in particular our understanding of the effect of the oceans on our weather, improve too our capability to model climate change. I have seen for myself the outstanding work being done on both these subjects at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.
We must also make sure that research is carefully targeted. Too many people can do the same thing, and at the same time vital problems can be neglected. The task of global observation is immense. It will require a coordinated effort more ambitious than any attempted before, as the meeting of scientists and experts last week recognised.
[THE NEED FOR PRECAUTIONARY ACTION]

But the need for more research should not be an excuse for delaying much needed action now. There is already a clear case for precautionary action at an international level. The IPCC tells us that we can't repair the effects of past behaviour on our atmosphere as quickly and as easily as we might cleanse a stream or river. It will take, for example, until the second half of the next century, until the old age of my [ Michael Thatcher] grandson, to repair the damage to the ozone layer above the Antarctic. And some of the gases we are adding to the global heat trap will endure in the Earth's atmosphere for just as long.
The IPCC tells us that, on present trends, the earth will warm up faster than at any time since the last ice age. Weather patterns could change so that what is now wet would become dry, and what is now dry would become wet. Rising seas could threaten the livelihood of that substantial part of the world's population which lives on or near coasts. The character and behaviour of plants would change, some for the better, some for worse. Some species of animals and plants would migrate to different zones or disappear for ever. Forests would die or move. And deserts would advance as green fields retreated.
Many of the precautionary actions that we need to take would be sensible in any event. It is sensible to improve energy efficiency and use energy prudently; it's sensible to develop alternative and sustainable and sensible ... it's sensible to improve energy efficiency and to develop alternative and sustainable sources of supply; it's sensible to replant the forests which we consume; it's sensible to re-examine industrial processes; it's sensible to tackle the problem of waste. I understand that the latest vogue is to call them ‘no regrets’ policies. Certainly we should have none in putting them into effect.
And our uncertainties about climate change are not all in one direction. The IPCC report is very honest about the margins of error. Climate change may be less than predicted. But equally it may occur more quickly than the present computer models suggest. Should this happen it would be doubly disastrous were we to shirk the challenge now. I see the adoption of these policies as a sort of premium on insurance against fire, flood or other disaster. It may be cheaper or more cost-effective to take action now than to wait and find we have to pay much more later.[fo 3]
[THE NEED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DIPLOMACY]

We are all aware of the immense challenge. The enormity of the task is not a matter for pessimism. The problems which science has created science can solve, provided we heed its lessons. Moreover, we have already established a structure of international co-operation on the environment to deal with ozone depletion, as some speakers have already mentioned. For the first time ever, rich and poor nations alike set out together to save our planet from a serious danger, and this painstaking work culminated in the historic agreement reached in London this year. That agreement is a real beacon of hope for the future.
The main focus in London was on protecting the ozone layer. But the agreement will have other consequences. We should not forget that CFCs are 10,000 times more powerful, molecule for molecule, than carbon dioxide as agents of global warming. But of the other greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is by far the most extensive and contributes about half of the manmade greenhouse warming. All our countries produce it. The latest figures which I have seen show that 26 per cent comes from North America, 22 per cent from the rest of the oeCD, 26 per cent from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and 26 per cent from the less developed countries.
These figures underline why a joint international effort to curb greenhouse gases in general and carbon dioxide in particular is so important. There is little point in action to reduce the amounts being put into the atmosphere in one part of the world, if they are promptly increased in another. Within this framework the United Kingdom is prepared, as part of an international effort including other leading countries, to set itself the demanding target of bringing carbon dioxide emissions back to this year's level by the year 2005. That will mean reversing a rising trend before that date.
The European Community has also reached a very good agreement to stabilise emissions. I hope that Europe's example will help the task of securing world-wide agreement.
Targets on their own are not enough. They have to be achievable. Promises are easy. Action is more difficult. For our part, we have worked out a strategy which sets us on the road to achieving the target. We propose ambitious programmes both to promote energy efficiency and to encourage the use of cleaner fuels.
We now require, by law, that a substantial proportion of our electricity comes from sources which emit little or no carbon dioxide, and that includes a continuing important contribution from nuclear energy.
Such measures as these—which increasing numbers of countries are adopting—should be seen as part of the premium on that insurance policy which I mentioned. They buy us protection against the hazards of the future: but they also pay dividends even though the gloomier predictions about global warming are not fulfilled—they pay dividends such as less air pollution, lowered acid rain, and reduced energy costs.[fo 4]
Mr. Chairman, people may disagree about the effects of increased man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But everyone agrees that we should keep in healthy condition the forests and seas which absorb a large part of it here on earth. We would be wise to do that for other reasons too: for the beauty of the forests and the infinite variety of species which inhabit them, and to preserve the food chain and the balance of nature in the sea.
That's why we want to contribute to conserving the world's forests, and to planting new ones. Trees help to reduce global warming. We intend to plant more at home, and we have just announced our plans to replant one of the ancient forests of England—destroyed in an earlier phase of our history.
We shall offer our expertise and aid funds to help plant and manage forests elsewhere in the world, particularly in tropical countries. It was a year ago that I told the United Nations General Assembly that the United Kingdom would aim to increase its funds for tropical forestry by £100m. We now have 150 projects underway in more than 30 countries.
Our aim is to give the people in those countries a better standard of living by conserving and using the forests than by cutting them down.
[THE NEED FOR A GLOBAL CONVENTION]

But our immediate task this week is to carry as many countries as possible with us, so that we can negotiate a successful framework convention on climate change in 1992. We must also begin work on the binding commitments that will be necessary to make the convention work.
To accomplish these tasks, we must not waste time and energy disputing the IPCC's report or debating the right machinery for making progress. The International Panel's work should be taken as our sign post: and the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organisation as the principal vehicles for reaching our destination.
We shan't succeed if we are all too inflexible. We shan't succeed if we indulge in selfrighteous point-scoring for the benefit of audiences and voters at home. We have to work sympathetically together. We have to recognise the importance of economic growth of a kind that benefits future as well as present generations everywhere. We need it not only to raise living standards but to generate the wealth required to pay for protection of the environment.
It would be absurd to adopt polices which would bankrupt the industrial nations, or doom the poorer countries to increasing poverty. We have to recognise the widely differing circumstances facing individual countries, with the better-off assisting the poorer ones as we agreed to do under the Montreal Protocol.
The differences can't be drafted away in that famous phrase so beloved of diplomats "a form of words". They need to be resolved by tolerant and sympathetic understanding of our various positions. Some of us use energy more efficiently than[fo 5] others. Some are less dependent on fossil fuels. We each have our own economic characteristics, resources, plans and hopes for the future. These are the realities that we must face if we are to move forward towards a successful conclusion to our negotiations in 1992.
Just as philosophies, religions and ideals know no boundaries, so the protection of our planet itself involves rich and poor, North and South, East and West. All of us have to play our part if we are to succeed. And succeed we must for the sake of this and future generations.
One of our great poets, George Herbert, in his poem on "Man" wrote this:
"Man is all symmetry
,
Full of proportions, one limb to another, And all to all the world besides;
Each part may call the farthest, brother; For head with foot hath private amity
,
And both with moons and tides."
We are, as the poet said, in symmetry with nature. To keep that precious balance, we need to work together for our environment. The United Kingdom will work with all of you and all the world besides in this cause—to save our common inheritance for generations yet to come. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Desmond
04-03-2012, 07:54 PM
Evolution advocate turns to climate (http://www.nature.com/news/evolution-advocate-turns-to-climate-1.9811)


...National Center for Science Education (NCSE) [is] an organization based in Oakland, California, with a reputation for doggedly defending the teaching of evolution in US classrooms. But a growing impression that climate science is facing a similar struggle, together with entreaties from educators and textbook authors, has helped to convince [Eugenie Scott, Director] that the NCSE should expand its mandate to include the politically charged issue of global warming.
...
In a 16 January announcement, the NCSE says that it will offer support to educators facing ideological opposition when teaching climate change, providing advice on how to present the underlying science. The strategy mirrors its approach to evolution, which includes clarifying for students why science is an appropriate tool for understanding the natural world. “This perspective is also important in helping people to understand the reasons why scientists overwhelmingly accept climate change,” the NCSE says in a mission statement describing the new effort.
...
Scott acknowledges that there is more to teaching climate change than explaining the science clearly. “We need to be aware of the fact that people are very emotionally concerned about these issues,” she says. If people feel threatened ideologically, politically or economically, “all the science in the world won’t convince them”.
...


For those who realize the intellectually vacant position that is Creationism, yet think that the jury is still out on climate science, you may find this article of interest.

antichrist
04-03-2012, 11:43 PM
Evolution advocate turns to climate (http://www.nature.com/news/evolution-advocate-turns-to-climate-1.9811)


...National Center for Science Education (NCSE) [is] an organization based in Oakland, California, with a reputation for doggedly defending the teaching of evolution in US classrooms. But a growing impression that climate science is facing a similar struggle, together with entreaties from educators and textbook authors, has helped to convince [Eugenie Scott, Director] that the NCSE should expand its mandate to include the politically charged issue of global warming.
...
In a 16 January announcement, the NCSE says that it will offer support to educators facing ideological opposition when teaching climate change, providing advice on how to present the underlying science. The strategy mirrors its approach to evolution, which includes clarifying for students why science is an appropriate tool for understanding the natural world. “This perspective is also important in helping people to understand the reasons why scientists overwhelmingly accept climate change,” the NCSE says in a mission statement describing the new effort.
...
Scott acknowledges that there is more to teaching climate change than explaining the science clearly. “We need to be aware of the fact that people are very emotionally concerned about these issues,” she says. If people feel threatened ideologically, politically or economically, “all the science in the world won’t convince them”.
...

.

what the article fails to point you wont convince them either if you expect them to get off their fat backsides and ride a pushbike. That is the part that the authorities is even too afraid to mention

Desmond
05-03-2012, 08:25 AM
what the article fails to point you wont convince them either if you expect them to get off their fat backsides and ride a pushbike. That is the part that the authorities is even too afraid to mention
As stated in the article, the NCSE does not take a position on what, if anything, should be done. Only to enable the teaching of the science.

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2012, 07:37 AM
For those who realize the intellectually vacant position that is Creationism, yet think that the jury is still out on climate science, you may find this article of interest.
That atheopathic anthropologist Eugenie Scott is just as out of her depth scientifically in this field as well. She is a leftist political activist, plain and simple.

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2012, 07:38 AM
THE WARMISTS’ STRAW MAN: “WE NEVER SAID IT WOULDN’T RAIN” (http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/the_warmists_straw_man_we_never_said_it_wouldnt_ra in/)
Andrew Bolt
Monday, March 05, 2012 at 05:42pm

Is the gullible Anthony Sharwood saying Tim Flannery isn’t credible (http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-frogs-are-croaking-but-dont-blame-climate-change/?from=scroller&pos=4&referrer=article&link=text)? And why does he falsely claim that the criticism of alarmist scientist is that they said it “would never rain again”? What a ludicrous and deceptive exaggeration. …

Sharwood huffs and puffs in indignation about an accusation that was never made - that scientists claimed “it would never rain again”. This is a red herring.

I suspect Sharwood knows that the real accusation is crucially different: that some prominent warmists claimed global warming was indeed bringing less rain, the drought could be permanent and our dams could or would run out of water. What’s more, Braganza is wrong, and some of those alarmists came from the Bureau of Meteorology.

A sample:

Greens leader Bob Brown in 2006:


From melting polar ice to the spectre of permanent drought in previously productive farmlands, the (World Meteorological Bureau’s) report makes clear that climate change is not just a future threat, it is damaging Australia now.

Brown in 2008:


Already, (Rudd government adviser Ross Garnaut’s) daunting data of a 10 per cent chance of no flow at all in the Murray-Darling river system in future years is being overtaken by data indicating that drought is the new norm across Australia’s greatest food bowl.

antichrist
08-03-2012, 03:06 PM
I am mysterified why Jono does not also call Maggie Thatcher all sorts of derogatory adjectives for her climate change stance?

Ian Murray
08-03-2012, 06:44 PM
I am mysterified why Jono does not also call Maggie Thatcher all sorts of derogatory adjectives for her climate change stance?
He's probably still working on a derogatory corruption of Thatcher, a la Obamov.

pax
09-03-2012, 01:20 AM
He's probably still working on a derogatory corruption of Thatcher, a la Obamov.
Oh but she's a conservative. Different standards apply to them. Even if they are all really communists too.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-03-2012, 01:20 PM
Looks like proponents of global warming faith can't tolerate competing religions.:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

Rincewind
09-03-2012, 01:24 PM
Looks like proponents of global warming faith can't tolerate competing religions.:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

You should remember that emoticons are no substitute for content.

Desmond
09-03-2012, 11:01 PM
Looks like proponents of global warming faith can't tolerate competing religions.:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:
Looks like we can add the terms "faith" and "religion" to the ever growing list of things Igor doesn't understand.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-03-2012, 08:51 PM
Looks like we can add the terms "faith" and "religion" to the ever growing list of things Igor doesn't understand.

Personal attacks (while hiding by nickname) is not the best example of online etiquette.
Anyway, "belief that is not based on proof" (one of the definitions of "faith"), or "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (one of the definitions of religions) is a pretty good description for many global warming alarmists.

Rincewind
10-03-2012, 11:20 PM
Anyway, "belief that is not based on proof" (one of the definitions of "faith"), or "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (one of the definitions of religions) is a pretty good description for many global warming alarmists.

I agree there exists global warming alarmism that is not grounded in science but I would not call that a faith (although that may be splitting hairs) but it is certainly not a religion. By the same token financially or ideological global warming denialism is also something I would not call a faith and is certainly not a religion as well.

Scientifically supported global warming however is the antithesis of faith and religion.

Desmond
11-03-2012, 08:54 AM
Personal attacks (while hiding by nickname) is not the best example of online etiquette. I'm not hiding at all, and I think most posters here who are interested enough to know, do. But if you're too stupid to work it out, try asking nicely and I might tell you. Hang on, didn't I personally introduce myself to you a few years back.


Anyway, "belief that is not based on proof" (one of the definitions of "faith"), or "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (one of the definitions of religions) is a pretty good description for many global warming alarmists.Blatant goal-post shifting. From "proponents of global warming" to "many global warming alarmists". As RW pointed out, it is laughable to call a scientific proponent of global warming faith-based. It is the opposite.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-03-2012, 11:15 AM
I'm not hiding at all, and I think most posters here who are interested enough to know, do. But if you're too stupid to work it out, try asking nicely and I might tell you. Hang on, didn't I personally introduce myself to you a few years back.
I have no interest whatsoever to know who you are. Your rude behaviour justifies that lack of interest.

Desmond
11-03-2012, 05:00 PM
I have no interest whatsoever to know who you are. Your rude behaviour justifies that lack of interest.So don't bring it up then if you're not interested, as you did in #2119.

In any event, my #2102 was directed at those who 1) accept that the science of evolution should be taught in schools, and YE creationism should not and 2) think the jury is still out on climate science. If you'd actually like to contribute, you could identify whether that sounds like you or not. IIRC in the past you've tried to be coy with your beliefs but indicated leanings towards YEC, but if you want to clarify be my guest. Or otherwise, don't let the door hit ya...

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2012, 05:38 PM
I am mysterified why Jono does not also call Maggie Thatcher all sorts of derogatory adjectives for her climate change stance?
Because Margaret Thatcher was the first leader to warn of global warming—but also the first to see the flaws in the climate change orthodoxy (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7823477/Was-Margaret-Thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic.html).


It is not widely appreciated, however, that there was a dramatic twist to her story. In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.

She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the "doomsters", she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of "costly and economically damaging" schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind.

In other words, long before it became fashionable, Lady Thatcher was converted to the view of those who, on both scientific and political grounds, are profoundly sceptical of the climate change ideology. Alas, what she set in train earlier continues to exercise its baleful influence to this day. But the fact that she became one of the first and most prominent of "climate sceptics" has been almost entirely buried from view.

Rincewind
11-03-2012, 06:06 PM
By Australian and New Zealand standards.

Oh they are on an Australian best sellers list? Which one?

Igor_Goldenberg
11-03-2012, 08:33 PM
So don't bring it up then if you're not interested, as you did in #2119.
You brought it up in the 2118, I merely called on you being impolite.
BTW, I don't remember anyone introducing himself personally as "road runner". You'd appreciate that I don't have enough free time to follow every online nickname, especially if they change frequently.


In any event, my #2102 was directed at those who 1) accept that the science of evolution should be taught in schools, and YE creationism should not and 2) think the jury is still out on climate science. If you'd actually like to contribute, you could identify whether that sounds like you or not. IIRC in the past you've tried to be coy with your beliefs but indicated leanings towards YEC, but if you want to clarify be my guest. Or otherwise, don't let the door hit ya...
I don't have a leaning towards YEC. As far as my personal believes are concerned, I don't feel a need to discuss them publicly as they are not of interest to anybody and I don't want to force them on anyone who might not share.

Kevin Bonham
12-03-2012, 07:28 PM
Posts moved


That atheopathic anthropologist Eugenie Scott is just as out of her depth scientifically in this field as well. She is a leftist political activist, plain and simple.

Discussions drifting naturally into creation/evolution debate unrelated to climate change, starting with road runner questioning the application of "atheopathic", have been moved over here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=13898). Again this was natural thread drift, nobody's fault.

Desmond
24-03-2012, 01:22 PM
For those chesschatians who favour Watts Up With That as a decent source, I wonder what you make of the Monckton vs Peter Hadfield debate.

I note that WUWT appears to give Monckton a microphone. I am not a regular reader of the site, but when I search it for "Monckton" I get a lot of hits. When I click on the hits, they don't appear to be critiques of him. So I'd say it's fairly friendly home turf for him.

Peter Hadfield, aka youtube's potholer54, started documenting Monckton's mistakes in the below video. There are 5 main videos debunking Monckton starting with that one, so if you're not up to speed on the debate I suggest that's a good place to start.

Throughout the video series you will see Hadfield researching the claims Monckton made in his speeches and finding many errors. Upon pointing out the errors to Monckton, you will see that in later talks Monckton still continues to make the same, shown incorrect, claims.

Towards the end of the fifth video, Hadfield makes a summary of Monckton's errors in point form. It is to this summary that Monckton first replies. Now I get that Monckton was not aware of the whole video series, so he responds to it fairly glibly, saying there is no proof etc. Anyway since then they got into a more serious discussion after Monckton realised that this wasn't just throw away, unsourced criticism. But it appears Monckton has gone AWOL from the debate. Curious.



fbW-aHvjOgM

Some other links:

Hadfield's videos exposing Monckton major errors:
1 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
2 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q
3 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpF48b6Lsbo
4 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3giRaGNTMA
5 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo

Monckton's first attempt at rebutting Hadfield's allegations:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/18/monckton-answers-a-troll/

Monckton's second attempt at rebuttal, along with Hadfield's response:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/monckton-responds-to-potholer54/

Open letter to Monckton asking him to return to the debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCoi94n0aJg

Hobbes
24-03-2012, 05:06 PM
For those chesschatians who favour Watts Up With That as a decent source, I wonder what you make of the Monckton vs Peter Hadfield debate.

I do favour WUWT, though I have never watched a Monckton video, and don't plan to watch any of your links.

When some of the warmist's predictions start coming true I might start believing in their other scares, but so far we have just had 15 or so years of hearing them say "OMG things are worse than we thought!", and each time the massive increases in temperature, sea level, storms, etc, have always failed to materialise.

I also note that WUWT has your favoured site (http://www.skepticalscience.com/) in its list of links in a category of its own: Unreliable (* Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.)

Desmond
24-03-2012, 05:14 PM
I do favour WUWT, though I have never watched a Monckton video, and don't plan to watch any of your links.Pity, since some of the fallacies that follow in your next paragraph are addressed.

Patrick Byrom
24-03-2012, 07:11 PM
I do favour WUWT, though I have never watched a Monckton video, and don't plan to watch any of your links.
When some of the warmist's predictions start coming true I might start believing in their other scares, but so far we have just had 15 or so years of hearing them say "OMG things are worse than we thought!", and each time the massive increases in temperature, sea level, storms, etc, have always failed to materialise.
Arctic ice melt appears to be much worse than predicted - the first animation showing the decline of the oldest (and thickest) ice is quite dramatic: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made-intermediate.htm. I don't recall any 'skeptic' predicting a dramatic decline in Arctic ice.


I also note that WUWT has your favoured site (http://www.skepticalscience.com/) in its list of links in a category of its own: Unreliable (* Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.)
I don't see the problem. Comments (by all sides of the debate) that violate the site's policy are deleted. And what is wrong with revising articles to make them more accurate?

Hobbes
24-03-2012, 07:32 PM
Arctic ice melt appears to be much worse than predicted

You're kidding, right?

Warmists are constantly predicting ice-free Arctic summers, I remember one from just a few years ago predicting that it would be ice-free in 2013.

But... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-2/

Rincewind
24-03-2012, 08:02 PM
Warmists are constantly predicting ice-free Arctic summers, I remember one from just a few years ago predicting that it would be ice-free in 2013.

Who was that?

Desmond
24-03-2012, 08:10 PM
You're kidding, right?

Warmists are constantly predicting ice-free Arctic summers, I remember one from just a few years ago predicting that it would be ice-free in 2013.

But... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-2/Another fallacy explicitly dealt with in the video series you don't want to watch. At first Monckton claims there has been no systematic loss in extent of arctic sea ice. Then eventually he has to concede that there has been.

Patrick Byrom
24-03-2012, 10:18 PM
You're kidding, right?
Warmists are constantly predicting ice-free Arctic summers, I remember one from just a few years ago predicting that it would be ice-free in 2013.

I couldn't find a specific verifiable source for this, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was such a prediction somewhere. I was referring to the prediction made by the IPCC (as the link makes clear).

But if a 'warmist' predicted, in 2008, an ice-free Arctic summer in 2013, and the Arctic becomes virtually ice-free (below 1 million square km at the end of the melting season) by 2016 (which seems likely), isn't that still a very good prediction?

Hobbes
24-03-2012, 10:36 PM
I couldn't find a specific verifiable source for this, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was such a prediction somewhere. I was referring to the prediction made by the IPCC (as the link makes clear).

But if a 'warmist' predicted, in 2008, an ice-free Arctic summer in 2013, and the Arctic becomes virtually ice-free (below 1 million square km at the end of the melting season) by 2016 (which seems likely), isn't that still a very good prediction?

If I predict that something will happen, and I keep doing this, and none of my predictions come true, sure, I can keep making new predictions and move the date out. (Isn't there some crazy religious guy who keeps predicting the end of the world and moving the date out each time?) But to constantly accompany each extension with the words "things are much worse than predicted", how can they do that and keep a straight face?

Patrick Byrom
25-03-2012, 12:23 AM
The Arctic ice minimum for 2013 occurs in Sept 2013, so even the 2013 prediction (which I haven't been able to verify) hasn't been falsified yet, let alone any later predictions.
I don't think the people making the more melodramatic predictions are referring to their own predictions when they claim that "things are much worse than predicted" (if you see what I mean).

Desmond
25-03-2012, 08:52 AM
I also note that WUWT has your favoured site (http://www.skepticalscience.com/) in its list of links in a category of its own: Unreliable (* Due to ... (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.)I was interested to note something that happened on the WUWT page you provided. The one with the article "Sea Ice News Volume 3, #2". In the comment section at the bottom of that page, I found this:

Leif Svalgaard says:
March 18, 2012 at 9:47 am
August 1958, not 1959

REPLY: Yup. typo fixed, thanks – Anthony
Of course having heard your charge Re SS website not long before, I went back into the article to see how Anthony had documented that change in the body of his article. I can't find any such documentation. To my mind that would be an undated, post-publication revision. Sound fair? Maybe he should put his own website in that "Unreliable" category too. :lol:

Hobbes
27-03-2012, 02:45 PM
Problem solved!

(Although I imagine there is a correlation between the anti-GM crowd and the warmist crowd; also, no surprise to learn that Flim Flannery has his snout in the trough here too.)

Anyway, read on about the good news:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/genetically-modified-cows-could-fart-less/story-e6freuyi-1226311393191

Capablanca-Fan
01-04-2012, 12:56 AM
Human Achievement Hour 2012 (http://cei.org/hah)
Saturday, March 31, 2012
8:30 pm – 9:30 pm

From an article last year, Let Your Lights Shine – For the Environment (http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2011/03/26/let-your-lights-shine-%E2%80%93-for-the-environment/) by Bill Muehlenberg:


Environmental activist Bjorn Lomborg explains: … “There is a certain irony in renting brightly lit advertising space to exhort us to save electricity for one hour, but this is apparently lost on the organisers. Dimming the lights is promoted online as a ‘vote for mother Earth’ that will reveal ‘the impact we have on the environment’.

“Actually, the only real result will be to make it harder to see. The environmental effect of the past three annual lights-out hours has been negligible. If everyone in the world participated in this year’s Earth Hour, the result would be the same as turning off China’s carbon emissions for roughly 45 seconds.”

And using candles in this feel good foolishness will just make matters worse: “When we switch off the electricity, many of us turn to candlelight. This seems natural and environmentally friendly, but unfortunately candles are almost 100 times less efficient than incandescent light bulbs and more than 300 times less efficient than fluorescent lights. Using one candle for each extinguished bulb cancels the CO2 reduction; two candles emit more CO2.” …

Bolt: But we’re just trying to get basic facts, without worrying about the consequences – about what those facts may lead people to think. On our own, by cutting our emissions, because it’s a heavy price to pay, by 5 per cent by 2020, what will the world’s temperatures fall by as a consequence?
Flannery: Look, it will be a very, very small increment.
Bolt: Have you got a number? I mean, there must be some numbers.
Flannery: I just need to clarify in terms of the climate context for you. If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.

Did you get that? A thousand years! And that is if we work for major emissions reduction in the years ahead, not just turn off the lousy lights for a paltry hour.

Ian Murray
01-04-2012, 07:03 AM
Flannery: I just need to clarify in terms of the climate context for you. If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.

Did you get that? A thousand years! And that is if we work for major emissions reduction in the years ahead, not just turn off the lousy lights for a paltry hour.[/INDENT]
Bolt misses the point again. The immediate challenge is to slow further global warming and the collateral climate change. Reversing global warming is a long way off.

Desmond
01-04-2012, 08:25 AM
Human Achievement Hour 2012 (http://cei.org/hah)
Saturday, March 31, 2012
8:30 pm – 9:30 pm

From an article last year, Let Your Lights Shine – For the Environment (http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2011/03/26/let-your-lights-shine-%E2%80%93-for-the-environment/) by Bill Muehlenberg:


Environmental activist Bjorn Lomborg explains: … “There is a certain irony in renting brightly lit advertising space to exhort us to save electricity for one hour, but this is apparently lost on the organisers. Dimming the lights is promoted online as a ‘vote for mother Earth’ that will reveal ‘the impact we have on the environment’.I would have thought that the Earth Hour idea was a symbolic way to raise self-awareness of energy usage, rather than an earnest attempt to make a sizable impact of global energy consumption in an hour.



“Actually, the only real result will be to make it harder to see. The environmental effect of the past three annual lights-out hours has been negligible. If everyone in the world participated in this year’s Earth Hour, the result would be the same as turning off China’s carbon emissions for roughly 45 seconds.”Fixing this dripping tap in isolation won't make much difference to the dam levels, so I shouldn't worry about it.



And using candles in this feel good foolishness will just make matters worse: “When we switch off the electricity, many of us turn to candlelight. This seems natural and environmentally friendly, but unfortunately candles are almost 100 times less efficient than incandescent light bulbs and more than 300 times less efficient than fluorescent lights. Using one candle for each extinguished bulb cancels the CO2 reduction; two candles emit more CO2.” …
Dunno about your place, but lights are the least of the worry at my place. I would typically be running 2-3 computers, a TV & DVD, a few fans etc etc. How does that compare with turning all that off and playing cards? Or going to bed early, as I would usually do Eg if there was a blackout, so even the candles go out earlier than the rest otherwise would.

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2012, 03:48 PM
Bolt misses the point again. The immediate challenge is to slow further global warming and the collateral climate change. Reversing global warming is a long way off.
That is the point! All these sacrifices (made by the masses of course) will not make any measurable difference for 1000 years.

Kevin Bonham
02-04-2012, 03:58 PM
That is the point! All these sacrifices (made by the masses of course) will not make any measurable difference for 1000 years.

Not that I have any great amount of time for Flannery, but there's an obvious difference between "will not make any measurable difference" to today's conditions and "will not make any measurable difference" compared to what would happen if nothing was done. Asserting the first is not asserting the latter and is perfectly compatible with arguing that action now is important.

Rincewind
02-04-2012, 03:59 PM
That is the point! All these sacrifices (made by the masses of course) will not make any measurable difference for 1000 years.

Not making any measurable difference is not the same as reversing the trend (i.e. demonstrate a global cooling trend). Very sloppy equivocation.

Patrick Byrom
04-04-2012, 12:11 AM
Bolt: ... On our own, by cutting our emissions, because it’s a heavy price to pay, by 5 per cent by 2020, ...
I wonder if Bolt is aware that the Coalition is also committed to a 5% cut in emissions by 2020?

Hobbes
04-04-2012, 08:59 AM
I wonder if Bolt is aware that the Coalition is also committed to a 5% cut in emissions by 2020?

That is an odd question, I would suggest that Bolt follows Australian politics rather more closely than you do, and has a correspondingly greater knowledge than you about the promises made by both parties. But here is one you can help me with, whichever side of politics is in government making meaningless pie-in-the-sky promises about reductions in future carbon dioxide emissions, do you really believe these reductions will happen? If so, I have a bridge for sale, at a very reasonable price!

Patrick Byrom
04-04-2012, 05:19 PM
That is an odd question, I would suggest that Bolt follows Australian politics rather more closely than you do, and has a correspondingly greater knowledge than you about the promises made by both parties. But here is one you can help me with, whichever side of politics is in government making meaningless pie-in-the-sky promises about reductions in future carbon dioxide emissions, do you really believe these reductions will happen? If so, I have a bridge for sale, at a very reasonable price!
Actually, I'm not sure that Tony Abbott knows what the Coalition policy is!

In response to Flannery's comments above, he said to Parliament (referring to Labour's commitment to cut emissions): It will not make a difference for 1000 years. So he presumably also believes that the reductions proposed by the Coalition won't make a difference for 1000 years either. I wonder why he is proposing them then? :hmm:

But to answer your question, the Labour Government is obviously committed to the reductions, so I expect that they will happen if Labour is re-elected. I'm not so sure what will happen if the Coalition is elected.

Desmond
04-04-2012, 07:11 PM
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/SkepticsvRealists_500.gif

url (http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47)

Capablanca-Fan
05-04-2012, 09:18 AM
Government taxes account for far more of fuel prices than "big oil" profits.

Ian Murray
05-04-2012, 03:51 PM
Government taxes account for far more of fuel prices than "big oil" profits.
Federal gasoline tax is 18.4c/gal. State taxes vary

Capablanca-Fan
06-04-2012, 08:23 AM
Federal gasoline tax is 18.4c/gal. State taxes vary
OK, but even that is over twice the profit.

Ian Murray
06-04-2012, 09:23 AM
OK, but even that is over twice the profit.
The actual profit margin is obscured. The publicised 7c/gal is based on buying, refining and marketing imported crude - the proportion of domestic crude owned by Big Oil is not factored in.

The federal tax is of course a tax on motorists, not on oil companies, intended to pay for roads and road infrastructure.

pax
07-04-2012, 01:37 AM
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/SkepticsvRealists_500.gif

url (http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47)

An excellent visual rebuttal of the tiresome "the world's been cooling since 1998, I mean 2005" arguments.

Hobbes
07-04-2012, 10:50 AM
An excellent visual rebuttal of the tiresome "the world's been cooling since 1998, I mean 2005" arguments.

Sure, a cute graph, but also a straw man, since the point being made by skeptics is that temperature increases at the scale predicted by alarmists simply haven't happened. I have seen plenty of skeptic comments to the effect that there has been no significant warming since 1998. Also plenty of comments to the effect that the temperature has been slowly increasing since the end of the little ice age in the 1850's.

If there are any alarmists who would like to convince skeptics like me, how about digging up the IPCC reports (they started in 1990, so we have a few years of real world data now) over the years, and compare the actual temperatures with the temperatures predicted in these reports. If things are 'far worse than we thought', I would expect actual temperatures to exceed the predictions. OTOH, if the alarmists have made faulty predictions about multiplier effects, and if there is nothing at all to worry about, I would expect temperatures to be much less than predicted.

Who wants to go first?

Ian Murray
07-04-2012, 12:24 PM
Sure, a cute graph, but also a straw man, since the point being made by skeptics is that temperature increases at the scale predicted by alarmists simply haven't happened. I have seen plenty of skeptic comments to the effect that there has been no significant warming since 1998. Also plenty of comments to the effect that the temperature has been slowly increasing since the end of the little ice age in the 1850's.
From records over the last 130 years, there is an obvious upward trend since 1950-1980
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

pax
07-04-2012, 01:13 PM
Sure, a cute graph, but also a straw man

Actually yours is the straw man, since I did not claim it was a rebuttal for all skeptic claims. Only those (and there are many) who would claim that there has been cooling, or no significant warming, since the last peak temperature (1998 and 2005 usually come up, while 2010 is now rather inconvenient to this argument).

Desmond
07-04-2012, 01:16 PM
Sure, a cute graph, but also a straw man, since the point being made by skeptics is that temperature increases at the scale predicted by alarmists simply haven't happened.Firstly, what unmet prediction scale are you referring to? Provide a source.

Secondly, you are simply wrong to lump all skeptics into that category. There are those who would dispute any warming is occurring at all; vis a vis the well know it's been cooling since 1998 2005 line pax refers to. That brand of sketic is demonstrably wrong, but they don't let that stop them.


I have seen plenty of skeptic comments to the effect that there has been no significant warming since 1998.Significant or "statistically significant"? A weasel question often asked is whether demonstrable warming is statistically significant or not, which means something different than a layman's "significant".


Also plenty of comments to the effect that the temperature has been slowly increasing since the end of the little ice age in the 1850's.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm


If there are any alarmists who would like to convince skeptics like me, how about digging up the IPCC reports (they started in 1990, so we have a few years of real world data now) over the years, and compare the actual temperatures with the temperatures predicted in these reports. If things are 'far worse than we thought', I would expect actual temperatures to exceed the predictions. OTOH, if the alarmists have made faulty predictions about multiplier effects, and if there is nothing at all to worry about, I would expect temperatures to be much less than predicted.

Who wants to go first?:lol: So you don't even provide the claim or supposed rebuttal that you want in turn addressed? How about doing some reading yourself.

Rincewind
07-04-2012, 01:23 PM
Sure, a cute graph, but also a straw man,

No it isn't. It perfectly illustrates why arguments of the form "there has been no warming since xxxx" are wrong, and furthermore this exact argument has been advanced by "skeptics".

See for example Bob Carter's piece in The Telegraph (UK) from 2006.

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html)

pax
07-04-2012, 01:46 PM
If there are any alarmists who would like to convince skeptics like me, how about digging up the IPCC reports (they started in 1990, so we have a few years of real world data now) over the years, and compare the actual temperatures with the temperatures predicted in these reports. If things are 'far worse than we thought', I would expect actual temperatures to exceed the predictions. OTOH, if the alarmists have made faulty predictions about multiplier effects, and if there is nothing at all to worry about, I would expect temperatures to be much less than predicted.

Who wants to go first?

How about this (source: 1990 IPCC report):
http://paxmans.net/temp/1990_predictions.jpg

The predicted temperature rise of just under 0.5 degrees from 1990 to 2010 is remarkably accurate.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif

Hobbes
07-04-2012, 05:04 PM
The predicted temperature rise of just under 0.5 degrees from 1990 to 2010 is remarkably accurate.

Thanks for that pax. I appreciate your not taking the remarkably common road runner approach of just sneering at people who don't believe in global warming.

I thought I remembered seeing a series of IPCC-vs-actual graphs, where in every case the forecasts soared way above actual temperatures, however perhaps I am mistaken since I did a search just now but could not find them.

I did find this graph of 1990 vs actual (from June 2011) though:

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208

In your graph, there were 2 predictions depending on the level of carbon dioxide emissions. What were the actual emissions, i.e were they at 1990 levels, or were they even higher (in which case I presume the forecast temperature increases would have been higher still)?

Desmond
07-04-2012, 05:17 PM
Thanks for that pax. I appreciate your not taking the remarkably common road runner approach of just sneering at people who don't believe in global warming.You may read sneering into my post, but it isn't there. I simply ask you to substantiate your case before you ask someone to rebut it.

Desmond
07-04-2012, 08:19 PM
Of interest to a few different recent points of discussion on this thread is this (http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-arctic-sea-ice-extent.html) article. Namely: accuracy of predictions; arctic sea ice extent; credibility of WUWT.


Predicting the annual Arctic sea ice extent minimum has become a bit of a sport, with many varying groups submitting predictions to the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH), for example. Here we'll examine a few such predictions made for the 2010 and 2011 seasons.

In late 2009 and early 2010, Anthony Watts and Steve Goddard predicted a [minimum of] between 5.7 and 5.8 million square km.
...
Steve Goddard later revised his estimate downward, predicting a 5.5 million square km minimum in 2010 on WattsUpWithThat (WUWT) as late as August 22 [2010]. He later revised his prediction down even further to 5.1 million square km less than a month prior to the actual annual minimum, which occurred on 17 September 2010 (though predicting the minimum 3 weeks ahead of time is less than impressive).
...
On 26 July 2010, tamino weighed in with his own prediction ... of 4.78 million km^2.
...
Skeptical Science's own Dikran Marsupial advanced his own after-the-fact prediction of 4.93 million square km for the 2010 minimum
...
That's quite a difference, with climate "skeptics" Watts and Goddard initially predicting a minimum 2010 Arctic sea ice extent of 5.75 million square km and 70% of WUWT readers believing it would exceed the 2009 minimum, vs. tamino's 4.78 million square km prediction with 89% likelihood of not exceeding the 2009 minimum, and Dikran's 4.93 million square km prediction.

So who was right? Not surprisingly, those who used the long-term trend to predict future changes (tamino and Dikran Marsupial). The actual 2010 minimum was 4.81 million square km. Goddard and Watts were wrong by nearly 1 million square km (nearly 20%)
...
Climate "skeptic" Arctic sea ice extent predictions were too optimistic by approximately 20% in both 2010 and 2011
...
2011 is also covered in the article, with similar results to the above.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-04-2012, 08:34 PM
I wonder if Bolt is aware that the Coalition is also committed to a 5% cut in emissions by 2020?
Yes, he is aware and criticised Libs for that.

Capablanca-Fan
10-04-2012, 02:55 AM
Andrew Bolt (http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/invest_21000_in_wind_to_save_4/)
Thursday, April 05, 2012 (12:02am)

Wind power works out to be a tax on stupidity:


As first reported by the Reno Gazette-Journal (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/mar/30/nv-energy-windmill-program-generates-rebates-littl/), one turbine that cost the city $21,000 to install saved the city $4 on its energy bill. Overall, $416,000 worth of turbines have netted the city $2,800 in energy savings.

Capablanca-Fan
10-04-2012, 07:33 AM
The actual profit margin is obscured. The publicised 7c/gal is based on buying, refining and marketing imported crude - the proportion of domestic crude owned by Big Oil is not factored in.
What do you mean? The profit margin is a very low percentage compare to that of many other industries, no matter how you work it out.


The federal tax is of course a tax on motorists, not on oil companies, intended to pay for roads and road infrastructure.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Come on Ian, everyone knows that this just goes into general consolidated revenue. And the point remains: if motorists want someone to blame for high petrol prices, they should blame government taxes far more than the oil company profits.

Desmond
10-04-2012, 08:01 AM
Andrew Bolt (http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/invest_21000_in_wind_to_save_4/)
Thursday, April 05, 2012 (12:02am)

Wind power works out to be a tax on stupidity:


As first reported by the Reno Gazette-Journal (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/mar/30/nv-energy-windmill-program-generates-rebates-littl/), one turbine that cost the city $21,000 to install saved the city $4 on its energy bill. Overall, $416,000 worth of turbines have netted the city $2,800 in energy savings.
From the source article:


The windmills are part of the city’s larger, $20 million renewable energy effort, funded by $4.7 million grants and rebates, as well as $15.3 million in renewable energy-related bonds that will be paid off using cost savings from the project over the next 15 years.

So far, the city has reduced its energy consumption by about 45 percent and is saving about $1.1 million in energy costs a year, largely from retrofitting buildings with efficient light bulbs and other cost-saving measures. In February, the city finished work on nine solar installations that are expected to save up $3 million in energy costs over the next 20 years, or $150,000 a year, and generate up to 18 percent of the government’s electricity.

While Reno’s windmill demonstration has generated less power and resulted in a mixed bag of results, Geddes said they were intended to give the city a chance to experiment with different designs and areas in the Truckee Meadows to see which are the best fit for wind-energy production.

Ian Murray
10-04-2012, 03:52 PM
What do you mean? The profit margin is a very low percentage compare to that of many other industries, no matter how you work it out.
The profit margin is actually anywhere from 30c to 60c per gallon (http://business.whatitcosts.com/refine-oil-pg3.htm), which is a very nice little earner.

Come on Ian, everyone knows that this just goes into general consolidated revenue.
Of course, but not as a windfall. In 2001 fuel tax covered only 34% of road costs (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2003/04transportation_wachs/wachstransportation.pdf), less now in real terms. The balance has to be found elsewhere, as raising fuel tax to match the cost is politically unthinkable.

And the point remains: if motorists want someone to blame for high petrol prices, they should blame government taxes far more than the oil company profits.
A 30-60c/gal profit margin negates that argument.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2012, 06:28 AM
The profit margin is actually anywhere from 30c to 60c per gallon (http://business.whatitcosts.com/refine-oil-pg3.htm), which is a very nice little earner.
Depends on who you talk to. Here's another comparison:

The map above from API shows gasoline taxes by state (combined local, state and federal), which range from a low of 26.4 cents per gallon in Alaska to a high of of 66.1 cents per gallon in California, averaging 48.1 cents per gallon across all states. How does that compare to oil company industry profits per gallon?
According to this post on Exxon Mobil’s Perspective Blog , “For every gallon of gasoline, diesel or finished products we manufactured and sold in the United States in the last three months of 2010, we earned a little more than 2 cents per gallon. That’s not a typo. Two cents.”

Exxon also reports that in 2010 it “made less than 8 cents for every dollar of revenue from all of our businesses around the world.”

And from the petrol station's perspective (http://hometownsource.com/2012/04/10/price-of-every-gallon-of-gas-includes-federal-and-state-taxes-of-46-4-cents/):

“According to the Minnesota Service Stations Association, the service station operator is lucky to make 12 cents on a gallon, but of that he must pay credit card fees of eight cents, leaving profit of four cents a gallon.”


Of course, but not as a windfall. In 2001 fuel tax covered only 34% of road costs (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2003/04transportation_wachs/wachstransportation.pdf), less now in real terms. The balance has to be found elsewhere, as raising fuel tax to match the cost is politically unthinkable.
I wouldn't have minded so much indexing the excise to inflation, if ordinary income tax brackets were also indexed, to prevent bracket creep.

Ian Murray
11-04-2012, 09:24 AM
Depends on who you talk to. Here's another comparison:
According to this post on Exxon Mobil’s Perspective Blog , “For every gallon of gasoline, diesel or finished products we manufactured and sold in the United States in the last three months of 2010, we earned a little more than 2 cents per gallon. That’s not a typo. Two cents.”
Yet Exxon's bottom line went from $19.3 billion in 2009 to $41 billion in 2010. The first three quarters of 2010 must have been bumpers!

And from the petrol station's perspective:...the service station operator is lucky to make 12 cents on a gallon, but of that he must pay credit card fees of eight cents, leaving profit of four cents a gallon.
There has always been little money in fuel sales for servos - their profit comes from food and drink sales. Of course Exxon et al get their slice from the franchising charges and exclusive fuel supplies at non-negotiable prices to their badged service stations.

EDIT: Faulty original source. Exxon 2010 profit was $30.6 billion, then $41 billion in 2011.

Desmond
11-04-2012, 07:56 PM
Exxon Mobil Q1 2011 results press release (http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/news_release_earnings1q11.pdf) show earnings up 69% YoY for the quarter and exploration & capital expenditures up 14% for the the same period. Good work if you can get it.

Ian Murray
16-04-2012, 06:01 PM
If there are any alarmists who would like to convince skeptics like me, how about digging up the IPCC reports (they started in 1990, so we have a few years of real world data now) over the years, and compare the actual temperatures with the temperatures predicted in these reports. If things are 'far worse than we thought', I would expect actual temperatures to exceed the predictions. OTOH, if the alarmists have made faulty predictions about multiplier effects, and if there is nothing at all to worry about, I would expect temperatures to be much less than predicted.

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/)
RealClimate.org
2 Apr 2012

...Most interestingly, Fig.6 (below) gives a projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. At a time when the northern hemisphere was cooling and the global mean temperature still below the values of the early 1940s, they confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions....
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen1981_projected.jpg

The first 31 years of this projection are thus relatively well-defined and can now be compared to the observations
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Tglobal_giss_verification.jpg

Capablanca-Fan
18-04-2012, 03:37 PM
NASA rocked by global warming rebellion (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/04/nasa_rocked_by_global_warming_rebellion.html#ixzz1 rtr6vvUi)
Thomas Lifson
American Thinker, April 11, 2012

Fifty top astronauts, scientists and engineers at NASA have signed a letter asking the agency to cease its global warming buffoonery. The global warming emperor has no clothes, and people are finally saying so out loud and in public.
Notrickzone brings us the entire letter, noting that the signers have a combined 1000 years of professional experience.

Rincewind
18-04-2012, 04:14 PM
Fifty top astronauts, scientists and engineers at NASA have signed a letter...

"At NASA" or formerly at NASA? The letter says...

"As former NASA employees, we feel..."

The impression of the headline is certainly giving the impression that the signatories are currently at NASA but that does not seem to be the case.

Ian Murray
18-04-2012, 10:14 PM
"At NASA" or formerly at NASA? The letter says...

"As former NASA employees, we feel..."

The impression of the headline is certainly giving the impression that the signatories are currently at NASA but that does not seem to be the case.
Almost all are former Johnson Space Centre workers, uninvolved in climate study (there is one meteorologist among them). NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/index.html) has the climate expertise.

Capablanca-Fan
19-04-2012, 01:27 AM
"At NASA" or formerly at NASA? The letter says...

"As former NASA employees, we feel..."

The impression of the headline is certainly giving the impression that the signatories are currently at NASA but that does not seem to be the case.
The signatory list explains how long they were at NASA, which was for decades in many cases. Being former employees, NASA can't fire them in retaliation for questioning their religion of catastrophic warm-mongering.

Capablanca-Fan
19-04-2012, 01:32 AM
Almost all are former Johnson Space Centre workers, uninvolved in climate study (there is one meteorologist among them). NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/index.html) has the climate expertise.
They are a space flight organization. And your ilk listens to alGore who flunked science at university. The warm-mongering scam is driven by leftard politicians and bureaucrats who want an excuse for more taxes and control.

Desmond
19-04-2012, 06:03 AM
They are a space flight organization.
What does NASA do? (http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/what_does_nasa_do.html)


NASA conducts its work in three principal organizations, called mission directorates:

Aeronautics: pioneers and proves new flight technologies that improve our ability to explore and which have practical applications on Earth.

Human Exploration and Operations: focuses on International Space Station operations and human exploration beyond low Earth orbit.

Science: explores the Earth, solar system and universe beyond; charts the best route of discovery; and reaps the benefits of Earth and space exploration for society.
...
Closer to home, the latest crew of the International Space Station is extending the permanent human presence in space. Earth Science satellites are sending back unprecedented data on Earth's oceans, climate and other features.

Ian Murray
19-04-2012, 07:19 AM
They are a space flight organization. And your ilk listens to alGore who flunked science at university. The warm-mongering scam is driven by leftard politicians and bureaucrats who want an excuse for more taxes and control.
Al Gore does not work at the Goddard Centre. Nor do politicians of any persuasion. Its administrators may be bureaucrats, but are hardly manoeuvring for more taxes and control.

Rincewind
19-04-2012, 09:00 AM
The signatory list explains how long they were at NASA, which was for decades in many cases. Being former employees, NASA can't fire them in retaliation for questioning their religion of catastrophic warm-mongering.

Well if you agree that thei are formerly at NASA and not at NASA (present tense) then you should also agree that the AGW denialist blogosphere (and others who thinking that cut-and-pasting misinformed diatribe is somehow useful beyond highlighting their own ignorance) shouldn't deliberately mislead in their headlines.

Rincewind
19-04-2012, 10:19 AM
The following article does a reasonable job explaining the many shortcomings of the letter and why it is not news...

Attacks on climate science by former NASA staff shouldn't be taken seriously (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/12/attacks-climate-science-nasa-staff?newsfeed=true)


A letter from former administrators, astronauts, and engineers at NASA expressing climate change scepticism does not deserve parity with the agency's peer-reviewed climate scientists.

Seeing the blogger (and Jono via cut and paste) have make a big deal over the 1,000 years of experience of the signatories the following passage is particularly relevant:


The Signatories

Obviously this letter first gained attention because the signatories are former NASA employees. They are being touted as "top astronauts, scientists, and engineers" and "NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience." Okay, but in what fields does their expertise lie?

Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science). Amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers. You can review the signatories for yourself here.

So the headline the bloggers should have went with was

"50 people without a clue on climate science who used to work for NASA are climate science denialists."

Hardly news.

Capablanca-Fan
25-04-2012, 02:39 PM
Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes (http://www.*******s.com/climate-alarmist-calls-for-burning-down-skeptics-homes/)
“Let’s start keeping track of them…let’s make them pay”
Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, April 19, 2012

Writing for Forbes Magazine, climate change alarmist Steve Zwick calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground, yet another shocking illustration of how eco-fascism is rife within the environmentalist lobby.

Comparing climate change skeptics to residents in Tennessee who refused to pay a $75 fee, resulting in firemen sitting back and watching their houses burn down, Zwick rants that anyone who actively questions global warming propaganda should face the same treatment.

“We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices,” writes Zwick, adding, “They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?”

...

Earlier month we highlighted Professor Kari Norgaard’s call for climate skeptics to be likened to racists and ‘treated’ for having a mental disorder (http://www.************.com/climate-change-skepticism-a-sickness-that-must-be-treated-says-professor.html). In a letter to Barack Obama, Norgaard also called on the President to ignore the will of the people and suspend democracy (http://www.************.com/professor-norgaard-urged-obama-to-ignore-democracy-public-opinion.html) in order to enforce draconian ecological mandates.

Kevin Bonham
25-04-2012, 03:02 PM
That link won't work because Ignowars is blocked on this site as a result of attacks by permanently banned ex-member Axiom.

It's typical Ignowars rubbish anyway. Contrary to Watson's interpretation, Zwick didn't call for burning down the homes of "skeptics". What Zwick did suggest is that if the houses of "active denialists" ("the people who create the lies") happen to catch fire, they shouldn't expect relief. Zwick's piece may well be silly or zealoted (I couldn't be bothered reading it all) but there is still no call for strawmanning it in response.

More interestingly, James Lovelock seems to have done a partial reverse-ferret on the "alarmism" of some of his earlier comments about potential global warming catastrophes.

Capablanca-Fan
25-04-2012, 05:40 PM
That link won't work because Ignowars is blocked on this site as a result of attacks by permanently banned ex-member Axiom.
I was wondering why the name was blotted out.


It's typical Ignowars rubbish anyway. Contrary to Watson's interpretation, Zwick didn't call for burning down the homes of "skeptics". What Zwick did suggest is that if the houses of "active denialists" ("the people who create the lies") happen to catch fire, they shouldn't expect relief. Zwick's piece may well be silly or zealoted (I couldn't be bothered reading it all) but there is still no call for strawmanning it in response.
Yet Watson did explain what he said, to make it clear what was argued for. For example, that ridiculous situation in TN where firemen were told to leave neighbouring houses to burn down.


More interestingly, James Lovelock seems to have done a partial reverse-ferret on the "alarmism" of some of his earlier comments about potential global warming catastrophes.
That's something anyway.

Kevin Bonham
25-04-2012, 06:47 PM
Yet Watson did explain what he said, to make it clear what was argued for. For example, that ridiculous situation in TN where firemen were told to leave neighbouring houses to burn down.

Watson can hardly be said to have made it clear what was argued for when he also contradicted the quote he gave and put it all under the erroneous (and, hypocritically, alarmist) heading "Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes". There is a massive difference between passively declining to extinguish a burning house, and setting a house on fire. He did link to and partially quote the original text but he also grossly, sensationally and prominently misinterpreted it. At the same time he has the hypocrisy to call Zwick's comments "the argument of a demented idiot".

Patrick Byrom
26-04-2012, 12:22 AM
...Most interestingly, Fig.6 (below) gives a projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. At a time when the northern hemisphere was cooling and the global mean temperature still below the values of the early 1940s, they confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions....

Interestingly, in a completely unrelated thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=333925&postcount=2141), Kevin Bonham noted three requirements for a prediction that successfully establishes influence. These are also a useful test for scientific predictions (I've modified his wording):
Successful;
Surprising;
Solidly-based on known science (ie, not just a wild guess).
The 1981 temperature predictions satisfy all three conditions, which gives confidence that the theory of AGW is correct.

Capablanca-Fan
26-04-2012, 10:47 AM
More interestingly, James Lovelock seems to have done a partial reverse-ferret on the "alarmism" of some of his earlier comments about potential global warming catastrophes.
Here is Melanie Philips on this--Apocalypse deferred (http://melaniephillips.com/apocalypse-deferred):

The great grand-daddy of the man-made global warming scam, the fifth horseman of the eco-apocalypse James Lovelock, has now recanted. Well, sort of. Don’t get too excited.

Lovelock now admits to having been ‘alarmist’ about climate change, and says other fanatics environmental commentators such as Al Gore were too alarmist as well.

You don’t say.

It’s only taken a quarter of a century. During that time, Professor Lovelock was the guru of man-made global warming theory. More than that, he was the prophet of a cult which turned the earth into a kind of god -- or more specifically a goddess called Gaia, investing it with anthropomorphic characteristics while his disciples demonised the human race itself as the destroyers of the planet.

Lovelock made one chilling prediction of planetary doom after another. In 2006, he warned that the earth might soon pass


‘“into a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years....as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics. Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert... Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”’

Now, however, MSNBC reports Lovelock as saying:


‘“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened. ...

Rincewind
26-04-2012, 11:05 AM
It’s only taken a quarter of a century.

Seems Melanie Phillips is a little too busy to have read the MSNBC piece which includes


In the interview, Lovelock said he would not take back a word of his seminal work “Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth,” published in 1979.

However,


But of “Revenge of Gaia,” published in 2006, he said he had gone too far in describing what the warming Earth would see over the next century.

So it has only taken six years.

Agent Smith
07-05-2012, 08:02 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder?mobile-redirect=false&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=puls enews

Ian Murray
09-05-2012, 08:19 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder?mobile-redirect=false&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=puls enews
There is an escape clause! :P
Of course, not all global warming alarmists are murderers or tyrants

Ian Murray
26-05-2012, 06:58 PM
A land of (more extreme) droughts and flooding rains? (http://theconversation.edu.au/a-land-of-more-extreme-droughts-and-flooding-rains-5184?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The+Weekend+Conversation&utm_content=The+Weekend+Conversation+CID_1b75d0f79 9576d999e60865a1652cb38&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=A+land+of+more+extreme+droughts+and+flood ing+rains)
Karl Braganza
Manager, Climate Monitoring Section
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
22.5.2012

Changing the chemistry of the Earth’s atmosphere is an uncontrolled experiment. By definition, providing a perfect picture of the outcome is a difficult task.

Nevertheless, our understanding of physics and chemistry has allowed us to determine with a high degree of confidence the likely impact of these changes on the planet as a whole. In the long term — but rapidly by geological timescales — the Earth will continue to warm.

Projected changes to regional weather patterns are much more uncertain. On the balance of evidence this uncertainty — including the possibility of abrupt shifts in regional climate — actually underscores the dangers of future climate change....

Ian Murray
28-05-2012, 08:58 AM
Droughts & flooding rains: what is due to climate change? (https://theconversation.edu.au/droughts-and-flooding-rains-what-is-due-to-climate-change-6524)
Karl Braganza
Manager, Climate Monitoring Section
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
23.5.2012

This is part two of a series looking at the relationship between climate change and rainfall.

Ian Murray
28-05-2012, 09:00 AM
Explainer: climate modes and drought (https://theconversation.edu.au/explainer-climate-modes-and-drought-6584)
James Risbey
Researcher, Marine and Atmospheric Research at CSIRO
24.5.2012

This is part three of a series looking at the relationship between climate change and rainfall.

Ian Murray
28-05-2012, 09:03 AM
Decade to decade changes in our climate – what’s really going on? (http://theconversation.edu.au/decade-to-decade-changes-in-our-climate-whats-really-going-on-7226?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+28+M ay+2012&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+28+Ma y+2012+CID_92d0631f80afa8ee8baecbc9ebc653d7&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Decade+to+decade+changes+in+our+climate++ whats+really+going+on)
Andrew B. Watkins
Manager, Climate Prediction Services at Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Karl Braganza
Manager, Climate Monitoring Section at Australian Bureau of Meteorology
25.5.2012

This is the fourth and final part of a series looking at the relationship between climate change and rainfall.

Capablanca-Fan
01-06-2012, 03:56 PM
All (Green) Thumbs (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/13674)
By Jonah Goldberg
June 1, 2012


In January, the Spanish government removed absurdly lavish subsidies for its renewable energy industry, and the renewable energy industry all but imploded. You could say it was never a renewable energy industry at all. It was a government subsidy industry where in exchange for creating conscience-soothing but otherwise inefficient windmills and solar panels, the government gave the makers piles of cash consumers never would.

"They destroyed the Spanish market overnight with the moratorium (on subsidies)," European Wind Energy Association CEO Christian Kjaer told Bloomberg News.

The reason the Spanish example is so important is that it demonstrates how the whole green energy "revolution" was really an ideologically driven green boondoggle from the start.

At the beginning of his administration, President Obama insisted that if we didn't follow their lead, we would surrender the hugely profitable renewable energy sector to those sagacious Spaniards. In 2009, researchers at King Juan Carlos University found that Spain had destroyed 2.2 jobs in other industries for every green job it created. It also calculated that the Spanish government has spent more than half a million euros for each green job created since 2000, while wind industry jobs cost more than 1 million euros apiece.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-06-2012, 07:51 PM
What is the current unemployment level in Spain?

Capablanca-Fan
15-06-2012, 01:43 PM
Andrew Bolt:


Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery admits he’s fallen for group-think, and judged evidence through eyes clouded by ideology


At the time of the first two coronial inquests I was a doctoral student in the biology department of a major Australian university, and my biases were such that I accepted Lindy Chamberlain’s guilt uncritically. Her religion was one factor. The Chamberlains were Seventh-day Adventists and media reports of the strange practices of their “cult” (as we were led to think of it) included inferences of child sacrifice that did not strike me as beyond belief. At the time I was one of many Australian scientists fighting to keep creationism out of the classroom, and fundamentalist beliefs were seen as the enemy.

At least he’s said sorry for misjudging the Chamberlains.
Probably the same sort who claimed that "Azaria" means "sacrifice in the wilderness", but it actually means "God (Yahweh) helped" or "helped by God (http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Azaria)", from from Hebrew lemma azar = help which is in the qal perfect (not Blessed of God as Lindy herself thought (http://treasure-explorer.nla.gov.au/treasure/lindy-chamberlain/resources)).

Desmond
15-06-2012, 02:06 PM
Andrew Bolt:


Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery admits he’s fallen for group-think, and judged evidence through eyes clouded by ideology


At the time of the first two coronial inquests I was a doctoral student in the biology department of a major Australian university, and my biases were such that I accepted Lindy Chamberlain’s guilt uncritically. Her religion was one factor. The Chamberlains were Seventh-day Adventists and media reports of the strange practices of their “cult” (as we were led to think of it) included inferences of child sacrifice that did not strike me as beyond belief. At the time I was one of many Australian scientists fighting to keep creationism out of the classroom, and fundamentalist beliefs were seen as the enemy.

At least he’s said sorry for misjudging the Chamberlains.
Probably the same sort who claimed that "Azaria" means "sacrifice in the wilderness", but it actually means "God (Yahweh) helped" or "helped by God (http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Azaria)", from from Hebrew lemma azar = help which is in the qal perfect (not Blessed of God as Lindy herself thought (http://treasure-explorer.nla.gov.au/treasure/lindy-chamberlain/resources)).It is a very sad case. That you would use it in the global warming thread to make some kind of point strikes me as cheap, and rather revealing.

Capablanca-Fan
15-06-2012, 02:09 PM
It is a very sad case. That you would use it in the global warming thread to make some kind of point strikes me as cheap, and rather revealing.
It's most revealing of the leftatheopath global warm-mongering that you share with Flummery that this great propagandist for this scam was also willing to fall for this miscarriage of justice, because he was so bigoted against the particular Christian denomination the Chamberlains were in.

Ian Murray
19-06-2012, 08:32 PM
May 2012 Global Temperatures Second Warmest On Record (www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120618152733.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop _environment+(ScienceDaily%3A+Top+News+--+Top+Environment))
Science Daily
18 June 2013

The globally-averaged temperature for May 2012 marked the second warmest May since record keeping began in 1880. May 2012 also marks the 36th consecutive May and 327th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average...

Ian Murray
03-07-2012, 02:49 PM
The Good News About The Carbon Tax (http://newmatilda.com/2012/07/03/good-news-carbon-tax)
Ben Eltham
www.newmatilda.com
3.7.2012


Like an alternative universe in a science-fiction story, it’s the same familiar world we knew on Saturday, but with a few strange differences.

For starters, Australia’s largest polluters now have to pay a small charge for the right to dump toxic gases into the atmosphere. For my mind, that’s a win for Australian society on a moral level, immediately and transparently. No-one has a natural right to despoil the environment, not even local councils with a particularly gassy rubbish dump, and least of all the large and profitable corporations that own aluminium smelters or coal-burning electricity generators. ...

...it shows why carbon pricing is good for Australia’s economy and society. Firstly, pollution is taxed. Secondly, the proceeds are used to compensate low- and middle-income earners, in ways that will make a small but meaningful difference to Australia’s growing problem of inequality. Thirdly, there’s money to invest in renewable energy and the clean-tech sector to help the transition. Finally, there’s even some money — lots of money, actually — to help the dirtiest parts of the economy get used to the new environment. ...

Meanwhile, out in the economy, all sorts of subtle changes are already making themselves felt. Did you know, for instance, that demand for electricity in this country is falling? Despite (and also because of) power prices going up, Australian businesses and households are using less of the stuff. Millions of solar panels have been installed on roofs across the nation. This is starting to have a real impact on the amount of electricity the grid needs.

That change is being driven in part by policy, like solar feed-in tariffs. But it is also being driven by factors that few would have predicted even three years ago, like rapidly falling prices for solar PV cells from China. Indeed, as Garnaut observed last night, the international environment for renewables is changing rapidly — so rapidly that Australian policymakers and politicians are struggling to keep up.

Australia may no longer need to build any new base-load electricity power plants. Energy efficiency and household solar are doing it for us. As the boss of the Australian Energy Market Operator, Matt Zema, told Renew Economy’s Giles Parkinson, "this is the first time we can find that even with strong GDP growth there has not been an increase in energy consumption. We are seeing quite a shift."

With solar PV now close to the magical "parity" figure — that is, where the cost of electricity generated on your roof is cheaper than the electricity coming to you down the grid — Australia is already well on the road to rapid decarbonisation, whatever the public and the politicians think.

In the long term, that may help Labor and the Greens. In the short term, public hostility to the carbon tax — and to climate policy in general — is baked in. When it comes to carbon pricing, it seems that we don’t know what’s good for us. In fact, we don’t even want to know.

Capablanca-Fan
05-07-2012, 02:05 AM
For starters, Australia’s largest polluters now have to pay a small charge for the right to dump toxic gases into the atmosphere.
What piffle. CO2 is plant food. Most power plants using any sort of heat as energy source use Rankine cycle steam engines. With modern technology, more likely to be found in America and Australia, the best such engines achieve over 40% efficiency because of the high temperature range. Some of the newer power plants power this Rankine engine with the exhaust from a Brayton cycle turbine, increasing the overall efficiency for this "combined cycle" to around 60%. That is about twice the efficiency of good car engines.

What people see as "smoke" from such power plants is really steam.

Capablanca-Fan
05-07-2012, 02:10 AM
May 2012 Global Temperatures Second Warmest On Record (www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120618152733.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop _environment+(ScienceDaily%3A+Top+News+--+Top+Environment))
Science Daily
18 June 2013

The globally-averaged temperature for May 2012 marked the second warmest May since record keeping began in 1880. May 2012 also marks the 36th consecutive May and 327th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average...
I can believe it, since here in Altlanta we have had scorchers of 105 Yank degrees which is 40.6 real degrees. But then I don't cherry pick, since 18 months ago I was marooned in Couth Carolina for a few days by one of the few snowstorms ever to hit the South of this country.

Desmond
05-07-2012, 06:51 AM
But then I don't cherry pick, since 18 months ago I was marooned in Couth Carolina for a few days by one of the few snowstorms ever to hit the South of this country.
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/22966879.jpg

Ian Murray
05-07-2012, 08:43 AM
...Some of the newer power plants power this Rankine engine with the exhaust from a Brayton cycle turbine, increasing the overall efficiency for this "combined cycle" to around 60%. That is about twice the efficiency of good car engines.
60% - wow! I only get 95% efficiency from the solar panels on my roof

Capablanca-Fan
05-07-2012, 09:17 AM
60%—wow! I only get 95% efficiency from the solar panels on my roof
I presume that this is solar heating, because photovoltaics are no where near that. Compare for example Sharp Hits Concentrator Solar Cell Efficiency Record, 43.5% (http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/31/sharp-hits-concentrator-solar-cell-efficiency-record-43-5/), actually most impressive.

Solar heating can't be compared to electricity generation. Heat is the easiest thing to produce, so it's not surprising that efficiency is high when this is the aim. In your case, I presume it's the percentage of solar light energy converted to heat. But in other cases, the efficiency is basically how little energy is dissipated as heat. So 60% efficiency basically means that the chemical energy of the fuel is converted to electrical energy and 40 lost as waste heat.

For a home system, it could be a good savings if this heat energy could warm water. One proposal was to use fossil fuel to power a sterling engine for electricity generation and to heat water, a major part of the electrical bill.

Anyway, I hope this explains why 95% efficiency in solar heating is not remarkable. But over 40% in a Rankine cycle is extremely good, since the maximum possible for a heat engine under those conditions (the Carnot Limit) is not much more than 60%.

Ian Murray
05-07-2012, 10:27 AM
I presume that this is solar heating, because photovoltaics are no where near that...
Solar power. Max input 1600W DC, nominal output 1500W AC (I'm actually getting 1530-1540 in the afternoon winter sun). There are different ways of measuring efficiency of course

Capablanca-Fan
05-07-2012, 11:29 AM
Solar power.
Right, so photovoltaic.


Max input 1600W DC, nominal output 1500W AC (I'm actually getting 1530-1540 in the afternoon winter sun).
This is not efficiency of the solar cell, but the efficiency of the conversion of the already-generated DC current to AC. That is totally different. What matters is how much electrical power is produced from the light power of the incident solar radiation. you have merely shown that the useful power to your house is 95% of that produced from the cells. If your solar cells were say 20% efficient, because you have to convert to AC, the real efficiency would be 95% of that 20%.


There are different ways of measuring efficiency of course
What way do you measure it? The normal way is energy (or power) output/energy (or power) input, which was the way the Rankine and Brayton cycles are measured. I.e. in your case, electrical power/incident light power. There is no way photovoltaics today are 95% efficient by this measure, because that would exceed the Carnot limit. As I said, the max is just over 40%. Yours would probably be less. Go and feel them—if they are warm on a sunny day, then that heat you feel is energy that is not converted to electrical.

You must compare like with like if you want to brag that your solar panels are oh-so-much more efficient than coal power stations.

Ian Murray
05-07-2012, 01:04 PM
Right, so photovoltaic.


This is not efficiency of the solar cell, but the efficiency of the conversion of the already-generated DC current to AC. That is totally different. What matters is how much electrical power is produced from the light power of the incident solar radiation. you have merely shown that the useful power to your house is 95% of that produced from the cells. If your solar cells were say 20% efficient, because you have to convert to AC, the real efficiency would be 95% of that 20%.
Conceded. The efficiency rate used in retail marketing is thus misleading.

It is noteworthy that my first solar installation required 10 PV panels to deliver 1500W. The second needed only eight.

Capablanca-Fan
05-07-2012, 01:40 PM
Conceded. The efficiency rate used in retail marketing is thus misleading.
Sorry about that.


It is noteworthy that my first solar installation required 10 PV panels to deliver 1500W. The second needed only eight.
That's quite an improvement. So they meet all your power requirements?

Ian Murray
05-07-2012, 07:27 PM
That's quite an improvement. So they meet all your power requirements?
Not all. Too early to tell just how much yet - only been up a fortnight

Ian Murray
05-07-2012, 08:43 PM
Why will they have to? Why should they pay any attention to a country with only 20 million people, lower than some major cities. Or the people in these countries see how Australians are made poorer without the slightest detectable difference in the atmospheric concentration of plant food CO2.
In 2008-09 Australia burnt 226 million tonnes of coal, emitting 612.46 million tons of carbon dioxide (@ 2.7:1). That's 340 billion cubic metres of CO2 @556.2 m3/t. Another 260 million tonnes of Australian coal was burnt overseas. That's in one year.

That's not plant food, that's surplus to requirements by the biosphere's carbon cycle piling up in the atmosphere. On a per-capita basis we are the world's worst polluters. It can't go on indefinitely - it's time to hit the brakes. Tiny Finland has had a carbon tax since 1990 (currently EUR 20/t = AUD 24.45)

Capablanca-Fan
06-07-2012, 02:25 PM
Not all. Too early to tell just how much yet - only been up a fortnight
All the best. What about solar heating?

Ian Murray
06-07-2012, 11:22 PM
All the best. What about solar heating?
No solar water heating, just the power.

Capablanca-Fan
07-07-2012, 02:51 AM
No solar water heating, just the power.
Oh OK, just that solar heating makes more thermodynamic sense as explained above, and would reduce a major component of the electrical bill, and with cheaper parts. Most houses in Israel do this; my favorite cousin showing me around in 1988 showed that one can tell direction from that of the solar panels on roof tops.

Laserlite
07-07-2012, 04:06 AM
I thought the debate on man-made climate change was settled ? :uhoh:

ziZgpXdpMLM

Desmond
07-07-2012, 08:11 AM
I thought the debate on man-made climate change was settled ? :uhoh:

ziZgpXdpMLM
No global warming for 15 years? Yawn.

Ian Murray
07-07-2012, 03:45 PM
Oh OK, just that solar heating makes more thermodynamic sense as explained above, and would reduce a major component of the electrical bill, and with cheaper parts.
Actually it's LNG water heating. Electric HWS cannot be installed (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/what-you-need-to-know/appliances-and-equipment/hot-water-systems/phase-out.aspx) in new homes any more.

Most houses in Israel do this; my favorite cousin showing me around in 1988 showed that one can tell direction from that of the solar panels on roof tops.
With over a million PV home power installations in Australia already, you can use them to tell direction (they face north).

Capablanca-Fan
07-07-2012, 11:45 PM
Actually it's LNG water heating.
Right, but it still generates some CO2, albeit a lower proportion than petrol, simply because LNG is mainly CH4 while petrol is mainly C8H18. Also, water heating is intrinsically an efficient process since heat is actually what's intended instead of wasted. An electric heater can be over 95% efficient. Natural gas heaters are a bit less efficient, at about 85% because some hot gas escapes without heating the water. But it's a bit like your solar power example: natural gas electrical generation is not bad, maybe in the 40% for a good Rankine cycle, but then its used to heat water again, so it's 95% of that 40%, and even less because of energy losses from power station to house.


Electric HWS cannot be installed (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/what-you-need-to-know/appliances-and-equipment/hot-water-systems/phase-out.aspx) in new homes any more.
I didn't know that. That's what being out of the country for two years does.:eek: Of course, such regulations would be pointless where most of the electricity is generated hydroelectrically, as in NZ, or by nuclear power, as in France and Sweden.


With over a million PV home power installations in Australia already, you can use them to tell direction (they face north).
Was this true in 1988? In Israel, 85% of households have solar water heaters, making it the highest per capita usage in the world, and it saves them 2 million barrels of oil per year. Amazingly, in Israel, they face south ;) Israel does the right thing from a thermodynamic view: a very efficient use of solar energy using only low-tech parts, and totally green in operation. It seems that other considerations than thermodynamic are driving home photovoltaics instead of home solar water heating.

Patrick Byrom
14-07-2012, 11:16 PM
For those who are wondering what reduction in global temperature Australia's carbon tax (the Opposition's policy aims for the same level of CO2 reduction), John Quiggin has calculated it as 0.02C (relative to a "business as usual" scenario). Andrew Bolt, and John Humphries (from the LNP/LDP) agree, sort of: http://johnquiggin.com/2012/07/13/quiggin-and-bolt-one-last-try-for-agreement-on-the-numbers/#comments
That temperature change would be measurable, but would be swamped by measurement errors.

Ian Murray
15-07-2012, 05:50 PM
Right, but it still generates some CO2..
Of course. Natural gas is another fossil fuel.

It seems that other considerations than thermodynamic are driving home photovoltaics instead of home solar water heating.
Solar HWS have been around for a long time, but expensive and not as sexy as replacing grid power with solar.

pax
16-07-2012, 07:54 PM
It seems that other considerations than thermodynamic are driving home photovoltaics instead of home solar water heating.

The vast majority of homes have both, from my observation. Photovoltaic is getting close to being economically viable now that electricity prices are starting to be cost reflective (5 years ago they were massively subsidized in WA at least). This, even with the feed-in tarif now being a pittance.

Ian Murray
16-07-2012, 10:07 PM
The vast majority of homes have both, from my observation. Photovoltaic is getting close to being economically viable now that electricity prices are starting to be cost reflective (5 years ago they were massively subsidized in WA at least). This, even with the feed-in tarif now being a pittance.
Not getting close - in Australia we're there already:


The energy debate in Australia and overseas is framed around the wholesale cost of electricity – the price difference between cheap coal and new technologies such as solar, wind and geothermal. And even though coal and gas are unlikely to remain cheaper than solar or wind at utility scale in most markets beyond the end of the current decade, the point of choice is already made at the consumer level, where no one cares if it only costs Loy Yang A $2/MWh to produce electricity, they only worry about what’s on their bills. And at that level, solar on their rooftop is clearly a cheaper option.

This is one of the fundamental points made by a major new research paper released overnight by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. It said that solar PV is much closer to price competitiveness with fossil fuel-generated electricity than many decision makers and investors realise, and policies have yet to catch up with the dramatic improvements in the economics of solar power, which has seen its cost drop 75 per cent in the last four years, and 45 per cent in the last 12 months alone

...Australian solar is already at parity, and will become an increasingly cheaper option – which means it is pretty much a no-brainer for retail consumers (who now have access to zero-down finance) and also for the commercial market, which pays higher tariffs. This is why commercial-scale rooftop PV is the hot new sector in Australia. Even US Energy Secretary Stephen Chu ... made a point at the conference of noting that Australia was one of the first countries that have appeared above the line – it’s just a shame that Australia’s energy ministers (state and federal) don’t seem prepared to recognise this.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/solar-pv-its-cheaper-than-you-think-58689

Kevin Bonham
19-07-2012, 06:11 PM
In order to avoid cross-contaminating threads I will transfer to here that on the current Definition of Christian thread I claimed to Jono that:


Normally you are keen to avoid fallacies of the argument from experience/authority form - they're especially inconvenient for you in debates such as global warming where the overwhelming body of professional opinion seems to be on the other side -

And Jono responded:


Not really; more a political majority than a scientific one.

There have been many survey findings released concerning the views of professional climate scientists, and those conducted since the mid-2000s typically support the idea of a consensus that global warming has occurred, and a large majority view that it is primarily or largely anthropogenic. Several of these are listed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change) (only Wikipedia, but I think we can trust it at least in so far as that the surveys exist!) Some of these surveys have been subject to criticisms of their methods (sound or otherwise).

Does Jono have any comprehensive critique of those findings or any examples of robust survey findings claiming to demonstrate the opposite?

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2012, 10:52 PM
Solar HWS have been around for a long time, but expensive and not as sexy as replacing grid power with solar.
Solar HSW is more expensive than photovoltaic? I thought it would be the latter that needs high-tech material. Is it the connection to the home pumbing system? There is no doubt that hot water heating makes much more use of the incident sun's energy. Indeed, the largest solar electricity plant (354 MW) (http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter01/chapter01.html) uses solar heating, which is very efficient as explained, and uses presumably a Rankine cycle to generate electricity at around 40% efficiency. There are limits, since the maximum incident solar power is 1370 w/m² (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/sun12.htm) (the actual amount depends on time of day, latitude, and weather).

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2012, 11:02 PM
The vast majority of homes have both, from my observation. Photovoltaic is getting close to being economically viable now that electricity prices are starting to be cost reflective (5 years ago they were massively subsidized in WA at least). This, even with the feed-in tarif now being a pittance.
Did you mean that electricity prices or photovoltaics were being subsidized? The latter were for a time.

Ian Murray
19-07-2012, 11:49 PM
Solar HSW is more expensive than photovoltaic? I thought it would be the latter that needs high-tech material.
Solar HWS costs around $4000 - $5000 for a typical home installation, after government rebates. A basic solar PV instal is around $3000, and coming down. The feed-in tariff subsidies for power exported to the grid are being phased out - reduced from 44c/kWh in Qld to 8c.

Water heating is making a comeback after the surge in demand for PV power - http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/solar-insights-is-solar-hot-water-and-cooling-the-next-big-thing-23890

pax
30-07-2012, 11:46 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-results-convert-sceptic-let-the-evidence-change-our-minds-20120730-23769.html


THE Earth's land has warmed by 1.5 degrees Celsius in the past 250 years and ''humans are almost entirely the cause'', according to a scientific study set up to address climate sceptic concerns about whether human-induced global warming is occurring.
Richard Muller, a climate sceptic physicist who founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, said he was ''surprised'' by the findings. ''We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds.''
He said he considered himself a ''converted sceptic'' and his views had received a ''total turnaround'' in a short space of time.
''Our results show that the average temperature of the Earth's land has risen by 2½ degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of 1½ degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases,'' Professor Muller wrote in an opinion piece for The New York Times.
Advertisement
The team of scientists based at the University of California, Berkeley, gathered and merged 14.4 million land temperature observations from 44,455 sites across the world dating back to 1753. Previous datasets created by NASA, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Britain's Meteorological Office and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit had gone back only to the mid-1800s and used five times fewer weather station records.
The funding for the project included $US150,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, set up by the billionaire US coal magnate who is a key backer of the climate sceptic Heartland Institute think tank. The research also received $US100,000 from the Fund for Innovative climate and Energy Research, created by Bill Gates.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-results-convert-sceptic-let-the-evidence-change-our-minds-20120730-23769.html#ixzz224AfXBmw

Capablanca-Fan
04-09-2012, 12:10 AM
Solar tariff cut provides power bill relief (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/solar-tariff-cut-provides-power-bill-relief/story-e6frf7kx-1226464159263)
Anne Wright, Herald Sun, 3 September 2012

VICTORIAN consumers will get some relief from power bill pain, with the State Government slashing "over-generous" subsidies for households with solar panels.

A Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission report released this morning said consumers had been slugged with higher power bills to subsidise households with rooftop solar panels.



Mr O'Brien said the cut to payments would benefit Victorians, and would not affect the take up of solar panels by households.

"What we have seen is that the cost of solar systems has plummeted and the price of electricity is increasing which means that the value of solar has really increased so it sells itself," he said.

"When we stepped down the subsidies from 60 cents a kilowatt hour to 25 cents a kilowatt hour this year we actually saw demand increase by 33 per cent."

pax
04-09-2012, 05:37 PM
"What we have seen is that the cost of solar systems has plummeted and the price of electricity is increasing which means that the value of solar has really increased so it sells itself," he said.

"When we stepped down the subsidies from 60 cents a kilowatt hour to 25 cents a kilowatt hour this year we actually saw demand increase by 33 per cent."


While I believe the "premium" feed-in tariffs which were offered over the last few years were excessively generous (resulting in under funded schemes being halted after only a brief run in several states), both they and the generous rebates have achieved something pretty remarkable: they have helped to create an industry which is now pretty well self-sustaining. Many businesses got into the game of sourcing and installing photo-voltaic systems due to the demand created by the subsidies, however the demand is not going away now that the subsidies are phasing out. It's an excellent example of how governments can support and assist new industries and technologies, without total control or ownership.

Ian Murray
04-09-2012, 06:14 PM
The situation now is that solar users are subsidising baseload users, receiving ~8c/Kwh for power they sell to the grid, which distributors then sell to consumers for ~25c

Solar PV industry licks its wounds as last tariff falls (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/solar-pv-industry-licks-its-wounds-as-last-tariff-falls-76709)
RenewEconomy
4 Sep 2012


...Solco believes that the prospects for the industry are strong, given the pricing of components, with module costs falling 45 per cent in 2011 and by some estimates will fall a similar amount in 2012. Solco says inverter, racking and other balance of systems costs are falling too and making PV more competitive than previously predicted.

But it says the biggest single factor for the uptake of solar PV is rising retail electricity costs, and the major barrier to its uptake, the upfront capital costs, are being steadily removed by innovative finance offerings such as leasing offers which are expected to flourish in the residential and commercial sectors.

“(The FiTs) now provide the industry with nothing but a negative social stigma for non-renewable electricity generators to use as a tool to maintain the status quo,” the company said in its recent annual report.

But therein lies the problem. The industry craves stability, but it still wants fair value for its product. The new tariffs have been set more or less at the behest of the utilities, who are wary of the impact of solar PV because of its ability to eat a massive hole in their revenues – both at the distribution and retailing level. In some states such as NSW, the payments are not even compulsory, because the government has bought the argument that competitive forces will be at work. Utilities, as Solco suggests, have used the cost of the FiTs to demonise solar and amplify the costs to non-solar users, and are now using that as an excuse to change tariffs and make solar less attractive as an investment – another potential barrier.

The solar industry argues that 6c/kWh or 8c/kWh does not reflect anything like the value of solar exported to the grid, and suggests that what is now being implemented is a reverse subsidy. The Clean Energy Council and the Australian Technology Association suggest the export rate should be double, at least in the range of 12c/kWh to 20c/kWh. Others suggest a 1:1 rate, or just short of the price of electricity imported, while others suggest a rate of 40c/kWh would best reflect the benefits of having some 5GW or more of solar PV in Australia – an amount that Australia is expected to reach within a few years, and then likely double or triple. At that point, the value of solar PV will become a huge and important debating and economic point.

Capablanca-Fan
05-09-2012, 02:08 AM
While I believe the "premium" feed-in tariffs which were offered over the last few years were excessively generous (resulting in under funded schemes being halted after only a brief run in several states), both they and the generous rebates have achieved something pretty remarkable: they have helped to create an industry which is now pretty well self-sustaining. Many businesses got into the game of sourcing and installing photo-voltaic systems due to the demand created by the subsidies, however the demand is not going away now that the subsidies are phasing out. It's an excellent example of how governments can support and assist new industries and technologies, without total control or ownership.
Yeah, right, you lefties with your faith in the government's ability to pick winners are bound to find the occasional success stories (if the above is an accurate account). They must ignore the far greater ability of the market to pick winners, and the many failures in government's ability. This includes solar power itself, such as the huge costs in Spain and Solyndra in America (Obamov funded his cronies with half a billion dollars of taxpayer funding).

Solar water heating makes better thermodynamic sense, as I've explained.

Ian Murray
05-09-2012, 07:24 AM
Yeah, right, you lefties with your faith in the government's ability to pick winners are bound to find the occasional success stories (if the above is an accurate account). They must ignore the far greater ability of the market to pick winners, and the many failures in government's ability. This includes solar power itself, such as the huge costs in Spain and Solyndra in America (Obamov funded his cronies with half a billion dollars of taxpayer funding).

Solar water heating makes better thermodynamic sense, as I've explained.
The electricity free market in Australia is no longer a licence to print money, as demand for energy shrinks for the third successive year alongside an expanding economy, and distribution costs rise alongside ageing infrastructure. The resulting price increases fan the demand for solar power as solar costs keep falling, and solar is now self-perpetuating.

Solar hot water heating does not reduce household electricity bills, while solar PV does, at the same time generating excess power flowing back into the grid. The forecast now is that Australia will not need any more baseload power stations than those existing.

pax
05-09-2012, 03:54 PM
Yeah, right, you lefties with your faith in the government's ability to pick winners are bound to find the occasional success stories (if the above is an accurate account). They must ignore the far greater ability of the market to pick winners, and the many failures in government's ability. This includes solar power itself, such as the huge costs in Spain and Solyndra in America (Obamov funded his cronies with half a billion dollars of taxpayer funding).

Solar water heating makes better thermodynamic sense, as I've explained.

Yeah, the occasional success stories, like national rail networks, national road networks, bridges, coal and gas generation industries, hydroelectric schemes, municipal gas and water supplies, airports, sea ports, communication networks (copper, fibre, satellite). Did you build all that?

Capablanca-Fan
05-09-2012, 10:30 PM
Yeah, the occasional success stories, like national rail networks, national road networks, bridges, coal and gas generation industries, hydroelectric schemes, municipal gas and water supplies, airports, sea ports, communication networks (copper, fibre, satellite). Did you build all that?
Yes, very occasional. Many of the above were built privately. Same with America. The private sector has produced the vast majority of improvements to our lives, because this has to please many customers instead of a few vested interests that happen to be well connected politically (e.g. Obamov's Solyndra, KRudd's home insulation fiasco). See for example These Entrepreneurs Really Did Build That (http://www.burtfolsom.com/?p=1888) and “You Didn’t Build That” — Yes, We Did! (http://www.burtfolsom.com/?p=1852) by Burt Folsom.

pax
06-09-2012, 02:11 PM
Yes, very occasional. Many of the above were built privately.

In Australia, almost *none* of that was built privately. Would you care to cite examples of major infrastructure built by private enterprise? You seem remarkably reluctant to acknowledge the contribution of governments in this area.


Same with America. The private sector has produced the vast majority of improvements to our lives, because this has to please many customers instead of a few vested interests that happen to be well connected politically (e.g. Obamov's Solyndra, KRudd's home insulation fiasco).

The private sector has produced many outstanding success, but in almost every instance, they are aided by the infrastructure that governments have built: roads, rail, ports, airports, communications, power, gas, water. I am very happy to acknowledge the success of private enterprise - why are you so reluctant to acknowledge the contribution of government investment in those successes?



See for example These Entrepreneurs Really Did Build That (http://www.burtfolsom.com/?p=1888) and “You Didn’t Build That” — Yes, We Did! (http://www.burtfolsom.com/?p=1852) by Burt Folsom.

Ah yes, Burt Folsom, your favourite conservative hack academic, completely missing the point once again.

Capablanca-Fan
06-09-2012, 03:10 PM
The private sector has produced many outstanding success, but in almost every instance, they are aided by the infrastructure that governments have built: roads, rail, ports, airports, communications, power, gas, water.
Once again, governments building those are relatively recent phenomena. It's also the common leftie problem of what is seen (the successes of government) v.what is not seen (the many things that could have been built if inefficient government had not sucked out that money). Bastiat pointed this out over 160 years ago (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html).


I am very happy to acknowledge the success of private enterprise - why are you so reluctant to acknowledge the contribution of government investment in those successes?
Because on so many cases, the private successes were in spite of government not because of it.


Ah yes, Burt Folsom, your favourite conservative hack academic, completely missing the point once again.
Your favorite baseless insult, instead of dealing with his points.

Ian Murray
06-09-2012, 03:18 PM
In Australia, almost *none* of that was built privately. Would you care to cite examples of major infrastructure built by private enterprise? You seem remarkably reluctant to acknowledge the contribution of governments in this area.
The first railways were privately owned, but none lasted long and were taken over and developed by the colonial governments. There was no national rail network envisaged by the early operators, resulting in three different rail gauges being used across the colonies, subsequently states. A full standard gauge national network was not competed until 2004.

Mrs Jono
07-09-2012, 09:05 AM
The first railways were privately owned
To quote Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Australia) (since I'm too lazy tonight to do the legwork):


"The first railways in Australia were built by private companies, based in the then colonies of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia."


"Private companies built railways in the then colonies of Victoria, opened in 1854, and New South Wales, where the company was taken-over by the government before completion in 1855, due to bankruptcy. South Australia's railways were government owned from the beginning, including a horse-drawn line opened in 1854 and a steam-powered line opened in 1856. In Victoria, the private railways were soon found not to be financially viable, and existing rail networks and their expansion was taken over by the colony. Government ownership also enabled railways to be built to promote development, even if not apparently viable in strictly financial terms." (History of rail transport in Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Australia))

"Except for a small number of private railways, most of the Australian railway network infrastructure is government-owned, either at the federal or state level. Most railway operators were once state government agencies, but with privatisation in the 1990s, private companies now operate the majority of trains in Australia. The Australian federal government is involved in the formation of national policies, and provides funding for national projects. Rail transport in Australia has often been neglected in favour of the Australian road transport network."

More history here: http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/railways-in-australia

In America, the government competed with the privately-owned railway, getting in the way and impeding progress, imposing restrictions that nearly bankrupted them, and when there was success in spite of the government, they brought down the "monopoly" hammer and broke it up. Then further regulations and unions all but destroyed what was left, especially when it took so long for the government to recognise they were under the old regulations when trains were the best method of moving people and freight, long after roadways gave competition.

But that's typical interfering, yet painfully slow, bureaucracy for you.



Would you care to cite examples of major infrastructure built by private enterprise?

Public Private Partnerships And America’s Infrastructure Strategy (http://www.constructionadvisoryreport.com/home/blog/2012/07/02/public-private-partnerships-and-americas-infrastructure-strategy/)

Private participation in U.S. infrastructure development has been a keystone in the development of our economy for more than 200 years. The private sector played an important role in the initial development and operation of key infrastructure assets. Examples include the early post road and bridge franchises, passenger railroads, water works such as the Keokuk Power Plant and dam on the Mississippi, and other infrastructure projects vital to the economic growth and prosperity of the United States. The public sector played a partnership role in this development by issuing land grants or awarding franchises.

Priorities shifted in the 1930’s towards the development of public works as a national instrument of social and economic policy accelerated during the depression years (using public works as a means to put the unemployed back to work), for military purposes during World War II, and for the development of the Interstate Highway System in the 1950’s financed and constructed almost entirely with federal funds.

This shift to public sector development of public works infrastructure was also marked by industry specialization giving rise to legislation that altered the approach to federal infrastructure procurement from the late 1800’s to the more recent 1972 Brooks Act legislation. These federal policies in effect created separation of services for public works project delivery where design specialists (A&E firms) were selected to provide design services (plans and specifications) on a qualifications basis and builders were selected for construction services based on the lowest responsible bid price.

This approach to delivery often referred to as low bid or design-bid-build (DBB), was codified in federal and state law. Additionally, the federal and state governments developed specialized organizations (General Services Administration, Public Road Administration – the precursor to the Federal Highway Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and various specialized state and city agencies, etc.) to develop, administer, and maintain public works in the U.S.

DBB, often thought of as the traditional method for public infrastructure project delivery, is a fairly recent phenomenon in the 200+ year history of the U.S.

While this delivery approach served the country well in the development of vital public works infrastructure (roads, waterworks, energy, etc.), during the first half of the 20th century, in the latter half (1970’s to present), federal and state agencies in the U.S. became increasingly challenged to generate adequate resources for the maintenance and upkeep of existing infrastructure assets. Some economists have argued that the separation of services generated significant inefficiencies in the administration and delivery of projects, and coupled with the increasing funding shortages, public works facilities were wearing out faster than they could be maintained and improved. A recommended solution was a return to private sector participation to close the gap and meet the demand.

(There is an unabridged PDF version available via that link.)

America’s Infrastructure Strategy: Drawing on History to Guide the Future (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:iB19si_twz8J:crgp.stanford.edu/events/presentations/CA/CRGP_KPMG_whitepaper.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi5DGwJ06WiOlenYUpsTm_bHaTHUJutdn9u_hVQ sC3VOHmRwbY_hp-_1ypaSwh-ykMExesxYXdSzx3vsrB7__NbNyUwTOq8V0PFExXUpsUa4ldeOF kuNAnrcvRcddBa6IdFR-Sa&sig=AHIEtbTUeck0qwNJavmgDbY7CIdHgtmLUQ)


Between the late 18th century and early 20th century, Congress shrewdly supported national expansion and economic growth using a dual-track strategy to develop and finance infrastructure—spending federal funds to “push” projects considered crucial for developing commerce and trade, and “pulling” projects from the private sector through indirect means such as land grants or franchises awarded to private parties. The first approach was mainly used to improve harbors and navigable rivers and to construct public buildings; the second targeted canals, railroads, and postal routes. For instance, the development of the National Road from Maryland to Illinois was pushed through direct funding by the federal government. Alternatively, the Illinois Central Railroad was pulled by issuing land grants to a private corporation that built and operated the railroad. This two-pronged approach was both a leveraging strategy—since it allowed more development than could have occurred through direct funding alone—and a hedging strategy—since it allowed public funding to respond more flexibly to socioeconomic and political conditions. Governments at all levels used similar approaches to develop infrastructure deemed to be in the public interest. America’s priorities shifted in the 1930s and 1940s. The Great Depression made infrastructure an instrument of social policy, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal invested heavily in public works projects to provide jobs to the unemployed. This new approach forever changed policymakers’ view of infrastructure, with projects now viewed as economic catalysts.


Privatization (http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/privatization)


Governments on every continent have sold off state-owned assets to private investors in recent decades. Airports, railroads, energy utilities, and many other assets have been privatized. The privatization revolution has overthrown the belief widely held in the 20th century that governments should own the most important industries in the economy. Privatization has generally led to reduced costs, higher-quality services, and increased innovation in formerly moribund government industries.
...
Before the 20th century, transportation infrastructure was often financed and built by the private sector. For example, there were more than 2,000 companies that built private toll roads in America in the 18th and 19th centuries. Most of those roads were put out of business by the spread of the railroads. Then, during the 20th century, roads and other infrastructure came to be thought of as government activities. By the 1980s, that started to change, and governments around the world began selling off airports, highways, bridges, and other facilities.

(That article is actually pretty interesting as a whole.)

Not only was a lot of the original infrastructure built privately, but the government interference actually made things cost more, and did not result in better product. This is why there is the turn back toward privatisation, since what's gone on with the government is not working!

Private sector picks up public slack for aging U.S. infrastructure (http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/private-sector-picks-up-public-slack-for-aging-us-infrastructure/19913)


As government on every level experiences budget shortfalls and general economic duress, the private sector is filling the need to repair aging infrastructure in the United States.

A Washington Post report this morning explains how cash-strapped cities and states are tapping the private sector for money to build new bridges, roads or tunnels. With their backs against the wall, public officials are giving up sources of revenue or even selling assets completely in an effort to offload them from their balance sheets.

Why so dire? Because state transportation finances are in poor shape, and federal transportation finances are even worse.

As that article points out, "in many cases, the repairs could happen faster and cheaper than if the government had performed them".

Mrs Jono
07-09-2012, 09:09 AM
There was no national rail network envisaged by the early operators, resulting in three different rail gauges being used across the colonies, subsequently states.
That's not quite true, from what I've been reading (http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/railways-in-australia).


When railway construction began in Australia in the 1850s, the engineers favoured the gauge system they were most familiar with: the emerging standard gauge (rails 1,425 millimetres apart) from England and Europe or the broad gauge (rails 1,590 millimetres apart) from Ireland.

A third system of a narrow gauge (rails 1050mm apart) was chosen for Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia. The narrow gauge system was also used in other states for industries such as timber cutting and mining. The narrow gauges had advantages when working in the mountains as less earth had to be cut out of the side of hills to build the lines.

Despite initial attempts to work together for a uniform approach, the colonies were driven by economic and political pressures to develop their own systems.

Ian Murray
07-09-2012, 07:07 PM
...Despite initial attempts to work together for a uniform approach, the colonies were driven by economic and political pressures to develop their own systems.
Interesting reading, with your link (http://users.tpg.com.au/users/ipether/ausrhist.html) expanding the subject:

In New South Wales an Irish engineer selected 1600mm (5ft 3 in). Victoria, politically a subsidiary of New South Wales, agreed to operate matching broad gauge equipment but then New South Wales reconsidered when their newly appointed Chief Engineer opted for the emerging English standard gauge 1435mm (4ft 8.5in). Melbourne continued with the prior agreement and refused to change. Other States chose 1066mm (3ft 6in), whilst South Australia hedged its bets by installing both 1600 and 1066 gauges.

There was little love lost between Sydney and Melbourne in colonial times (the rivalry still exists - cf NYC and LA) so Victoria's refusal to follow suit after NSW reneged on the deal is not surprising.

Capablanca-Fan
08-09-2012, 01:57 PM
Europeans have the last laugh on ETS (http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/europeans_have_the_last_laugh_on_wqzsbX51RUxMRFELx UwWSN)
Matthias Cormann, Financial Review, 3 September 2012

Whenever the Gillard government was told the bleeding obvious about the negative impact its carbon tax would have on our economic fortunes its response was defiant.

Never mind that the carbon tax is pushing up our cost of living and the cost of doing business in Australia. Never mind that no other country in the world was or is contemplating any similar impost which would come close to what has been legislated here. Never mind that it would make us less competitive internationally while doing nothing to actually help reduce global emissions.

Its carbon tax would be implemented as legislated, period.

Only when confronted with the reality that Australian businesses would face carbon prices nearly three times those in Europe, and the small fact that based on the many exemptions under the EU’s ETS 23 million Australians are now paying five times as much carbon tax over the next three years than 500 million Europeans, did the Gillard government decide to do anything. ...

Ian Murray
11-09-2012, 09:38 PM
U.S. Solar Installs More Than Doubled in Second Quarter (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-10/u-s-solar-installs-more-than-doubled-in-second-quarter.html)
Bloomberg
10.9.2012


U.S. solar-panel installations more than doubled in the second quarter from a year earlier led by demand in California, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Installations totaled 742 megawatts in the quarter, up 45 percent since the first quarter, and may reach 3.2 gigawatts by year end, the Washington-based trade group said today in its quarterly market report. California led installations with 217 megawatts, followed by Arizona with 173 megawatts.

The U.S. now has 5.7 gigawatts of installed solar capacity, enough to power 1 million homes, according to GTM Research, a Boston-based consulting company that prepared the report with SEIA.

The boom was driven by large projects that sell power to utilities, with little growth in residential installations and declines in non-residential projects, Shayle Kann, vice president at GTM, said in an interview Sept. 7. “It’s an indicator that the utility market will be the main story this year and probably for the next few years.”

More panels were installed in the quarter than in all of 2009 as solar costs declined, Rhone Resch, chief executive officer of SEIA, said in the statement. “With costs continuing to come down, solar is affordable today for more homes, businesses, utilities, and the military.”

The U.S. now has 3.4 gigawatts of projects under construction and about 10 gigawatts more of projects that have signed power contracts, said Kann. It will be the fourth largest market for panel installations this year, led by Germany, Italy and China.

Capablanca-Fan
28-09-2012, 01:03 PM
Ferguson blows whistle on Gillard’s power price politicking (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ferguson_blows_whistle_on_gillards_power_price_pol iticking/)
Andrew Bolt

Remember the Prime Minister’s claim that what was really driving up power prices wasn’t so much her carbon tax but “gold plating” and the price gouging of the greedy (Liberal) state governments?

Prime Minister Julia Gillard in August:


Ms Gillard said state governments had ‘’been increasing their revenue at the expense of the family electricity bill’’ and said the states ‘’can, and should, do more to cut future price rises’’.

She called on the NSW Premier, Barry O’Farrell, to ‘’explain the big dividends that the New South Wales government is getting … why all of that money is going into the New South Wales government budget rather than staying in the budgets of families around New South Wales’’.

Resources Minister Martin Ferguson, the Gillard Government’s resident adult, now:


‘’The states do not control the regulatory authorities that set prices and any suggestion that they do has no basis in fact and is a cheap shot … the states might be getting good dividends but they do not determine the price setting rules,’’ Mr Ferguson told the Herald in an interview.

‘’The history of reform shows you need co-operation … cheap threats do not assist in this debate … because it is a complex reform that won’t be solved by cheap front-page headlines.’’

Ian Murray
28-09-2012, 06:59 PM
Coalition disunity in power price blame game (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-09/abbott-says-electricity-price-rise-reason-a-furphy/4187906)
ABC News
10.8.12


Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is at odds with several of his frontbenchers over the causes of higher electricity prices.

Tony Abbott was accused on Thursday of ignoring facts for political gain after describing the energy regulator's position on what is driving power prices as a "furphy".

Mr Abbott said it was a fabrication for the Prime Minister to suggest power prices are rising because the states are over-investing in power infrastructure.

He says the carbon tax is to blame for rising electricity costs.

But Opposition energy spokesman Ian Macfarlane has admitted state government spending on the poles and wires of electricity networks has pushed power prices higher.

And the former opposition leader, frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull, agrees with that position...

Ian Murray
30-09-2012, 04:42 PM
Rio Tinto shift on climate change (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/rio-tinto-shift-on-climate-change-20120929-26rli.html)
Sydney Morning Herald
29.9.12


RIO Tinto's language on climate change has shifted, with the company now recognising that global warming is ''largely caused by human activities''.

Previously, Rio had accepted that human activities were making ''a contribution'' to climate change.

In a speech yesterday, Rio's head of coal in Australia, Bill Champion, said the company recognised the value of action on climate change.

''The scale of the necessary emissions reductions and the need for adaptation, coupled with the world's increasing requirements for secure, affordable energy, create large challenges,'' he said.

''We support a co-ordinated global approach to reduce emissions. Until that is in place, as well as after, we recognise that it will be necessary for individual jurisdictions to take actions.''

Rio Tinto had factored a carbon price into its investment decision-making for the past 10 years, Mr Champion said...

Igor_Goldenberg
16-10-2012, 10:37 AM
According to Daily Mail article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29GQ0fi16) the temperature was statistically flat over the last 16 years. If this reporting is factually correct, it'll be interesting to see alarmist trying to spin the way out of embarrassment.

Desmond
16-10-2012, 11:53 AM
According to Daily Mail article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29GQ0fi16) the temperature was statistically flat over the last 16 years. If this reporting is factually correct, it'll be interesting to see alarmist trying to spin the way out of embarrassment.You could try reading the Met Office response (http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/):


An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’

It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information...

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.
...

Or if reading isn't your thing (Igor, pay attention to this bit would you), the start and endpoint cherry picking is quite succinctly shown in a graph I have posted here before.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/SkepticsvRealists_500.gif

Ian Murray
16-10-2012, 12:26 PM
You could try reading the Met Office response (http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/):
The graph included shows the facts in pretty colours:

http://metofficenews.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/ranked_combined.png

Eleven of the thirteen highest recorded temperature increases so far have occurred in the 21st century. The trend is clearly rising.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-10-2012, 02:40 PM
Or if reading isn't your thing (Igor, pay attention to this bit would you), the start and endpoint cherry picking is quite succinctly shown in a graph I have posted here before.
Have you been able to do a critical thinking you'd ask yourself why graph starts from 1973. Also trying to fit single constant trend through the data doesn't capture any change in trends and leads to the model that lacks predictive power.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-10-2012, 02:53 PM
The graph included shows the facts in pretty colours:
Eleven of the thirteen highest recorded temperature increases so far have occurred in the 21st century. The trend is clearly rising.

Nice colours indeed. I didn't analyse data myself, nor going to do. Let me just point out that if we indeed have a trend change mid-ninety (rising, then flat), you'd expect most hot years to be in the latest 16 years.

Desmond
16-10-2012, 03:50 PM
Have you been able to do a critical thinking you'd ask yourself why graph starts from 1973. Why don't you enlighten us with your latest scientific conspiracy theory, Professor Dinolizard?


Also trying to fit single constant trend through the data doesn't capture any change in trends and leads to the model that lacks predictive power.Gibberish.

Ian Murray
16-10-2012, 08:45 PM
Nice colours indeed. I didn't analyse data myself, nor going to do. Let me just point out that if we indeed have a trend change mid-ninety (rising, then flat), you'd expect most hot years to be in the latest 16 years.
If you haven't analysed the data, what makes you think they weren't?

Ian Murray
16-10-2012, 09:01 PM
Ten Charts That Make Clear The Planet Just Keeps Warming (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/)
ThinkProgress
15.10.2012


Perhaps you thought that the whole “planet isn’t warming” meme was killed by this summer’s bombshell Koch-funded study (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/). After all, it found ”global warming is real,” “on the high end” and “essentially all” due to carbon pollution.

Sadly, denial springs eternal. Long-debunked denier David Rose has an article in the Daily Mail, “Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released … and here is the chart to prove it.”

The piece is so misleading, even the UK Met Office felt a need to instantly debunk it with a blog post...

Igor_Goldenberg
16-10-2012, 09:29 PM
Gibberish.
I don't expect you to know much about statistics, but you didn't have to demonstrate it so blatantly.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-10-2012, 09:32 PM
If you haven't analysed the data, what makes you think they weren't? What makes you think I made such conclusion?