JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Liberal policy removes rewards for bankers

Abbott still panders to the fake carbon scare, but takes the bankers and futures traders right out of the equation by ditching emissions trading:

“A coalition government would create a $1 billion fund that would be used to purchase initiatives aimed at reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has announced.”

The Coalition will have to find $3.2 b, compared to Rudd’s $40-$114 billion money-go-round.

Mr Abbott said the criteria by which the coalition would judge the bids for spending would fall into four categories. It must involve a reduction in emissions and it must improve the environment.
‘Third, there must be no increase in cost to consumers”, … (fourth, no lost jobs).

So the Libs take the policy that gives them the back door escape route — they can say that nothing about their scheme is bad, even if the science of climate change turns out to be “absolute crap”.

It’s a lot better than the Turnbull-led effort in Nov 2009 of dancing with the trading scheme on offer, except that I wish the  Liberals would be brave — stand up to the science bullies, and just say Who needs any policy at all on a topic so filled with fake claims, bogus references, and vested interests? Lets get the science right.

Still, it’s a no-brainer that for all the vague offerings, and potential waste in the Coalition plan, it’s a thousand times less damaging than the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme offered by the Government.

Carbon is not pollution.  ( What kind of suicidal masochistic misnomer is the term “pollution”? We are carbon life forms.)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Liberal policy removes rewards for bankers, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2bgm2dt

169 comments to Liberal policy removes rewards for bankers

  • #

    Joanne Nova writes: “Carbon is not pollution. ( What kind of suicidal masochistic misnomer is the term “pollution”? We are carbon life forms.)”

    The medical effects of excessive carbon dioxide on the human body are well understood by scientists and doctors. The warming effects of excessive atmospheric carbon dioxide on the planet earth are reasonably well (plenty of room for improvement) understood by scientists. Your “we are carbon life forms” is irrelevant to the issue at hand, even ignorant.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Chuckle. How about ‘faeces are not pollution. It is a 100% natural product, no chemicals or added ingredients…’. Absurd!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Hey Jo

    Is it something we’ve (bloggers) been doing or you’ve been doing that’s attracted all these trolls to this site?

    Or maybe this is the panicky last ditch throngs of the alarmists. Their whole belief system crumbling around their ears and all that :)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    As you say, its better than the ETS, which once set up can never be undone due to the amount of money tied up in CO2 financial instruments which can never be devalued no matter what future science might prove or disprove. At least Abbots plan is a) undoable and b) realistic. I do wish Abbot had the balls to come out say he’s not considering C02 in his environmental policy at all, as any global climate change being specifically due to C02 is a load of baloney. Hey ho, politicians, always looking for a fence to sit on..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Dan if you defacate around your home regularly, that’s pollution. But ALL faeces is FERTILISER at the right places in the right amounts. I live on 20 acres with horses and cattle and chickens. I shovel shit regularly, then I come on to blogs like this one and continue to do the same it seems.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I have to wonder about Mr Abbott’s selection criteria… how many projects could realistically satify all four as required by his policy? While I applaud his more direct approach to buying green credentials (as you say, the criteria are all feel good anyway) I wonder if the counter-attack from Labor will be the “Magic Pudding” argument again… i.e. no project could possibly satisfy all four criteria. At the end of the day, if the Government wants to spend more ($1 billion a year as suggested) it has to come from somewhere, unless we aren’t counting taxes as being a cost to the consumer.

    Dan G – of course carbon dioxide is not a pollutant at any level reasonably expected to be achieved in the earth’s atmosphere in the next century or ten. This is the point that was being made. I could roll with your line of reasoning and say dihydrogen monoxide is a pollutant… trust me, if you stick your head in a bucket of it for 10 minutes you will die. That is garaunteed. This dangerous chemical has a web site dedicated to it:

    http://www.dhmo.org/

    Your argument about carbon dioxide holds as much water (boom tish) as the DHMO one…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    The key difference is that Abbott thinks we can reduce 5% of emissions at $10 per tonne. If that was possible then the CPRS would have a carbon price of $10 a tonne as the economy would find all these cheap ways to reduce emissions. So it is essentially the same policy, except Abbott reckons you can do it for $10 per tonne.

    Economic theory suggests, and you guys are right wingers so should be up to speed on this, that a trading scheme is theoretically the lowest cost abatement strategy. Sure you can choose not to have such a strategy, but your alternative which is based on the governemtn picking winners (tree planting) will almost definately cost you more.

    To implement direct government picked winners at a lower cost than a genuine market tool, well then it means that Abbott has discovered some new economics that the world ought to know about.

    Lastly, I want to know how he could upscale this to meaningful reductions should the world ever agree to them… say 25%-40% by whenever… at least Rudd’s (for all its flaws) has this capacity.

    [Please people lets use the "dislike" to mark down illogical, rude comments. I disagree with what Mattb says here, but he's raising points worth discussing. Perhaps we need a different term, instead of "dislike" how about "report this", "substandard", "illogical", I don't know? But it should be discussed on Guide For Commenting anyhow. I've raised the bar for comments to disappear for the moment. Can we use the thumbs down for rabid comments that are not worth discussing? - Jo]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB:

    Being an economist by trade I am quite up to speed with the concept and theory behind an ETS. The main problem is that what works well in theory does not always translate well to the playing field that we call the economy.

    You assume that if a cost of $10 per tonne was necessary to achieve a 5% reduction in emissions the ETS market would reach such a price equilibrium. You assume therefore that the ETS markets would be efficient and this is a big stretch of the imagination. I have no doubt in the abilities of clever entrepeneurs to rort the system and generate much revenue where there ought to be none. This has to be passed on somehow. Someone ends up paying… much like the subprime market crash. Poor policy ends up with poor results either in the short term or in the long run.

    While the ETS works great in the theory textbook, the implementation would be a complete disaster, at least the way Labor has it set up at the moment.

    I do agree that Abbott should not be entertaining ideas of cutting emissions through cherry picked projects either, but at the end of the day he has to play the political game and too many people were sold on the AGW story. He can’t win without swinging some of those voters to his side. Turnbull is the real danger in this because he is likely to go rogue on all climate change issues and more just to spite Abbott.

    I really need to write an essay for this site on how unrealistic major CO2 emission reductions are for an economy like Australia’s. Everyone bandies around emission cut targets like it is easily achievable without any clue what the economic ramificationas are…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bulldust I agree, and in criticising Abbott I am not defending Rudd’s CPRS. I just agree with Rudd when he says you can’t just pretend you;’ve found super cheap ways to cut emissions. And just as traders could make an ETS less efficient, well so can beurocrats:)

    I also agree with your statement re: Aussie reductions (nuclear power aside), but when the rights to emit are in a global market, well it is more likely that australia would “profit” most from emissions so would buy more from other nations for whom cuts are more practical.

    Turnbull will be interesting… if he thought you could reduce emissions cheaper than an ETS then he would have said so. Surely he has much more economic cred than Abbott? I think he will fall in to line however.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    and yes I should use a spellchecker thanks Louis and Brian.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    matty

    RE: Dan #1 – CO2 as a pollutant

    Submarines are managed at around 8000 ppm which is still well below the danger zone. Current concentration is 388ppm and creeping. Back to the Cambrian you seem to be saying?

    But we are honoured to have a few believers wander into the crosshairs. Time to find a new enemy Dan, and I’m sure you will.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Spot on Matty!

    Doubling the CO2 content to about 600 ppm improves the biomass yield for common wheat by about 35%. Reducing the CO2 content to about 200 ppm kills it dead. There’s a lot of hungry people in this world who wouldn’t mind a bit more “pollution”.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Baa Humbug: #5

    Hey, me too. I have beef cattle and horses, and I work on contract to the Government (sometimes), and I have to sanitise my self against troll-dribble. Talk about being a three-way loser :-|


    Report this

    00

  • #

    1 Dan Gleibitz:
    February 2nd, 2010 at 4:42 pm The medical effects of excessive carbon dioxide on the human body are well understood by scientists and doctors.

    Indeed, they are well known and studied extensively by countries that have submarines. Note the levels we’re talking about here.

    Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003).

    Loss of consciousness can occur within a minute of exposure at 300,000 ppm and within 5-10 minutes (min) of exposure at 100,000 ppm (HSDB 2004).
    Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine Contaminants, 2007, The National Acadamies Press.

    Our atmosphere is currently at roughly 389ppm whichis 11% of the low end of the average CO2 level that submariners operate in routinely. Your “health worries” argument is dead in the gate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    That’s funny rereke :)

    Well said JLK

    Not forgetting the average office complex can and does contain upto 8000ppm CO2. I’m sure there is a standard about these levels.

    JLK do subs have CO2 filters? Didn’t Apollo craft have those?
    Maybe the warmists can work on developing universal CO2 filters. Strap one on anything that moves thru the air


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    JLK
    “Your “health worries” argument is dead in the gate”.

    In the case of subs, his argument is “dead in the water” lol


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    Well, politicians are followers – and perhaps in the long run that’s for the best. Politicians who veer too far from public attitudes don’t have a good track record (anyone remember Whitlam?). So, Abbott has to pay some due to the Global Warming scare because a lot of typical voters still think there may be something to it.

    No, it’s up to us to change the minds of the typical voter – then the politicians will come around. We’re up against most of the MSM, but we are in better shape now than a mere decade or so ago in that respect – when getting a tepid letter to the editor published was something to get excited about.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    15 Baa Humbug:
    February 2nd, 2010 at 8:03 pm

    JLK do subs have CO2 filters?

    Yes, they do. The main difference between office workers and submariners is that the sub crew doesn’t get a chance to get “fresh air.” This is especially true of balistic missile boats which usually stay submerged for the entire cruise. Without the “scrubbers” the CO2 could reach toxic levels in a sub. A sub crew is also breathing other contaminants at a higher level than the average person. The main source of CO2 in a sub is human respiration.

    I’m trying to find the source, but I’ve also seen 5,000 ppm tossed around for the air quality is some urban areas…outdoors, with averages around 2,000 ppm.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    buzz345

    My view is that Senator Fielding has the right approach but Tony Abbott has to play the political game I suppose and I think as Jo does that its a thousand times less damaging than the proposed ETS.

    I e mailed all Coalition MP’s today pointing out that the words ‘climate change’ display a fundamental misunderstanding of what the ETS is meant to address; the ETS is meant to address anthropogenic global warming. Climate has changed in the past and will change in the future; the ETS is supposed to combat ‘man made global warming’; its foundation is the perceived ‘scientific consensus’ that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases.
    Using the words ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’ rather than AGW or anthropogenic global warming confuses people. I also said that in any event the perceived scientific consensus that the globe is warming and that humans are to blame has turned out to be a pack of lies; as stated in the Open Magazine the ‘hottest hoax in the world’ http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-hottest-hoax-in-the-world

    I urged all Coalition Members including Senators to vote against the Govt’s proposed ETS and I have previously urged them in my open letter to all MP’s http://www.climategate.com/an-open-letter-to-australian-members-of-parliament to have a Royal Commission to examine the question as to whether CO2 is causing global warming

    I wrote a separate e mail to Malcolm Turnbull

    I suggest we all keep the pressure up in this way and Bulldust it would be great if you could write an essay for this site on the economic impact of an ETS and perhaps we could send a copy to industry leaders; does anyone have any helpful contacts we could write to particularly in the energy or coal sectors


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    As a holder of a Westpac mortgage I received an email as a part of their “banana ad” fiasco purporting to explain why they had to put their rate up by more than other banks. There was no explanation in the email (beyond the banana one), but the email suggested I reply if I had any questions. So I did.

    I asked for confirmation of my speculation that Westpac had included the (huge) expected cash flow from their part in the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme in their forward estimates, and when that scheme was crushed by the new opposition it put a big hole in their budget – hence they were looking to make up some of the cash flow via their mortgage lending income. Needles to say, I didn’t get a reply. A Bullseye?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    We have to understand that politicians are really a reflection of the public. The public in general are clueless about the AGW scam. So the politicians are too scared to show too much favoritism to the anti-AGW side of the argument. It’s really up to someone or some group to take the battle to the courts and get some of these AGW alarmists behind bars. Until that happens, nothing will really change. In fact the AGW alarmists still have a good chance of winning thanks to the media.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    macha

    Buzz345: I don’t see any point in a royal commission for whether man-made Co2 is causing (catstrophic) global warming, after all thats what I thought the IPCC and East Anglia CRU set out to do. I’d rather open up the science to determine more of the inputs into climate…the likes of these ( thanks to Michael for this entry a few days back)

    Dr Henrik Svensmark’s theory on climate being driven by the interelatedness of the Magnetism between the sun and earth, coupled with the cyclical flow of cosmic radiation from inter-galactic space has been accepted as a very plausible causitive agent behind the Earth’s climate.

    See the You-tube six video clip series: The Cloud Mystery

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA

    The six papers in defense of his theory: Niche/Modeling blog

    http://landshape.org/enm/cosmic-ray-flux-and-the-ipcc

    and the instructive hour-long video relating climate to cosmic rays:

    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    It seems our politicians have lost sight of what this whole issue was about in the first place… the IPCC’s claim that CO2 emissions from human related activity is the key driver of (catastrophic) global warming. There is enough peer-reviewed scientific literature available that demonstrates that CO2 is not a key driver of global warming. The IPCC has not produced any empirical evidence that CO2 emissions from human related activity is the key driver of (catastrophic) global warming, let alone have any significant effect on climate change. Then there is the anomaly that blows away the IPCC’s claim… whilst CO2 has risen, the average global temperature has not! Last but not least, there is the evidence (very persuasive, if not conclusive) that the surface temperature data relied on by the IPCC has been fudged to such an extent as to now render it highly suspect if not worthless.

    I think the politicians have lost the plot!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith

    Don’t despair of Abbott tackling emissions at this point. This gives wavering liberal senators an alternative to “do nothing”. They can now vote against the ETS (if it’s put up again) in some comfort. Party cohesion potentially restored – an important leadership function – they stop looking like a rabble.
    And poor widdle Malcolm is left looking a bit silly (or a total traitorous dog take your pick).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    This is a good read on Rudd and Abbott’s policies, on business spectator a high credibility economics commentary site: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Carbon-copy-pd20100202-2A6ZC?OpenDocument&src=blb

    Also – can the babies in the cheap seats learn to use some level of critical thinking when it comes to the thumbs down? Average readers of this forum would benefit from reading my rational posts compared to most of the blind regurgitation that many spew forth day after day.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Abbott should know better than to try to get only half-pregnant.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Hey people, don’t be so hard on MattB. The thumbs down was uncalled for. He raises points that may be obvious to you, but plenty of people reading would benefit from the discussion, and there are few fans of AGW who can hold a conversation without being rude.

    Mattb, I’ve no time to do a proper reply, sorry. But recall I’ve said before that the carbon market is not a free market – it has no tradeable good that anyone wants to buy.

    Rudds system is less efficient than Abbots because it allows more money to disappear into the money-go-round and feed bankers/auditors/brokers and lawyers.

    There is free market element to Abbots plan. He says “we want trees” and then asks who can plant them the cheapest. There is already a market out there in planting trees, so this is a real market. It’s much harder to defraud than a fake market based on paper certificates in the third world.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    papertiger

    So the neighbor on the left is flinging shovelfuls of fresh wet cowflop over the fence, splattering on your wall.
    The neighbor on the right is flinging dry horse manure that bounces off.

    The point is they’re both shoveling it in your direction.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    anyone allowing a price to be put on carbon is on the wrong side of history. it is pathetic that abbott is in his present position precisely because the public and the wider world believed he saw through the con of AGW, yet so many appear willing to believe he must play the game. it is not a game and it is one bubble too far as far as i’m concerned. who to vote for in the next election? we are obliged by law to vote, but what happens when there is no alternative policy?

    27 Jan: Reuters: DAVOS-DSM CEO cautions on carbon derivatives dangers
    Carbon derivatives should be regulated to stop the proliferation of instruments with the potential to wreak a subprime-style crisis, the head of chemicals group DSM (DSMN.AS) said on Wednesday.
    “I think we learnt a lesson from the financial crisis. If we develop products which we don’t understand then we run into dangers,” Feike Sijbesma, the Dutch company’s chief executive, told Reuters.
    “I am to some degree amazed that we are discussing this for the financial markets and on CO2 we are letting it go.”…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE60Q1TK20100127

    only the public can put the pressure on. carbon trading is stalled, but the public need to make sure it is suicide for any politician to support it in any way.

    the MSM is deadly, and thankfully dying.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith

    Unfortunately, the 5 % reduction is still liberal policy. Abbott’s debate challenge and Rudd’s reaction in parliament is more necessary at this point. That and the fact there is another far cheaper alternative approach will cause some heartburn in 1abor. Their sceptics were told to shut up because the ETS was promising rivers of money for political pork. The muppets on ABC midday report were priceless reporting the further narrowing of the two party preferred margin, They looked genuinely stunned and fearful. Simkin couldn’t deliver his commentary properly and looked like a rabbit in the headlights.
    The media don’t know what to do with Abbott at this point. They’ve seen their Gillard inspired rant on Abbott’s fatherly advice be utterly vilified, and then they resorted to the Speedos attack which the public also condemned. Early days, and the dam has definitely broken with MSM now questioning AGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Hi Jo,

    I agree the whole concept of AGW and CO2 induced warming is crap, however I wonder if this is his interim way of stopping Liberals from crossing the floor to vote for the labour ETS.

    Stopping the Labour ETS has to be the main goal. As more info comes to hand he gets to pull out of his policy without damage to Australia.

    If this is his tactic it is actually quite brilliant.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    JLKrueger writes about submarines. Sir, that in no way changes the fact of what I wrote, which clearly shows the absurdity of Ms Nova’s original comment.

    Considering all the claims of bullying, it’s pretty funny how well-reasoned but dissenting views are quickly voted into oblivion by the devout followers of anti-science on this site. ;-)

    Here’s another correct and reasoned point: Joanne Nova repeatedly claims to hold purely a skeptical position. For examples, from the first 3 pages alone:
    “If carbon is not a significant cause…” [p1] rather than “If carbon has not been sufficiently proved to be a significant cause…” (proposition)
    “Something else caused the warming.” [p3 pt1] rather than “Something else may have caused the warming.” (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)
    “Something else caused the warming.” [p3 pt2] rather than “Something else may have caused the warming.” (illogical conclusion equivalent to “fires existed before matches therefore matches cannot cause fire)
    “Satellites circling the planet twice a day show that the world has not warmed since…” [p3] (non-skeptical assertion)
    “… years of NO global warming…” [p3] (non-skeptical assertion)
    “… computer models don’t know…” [p3] (non-skeptical assertion)
    “Carbon today is a bit-part player.” [p3] (non-skeptical assertion)

    As a skeptic, rather than a denialist or anti-science promoter, I find it offensive that you claim to be nothing more than skeptical about the issue.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Hi keith,

    Just saw your similar post. great minds – grin

    Scott


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bill

    It’s still a policy based on a HOAX!

    Abbott must TOTALLY & UTTERLY REJECT this global warming science fiction if he expects to get my vote!

    Otherwise it will be the National Party or Independants for me!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Bill

    as pointed out above, Abbott needs to stop his senators from crossing the floor – this policy should be able to do that. Remember it’s short term politics we are dealing with.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Jo,

    It seems Marc Morano is getting information that the carbon traders are quitting the business
    http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/Dan_Box/409314/what_the_carbon_market_did_after_copenhagen_nothing.html.

    Lead link on climate depot. That will kill the ETS faster than anything else.

    It’s also useful for people here to read Thomas Sowell’s “Intellectuals and Society” – it really starts to explain matters and why we have ended up in this carbonaceous mess. You can get it from Amazon.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sydney Sceptic

    Unbelievable!! Get a load of this:
    http://www.tyndall.uea.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp58.pdf

    This appears to be the Orwellian ‘how-to’ manual that CC researchers and politicians are using for managing the general public’s belief in AGW.

    The Social Simulation of the Public Perception
    of Weather Events and their Effect upon the
    Development of Belief in Anthropogenic
    Climate Change

    We contest that belief in global warming or climate change is shaped by a number of
    direct and mediated experiences and claimed attributions. These will be presented as a
    series of propositions, untested, but, in principle, testable using conventional social
    science methods. Consequently the model is constructed of a significant number of
    components, all of which cannot be discussed in detail in a single paper. To this extent,
    and at this point in this discussion, we will simply present an outline of the components
    followed by a demonstration of the impact of only Spring temperatures on the belief in
    climate change or global warming.

    Did you see at the end where they list their partners?

    The Tyndall Centre is a partnership of the following institutions:
    University of East Anglia
    UMIST
    Southampton Oceanography Centre
    University of Southampton
    University of Cambridge
    Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
    SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research (University of Sussex)
    Institute for Transport Studies (University of Leeds)
    Complex Systems Management Centre (Cranfield University)
    Energy Research Unit (CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory)
    The Centre is core funded by the following organisations:
    Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC)
    Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
    Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
    UK Government Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    And the non-skeptical anti-science goes on:

    “The main “cause” of global warming is air conditioners.” [p7 referring to the placement of thermometers] (unsupported proposition, non-skeptical assertion)
    “CO2 [is] [...] close to its saturation point.” [p8] (unsupported and counter-factual [there is no absolute limit to a logarithmic response] proposition, non-skeptical assertion)
    “[T]he effect is already so small, it’s unmeasurable.” (unsupported proposition, non-skeptical assertion)
    “If temperatures followed CO2 levels in the past. (They didn’t) [This would be evidence that carbon is a major cause of global warming]” [p11] (illogical conclusion equivalent to “fires existed before matches therefore matches cannot cause fire”, false dillemma, non-skeptical assertion)
    “If atmosphere showed the characteristic heating pattern of increased greenhouse warming. (It doesn’t) [This would be evidence that carbon is a major cause of global warming]” [p11] (non-skeptical assertion, strawman fallacy, falsifiability fallacy)
    “[T]here is at least one other factor that is more important than CO2 and the models don’t know what it is.” [p11] (unsupported proposition, non-skeptical assertion)
    “Can you name a single piece of evidence showing higher CO2 means significantly higher temperatures today?” [p12 - implies the answer is "no" when there is plenty of evidence that CO2 keeps the planet significantly warmer than it would be without it] (unsupported implied proposition, non-skeptical implication)
    “Carbon doesn’t seem to have driven temperatures before; probably isn’t doing it now; things are not getting warmer; and computer models can’t predict the weather.” (unsupported proposition, non-skeptical assertion) (unsupported proposition, non-skeptical assertion) (unsupported proposition, non-skeptical assertion) (unsupported proposition, non-skeptical assertion)
    “An Emissions Trading Scheme is a bad solution to a problem that’s gone, fighting a cause that never was…” (unsupported proposition, non-skeptical assertion)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I failed to reference the last 2 quotes. They were both [p16].
    This is “skeptical” only as far as young earth creationism can be described as evolutionary skepticism. Shall I point out the non-skeptical blog posts next?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith

    Looks like Dan is now giving everyone dislikes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    yonason

    @Joanne Nova: February 3rd, 2010 at 4:05 am

    Oh, but the “Carbon Market” IS “free.” In fact, it’s about as “free” as it gets, as in free-for-all.

    OK, just trying to be funny there. Here’s the real dirt, with a capital “D.”
    http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18789&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
    Nearly 90% of market is a fraud, and over $7Billion wasted on it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Just to show I’m even handed here is another good article from BusinessSpectator: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Abbotts-great-big-axe-pd20100203-2AR5B showing some of the positives of Abbott’s proposal.

    Only flaw I can see is conversion to Gas… why would you waste such a versatile and quality fuel on a power station when there are mountains of nuclear fuel available.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I agree that the proposed ETS would have been undesirable, but that does not change the overwhelming evidence that the earth is warming, nor the overwhelming evidence that the primary forcing agent is the human-caused increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels.
    Regards, Mezz.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This flat earther, denier crank is very happy with the IPCC meltdown on a daily basis, and as a Kiwi quite pleased to see Abbott playing the pragmatic bob each card on AGW, very much like our PM John Key.

    As a frequent visitor to this site (and poacher) I think the Like/Dislike widget is unnecessary. The most intolerant sites that I have ever visited, where posters are terrified of debate and stamp out dissent are the so called “liberal” sites…see if you can bear it, Democratic Underground…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cameron H

    To Mezz, If you have any evidence, overwhelming or otherwise, that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, human-caused or not, is the main driver of global warming perhaps you can show it to the rest of us who are unable to find it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith

    I too would be interested in this overwhelming evidence. A previous poster some time ago also claimed to be in possession of this, but it failed to appear. I might add the IPCC would be very interested also, because nothing else will save their bacon.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Jo @ 29

    You should also throw the Government cost into the mix. The ETS is incredibly difficult to audit and regulate. It would require an enormous bureaucracy to monitor properly.

    Take for example… Alcoa has a process to sequester CO2 in their residue prior to long term storage. They are also working on projects to resuse the residue fractions (such as sand as roadbase being trialled as we speak). This is all public knowledge. Anywho… Alcoa takes CO2 from other manufacturers in Kwinana before chemically locking it into their residue.

    Who gets the credit for this exercise under the CPRS? What about the CO2 that has to be manufactured in order for it to be sequestered… how is that accounted for? You can see how this quickly opens up a can of worms. I could pose numerous questions on this project alone.

    What about the simple question of measuring emissions… you can’t stick a meter on every smokestack in a plant and expect to measure CO2 emissions. I presume therefore that the CPRS assumes a certain level of emissions based on your process. i.e. if you are a coal-fired electricity generator of a centain type, it will be assumed what your emissions are based upon how much and what type of coal you burn. The accounting gets extremely messy … you seriously expect bureaucrats in Canberra to audit such a mess with any degree of confidence. Let alone without enormous cost to the tax payer? Simple taxes are much more efficient, and the CPRS is enormously complex.

    What about trees planted to lock in carbon (off sets)? What happens if there is a bush fire? or a prescribed burn? Clearly it could be analysed what the optimal burn off frequency would be to ensure carbon being locked up at an optimal rate while still preventing severe bush fires. I doubt there is too much research on this either.

    I could pose dozens and dozens of questions like these which would make fertile soil for PhD theses, but I think it is quite apparent that this is a complex issue and there is no way anyone in Labor is going to attempt to explain it to the electorate. We all remember when someone else tried to explain GST impacts on cake prices… and the GST was incredibly simple by comparison.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Regarding overwhelming ecidence of warming… I don’t think anyone debates the fact that there is probably a small amount of warming as we emerge from the LIA (Little Ice Age) which ended just a few (human) generations ago. The question is whether it is likely to lead to catastrophic gloabal impacts or not. That is where the crux of the debate is at.

    The misuse of terminology by politicians and advocates is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate and otherwise mislead the populace. The prime offenders are:

    Climate Change – misused to imply AGW (i.e. man made global warming).

    Carbon pollution – these words do not belong together. Anyone with primary school understanding of biology knows this. Therefore the CPRS is wholly disingenuous and used to imply carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

    Consensus – Proof in science is not derived from consensus. Anyone who makes an appeal to consensus is either a politician or an advocate of some type (the NIPCC is just as much an appeal to consensus as the IPCC).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    My concern with nuclear power concerns responsibility for the inevitable decommissioning expenses. It seems to me that big biz reaps the profits from these plants then leaves the clean up for Joe tax payer.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bulldust, as you say, “proof in science is not derived from consensus”, but people here argue that humans are NOT causing climate change (in other words, they are making an unfounded, unsupported and unscientific claim), despite the accepted science (not consensus). These claims are based on a bunch of dismissive claims and a massive conspiracy theory. THAT’S NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS EITHER!!!

    If there is fault in the thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed papers that form the science–not by consensus but by the fact that they have not been falsified–people here should be able to change the state of scientific understanding. But they don’t, I guess because they can’t?

    The “evidence” comes regularly in the form of papers, journals and studies. The evidence is the product of thousands of hard-working scientists. Not amateurish and childish propaganda like your “Skeptic’s Handbook”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Mezz, the problem with your position – and that is the fundamental premise for this entire blog – is that nowhere in these “thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed papers” is there any EMPIRICAL evidence, overwhelming or otherwise, that humankind’s co2 emissions cause any significant, let alone catastrophic further warming.

    You see, the onus isn’t on the sceptical side to “prove” anything at all. We don’t make claims, were not asking the entire developed world to pay crippling financial homage to an imagined green deity.

    We’re simply asking “why?”. So far we have not received a quality answer to our question, so we keep asking.

    The deliberately misleading, emotional terminology and imagery created by activist environmentalist organisations and ambitious politicians, and propagated willingly by the main stream media and almost the entire education system is the real danger here.

    Take images of melting ice bergs, “drowning” polar bears, drought stricken or flood ravaged communities, starving 3rd world children, factory smoke stacks, snarling freeway traffic, etc. etc.

    Take also the endlessly repeated words and phrases like “carbon pollution”, “carbon footprint”, “climate change” (instead of “global warming”, and almost universally now triggering in the general population the notion of “man made climate change”), – and I could go on but you get the picture.

    All this, day after day, relentlessly repeating over and over in news and other media, in pictures and sound bites, and it’s no wonder the sheeple are brainwashed into feeling it all must be true. And I deliberately said feeling not thinking because that’s what the education system trains people to do.

    It has been said – anecdotally – that 5% of people think, 20% think that they think, and 75% would rather die than think. What you have stumbled on here, Mezz, is a community of people who prefer to think rather than buckle under and die.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB: The article by Giles Parkinson that you linked to appears to be a typical green fluff piece.
    The author appears to be unable to understand that the reason there is no investment in alternative energy schemes like wind is that the energy is totally uneconomic. i.e extremely expensive and unreliable to boot.

    I’m starting to worry about the Business Spectator.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    It beggars belief really, that kind of vast conspiracy theory involving pretty much ALL the worlds governments and tens of thousands of scientists!

    *giggles*

    It’s what I, as a skeptic, would call an extraordinary claim, and you guys as ‘skeptics’ should know that “an extraordinary claim demands extraordinary evidence”…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Stuart H

    So Mary Bargwara what are the problems with the skeptics handbook? Can you list the statements made within it that are not true?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Speedy

    Mezza – thanks for your comments. I also agree that an ETS is a waste of time – it would be just a feeding frenzy for the bankers, brokers and middlemen. In other locations, it has been shown to be extremely prone to corruption, as other posters at this site have noted.

    As to overwhelming evidence. Was it Einstein who said: – “A thousand experiments won’t prove me right, but one experiment will prove me wrong.” You may be dismissive of the skeptics handbook, but it raises issues that a lot of high brow climate “scientists” have declined (or are unable) to address. Until then, a true scientist has a responsibility to assume they are wrong.

    And given that the global warming advocates want to impose some very serious changes to the social and economic fabric on the basis of their beliefs, the responsibility should rest with them to demonstrate the validity of their claims. When their response instead is to insult the people who are simply asking valid questions, something is very wrong. Perhaps you could file a Freedom of Information request with NASA or similar and see how open is their “science”?

    Can they show – from physical evidence – that global warming is:
    1. Significant,
    2. Harmful, and
    3. Man-made?

    Not yet – and they’ve been working on this for 20 years! I suspect that if mankind were to be put on trial for global warming, the case would be laughed out of court.

    You may also be interested to know that Jo Nova was a global warming advocate for over 10 years – she knows both sides of the argument, and clearly knows which one is right!

    Regards,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Dan: “an extraordinary claim demands extraordinary evidence”…

    You took the words right out of my mouth, Dan! See my post above. :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Anne-Kit Littler says ” the onus isn’t on the sceptical side to “prove” anything at all”. Refer to my previous posts, and to almost every blog or comment Joanne Nova has made on this website, and to hundreds of her devout follower’s posts. There are MANY claims here. Way beyond skepticism, way beyond uninformed doubt. Actual positions of disbelief and dismissal.

    And yet you do not demand that these irrational people holding these unscientific positions provide evidence?

    Meanwhile, there is PLENTY of evidence, both from empiricism AND PHYSICS, that Carbon Dioxide is a GHG, that increasing atmospheric CO2 has, does and will continue to cause increased average global temperatures. There are also plenty of empirical measurements of human release of CO2 into the atmosphere, which continues unabated, and increases. There is plenty of evidence that we are reducing the capacity of biological systems to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide. There is plenty of evidence of increased levels of atmospheric GHG resulting from our increased emissions and decreased biological capacity to process a normal carbon cycle.

    There is plenty of empirical evidence of continued warming, just AS PHYSICS TELLS US IT SHOULD if the above evidences (CO2 is a GHG, atmospheric levels are increasing due to our emissions) were found.

    If you truly cannot find any empirical evidence, you are either incredibly ignorant or deliberately refusing to read anything that contradicts your absurd claim of its absence. I’m truly amazed, not to mention amused to the point of giggles, that a group like you folks–true flat-earthers–exists in today’s world of access to information.

    Like I said earlier, you lot are skeptical of climate science only as far as young earth creationists are skeptical of evolution.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Here is another non-skeptical line (again implying a vast global conspiracy) from right above which I notice Anne-Kit Littler didn’t demand extraordinary evidence for: “… the fake carbon scare…” – Joanne Nova


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Mary – you make the typical mistake of a serious scientist. You assume that all these papers you refer to prove AGW – they don’t, they just infer it in their abstracts and conclusions so as to obtain funding.

    My I offer an example: Prof. Barry Brook, Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change at Adelaide University.

    His Bio claims:

    His current work is aimed at determining the extent to which climate change might amplify other major anthropogenic threats to biodiversity (e.g., demographic and genetic stress, habitat degradation, introduced predator and competitor species), and developing new modelling systems which realistically captures this information and so can be used for the purposes of prediction, adaptation and ecosystem management and restoration. He is also undertaking systems modelling for sustainable energy, including scenario modelling of future low-carbon energy mixes (nuclear power and renewables) and the critical evaluation of large-scale deployment options, energy backup, and variability control.

    He has 7 researchers in his department who supervise 8 PhD students who are all working on some kind of research involving animal habitats, ecosystems and extinctions.

    Yet the reality is that the last extinct bird on mainland Australia occurred in the 1920s. The last mammal in the 1950s. Most extinctions occurred because we shot them out! But because of all the AGW scaremongering these guys get funding in the name of “Climate Change”
    .
    Now I’m not anti research, I’m all for it, but the climate change movement, with the support of all the environment groups, are hogging all the media attention and all the science funding AND produce all the research papers. There are far more important areas needed to be researched than animal extinctions but they don’t get a guernsey.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Non-skepticism from yesterday’s blog post:
    “… the scam” – Joanne Nova
    “… the Great Big (baseless) Tax…” – Joanne Nova
    “… facade of deceit…” – Joanne Nova
    “… a harmless gas…” – Joanne Nova

    You can’t get much more of an extraordinary claim than that which Ms Nova makes, and so many here seem to support. That around the world, governments and scientists have conspired in their tens of thousands to pull off the biggest ever conspiracy (maybe to line the pockets of their banker friends, eh, Ms Nova?), and at the centre of this vast international conspiracy is a poor, misaligned, completely harmless little gas called Carbon Dioxide?

    [Dan, you've popped into a conversation which is on the 147th post and 15,971st comment -- you are 146 posts behind us. Everything you ask has been discussed ad infinitum... - JN]

    Hilarious! Uproarious! Absurd, sure, that too.

    But the funniest part of all is the way you lot of posters lap it up without question. Top effort in ‘skepticism’ folks. Mind if I just correctly label you denialists instead? Coz’ it don’t run deeper than that ‘roun here, does it eh? Yeehaw!

    * Insert the duelling banjo theme *


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Dan – I don’t recall you ever mentioning that you personally wrote to the UEA and questioned them on their data regarding Himalayan Glaciers melting by 2035, I also don’t recall you writing letters to the MSM questioning Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph even though it has been shown to be faulty, or that the New Zealand temperature record was altered to show a warming bias etc etc etc.

    Now you act like you are a scientist and therefore this whole hoax has been pulled over your eyes, so how would it be any different for other scientists and politicians?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Dan, are you obtuse? You guys keep bleating on about plenty of evidence yet are unable to point to a SINGLE SPECIFIC PAPER that contains this elusive piece of evidence.

    “If you truly cannot find any empirical evidence …” that’s the thing, Dan: Don’t expect me to search for it, I am skeptical, remember? I’m the gal at the back of the room with my arms crossed asking you to prove YOUR CLAIM! Up to you, buddy, not me … Geez, you guys are hard of hearing.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Dan Gleibitz,

    Just exactly what is it that we deny?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    @ Dan

    Was that your mums banjo going in the background?

    No Co2 = no life on this planet
    No Greenhouse effect = No life on this planet

    To little Co2 and plants and animals die
    higher CO2 levels than now and plants grow faster
    Much too much CO2 and not enough oxygen and oxygen breathing animals Die

    Sounds pretty much like water
    Not enough water we all die
    Too much water we die
    Too much water and plants and animals die

    “… the Great Big (baseless) Tax…” – Joanne Nova – yep
    “… facade of deceit…” – Joanne Nova – Yep
    “… a harmless gas…” – Joanne Nova – incorrect its a very important plant food


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Lionell Griffith, plenty of posts/ers here deny that humans are causing global warming. Plenty even deny that the globe IS warming.

    That IS NOT a skeptical position (eg. insufficient evidence for AGW), it is a NON-SKEPTICAL position. One for which there is NO evidence, and one which runs counter to all empirical evidence (there’s loads of it) as well as what we’d expect given our solid understanding of the physics & chemistry – the mechanism.

    Denialism, pure and simple (very much the latter, from what I’ve read so far).

    If you don’t believe that people here are MAKING DENIALIST CLAIMS, check through my previous posts. There are dozens quoted already. Unfounded, uninformed, extraordinary claims.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “I’m the gal at the back of the room with my arms crossed asking you to prove YOUR CLAIM!”

    Define which claim of mine you need supporting?

    Choose from the following:

    That Carbon Dioxide is a ‘Greenhouse Gas’ (GHG)?
    That human activity is is causing atmospheric GHG levels to rise?

    Those are the two propositions that matter (forget about all Ms Nova’s irrelevant ones). Which of these do you require evidence for? Because I’ve got it in spades.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    deny that humans are causing global warming. Plenty even deny that the globe IS warming.

    the globe has warmed .7C over past 100 years. Let’s assume it’s all due to the increase in CO2.

    Man’s contribution to the increase in CO2 is approx 3%.

    Therefore 3% of .7C is 0.021.

    Yes man is causing the planet to warm – by 0.021C – this morning it was 18C – this afternoon it’s 32C – yeah – I’m really concerned about the 0.021!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crom

    @ Gleibitz, forget global conspiracy champ, much more a case of group think.

    Global conspiracy is just another easy way to tag those of us who question, like “denier” and “flat earther”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Nobody denies that CO2 is a GHG (Greenhouse Gas). This is well known, it is also known that it’s impact varies with concentration, water vapour, location geographically etc Once again… no one denies it is a GHG… what we are skeptical about is the assumed positive feedback loops the incomplete IPCC models assume. Hence, wehther the small warming a doubling in CO2 causes results in a bigger or smaller warming in the climate system as a whole. Anyone that touts CO2 as a GHG is proof of catastrophic AGW does not know what they are talking about. The former does not prove the latter.

    Why do I say “incomplete models”? Because the IPCC does not take all the compexities of the climate system into account. Clouds, for instance, which have massive affects on the amount of solar energy received at the earth’s surface are barely understood, let alone modelled. The “forcing” attrbutable to a small change in cloud cover globally vastly outweighs the forcing that would occur from a massive increase in CO2 concentrations.

    So Dan G … stating what we all know to be true about CO2 as a small GHG contributer (much smaller than water vapour BTW), does not lead one to the conclusion that the IPCC makes of 4-6 degree temperature increases. You make enormous leaps of faith to land at those conclusions. It takes a lot of positive feedback (and a suspension of the laws of thermodynamics) to get you from a one degree warming due to a doubling of CO2 (approx – I forget the exact numbers) to a 4-6 degree warming as predicted in their models. Models do not prove scientific hypotheses BTW… evidence (i.e. data) does. The IPCC has no data to support the wild forecasts… only assumptions in models.

    Take it from me, as someone who spent a lot of time modelling at college, I can prove just about anything with a model just by very minor tweaks of the input parameters. The more complex and the more unknowns (or poorly knowns) in the model, the more unreliable the results. Depending on how sensitive the model is to the parameters, very small tweaks can have enormous impacts on the final output (predictions). There are a lot of climate variables either not modelled, or poorly modelled, in the IPCC efforts. Their models are vast and complex, but the climate system is much more so.

    In conclusion, we (humans) are barely scratching around the edges of the science of climate, and certainly nowhere close to the understanding that would be required to blame one variable (GHGs) as the root of all major climate change in the modern era.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Dan, just because you haven’t bothered to read the whole handbook and note the sources, links, or blog posts, where I substantiate them, doesn’t mean I made unsubstantiated assertions.

    For example, my assertion that there is no evidence of major warming due to carbon remains un-contradicted by those who claim there are thousands of papers, and that includes Professors of Climate Science who I have asked.

    All you have to do to prove me wrong is post THAT mystery paper.
    All your assertions are baseless, but it would waste hours of my time to provide you with the links that are avail able in my LINKS and Sources Page, My index or My Archives.

    I have already backed up everything I say and in writing. You shoot blanks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Thanks, Bulldust. You said it much better than I could have! :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Janama writes “the globe has warmed .7C over past 100 years. Let’s assume it’s all due to the increase in CO2.”

    Why on earth would you assume that?

    “Man’s contribution to the increase in CO2 is approx 3%.”

    Where on earth did you get that figure from?

    “Yes man is causing the planet to warm – by 0.021C”

    I understand how this conclusion is the result of your two propositions BUT (watch carefully folks, this is how TRUE skepticism works), you have not provided any evidence for either of your propositions, let alone sufficient evidence that I should believe your conclusion.

    Back to you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    As for the “global conspiracy” argument… that’s a misdirect. Use Levitt’s (Freakonomics) approach to economics and think about the various groups involved in the climate change arena and their respective interests (political or financial). It quickly becomes apparent that the vast majority have something to gain from jumping on the AGW bandwagon.

    Researchers that write peer reviewed papers – Pro AGW… more funding and more likely to be published. Therefore a quicker path to gain promotion and tenure. Try publishing a skeptical article to a peer-reviewed journal such as Nature or Science and see how far you get.

    Politicians – once the AGW theme was sold to the public, you would be foolish to champion the skeptic side because it is a vote loser. Posting to a cushy UN climate change portfolio is of course the logical end game.

    UN politicians – need a permanent tax base to centralise political power at the global scale. The UN is too reliant on governmental donations ATM and therefore lacks long-term financial stability.

    Media – Most media is left-leaning and has an AGW bias because it is associated with left-wing politics. Even if that were not true, AGW is a disaster script too juicy not to print. The boring, everything-is-pretty-much-normal climate story does not sell copy.

    Financial corporations – if I need to spell this out… well let’s keep it polite.

    Powerbrokers with vested interest – Al Gore, Pachauri, Maurice Strong and a cast of thousands heavily invested in green technology. Did you know that the co-founders of Google had 7.5 billion (Euros I think it was) each invested in green energy? You think that doesn’t influence how they present things to the world? I can link the list of major investors if someone wants.

    Big Oil – contrary to popular AGW supporter belief, big oil companies are not stupid and put a lot of money and R&D effort into renewables and climate research. Financially they have to hedge their bets and cover their risk exposure if policy changes quickly.

    That’s the more prominent vested interests, but I could go on. It doesn’t take a conspiracy theory to believe these interests are all pretty much aligned and pushing in the same general direction. That is why the IPCC got as far as it did… there is a lot of momentum built up there… financial and political.

    The main interests opposing it re the rapidly developing countries of China, India, and Brazil. That is why COP15 failed… because they want to dig themselves out of poverty. Are you going to stop them?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Joanne Nova writes “my assertion that there is no evidence of major warming due to carbon remains un-contradicted…”

    You have gone far further than merely claiming that there is no evidence. You’ve claimed that it is not occurring. Repeatedly. I’ve quoted many such examples of your anti-scientific non-skepticism above, and am happy to provide another 100 if you wish.

    As a veteran Skeptic, I find your abuse of the term absolutely offensive.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    If you truly cannot find any empirical evidence, you are either incredibly ignorant or deliberately refusing to read anything that contradicts your absurd claim of its absence.

    Dan, back this up. You’ve said it many times. I discussed exactly the evidence we are looking for here and here.

    Please provide the evidence you claim exists, or apologize.

    Any more baseless assertions or statements you will be indefinitely moderated until you address the point above. Prove you are not here to waste our time adding science-communication-pollution to the open discussion here.

    Oh and there are hundreds of papers that support us, and none that support the claim that we will warm by more than 1.2 degrees.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “I discussed exactly the evidence we are looking for here and here”

    And for those playing at home:
    “Evidence of carbons impact
    [1] If temperatures followed CO2 levels in the past. (They didn’t)
    [2] If the atmosphere showed the characteristic heating pattern of increased greenhouse warming. (It doesn’t).”

    1] As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, this is flawed. It’s like claiming matches don’t cause fires, because fires existed before the invention of matches. It’s frankly, stupid.

    2] You seem to have latched on to this like it matters. Why on earth do you think the entire foundation of climate science crumbles if a particular ‘fingerprint’ is found (or not for that matter)?

    The science does not rely on this. It does not underpin all understanding of the effects of GHG. It is frankly irrelevant.

    “Oh and there are hundreds of papers that support us, and none that support the claim that we will warm by more than 1.2 degrees.”
    None that support the claim, or none that “support you” that claim > 1.2 degrees warming?

    Can you point out which of those papers supports your point [2] above, that the “missing hotspot” proves that man-made global warming is a myth?

    “Dan, back this up”
    The evidence required does not have to meet your absurdly creative criteria. The evidence comes from physics, which tells us that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its effects. It comes from empirical measurements of GHG emmissions, GHG levels, temperatures (surface, ocean, atmospheric), heck we even use satellites to measure insolation! You ignore all this evidence, instead seeking (‘god of the gaps style’) any little chink in our current knowledge, then claiming this ‘missing’ piece is the only acceptable evidence and that its absence proves that AGW is non-existent.

    Please stop cloaking this in skeptical and scientific language. It is anti-scientific and non-skeptical. And more than a little bit pathetic, frankly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Dan Gleibitz:
    February 3rd, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    “it’s what I, as a skeptic”,

    So you’re a skeptic Dan?

    But the very next post
    February 3rd, 2010 at 2:09 pm

    Meanwhile, there is PLENTY of evidence, both from empiricism AND PHYSICS, that Carbon Dioxide is a GHG, that increasing atmospheric CO2 has, does and will continue to cause increased average global temperatures. etc etc

    So what exactly are you skeptical about Dan? Surely not about AGW


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    “What kind of suicidal masochistic misnomer is the term “pollution”? We are carbon life forms.”

    That’s the problem. You’re in the way of the silicon-based life forms that seek to demolish the civilisation carbon-based life forms have created.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Baa Humbug writes: “So what exactly are you skeptical about Dan?”

    You misunderstand skepticism. No wonder you lot hijacked the phrase so easily.

    Skepticism != Doubt

    True Skepticism is the very foundation of scientific inquiry. Websters defines it as:
    “A critical attitude towards any theory, statement, experiment, or phenomenon, doubting the certainty of all things until adequate proof has been produced; the scientific spirit.”

    What am I Skeptical about? Everything! What do I dismiss as unsupported or absurd (what do I as a Skeptic rally against)? 9/11 conspiracy, dowsing, alien abduction, creationists, homeopathy, god, healing magnets, aura reading, the anti-vaccination lobby, naturopathy… and much more. I abhor pseudoscience and anti-science in all its forms. And what I’ve found on this site sits right up there with the worst of it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    I think we’ve got Richard Dawkins posting here under a synonym!

    If you’re such an arch skeptic doubter, Dan, how come you’ve been hoodwinked by the AGW crowd? You seem pretty certain about that …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Not to be picky again, but looking at that list Jo as a scientist do you back the claim that:
    “Free speech about climate change
    (Society, Volume 44, Number 4, May 2007)
    - Christopher Monckton”

    is a peer reviewed science article that shows warming will be less than the IPCC suggests?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    and how priveliged we would be to have Dawkins posting yes AK?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    @Dan

    You shoot blanks

    Yep that about sums up Dans arguments


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Dan, read this. The one flaw that wipes out the crisis.

    This is why everything you write misses the point and argues a non-point.

    1. Yes, the world has warmed since 1800
    2. Yes co2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes some warming factor. Both we and the IPCC agree this is around 1.1 degrees.
    3. The IPCC then multiplies all the basic physics by a factor of 2 – 10 (ave 3) due to “feedback”. All the evidence tells us they are wrong on this point and feedback is negative. That’s why the missing hot spot blows away 2/3rds of the warming and ALL of the crisis, which you would know if you read these posts tagged Missing hot spot before you ranted on.

    Dan, you are moderated now for making claims you clearly can’t back up. This is not an honest attempt at conversation. I’m disappointed because we want to talk science, but you can’t even manage to list ONE SINGLE PAPER.

    If you are interested in discussing the science politely we’ll welcome your posts, but I make assertions here very carefully, and you have not. You can post again as soon as you provide some empirical evidence we can discuss or apologize and admit you can’t. Anything else is dishonest.

    Before anyone accuses me of censorship, politeness and honesty are my only rules. If you enjoy Dans comments I direct you to go to Dans website http://www.simplesustainable.com/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “[H]ow come you’ve been hoodwinked by the AGW crowd” asks Anne-Kit Littler.

    I haven’t. I think Al Gore is a buffoon who has harmed climate science more than helped it. I am far from convinced that many of the catastrophic predictions are within the range of possibilities. I’m more confident of human ingenuity and adaptability than many pessimists.

    But the more I study the science, the better I understand the current state of knowledge, the more time I spend with the people directly involved in climate science pursuits, the less I doubt our impact upon the world. We are constantly increasing understanding about our global climate, and the science is coming down pretty firmly on the side of man-made global warming. That’s the reality that you people face.

    You seem hell-bent on spreading your propaganda wide and far (and particularly to impressionable children – this is disgusting). As if the science will be settled once and for all in the court of public opinion? I don’t know how intellectually honest the people behind such a strategy could be…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Or perhaps even privileged, MattB. Each to his own taste I guess; the Dawkins phenomenon isn’t my cup of tea.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mattb, I said “hundreds of papers” I didn’t say all 500. If you’d like to trim down that list to the, say 200, strongest most uncontestable papers supporting us, I’d be most grateful and will post it in your name and give you the credit. OK?

    That would be most helpful!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    AK you’ll have to take my word but I was just about to correct that spelling and just brushed the reply button when the screen readjusted.

    BTW I’m not in the slightest bit surprised you’re not in to Dawkins.

    Jo – just trim the ones in E&E for a good start.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    “Dan .. You shoot blanks.”

    I think that sums it up pretty well. Ouch!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Regards plenty of EMPIRICAL evidence.

    IPCC AR4 WG3 chapter 1

    “1.2.2 What is dangerous interference with the
    climate system?

    Defining what is dangerous interference with the climate
    system is a complex task that can only be partially supported
    by science,
    as it inherently involves normative judgements.

    The whole AR4 is riddled with this sort of EMPIRICAL evidence.

    Dan, if invite me over to your website I’d be happy to list all the EMPIRICAL evidence from the AR4 report for you. Alternatively you can read some of it yourself, it’s better than being spoonfed.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    It may remove rewards for Bankers but Al Gore is trying to make sure your super ends up in his pocket and not yours. And all the while the carbon market shudders from Copenhagen.

    http://twawki.com/2010/02/03/warning-future-cataclsym/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Dan,
    post empirical evidence that feedback is net positive or apologize and admit you can’t. No comments until you do.

    No AR4 does not qualify as evidence, and nor do computer model outputs.
    Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Jo – just trim the ones in E&E for a good start.

    Oh, I didn’t think you’d approve of blanket censorship of peer reviewed papers? Is Mattb’s definition of “peer-review” that it can be “only reviewed by those who are paid to pander to the AGW theory?”

    No independent reviewers accepted?

    I think we could axe Nature because it won’t print papers which disagree with a theory (stated policy – how unscientific), and won’t print corrections to it’s own articles – except I’d never do something so counter to free speech.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Below is the WG3′s Qualitative definition of uncertainty [Table 2.2]. (technical Summary pp34)

    High agreement, limited evidence

    High agreement, medium evidence

    High agreement, much evidence

    Medium agreement, limited evidence

    Medium agreement, medium evidence

    Medium agreement, much evidence

    Low agreement, limited evidence

    Low agreement, medium evidence

    Low agreement, much evidence

    Am I misundersatanding what “empirical” means?

    Sounds to me like lots of agreements (back slapping).

    The above qualifiers appear 19 times within the 2 pages of the executive summary alone.

    I guess if it was the IPCC who were charged with identifying the speed of light, they would have a meeting in Bali or Rio (or both) and take a vote on it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    “You seem hell-bent on spreading your propaganda wide and far (and particularly to impressionable children – this is disgusting). As if the science will be settled once and for all in the court of public opinion? I don’t know how intellectually honest the people behind such a strategy could be…”

    Oh that is REALLY rich! Now you’ve definitely shot yourself in both feet. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so wrong and so morally preposterous.

    Do you mean the kind of disgusting propaganda featured in TELEVISION ADS in the UK? You know, the ones that the UK GOVERNMENT runs?

    “A £6m government ad warning about climate change is to be investigated by watchdogs over claims it is misleading and too “scary” for children.”

    Or perhaps you were referring to the revolting poster (which I can’t find a link to – maybe someone else can help?) featuring a photo of a little girl standing on a melting ice block with a noose around her neck? I believe it was part of an environmental activist group exhibition in conjunction with the Cannes Film Festival.

    Is THAT the kind of lack of intellectual honesty (or moral fibre) you are referring to, Dan? Is that the kind of morally reprehensible propaganda aimed at impressionable children you mean?

    Wake up, man!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    papertiger

    “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Steven Schneider.

    “It seems to me that scientists downplaying the dangers of climate change fare better when it comes to getting funding.” – James Hansen.

    Jimmy is still dodging FOI requests, two years running. People are looking for him to justify the basis for the constantly shifting temperature history his team puts out.
    You know what a temp history that can’t be independantly verified is called?
    Bullshit.
    Garbage.
    Flimflam.
    Fraud.
    SOP at NASA.
    Anything but evidence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    well here is Pielke Jr removing his articles: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/better-recheck-that-list.html

    and from a good discussion at: http://digg.com/environment/450_more_lies_from_the_climate_change_Deniers?t=29399793

    “The facts are these:
    Energy & Environment are classified as peer reviewed by EBSCO, however only a handful of their articles are claimed by the journal to be peer reviewed in each issue. Sometimes E&E fail to label their articles adequately making it impossible to differentiate peer reviewed articles from viewpoints. I suggest that perhaps there are no peer reviewed articles in issues that categorise this way, and certainly there is no way to counter this challenge from the way the publication stands.

    I went through the 84 E&E articles listed in the “450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming”. I noted what sections, if any, that each article was published under and here is what I found:

    2 articles listed as “Climate sceptic voices”
    1 as letters
    1 as “Report”
    9 as “Viewpoints”
    5 were completely undesignated
    46 were listed as “Articles”
    1 as “Peer reviewed papers”
    19 as “Refereed papers”

    Admittedly there is a chance that those listed as “Articles” may in fact be peer reviewed, however in at least one issue of a volume of E&E, there was a “Refereed papers” section and an “Articles” section. Further, often when a listing of “Articles” was designated to everything, it would include many more items than was usual to be labelled as “Refereed papers” found in the properly labelled volume parts, some were obviously book reviews. This would seem to imply that none of the “Articles” were refereed or that some were but you cannot be sure, but you could be reasonably sure that they at least some were not refereed.

    You cannot state for certainty that any paper labelled under “Articles” is a peer reviewed paper.

    As for the 2 “climate sceptic voices” and 9 “viewpoints” – these should be immediately removed from the 450 list if you want to maintain any pretension to credibility with the title. If you want to have a stronger listing then I suggest removing everything except the 19 “Refereed papers” and the single “Peer reviewed paper”. Or you could change the title to say “possibly peer reviewed”.

    So a reduction from 84 down to 20 papers. With this you stand on much stronger ground with claims to peer review.

    This is really sloppy work by E&E and does not help the sceptic stand point at all. Is simple proper categorisation so hard? I would be furious if I had published a peer review article in E&E only to have it designated under “Articles” alongside “Viewpoints”.

    You only want articles that are clearly designated as peer reviewed and have been published. Now go back and do the whole list again and have it on my desk by Monday.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Dan Gleibitz:
    February 3rd, 2010 at 4:42 pm

    “You seem hell-bent on spreading your propaganda wide and far (and particularly to impressionable children – this is disgusting). As if the science will be settled once and for all in the court of public opinion? I don’t know how intellectually honest the people behind such a strategy could be”…

    The hypocrasy is breathtaking.

    Was it K Rudd, well know “skeptic” Aussie PM quoting from a 6yr old at Copenhagen?

    Was it Al Gores (well known most skeptical of skeptics) DVD’s distributed to every public school in the UK?

    Was it skeptics distributing videos of polar bears falling out of the sky or planes smashing into manhattan?

    Shall I go on? I’m flabergasted.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    And another nice cummary of the 450:
    http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/

    sorry the link uses the word denier btw.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Dan,

    The 1.2 degrees from CO2 (without feedbacks) began with Hansen et al 1984 and hasn’t changed much. Others since say 1.0 and 1.1. I take the middle. Read AR4. Chapter 8 and 9.

    Evidence or apology?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bunny

    Anne-Kit
    I think this is the link you are referring to:

    http://www.treehugger.com/galleries/2009/06/coolest_environmental_advertis.php?page=1

    It truly is amazing how low these people are prepared to go.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    matty

    My question to Dan

    If it’s been warmer twice in the last two thousand years, if CO2 has been much higher historically, and satellites detect cooling since 2001, exactly what are you in a twist about???

    Dan you confirm something I suspected ages ago about this whole cult; many of it’s followers will be left in a pretty bad state when the media bails out. That seems to be just about now.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    MattB,

    You state that, in theory, an ETS could work. Yet acknowledge that in practice, it can’t and doesn’t. The EU is demonstrating, now for the third time, that it doesn’t.

    So clearly, there’s a gaping chasm between theory and the real world as far as economic theory (oxymoron alert :-) ) goes and the economics in which we live. Economic theory fails to work simply because the world and its people are much more variable and multi-variate with unexpected coupling of unforeseen variables than can possibly be assumed for “working” economic models.

    That has close parallels to climate theory.

    Physical models are necessarily simplifications of what we know of the real world. Models need to be validated against the real world by meausremnts and regression testing. Most physical models are used to interpolate results between known bounds.

    Economic and climate models extrapolate beyond known bounds and thus cannot be validated a priori. Putting any investment into the results of such unvalidated modelling is gambling.

    There are lots of people who make a great deal of money by gambling. Those who make the most, are gambling with somebody else’s money; especially as the personal risk that they take when gambling is close to non-existent. They don’t have to collude, nor conspire to make a great deal of money. There is indeed money to be made in deceiving other gamblers.

    The meta-gamble that people like Rudd wants, and that the EU and others have tried to implement and impose on others, is the gamble that the predictive qualities of the climate models are sufficient AND the gamble that and ETS system will work in practice to reduce total, global CO2 emissions by enough to make any difference whatsoever.

    Welcome to Casino Globale.

    Only the people who run the place have a chance of a win.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    george

    Leaving aside Dan G.`s philosophical dissertations on the differing meanings of “scepticism” vs “denialism”, I too am waiting for THAT incontrovertible and verifiable report(s) which states categorically and indisputably that there is “anthropogenic” associated with current, let alone future “global warming” – should I have said “climate change” there?

    I stated recently in another forum the following – a lawyer friend told me some time ago that in layman`s terms (in Oz, at any rate) a criminal trial outcome is determined on the basis of “beyond reasonable doubt” whilst a civil action defers to “on balance of probability” – I respectfully suggest that we have not even satisfied the latter criterion in relation to AGW, yet there is pressure being exerted by (vested) interests for an international emissions reduction scheme, most prominently under the auspices of “carbon trading”. Said carbon trading quite likely not resulting in any physical emission reductions providing sufficient carbon credits change hands – that is the part I have most issue with…not quite sure how much the EU have reduced or moderated their emissions since Kyoto but apparently the moneychangers are having a ball.

    Let us assume that there is AGW and let us also assume that CO2 “pollution” (a 1984 propaganda giveaway right there) is the cause. Pragmatically there are two considerations which make this whole affair a bit of a WOFTAM anyway;

    1 – If China and India (the latter about to overtake the US in emission stakes I hear?) keep extending the finger it doesn`t really matter what the rest of the world does. US cap-and-trade outcome, who knows at this stage. Africa and the rest of Asia, not even going there, but that leads to

    2 – The world`s population is mooted to increase by 50% in the next 40 years (that is the UN`s position so obviously thus a reliable source). No-one, but no-one is touching the subject of population growth with a gondola pole – consider this, if the whole world went to (was capable of going to???) 0% increase on current physical emission levels (forget any reductions), and I mean now, the ramifications of even this non-increase are self evident in relation to 9 billion vs 6 billion.
    As Manuel would say “Mr. Fawlty, is no posseeble”.

    So we are back to not so much the conspiracy theory but the pragmatic approach to world wealth redistribution, via the vehicle of carbon trading, with respect to the developing world just being able to hold its` head above water (with Al etc making a bit of money along the way of course).

    Finally, I suspect there will be a natural limiter on the whole matter anyway – if not in the next few years then in our lifetime we will see peak oil, to be followed a few decades later by “rather less” oil. I stand to be educated on the world`s coal reserves, but I presume they are not inexhaustible, thus another emissions limiter in the medium term by definition?

    Waiting for those howls of derision in relation to the following, but at (much) better than even-odds there will be lots of nuclear powerplants recharging lots of electric cars overnight in 50-100 years time. BTW if anyone considers me to be wrong in that postulation then could you please provide me with a likely alternative scenario – hint, wind and solar don`t quite cut it, not on that scale, most certainly not with current technology. The only other outcome I can think of even remotely is a technologically enhanced “late 19th century agrarian village” end-state.

    As I said, just being pragmatic and realistic here…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bernd I did not mean to give the impression that I think that trading schemes can’t and don’t work in practice. I agreed with a statement that theory does not always translate in to practice if it is poorly implemented. Watching a bad movie does not mean all movies are bad.

    Can you explain what you mean by “The EU is demonstrating, now for the third time, that it doesn’t.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Well that was interesting. Dan’s website titled “simple sustainable” has no indication of who operates the site. Usually there is an “about” icon declaring interests etc.

    Dan Gleibitz I challenge you to come back to this thread and declare all your interests and what barrow you are pushing. I’m sure Jo will allow that one post


    Report this

    00

  • #
    user07

    Blythe Masters of JP Morgan, the woman who ‘invented’ the deliciously lucrative, Credit Default Swaps, described by Warren Buffet as “weapons of financial mass destruction”, has been busily crafting Carbon Credits. That is what the ETS is ALL about. If you want to visualize the problem, imagine that there will be as many of them as grains of sand on Bondi Beach, Trillions. Each and every one will be paid for by all of us.
    http://www.georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/12/woman-who-invented-credit-default-swaps.html
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2817995.stm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    A bit OT but…

    Kerry O’Brien did a segment on Christopher Monckton this evening. As usual, nothing of substance from Monckton made the final cut and what did was immediately followed by someone from the AGW brigade who was allowed double and triple the time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    yonason

    @MattB: February 3rd, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    “You only want articles that are clearly designated as peer reviewed and have been published.”

    It’s not us, MattB, it’s them. They are always saying that our claims aren’t backed up by peer-reviewed material, but that ALL of theirs are. Wrong on both counts.

    Please note that…

    1. there is a lot of p-r material that falsifies AGW.
    2. they use massive amounts of non p-r material, AGAINST THEIR STATED POLICY (and use it as the basis of their most outlandish claims).
    3. it has been revealed that they perverted the p-r process to suppress dissent and facilitate publication of deliberately false material.
    4. even if you don’t agree that all the material on that list, what you don’t agree with is still better than the WWF junk, and what’s left is still quite solid.

    The argument there, is that our material is at least as reliable than theirs. And that claim remains valid, despite their attacks on it, which are only made to distract from the WTF WWF slop they use.

    Finally, I’ll see you’re Pielke Jr., reference and call.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Bloggers maybe interested in this entry from the IPCC AR4 WG3 technical summary bottom of page 34 in teenie type.

    4. IPCC rules permit the use of both peer-reviewed literature and non-peer-reviewed literature that the authors deem to be of equivalent quality.

    So in the future, when an alarmist troll cries peer review peer review we can point him/her in this general direction. HERE Pls click link


    Report this

    00

  • #
    yonason

    @Baa Humbug: February 3rd, 2010 at 9:00 pm – #112

    Thanks. Just another reason to read the ‘fine print’.

    On a related note…
    http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-she-said-about-climate-bible-3.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    yonason

    RE My last, #113, here’s a link that flushes out the details, and apparently the ‘fine print’ of ‘we can use whatever we want’ is in spite of their far more public posturing that they are very careful about what they use, as seen in this link I used above to MattB…
    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/peer-review-in-ipcc.html

    It almost seems as if what you noted, B.H., is just like an escape clause put in by a lawyer, to point to when their mask came off.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith

    Gary Humphries, a Liberal Senator here in the ACT has just performed a rather uncomfortable about face
    The Senate is moving into alignment with Abbott. Pretty good huh ?
    Senator Susan Boyce, in her media release is quoted thus :

    Senator Boyce said she was committed to supporting a “realistic and effective emissions scheme for Australia” and that despite the fact that Labor’s scheme was “clumsy” and “clunky”, it was the only option on the table.

    Now it is not the only option. More alignment to come, I think.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    SPEEDY

    Keith

    No criticism to you, but I see no shame in our elected representatives responding to new information – that’s what we pay them for! What is criminally reprehensible are the actions of those who defy logic and all logical evidence to cling to a discredited science in the name of a questionable ideology. (Why did you just think of Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong, Julia Gillard et al.?)

    When our so called leaders pretend they are never wrong, they join an illustrious company like Mssrs. Hilter, Stalin and Pot. If we criticise those who are flexible enough and not so proud as to admit change, then we truly will get the government we deserve. A government as spineless as the people who elected them – the “second” Rudd government.

    Hear, hear Susan Boyce and Gary Humphries! I wonder how many spines recline in chairs on the government side of parliament? None – it seems…

    Regards,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    yonason:
    February 3rd, 2010 at 9:36 pm

    It’s really hard to depict the IPCC reports as scientific isn’t it? I suppose we’ve been saying they are a political lot for a long time now, and so they are.
    But notice the line…”authors deem to be of equivalent quality”. Yep, I’m sure Jones Briffa Mann et al will deem skeptical papers as “equivalent quality”. It’s a genuine closed shop. Politicians go for it for their own reasons, but people from the general public are real suckers for believing all this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    yonason

    117
    Baa Humbug:
    February 3rd, 2010 at 11:00 pm

    “yonason:
    February 3rd, 2010 at 9:36 pm

    It’s really hard to depict the IPCC reports as scientific isn’t it?”

    Yes. They’ve “poisoned the well” by their perversion of the peer-review process. Now, any journal that published the work of those who have been shown to have falsified their data, or that are in any way closely associated with the crew of CRU, will have to be viewed with suspicion about anything they publish.

    But we can’t blame the “general public” who have no knowledge of what goes on, unless someone tells them. And if those telling them are liars, they are more unwitting victims than suckers.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Dan @ 67: plenty of posts/ers here deny that humans are causing global warming. Plenty even deny that the globe IS warming.

    No Dan, what most of us on this blog deny is that the AWG alarmists have proven their case. They hold that man, by adding a trace amount of CO2 to a trace level of CO2 in the atmosphere, will cause a runaway global warming that will wipe out all life on earth.

    More particularly, we hold that the AGW alarmists have not proven there case to the extent that justifies the establishing of an unaccountable world government. Followed by the transfer of the bulk of the productive capital of the developed world into its hands for redistribution to the undeveloped world. Compounded by the micromanagement of the lives of every person on earth.

    Further, we hold that nearly every line of evidence used by the AGW alarmists have been cherry picked and/or cooked to achieve their pre-desired result rather than being an honest representation of the evidence in full context.

    Also, we hold that ALL of the central theorems of the AGW conjecture have been found to be counter to the real world, in violation of the basic laws of physics, and are not well supported even by their own data. This blog is filled with references and discussions of this and is included by reference.

    Charging us with being “denialists” on the above bases is equivalent to claiming that because we deny that 2 rocks plus 2 rocks totals to 5 rocks also makes us denialists. Your position is absurd and constitutes an irrational package deal bound up in one word: “Denialist”.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Dan @ 81: True Skepticism is the very foundation of scientific inquiry.

    No Dan. True Skepticism holds that certainty is not possible. As a consequence knowledge is not possible. Therefor, everything we think we know, we don’t know. They anticipate that at any time, new evidence can be found that totally demolishes what we think we know.

    This position is internally absurd because if it is true, they cannot know that it is true. They are simply guessing and, because of that guess, they refuse to say anything definite about what is or is not. That is except for their certainty that certainty is not possible.

    As such, “True Skepticism” is NOT the foundation of scientific inquiry. The foundation is that reliable (aka certain) knowledge is possible to acquire but that it takes a well designed and carefully followed process to acquire it. It is beyond the scope of this post to specify that process but it is massively documented elsewhere – starting with the works of Aristotle.

    In summary, your posts are false to fact, irrelevant, and/or are empty of any real content. As a consequence, one can only presume that you are either willfully ignorant or have a malicious intent or both.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Yonason in 111… falsifies is a strong word.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Lionell in #119: you were going along nicely until you threw the “violation of the basic laws of physics” in there. Utter tripe.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB:
    February 4th, 2010 at 12:36 am

    Lionell in #119: you were going along nicely until you threw the “violation of the basic laws of physics” in there. Utter tripe.

    How so Matt?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    yonason

    Lionell’s twisted logic.

    “True Skepticism holds that certainty is not possible. As a consequence knowledge is not possible.”

    It’s a matter of how one applies the skepticism. Although my undergrad adviser, and any of my teachers who actually addressed that topic, would say things like, “You can disprove a hypothesis, but you can never prove one.” (i.e., don’t get cocky), they would never say that we cannot “know” things.(**)

    As to why Dan is really wrong, that’s partly because he’s using a variant of the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority.” He begins by saying things about skepticism that are mostly true, and he finishes by equating AGW-skepticism with things most people know to be false; a variant on another logical fallacy of “guilt by association.”

    Lionell Griffith attacked what was mostly right, and completely missed what was wrong.
    ________________________________________________________________________

    (**) The impossibility of determining with certainty why something happens does NOT preclude our ability to “know” what happened. One mustn’t confuse knowledge (experience) with proofs (theories about why we have our experiences). We still need to make educated guesses about the “why” because they improve our ability to manipulate the “what.” But we must always keep in mind that the “why” is ALWAYS subordinate to the “what.” And, at some point, when enough of the “whys” agree with each other and with enough of the “whats,” they almost become “whats” themselves,…almost.

    Also, if by skepticism being a pillar of science one means not trusting someone else until you’ve valitdated his work yourself, then, yes, it is. Without it, you gets clowns like the pirates at CRU and their ilk pulling the wool over your eyes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Humbug in 123 well which “basic laws of physics” are violated? Clearly my answer to “how so” is that no basic laws of physics are violated. It normally means the 2nd law of thermodynamics (also the one that evolution apparently violates). But I don’t know – Lionell would have to explain which basic laws of physics he means.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Well Matt I’m probably being a little picky here but perhaps you should have asked that before saying it was utter tripe. Wouldn’t you agree?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    There is a huge difference between “True Skepticism” and garden variety skepticism. The garden variety of skepticism simply requires clear evidence supporting a position rather than mere assertion before belief. “True Skepticism” is founded on doubt for doubt’s sake without regard to the evidence, its quality, nor its relevance.

    “True Skepticism” is another irrational package deal similar to “Denialist”. Its intent and purpose is to cash in on the necessary and rational requirement of the “show me” part of garden variety skepticism. The cashing in is the denial of knowledge as such thereby providing, they think, and invulnerable shield for the rejection of any position they don’t like. Reason, reality, and logic need not apply.

    Use of such package deal words (phrases) is a common weapon of intellectual thugs. That way, they can always claim you took their words out of context. When, in fact, they don’t really say what they mean nor mean what they say. As such, all arguments of that kind should and must be rejected at their root,


    Report this

    00

  • #
    yonason

    MattB: February 4th, 2010 at 12:34 am 121

    “Yonason in 111… falsifies is a strong word.”

    Yes, it is, and I stand by it.

    Here’s one against AGW.
    http://miskolczi.webs.com/

    Here’s a reference to one of the strongest cases against greenhouse itself.
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-falsified-again/

    Another against greenhouse itself was by Robert W. Wood of Johns Hopkins back in 1909.
    http://www.giurfa.com/gh_experiments.pdf

    Bob Carter has a nice video where he shows several predictions of what CO2 should do, if it were responsible for warming, are false.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFHZOYtAztU

    There’s more, but that’s enough to get you started, unless you are a “true believer” who can’t be swayed by facts.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB,

    By violation of the laws of physics I mean but not limited to The Three Laws of Thermodynamics, the Real Gas Laws, and the fundamental laws of electromagnetic absorption and radiation.

    AGW statement: CO2 heats the globe. No, CO2 can’t heat anything. It may be heated if it absorbs photons of the appropriate energy level or if it is exposed to an already heated environment.

    AGW statement” CO2 traps heat. No, CO2 can absorb or release energy but cannot create it or “trap it”. CO2 will thereby become activated. That energy of activation will be partitioned among the excitation level of the electronic shell, the vibrational modes of the molecule, and the basic kinetic energy of the molecule (loosely connected to temperature). Depending upon environmental conditions, this partitioned energy will transfer to adjacent molecules or, in part, be re-radiated and photons of permitted energies. Thus there is no trapping as such. Its simply capture and transfer of energy depending upon its immediate environment.

    AGW statement: The atmosphere traps heat like a greenhouse. No, a greenhouse traps heat by restricting the convection of hot gas into a colder gas environment. The atmosphere has no similar restriction to convection. The atmosphere also has the absorption and release of latent heat within water phase state change that is not implicit in an actual green house.

    I could go on, but this is sufficient to make my point. The fundamental theorems of AGW are false to fact.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    yonason:
    February 4th, 2010 at 1:55 am

    Don’t you wish you were a mathematician so as to understand Miskolczis equations?
    I have to take it that his equations are correct because nobody (in six years) has shown them to be wrong. Having taken the equations to be correct, then his thesis that the “greenhouse” (sorry Lionel) is saturated makes sense.

    Funny though how in 6yrs no alarmist has proved him wrong.
    have you read the ‘Miskolczis saturated greenhouse effect” by Miklos Zagoni?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    yonason

    @Lionell Griffith: February 4th, 2010 at 1:34 am – 129

    OK, but that’s why I took the trouble to define what I meant. Still, you missed the point of what he was doing when he used that vague concept: (a) telling us science is founded on skepticism [it is], (b) giving examples of things most sensible people would agree are nuts [thereby establishing himself as an "authority" in the matter], and finally (c) equating skepticism for AGW with falsehoods, by virtue of said authority [creating guilt by association, as testified to by Dan the "authority"].

    By vaguely attacking his vague use of one term, you haven’t shown what’s really wrong with his argument, only that he might possibly have slightly misused one word, maybe.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB you’re missing a debate right up your alley at the blackboard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    yonason

    @Baa Humbug: February 4th, 2010 at 2:20 am – 130

    “have you read the ‘Miskolczis saturated greenhouse effect” by Miklos Zagoni?”

    I saw a video of him talking about it a while back when it first came out, but nothing much since. I have read the Gerlich/Tscheuschner paper, and find it quite appealing. The math and concepts they use aren’t beyond what you get in heat&mass transfer courses. I should probably go back and review Miskolczis stuff, though, since I haven’t vetted it more than you have, i.e., though he’s gotten in trouble for saying it, no one has shown him to be wrong. While that’s often good enough, it’s still not rock solid, so, yeah, I should get on that.

    Still, the fact that temps have been exceedingly low in the past when CO2 has been more than 10 [nearly 20x at the beginning, with no ill effects on early life forms] times what it is today, is a powerful argument against AGW and for his theory.
    http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/PhanerozoicCO2-Temperatures.png
    (that link from here…)
    http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    yonason

    OK, I’m going to save any other comments on the science for another thread, because this thread is supposed to be about the economics. Sorry I let myself get so carried away, Jo.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    yonason:
    February 4th, 2010 at 2:40 am

    yes that’s true. I also like this simple statement…

    “If the planet needed a little more GHG to warm up, it needn’t have waited centuries for humans to inject some. It had limitless amount of water vapour by way of the vast oceans”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    yonason

    @Baa Humbug: February 4th, 2010 at 2:53 am – 135

    OK, just one more comment. After looking at what Miskolczis is doing, or more precisely, how he’s doing it, I’m going to back off my support for him. He may be right, but since he seems be contradicting some things I learned elsewhere, I have to look at it more carefully. But, on the up side, even if he is wrong, it wouldn’t make the warmers right.

    gotta go.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith

    speedy @ 116

    I’m certainly not critical of Humphreys in that sense. My intention rather was to convey respect : it’s not easy to admit you’re wrong in the full glare of the media. I think it’s a major signal within the party and certainly demonstrates his loyalty. During Malcolm’s time he was very supportive of the ETS.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    yonason @ 131,

    You make your point and I will make mine.

    My point is that package deal words (phrases) are always wrong and I explained why. Your point has been made numerous times over many threads.

    We will simply have to disagree over which point is more fundamental. Neither detracts from the other.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith

    Continuing:
    Humphrey’s public change of mind stands in stark contrast to Turnbull’s intransigence.
    Rudd, Wong & company are wholly locked in to their position, and I expect to see no change in the labor position in the Senate, voting-wise.
    The latent tabor sceptics are yet to appear. Maybe after the Senate vote and the neat opinion poll ?
    Cheers


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bah Humbug @ 130,

    Simply because someone uses the word “greenhouse” to describe an atmospheric effect does not make the atmosphere a greenhouse.

    Again, an actual greenhouse does “trap” heat by restricting air convection. The atmosphere has no even remotely similar barrier to air convection. In addition, the atmosphere has H2O phase changes to assist in the balancing of incoming and outgoing energy transfer. A greenhouse as such, has no significant H2O phase change energy transfer.

    The fact that the atmosphere is warmed somewhat is due to the differential RATES of energy transfer by convection, phase change, and radiation. Since incoming arrives faster than outgoing can handle, the night is warmer than it might otherwise be. However, energy in is ultimately equaled by energy out with minor local perturbations about the equilibrium point. They may not seem minor to someone in a blizzard or on a hot sunny day but in the scheme of things they are embedded in system noise.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fe

    Greens leader Senator Bob Brown joins Lateline to discuss the deadlock in parliament over climate change action and his solution: a fixed carbon price.

    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2809593.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    One thing I noticed today after readin the ridiculous statement put out by the IPCC, was their Statement on IPCC principles and procedures.

    The latter is an interesting read because we are so used to getting smacked over the head by the CAGW crowd by the “peer-reviewed literature” argument. read the IPCC’s own statement and it clearly states they use non-peer-reviewed sources in their assessments:

    The IPCC does not carry out original research. It assesses the findings in scientific publications. Most of the scientific literature assessed by the IPCC is published in scientific journals, where the journals’ peer-review and editorial processes provide an important foundational stage of quality control. Some important information appears not in scientific journals but rather in reports from governmental and non-governmental organizations. For the IPCC to fulfill its comprehensive assessment mandate, it needs to assess the information in these reports. This is an important responsibility, but it is also a challenge, because the diverse approaches to reviewing and editing in these alternative sources of information force the IPCC authors, reviewers, and review editors to utilize additional care and professional judgment in evaluating them.

    (emphasis added)

    In other words the IPCC documents can source information from any source they want, but the CAGW crowd insists we rebutt this in the “peer-reviewed” journals of their choice. What blatant hypocriticism.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Humbug in 126. Since the concept that basic AGW theory contravines ANY of the BASIC laws of physics is utter tripe, I don’t, IMO, need to know which of the basic laws Lionell is referring to before making the statement.

    See Lionell’s response in #129. Semantics. Seriously if it were that simple then what the heck is the sceptics handbook doing waffling on page after page. What is Plimer doing with a massive book.

    AGW breaks the basic laws of physics… case closed. You can see why I don’t take such an approach seriously at all can’t you? It boils down to the atmosphere not really being similar to a greenhouse, a phrase coined donkeys years ago to mean that the atmosphere keeps us warmer than we otherwise would be without it (TRUE). A bit like a greenhouse. The science does not all collapse like a house of card because some popular terminology is not very accurate. It is like saying that boiling an egg breaks the laws of physics because at no stage in the process does the egg actually boil!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    And Humbug to clarify further, most people agree that the impact of doubling CO2 is 1.2 degrees warming plus/minus feedbacks. That is pretty much the debate: what are the feedbacks?

    Contravening the basic laws of physics questions the 1.2 degrees basic CO2 warming. Lionell is in effect arguing against not only the warmist community, but the majority of the sceptical scientists as well!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Mattb: wrote “Contravening the basic laws of physics questions the 1.2 degrees basic CO2 warming.”

    Scientifically has this been observed by conducting an experiment, or was it deduced from first principles and thus essentially a belief held by many scientists?

    The rest of the AGW theory rests on the accuracy of this primary assumption.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Louis, the statement is that AGW contravenes the basic laws of physics. If it was deduced from 1st principles then those would include the basic laws of physics, no? Observation or lack thereof has nothing to do with the statement that it contravenes the basic laws of physics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    MattB @ 107:

    The difference between a good movie and a bad movie is that there are either more good bits than bad, or not nearly enough bad bits.

    An ETS must however not have any bad bits or they will be exploited to profit and/or to circumvent. And the EU’s is riddled with them, facilitating tax fraud being the most annoying to government. But more importantly; they don’t actually reduce emissions.

    Trading in Phase I permits was, IIRC, stopped in 2006 when their price dropped to “junk” value. They were supposed to be about €40 per tonne of CO2, but ended up being worth less than €0.01. Unsurprisingly; CO2 emissions increased, despite vast industries being shut down and move out of the EU.

    As a result of Phase I, countries like Spain owe the EU tens of billions of Euros in penalties; which the EU is unlikely to ever see; given Spain’s current economy; despite claiming over 20% of electricity being generated by “renewables”. Or perhaps because; as crime mobs used the generous subsidies to launder moneys before taking them out of the country again.

    The only way that Germany avoided penalties and posted a “reduction” on paper is because they shut down almost all of the former GDR’s industries. They got carbon credits for closing down power stations and heavy industry that were unsafe and economically unviable to operate.

    Undaunted by the “success” of Phase I, the EU went to Phase II and the price of CO2 was seen to decend well below €10/tonne again in 2009. So proceeding to even less transparency in the post-VAT-trading scandal and post-Floppenhagen, the EU now moves to another scheme to commit economic suicide; with new targets and exemptions for the big-industry friends of the EU.

    Human factors will cause an ETS to fail.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Sorry Bernd I just don’t buy that assessment. It does not make sense and it sounds like an ideological rant. Sorry.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Lionel:

    “Simply because someone uses the word “greenhouse” to describe an atmospheric effect does not make the atmosphere a greenhouse.

    Again, an actual greenhouse does “trap” heat by restricting air convection. The atmosphere has no even remotely similar barrier to air convection.”

    Actually it does. It is called the tropopause. The reason it is there is because the stratosphere is warmed by absorption of incoming SW radiation from the sun which puts a lid on convection.

    By this reckoning the “greenhouse gases” in Earth’s atmosphere are stratospheric oxygen and ozone formed by action of incoming UV on the oxygen.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bill

    STOP THE ETS(Employment Termination Scheme/Extra Tax System)!!

    YOU CAN CONTACT BOTH SENATORS WHO CROSSED THE FLOOR LAST TIME AROUND THROUGH THEIR WEB SITES:-

    Contact Senator Sue Boyce – Senator for Queensland

    http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/homepages/contact.asp?id=H6V

    Contact Senator the Hon Judith Troeth – Senator for Victoria

    http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/homepages/contact.asp?id=GX5

    These are their email addresses:-

    senator.troeth@aph.gov.au

    and

    senator.sue.boyce@aph.gov.au


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    MattB @148

    No ideological rant there MattB. It’s just a recount of the facts. And the events which you can check independently.

    In order for an ETS to work; and with the term “work” I mean to fulfill the intended function, it must in the first instance; cause a reduction in emissions. It has failed to do so in the EU. Emissions increased. At very great expense to their economies.

    Finally; any reductions achieved must have a measurable outcome in terms of the objective; which is to avert catastrophic global warming.

    But we cannot measure the anthroprogenic contribution to the greenhouse effect as we cannot attribute any measured change in global temperature to anthroprogenic effects because we don’t know how much is natural.

    An ETS is nothing other than trading in indulgences. And that is pure ideology.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    buzz345

    here’s a letter a friend of mine has written to all MP’s today

    The Weekend Australian newspaper (Sa.19.12.09) published a major article headlined “Scientists ‘crying wolf’ over coral”. Quotes: “Professor Ridd said scientists who predicted corals would be mostly extinct by mid-century had a credibility problem because the Great Barrier Reef was in ‘bloody brilliant shape.” “Ten years ago, I was told that the coral was going to die from sediment, and we have proved that is complete rubbish”.

    Its editorial stated: “The Queensland tourist attraction is proving its resilience”.

    During 2008 winter’s record low temperatures, ABC News reported coral bleaching due to cold. The reef was adapting to natural weather variations as it’s done for millions of years.

    UN IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri is reportedly under investigation in Britain for ‘very serious financial irregularities’. Separately, he has reportedly used bogus claims of alarm to secure millions of dollars for TERI, of which he is a director. He has many huge conflicts of interests now publicly exposed. The scientist who made the statement of unfounded alarm at the centre of the UN IPCC’s Himalayan scandal works for TERI.

    Our free-spending Prime Minister gave Pachauri’s TERI one million dollars. Senator Wong gave almost $50,000 in a grant entitled ‘Influencing International Climate Change’.

    Nature controls global climate through galactic, solar, planetary, oceanic, atmospheric drivers and their interactions. Grants to TERI only influence climate spin.

    Before spending millions of taxpayer dollars on bogus global warming claims during the financial crisis, why did our free-spending Prime Minister and Senator Wong not do their due diligence?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mike Borgelt @ 149: Actually it does [trap heat]. It is called the tropopause. The reason it is there is because the stratosphere is warmed by absorption of incoming SW radiation from the sun which puts a lid on convection.

    No, the tropopause does not trap heat. It is the fuzzy layer in the atmosphere in which the laps rate changes from negative to positive. The primary reason for this is that water vapor has almost totally been converted to water or ice. The latent heat of phase change is radiated toward outer space.

    There is a very minor level of absorption of radiated energy (from H2O phase change and from the sun as sources) by the upper atmosphere thereby causing the lapse rate to go positive. This does restrict the ease with which gasses can convect but violent storms do intrude into the upper atmosphere. However, this does not TRAP heat. Radiation can and does pass freely through this layer which overwhelms the effect of restricting convection.

    Below the the tropopause, convection and H2O phase changes are the overwhelming modes of transfer of heat. Above the tropopause, its radiation almost exclusively. In part because the atmosphere is insufficiently dense for any other mode of significant energy transfer.

    In an actual greenhouse, neat loss by outward radiation is a very minor effect compared to the heat actually trapped by containing convection. This is largely due to atmospheric density. The primary heat loss is by means of conduction. As in the global system, the temperature of an actual green house is determined by the differential rates of energy transfer.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB,

    Look at what I wrote indicating the primary issues the AGW hypothesis violates the laws of physics.

    A hypotheses need not violate all laws of physics at all points of its formulation to be found false. All it takes is ONE point of violation to demonstrate its lack of validity.

    CO2 cannot and does not heat anything by the first law of thermodynamics. CO2 cannot trap heat by the third law of thermodynamics and by the real gas laws. CO2 that is colder than the surface of the earth cannot heat the surface of the earth by the second law of thermodynamics. This is but a sampling of AGW physical law violation.

    AGW is thereby false to fact.

    Further, I explained why the night is warmer than than in might otherwise be without the existence of an atmosphere ie differential rates of energy transfer. This is fully consistent with the laws of physics. No trapping of heat necessary. No catastrophic runaway greenhouse effect possible.

    The most fundamental theorem of AGW is that heat it trapped by so called greenhouse gasses. This theorem is totally and completely bullshit as are all of the consequential conclusions and policies of totally irrational alarm!

    The behavior of the atmosphere is so qualitatively and quantitatively different from an actual greenhouse, that to use “the greenhouse effect” to describe it is so wrong that it gives presumptive evidence of criminal intent. The AGW alarmists are not innocent in the matter.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB,

    It IS that simple. The debate is because of the general use of equivocated terms that are misunderstood on one side and the possibility of misunderstanding is intended by the other side. I don’t care which side does it. Its wrong. Everyone needs to be clear and exact in what they are saying ie mean what you say and say what you mean. No equivocation allowed.

    A fundamental point is that there is no and can be no trapping of heat by the atmosphere. The apparent increase in temperature is due TOTALLY to the differential rates of transfer of energy between incoming and outgoing energy and the thermal properties of the constituent material components. This so called trapping of heat is a basic fraud in the AGW hypothesis. The laws of physics says it cannot happen.

    Similarly CO2, a trace gas, can have only a trace effect. Especially when overwhelmed by the effects of water vapor and water phase change. Again by the laws of physics.

    The counter argument you point to is not related to my argument at all. That thermodynamics is a poor argument for on point does not negate it for all points.

    Yes, thermodynamics applies to mass materials and not to individual molecules. Yes, it is thermodynamically possible for a lone CO2 molecule to be hotter than the surface of the earth and have a net radiate energy to it. However, temperature is a mass effect and not an individual atomic effect. Hence thermodynamic principles apply with total fidelity.

    There is no trapping but only differential rates among various mechanisms of energy transfer at work. Single point mechanisms taken out of context provide little to no insight into the collective behavior of the globe.

    Its interesting to note that the AGW alarmists are quite comfortable with their claim that climate is not weather. Yet insist that a single point mechanism taken out of context destroys the thermodynamic argument. They want their cake, your cake, and everyone elses cake to eat before they must eat their own cake.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    MattB:
    February 2nd, 2010 at 5:21 pm
    Economic theory suggests, and you guys are right wingers so should be up to speed on this, that a trading scheme is theoretically the lowest cost abatement strategy.

    Lowest cost? Or easiest to corrupt by criminals and politicians. It seems the latter is the truth in reality.

    And your economics is very poor. There is nothing “wing” about good economic theory, nor is poor economic proselysizing a substitute for sound economic facts.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Lionell,

    I didn’t actually say that the tropopause trapped heat, just that it was a barrier to convection.
    There are overshoots from vigorous thunderstorms in the tropics that rise some distance into the stratosphere but that is just momentum not an unstable or neutral lapse rate in the stratosphere.
    Even with dry convection at low altitudes the odd strong thermal will penetrate some vertical distance into the inversion layer. Lots of personal experience of that last one.

    I’m unable to understand this statement:”The primary reason for this is that water vapor has almost totally been converted to water or ice. The latent heat of phase change is radiated toward outer space.”
    The saturated adiabatic lapse rate approaches the dry rate at low temperatures due to the lack of water vapor in the air. How this has an effect of causing the tropopause is beyond me.

    You then appear to agree that the stratospheric lapse rate is caused by absorption of radiation however oxygen and ozone appear to absorb at the short wavelengths not the long wavelengths associated with terrestrial radiation which would make the cause of the stratospheric lapse rate the absorption of SW radiation from the Sun as I said which is what we were were taught at BoM forecasters school.

    If the stratosphere significantly absorbs LW radiation from the ground, primarily from CO2 absorption as there’s little to no water vapor and there’s little vertical mixing it is hard to see how heating from below would cause a positive lapse rate. It seems to me that the stratospheric lapse rate is positive because the stratosphere is heated from above i.e by short wave radiation absorption.

    Fascinating business.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    There are overshoots from vigorous thunderstorms in the tropics that rise some distance into the stratosphere…

    Lionel, you are correct about this: I remember a CB over Central Texas (not in the tropics) many years ago that was awesome. We were flying at 40,000 feet and the top of this HUGE cloud I estimated at 55,000 ft. I suspect that was a reasonable estimate.

    Also I remember a time flying at 25,000 feet (who knows where after all those years) and estimating some wispy cirrus at 33,000 feet. When very shortly we climbed to 42,000 feet, this same thin cirrus layer still looked the same distance above our altitude. Win a few – lose a few!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    PhilJourdan… it is unusual for someone of the right to acknowledge that the left has many ideas based in sound economic theory. I was giving you guys credit for probably having greater levels of economic nouse than your average lefty/greenie, that’s all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Lionell I’m pretty sure a post of mine between your 154 and 155 has been deleted. You;ve replied to it but it is no longer there. Ahh well.

    Fine so what you are saying is that an incorrect use of the term greenhouse contravenese the basic laws of physics, however what scientists actually do which is totally irrelevent to a popular use of a term from the 1970s is ok. good-o.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    MattB @ 159

    MattB; it is a mistake to think that people’s views occupy justone wing of the political spectrum. The vast majority hold a broad spectrum of views because they live in the real world and are in touch with reality.

    The extremists can dream up whatever they please because they are in some way insulated from the realities of the world; with the entire universe bounded by their level of ignorance.

    Once you start to pigeon-hole people as being e.g. left/right or green/blue/orange; your judgement becomes impaired. You attribute what you believe you know about that type of person to the person; even though you know effectively nothing about those aspects of that person. It’s prejudice. Unfortunately an automatic, subconscious human response, built into the species many generations ago, that gets in the way of effective communication.

    The “cure” is to be consciously aware of one’s prejudice and to put a lid on it before it gets out of hand. Prejudice is still a useful mechanism for dealing with some situations; but totally out of place in intelligent, rational discourse.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB @ 160: Fine so what you are saying is that an incorrect use of the term greenhouse contravenese the basic laws of physics, however what scientists actually do which is totally irrelevent to a popular use of a term from the 1970s is ok. good-o.

    No MattB, I did not say the use of the term greenhouse contravenes the laws of physics, I said that by the laws of physics the atmosphere is not a greenhouse and thus the use of the term is improper. In addition, I said the fundamental theorems of the AGW hypothesis are false to fact BECAUSE they are in violation of the self same fundamental laws.

    I said what I meant. You have completely inverted what I said. Apparently you either can’t read with adequate comprehension or have reverted to your former dishonest state of being a troll.

    Its OK for you to disagree with me or anyone else but it is necessary for you to be honest in your disagreement.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Ok Lionell lets keep it simple and to the point then. Sorry if I am not clear but it it not easy to discuss things with someone who makes blanket statements like “I said the fundamental theorems of the AGW hypothesis are false to fact BECAUSE they are in violation of the self same fundamental laws.” Because to be quite honest it is total quackerry mumbo-jumbo crap.

    Your concerns about the use of the term greenhouse are quite sincerely absurd. Who actually claims that the atmosphere “Is a greenhouse”?

    You need to decide if you think CO2 in the atmosphere has zero impact on temperatures – because if you think that then you are WAY out on your own. If you think that the “fundamental theorems of the AGW hypothesis are false to fact” then I’m sorry it is clear that you do indeed think that it is against the basic laws of science for CO2 in the atmosphere to have any impact on temperatures? Which essentially puts you at odds with the vast majority of sceptical scientists too.

    You can feel free to believe it but you have NOTHING to back it up. It is a total kookery dismissal of what is a serious science area which has genuine potnetial flaws that are indeed worthy of discussion – just like any science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    MattB:
    February 5th, 2010 at 9:50 am

    MattB – are you saying you are right or left? I have declared neither, so I can only assume you are claiming both.

    Please stick to what you know (economics is not it), and leave what you dont know to those with at least open minds.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB,

    The fundamental theorem of AGW is that man’s contribution to CO2 is the CAUSE of global warming AND that if not stopped will cause a runaway greenhouse effect eliminating all life on earth.

    THIS is false to fact BECAUSE it violates the laws of physics. It is false to history because CO2 has been hugely higher than today and no such runaway has occurred. Especially a runaway effect caused by a 3% human caused increase of 0.0004% of the atmosphere.

    The entirety of the AGW alarmists camp have held that the atmosphere acts like a greenhouse because of the so called greenhouse gasses: CO2. H2O, et.al.

    Read what I said and stick to commenting on what I said. Try being honest for a change.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Lionell: “The fundamental theorem of AGW is that man’s contribution to CO2 is the CAUSE of global warming AND that if not stopped will cause a runaway greenhouse effect eliminating all life on earth.”

    …oh ok, I wasn’t aware of that to be honest. Wow could you imagine eliminating all life on earth! Are you SURE that the FUNDAMENTAL theorem of AGW is that “if not stopped [it] will cause a runaway greenhouse effect eliminating all life on earth”. Do you have a reference for that?

    See thing is I thought we were talking 1.1 degree plus feedbacks per doubling of CO2. That is what the IPCC tells me. Heck I think it is even what Jo tells me. No one ever mentioned total annihilation of every living thing on the planet. Scary stuff.

    I think you are certainly correct that history tells us that there will not be runaway style warming due to CO2. I am aware of research that suggests the warming we induce may be enough to counteract some of the large cooling forcings that occur regularly (on gelological timescales), ie preventing us from slipping in to a brutal and pulverising ice age as me old mate birdy likes to put it.

    But for now I’m happy to stick to the IPCC projections, as produced by our finest climate minds.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Pete

    Jo, Good luck to John P. Costella in his attempt to go for Aussie MP. ! Maybe a voice of reason?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    MattB, although Lionell is perhaps going a bit over the top in having a go at you in particular, for the runaway positive feedback issue; you do have to accept that quite a few of your fellow warmists are indeed still pushing the whole catastrophic destruction scenario.

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/10/12/1218074.htm

    A background fear is that extra human emissions, by cars, factories and power plants, may be blunting the planet’s ability to absorb CO2. In the worst case, scientists say that could lead to runaway warming.

    “These results are deeply worrying, and indicate that the battle against global climate change could be even more pressing than was previously thought,” said Catherine Pearce, Friends of the Earth International’s climate campaigner.

    “It’s a worrying sign,” said Steve Sawyer, climate policy director at Greenpeace.

    Do note that the same ABC article includes two comments by actual scientists saying that runaway outcomes are highly unlikely, but finally decides to follow the conclusion of a Greenpeace policy directory instead. If the article really was about science, why even mention the opinion of professional campaigners?

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/05/29/2259091.htm

    The rapid release of methane into the earth’s atmosphere 635 million years ago caused runaway global warming, and may happen again in the near future, a new study reports.

    The study, which appears in this week’s edition of Nature, provides an insight into what may happen to the earth’s atmosphere if today’s frozen methane deposits in Canada, Siberia and Alaska begin to thaw.

    … then later …

    “We are witnessing an unprecedented rate of warming, with little or no knowledge of what instabilities lurk in the climate system and how they can influence life on earth.”

    The thawing of clathrates frozen in the Arctic polar region could release billions of tonnes of methane into the atmosphere.

    The concern is that it could take a relative small rise in temperature to start unleashing the gas, which would then trigger an unstoppable warming cycle.

    Now many ordinary Australians are likely to somehow believe that their public broadcaster is going to be presenting them with well reasoned articles backed by research and level-headed thinking. Yet the above articles are merely two quickly googled examples of the sort of ridiculous alarmism that is so obviously being used as a political device to rally the ignorant sheeple and herd them forward for someone’s cause.

    It should not be too difficult to recognise that people are sick of hearing the foolish alarmist stories.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Ross Garnaut, author of Australia’s Garnaut Report which was established under the former Liberal Howard Government, but which presented to the new Rudd ALP Government, suggests “Abbott’s ‘Soviet’ climate plan delusional”…

    “I did not take seriously the possibility that it would become part of the Australian policy discussion – I thought that debates over the Government taking huge decisions about the resource allocation ended with the fall of the Soviet Union,” he said.

    “To think that regulation, decisions by bureaucrats and governments to reach the right conclusions is, I think, delusional.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/18/2822932.htm


    Report this

    00

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>