“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

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

11

Report this

11

…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

11

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

01

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

11

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

11

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

01

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

01

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

11