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

micropace


GoldNerds

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



I was once a Green who believed in man-made global warming

Since time immemorial people have been inventing or exaggerating scares to gain power. I used to think carbon dioxide posed a real threat, and I even used to be an active member of the Australian Greens. Then I discovered all the things we weren’t being told (like this and this), and how much money was involved and I was shocked.

There are many good people among the Greens who will be outraged when they realize how they have been used.

The most selfish aims are always cloaked in “good intentions”

Some Greens really believe a market based trading system is the best way to deal with pollution. But this pollution is not a pollutant,  and this “free market” is not free. Last year the carbon market reached $130 billion dollars. It’s projected to reach $2 Trillion, and you can be sure that “sub-prime” carbon is coming too. The market depends wholly on government mandate; it’s “fixed” from beginning to end. Who would buy a carbon credit if they weren’t forced to? In a free market, no one.

Worse, funneling money through fake markets is like inviting corruption to a three course meal.

It’s easy to cheat in a fake market. With real commodities (and not a government certificate) the cheats are quickly exposed. If someone sells you a supertanker of coal and it turns up empty, you notice. If someone sells you a filing cabinet of fake certificates, how can you tell? The European system is rife with corruption. The two major auditors were both suspended in the last 18 months. Loop holes and tricks mean billions of dollars have been wasted — much of it funneled to bankers, and much of the rest to mafiosi in the third world.

The Bankers are rubbing their hands in glee. They are the brokers in this Big New Market (based on thin air). They stand to make money on every trade — no matter if you buy or sell (and you will be forced to buy, if only indirectly), you pay the banker. No wonder they are pushing it.

The Greens are being played for patsies by bankers who want the profits, and by bureaucrats who want their nice jobs and grants, their junkets, and their accolades.

True grassroots greens ought to be livid that real environmental issues are being ignored (I am). We should be worried about things like soil erosion, declining fish stocks, destruction of old growth forest, or rampant malnutrition. The problem is that green groups have become the multimillion dollar organizations they pretend to oppose. The managing directors of Greenpeace, WWF etc et al (all hundred million dollar organizations) like to play with the Big Time movers and shakers, they like the status, they like the extra donations, and gosh but they feel important. And they get far more money from global warming  than they do from street donations (WWF stands to rake in $60 billion from Amazonian carbon credits, the tin-shakers on street corners are just for show).

As usual, it’s all about the money

The Labor Party still think we need a price on carbon, and that a community committee can somehow make the call for the rest of us. But that’s why we elect Members of Parliament isn’t it? We hope we elect people who can see a profit-making-scam coming and protect the Australian people from it, rather than people who jump in with both feet.

The opposite of skeptical is gullible.

Won’t any of our major parties stand up and call a spade a spade?

The US government spend $79 billion dollars to find a crisis due to carbon. They couldn’t find good evidence, so instead they bought a “consensus”. The IPCC was set up to assess “the danger”. They are never going to announce there isn’t any and their committee, their prizes, and their junkets are over. The money-soaked systems are corrupted.

Carbon credits are just another corrupt fiat currency.

A pollutant? You must be kidding

CO2 is an aerial fertilizer, responsible for increasing crop yields around the world by about 15% over the last century. Market gardeners pump it on their plants. The irony is that the Greens are trying to limit the key ingredient of life on earth — carbon. We are carbon life forms. Satellites show that as the world has warmed and atmospheric CO2 grew, the world’s biomass increased roughly 3% per decade. Plants love CO2.

The empirical evidence is telling us repeatedly that carbon only does about 1/6th of the warming that the IPCC claim it does. (See my debate with a Dr of Paleoclimate science for the details: Part 1, 2, 3&4, and especially 5). Thousands of scientists (including some giants) are rising up in the largest grassroots movement ever seen to warn us that the brand name Science is being used against us.

This issue will keep bringing down leader after leader because it is based on an untruth and kept alive by bullying.

To get up to speed fast, read these short booklets: The Skeptics Handbook, Climate Money and Global Bullies Want Your Money.

………………………………….……………..……………..

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.5/10 (8 votes cast)
I was once a Green who believed in man-made global warming, 7.5 out of 10 based on 8 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2536jay

152 comments to I was once a Green who believed in man-made global warming

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Once again Jo.. BRILLIANT work. So much contained in so few words. If only the warm side of the force would see it that way.

    But they will, and we’ll make sure. However, they’ll only admit in hindsight that they were just bystanders (liars), but for what it’s worth (hellovalot), we’ll all be here and outside trumpeting the truth – preferably sans vuvuzelas.. ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Thank you very much, Jo. What I simple can’t understand is how so many otherwise intelligent and responsible people can continue to live in a “reality” that is so much at variance with the evidence and with common sense. On the other hand, it is real scary how much is being done politically and socially by people and organisations who plough ahead “as if” this false reality were true. But I am sure that the persistent “teling it like it is”, that you have such a skill in doing, is slowly, slowly, but surely turning the balance.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Garth Godsman, Neil, EarthAdapt, Tammy, vexnews and others. vexnews said: I was once a Green who believed in man-made global warming http://j.mp/98xM4v [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    CJames

    You got to wonder how many people in WA have a bias because their income is derived from the mining companies!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Adolf Balik

    Corporativists who developed classical form of corporativism called fascism in the first half of 20th century have been defeated in WW2. Yet many power gripping inventions of theirs have proven their workability e. g. leftish movement kidnapping. Remember Hitler had his National SOCIALISTIC LABOR party: a mocked left wing party who was rather Green on top of it. Kidnapping left and green is the best way how corporativistic cartels of privileged tycoons along with their political patrons have been trying to revise WW2 by a new plot and power grip. The last hit of the anti-liberal schemes is called AGW.

    See how the kidnapping works:
    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7477/Leftwing-Env-Scientist-Bails-Out-Of-Global-Warming-Movement-Declares-it-a-corrupt-social-phenomenonstrictly-an-imaginary-problem-of-the-1st-World-middleclass


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    I have no doubt that the “Carbon Market” will take over as big bucks are needed in way of taxes by governments to pay down massive debt.

    The only thing that can hurt this monster is to by-pass the taxed system to an underground economy system.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This article from Christian Kerr explains why the Greens are so dangerous – and so incapable of understanding financial realities.
    John Black runs a social research company. He says the Greens’ core demographic has two outstanding characteristics. It is well-off and has liberal arts degrees. “It doesn’t have degrees where you have to add up,” he says.
    Well worth a read. Shame it appeared so late in the campaign, but we’re lucky it was printed at all perhaps.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    C.James @ 4

    You got to wonder how many people in the eastern states have a bias because their income is derived from the government!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Just heard on radio that ALP pollsters are worried about the latest figures.

    I hope they are very worried!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    LINDA

    Many of us where enviromentalists, and paid the price for living in the bush, the work was a joy and nature rewarded us kindly in living of the land.
    Now the developers and councils along with agri businesses saw the dollars to be made from rezoning and forcing eco or sustainable development from agenda 21 program, how will this ever be removed from australian nation as more councils and stakeholders jump on the eco wagon.
    Hopefully the few candidates who have stepped forward and apposed global warming and climate change, will see that taxpayers money goes to stop human suffering and renewing infrastucture that has long been neglected.
    Jo a big thankyou for all the effort and articles you have produced on your site.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike F

    Great article Jo. Resonated with me too. I was a believer until I started asking questions. It’s amazing how strong the propaganda is. It doesn’t surprise me there are so many people unwilling to even look at alternative information. Until 2 years ago i was one of them. It was Michael Crichton’s State of Fear that opened up my mind. It’s unfortunate that we lost him so young.

    The reactions from friends and family I had initially ranged from “how could you” to laughing at me and being condescending while misrepresenting my views ie. “mike thinks global warming is a secret conspiracy hahaha”.

    Anyway, most have turned now, but it really opened my eyes to how humans work and how society works and how easily manipulated so many people are.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike F

    Incidentally, I’d also like to see a few more articles on monetary science every now and then as this has become my main interest atm. Thanks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fenbeagle

    Meanwhile, in London, efforts continue apace to save the planet. The fate of the world is in our hands.
    London 1 and London too….

    http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/rare-scribbling/fenbeagle/random-sketchings/green-london/

    and London Free…

    http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/the-china-syndrome/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I was once a greenie. I was a greenie before they were called greenies. I joined the East Gippsland Coalition, the Native Forest Action Council, as a school boy in the 1970s, when there were a few dozen on the mailing list…to stop old growth logging in Gippsland. Alas, it’s still happening. Much later I could never join the Aus Greens for my secret scepticism — but thought the AGW thing would do no harm…and some good…pushing renewable energy etc. Now I see how the global warming thing has overwhelmed all other environmental issues…my beloved Wilderness Society campaigning for old growth (in Tas and Vic) as canbon stores…and still they cut them down — closing Hazelwood is much more urgent, AGW conveniently distracts the politique from the state government’s politically more difficult, yet solveable, environmental problems, etc, etc.

    I am still a greenie, but all is on hold until this madness subsides, until we all look to Borg Lomborg and say, mate, you were right.

    Every election I would be out with my daughter letterboxing, booth captain on the day, dawn til dusk.
    Not this year.
    And how torn am I! This year my seat of Melbourne (ex-Lindsay Tanner) might go to the Greens – lower house for the first time. Of course I want to be part of it, I want them so much to win…but no…not on this issue…and not with the blind righteousness that has overwhelmed the movement. Is it by this zealotry that they succeed? Like Cromwell’s New Model army of fanatics, undefeatable in their undoubtable believed they were the saints fighting the last battle of the Apocalypse? What can one say? Baptists only win on the terms of the bootleggers? That religious zeal will always defeat sober reason? That a politics of fear will always defeat a politics of love…even among hippies.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    CJames:
    August 19th, 2010 at 9:07 pm

    You got to wonder how many people in WA have a bias because their income is derived from the mining companies!

    CJames: Ever wonder what your life would be like without mining companies? (Goodbye cars, bicycles, cities, airplanes, …)

    Personally, I’m biased towards the unprecedented (in Human history) long life expectancy, medical care, food availability, and general well-being that goes along with the development of industrial civilization over the last 200 years — and I don’t kid myself, like the Greenies do, that I could still have this without the associated industrial infrastructure.

    Anyone who wants to live “free” from modern civilization is welcome to have a go at it — just don’t try to take me along!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Bob C.

    Well said – as usual. And Bernie – thanks for your experiences. Unfortunately, the modern Greens are being misrepresented as party of the environment. In truth, their policies are more in sync with the environmentalism of Stalinist Russia.

    When did a poor country ever do anything for the environment?

    I’ll be voting for Australia on Saturday – not the Greens!

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I was once a Green who believed in man-made global warming

    And Jo, your dedication to exposing what you discovered is nothing short of heroic.

    Thank you for that dedication and all the work behind it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    LevelGaze

    Malcolm Turnbull was really salivating over a carbon trading system. Of course he was, he used to be a merchant banker. Let’s not imagine that he isn’t anymore, or doesn’t still have contacts in the city. So we can easily see his motives (Christ, doesn’t he already have enough money?). Those who simply want a carbon tax are just stupid, not greedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean2829

    Your forgot to mention that the head of the CSIRO is not a scientist as you’d expect but is a banker, which if your really thing about it, makes perfect sense.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    CJames

    Thanks also for your Tony Abbott downunder movement!

    http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/2067/tonyabbottjonova.jpg

    [Jo I put this in pending so that you (and only you) could decide it's fate. The humor (or lack of) didn't work for me! :) ] mark
    {I thought it was awful.} CTS
    [It's so weak, it's not worth censoring. ;-) Petty flattery really, a delusional soul thinks I have that kind of influence? --JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    LevelGaze

    Sean2829@19

    Hey, I didn’t know that! I’ll check it out. If it’s true, you’re right, it makes perfect sense!

    CSIRO used to be such a good organisation…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    LevelGaze

    Aha. Simon McKeon, from Macquarie Bank, the “millionaire factory”. A man with “no scientific pedigree” (ipse dixit). You’re right on the money there Sean. Thanks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Hey I recycle, I use as little fuel as I need, but I was NEVER a green. Something stank about them from the first “save this or that” Like BobC has outlined; I like modern medicine, transportation, food, WARMTH! (and one more thing not on Bob’s list: random wars)

    Thanks Jo!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    Many years ago we had software being introduced which was attached to big promises. It was called vaporware.
    Today we have rare gases being traded. These are vapor markets. Try to buy 2 tons of CO2 and get it delivered to your business.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    Love “the opposite to sceptical is gullible”. I’ve been looking at the issue of carbon taxes. There is little real understanding of the potential carbon taxes. Labor avoid talking specifics because they want to get re-elected. The coalition haven’t got the guts to admit they really do question the so-called science. So the public really have no idea.

    Australians are not the biggest CO2 emitters
    It is often incorrectly reported that Australian’s are the highest per capita emitters of CO2 in the world. Depending on where you get the estimate, the average varies. For the purpose of the exercise I will use the UN list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita from 1990 through 2007. All data were calculated by the US Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre (CDIAC), mostly based on data collected from country agencies by the United Nations Statistics Division. This puts Australian per capita emissions in 2007 at 18.8 tonnes per year. This places us 9th in the UN’s list of 210 countries. By those numbers Australia emits less than half the average citizen from Qatar at number one, and well behind a bunch of other middle east countries and well behind Luxembourg and some other more obscure countries. In fact we come in just behind the USA.

    The CO2 emission numbers are not accurate
    These numbers bear some scrutiny though. They are primarily based on the figures the various countries’ agencies provide to the UN. According to the list there are six countries which apparently emit no CO2 at all! We are supposed to believe that China only emits 4.6 tonnes per capita, while massively expanding its own industry, and infrastructure and supplying the world with dramatically increasing amounts of consumer goods, all produced almost exclusively by fossil fuels.

    In fact there are 103 of the 210 countries listed by the UN which admit to no more than 3 tonnes of CO2 per capita. Many of these countries are admittedly small and developing or under-developed. Many of these countries also have dysfunctional governments or are involved in civil and other wars, so their numbers must be questioned. But there are two other significant factors which must be understood when looking at the UN provided figures.

    1. The countries do not make any assessment of personally gathered and burnt fuel for the use of cooking and heating. So all the wood, straw, dung, peat and coal collected and burned by citizens is not included in their CO2 emission calculations. Much of the fuel used in most of the 103 low emitting countries referred to, as well as many of the higher emitting countries in the UN list, consists of such fuel. The UN list is therefore hardly an accurate reflection of per capita CO2 emissions.

    2. When Australia emits CO2 in the production of wool, grain, or other agricultural products , or in the digging up and processing of resources which we export to countries all over the world, those emissions are added to Australia’s emissions account, even though other countries reap the benefits of those products and resources. The same is true of course regarding all the products we import. Nevertheless this fact further brings the CO2 emission accounts into question.

    Introducing a price on Carbon emissions
    Putting aside the question of accuracy, if we accept the UN figures and round them up to 20 tonnes of CO2 emitted per person in Australia, we can calculate a possible carbon tax as advocated by the Greens, and as will almost certainly be introduced by Labor.

    It really doesn’t matter where the tax is levied, at the producers end or at the consumers end, the cost will eventually filter through to consumers because production costs must be passed on. From an economists point of view, any tax really needs to be applied to the producer with the object of providing the greatest incentive to alter the CO2 emitting behaviour. However, because of the goods and services tax system we have in Australia, this would mean the consumer would eventually pay at least 110% of the proposed carbon price.

    How much will it really be?
    So how much is it likely to cost per person? Greens leader Bob Brown wants a carbon cost of $23.00 per tonne, so at 20 tonnes per person that would amount to $460 per year, plus 10% GST for a total of $506 per person per year. Of course it will be a lot more than that for tax payers and high income earners. The Government will look to compensate (as per their policy), anyone on a fixed income (pensioners, unemployed, special benefits and so on). There will also be a shift of the costs from ‘working families’ and low income earners to middle and upper income earners. So it is most likely the costs will actually be borne by about 5 million of the middle and upper income tax payers. Based on 23 million people at a cost of $506 per person a total of $11,638,000,000 would be collected in carbon taxes. Spread amongst just 5 million middle and upper income tax payers, that will equate to a levy of $2,327.60 pa on average for the unlucky people who pay taxes and don’t receive compensation. That is an enormous impost and provides a substantial slush fund for the government.

    Of course in practice a carbon tax would be levied in a number of ways through a system of power bill levies, levies on certain industries, incentive for other industries funded by the government and so on. But at the end of the day, it is those paying taxes, or buying the taxed products, who aren’t likely to receive government assistance and compensation, who will pay. So equating it to about 5 million middle and upper income earners is likely to be pretty accurate.

    Why I oppose a carbon price
    Personally I could afford the impost and it wouldn’t make any difference to my life style. However the science blaming CO2 for the bulk of the warming in the past 100 years is less than convincing as readers of Jo Nova would know. I am concerned that the cost to the economy will be so much greater than the tax collected because we will force productive areas of our economy, (power production, mining and manufacture), to move to inefficient energy options before the technology is ready. That will be bad enough for our economy by itself, but if we do it before other countries in the world move to a similar regime, we will become less competitive world wide and our economy will suffer by multiples of the tax collected.

    Carbon tax is a lesser of the evils
    However, if there is a choice between a carbon tax and carbon emission trading, I would back a tax by a long way. It is not credible to say CO2 emissions are evil, and then sponsor trading in CO2 emissions. As Jo Nova clearly points out here, a trading regime creates a huge unproductive industry in establishing and auditing and tracking and trading carbon credits. It invites cheats! The whole system will enrich some individuals and corporations without any direct benefit to the country and the environment. At least with a carbon tax, the government gets the revenue, they can direct money to areas they see fit and can cut the tax when the world realises that CO2 emissions are not a problem!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    If you could get :-
    I’m a Green who once believed in man-made global warming … on a T-shirt , it might become the epitaph of AGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Bernie Lewin #14:

    It is always easier to believe than to understand.

    Humans are inherently a lazy species. It’s one of the things that drives the growth of our intelligence; to relentlessly pursue those things that will save us doing anything. Well, anything that could be tedious or bothersome.

    Civilization has brought us close to that utopian situation; and indeed delivered in surplus to the spoilt brats en masse. Their minds have been “nurtured” by generous doses of manure from an early age. They have never learnt about failure; about being wrong and the consequences. With nothing that they must do. Little wonder then that the most trifling things engage their interest and to enrol them in activities without them recognizing that there are consequences for all actions and inactions.

    True, there are more than a few “weeds”. Those who’ve grasped the nettle of independent thought and resisted the warm, thought-suffocating embrace of the “group-think”.

    And there are others who feign a share of the group-think, but don’t believe in the substance. They simply don’t want to offend or to feel out of place. They are yet to discover the security of their own free thoughts and that they can have and express those thoughts without ill-will towards others.

    Fundamental to that is the recognition is that people and their ideas are separable. Most people are, after all, able to change their own mind. If you’re going to be arguing with people to have them change their minds, then you must argue against the idea; to reveal its flaws to those who hold those ideas to be true. The revelation will only happen if those who’ve adopted the ideas have cause to re-examine, so often it entails requesting that they express the idea in their own words so that it engages conscious thought.

    Way past my bed-time… got to go.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Apologies to the Wizard of Oz:

    (Jo Nova)
    I wouldwile away the hours
    Conferrin’ with the flowers
    Consultin’ with the rain
    And my head I’d be scratchin’
    While my thoughts were busy hatchin’
    Til I finally got a brain!

    I’d unravel any riddle
    For any individ’le
    In trouble or in fear

    (Anthony Watts)
    With the thoughts you’d be thinkin’
    You could be another McIntyre
    Now you have a brain!

    (Jo Nova)
    Oh, I would tell you why
    The ocean’s not much more
    I could think of things I never thunk before
    And then I’d sit and think some more

    I would not be just a nuffin’
    My head all full of bluffin’
    My heart all full of pain
    I would dance and be merry

    Life will be a ding-a-derry
    Now that I have a brain!

    —————————

    Sort of the before and after song. (I think Jo is cuter than the Scarecrow, however.)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    LevelGaze, the banker becoming the CSIRO-boss story is here: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/bankers-spread-into-science/

    Because money is made from nothing (as in thin air) the banking industry has slowly inevitably increased in power. There is no natural brake (except for a revolt from the masses). Those who have the power to create money can create patronage, connections, fans and “friends” in all layers of government and business.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Calling the pretend “money” money is part and parcel of the “ruling elite’s” war on reality.

    The world’s economy has not had real money since the final abandonment of gold as money decades ago. Money, as such, must be a real commodity having real value for real living beings or its nothing but a promise to pay – rather like a check drawn on a bank account.

    The thing is, the pretend “money” being created is a check drawn on the future production of the economy. That, in practice, means its a draw on the future deposits of any individual who produces value for the market. This happens at the same time those productive individuals require actual money as a capital base for their present and future production.

    The net result is for every dollar of pretend “money” that is created, there is a dollar less of actual money available for productive activity. Thereby eliminating the future productivity upon which the pretend “money” is based. Wishing this not to be true is without effect.

    The practice of creating pretend “money” is nothing but a round about way to hide the fact that wealth is being stolen from those who produce it. Worse, it is the theft of future wealth. That theft reduces or eliminates the possibility of producing that future wealth upon which the pretend “money” depends. Thereby making the promise to pay a promise based upon an already overdrawn account.

    Its nothing but a game of Three Card Monty or pea under a cup. No real value is created for real living humans. Its wealth transferred and destroyed along with the destruction of the possibility of creating still more wealth. This is all that will happen in spite of the presumed “good” intentions of the players in the game.

    See the many hyper-inflations and economic collapses of the last century for instructive detail. The next one will make those look like a dance in the park on a warm July evening.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    After the Handbook for Skeptics here comes the

    Handbook for Doomsayers

    .

    The base of green ideology is that human beings destroy nature by taking action to survive and thus mankind forces destruction of itself.

    Without this assumption, green ideology is baseless and superfluous.
    Prejudgment of mankind is the key to governance for self-proclaimed saviors.

    How is it done not to convince, but persuade the masses? Well, here is how it works:

    1. Choose an imprecise date of doom in the future. Not too far ahead, otherwise it’s not interesting. Not too close that you can’t be debunked by the living generation as a false prophet. Or tell no date, but assure the audience that the event is – …err… may be – straight ahead.
    2. Make inept claims nobody can refute easily, because no one is able to give evidence what will happen in future or not. There will always be people who “believe”.
    3. Give lots of fudged pieces of evidence that would take a long time for experts to refute. Repeat your claims and fraudulent evidence again and again and the rate of probability will increase over time, so even people that are not as gullible as in 2. will cast doubts, because the majority of people is convinced that nobody could be so stupid to make claims all time and again that are false.
    4. In discussions make a reversal of proof by demanding that your conversationalist has to give pieces of evidence for his contrary position to be credible himself. For it is not possible to do that it’s the counterparts words against yours. Fortunately fearing death is kind of basic instinct and thus the audience natural behavior is to protect itself against imminent perils so the audience is on your side and wants to learn how to shelter themselves from the threat coming up soon.
    5. Next tell the audience that it is their way of acting that leads to the threat. Make them clear that it’s their harmless way of living that they regarded as natural right to improve life conditions is responsible for that. This adds to the existing fear their guilty conscience and leads to their willingness to make sacrifices. Now there is acceptance for you as a leader to resolve this conflict.
    6. Tell them about the expensive rescue plan you worked out and give them tasks they can’t fulfill. This results in subordination to the new “saviors”.
    7. Specify the groups of opponents and name them names.
    8. Involve them into the group of Redeemers and tell them that every means is justified to fulfill your plan.

    At this point it’s just a matter of routine and organization. Your apostles won’t even perceive the irreality of your goal setting.

    Traits of cult and sad but true …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    Thank you Jo for an excellent post on the election eve. I’ve taken the liberty of emailing it to many in the hope it goes viral and lessens any chance of Greens controlling the balance of power or Gillard’s last grasp for votes with a garbled CPRS promise. So far The Australian, The Daily Telegraph and the Courier Mail have endorsed Tony Abbott. A Landslide is on and full credit to you and the others who tirelessly fought to expose the lies about Climate Change that brought Kevin Rudd to power. Well Done!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    I recall about 40 years ago a social/psychological experiment was conducted out somewhere on the downs country in England.

    Around ~ 150 people were “corralled”in an environment given a few rudimentary tools & animals & set loose to live some thing like a bronze age lifestyle.(animal skin clothing, wattle & daub etc.)
    I am sure their health & mental health were monitored & I recall the women were provided with “the pill” but that was the only modern allowance.

    Unfortunately it was a long time ago. I only saw the one TV item on it & did not get to follow how long it lasted or what conclusions were derived.

    I was thinking that quite a few of the participants would still be kicking. I’d love to see how many of the skin wearing post 60’s green hippies would be keen for the lifestyle at “the end of the GREEN Rainbow” currently on offer.

    One thing for sure: you can bet when the finished the experiment soap was not the only modern appurtenance of modern life they viewed with new respect.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Have just had a peek at the Australian Academy of Science report: The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers (wordy,flimsy,vacuous – I think its for the children).

    Turns out that the statement: “Humans affect climate change”, that, as The Australian reports “expresses for the first time the consensus among Australia’s top climate scientists on the evidence for human-caused global warming.” is derived from this proof offered in the report:

    “It is very likely that most of the recent observed global warming is caused by increasing greenhouse gas levels”

    The report studiously avoids describing the mechanism by which GHG “back radiation” is actually doing the “causing” (a cutting-edge dispute among scientists – see the showdown with Miskolczi at the Spencer corral) and the other minor matter that LWIR back radiation is unable to heat the planets greatest heat sink – the ocean (covering 70%of the surface).

    They got nuthin.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Apparently Julia Gillard had SFA to say at Tuesday night’s forum about Global Warming.
    From Greatest Environmental Blahblahblah to just blah in twelve months.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Jaymez @ 24. Thank you for enlightening me about how the GHG emissions figures are derived. I did not realise that there was not some sort of “standard” method. So basically each country can make up what ever figure they like as long as it least appears reasonable.So it is totally open to corruption or at least dishonesty. Sounds like the temp. data !!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    You are being a bit unfair to the Greens, because they do have some good policies. Only the Greens have consistently and unfailingly spoken out against the Internet Filter. Tony Abbot has been awfully quiet on the matter of the Internet Filter, and I rather suspect that he would support it himself if he got the chance to take control of it rather than Labor.

    If the Internet Filter gets installed then you can be sure that rabble rousing sites like this one will vanish the very next afternoon. Once we can no longer discuss the issues and present an alternative point of view, there’s no limit to the crap those bastards will cook up and feed to the compliant media. As an Australian I can live with a Carbon tax (not helpful to the economy but survivable) but I really don’t see how we can live with an Internet Filter.

    The other point about the Greens is they have never been enthusiastic about either Labor’s Carbon Trading proposal, or Malcolm Turnbull’s banker buddies. The Greens have been plugging for a simple and easy to administer Carbon Tax — tax that is imposed as soon as the carbon comes out of the ground, and is not in the least subject to the sort of scams typical of “indulgence” certificates.

    Of course the general trend of the Green policies is towards Big Government, Big Tax, Big Regulations, Big Spending, in other words Socialism. I’m not a supporter of Socialism, although I do believe the government has some legitimate part to play in keeping our society fair and making sure people play by the rules. The size and influence of government should be limited so they can concentrate on the small number of things that actually matter.

    Sadly, Julia Gillard is also a Fabian Socialist, with an agenda to extend government control in every conceivable direction, and to make things worse there’s a strong Authoritarian streak our current Liberal party (I haven’t forgotten the removal of civil liberties that happened under Howard, and Labor seems perfectly happy to cooperate in further removing freedom from this country). Tony Abbot’s first loyalty is to the Catholic Church, and I’m an Atheist. While I think the Catholics are pretty reasonable for the most part, giving them extended powers to impose lifestyle decisions on the rest of Australia is a dumb idea in my books.

    Sure I am more than happy to put some minority parties at the top of my preference list. If the LDP or the Shooters get one single senator in the door then I’ll be happy. But we all know the minority parties aren’t going to make much difference… the deal in Australia is the majority of the people are uninterested in liberty, and want to vote for a party that will constantly browbeat them and tell them what to do. That needs to be turned around first, before we will get any worthwhile political progress.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    If worst comes to worst, and a price is put on carbon. I would much prefer that it is in the form of government tax.
    Even though it would adversely affect the economy, it only takes an election to stop a tax.
    A trading market on the other hand can’t be stopped, it can only crash.
    Given the potential size of an international carbon trading market the crash when it comes will be spectacular.
    It will make the global financial crisis look like someone accidentally knocking over the till at a school fete.

    [Yes, agreed. The tax cuts the bankers out of the loop. Pouring more money and power into the banking cartels is surely a dangerous thing to do in and of itself...--JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    observa

    It was one thing to be alarmed by a hockey stick of ‘world best’ temperature record, but quite another to jump to the conclusion that carbon credit creation and trading was the solution to any of that. No matter what all the experts argued, it only needed common sense to see the bleeding obvious. When some fresh faced kid rocks around your place to change some light globes and shower heads for ‘free’, in order to do some quick average calc of CO2 ‘saved’ and create some carbon credits to be traded for ever more, that was it right there. Blind Freddy could see the gaping holes in any edifice built on that eminently reversible and overridden nonsense and the more the experts argued for it, the more you knew you were being talked to by academic delusionals or straight out shucksters.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PresqueVu

    Thanks Jo for opening up this support group if sorts.

    I’ve leaned to left all my life and used to give the AGW argument the benefit of the doubt. However as soon as I scratched the surface I quickly realised how big the con is. I am a scientist by trade (geologist). I have followed the debate intensely for about 3 years now, always trying to maintain an open mind and looking at any fresh arguments objectively. My position against AGW becomes greater every day. I still think of myself as an environmentalist but AGW is not environmentalism.

    Climate change has become an ideal that people put on their mantle piece to show that they too are part of the community that cares. Few people who believe in AGW understand the debate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike F

    The problem isn’t really that the bankers create money. The problem is that they create endless iou’s with interest attached. The interest compounds and gets to a point where there isn’t enough money to pay for it all. At that point the iou’s (loans, mortgages, etc) get defaulted on en masse and the banker game collapses.

    Don’t forget that the money in our accounts is money that we have LEANT to the bankers. ie. if you have $500 in your account that means the bank owes you $500. It’s an iou for $500, not $500 in cash.

    If the bankers can’t get back the money they have leant out because they have leant it recklessly to anyone with a pulse they are not going to be able to give back the money they borrowed from you.

    Of course the banker only cares about if the person can service the loan and the more the better. The lower the rate of interest the more loans they have to make to make a profit and the more reckless they get to the point that society is now saturated with credit with no way to ever pay it all off.

    The bankers are happy because they are skimming the interest from all these loans and ultimately they can always get a govt bailout to pay depositors if the loans they made start defaulting. Thereby getting depositors(taxpayers) to pay (via the govt) to get their own money back. That is the basic banker scam.

    The story of robbers in masks with guns robbing banks is largely a myth. The reality is that bankers rob their depositors and the govt is their silent partner.

    [It's not that bankers rob depositors, it's that the creation of money from thin air robs every holder of those notes, every grandma's life savings become worth a bit less, and every toddlers trust loses some purchasing power. The creators of money-for-nothing steal through inflation - JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Konrad

    I have not had much time for the environmental movement, as for most of my life it has been hopelessly compromised by those using it as a stalking horse for politics. However I have never been happy with modern society’s love affair with cars. I refer to these as petrol burning ego boxes. When the CO2 scare started I wanted to believe, but it soon became clear that there was no real science behind AGW. As an industrial designer I want to see a clean and sustainable future, but I know the ends do not justify the means. I fear few in the AGW movement have any idea of the damage they have wrought on the genuine environmental movement and the reputation of science. Alternative energy research may be set back years with the collapse of the AGW hoax. Only a swift end to the hoax can now minimise the damage. We can repair the damage and end up stronger as a society. The future could see an end to post normal science, an environmental movement cleansed of bitter socialists and a society motivated by hope rather than fear. The faster this hoax is destroyed, the brighter the future can be.

    If you are reading this you are already experiencing one of the positive effects of challenge to the AGW hoax. Relentless advocacy journalize in the MSM led to the rise of climate scepticism on the web. This has been a major force behind the rise of new media. The lame stream media are no longer the gate keepers of opinion. Once they were called the forth estate, now we can call them the fifth wheel. A brighter future already :)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [ Just logged on to your web site and find myself in agreement with most of your correspondents. A word of warning from across the ditch here in NZ. The prospect of your Green Party having a major influence in the balance of power in you new Government is a real one with serious implications. The Greens have had a track record over here under the previous Labour [MMP} Government of supporting them on nearly all issues particularly green ones involving radical climate change legislation.
    You could end up politically with the ‘tail wagging the dog’
    An unfortunate consequence of coalition party’s in Government!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Good luck to everyone at the voting booths tomorrow.

    Thank you JoNova for taking the massive amount of time a major blog like this must steal from your real world life. From the looks of the comments you give hope and solace to more people than you know.

    I am an environmentalist and always have been. But I was never seduced by the Greens since from the inception of the Green political movement in Germany back in the 1970′s it was clear that the Greens really represent an unholy synergy between Marxism and a Rousseauian idealization of nature. Whatever small environmental good the Greens can do, they will undo us all if given half a chance.

    Those who love nature know nature, those who man our fishing fleets, ride the fences of the outback and survey our forests know the Greens for what the average Green is – an upward mobile inner-city professional with a smartphone inplant who tailgates in 4-wheel drive Subarus that have never left the bitumen.

    Greens are people who love nature so much that they huddle in the megalopolis. Greens are anti-humanists. But who can blame them? If you lived in Bondi or Manly, you’d get pretty sick of your fellow human beings too. To inner-city types it’s obvious that Australia is over populated and there are way too many cars. To the rich it’s obvious that we have too much wealth and can afford to tax the economy back to zero growth. They’ve already made theirs and invested offshore.

    I live on a remote property backed up to an incredible national park of vast primary forests and deep gorges on the New England plateau. It’s one of the most beautiful places on the Earth. People from the city come in their big 4-wheel drives to park near the viewing platforms, take pictures with thousand dollar cameras then head back the shopping centers and pubs of Armidale. Oh, how they love nature.

    You could take 10 Greenies into the back country of any national park, leave them with a box of matches and a jack knife — 8 would never make it out alive. Think Lord of the Flies. Besides, how can anyone survive more than a week without their iPhone?

    The Greens represent a the dawn of a new collectivist dark age:

    “The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said “This is mine,” and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”

    — Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1754


    Report this

    00

  • #
    grayman

    Just a note toMike f at 41: The realitity is bankers rob thier depositers and the goverment is the GETTAWAY DRIVERS!!!! Good luck with your election coming up may you get good governance from good votes


    Report this

    00

  • #
    grayman

    That holds true for us in the USA as well.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    so we – who are allegedly so desperate for a price on carbon – have had to wait til the day before the election for the parties to even dare to bring up the subject?

    20 Aug: Australian: Paul Kelly & Dennis Shanahan: Julia Gillard: My carbon price promise
    In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step.
    “I don’t rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism,” she said of the next parliament. “I rule out a carbon tax.”…
    http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/julia-gillard-my-carbon-price-promise/story-fn5tar6a-1225907552000

    this guy won by only 200 votes in 2007, so he’s getting nervous cos he’ll need green votes:

    20 Aug: ABC: Rick Hind: Labor candidate contradicts PM on carbon tax
    Damian Hale won the seat of Solomon in 2007 by about 200 votes..
    But in a bid to secure Greens preferences, Mr Hale told ABC Local Radio this morning only one of the major parties is working towards a tax on carbon emissions.
    “Well, I really think that we need to make sure that getting a carbon tax in place is a priority of a government that’s re-elected on Saturday,” he said…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/20/2988458.htm

    and Greg Hunt tells all the day before the election to dear Alan Kohler’s “business spectator”:

    20 Aug: Business Spectator: CLIMATE SPECTATOR Q&A: Greg Hunt
    Giles Parkinson
    GP: But aren’t you creating a carbon price, but just in a private market?
    GH: Well, we’re creating… We are creating an abatement market…
    ***GP: But what about a carbon price? Because it’s very hard to find a business, a major business, now that is not calling for a carbon price. Big business wants it, the utilities want it, even Rio Tinto wants it. Why won’t you give it to them?
    GH: Well, it’s very clear that(sic) what people want. Nobody, themselves, wants to pay higher electricity prices…
    GP: But isn’t the issue of a carbon price broader than that? Aren’t people talking in terms of the need to effect a transformation to a low-carbon economy? And to do that you need to drive an incentive over a broader economy and not just a few projects…
    GP: But is it going to achieve that broader transformation that the economy requires? I mean, the leaders of the United States and the leaders of China talk in terms of a green economy and whoever seizes the initiative there will be the economy that dominates the 21st century…
    GP: How will Australia meet its target under your scheme if carbon farming, for instance, is not recognised under the Kyoto Protocol or its successor?
    GH: Well, our system is designed to find the lowest cost, and we will do that. But most significantly, under the US Waxman-Markey legislation and under the US Kerry Boxer legislation, the soil carbon is proposed for recognition. I think that under either circumstance, if there is an international agreement, because the US is demanding that soil carbon be included, this will be part of any international agreement. And if there isn’t an international agreement, we’d move into a pledge and review situation…
    ***GP: Now, what happens if there is an international agreement? People recognise the science and the targets that are required by the science, which would mean a greater than 5 per cent reduction target for Australia. It could mean up to 20 or 25 per cent. How would the Coalition government go about achieving those sorts of reductions?
    GH: Well, this method itself, in our direct action document, identifies essential savings of up to minus 17 per cent. And there are many more areas for savings in the economy which we’ve also recognised, but which we weren’t willing to adopt out of caution and prudence…
    GP: And presumably, then, that would require a carbon price?
    GH: Our proposal, it sets out in writing as it did in the direct action policy of February 2, that we see this as a system which will run at least until 2020 and we would review the post-2020 position in 2015, on the basis of where the world was at.
    GP: Ok. Tony Abbott was once again talking this week about climate change. He’s not entirely convinced by the science, it sounds like, but he does accept there are views and therefore they should take some action. Is it difficult for you to drive the climate change policy when the person in charge is a bit of a sceptic?
    GH: Look, I don’t accept your propositions. I do make the point that throughout the summer he was completely engaged in the design of this, in the commitment to a bipartisan approach to the targets, and also to the conditions for greater targets…
    GP: Ok. So, you don’t see any time when Australia may need to consider the nuclear option?
    GH: It’s not part of our plan.
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/CLIMATE-SPECTATOR-QA-Greg-Hunt-pd20100820-8GSTG?opendocument&src=rss

    Parkinson’s “Aren’t people talking in terms of the need to effect a transformation to a low-carbon economy?”

    which people, where?

    at least i can cast my first-ever informal vote tomorrow.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    #36 Tel Internet Filter

    The Coalition policy to block the internet filter is quite clear: see http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/05/2974827.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    meanwhile, NOAA’s degraded satellites, the McShane/Wyner hockey stick paper and Joe Bastardi unloading on Penn State have all failed totally to get a single MSM mention.

    given Bastardi is all over the MSM daily, the failure of the MSM to report on his Penn State/Michael Mann critique is perhaps the most egregious of the three.

    someone tell me again that the MSM is not monolithic when it comes to CAGW and a price on CO2.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Some of my responses to Amanda McKenzie’s diatribe on The Drum

    Amanda,
    “However, for the 2.6 million voters under 30 in Australia, it is not so much the economy of the next election cycle they are worried about but the economic legacy they will inherit from inaction on the generational issue of climate change.”

    Perhaps those 2.6 million voters don’t share your opinion. Perhaps, instead of embracing the group-think, they have discovered the fresh breath of independent, critical thought.

    Perhaps some don’t live in the comforts of middle-class suburbia.

    Perhaps some understand thermodynamics and recognize the nonsense being propagated.

    Perhaps some know enough geology and see that climate change is natural.

    Perhaps some don’t take kindly to condescending, arrogant views being propagated on their behalf.

    Perhaps some simply have a functioning BS-detector.

    There are lots of reasons why the 18-30 year olds don’t share your mis-placed concerns. If those are the concerns that you actually hold sincerely, not just conveniently.

    There is no such species as “authoritative scientists”. Use of such terminology is a fallacy: appeal to authority.

    The only authority in science is nature itself.

    Which begs the question; does nature show that anthroprogenic CO2 can produce catastrophic climate change?

    As yet; it doesn’t.

    Nature instead shows that this planet has experienced warmer and colder climates at both lower and higher levels of CO2; with no catastrophe. Nature instead reveals that higher temperatures lead to more CO2 in the atmosphere. Not the other way around.

    Nature shows us that climate is very resilient to internal “upsets”.

    Nature also provides what appear to be clues that aperiodic climate change is largely determined by factors external to our planet. Factors which trigger the formation of clouds that result in a change of the amount of sunlight reaching the surface.

    And it is that amount of sunlight (insolation) that determines at first temperature and by energy flows, determines weather patterns and climate.

    In essence; external factors are thought to set the climatic “thermostat”.

    Some of us work for a living.
    Others vote for a living.

    Conflating CO2 and real pollution doesn’t help the environment. It helps big money make more money. Until their bubbles burst, just after they cash in.

    Like the Chicago Climate Exchange .. where a ton of CO2 would be trading at 10 cents
    … were it not for the fact that nobody’s buying.

    Keep in mind that the Kyoto Protocol failed for a number of reasons; not least of which was that it failed to allow fora surge in development in China, India – and hopefully soon, Africa.

    Moreover, if everybody had curtailed their emissions (and thereby maintained thousands of millions of lives in poverty) to the levels of 1990, then it would have made only 0.1°C difference in projected in global temperature — according to the IPCC Assessment Reports.

    Seems like no detectable benefit at all at an enormous cost. If instead those thousands of millions of dollars wasted in trying to curtail CO2 had instead been spent on understanding and tackling real environmental problems caused by human activity, then
    the environment would be a lot better off.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    should have known Giles would have penny w(r)ong as well. how insistently Giles advocates on behalf of BIG BUSINESS. thought they were against CAGW & CO2 pricing, Giles!

    20 Aug: Business Spectator: Giles Parkinson: CLIMATE SPECTATOR Q&A: Penny Wong
    GP: The key point to that, though, is what chance then do you give a carbon price being in place or legislated for by, say, 2013 or 2014?
    PW: Well, can I come back to that issue..BLAH BLAH BLAH THEN FOUR PARS LATER…
    Now, your question about the market mechanism: We’ve tried very hard to get a market mechanism, a cap on pollution through the Australian parliament and we had an agreement to pass that legislation. That agreement was torn apart when Tony Abbott became the leader of the Liberal Party and we recognise that we have to go through a process of rebuilding the Australian consensus around that framework about how Australia does put a cap on carbon, because the political consensus around that has been shattered. It was shattered by Tony Abbott. We also saw the Greens, as you know, vote with Mr Abbott to sink that legislation…
    GP: But for the early action policy that you have introduced, for business to take that early action, they’d really have to be quite certain that there will be a carbon price down the track. When do you think you’ll be able to offer them that certainty?
    PW: Well look, the Prime Minister has laid out our approach to that and we’ve said we will assess the state of international negotiations, of the international status, and we will also, in 2012 at the end of the Kyoto period, we’ve also said very clearly we will go through a process of developing the consensus in the Australian community around this issue and we will be informed by that on the timetable the Prime Minister has announced.
    GP: Realistically, then, no business is really going to take up that offer until they actually have that certainty, until you’ve been through that process of the citizens assembly.
    PW: But Giles, you’re asking me to make a judgement about how individual businesses, you know, what decisions they will make. Obviously one of the things we wanted to provide through the passage of the CPRS was business certainty. Unfortunately, neither the Greens nor the Liberal Party nor the National Party respected not only our election mandate around that, but their own…
    GP: What is your view, then, of what sort of emissions trading scheme that you could bring back to Parliament in a couple of years’ time, presuming you get approval from this citizens assembly? Will it be the CPRS, or will it be informed by that assembly? …
    GP: But isn’t it just a matter of a very vocal minority who do not support it? I mean all the polls suggest that there is a majority view in support of an ETS in action.
    PW: Giles… Giles, I mean I have to say to you I don’t see Mr Abbott as the man – who might be Prime Minister of this country in a few days’ time – believing that we should act on climate change. Just a few days ago this is a man who suggested that he thought the world was cooling, so you may believe that this issue has been settled, but I certainly accept the signs, as does Julia Gillard, but the reality is, at a political level, the alternative government, the people who could be in charge of the country on Sunday morning, are led by a man who doesn’t believe this is real….BLAH BLAH
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/CLIMATE-SPECTATOR-QA-Penny-Wong-pd20100820-8GTX9?opendocument&src=rss


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Re Pat #48

    Doesn’t MSM stand for More Smoke and Mirrors?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    elsie

    george wes. I agree. There is already a huge amount of green space set aside in Australia for future generations. You don’t have to stray far east of the New England highway to come upon thick forests stretching beyond as far as the eye can see. In fact, people get lost and never seen again in such places. Even on North Stradbroke Island off Brisbane the Greens are demanding instant banning of a 50 year old sand mine. But it is so small c.f. the island. A hiker on the island got lost for 2 days on the big island and never stumbled upon the mine.

    pattoh, I too have seen documentaries where people have been made to live life as it was in the 1800s or even the 1920s. It was found too hard for the participants. Yet the Greens would have us live that way except themselves of course.

    Jaymez, I too get tired of Australia being cast as an evil highest CO2 polluter. What can we expect when coal power creates over 50% of emissions and there is total opposition to nuclear power? Most other nations have some nuclear power to lessen the equation. It is ironic that nuclear power was described in science journals before WW2. Then someone pointed out that a runaway reactor might cause a huge explosion. That is why the A-bomb was developed by the allies to get in before Germany or Japan who also knew the theories. For some reason I can never fathom Australians hate nuclear power despite Japan embracing it. We all know electricity is going to be more expensive whether we use coal or nuclear but the cleanest is obvious.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    grumpy old fart

    What used to be a joke (‘they’d tax the air we breathe if they could’) is now becoming a reality, they have found a way to tax the air.

    I exhale carbon dioxide. How long until I need a Carbon Credit to keep breathing? What happens if I’m too poor to breathe?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Have the Greens and Gillard actually explained what their Carbon Tax means? Have they explained where the money goes ? Or have they explained how the alternative CPRS works ?
    I ask these stupid questions because when the ETS was introduced in NZ we had people saying it was just another tax , but the Minister said the Government would get very little from the scheme so it was not a tax ( supposedly 98% of the net revenue would end up in foresters pockets). Then there was a book published by a couple of economists critising the ETS because it did not raise enough revenue to cover the projected short fall in our Kyoto commitments.
    So one had to ask – did anyone know what was going on ? ( No Pat,the MSM did not pick up on this either).
    So hopefully Australia will have it worked out abit better IF it the election goes the wrong way for you!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Great post Joanne! I am going to link it into our battles here in California with Proposition 23, which will put the California global warming bill on hold. All the greeny orgs and cap and traders are pouring big bucks into preserving their domain. We have a saying here as California goes, so goes the nation. And the deep pockets are very worried! Wish us luck! There is more info on this on my blog: ronkilmartin.wordpress.com.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    The Australian Academy of Science – on message but not very original:-

    “He said the fundamental principles of climatology, such as the role of carbon dioxide in global warming, were beyond dispute.” – attributed to Kurt Lambeck, immediate past president, AAS.

    Looks a lot like:

    “The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.”
    – President-elect Barack Obama, 19 Nov 08.

    And,

    “It is very likely that most of the recent observed global warming is caused by increasing greenhouse gas levels” – The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers, AAS.

    Looks a lot like:

    “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th Century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” – IPCC Synthesis Report.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Great quote from: http://sppiblog.org/news/laputans-in-retreat

    The core articles of faith of the Greens are the sanctity of “nature”, and the depravity of mankind. Their hatred of mankind is revealed time and time again in their oft-expressed desire to see new plagues wipe out the greater part of the world’s peoples. The creation of more and more “wilderness”, from which humans are barred, is a manifestation of this awful misanthropy, and the ultimate goal of this movement is an Earth which is no longer polluted by any human beings at all. It is an anti-theist movement with a deep hatred of its own kind, which it sees as depraved and incapable of redemption.

    - Ray Evans

    It pretty much says it all for the radicals – chaining themselves to trees, vandalising power plants (and trees by hammering huge spikes into them to damage chain saws), protesting that they want wind power (but not in their neighbourhoods), clean power (dear god – not nuclear), water (but no dams for Tasmania) and a raft of other cutesie things that are either impossible or downright absurd.

    The hypocrisy of the green movement knows no bounds. Check out this interview by Glenn Beck:

    http://sppiblog.org/news/al-gore-hit-the-streets

    To be sustainable is fine. To be green is laughable and dangerous.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    The Coalition policy to block the internet filter is quite clear.

    Clear as a politician’s promise, Jaymez. The original introduction of the ACMA blacklist (start of Internet Censorship in Australia) was brought in by a Liberal government while Richard Alston was Post Master General. There’s a rundown here:

    http://libertus.net/censor/netcensor.html

    Although the legislation has not been implemented as originally intended by the government in 1999 (which would have required ISPs to attempt to block access to ‘prohibited’ content), this draconian censorship law makes information that is legally available to adults off-line, in effect illegal to host on Australian sites – a government regulatory agency (ACMA) is authorised to order ISPs and content hosts to take-down content deemed not suitable for children. Australia’s off-line censorship laws are among the most restrictive in Western democracies and the Net censorship laws are more akin to those in totalitarian regimes than to those, if any, in other countries purporting to be Western democracies.

    To quote Peter Garratt …

    What generally happens in this county is that our politicians don’t serve us well because they don’t tell the truth, and they don’t keep their promises.

    Peter later went on the become the only honest politician we have ever had in this country with his now famous remark,

    Once we get in we’ll just change it all

    But he never made the mistake of being honest a second time :-(


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    By the way, John Howard was pushing the Internet Filter as recently as 2007:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/howard-on-internet-porn-crusade/story-e6frgamx-1111114150318

    Both Tony Abbot and Joe Hockey were members of that government, and neither of them were speaking out against censorship back then. I’ll trust a proven track record before I trust a thrown-together promise on the eve of an election, thank you very much.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Beth Cooper

    Read the Green Manifesto and also Bob Brown,(17th August,’The Australian’ newspaper) on proposed new Capital Gains and Estate Taxes plus their Resource Taxes which will hit family savings and small business. Make no mistake, the Greens will do a deal on these with Labor in exchange for election voting preferences. An end to prosperity and individual autonomy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    I’m voting for the Climate Skeptics in the Senate, mind you below the line, not giving them carte blanche
    I’ve even donated to their party too, the first time
    in my political history.

    Best of luck everyone.

    Bush Bunny from Oz.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Grumpy old tart. Don’t worry 74% of the air we breath is Nitrogen. And they haven’t put a tax on that yet?
    Small amount is CO2 and the rest is Oxygen.

    Keep breathing, just don’t burp or break wind, it contains methane. And if the Greens have anything to
    say in government like they wanted they will take poor sheep and cattle for doing this natural biological recycling event. And tax them per head.
    ie. $11 per cattle – $7.00 per woolley jumper.

    I wonder if they will tax us appropriately for methane production? LOL

    LOL

    Bush bunny from Oz.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Great quote from: http://sppiblog.org/news/laputans-in-retreat

    The core articles of faith of the Greens are the sanctity of “nature” and the depravity of mankind. Their hatred of mankind is revealed time and time again in their oft-expressed desire to see new plagues wipe out the greater part of the world’s peoples. The creation of more and more “wilderness” from which humans are barred, is a manifestation of this awful misanthropy, and the ultimate goal of this movement is an Earth which is no longer polluted by human beings at all. It is an anti-theist movement with a deep hatred of its own kind, which it sees as depraved and incapable of redemption.

    - Ray Evans

    It pretty much says it all for the radicals – chaining themselves to trees, vandalising power plants (and trees by hammering huge spikes into them to damage chain saws), protesting that they want wind power (but not in their neighbourhoods), clean power (dear god – not nuclear), water (but no dams for Tasmania) and a raft of other cutesie things that are either impossible or downright absurd.

    The hypocrisy of the green movement knows no bounds. Check out this interview by Glenn Beck:

    http://sppiblog.org/news/al-gore-hit-the-streets

    To be sustainable is fine. To be green is laughable and dangerous.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    “And if the Greens have anything to say”
    Would you vot for this guy?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DEoOdcYKbc


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    Tel #58 & #59

    I agree the coalition have changed their position on the internet filter – but at least they have, and in the clearest terms.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    I’ve had a bit to do with Greens and greenies, never been a Greens supporter though. Pretty much always Liberal or National Party voter, But when I was a commercial fisherman I had a fish agent who was an active member of the Wilderness Society…. I used to wander along occasionally to meetings with her. Met Bob Brown once at a house warming party. Dull sorta bloke… It was certainly alien country side fer a slightly perplexed Trawlerman…. I think I was something of a curiosity, but it was fun poking redneck capitalist sticks at them and fulfilling their expectations of my genre;-).

    …and yes, I have to agree with you Jo, There will indeed be a lot of angry Greenies when they realize that they have been lied to, duped and swindled by the Big Eco Corporations like Greenpeace, WWF, etc.

    A lot of Greens supporters, Not the Communist hardliners, but the real greenies, are mainly depressed people looking for a cause to save and be saved by… Perversely many of them are actually frustrated wannabe farmers, fishers, timberworkers, frontiers people… In an older time they would’ve thrived… or thought they could. They have a romantic view of simpler times and no understanding of the reality…. So I don’t hate the Green supporters, I feel sorry for them…. It’s their ruthless leaders and communist parasites that I have a bone to pick with.

    …. anyway, one more sleep before we vote:-)… I think Tony Abbott is gonna get over the line. But I dare’nt hope in case I jinx him!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    #44
    “To the rich it’s obvious that we have too much wealth and can afford to tax the economy back to zero growth.”

    …mhmm – time to set some things right. First please excuse my bad English for being a German I’m not a native speaker. Nevertheless, here are some aspects to consider.

    Since our transition from barter transactions to money transactions (that is an improvement compared to the Dark Ages) banks were established to do money transactions and lend money as a service. This service costs a fee. Just one simplified thought experiment: There is a total of goods in circulation at a price of $200. Two market participants borrow $100 each. The fee is 1%/yr. After trading for a year one participant may have $120, the other one accordingly $80. So the bank gets $1 from each. Now there is only $198 in circulation. This is one reason besides others that zero-growth leads to pauperization. Even more important is another factor (and there are more), that is to say technical improvement. An innovation normally results in rising productivity and less use of manpower which leads to unemployment. To compensate unemployment it is crucial to have a growing economy. So these are the main economical reasons contradicting an economy of zero growth. But there are more aspects as followed.

    Economical growth and thus wealth is actually beneficial for the environment. Have a look at the state of environment in poor countries and rich countries and you’ll easily find out that environment and health conditions improve with prosperity of the country. The reason is you are to have money to improve your environmental conditions.
    A side-effect of wealth is that there is no more need to get 20 children that care for you when you’re old (and can not get on anymore on this modern slavery anti-human treadle pump you were forced to used by jpmorganclimatecare.com). Take a look at the population growth in all so-called developed countries and you’ll find confirmation.
    So how could growth of economy and wealth including the third world be achieved? To my mind the key to this is modest lowering of financial development aid (to increase motivation and get independent from 1st world countries) while at the same time trade barriers are reduced. Get rid of ideological barriers and subsidies, too. What we need is qualified engineers, nerds, amateur craftsmen etc. who got the freedom to invent the technical improvement for tomorrow.

    It’s totally inept to make any predictions for the end of the century and further, starting today with arguing very emotionally to prepare a better future for the next generation(s) with the knowledge of today.
    Evolution is a process of adaption and human beings have always adapted. We don’t know anything about future energy in some hundred years that will suit our needs, but anyhow, I’m sure the next generations will be much more prosperous and will have far more knowledge (provided green zealots will let us develop) than we have now.
    Consider e.g. Teddy Roosevelt, who established a lot of National Parks in the USA at the beginning of the 20th century and could be regarded as an environmentalist. At that time Teddy knew nothing about Penicillin, nuclear energy, (color) (3D-)TV, computers, Internet, Blue-Ray, mobile phone, globalization, and on and on and on …
    Often I read about concerns running short of “fossil” energies and others with the demand of transition to so-called “renewable” energies. Totally rubbish! Most people don’t understand what is a resource let alone a reserve. Deposits will become a resource if one can use it for economy. To make it a valuable good, production must be profitable and the price to sell it can be set economically. Referring to the last statement the deposits for those goods we know are a reserve. The point is, we find reservoirs and reserves for supplying the market for a foreseeable future, because discovery is expensive and you’ll never know whether these goods will be replaced by others in the future. One day we will turn to a kind of new energy (probably no windmills and solar panels and other cretinism), far before the end of some resource, only due to the price or technical properties, e.g. electricity was cheaper, the use was more versatile and the transport was faster and less expensive than wood or sperm oil.
    To cut a long story short: Our store of resources is our store of knowledge. Period. It has been always this way, so it is today and it will be in the future. Remember evolution and adaption?

    In the light of these perspectives, it’s almost ludicrous and misanthropic the way green ideology and its claims prevents human beings (particularly in the 3rd world) from participating in the cheapest energy they can afford.
    Probably this is due to their crude way of social(ist) thinking, that is to say not seeing a bigger picture or something in context. E.g. in Germany they are in many ways as liberal (we call it left) as the most lefties in leveling down our society. One thing is confusing equality of opportunity for equality of outcome. The other thing is the inability in seeing nuances between black and white especially concerning the discrepancy between rich and poor (nope, I’m quite ok, but far away from being rich [concering money and material goods]). Anyways, there is a need for people being wealthier than others. You don’t believe me? Imagine a millionaire by income earns let’s say $23.000.000 a year. Following the idea of socialism the profit of his business is alloted to all inhabitants of Australia that is nearly 23 millions. Each of you gets $1 and you won’t even notice. Contrary the millionaire could save some bucks, but he also will invest a lot of bucks in the economy. This will probably result in less unemployment and in the end to more wealth, growing economy, better health and thus better environment. Needless to say that most rich people do a lot of payback in society in terms of foundation, donation and so on. By the way, one of my investments is called Inoussa. Unfortunately I never met him, but he lives in Burkina Faso and writes me some nice letters for supporting him during the years financially – without being forced by any law to do so.
    Dear Greenies, feel free to follow my example instead of demanding from others to adopt your crude doctrine, if you really want to make this world a better place.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    observa

    Tel- you’re right the Libs thought seriously about internet filtering in the early days with public flap over the rise of peddos on the net and the war on terror. However when they looked into it seriously they realised it was a no-brainer and ditched it. Better to use the net to catch the villains (ie net coppers successfully trapping peddos by pretending they’re kids) That’s the essential difference between the parties. The Libs show pragmatism but Conroy gets all pig-headed despite the evidence. He did the same when the Telcos virtually ignored his initial $4.3bill FTTN brainfart and then promptly multiplied it 10 times to $43bill for the whole box and dice FTTH NBN and stubbornly refuses to show any cost/benefit analysis because he can’t.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Tel – as always you make good points. The only reason we know what we know is thanks to internet freedom, and the Greens ought be praised for that policy. If only they pursued it with any zeal.

    Yes the Greens say they want a Carbon Tax, but they often call it a Carbon Price (and plan to legislate one within three months) and don’t seem to understand the difference between a price and a tax. Such is their economic grasp. The markets set prices. Governments can fine people, or tax people or set fees.

    It’s far from clear that Brown understands what trading means, and has any clue about the reason the bankers have gone all “Green” on this issue but not others.

    “‘‘We take the Garnaut prescription for a carbon tax upon the polluters – not on the people – of $23 per tonne, indexed at the CPI, plus 4 per cent per annum,’’ he said.

    ‘‘With the ability to bring in a trading scheme if the rest of the world moves in that direction.’’”

    In other words, they are not opposing the growth of the financial houses in any way shape or form. They oppose the grassroots movement of concerned citizens instead…

    Not only that, in his economically illiterate world he thinks we can slap a tax on companies – but “not the people”? He thinks companies are somehow polluting monsters, rather than a paper contract between groups of people. Not only are companies made of people, they offer services to people and either the shareholders or the consumers (or both) will pay any tax the government slaps on.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Max_OK

    “Some Greens really believe a market based trading system is the best way to deal with pollution. But this pollution is not a pollutant, and this “free market” is not free. Last year the carbon market reached $130 billion dollars. It’s projected to reach $2 Trillion, and you can be sure that “sub-prime” carbon is coming too. The market depends wholly on government mandate; it’s “fixed” from beginning to end. Who would buy a carbon credit if they weren’t forced to? In a free market, no one.”

    In a free-market people would be allowed to pollute all they like. And many would. Obviously, you can make more money if you don’t have to put up with those pesky pollution control regulations. Of course the cost of the damage just gets passed on to future generations. It ain’t free.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Max_OK

    CO2 is an aerial fertilizer, responsible for increasing crop yields around the world by about 15% over the last century. Market gardeners pump it on their plants. The irony is that the Greens are trying to limit the key ingredient of life on earth — carbon. We are carbon life forms. Satellites show that as the world has warmed and atmospheric CO2 grew, the world’s biomass increased roughly 3% per decade. Plants love CO2

    Well, I’m not so sure all plants would like a warmer climate. I once lost a one-quarter acre crop of tomatoes to an un-seasonally warm summer. I doubt more CO2 in the atmosphere would have helped.

    I don’t think it would be possible to have a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere without adding to the greenhouse effect, but even if it were possible, I would be skeptical about any across-the-board benefit to crop yields. I’m not a botanist, but I suspect the chemistry of a plant changes when it’s growth is enhanced by CO2, and i’m not sure it would be in the direction of better quality and nutritional value.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Max_OK

    There sure is a lot of alarmism over carbon control measures.

    It WILL KILL OUR ECONOMY cry the alarmists !

    Perhaps they could explain that with some numbers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Otter

    The AGW alarmists are finally getting the picture, eh, max?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    grumpy old fart:
    August 20th, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    What used to be a joke (‘they’d tax the air we breathe if they could’) is now becoming a reality, they have found a way to tax the air.

    I exhale carbon dioxide. How long until I need a Carbon Credit to keep breathing? What happens if I’m too poor to breathe?

    Perhaps we’ll evolve, to stop talking so much aerial fertilizer, before it comes to that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Max @ 71 Co2 is NOT pollution!

    @ 72 Tomatoes are a warm loving plant (in the right zone). Perhaps it was water they needed?

    @ 73

    Perhaps they could explain that with some numbers.

    On average in the USA per household of 4, Cap n Trade Tax is expected to be $4560.00 in 2015 and over $6700.00 by 2030.

    http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Cap_and_Trade

    The Tax

    Implementing a cap-and-trade program to cut emissions by 70 percent creates a transfer within the United States that is equivalent to taxes on the order of $250 billion to $300 billion per year, just for the years 2012 to 2030. The combined transfer is about $5 trillion in just the first 20 years. This takes the purchasing power from the households and turns it over to the federal government or to whomever the government assigns the rights to the permits for emissions (allowances). This would be one of the largest taxes in the economy–almost twice as large as the highway use taxes.

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/The-Economic-Impact-of-Cap-and-Trade

    What are those costs?

    * Contrary to the flawed analyses being advanced by the bill’s proponents, Heritage estimates that the direct costs would be an average of $829 per year for a household of four, totaling $20,000 between 2012 and 2035.
    * But when considering the total cost as reflected in the cost of allocations and offsets, the average cost to that family unit would be $2,979 annually from 2012 to 2035.
    * Adding insult and hypocrisy to injury, the bill would hurt the poor the worst because they would bear a disproportionate burden of the higher energy costs the bill would trigger.

    http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18149

    How is that?

    Now imagine what impact that amount has on spending in the economy? This on top of what taxes will be necessary to balance the wild spending going on in Washington!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Max_OK

    Mark D.:
    August 21st, 2010 at 5:42 am
    Max @ 71 Co2 is NOT pollution!
    @ 72 Tomatoes are a warm loving plant (in the right zone). Perhaps it was water they needed?
    @ 73
    Perhaps they could explain that with some numbers.

    On average in the USA per household of 4, Cap n Trade Tax is expected to be $4560.00 in 2015 and over $6700.00 by 2030.
    http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Cap_and_Trade

    * Contrary to the flawed analyses being advanced by the bill’s proponents, Heritage estimates that the direct costs would be an average of $829 per year for a household of four, totaling $20,000 between 2012 and 2035.
    * But when considering the total cost as reflected in the cost of allocations and offsets, the average cost to that family unit would be $2,979 annually from 2012 to 2035.

    http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18149

    The tomato plants needed less heat.

    I haven’t checked the Heritage Foundations assumption’s. They must have it online some where but all I could quickly find was this

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/The-Economic-Impact-of-the-Waxman-Markey-Cap-and-Trade-Bill

    It’s gym time for me, so I will have to look more later.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    70Jo:
    August 21st, 2010 at 1:08 am

    Yes the Greens say they want a Carbon Tax, but they often call it a Carbon Price … and don’t seem to understand the difference … Such is their economic grasp.

    …. all they have to grasp, is other people’s money, people who can afford to pay, who should pay because they have money, so can afford to pay.

    What more is there to grasp about Green economics?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Olaf@64

    Re the Ray Evans quote.

    There’s a TV series running on Prime NZ at the moment charting the earths return to natural state after human occupation.

    A touch of contradiction in the title: Life After People.

    No need to go looking for subliminal messages.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Max_OK:
    August 21st, 2010 at 4:48 am

    There sure is a lot of alarmism over carbon control measures.
    It WILL KILL OUR ECONOMY cry the alarmists !
    Perhaps they could explain that with some numbers.

    Max, I will explain this to you in the simplest of terms and you may have a hard time following what I am stating but its as simple as I can make it for you.

    Developed countries have economies that are built on cheap abundant energy. As Barack Obama once said, “Under my cap and trade policy electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.” When you put a price on CO2 emissions the cost of energy goes up. The utilities pass the cost along to the consumer as well as its industry customers. Higher electricity prices mean that goods cost more. Consumers have less to spend because their electricity prices have “skyrocketed.” They have less money to buy goods that now cost more so they spend less and get less for what they spend. The economy is an engine which relies on consumers to purchase goods. If less goods are purchased the economy goes into recession, then depression and then there will be a revolution. Revolutions usually occur when the status quo has been altered and the people are suffering because they lack the basic goods they need to sustain their lifestyle. Trust me, Max, the peasant lifestyle is not quite as romantic as the greens would have you believe.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Max_OK

    80Eddy Aruda:
    August 21st, 2010 at 10:51 am
    Max_OK:
    August 21st, 2010 at 4:48 am
    There sure is a lot of alarmism over carbon control measures.
    It WILL KILL OUR ECONOMY cry the alarmists !
    Perhaps they could explain that with some numbers.
    Max, I will explain this to you in the simplest of terms and you may have a hard time following what I am stating but its as simple as I can make it for you.
    Developed countries have economies that are built on cheap abundant energy. As Barack Obama once said, “Under my cap and trade policy electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.” When you put a price on CO2 emissions the cost of energy goes up. The utilities pass the cost along to the consumer as well as its industry customers. Higher electricity prices mean that goods cost more. Consumers have less to spend because their electricity prices have “skyrocketed.” They have less money to buy goods that now cost more so they spend less and get less for what they spend. The economy is an engine which relies on consumers to purchase goods. If less goods are purchased the economy goes into recession, then depression and then there will be a revolution. Revolutions usually occur when the status quo has been altered and the people are suffering because they lack the basic goods they need to sustain their lifestyle. Trust me, Max, the peasant lifestyle is not quite as romantic as the greens would have you believe.
    Valid? 2 0

    ———-
    Oh I know all that, Eddy, but it’s only one-half of the story. You explained the costs of charging more for fossil-based fuels as a carbon control measure, but you forgot the benefits.

    Of course the obvious benefits are curbing the rise in green house gases, a know cause of global warming, and curbing the rise in other nasties that pollute our air and water as a result of burning fossil fuels. Some of the other benefits are less obvious:

    1. If energy cost me more, where does the additional money go? It doesn’t just vanish into thin air. Rather than give you my thoughts on where the additional money could go to benefit Americans, perhaps you could give your ideas, and we could compare notes.

    2. Charging more for fossil fuel energy encourages households and business to use it more efficiently, and thus depletes these energy sources at a slower rate, leaving more for our descendants.

    3. Charging more for fossil fuels encourages development of alternate energy sources, such as wind power and solar power, which are renewable and don’t release CO2 and other emissions.

    Now, back to costs. The American Power Act, which would cut CO2 and other heat trapping emissions by 17% by 2020, would cost households from $79 to $164 annually, or less than one dollar a day, according to the EPA. CBO estimates the Act would reduce the Nations budget deficit by $19 billion during this period.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38130006/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Max_OK

    Max_OK:
    August 21st, 2010 at 6:27 am
    Mark D.:
    August 21st, 2010 at 5:42 am
    Max @ 71 Co2 is NOT pollution!
    @ 72 Tomatoes are a warm loving plant (in the right zone). Perhaps it was water they needed?
    @ 73
    Perhaps they could explain that with some numbers.
    —————
    * Contrary to the flawed analyses being advanced by the bill’s proponents, Heritage estimates that the direct costs would be an average of $829 per year for a household of four, totaling $20,000 between 2012 and 2035.
    * But when considering the total cost as reflected in the cost of allocations and offsets, the average cost to that family unit would be $2,979 annually from 2012 to 2035.
    http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18149

    ——-
    The EPA estimates the cost of the American Power Act would be $79 to $164 annually per family. Is that the Act the Heritage Foundation says will cost $2,979 annually per family?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Max_OK;

    You have been instructed multiple times on the use of the b-quote html tag, yet you continue to use bold when you quote someone. Why don’t you look at the “guide for comments”?

    It has been explained to you that simply quoting someone who agrees with you (and disagrees with us) is not a logical argument — it would be nice to know what the argument from facts is (if you are aware of it), or, at a minimum, what the track record is of the “authority” you are quoting. Your argument style has not changed.

    (It’s not really a surprise to us that there are people who disagree with us — this entire website is dedicated to proving such people wrong from the basic facts.)

    You whinge about your treatment, but ignore patient advice on how to be treated better: Quit throwing logically fallacious “authority bombs” (that we have all heard 100′s of times before) while pretending you are “educating” us, and start engaging people on the data.

    I’m beginning to wonder if you are really a Human being instead of a modern version of the “Eliza” program. You’re starting to fail the Turing Test here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Max_OK:

    I might add that, despite the vast resources of facts and logical arguments Joanne has made available on this web site, you don’t seem to be familiar with any of it. This is not a bulletin board — there are articles and The Skeptical Handbook that supply much background information.

    If you are really serious about engaging people here, you should become familiar with at least some of this information (and, for Pete’s sake — learn to use the html tags!)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Max_OK:
    August 21st, 2010 at 4:44 am

    I don’t think it would be possible to have a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere without adding to the greenhouse effect, but even if it were possible, I would be skeptical about any across-the-board benefit to crop yields. I’m not a botanist, but I suspect the chemistry of a plant changes when it’s growth is enhanced by CO2, and i’m not sure it would be in the direction of better quality and nutritional value.

    OK; This is just inane — you are putting your ignorance forward as an argument!

    We know you can type; We know you are connected to the internet; So why aren’t you able to find out some facts before you mouth off?

    Pray, tell me — why (despite your suspicions) do commercial and serious amateur growers spend thousands of $ for these things if plants don’t respond well to increased CO2?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Max_OK:
    August 21st, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    Of course the obvious benefits are curbing the rise in green house gases, a know cause of global warming, and curbing the rise in other nasties that pollute our air and water as a result of burning fossil fuels. Some of the other benefits are less obvious:

    Fact: There is no empirical evidence that man’s trivial contribution to a trace gas necessary for life is anything but a positive contribution to the biosphere. More CO2 in the atmosphere means that we can grow more food on less land with less water. The Earth is starved for CO2 when the CO2 content of the atmosphere is viewed in the context of the geological record for the last 600,000,000 years. Fact: the air in the developed world, with a few exceptions, has become much cleaner and so has the water.

    1. If energy cost me more, where does the additional money go? It doesn’t just vanish into thin air. Rather than give you my thoughts on where the additional money could go to benefit Americans, perhaps you could give your ideas, and we could compare notes.

    It is not a matter of “if” energy will cost more, it will. The purpose of cap and trade is to make fossil fuel generated energy prohibitively expensive. The “cap” on CO2 emissions means there will be insufficient energy to meet demand. Hence, higher prices for energy. The funds generated by the sale of carbon credits (i.e thin or hot air) will be squandered by politicians. Please spare me your thoughts on where the money will go, I am not interested in them.

    2. Charging more for fossil fuel energy encourages households and business to use it more efficiently, and thus depletes these energy sources at a slower rate, leaving more for our descendants.

    Charging more for fossil fuel will cause some people, mainly the young, old and the poor to suffer needlessly. Many will die from hyperthermia, hypothermia, malnutrition and other diseases that are the scourge born of poverty such as drug addiction, alcoholism, crime and a lack of proper medical care. Prior to the advent of fossil fuels, the average life expectancy in the US was 45, it is now 78. People in Sub Saharan Africa live an average of 45 years because they lack the benefits of fossil fuels. The US has enough natural gas, oil and coal (which can be converted into oil) to fuel its economy for another 300 years. The world has enough fossil fuels to adequately supply people’s energy needs for at least another 150 years. By then, the free market will hopefully have developed an alternative form of cheap abundant energy. Telling people to do with less to fight a phantom menace will results in political change. Politicians have an uncanny instinct for survival so cap and trade will probably never happen.

    3. Charging more for fossil fuels encourages development of alternate energy sources, such as wind power and solar power, which are renewable and don’t release CO2 and other emissions.

    Charging more for fossil fuels has absolutely no positive upside. When wind, solar, renewables or any other form of alternative energy can compete with fossil fuels they will become viable alternatives. They only exist because of taxpayer funded subsidies. People in poor countries are starving so we can make ethanol from corn. It is a crime against humanity. An artificial dependence on unreliable and expensive forms of energy is nothing more than economic suicide. The more CO2 released into the atmosphere the better it is for life on the planet.

    Now, back to costs. The American Power Act, which would cut CO2 and other heat trapping emissions by 17% by 2020, would cost households from $79 to $164 annually, or less than one dollar a day, according to the EPA. CBO estimates the Act would reduce the Nations budget deficit by $19 billion during this period.

    Cost estimates are all over the board. You cited the CBO and mentioned $79 to $164 a year. The Obama Administration says $1,761 a year. See http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5314040-504383.html The CBO cites its methods for estimating the costs of cap and trade here http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9923/04-24-Greenhouse.pdf. The fact is, once you make everything more expensive there is no way to accurately gauge the true costs. A lot of assumptions are made in their calculations. Remember, when you ASSUME you make an ASS out of U and ME!

    Government control and a planned economy (e.g. the former Soviet Union’s Gosplan) has never worked and probably never will. What absolutely beggars the imagination is that anyone would consider such draconian measures when, using the IPCC’s calculations, the total amount of the reduction in world temperatures would be a mere fraction of a degree. So, if the IPCC is correct (and they are not) we would still see temperatures rise dramatically while drastically reducing the wealth necessary to mitigate the effects of global warming. Sheer madness!

    You accused me of forgetting the benefits. How could I forget something that didn’t exist in the first place? Wake up, smell the coffee and put down the green kool-aid!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Curt

    Max_OK says:

    “Of course the obvious benefits are curbing the rise in green house gases, a know cause of global warming, and curbing the rise in other nasties that pollute our air and water as a result of burning fossil fuels. Some of the other benefits are less obvious . . .”

    Evidently, Max, you are new to this site, at least in your present guise, or you would not make such a comment. There are scores of articles posted here dealing with your “know[n] cause of global warming,” which demonstrate that present global warming is not necessarily fearsome or even remarkable, and is in any case unavoidable, since Nature calls the shots.

    Isn’t it interesting that developed countries, the ones using the most fossil fuels, are the cleanest and most advanced on the planet? Air quality in these countries is infinitely superior to what it was one and two centuries ago, when wood-burning fires and coal/peat fires were the order of the day, and vast forests burned uncontrolled, sometimes because of careless humans trying to get warm. Those “nasties” you complain about polluting our air are nothing compared to what humans had to breathe before, or what they will have to breathe again if James Hansen gets his wish.

    Fossil fuels are responsible for most of society’s technical advances for the past hundred years, and have done more to lift people out of poverty and misery than anything else in human history. Virtually all of our machinery, instruments, vehicles, appliances, and everything else we use depend on the availability of relatively inexpensive fossil fuels. Where do you think plastics–the lifeblood of modern medicine, hygiene, laboratories, supermarkets, automobiles, jets, satellites, and space shuttles–come from?

    Which is better for the environment: a horse drawn buggy or an SUV? If you’ve ever lived around horses, you’ll know that the SUV produces less pollution, requires far less work, and can accomplish a great deal more. Since the advent of the catalytic converter, automobile exhaust, at least for those fitted with such converters, is not the dreaded poison it was in earlier decades, and every year brings new scientific advancements in pollution abatement.

    Unfortunately, money spent in a vain attempt to control the climate is money not spent on cleaning up our environment. The entire Green movement has been hijacked by Global Warming Alarmists, many with investment interests, diverting billions of dollars and millions of man hours from serious problems to imaginary, albeit potentially profitable, ones. I have yet to see a single “climate change scientist” leave his computer models and go out into the real world to help. How wonderful to be able to save the planet without lifting a finger or breaking a sweat, all the while living it up at paid resort conferences and posing for media photographs. The sacrifice is awesome, isn’t it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    LevelGaze

    Ah, well.
    Just did my good deed for the year and cast a vote for my (brand new) local Climate Skeptic senate candidate.
    Doesn’t have a hope in hell of course…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Max_OK

    83BobC:
    August 21st, 2010 at 2:00 pm
    Max_OK;
    You have been instructed multiple times on the use of the b-quote html tag, yet you continue to use bold when you quote someone. Why don’t you look at the “guide for comments”? ……

    I’m beginning to wonder if you are really a Human being instead of a modern version of the “Eliza” program. You’re starting to fail the Turing Test here.

    Bob, I think I got the blockquote thing now.

    You are “beginning to wonder if I’m really a Human being.”

    HA HA, I’ll have to frame that one.

    Woof Woof


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Max_OK

    Eddy Aruda:
    August 21st, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Fact: There is no empirical evidence that man’s trivial contribution to a trace gas necessary for life is anything but a positive contribution to the biosphere. More CO2 in the atmosphere means that we can grow more food on less land with less water. The Earth is starved for CO2 when the CO2 content of the atmosphere is viewed in the context of the geological record for the last 600,000,000 years. Fact: the air in the developed world, with a few exceptions, has become much cleaner and so has the water.

    ——
    Sure there is empirical evidence. Scientists didn’t just decided there is a potential anthropogenic global warming problem based on no evidence.

    The earth is starved for CO2 because there was more CO2 600,000,000 years ago? I don’t know about that, but modern civilization wasn’t developed in that world. A large part of the world’s population would drown immediately if that world suddenly returned.

    The air and water may be getting cleaner because of pollution control measures, but that doesn’t mean further improvements aren’t desirable. The ground level ozone isn’t getting better where I live.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Max_OK

    Agghh….. sorry Bob, I blew that b-quote thing again.

    [Fixed for you] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Max_OK:
    August 21st, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    Sure there is empirical evidence. Scientists didn’t just decided there is a potential anthropogenic global warming problem based on no evidence

    .

    No, there isn’t. If there is, please cite it.

    The earth is starved for CO2 because there was more CO2 600,000,000 years ago? I don’t know about that, but modern civilization wasn’t developed in that world. A large part of the world’s population would drown immediately if that world suddenly returned.

    Life on Earth developed hundreds of millions of years ago. CO2 levels were much higher and life flourished. A large part of the world would only drown “immediately” if all the ice in the world melted in minutes. The good news is that it is probably not going to happen!

    The air and water may be getting cleaner because of pollution control measures, but that doesn’t mean further improvements aren’t desirable. The ground level ozone isn’t getting better where I live.

    The poison is in the dose. People in Los Angeles have the same cancer rate as people in Seattle. Be of good cheer, pollution levels will almost certainly continue to drop, life expectancy will continue to increase and life in general will continue to improve thanks to better living made possible through modern chemistry and fossil fuels!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Max_OK

    92Eddy Aruda:
    August 21st, 2010 at 5:31 pm
    Max_OK:
    August 21st, 2010 at 4:17 pm
    Sure there is empirical evidence. Scientists didn’t just decided there is a potential anthropogenic global warming problem based on no evidence

    No, there isn’t. If there is, please cite it.

    OK

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Max_OK@93

    FYI

    ‘We Have Been Conned’ by John McLean, PhD candidate, James Cook University, Australia.

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6166
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/we_have_been_conned.html

    Excerpt:

    “PREFACE

    This document has been written in response to the independent review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) currently being undertaken by the InterAcademy Council (IAC).

    Others may have a different opinion but I have no faith whatsoever in this review because the IAC has far too many close links with the International Science Union (ICSU), an organization that spent almost 30 years pressuring for the creation of the IPCC (see chapter 1).

    According to the IAC website, the 18-member board of the IAC has at least three people – Ralph Cicerone, Martin Rees and Kurt Lambeck – who head national science bodies, all of which are members of the ICSU. Howard Alper, also an IAC board member, is the co-chair of IAP, the global network of science academies, and most of those academies are ICSU members. Membership of the ICSU has the documented obligation of supporting its objectives, which means that already the IAC’s independence is compromised.”

    This is a comprehensive review preempting the inevitable IAC whitewash. Topics covered:

    CHAPTER 1 – THE DUBIOUS SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION FOR ESTABLISHING THE IPCC
    CHAPTER 2 – FLAWED AUTHORING OF IPCC REPORTS
    CHAPTER 3 – FLAWED AND DECEPTIVE REVIEW PROCESS
    CHAPTER 4 – DECEPTIONS, CONCEALMENT, MISINFORMATION AND DISTORTIONS
    CHAPTER 5 – FLAWED TEMPERATURE DATA
    CHAPTER 6 – FLAWED CLIMATE MODELS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Max_OK@93

    I am interested in your explanation of how DLR from GHG’s actually creates excess warming i.e. please fill in the missing causation details of the apparent CO2/Temp rise correlation (broken over the last decade).

    Where is the globally averaged long-term graph showing a rising DLR trend?

    To help in your search, I refer you to the BSRN data here:

    http://www.pangaea.de/PHP/BSRN_Status.php?q=LR0100

    Take for example Darwin 2003.

    http://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.725106

    The parameter you require is 8 6 [as per note @ 100].

    You can see the data plotted here:

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/08/11/darwinian-selection-back-radiation/

    The program has been running since 1993 but good luck finding a globally averaged plot.

    When you have finished that, lets talk about the heating effect of (or lack of) DLR on say, the ocean.

    Perhaps you would also like to comment on Dr Roy Clark’s submission to the EPA: “A Null Hypothesis For CO2″

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Max at post # 91 states:

    Agghh….. sorry Bob, I blew that b-quote thing again.

    Choose the section you want to quote and then run your browser pointer over it,holding down the LEFT button on your mouse.It will look BLUE when you do that.That means you are doing it successfully.When you are finished bluing the section you want to quote,then let go of the left button on the mouse.Do not worry when it stays blue,that is normal.

    Then go to the,b-quote button and click on it.

    The word

    should show up at each end of your chosen section to quote.Then you know it is going to work.

    Then it stops being blue.

    Cheers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Max_OK:
    August 21st, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    92Eddy Aruda:
    August 21st, 2010 at 5:31 pm
    Max_OK:
    August 21st, 2010 at 4:17 pm
    Sure there is empirical evidence. Scientists didn’t just decided there is a potential anthropogenic global warming problem based on no evidence

    “No, there isn’t. If there is, please cite it.” (Eddy)

    OK

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

    Quotes from Section 9.7:

    The evidence from surface temperature observations is strong: The observed warming is highly significant relative to estimates of internal climate variability which, while obtained from models, are consistent with estimates obtained from both instrumental data and palaeoclimate reconstructions.

    This is true only if you restrict your palaeoclimate reconstructions to the original (now discredited) “Hockey Stick” graph from Mann and friends. If you look at the NOAA Ice core data (among many others), such as this, you see that the current excursion is insignificant.

    No known mode of internal variability leads to such widespread, near universal warming as has been observed in the past few decades.

    So, they are concluding that because they cannot explain the variability of the past few decades (or the past few millennia, either), then the cause must be anthropogenic CO2.

    This is an example of a logical fallacy, the argument from ignorance: Lack of knowledge does not equal empirical evidence.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    BobC
    August 22nd, 2010 at 1:56 am #97

    Well said!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Max_OK,

    There ain’t no benefits from carbon taxes, cap-and-trade or any other dammed scheme you fools have dreamed up.

    It’s a shame that you don’t bother to acquaint yourself with all the facts involved before going off half cocked. Of all the fools like you to come along your posts are the most inane I’ve seen.

    I’m not an advocate of increasing or decreasing CO2. But I’m not stupid enough to believe that higher CO2 levels will harm plant life when, in fact, CO2 levels have been much higher in the past with absolutely no evidence to support your theory. And I can second BobC at post 85. There’s no better determiner of what works than the free market. Growers don’t enrich their greenhouses with CO2 because it produces inferior results.

    I’m not stupid enough to believe that the EPA is honest and The Heritage Foundation is dishonest when, in fact there are others who looked at this nonsense and agree with The Heritage Foundation not the EPA. By the way, the EPA’s reputation for honesty was shot full of holes long ago. By contrast The Heritage Foundation looks sterling — can you point to a single scandal over anything they’ve said? I can point to scandals involving the EPA. After their statistical dishonesty over their finding that second-hand smoke is a dangerous as active smoking no one with any understanding of confidence interval will ever believe them again. Do you want more?

    If you achieve what you propose, God help you!

    So much for fools!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 95

    The parameter you require is 8.

    Should read

    The parameter you require is 6.

    (Tired eyes – there’s a lot of reading in the DLR heating effect saga)

    [notation made @95] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    elsie

    This has most likely been mentioned before I came along here. But climate change experts seem to love their computer models. These depend upon data fed into them. But computers are only good at making linear analogs. They cannot deal with the Chaos theory named after the meteorologist Edward Lorenz. In 1960 he was using a clunky computer to forecast weather and to save time he altered some minor data (reducing a few decimal point places). The results were entirely different to previous results using similar data. He was not the first to notice such mathematical oddities but it was very important nevertheless. Some physicists say the 3 most important discoveries of the 20thC were Relativity, Quantum theory and Chaos theory. Anyway, the upshot is that in order to forecast weather you need more powerful computers and more data and data that is more accurate. That has happened over the years and helps to explain why daily forecasts are better than years ago. Of course, satellites viewing cloud expanses helps greatly. However, past a certain time frame the forecasts become less and less accurate. A major sticking point is that one would still need to know data at almost every point on the surface and through the atmosphere to even get close to a fully accurate forecast.
    The same applies even MORE to climate modelling. Even if the data were to be increased ten fold and accuracy similarly increased it still would not be enough to be accurate as far ahead as 100 years as climatologists claim. 50 years is even too far away. 10 years might be barely possible giving the benefit of the doubt and taken with a grain of salt.
    In short, it is just not possible to predict a chaotic scenario using linear equations. CO2 is just 1 (ONE) factor in an equation involving perhaps hundreds, maybe thousands, of other variables. No human, group of humans or banks of computers can come to grips with such a huge subject and say, “The science is settled,” and that’s that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    elsie@101

    That “love” is proving to be misplaced in the case of studies using temperature series data as input.

    The consequences of the respective NOAA, CRU, GISS, NIWA, BoM fiasco’s are now being realized. For example, there is a lot riding on NZCSCET v. NIWA for scientist’s that have used the NIWA data as input and the basis of reports that policy has been built on, also the NOAA has been selling suspect data to govt. agencies around the world; those agencies might be looking for a refund.

    The IPCC are already out of the money by betting on an extrapolated 90′s warming trend built into GCM’s. A guess using a supercomputer is still a guess. The cooling scenarios of Don Easterbrook, David Archibald et al are still in the game, however


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Well the General Election ABC coverage, Senator Penny
    Wong was heard to say…after she was asked about the
    failure to bring about an ETS. “There is a divided opinion in the Australian community… particularly as the planet is cooling …. ah?

    I was on a polling booth with the Greens and Nationals yesterday… and a chap who has a Ph.D in Science, (not sure what type of science disapline’ said but there was no MWP…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Well locally we froze yesterday at the polling booths,
    and had a beaut frost last night as it was a full moon
    and no cloud cover. We live in sunny Australia folks.
    But one of the coldest days on record. Now the weather predictions were sunny, with light rain. Now – if they can’t predict weather correctly, how can they predict what the weather will be in 20 years time.

    This planet is self regulating. And as my lecturer
    at Uni always said, (in 2003) the Sun and oceans, jet streams, dictate our climate and the amount of rain we get. No solar activity precipitation will increase, (more cloud cover) solar activity – more droughts (in Australia)
    Anyway – let’s see what tomorrow brings – LOL


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Max_OK:

    I’m not a botanist, but I suspect the chemistry of a plant changes when it’s growth is enhanced by CO2, and i’m not sure it would be in the direction of better quality and nutritional value.

    Pure alarmist rhetoric, without scientific backing, seen only on thermo-maniac blogs as a shoot-off-the-hip response. Naturally, if results were somehow inferior, farmers wouldn’t pump CO2 into their greenhouses.

    Scientifically Max, how would you expect CO2 to be a factor in quality? Food in higher CO2 conditions grows faster, using less water and is biologically identical. I remember when microwave ovens were first invented. The outcry from some sections of the public was that radiated food was detrimental. Do you have a microwave in your house too?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    elsie

    On ABC2 at 7.10PM there is ‘A Daily Show With Jon Stewart’. It is mostly comedy about current affairs. But Stewart often has a guest for a more serious discussion. Lots of these are with authors regarding their newly released books. Last week he had an author (can’t remember his name, sorry,) who had a book titled the ‘Great Heatwave of 1896′ or something similar. It was topical because NYC has recently experienced a heatwave described as record breaking. But it seems that in 1896 there was a similar heatwave lasting 10 days. Hundreds died. Many died sleeping in parks or on rooftops which were heat traps covered by tar paper. These were mainly in the poor brownstone tenement areas. Teddy Roosevelt was seeking to enter public office first as governor of NY state. He ordered ice to be sent to the poor areas especially to be used to cool down children. Yet the newspapers were publishing that the temperatures were only in the 90s. People laughed their heads off. It turned out the local met’ office temperatures were being taken from a building 20 floors up. They were certainly not being taken from near the 3 feet high above ground level where people were feeling the real heatwave. If we can’t be certain about recent human recordings with instruments in places like NYC then many questions can be raised. Anecdotal writings of people from the medieval period probably carry more weight than any number of proxy measurements.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Exactly Elsie:

    It turned out the local met’ office temperatures were being taken from a building 20 floors up. They were certainly not being taken from near the 3 feet high above ground level where people were feeling the real heatwave. If we can’t be certain about recent human recordings with instruments in places like NYC then many questions can be raised.

    Anthony watts has an excellent report on the absurdity of US temp stations:

    http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/SurfaceStations.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Max_OK

    Olaf Koenders:
    August 22nd, 2010 at 4:10 pm
    Max_OK:
    I’m not a botanist, but I suspect the chemistry of a plant changes when it’s growth is enhanced by CO2, and i’m not sure it would be in the direction of better quality and nutritional value.

    Pure alarmist rhetoric, without scientific backing, seen only on thermo-maniac blogs as a shoot-off-the-hip response. Naturally, if results were somehow inferior, farmers wouldn’t pump CO2 into their greenhouses.

    Scientifically Max, how would you expect CO2 to be a factor in quality? Food in higher CO2 conditions grows faster, using less water and is biologically identical.

    I have not seen evidence food crops grown under artificially high CO2 levels are biologically identical to those grown under natural atmospheric CO2 levels.

    Other than CO2, plants draw chemical elements mostly from the soil. If the level of CO2 is increased, do concentrations of other chemical elements increase in unison or does the balance of these elements change?

    Hot house tomatoes are an example of a food produced under artificially high CO2 conditions. These tomatoes don’t taste as good to me as those grown outside, but I don’t know whether the difference is a result of the CO2 boost or other factors.

    BTW, although raising CO2 above natural atmospheric levels increases hot house yields, the main reason for adding CO2 is one of necessity. In a closed hot house the amount of CO2 will drop below the level plants need if the enclosure is not ventilated with outside air. However, bringing in outside air during winter also will cause the temperature to drop below the level plants need. Adding CO2 by other means solves this problem.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Max_OK

    BobC:
    August 22nd, 2010 at 1:56 am
    Max_OK:
    August 21st, 2010 at 6:46 pm
    92Eddy Aruda:
    August 21st, 2010 at 5:31 pm
    Max_OK:
    August 21st, 2010 at 4:17 pm
    Sure there is empirical evidence. Scientists didn’t just decided there is a potential anthropogenic global warming problem based on no evidence.

    “No, there isn’t. If there is, please cite it.” (Eddy)

    OK
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

    “No known mode of internal variability leads to such widespread, near universal warming as has been observed in the past few decades.”

    So, they are concluding that because they cannot explain the variability of the past few decades (or the past few millennia, either), then the cause must be anthropogenic CO2.

    This is an example of a logical fallacy, the argument from ignorance: Lack of knowledge does not equal empirical evidence.

    “No known mode of internal variability” means exactly what it says. Could there be one that’s not know? Well, that’s not impossible, but the idea warming is caused by the unknown is a non-starter in science.

    There is evidence the warming of the last few decades was caused by man’s activities. There is a lack of evidence the warming was caused by a known mode of internal variability. There is no evidence it was caused by something unknown. If there was, it wouldn’t be unknown.

    Given the evidence, it’s not illogical to conclude the likely cause was man’s activities.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Max-OK:

    I said I would restrain myself from answering any more of your nonsense, but your comment at #108 is so ignorant and so stupid that I have failed to control myself. You assert:

    BTW, although raising CO2 above natural atmospheric levels increases hot house yields, the main reason for adding CO2 is one of necessity. In a closed hot house the amount of CO2 will drop below the level plants need if the enclosure is not ventilated with outside air. However, bringing in outside air during winter also will cause the temperature to drop below the level plants need. Adding CO2 by other means solves this problem.

    No!
    Although allowing atmospheric CO2 depletion would be a problem, it could be overcome by ventilation.

    CO2 is added to the air in greenhouses to raise the level of CO2 in the air to several times its natural level. This elevated level of CO2 in the air within greenhouses is provided as a method to enhance plant growth. The equipment and CO2 supply provide cost, and horticulturists do not pay this cost for no reason.

    Clearly, scientific documents are too difficult for you, so I suggest you try reading this operating manual of a commercial CO2 controller for use in greenhouses.
    http://3ch.co.uk/files/UnisHorticulturalCO2Controller.pdf
    The manual says:

    The ambient level of CO2 in air is 300-400 PPM, fast growing plants in your grow room or glasshouse can use all the available CO2 in less than an hour slowing photosynthesis and therefore growth to a virtual halt. It can be seen that the rate at which plants are able to grow is relative to the availability of photosynthesized complex sugars. Raising the ambient CO2 level in your grow room causes more sugars to be produced allowing the plant to grow bigger and faster. The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth is generally accepted at 1200-1600 PPM, plants grown in this environment can grow up to 40% faster thus shortening crop times and increasing yields. This is of course assuming no other limiting factors such as lack of available light etc.

    It should be noted that there is no advantage to increasing CO2 levels beyond 2000 PPM for most greenhouse plant species. It should also be noted that there is generally no advantage to raising CO2 levels during dark hours.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Max-OK:

    At #109 you assert:

    There is evidence the warming of the last few decades was caused by man’s activities. There is a lack of evidence the warming was caused by a known mode of internal variability. There is no evidence it was caused by something unknown. If there was, it wouldn’t be unknown.

    Given the evidence, it’s not illogical to conclude the likely cause was man’s activities.

    That is completely wrong.

    The AGW-hypothesis says increased greenhouse gases – notably carbon dioxide – in the air raise global temperature, and anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air to overwhelm the natural climate system.

    But empirical evidence says the hypothesis is wrong.

    1.
    The anthropogenic emissions and global temperature do not correlate.
    But they would correlate if one were directly causal of the other.
    2.
    Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration follows change to global temperature at all time scales.
    A cause cannot occur after its effect has occurred.

    3.
    Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.
    Global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose to 1998, and has fallen since. That’s 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming. Global temperature is now similar to that of 1995. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940. It has increased by 6% since 1995.

    4.
    Rise in global temperature has not been induced by anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.
    Over 80% of the emissions have been since 1940 and the emissions have been increasing at a compound rate. But since 1940 there have been 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming. There’s been no significant warming since 1995, and global temperature has fallen since the high it had 10 years ago.

    5.
    The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.
    The hypothesis predicts most warming of the air relative to the surface at altitude in the tropics. Measurements from weather balloons and from satellites both show slight cooling at altitude in the tropics while the surface has warmed.

    So, the normal rules of science say the AGW-hypothesis is completely refuted.
    Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed, and the opposite of some of its predictions are observed.

    And in science it is not permissible to guess a cause of an effect and to assume the guess is correct merely because you do not know the cause.

    A scientific statement is that we do not know because we lack sufficient evidence to know.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Hot house tomatoes are an example of a food produced under artificially high CO2 conditions. These tomatoes don’t taste as good to me as those grown outside, but I don’t know whether the difference is a result of the CO2 boost or other factors.

    Max_OK,

    So by all means grow your own tomatoes and be happy with them.

    Just an example of why your objection doesn’t bother me

    My wife and I have polar opposite tastes in tomatoes. She likes them after they’ve become what is to me, overripe and very acidic. I like them just after all the green has disappeared and while they’re still firm and not nearly as acidic.

    Gosh, does the time between picking and eating have anything to do with taste? You bet it does. If you’re getting your hothouse tomatoes from a grower who doesn’t provide all the additional nutrients the plants need, then find another source.

    As for the rest of your argument — they keep the CO2 at 3 or 4 times normal atmospheric concentration.

    But here’s my analysis for what it’s worth. No matter how much CO2 is available, plant growth will still be limited by availability of other things necessary to support them. I grew tomatoes in whisky barrels for quite a while and if I didn’t re fertilize the soil in the barrels before planting I got smaller plants with fewer, smaller tomatoes. Meanwhile the amount of CO2 available to them remained at least constant from year to year if it didn’t increase. Lesson quickly learned — no organism can outstrip its food supply.

    If I’m selling inferior produce and my competitor down the road is selling better stuff, guess who loses. The market place simply forces good practice because you go out of business if you sell less than the best stuff.

    Now if you disagree please point me to some source with real world data to support your fear that CO2 will cause adverse results. But then didn’t you say you don’t know? You’re welcome to your personal taste. But please don’t try to make your, so far, unfounded fear into our problem.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Richard Courtney @110,

    The link you gave leads to a dead end for me. I found this one by searching the site.

    http://www.3ch.co.uk/files/Evolutionco2controllerInstructions.pdf

    It may be wasted on Max however.

    Roy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Max_OK

    Richard C:
    August 21st, 2010 at 8:18 pm
    Max_OK@93
    Perhaps you would also like to comment on Dr Roy Clark’s submission to the EPA: “A Null Hypothesis For CO2″
    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pd

    Quoting Clark on his proposed null:

    “A null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.”

    I guess you could state all kinds of nulls that would be difficult to reject. For example, a null hypothesis for solar activity is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in solar activity have caused any climate change. Of course, failure to reject a null doesn’t mean the null is true.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Max_OK

    Roy Hogue:
    August 23rd, 2010 at 3:40 am

    Now if you disagree please point me to some source with real world data to support your fear that CO2 will cause adverse results. But then didn’t you say you don’t know? You’re welcome to your personal taste. But please don’t try to make your, so far, unfounded fear into our problem.

    Below is a link to a study that says rising atmospheric CO2 levels could reduce the protein in plants. That wouldn’t be good for grains and legumes, which are major sources of protein for much of the world.

    http://www.scidev.net/en/news/rising-co2-levels-could-reduce-protein-in-crops.html

    As for hot houses, the growers control the climate inside the houses. If necessary, they would prevent the temperature from rising enough to adversely affect the plants. The downside of more atmospheric CO2 is warmer climates, and the added warmth wouldn’t be good for some plants.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Max_OK

    Richard S Courtney:
    August 23rd, 2010 at 3:39 am
    Max-OK:
    At #109 you assert:
    There is evidence the warming of the last few decades was caused by man’s activities. There is a lack of evidence the warming was caused by a known mode of internal variability. There is no evidence it was caused by something unknown. If there was, it wouldn’t be unknown.
    Given the evidence, it’s not illogical to conclude the likely cause was man’s activities.
    That is completely wrong.
    The AGW-hypothesis says increased greenhouse gases – notably carbon dioxide – in the air raise global temperature, and anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air to overwhelm the natural climate system.
    But empirical evidence says the hypothesis is wrong.
    1.
    The anthropogenic emissions and global temperature do not correlate.

    But they would correlate if one were directly causal of the other.

    Scientist don’t expect a dependent variable to be in lock step correlation with an independent variable, particularly if there is more than one independent variable. For example, a person’s weight is not solely a function of his calorie intake, regardless of how much or little he exercises.

    Warming caused by rising levels of atmospheric CO2 can be moderated or enhanced by cyclical influences such as La Nina and El Nino, thus reducing correlation between changes in CO2 and changes in temperature. Moreover, increases in CO2 aren’t supposed to cause immediate increases in temperature.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Max writes at post #108:

    I have not seen evidence food crops grown under artificially high CO2 levels are biologically identical to those grown under natural atmospheric CO2 levels.

    ???

    The chosen varieties already have the capability to grow and set leaf and or fruit.They DEPEND on reliable CO2 as part of the photosynthesis process.

    What was your point anyway?

    Other than CO2, plants draw chemical elements mostly from the soil. If the level of CO2 is increased, do concentrations of other chemical elements increase in unison or does the balance of these elements change?

    It depends on the variety chosen.Some will increase growth BECAUSE of increased CO2 levels and nothing more.Others will increase uptake of soil elements.

    But that is moot anyway,since the growers can easily amend the soil to keep pace with increased growth.

    Richard Courtney made the significant point that enclosed greenhouses filled with plants WILL quickly exhaust the available supply of CO2.That is why they add additional CO2 to well above the level outside.They do that because it is well known that such additional CO2 improves plant growth and make more money in the process.

    Hot house tomatoes are an example of a food produced under artificially high CO2 conditions. These tomatoes don’t taste as good to me as those grown outside, but I don’t know whether the difference is a result of the CO2 boost or other factors.

    Tomatoes grown commercially whether in the open fields or in Hothouses,commonly chose varieties that are biased in favor for shipping and storage-ability.Flavor is often given a lower consideration.It is after all hard to have a perfect produce that has it all.

    That is why HOME GROWN tomatoes are so much better.I grow Tomatoes every year and quite good at it too.I chose FLAVOR over anything else.Shipping consist in picking a few tomatoes and then walking back to the kitchen.

    Home grown gardeners SHOULD choose flavor over shipping and storage-ability qualities every time!

    BTW, although raising CO2 above natural atmospheric levels increases hot house yields, the main reason for adding CO2 is one of necessity. In a closed hot house the amount of CO2 will drop below the level plants need if the enclosure is not ventilated with outside air. However, bringing in outside air during winter also will cause the temperature to drop below the level plants need. Adding CO2 by other means solves this problem.

    So why are you so worried about such elevated CO2 in the first place in those greenhouses?

    Meanwhile those greenhouses still need those electric or gas heaters to keep them warm in the winter despite the 1500PPM level of awesome heat trapping CO2 floating around.

    Why not elevate them to 5000 ppm to incorporate the “heating” power of the gas? Then they could stop using up the natural gas and coal in providing heat.

    Snicker.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Max-OK:

    At #114 you ask me:

    I guess you could state all kinds of nulls that would be difficult to reject. For example, a null hypothesis for solar activity is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in solar activity have caused any climate change. Of course, failure to reject a null doesn’t mean the null is true.

    In science the null hypothesis is that nothing has changed unless there is empirical evidence of the change.

    The null hypothesis isthe governing hypothesis unless and until there is empirical evidence of a change.

    So, it is not science to assume a change has happened unless and until there is empirical evidence for a change. Any assertion that a change has occurred which is not supported by empirical evidence is not science and is superstition.

    As my post at #111 showed (and your question claims to be in response to that) there is no evidence of any kind that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide have had any effect on global climate or local climates.

    Therefore, the ONLY scientific assumption is that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide have NOT had any effect on global climate or local climates.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Max-OK:

    At #116 you quote one statement from my list in #111; viz.

    1.
    The anthropogenic emissions and global temperature do not correlate.

    But they would correlate if one were directly causal of the other.

    And you respond to that isolated point by saying:

    Scientist don’t expect a dependent variable to be in lock step correlation with an independent variable, particularly if there is more than one independent variable. For example, a person’s weight is not solely a function of his calorie intake, regardless of how much or little he exercises.

    Please state what part of the word “directly” you do not understand.

    And if you want to know what “scientists don’t expect” then ask me.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Below is a link to a study that says rising atmospheric CO2 levels could reduce the protein in plants. That wouldn’t be good for grains and legumes, which are major sources of protein for much of the world.

    http://www.scidev.net/en/news/rising-co2-levels-could-reduce-protein-in-crops.html

    As for hot houses, the growers control the climate inside the houses. If necessary, they would prevent the temperature from rising enough to adversely affect the plants. The downside of more atmospheric CO2 is warmer climates, and the added warmth wouldn’t be good for some plants.

    Max,

    Thanks for the link. It helps. As to whether laboratory experiments translate to the real world or not, we don’t know. I suspect that living things have a considerable ability to adapt to changing conditions.

    By the way, growers use hothouses to keep the temperatures up to where they can grow things that otherwise would not tolerate ambient temperature. I’m sure they are very solicitous of the health of their crop.

    In any case, I’ll still take the hothouse tomatoes. And we still have no evidence that climate change is upon us, much less that it’s man-made. The term is thrown around as if given that it’s happening so people can look informed, official and authoritative. Yet they may be none of those things.

    In the meantime, the human race has little hope of anything but adapting to whatever the future brings. I would much rather go through whatever sorting things out happens naturally as circumstances change than to have something forced down my throat. And I absolutely resent the thinly veiled assertion that I’m some how evil because I drive my car, use my air conditioner and a host of other things.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Max:

    The PDO/AMO and solar cycles have far more correlation compared to CO2:

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm
    http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/197_2.gif

    It’s what the IPCC leave out of its reports that counts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    proletarian robot

    Max_Troll… HAHAHAHAHAHA… I really don’t know which I find more appalling, your tenuous grasp on science or your cult-like devotion to failed socialist economic principles. Max, come on you can tell us, you are a paid ACORN worker who lives in your mom’s basement typing out the latest talking point memos that your superior’s place in front of you.

    One dead give-away is to actually try and quote “estimates” from the EPA. The EPA well known to produce the most politically biased and politically influenced “science” of any government agency. Given that one cannot completely trust NOAA or NASA’s data why would you blindly quote the EPA? Why would we believe anything the EPA says when they have consistently been unable to quote the correct costs or manage several of the super-fund clean-ups across the US?? http://imaksim.com/blog/147-epa-propaganda.html

    Your paper attempted to link elevated CO2 to plants inability to absorb nitrates. There was a great deal of supposition in that article. http://www.springerlink.com/content/q0pmmuy5vkpyb0l5/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Max_OK@114

    Richard Cumming here from 95

    I note that the EPA had no difficulty rejecting Dr Clark’s Null for CO2.

    The burden of proof however, is for the AGW proponents to provide empirical evidence showing that human emitted CO2 is the primary driver of the climate given that there are competing hypotheses (Solar, CRF, GCR etc).

    Dr Clark has made a generous concession in his submission:

    “Over the last 50 years, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by 70 ppm to ~380 ppm”…”Under ideal clear sky conditions, the 70 ppm increase in CO2 increases the downward atmospheric long wave infrared(LWIR)[DLR] surface flux by ~1.2 W.m-2. This goes up to ~1.7 W.m-2 for the full 100 ppm anthropogenic increase over the last 200 years”

    The ~1.2 W.m-2 is the heating effect of Anthropogenic CO2 emissions since circa. 1960. As I pointed out in 95 above, DLR has been measured globally since 1993 by the BSRN program. We have not yet seen a globally averaged plot showing any trend in DLR and I challenge you to produce one. A rising trend would be necessary to prove the AGW hypothesis of excess heat, would it not? It is even necessary to support Dr Clark’s concession above.

    Until this empirical evidence is produced, the Null hypothesis is governing as Richard Courtney clearly points out in 118 and Dr Clark attests.

    The problem Max, is that the excess heat is missing. Dr Kevin Trenberth admits this but because he is so convinced in the reliability of model projections (guesses) of excess heat, he, instead of following the Scientific Method is blaming supposedly inadequate (empirical) observation systems – a desperate attempt to perpetuate the AGW hypothesis. The observation systems have shown that the AGW prescribed “hotspot” is missing (already covered at joannenova.com). A report, “The Missing Hotspot” by Dr David Evans may be viewed here:

    http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf

    Quoting from the summary:

    “Each cause of global warming heats up the atmosphere in a distinctive pattern—its ―signature‖. According to IPPC climate theory, the signature of carbon emissions and the signature of warming due to all causes during the recent global warming both include a prominent ―hotspot‖ at about 10 – 12 km in the air over the tropics. But the warming pattern observed by radiosondes during the recent global warming contains no trace of any such hotspot. Therefore:
    1. IPCC climate theory is fundamentally wrong.
    2. To the extent that IPCC climate theory is correct in predicting a hotspot due to extra carbon dioxide, we know that carbon emissions did not cause the recent global warming.”

    This is point 5 by Richard Courtney at 111 above.

    The miniscule heating effect of anthropogenic CO2 can only be of consequence if some magnifying factor is introduced. Dr Clark explains:

    “…in the mid 1980’s, a slight increase in the ‘average’ meteorological surface air temperature was found. This was immediately linked by empirical speculation to the increase in
    anthropogenic CO2 concentration. It was decreed that a 1 W.m-2 increase in downward LWIR [DLR] flux due to an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration produced an increase in meteorological surface air temperature of 2/3 C. Mysterious water vapor feedback effects were invoked to explain model inaccuracies.”

    But even with the water vapour feedbacks, the excess heat is still missing i.e. no Anthropogenic Global Warming (or Climate Change).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Beth Cooper

    Olaf, thanks for posting 60 year temperature cycle data. Everyone should take a look. DATA RULES: ‘real’ cycle patterns,and NO ‘hot spot’ signature or evidence of positive co2 feedback in the weather record.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Hey Max_OK, don’t forget that rule#1 here is that you can’t trust the motives of climate scientists, so you can’t trust their results.

    Anyway, I was interested in the cynicism about money and bankers so I’ll put my two cents worth in.

    Some of you seem to be looking at this through “moral” glasses. For example, the idea that banks adding money to the system is theft from little old ladies because it causes inflation and therefore takes away from their stash. That there is something wrong with this is a seriously misguided view.

    The monetary system, as with all human created systems, can either promote the general well-being, or diminish it. That there may be individual winners or losers does not matter so much. The rapid expansion from east to west in the US was financed by shonky banks. The paper they issued gradually declined in value compared to sound “old money” in the east, until they went broke. From a moral point of view, their behaviour was despicable, but from a practical point of view it gave money to the energetic people who opened up the west. It did good.

    Of course we all love fairness, but fairness should not stand in the way of creating a system which actually works! But a system which is too unfair will probably not work anyway, so as always there is a balancing act.

    Having said that, there is no particular reason to believe that our current financial system is the one which best promotes the greater good. The system should be reviewed on a regular basis to see if its doing its job.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fenbeagle

    So, what does China think of Carbon trading?…..more breaking news extracts from ‘Low Carbon Plot’ Gou Hongyang here, translated by ‘Locusts’

    http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/the-dragons-dissent-part-ii-carbon-tax-as-a-trade-weapon/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Gosh, don’t you love it when a hypothesis makes a prediction that can be tested experimentally? Max proposes a test for the AGW hypothesis that, in fact, occurs everyday:

    Max @ 115

    As for hot houses, the growers control the climate inside the houses. If necessary, they would prevent the temperature from rising enough to adversely affect the plants. The downside of more atmospheric CO2 is warmer climates, and the added warmth wouldn’t be good for some plants

    So Max suggests that we could take a giant greenhouse fill it with 1,500 ppm of CO2 (about 4X today’s natural level) and then measure the temperature increase due to the enhanced CO2 levels? Bloody hell it must be like Jurassic Park in there!

    In fact, this experiment goes on daily in commercial vegetable greenhouses all around the world. There is absolutely no measurable increase in temperature due to the vastly heighten concentrations of atmospheric CO2.

    Max assumes the AGW is an axiom of nature. Fortunately, he says, growers “prevent the temperature from rising enough to adversely affect the plants.” Sure they do, how else could plants possibly survive the catastrophe temperature increases due to 1500ppm CO2?

    Oh, it’s getting hot in here, must be somethin’ in the atmosphere:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMJsuFo38Ok&feature=fvw


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    126
    Fenbeagle:

    That was some scary link. Looks like it was written by the Chinese communist party. Its good to see that they also think that AGW is a conspiracy, but not to form a one world government, but rather by the US against China.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fenbeagle

    John Brookes
    That does seem to be how they see it, and they don’t mince their words…’The Life and Death War Between China and the West.’

    ….’We can predict that the contest between China and America and the other Developed Countries will be one where the knives will cut through the flesh exposing the bones, heralding the necessary advent of a protracted war’.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    A followup to #50 on Amanda McKenzie’s beating on their ABC’s Drum:

    I’ve noticed that my responses to baseless arguments and personal jibes are not being censored now. Perhaps annotating each response, stating that it’s been recorded for audits is doing the trick. ;-)

    Quick summary of other responses and comments:

    –> The Great Barrier Reef is “collapsing” because his “marine biologist” son says so.
    My response: Reef damage is localised, seasonal and unrelated to CO2 without any evidence to support a collapse of the GBR.
    —-> Evidence is that the spear fishing has gotten worse in some places with fish sizes smaller. Claims that temperature change will destroy the reef.
    My response points out his analysis hardly represents a scientific study of the whole GBR and the obvious that if there is spear fishing allowed, that it will take place, diminishing fish stocks. I asked if he’d bothered to check the temperature.

    –> An under-30 with “some understanding of thermodynamics” and experience in IR spectroscopy argues that I’m propagating nonsense.
    My response was to prick the inflated assumed, spherical cow by introducting a smidgin of the complexity of the climate system that largely acts to negate any positive heating that CO2 may have. Usually by way of enhanced horizontal convection towards the poles.

    –> An extensive quote from posting by me to Jo’s recent comments page, without providing the link attempted to paint a picture that I was obscuring facts, making unfounded statements without prodiving data nor methodology. And accused me of using DAFWA data without their permission,
    My response was to provide the link to the page where the article clearly included a link to the spreadsheet with all the data and the methodology in total transparency. I also explained that DAFWA permit use of the data for research and non-commercial use, provided that the source is credited.

    There is no point in responding to every trollish comment. One has to choose carefully the ones that have a pretense of valid argument and address that argument.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Bernd@ 130

    Congratulations on having your comments aired.

    You have a valuable forum in Australia to at least attempt to engage in sensible debate. I have not found the same in NZ.

    May I suggest that you give some thought to your technique to communicate complexity for the benefit of the wider audience. Attention spans are short so concept descriptions must be concise, succinct etc. I am prone to verbosity so I know what I am talking about but I am not suggesting that you have reached my level of expertise in this area.

    I have copied your 21 Aug 2010 1:14:11pm Drum comment for reference and also as a case study of the communication aspect.

    Much confusion has arisen (and been promoted intentionally by introduction of a re-herring) recently by the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the GHG back radiation mechanism as a result of Miskolczi’s work. The confusion arises from a lack of distinction between the various forms of energy of which RADIATION and HEAT are two.

    When we enter the Global Warming arena of discussion, the central issue is “WARMING” or the erroneous notion of “HEAT TRAPPING”. Your comment addresses very well the various mechanisms of energy transfer in the atmosphere but I wonder if for simplicity and the benefit of the wider audience it would be better to focus on the “HEAT TRAPPING” notion. Obviously you would have to dispense with much of your (very relevant) argument but this is the price to pay in order to retain the attention of those whose eyes glaze over at the mention of Prandtl numbers. Also obvious is the role of radiation but it is a hypothesis of excess HEAT or WARMING that is being promulgated.

    The erroneous notion of a “Greenhouse Effect” is another source of (now intentional) confusion. For convention I try to restrict any reference to “GHG’s” and in future intend to use the term “Insulation Effect” in discussion. I put much of the perpetuation of CAGW down to the erroneous “Heat Trapping-Greenhouse Effect” idea that has been fixed in the minds of the general populace through the media and education etc.

    Once the focus is on “HEAT TRAPPING”, it is easy then to ask the question: Where exactly is the excess HEAT being TRAPPED?

    Even eminent Climate Scientists such as Dr Kevin Trenberth are struggling to answer that question.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Richard C #131:

    If somebody claims to be au fait with thermodynamics and waves hands in the air mentioning IR spectroscopy, then mention of Prandtl number is an appropriate response. ;-) Even if the direct effect is microscopic due to CO2 being present only in trace amounts. Convection in part explains why outbound radiation is “spotty” (CERES Nett Radiation) from NASA and not in well-defined bands.

    (I wasn’t aware of that image when I posted my response to the Drum.)

    Such technicalities are beyond the ken of the vast majority of the population. They cannot judge these things rationally. People are engaged emotionally (instinctively) to stimulus; but one can condition one’s reactions to emotional stimulus. This is done in intense training processes used by e.g. the military to allow those people to act “rationally” and deliberately when encountering situations that would have untrained folk catatonic with fear, perhaps for a fatal second or more.

    There is a natural reaction when people read technical passages that they do not comprehend, that there is something important that they must do to avoid that fear in future. That is where there’s a bifurcation in behaviour; sometimes people will “shut down” and suspend individual decision making, doing simply as they’re told — due to bafflement. They respond to questions by regurgitation of answers that they expect others want to hear. Or people will accept the challenge; re-read and research until they understand what is being said and have the courage to point out errors that they perceive. i.e. they think for themselves.

    It is the latter reaction that is most beneficial. And it is one justification for the slightly-technical digressions in my writings in public fora; to stir perhaps just one more mind into independence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Sorry I am so late, but when I saw your shark picture, I could not help but think of the fable about the Gingerbread man and the Fox!

    Yes, it is a green revolution, but the green is as old as society itself. just ask one of the newest Billionaires on the Planet – Mr. green Gore.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Bernd Felsche@ 132

    Yes, and making a comvincing point in the zone of one concept is very effective.

    In system-speak, the average person should be able to juggle the interactions of six “manageable modules” if they are laid out graphically (nine at a stretch) but there is not the same grasp in purely verbal or Drum-like discussion where confusion/cross-purpose/polarity quickly disrupts mutual understanding.

    Thank you for your insightful response.

    NASA’s Earth Observatory – Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget is educational until page 7, Climate Forcings and Global Warming’ where there is a not-so-subtle intimation that the “missing heat” is lurking in the ocean.

    A quick scan of the references reveals a strong representation from the hockey team. I wonder, given Dr Kevin Trenberth’s obvious internal conflict exposed in the Climategate emails, whether he will be the first to concede on the “missing heat” issue.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Richard C #134:

    I can only be amused at the concept of what must be “dark heat” that is necessary to support the hypothesis that heat is lurking in the ocean(s).Argo (and other sensing) can’t find the heat.

    In terms of energy, heat is the lowest “quality”. All other forms of energy degenerate (transform) into heat eventually. To get a higher level of energy from heat, you need a heat engine which consumes more energy — directly or by pumping — in order to do so.

    It’s sad that very many people don’t understand the simple concept of energy; which although it is only about century and a half old (in modern science), was taught in high schools in W.A. in the 1970′s. In 4th year (now year 11), chemistry studies even touched on the concept of entropy.

    A sad condemnation of the school education system that now imposes on universities the need to provide classes in remedial mathematics for e.g. Engineering freshers because the school system is unable to provide a reliable foundation in the necessary fundamentals.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Glee Manmade

    [...] I was once a Green who believed in man-made global warming « JoNova The Bankers are rubbing their hands in glee They are the brokers in this Big New Market (based on thin air). They stand to make money on every trade — no matter if you buy or sell (and you will be forced to buy, if only indirectly), [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    AlanR

    Joanne
    Personally my view on the climate argument is becoming more sceptical each year. My pet theory is that James Hanson, the father of the current crop of climate computer models, spent too much time looking at Venusian atmosphere dynamics. Decades of looking at that version of greenhouse hell has colored his judgement. The rest of the herd just seem to have accepted his computer models.
    Like you I agree that bankers are behind the carbon trading schemes. But when Bob Brown opposed the ETS does that not mean he sees the scam for what it is?
    Although a climate CO2 skeptic I am not entirely against a direct tax on fossil fuels, provided the money could fund research on alternative energy sources, especially nuclear and solar.
    I guess you could label me a peak oil pessimist ;-)
    Be interested in your view of Brown’s position.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Well the Tas.Greens were thinking of using wood pulp
    for powering electricity plants. They have now changed their minds as wood pulp or chips is exported to Japan. However, electricity plants have used sugar cane refuse to power them. (For smaller communities…fair enough .. regional areas do have many smaller communities and pay more than cities for their electricity). But no help from the Government to sustain this form of alternative energy supply. It is renewable energy. (Provided we keep growing sugar cane).

    Wind energy has now been approved for near where I live in NW NSW, lets see how that goes. (I hope we don’t kill many of our flocking birds, like Gallahs or Eagles etc). Gallahs have a habit of grazing by the road side and taking off as a car approaches and
    kill themselves. Kangaroos do the same, but can’t jump that high LOL.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Alan R… good comment…if you take out the word
    Climate Change … and replace it with Sustainability
    maybe there would be some advancement in the thinking
    of the role of alternative energy, soil sequestration
    water conservation and soil health generally.

    When the future climate changes, be it warmer or colder (the latter I definitely think is likely) we still have to grow food. And provide healthy meat etc. I’m studying my Diploma in Organic Agricultural production. Should be renamed as Biological Agricultural production, as we concentrate on soil health and microbiology and water conservation etc., ‘Feed the soil not the plants, ideology, and the microbiology will look after the plants or pasture’.

    The MP I support Tony Windsor is in Canberra as one of the Independents who is going to either support the Lib/Nats or ALP and know he is solid behind sustainability and renewable energy.

    What few people recognise in the community is CO2 is not a pollutant but a necessity for plant growth. And coal is used to formulate one of the best organic fertilisers available. They wash it, and is part of humic and fulmic acids. Full of carbon for the soil 60% of carbon sink in the world is contained in soil, (provided it is healthy).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fenbeagle

    Bush bunny
    ….’Wind energy has now been approved for near where I live in NW NSW, lets see how that goes.’

    I would be more interested to know how you think that might ‘go’ yourself. You don’t think its possible they might not work at all at low wind speeds, do you?….. Is it possible that might matter?
    The British minister for energy and ‘climate change’ Chris Huhne seems to want to build them, although the Chinese don’t.
    here then, an illustration of the problems….

    http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/the-next-emperor/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    fenbeagle: Read Richard Courtney’s report on wind turbines. I’m skeptical.

    Richard C… can you send folks your website with the report.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fenbeagle

    Bush bunny
    So you are….Sorry, I was barking up the wrong tree.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Fenbeagle, hi. Well I have heard different stories.
    They break down in high winds, they are cheaper to replace than repair. Good things, they don’t make a
    noise as was reported in Sydney near the salinity
    processing plant, where their were 65 or so, and the noise was like a jet winding up all the time.

    Personally, I rather liked Richard C report maybe he
    could give you the site to check out.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fenbeagle

    hi Bush bunny
    ‘They are cheaper to replace than repair’….That’s a new one to me, do you have hard evidence? I know the Danes replaced their offshore wind turbines, rather than attempt a repair after salt damage.
    On the Lincolnshire Fens we know very well they make a noise, wind sheer being one cause. The Davis family are still not able to sleep at their house near here. The ones near me can be strangely quiet though, and at other times noisy when I walk around the site, so it’s complicated.
    I’ll track down Richard C’s report thanks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Beagle and Bunny, There is a Richard C here as well as Richard S Courtney. I think this is the report http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20060331_wind.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fenbeagle

    Thank you Mark D :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Fenbeagle: I have the report by Richard Courtney on my hard drive, Richard did have it on this site. I lived in Lincolnshire between 1963 – 1965 in North Hykeham. Very mild climate and we had a drought and water restrictions when I lived there. Arrived in Sydney and they had water restrictions there too. Husband was working at RAF Waddington, pilot on Vulcans.

    Australia is in an electoral quandary at present.
    The UN IPCC started it, and it is of the opinion
    that climate change is a hoax. Alternative energy
    doesn’t work properly and proves expensive. Petrol
    is too expensive, and we should use ethanol instead.
    I pay $1.20 a litre, that’s $5.40 an Imperial gallon. The Greens don’t want coal fired plants but
    voted against the ETS. The UN IPCC and the Carbon
    Trading lobby have a lot to answer for.

    And the Pakistanies are ruining cricket by betting on it? How can it get worse? LOL

    The one Mark has sent isn’t the same one as the 2006
    lecture Richard gave. He lives in Cornwall by the way. If you are there Richard “How is your summer
    after a cold winter?” My friend in Shrops, said it has been hot and dry… your hot not mine I suspect.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Bush Bunny:

    I think the item you want can be seen at
    http://www.mininginstitute.org.uk/papers/Courtney%20paper%2026-10-06.DOC

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    There you are fenbeagle. Richard’s paper.

    Kind regards all

    Bush bunny from Oz


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    While I have Richard on line. Has the EU got a cap n’trade scheme running for 15 years. Someone is emailing me saying I’m wrong. I understood, they were printing carbon permits, that have failed to reduce CO2 emissions.

    Now they are being faced with a worthless surplus?

    I may be wrong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Bush Bunny:

    You ask me:

    Has the EU got a cap n’trade scheme running for 15 years. Someone is emailing me saying I’m wrong. I understood, they were printing carbon permits, that have failed to reduce CO2 emissions.

    Hmmm. Yes and no. The EU introduced a pilot scheme 15 years ago, developed that into a full-blown scheme about 10 years ago, but that failed, so they replaced it with a new scheme a couple of years ago (and that is failing as a result of the inevitable corruption).

    I am away from my base and have limited, intermittent and expensive communications here. Also, I will be out of communication for 12 to 15 days from Sunday and I am trying to give a response before then to somebody who wants detail about siomething I wrote on this blog. So, I hope you will forgive me if you want more from me because I will be unable to answer until near the end of this month. Sorry.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] de questions. C’est généralement à ce moment qu’on décroche, comme ce fut le cas de JoNova, célèbre [...]


    Report this

    00