JoNova

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


Handbooks

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



Archives

Australian politics churning

Things are hotting up in politics downunder. The immovable force meets the polls. Twenty years of PR catches up on the PM who didn’t do her homework. As Tim Blair says:  It’s a meltdown, Labor is seething. Bring Your PopCorn.

“There is evidence the public’s general confidence is being shaken by sudden policy shifts and uncertainty about a minority government; there is growing disquiet, even dismay, among business leaders that dealing with the government on the basis of compromise with a commercially viable outcome is being overtaken by ideological demands.” The Australian

Everything had the semblance of order until Julia Gillard announced the Carbon Tax. Sure the order was only superficial, and we knew dark forces of chaos ran underneath. The policies were based on corrupted science, self-interest ran amok, and the hung coalition was cobbled together with seats that would never have voted green. The government was running the knife edge.

It took 17 days deliberation to arrange the “deal” to form government, and it was said at the time that a hung parliament might be a poisoned chalice. If Julia Gillard promised the independents or greens that she would break her promise to the voters of “No Carbon Tax” then she reaps right now, what she sowed with deceit.

The blogs are alive downunder as the political landscape shifts. I’m not sure there is any coming back from  a mistake as big as this. Not only did Julia Gillard break her word, it was on major legislation, a change that affects every transaction, every industry, and every citizen. There’s no pretending this was just another piece of spin. Worse, it was done clumsily, without party room approval. And it was on legislation almost the same as the tabled plans she apparently told Kevin Rudd to avoid, which, after he had played the “Greatest Moral Threat” trump-card, left him no where to go, and exposed him as the weak bluff, and the insincere hypocrite.

Falsities will always hurt

The toll is substantial: the big carbon scam scuppered the opposition leader in Nov 2009, the Prime Minister in mid 2010, came within a whisker of bringing down the Labor government in August, and now may bring down the fledgling PM. Independent, Rob Oakshotts career is shot too, dropping from 63% popular to -12% in recent polls.

Who would have thought Julia would step into the same quicksand? (Who would have thought she would leap in with both feet?)

The politically correct and the workers were never a stable mix. I said in late 2009 that the Labor Party would split over this issue. At the time they reigned supreme and the Liberals were in turmoil. The Labor Party is not torn apart yet, but the rot that started last week is spreading. Labor Party members are in revolt over the Green demands being foisted upon them.

It’s all been done before

On Andrew Bolt’s site, there is even speculation from Ray Evans of things that would have sounded utterly improbable mere weeks ago. He drew comparisons with the early 1930′s Labor Party and the way it split then, with the conservative faction making a big win.

James Scullin was elected in a landslide and became the Labor prime minister of Australia in 1929 – a mere 17 days before the Wall Street Crash. The depression forced savage spending cuts. The Labor Party split under the pressure into three splinter groups. Joseph Lyons led the more conservative faction, which joined with the Nationalist Party and formed the United Australia Party. Scullin’s faction was left on it’s own by the end of 1931, the other former Labor factions voting “no confidence” and forcing an election, which Lyons went on to win in a landslide.

Thus from the wreckage of a party that has lost it’s way, the center-of-the-road faction could still pull out a victory.

On  Feb 18th I wrote: The simple truth the ALP don’t want to hear. It’s still true, though it’s not a door on Gillard path anymore. Perhaps someone in the Labor Party will be brave enough to ask for evidence, do a cost benefit analysis or an independent report.

The simple answer the ALP don’t want to hear

There is a way for Gillard and company to escape the vice. Strangely, the best tactic to neutralize the green threat and the conservatives at the same time, would be to audit the BOM and CSIRO, independently, and to fully investigate the IPCC claims. They could show how there are far bigger environmental problems than our carbon emissions, and prove thus, that she was guarding Australians from corrupted claims and exaggerated threats at the same time  as using the best science to protect the environment.  Perfect. We all know this isn’t going to happen, but if it did, the Greens would lose believers, and the workers would return to the Labor Party that once stood for them. The Liberals would look silly for having pandered to something they don’t believe in, but didn’t quite find the courage to stand against. It would be a Labor Party reborn. They would steal the rug from both sides.

Around the rest of the world the economic hard times are biting and they are waking up. The greens have been thrown out of Ireland. Today New Hampshire – Rejected Cap & Trade By A Veto-Proof Margin. The US republicans are threatening to turn off the spigott to the IPCC. There is hope.

From Nov 2009

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 1.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Australian politics churning, 1.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/4lf27el

188 comments to Australian politics churning

  • #
    Pascvaks

    The Wizard of Oz seems to have made the Little People a might restless. Where is Dorthy and the Magic Slippers, the Lion, the Tin Man, and the Scarecrow, when you really need them? What a “revolt”ing development this is!

    00

  • #
    Sean

    Your split of the labor party reflects some of the divisions that took place here in the US with the Democrats in the last election. Union members that worked for private companies in traditional heavy industries in the US voted 45% Republican in the last election. I bet many of those folks held their nose but probably saw a greater threat to their livelihoods from things like the Waxman Markey bill and an overly zeolous EPA than from the managers that ran their companies.

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    Jo
    You are absolutely right, there is no way back for Labor from here. Problem for Labor is that it’s not just Gillard. Kevin Rudd’s useful idiocy has done her no favours. Alan RM Jones sums it up succinctly:

    Yet, the gallery shrugs while Gillard assumes the position and the Greens have their way with her and the Australian economy, in a last desperate gamble to stave off personal political oblivion. Her latest climate change change is driven entirely by the focus group of me, myself and I.

    Even when trying to explain her deception, Gillard dissembles. It appears telling the truth has become her greatest moral challenge.

    Windsor and Oakeshott are struggling with their credibility.

    This comment about Windsor says it all:

    Rubbish, this man is a self serving self promoting hypocrite. Sells the farm to coal miners and states we should all be taxed extra because of the products from that mine. He has over time made vitriolic accusations against other MP’s yet feigns sensitivity if someone vents against him.

    Port Macquarie News story comments about Oakeshott’s NBN appointment:

    “Hang on, isn’t April Fools Day about four weeks away? The folks running the NBN would not have been able to have believed their good fortune on hearing that Rob will be in-charge of their oversight. Talk about Christmas coming early for the NBN“.

    “Maybe it’s just me, but does anybody else see a problem in making a complete and utter fool chairman of any enquiry let alone one for a plan that is about to spend billions of dollars. Don’t forget to send Rob a message at the State Election“.

    “Ha ha this has made my day. I run into this fool too much in Port and it’s like he wanders around like a dear in headlights. Clueless in my opinion. On that note – Port residents, out first chance to make a point to Oakshott is March 26 when we can vote out his crony Peter Bessling at the NSW state election. Spread the word“.

    Arguably the most damning event for Labor is the resignation of Penny Sackett at the time of the big carbon tax announcement.

    Australia’s chief scientist, Professor Penny Sackett, has not met, or been invited to brief Prime Minister Julia Gillard on science policy issues, a Senate estimates hearing was told yesterday.
    Professor Sackett, who resigned last week less than halfway through her five-year appointment, also told the public hearing Australia’s emission reduction targets were ”not sufficient” to prevent dangerous climate change.

    Professor Sackett revealed she had not been invited to join a delegation of more than 100 government staff travelling to Copenhagen in December 2009 to attend the United Nations climate change negotiations. This was a year after she was appointed as Australia’s first full-time chief scientist responsible for running a $2.3 million government office with 16 full-time staff. According to the federal Department of Science website, the chief scientist was appointed to ”provide high-level independent advice to the Prime Minister and other Ministers on matters relating to science, technology and innovation”.

    There is a cryptic element in the April Fools day comment above. Can Labor last until then?

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    If the whole thing does finally fall over, you have to wonder how much of the onerous blind legislation brought in during the “warm fuzzy” years will be reviewed.

    John Howard very early in the piece declared himself to be a sceptic was a supporter for development on nuclear power. However the mounting political pressure of the warm fuzzies & weekend earthmothers pushed him into a position of “meeting the Kyoto Protocol” without ceding authority to a UN administered (unaccountable Global) authority.

    Unfortunately, a large part of this compliance was met by changes in environmental legislation governing land use practices & specifically land clearing legislation.

    While it is eminently sensible & a moral duty of each generation to preserve the natural environment , the power placed in the hands of bureaucracy has been distorted, corrupted , abused & misused.

    Anybody who follows this blog would be well aware of the heart-wrenching plight of the Thompsons.
    It is a classic example of a mixture of bureaucrats & self-appointed “eco-warriors” ganging up & using/mis-using & hiding behind legislation .

    Again with the tragic fires in Victoria: how much of the damage could have been averted if the vegetation by-laws had not prevented householders from clearing trees adjacent to their homes or local authorities from undertaking fuel reduction?

    Where I live in western NSW, huge tracts of land that was originally open wooded grasslands & has suffered the ravages of overgrazing, rabbits, weed infestation & ultimately ferral goats. Under vegetation legislation it has become a choked wasteland of woody weeds. The local landholders have valiantly battled to conform to the increasingly onerous & imperiously administered edicts but many have given up. Several blocks, over-run with un- natural vegetation, have become goat rangelands, sold to the NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service or sold to Sydney-siders as “shooter’s blocks”.

    As Mr Spencer put, it the bush is in a large part carrying the cost of the green voters in the capital cities.

    I sincerely hope the nascent enlightenment, which finally came from the realisation of power consumers that “yes there is a cost & we all have to bear it”, grows into a broader understanding of the inter-connected nature of the economy, the environment & the standard of living we enjoy.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    For the first time the Greens actually have enough power to be taken seriously by the MSM and the general public. Up until now they have been a feel good novelty, but now everyone is forced to see just how mad and dangerous they are.

    Farmers have known this for more than a decade, but now their policies are impacting on the full voter base.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    One of the things which annoys me about the carbon tax proposal is that there already is in force onerous legislation, such as the RET and NGER, which is doing the job of extracting vast sums from the Australian economy in the name of combating AGW. And don’t forget that this rotten lie has already cost the economy nearly $6 billion, and that doesn’t include the solar panels, pink batts, green loans etc scandals, while globally AGW expenditure is close to a $trillion.

    00

  • #
  • #
    pat

    last nite i was watching cricket and turned to sky news australia to see how many headlines there were about the furore over the “carbon tax”, which is the HOTTEST topic topic around the country. there was one, eleventh on the list (which means u had to go to page 2 of the headlines).
    it was called “carbon tax debate” and it was PRECISELY the first paras of the following NINEMSN piece, down to “unruliness”, with quotes by Labor’s anthony albanese, stephen smith and the speaker, harry jenkins:

    Abbott moves to censure Gillard – again
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8219276

    for the past 2 days, if u open the homepage of SMH, the Age, Herald Sun, Sky News Australia, and most other Oz media, u will be lucky to find a SINGLE article on the furore, yet there are outrageous revelations by the hour, such as Windsor’s lie that death threats were being investigated, when he hadn’t even reported them, or the fact part of the tax seems destined for the UN’s climate fund, ETC.

    btw isn’t it incredibly coincidental how the MSM facilitated the Phil Jones “death threats” story in an attempt to gain sympathy for the man post-Climategate, and the very same trick is being used with Windsor?

    SAME OLD TACTICS USED TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    The nature of the beast is that she will tough it out and ignore the protests over the carbon tax. Anyone who objects will be “unaustrayan”. The backroom knows that they cannot do much about pulling her into line. The balance in parliament is too delicate. Support from the MSM(airwaves) is not yet wavering.
    So, where is the circuit breaker?
    The best hope is that one of the independents will retire (because life has become to stressful).

    00

  • #
    Neville

    I posted this at Jennifer Marohasy’s blog but it probably is relevant here.

    Good stuff Charlotte, of course it would make more sense if there was no compensation and of course it will lead to more use of carbon based goodies.

    Problem is the loss of votes would be so horrendous ( without compensation)that they’d be booted out at the next election and hopefully wouldn’t return for 10 to 20 years.

    That will probably happen with a smaller swing anyway because of this tax plus the fact that this govt is led by a liar and is even more hopeless and useless than the krudd govt before it.

    Fact is even if we shut down Australia for the next 100 years the effect on CC would be diddily squat because all the developing world emissions would replace our tiny contribution many times over during that period.

    Don’t forget the developing world won’t even consider a carbon tax and China and India ( combined )have an extra 1.5 billion people at least that would like a home with electricity and all the mod cons we take for granted.

    But gee 1.5 billion people is only 750 times Australi’s population, surely they wouldn’t produce and emit much co2 on their road to modernity?

    00

  • #
    Graham Richards

    Lets all face it. Gillard & the Labor Party are not stupid enough to fall for the ‘global warming’ scam but they are devious enough to see the oportunity for a great big revenue stream. That’s the only attraction!!
    Taxing CO2 has huge potential financially. The price can be manipulated and as the economy grows more energy is required so taxes will continue to rise. A never ending stream of increasing revenue. No wonder they are persuing “carbon” with such gusto.
    A part of the revenue would find it’s way to the UN to pay the 3rd world for our share of ‘climate debt’ and other so called aid packages to help redistribute world poverty.
    So lets all now stop arguing the ‘science’ & ‘consensus’. That’s the smokescreen for the big new tax on everything. That’s the ‘Hegelian’speak. It’s International Socialist policy much the same as the asylum seeker policy. It’s an unwritten, unspoken policy to allow as many asylum seekers into Australia as wish to settle here. Again it’s a UN approved Socialist policy.
    We all know what damage the socialists have done in Europe & UK and they have got to be stopped from repeating it here.

    00

  • #
    Robber

    Even without a tax on CO2 we are still going to pay more. The 20% renewable energy target is driving costs up. From the Dept of Climate Change: electricity from coal costs $45/MWh, gas $60, wind $120, solar $300+. So if by 2020 we end up with 75% coal, 5% gas, 15% wind, 5% solar, from an average cost of electricity generation of about $50/MWh today, costs will increase to about $70, a 40% increase. Add to that massive changes in electricity distribution networks and Australia’s competitiveness will decline sharply.
    Of course we can keep shipping our coal to countries that don’t impose these green requirements.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    The politically correct and the workers were never a stable mix.

    A great piece in the Australian on that very statement below.

    Once upon a time there formed a…..

    “Chattering Class”

    “My Party was trashed by the middle class”

    Labor’s self-appointed progressives despise working-class values

    THIS is the story of the university-educated, middle-class Left’s rise to power by installing themselves as Australia’s moral guardians, dividing the electorate into race, gender and other such groups for whom they claim to speak, and then holding the Labor Party to electoral ransom if it fails to tailor its policies to their political agendas.

    Australia’s “moral guardians”

    They’re everywhere….

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/my-party-was-trashed-by-the-middle-class/story-fn59niix-1225910722814

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Somebody on the opposition benches in Australian politics aught to stand up and argue positively for the carbon tax.

    But do so on the basis that the proceeds will go into the establishment of the cold-water reactor nuclear facilities needed to make Australia totally self-reliant in electrical power by 2025.

    That would solve the “carbon pollution problem” and take Australia back to the forefront of world trade in one simple move. France is there now, why not Australia?

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Oh, and further to my last. Those of you who dabble or have some interest in social sciences may be able to join the dots between the above article….

    “My party was trashed by the middle class”

    and this post from Climate Depot:-

    Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement.

    In a hard-hitting and new exclusive video just released by Climate Depot, Dr. Rancourt declares that the entire man-made global warming movement is nothing more than a “corrupt social phenomenon.” “It is as much psychological and social phenomenon as anything else,”

    Rancourt states further:-

    “Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass,” he stated.

    and further still:-

    “They (the middle class) look for comfortable lies that they can settle into and alleviate the guilt they feel about being on privileged end of the planet — a kind of survivors guilt. A lot of these environmentalists are guilt laden individuals who need to alleviate the guilt without taking risks,” he said. “They are weekend activists…looking for lies to hitch onto.”

    Yes indeed, it’s all so “trendy” and “hip” to have a cause to fight for isn’t it!…..and what’s more you can discuss the “fight” for your “chosen cause” over a latte.

    What more could you wish for?

    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

    00

  • #

    I wonder when Nitrogen will be taxed? Doesn’t that gas also play a part in shaping the earth’s climate?

    Then how about the 188 toxic air pollutants identified by the EPA in the US? http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/188polls.html These I would suggest, will do us more harm than CO2.

    Gillard’s tax grab will not reduce CO2 emissions especially since the source of around 13% of Australia’s emissions will be exempt anyway. Seems there is good and bad C02 hey? See: Carbon, a new tax and Gillard’s Lifeform Levy

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Great post loaded @15!

    To paraphrase Jim Killen (I think) when asked to withdraw the interjection of “liar” he responded with “I withdraw, however I will say, the honourable member for … is not one to handicap himself by a pedantic adherence to the truth”.

    The gap between scientific knowledge and the truth as presented by our media is greater than at any time that I can recall.

    I have never expected that our politicians be truthful, but, I do expect our journalists to expose their lies. This methinks, is what makes a democracy work.

    Whilst the politics of the carbon scam may be warming a little, the MSM continues to be unemcumbered by the truth. The AGW scam is a child of the fourth estate abrogating its primary responsibility.

    00

  • #
    Neville

    But if we are to ponder this stupid tax what about the 10% (?) pledged to the UN? I mean how many billions will that add up to and how much more corruption and fraud will it encourage?

    This idiot govt led by this pathetic liar couldn’t get any worse could it?

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/just_answer_the_question_prime_minister/

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    After seeing articles regarding Mr Negative Popularity an interesting thought occurred to me. I think Aussies are a tad bored with the old compulsory voting system so I thought there should be a new tweak.

    Here’s how it works… you get one vote only, but it can be a positive vote or a negative vote.

    A lot of people complain that they don’t like either party leader, so screw it… just put a negative vote against the Greens instead and you can cancel any positive votes they get from the Nimbin, hairy socks & Brickenstocks brigade.

    If a party ends up in net negative territory, not only do they get no seats, they carry the negative vote forward to future elections to be deducted against any future positive votes.

    I wonder if anyone would get a seat this way… I wonder if the country would notice the absence of the fat cats in Canberra?

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Bulldust: #18

    If a party ends up in net negative territory, not only do they get no seats, they carry the negative vote forward to future elections to be deducted against any future positive votes.

    Or, alternatively they are allowed to sit in parliament, but their votes always count as being against whatever their stated policy position is – thus requiring them to argue for more pollution, the slaughter of wildlife, et cetera. That should give them a sense of their own importance.


    And there he plays extravagant matches
    In fitless finger-stalls
    On a cloth untrue
    With a twisted cue
    And elliptical billiard balls!

    The Mikado, W.S Gilbert

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    incoherent rambler: #16

    There is a saying used in newsrooms, “Never let the truth interfere with a good story”.

    It used to be said in jest. Now I fear, it has become an axiom of post-modern journalism.

    00

  • #
    Smack

    Perhaps a truly centrist Labour would wake up to the fact that the ABC hurts it by pushing the Green agenda far more than it hurts the Coalition. Then the major parties could together enforce a return to the values of reportage the ABC is supposed to be guided by.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    incoherent rambler @16

    The AGW scam is a child of the fourth estate abrogating its primary responsibility.

    The “fourth estate” collective is fast becoming irrelevant; superseded by the internet.

    Such a shame…[sarc]

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Good stuff from Lomborg and pig ignorance from Tony Jones on Lateline.

    Video and transcript available.

    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3153560.htm

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Loaded Dog @ 23:

    The “fourth estate” collective is fast becoming irrelevant; superseded by the internet.

    Such a shame…[sarc]

    I’d leave the sarc button off. It is a shame.

    Not that they don’t deserve to be phased out because of their idiotic news editors and lame standards, but a shame none the less. The internet is here for a while but with efforts afoot to “control” it, it likely will become a challenge to find free exchange of quality information. The internet is too easily manipulated and we are seeing the efforts of that already.

    00

  • #
    mullumhillbilly

    Thanks Neville, it was worth watching. Lomborg’s luke-warmism is a bit of a ploy I think to stop prejudicial labelling that would close certain minds to his actual message. I’ve always thought his take on tech advances in solar-H was the only truly sustainable energy option… all others including nuclear can only be short-term gap fillers. Like Moore’s Law of computing power doubling while costs are halving, solar has been on the same trajectory but just with a longer interval for each doubling/halving. In Lomborg’s book, ten years ago now, he had solar-H at oil-equivalent pricing by mid-century, excluding any carbon tax or special subsidies. With some judicious pump-priming, and by not knee-capping ourselves by shutting down the Enlightenment, we might even get there sooner. Then if our energy supply is scalable and easily distributed and cheap, and comes from the sea and the sun with ~zero pollution, maybe we can then start addressing the real issues of environment and society, ie poverty, biodiversity. And what a great way to also restore some faith in Science as an institution. Go tell it from the mountain Bjorn !

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    The “fourth estate” collective is fast becoming irrelevant; superseded by the internet.
    Such a shame

    I argue that good journalism enhances a democracy.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    By the way Loaded Dog, is that a Smith and Wesson? Either .38 or .357 I’d guess.

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    The next Federal election will look like the upcoming NSW election…. Labor is going to be annihilated.

    Guys like Martin Furguson had better take a long hard look around them and do something…. Furguson should breakaway from Gillard and force the dissolution of this disaster of a Government with it’s unthinking Socialism and green fascism…. It would give Labor some credibility and may even save them some seats they would have lost anyway…

    Never before have I seen a mainline political party self destruct like this…. It’s rather stunning…. and the media are refusing to even take notice….. “move along folks. Nothing to see here. Move along.”

    It’s really quite bizarre.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Nevile in #24… you astound me with your support of Lomborg.

    To summarise his position:
    1) AGW is real and we need to do something about it
    2) The solution is to invest in green energy so it is so cheap no one will want to use fossil fuels, rather than to tax fossil fuel use.

    In particular:
    “But, listen, Tony, the point here is to recognise we could basically shift all of the world to green energy right now. The technology is not the problem in the sense that if cost doesn’t matter, then we can do it today. We could do it with 1950s technology”

    I’d like to hear from your Brian G’s, Cohenite etc… you know your leading intelligent posters of this site, in terms of the above. My call is *bzzzt – fail* or BULLSHIT!

    Now I’m a warmist, we all know that, but I’m afraid that Lomborg’s new position (rather than being alot more sceptical) has left him in no-man’s land.

    The final tragedy is that he appears to reject the nuclear solution… ultimately he proposes a fruitless investment in to geen energy, that my understanding will cost an absurd amount of money… if you were going down that path you’d be insane not to tax the carbon at the same time.

    p.s. Jo – as you may tell from my IP info, I’ve lurked back on to the Government teat for a 3-6 month contract while I get things up and running. 1 week in I fear I may never leave – if I’m posting from this IP in 12 months please send someone round to shoot me:)

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Mark D@25 and incoherent rambler @27.

    I’d leave the sarc button off. It is a shame.

    and

    I argue that good journalism enhances a democracy.

    I agree, “good journalism does enhance a democracy”.

    But I should clarify – as I haven’t witnessed too much “good journalism” of late.

    I did actually think about leaving the “sarc button” off, but then thought the vast majority of the journalism I see today is not true to the profession at all; being in reality nothing more than dressed up activism and propaganda.

    (The taxpayer funded ABC being the most disgraceful example of this specifically because it IS payed for by the taxpayer and should by virtue of that fact be impartial – NOT a free platform for activists)

    As such I would be happy to see this form of “journalism” buried; its a farce and INSULT to any thinking persons intelligence.

    I have an investigative background (20 years criminal investigation) and there is no place when looking at facts for ideology.

    I can say with certainty that if the AGW scam was tested in an impartial Court it would be thrown out before even getting to hearing.

    The pro AGW case would not make it past the dodgy temperature records.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Mark D@28

    is that a Smith and Wesson? Either .38 or .357 I’d guess.

    Couldn’t tell you Mark.

    The guy holding it to my head told me to freeze….and I was, as you can see…looking straight ahead!

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Matt why do I astound you, I thought Lomborg made a lot of sense, about the only thing I disagree with him on is AGW being a problem.

    I’ve read his books and regularly use ” Cool It” for reference material. I’ve watched him debate Moonbat and Canadian Greens leader on youtube and he was partnered by sceptic Nigel Lawson.

    At one point he and the green looney had a real fair dinkum blow up , great to watch, anyway I think he and Nigella’s dad easily carried the day.

    If the govt spent all of our research on new technology ( say up to 1bn a year) and started a nuclear power program it would suit me completely.

    As I’ve said Lomborg was one of the researchers that convinced me that CAGW was a load of BS, although I’m sure that wasn’t his intention.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    loaded #31

    Agree with all that

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Neville if “spend a lot of money on green energy” was a simple and cheap solution, then it would be the 1st thing suggested by anyone. I have never seen anything to suggest it is a credible solution.

    00

  • #
    Wilko

    Good stuff from Lomborg and pig ignorance from Tony Jones on Lateline.

    That was good stuff by Lomborg, I did know he was a luke-warmist of sorts; it seems he subscribes to AGW as opposed to CAGW. Still I don’t know how you get from [harmful?] AGW to promoting massive government investment in stillborn green technologies.

    I particularly liked it when he pointed out that the main benefit of buying government subsidised green energy is that it makes a select few in the developed world feel good about themselves – indulgences basically. This isn’t news to skeptics, but it is refreshing to see a luke-warmist make the observation.

    Tony was holding on so tightly to his support of a carbon tax! Clearly not interested in entertaining a more efficient solution (albiet a solution to a non-problem). No, what was important to Tony was protecting the moral superiority he derives from his support of the ordained carbon tax.

    Isn’t that just the sine qua non of the Left though; solutions and outcomes are irrelevant, what matters is how a policy makes you as a supporter feel.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    MattB, Re #30 & 35 If you don’t mind hearing this from me, you sound surprisingly…well… grown-up. Now don’t read this wrong I mean it very sincerely and as a compliment.

    Now that you’re on the teat, whose shout is it?

    00

  • #
  • #
    John Brookes

    With Tony Windsor receiving death threats over the carbon tax (and it wasn’t from my side), yes, Australian politics is warming up, in an unhealthy way. Not as bad as Pakistan though, where they actually follow through on their death threats….

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Well John My side has been living with death threats from your side for about 20 years now. (you know: the end is nigh, tipping points, acidification, bleaching, species eradication, et CETERA!)

    Get used to your own technique……..

    00

  • #

    @MattB #30 & 35

    Matt you’ve misunderstood Lomborgs proposal. (why am I not surprised?)

    Go back and re read the transcript and post again.

    p.s. back on the public teat again? (why am I not surprised? lol)

    00

  • #

    John Brookes: #39
    March 4th, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    With Tony Windsor receiving death threats over the carbon tax…

    Care to detail those death threats John, or are you making things up?

    Misstatements and exaggerations seem to be the norm with you lot.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    How about you save my time and enlighten me humbug?

    00

  • #
    Michael R

    Care to detail those death threats John, or are you making things up?

    See:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/02/3152798.htm

    Independent MP Tony Windsor has called for restraint from talkback radio hosts and fellow MPs amid an increasingly vitriolic debate about the Government’s carbon tax plans….His comments came after he revealed he had received a number of death threats over the issue, and released a phone message which ended with: “I hope you die”….

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Matt B @30

    The final tragedy is that he appears to reject the nuclear solution… ultimately he proposes a fruitless investment in to geen energy, that my understanding will cost an absurd amount of money

    You must be lonely among the warmist crowd holding this view. Good on you. I have always struggled to understand the Greens/warmists holding their AGW stance but also being opposed to nuclear energy.
    NB. leaving off the last sentence in your paragragh was deliberate on my part.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    These came to me today from a friend. They are purported to be quotes from Thomas Jefferson:

    >
    > When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we
    > shall become as corrupt as Europe.
    > Thomas Jefferson
    >
    >
    > The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are
    > willing to work and give to those who would not.
    > Thomas Jefferson
    >
    >
    > It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes A
    > principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
    > Thomas Jefferson
    >
    >
    > I predic t future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
    > government from wasting the labors of the people under the
    > pretense of taking care of them.
    > Thomas Jefferson
    >
    >
    > My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results
    > from too much government.
    > Thomas Jefferson

    >
    >
    > No free man shall ever be debarred
    > the use of arms.
    > Thomas Jefferson
    >
    >
    > The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
    > bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny
    > in government.
    > Thomas Jefferson
    >
    >
    > The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood
    > of patriots and tyrants.
    > Thomas Jefferson

    >
    >
    > To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas
    > which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
    > Thomas Jefferson

    >
    >
    > Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
    > ‘I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our
    > liberties than standing armies.
    > If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of
    > their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and
    > corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the
    > people of all property – until their children wake-up homeless on the
    > ; continent their fathers
    > conquered.’
    >
    >

    Smart guy that Mr. Jefferson……..

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Michael R:@44

    Independent MP Tony Windsor has called for restraint from talkback radio hosts and fellow MPs amid an increasingly vitriolic debate about the Government’s carbon tax plans….His comments came after he revealed he had received a number of death threats over the issue, and released a phone message which ended with: “I hope you die”….

    I can assure you Michael, having experience in the field, that “I hope you die” is NOT a death threat.

    It’s a death “hope” but NOT a threat.

    Why are the left so precious?

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s that debate I mentioned earlier for those interested, just before Copenhagen.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDncJGjvHGw&feature=related

    00

  • #
    Michael R

    I am not the one calling it death threats, Tony and the Media are both doing that I was just pointing out the source for the comment – which was pretty much a direct quote from media news currently. Your reaction however is interesting.

    If you like more, there is another:

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8219784/police-investigate-threats-against-windsor

    Federal police are investigating further political threats against Independent MP Tony Windsor after his Wikipedia site was changed to report he had been assassinated.

    Are you trying to argue the validity of whether threats received (and most particularly the full messages and contents of are not known)? It is a little hard to judge without having all the messages in front of us. Police are cheking and if they think there is validity they will follow through.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    John Brookes @ 39:

    People should stop perpetuating the myth that Tony Windsor received a death threat. The chap said that he hoped Windsor would die, which is a wish, not a threat.

    This is not disimilar to people claiming Julia lied about the carbon tax… technically she didn’t, she broke a promise. A lie assumes a state of mind in which she knew she would break the promise, and only Julia can truly know that. This is why Abbott was not using “lie” in the breakfast TV interview this morning, but rather “broken promise.”

    There is no death threat, just like there is no proven lie.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Michael R:@49

    In relation to your question you must have overlooked the below in your link Michael?

    “We have been asked by the police, if there’s anything of a threatening nature, then they want to be alerted,” Windsor told the Daily Telegraph.

    And THIS was compared by Windsor (and seized upon by the usual suspects in the media) with the shooting of US congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in the US?

    Please…

    Sure, it’s harassment, and there’s a minor offence for it of Misusing a Telecommunication Device to Harass, but what politician would not be used to harassment?

    The aforementioned (minor offence) is more than likely what is currently under investigation if anything; otherwise why would police ask to be “alerted” if he (Windsor) receives “anything of a threatening nature”?

    Sounds like another media beatup to me..

    And any person who supports the beatup is on very shaky ground.

    You are obviously on firm ground, as you don’t support it as you outlined above eh!!

    00

  • #
    Michael R

    People should stop perpetuating the myth that Tony Windsor received a death threat. The chap said that he hoped Windsor would die, which is a wish, not a threat.

    The specific quote you referred to was apparently only one of the messages received. It was deemed important enough to bear some investigation by the Federal Police. It is interesting that you among others seem happy to discredit the claim with absolutely no personal knowledge whatsoever.

    I can quite honestly say I do not know the content of the messages, so I cannot make any decision on whether the were death threats or not. Likewise neither can you. How about people stop arguing a point of fact people have no knowledge on and let the Police do their job.

    Is this how you approach arguments with the climate science as well? State matters of fact over which you have no knowledge?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “I have always struggled to understand the Greens/warmists holding their AGW stance but also being opposed to nuclear energy.”

    Cheers Ross, if there is one thing I’m not so keen on is selectively choosing science over ideology. How could I expect people to give credence to climate science if I myself chose to ignore nuclear science?

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    MORE ABOUT THIS UNITED NATIONS AGENDA 21 TO REDUCE THE WORLD POPULATION BY WHATEVER MEANS…………

    Degrowth Conference Barcelona 2010

    http://www.degrowth.org/

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    “Michael R” are you sure you are not on tony WINDGABG’S staff????????

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Michael R: #52

    … I cannot make any decision on whether the were death threats or not. Likewise neither can you.

    I think that people are indulging in conjecture about what does or does not constitute a death threat. Nothing more.

    Bulldust: #50

    The chap said that he hoped Windsor would die, which is a wish, not a threat.

    He could even have said, “You will die …”. Which is a statement of fact – we all die at some stage. In fact he could even have added, “… if you [do something]“, because that is equally true, even if redundant, since he will also die if he does not do the thing mentioned.

    As The Loaded Dog asked, “Why are the left so precious?”.

    00

  • #

    Rereke Whakaaro (20),
    Koko, in The Mikado, also presciently describes the modern, anti-western, misanthropic misanthracist:

    the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
    All centuries but this, and every country but his own.

    There is now a video on YouTube, made by Andy Semple, of “No Carbon Tax”, with words and vocals by Julia Gillard.

    00

  • #

    MattB:#43
    March 4th, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    How about you save my time and enlighten me humbug?

    As usual you want others to do your work for you, you lazy sod.
    I’ve tried to ‘enlighten’ you for 2 years now. You are UNENLIGHTENABLE’ Matt. But for the benefit of others reading, I’ll show how you misrepresenyed what Lomborg said by taking his quote out of context.

    TONY JONES: Well you’ve made the argument about Germany, for example – I’ve heard you make that publicly. But surely the real question about Germany is not the impact that what happens there has on global warming over the whole planet, it’s the impact it has on the amount of renewable energy that’s used for electricity generation, in particular in Germany. And the percentages have changed dramatically. For example, in 2000 they had six per cent of their energy come from electricity. A mere nine years later in 2009, it’s up to 16 per cent.

    BJORN LOMBERG: Sorry, and the question is?

    TONY JONES: Well, I’m just saying that they’re moving towards changing their energy mix through these targets. In fact, their future targets are even higher: they plan to get to 35 per cent by 2020.

    BJORN LOMBERG: Absolutely. But, listen, Tony, the point here is to recognise we could basically shift all of the world to green energy right now. The technology is not the problem in the sense that if cost doesn’t matter, then we can do it today. We could do it with 1950s technology.

    The issue here is it’s not going to happen as long as it’s very, very expensive, and Germany is a good case for that. As long as they spend huge amounts of subsidies – and the biggest cost of course is with solar panels, which Germany’s the biggest consumer per capita of in the world, they’re essentially spending large sums of money to do very little for climate change.

    I would much rather see them spend that same money, for instance on research and development, so you would get large impacts in the long run. This is not about us feeling good, this is about making sure that we do good in the long run.

    In your #30 comment and quote of Lomborg, you made it sound like he is advocating switching to renewables NOW and that we could have done this even with 50s technology.

    In fact, the man is saying yes we could switch to current renewables IF MONEY WAS NOT AN OPTION, but it is.

    “I’m simply pointing out: don’t put up incredibly inefficient and vast volumes of incredibly inefficient green technologies; put up a few to make the leap to the next generation, but focus on making those next generations rather than spending lots and lots of money on inefficient technology.”

    Anyone summarising Lomborgs statements would have said he advocates a carbon tax of $7 per tonne, and ALL OF THAT TAX to be used as seed money for research and development for MORE EFFICIENT, COST EFFECTIVE renewables.

    So instead of inciting Brian G and Cohenite, why don’t you tell us what it is about Lomborgs proposal you don’t like?

    A rare, coherent, intelligent comment from you would be welcome after 2 years.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Deadman:@57

    There is now a video on YouTube, made by Andy Semple, of “No Carbon Tax”, with words and vocals by Julia Gillard.

    I prefer this one Deadman…much better soundtrack..

    “you pay a bit more tax…you pay a bit more tax…you pay a bit more tax”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTFS67u3QbY&feature=related

    00

  • #

    Bulldust (50):

    technically she [Gillard] didn’t [lie], she broke a promise.

    Technically, she made no promise: she made a predictive assertion, stating what would happen under a government led by her. Naturally, she said so knowing that others would interpret her statement as both a promise and as a referral to the negation of taxes, levies, trading schemes or compulsory imposts levied on industries or citizens or both.
    Whether she spoke ironically, deceptively, misleadingly, with deliberate ambiguity, carelessly or casuistically matters not; now that we have heard her attempts to parse her statement as semantically meaningless, and her further assertion that she had always desired a “price on carbon”—so, no free diamonds for us—and therefore had a mandate to legislate any tax she wanted, it functioned as a lie.

    00

  • #

    Well, Loaded Dog, the music to Gillard’s lyrics, I concede, is indeed inferior to that of The Beatles, but it was non-copyright, and by me.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    In my humble opinion Lomborg’s main message is adaptation because the cost/benefit analysis of spending on AGW is worse the more is spent; that is, Lomborg believes in AGW, he just doesn’t think it will be anywhere as catastrophic as AGW warmists preach; in fact since the cost/benefit analysis is against benefit for all options of expenditure and in favour of benefit only for spending nothing on AGW, Lomborg obviously believes that AGW will generally bring benefits, rather than disaster or even, on balance, disadvantage.

    This is an overlooked aspect of the AGW debate, at least by the warmist side; namely that there advantages to AGW.

    One thing that Lomborg’s interview with Jones does not touch on, although Lomborg must be aware of it, is that it is not just the great relative financial disadvantage renewables, especially wind and solar, have compared with coal, gas and nuclear; the point about wind and solar is that they do not work at any price.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Deadman@61

    Woops,

    err, yours WAS the first one I saw and it was far more informative.

    I emailed it onto all my friends…

    00

  • #

    TLD,
    If I may have leave to be completely off-topic, my own burlesque of The Beatles’ song, “I Saw Her Standing There” is “I Saw Her Scanty Hair”, and my burlesque of “I Want to Tell You” is “I Want to Smell You”.

    00

  • #

    via Bishop Hill today:

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/3/3/the-third-world-ambition-of-the-uk.html

    This is truly a worry. Hopefully the CEO of the UK grid was just saying “if this goes on….” and it was a warning not a prediction.

    How far we are falling.

    00

  • #

    The again if the bogans can’t watch their plasma TVs they might just start looking for greenies with pitchforks, torches and lengths of rope. It’s an ill wind ….

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Yeah, “I hope you die” is of course not a death threat. Just like, “I know where you live” is not a threat. The level of heat in this debate is unhealthy (no pun intended). There have been many references to death here. One mentioned lamp posts and rope as a solution. Now I’m sure they are joking, but that doesn’t make it any better. I post under my own name, something most people seem to be averse to. I don’t want to have to live with a pseudonym, and I won’t. Like it or not, we all have to live together.

    As for the disingenuous crocodile tears for the worlds poor, that really is the pits.

    00

  • #

    Wasn’t it some bunch of greenies like Greensleaze who made the statement “we know where you live”?

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    John Brookes@67

    Perhaps you could enlighten us with an analysis on this clip?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTFS67u3QbY&feature=related

    Mike Borgelt @68. I think the above clip is the on you are referring to..

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Hmmm, I hate it when that happens. Try this one instead John.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgvnqv1-_D4

    Oh, you can still analyse the Beatles “Tax Man” clip if you like

    00

  • #
    janama

    “I hope you die”

    a wish.

    “I know where you live”

    a specific threat based on specific location.

    surly you can see the difference John?

    we maybe not – you don’t seem to see anything in context so why should this be any different.

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Percival Snodgrass posted a link that led to a story. The story contained a video. The first 35 seconds will be a real wake up for some. The rest is just blah blah blah.
    Australian Carbon Tax -Paid to the United Nations http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX5rlhbYTXY

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    The IPCC’s mantra has long been promoted on the basis that it represents the best science. But is it? Wouldn’t a wise government want a second opinion before embarking on a major punitive carbon tax policy? This is exactly what the US Congress and Senate are currently doing, by examining the peer reviewed scientific literature that was conveniently ignored by the IPCC and which supposedly didn’t exist. But exist it does, and it has been brought to our attention via two major reports:

    1. Perhaps the most thorough critical analysis of the IPCC’s report (AR4) was the 880+ page “Climate Change Reconsidered” report published in June 2009, involving many expert scientists. It refers to literally thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers that debunk the IPCC AR4 chapter by chapter. You can read it here:

    http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/NIPCC%20Final.pdf

    2. A fascinating 168 page report was published on 2 February 2011 titled “Carbon Dioxide and Earth’s Future: Pursuing the Prudent Path” by Dr Graig idso and Dr Sherwood idso. The authors look at ten of the more ominous climate computer model-based predictions, of what will occur in response to continued business-as-usual anthropogenic CO2 emissions, against real-world observations. They refer to a very impressive amount of peer reviewed scientific literature that ultimately demonstrates the climate computer model-based predictions, so much relied upon by the IPCC, to be wrong… without foundation. Rou can read it here:

    http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.php

    The real question is why the Gillard government and the greens (and all the warmists for that matter) don’t want to know about such studies? Are they too frightened to see the evidence that clearly discredits the work of the IPCC?

    00

  • #
    JPA Knowles

    I whole-heartedly agree with Jo when she wrote

    there are far bigger environmental problems than our carbon emissions

    In 1982 I purchased Dr Bob Brown’s river notes and I rafted the Franklin River and then joined the dam protest but since then my respect for the man has plummeted. Brown and his Greens have become a political machine in-which genuine conservation has taken the back seat. Patrick Moore left Greenpeace with similar misgivings about the direction of “environmentalism” in the 80s.
    When the back-lash to Green blunders hits (and perhaps it has already begun) our planet home will suffer even more neglect.

    However, I have great store in human ingenuity and reckon ‘brc’ is on the right track with the suggestion of using the Dept of Climate Change funding for technological innovations. Check out Burt Rutan’s Space Ship One project to put a man in space.
    They won a $10 million Ansari X Prize and have put space tourism on the agenda which will pave the way for a new international travel paradigm.

    If we focus attention and funding on a specific problem we will solve it. The sky shall not fall and children shall sleep peacefully in their beds and we shall become better stewards of our planet home. However, we might have to slay a few green dragons and red witches first.
    (it’s okay Brookesy. I’m not saying “Off with her head”,-one is allowed to use a figure of speech on a blog)

    00

  • #
    Tim

    For organisations that carry the huge responsability of changing the country’s economic future, the BOM and CSIRO should welcome the people that pay for their existence (ie: the ‘shareholders’), to have a review role in their recommendations to government. They should be open to a good old democratic examination of their science and a free and open debate on same. It’s just too important to be left to any ‘body’, that just might have a wee political bent.

    “Truth does not fear examination”

    00

  • #
    BobC

    mullumhillbilly: @26
    March 4th, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    Lomborg’s luke-warmism is a bit of a ploy I think to stop prejudicial labelling that would close certain minds to his actual message.

    That would explain why someone as intelligent as Lomborg doesn’t seem to be able to draw the obvious conclusion from his own work.

    I’ve always thought his take on tech advances in solar-H was the only truly sustainable energy option… all others including nuclear can only be short-term gap fillers.

    Actually, we could power civilization on thorium cycle reactors for at least 1000 years. Additionally, the thorium cycle doesn’t result in long half-life waste, or produce material that can be made into bombs.

    As to solar cells: The government money is completely distorting both the market and development cycle. I’ve been pointing out that there is a known way to make very efficient thin film solar cells now for almost 10 years. I’ve even had a proposal turned down by DARPA because it wasn’t sexy enough (i.e., didn’t use the currently fashionable technology being pushed by the government — 3D nano structures), even though the reviewers agreed it would work.

    Now (at last) a group from Stanford has re-discovered the principle. Not being optical engineers, they haven’t yet figured out that what they’re building is a Gires-Tournois cavity; Nor that this method has been used for over 40 years to enhance both absorption and emission from thin layers; Nor that this is the most promising route to the Holy Grail of solar cells — hot carrier collection, which may push efficiencies over 50%.

    Being Stanford, however, they will probably get some money to develop it, and we may see some interesting progress. I’ll do my part (for inexpensive solar cells) by torpedoing their patent application by sending the prior art to the USPTO (if they still haven’t found it).

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    BOB BROWN’S GOT ME BY THE BALLS – by julia gillard…………

    What the hell has happened to the new paradigm?
    It’s now Labor & the Greens, new partners in crime
    It’s been one of politics most bizarre spectacles
    And Bob Brown’s got a firm grip on my testicles!

    I can’t make a move without Bob’s confirmation
    Any sudden moves could lead my immediate castration
    He’s all about spending, no more budget cuts
    And he’s intensifying his vice-like grip on my nuts!

    I feel powerless even though I’m the Prime Minister
    And Bob and his Green cult appear evil and sinister
    As Bob’s clan gather around & worship him like a totem
    His knuckles turn white due to his grip on my scrotum!

    He’s played me into a position of impuissance
    And whenever he speaks I’m forced to sit down and listen
    I have to shmooze up to him & pretend that we’re besties
    But the closer I get intensifies his grip on my testes!

    I’d embraced Bob’s latest demand before I could say ‘pardon’?
    Now I’m committed to putting a price on carbon
    Any retreat now would make me look extremely foolish
    Yet another example of Bob’s grasp of my goolies!

    My colleagues realise that I’m a slave to the Greens
    And our re-election hopes are blown to smithereens
    But I’m unable to respond, I cannot take their calls
    And it’s all because Bob Brown’s got me by the balls!

    http://arthurmcarthurs.blogspot.com/2011/03/bob-browns-got-me-by-balls.html

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Mervyn Sullivan @73

    The real question is why the Gillard government and the greens (and all the warmists for that matter) don’t want to know about such studies? Are they too frightened to see the evidence that clearly discredits the work of the IPCC?

    The real answer:- Their ears are closed to blasphemy.

    That particular question was just too easy Mervyn..

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    I think Tony Windsor has been spending too much time around Gillard and the Greens.

    Shame on Windsor for telling another lie to the Australian people.

    2/3/2011: 3/4 through this interview on ABC radio Windsor claims that he has never had death threats in the past.

    http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2011/03/bst_20110302.mp3

    3/3/2011: Windsor is now claiming: “I’ve had death threats before, but not as many. So I’m on a popularity curve,” he quips.

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/dial-up-death-threats-do-not-deter-as-shock-jocks-maintain-the-coalitions-rage-20110302-1bey4.html

    The windsor myth is busted!!!!!!!!!!

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    JPA Knowles

    Funny you should say-” I am not saying off with her head”

    The last couple of weeks crystalises the whole “let them eat cake attitude”.

    I get the impression that “the peasants( sceptics ) are revolting” has a certain element of the “I agree” response amongst the Greens & their ALP Lackeys.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Speaking of churn in Oz politics, here is an article from my local paper which shows exactly what it is about:

    Mine rejected at last minute

    “Mr Kelly had gone against his own planning assessment commission in rejecting the mine.”

    The NSW ALP government has rejected an underground coal mine a few hours before going into caretaker mode. Now why would that be? Could it possibly be because NSW has an exhausting preferential system, and they are droolingly desperate for Greens inclined voters to preference the ALP, rather that just voting 1 Greens and giving the ALP the finger?

    No, how could that possibly be? Why I might lose my touching faith in the honour and honesty of ALP politicians if it were otherwise.

    At this rate there will be no one in NSW working on anything productive and we will all work for the public service or be on the dole by the time the Earth melts down due to climate chaos in 2050.

    Sorry for the rant, I’m angry.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Humbug “So instead of inciting Brian G and Cohenite, why don’t you tell us what it is about Lomborgs proposal you don’t like?”

    my criticism is essentially (1) that a $7 per tonne tax invested on techno-solar R&D will get us nowhere. (2) that we could not provide all our energy needs based on 1950s renewable energy technology.

    My dear bulldust, you think I could do you the service of re-reading the Lomborg interview… maybe you could do the same for my post at #30 as you’d have to be a moron to conclude what you have concluded. I’ve not made it sound like anything.

    And just to quote Cohers in #62 for your benefit “the point about wind and solar is that they do not work at any price.” and certainly not using 1950s tech.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    COhenite #62 “In my humble opinion Lomborg’s main message is adaptation because the cost/benefit analysis of spending on AGW is worse the more is spent; that is, Lomborg believes in AGW, he just doesn’t think it will be anywhere as catastrophic as AGW warmists preach; in fact since the cost/benefit analysis is against benefit for all options of expenditure and in favour of benefit only for spending nothing on AGW, Lomborg obviously believes that AGW will generally bring benefits, rather than disaster or even, on balance, disadvantage.”

    I think this his old position, certainly now he seems to be advocating that action is required but all that is needed is a $7 per tonne CO2 R&D fund. TO my reading his argument is no longer “do nothing as AGW will not be that bad and it will cost us more to do something than the benefits deliver”.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    John Brookes prevaricates:

    The level of heat in this debate is unhealthy (no pun intended). There have been many references to death here. One mentioned lamp posts and rope as a solution. Now I’m sure they are joking, but that doesn’t make it any better.

    Johnny, ol’boy, you’re the one intent on lowering the debate to the lowest common denominator. I asked you on March 2, (comment 110) this honest question:

    Why don’t you explain to everyone how you can believe that temps are going to soar to catastrophic levels given that the CO2 logarithmic effect has already reached its plateau?

    Read this and get back to us. Honestly, I’d love to know what makes blokes like you tick:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

    Well, honestly, you never bothered to reply that request. Are we to assume you have no answer to the problem the CO2 logarithmic effect presents to the CAGW theory? If not, then how do you justify the CAGW theory?

    It’s disingenuous to wring your hands worrying about the how unhealthy the debate is, when you yourself fail to engage in honest debate.

    As for the allusions to violence that have from time to time slipped into the climate debate. Are you really sure you want us to list the examples of CAGW thuggery, you know, to compare which side of the debate relies more heavily on demagoguery?

    People who believe that humanity is heading towards destruction as a consequence of its misdeeds often take quiet pleasure in imagining the bloodshed to come. That, at least, is my explanation for Richard Curtis’s decision to make a short film for the 10:10 pressure group of climate change fanatics in which he depicted – with huge relish – children being blown to pieces. It’s important to grasp the quasi-religious nature of the 10:10 pressure group. Irrespective of where you stand on AGW, it’s clear that its pernickety commandments, most of them involving energy-saving lightbulbs, won’t make any difference to the fate of the planet. But they do have a sacred significance, as do the deaths in the Curtis snuff movie. There’s nothing like the prospect of the ritual slaughter of children to excite prophecy believers, in my experience.

    –Damian Thompson, The Daily Telegraph, 4 October 2010

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100056928/richard-curtis-and-the-ritual-slaughter-of-children-welcome-to-the-bloodlust-of-the-apocalyptic-imagination/

    So Johnny, help lift the debate and explain what this graph really means to the CAGW faith.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Well ladies, I get several thumbs down for very non-controversial posts and only a few thumbs up for pretty sane philosophical posts. I think I’ll let John Brookes win.

    Jo is gone on vacation. I’m gone on a bender.

    G’day mates I hope the right side wins in all this shit

    00

  • #
    Huub Bakker

    Mervyn Sullivan @73

    The real question is why the Gillard government and the greens (and all the warmists for that matter) don’t want to know about such studies? Are they too frightened to see the evidence that clearly discredits the work of the IPCC?

    I too wonder about this. I find that when I talk to a roomful of open-minded people about global warming they are relieved to find that their suspicions are confirmed and that they don’t have to feel threatened and guilty about the future.

    00

  • #
    mc

    john brooks@ 67

    As for the disingenuous crocodile tears for the worlds poor, that really is the pits.

    As for the disingenuous crocodile tears for the world’s natural environment, that really is the pits.

    Pretty insulting being on the receiving end of such an obnoxious, repellant and completely presumptuous attribution hey john?

    00

  • #
    mc

    PS, how do you work this god dammed b-quote deal?

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    facebook group “REVOLT AGAINST THE CARBON TAX AUSTRALIA” has suddenly disappeared today!!!!!

    I WONDER WHETHER THE COMMUNISTS HAVE TAKEN THIS DOWN to try and stop the marches against them????

    WHAT DO OTHER PEOPLE THINK?????????

    SO MUCH FOR DEMOCRACY !!!!!!!!!!!

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Perc:

    For Christ’s sake spend a few dollars on a new keyboard. How many times do you need to be told that using caps as liberally as you do is the face-to-face equivalent of shouting at people.

    You will increasingly be seen as a beery, boorish bogan.

    00

  • #

    mc (88),

    PS, how do you work this god dammed [sic] b-quote deal?

    1. copy your desired quote;
    2. paste that quote in the comment area (adding when necessary a correction or a sic in brackets);
    3. select that quote; and then
    4. click “b-quote”.

    00

  • #
    mc

    Deadman @ 91.

    1. copy your desired quote;
    2. paste that quote in the comment area (adding when necessary a correction or a sic in brackets);
    3. select that quote; and then
    4. click “b-quote”.

    Many thanks Deadman, allways in too much of a hurry to look for the door handle,i either rush the door and knock it down or knock myself out, never enough time to spend on the things that really matter like exposing this travesty of a tax for the destructive and regressive blight that it is. Cheers.

    00

  • #

    MattB:#82
    March 5th, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    fair nuff bout the $7 tax. Who knows what can/cannot be developed at any price.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    wes george@84:

    You’d better email the IPCC and explain the logarithmic thing with CO2. They obviously don’t understand it at all. But wait! Why do they keep talking about “doubling CO2″ if they don’t recognise its logarithmic properties? Surely if they don’t realise its logarithmic, they should be saying, “An increase of x ppm in CO2 will lead to a temperature increase of y degrees”. Oh, they really do understand its logarithmic, and have done for a long time!

    Why do “skeptics” keep thinking that such an obvious thing has been overlooked? Maybe the skeptics themselves find the logarithmic thingy a bit surprising, and so they think everyone else does too?

    It is always a bit funny that on the one hand skeptics come out with the 390ppm is so small an amount that it can’t do anything, but on the other hand point to the logarithmic thingy and say, “the effect is saturated”.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Hey John: Ever get around to checking my math on what CO2 lifetimes and reservoir sizes imply for Human control of CO2 concentrations?

    You’re getting kind of unfocused.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Ahh BobC.

    I’ve been out, and had a bit to drink, so I can’t be bothered checking your maths. However, I’ll bet that you’ve underestimated the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for which we are responsible, and also underestimated the time it takes to leave the atmosphere. The sad thing is that it appears we have a long period of high CO2 and warming factored in, whatever we do now.

    At least we have human ingenuity on our side – hopefully enough to get us through whatever comes (or to enjoy whatever comes, if you have Jo’s Panglossian view of the world).

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes:
    March 6th, 2011 at 1:23 am

    Ahh BobC.

    I’ve been out, and had a bit to drink, so I can’t be bothered checking your maths.

    Hey! Sometimes that’s when math makes the most sense.

    However, I’ll bet that you’ve underestimated the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for which we are responsible, and also underestimated the time it takes to leave the atmosphere.

    I didn’t estimate the time it takes CO2 to leave the atmosphere — I simply used the values calculated by the 36 peer-reviewed studies of same (see here: Summary of results in Table 2, references at end of paper). Given the CO2 lifetime values, the calculation of Anthropogenic CO2 is straight forward.

    (For a nice graphic of CO2 lifetime, see the C14 bomb spike graph — a nearly textbook tracer experiment, due to the sudden cessation of atmospheric nuclear testing in 1963.)

    FYI: No measurement of CO2 atmospheric lifetime has found a value greater than 12.5 years. The only “evidence” of long lifetimes (100s to 1000s of years) comes from models, which are falsified by the measurements.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes:
    March 6th, 2011 at 1:23 am

    The sad thing is that it appears we have a long period of high CO2 and warming factored in, whatever we do now.

    So, whatever happened to the warming?

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    John Brookes #94

    John, you are right that the IPCC knows what logarithmic response is, but the IPCC’s problem is they keep contaminating their CO2 sensitivity with unquantified solar influence which they mistake for sensitivity. This is because they measure sensitivity by difference using models, and only use TSI for their solar input. This is like saying the cost of a car is the list price to the car yard. There’s markup and off road costs on top that the IPCC misses if they try to measure CO2 sensitivity this way. The combined effect of the solar variance is much larger than just TSI.

    The way you fix this is forget about the wholesale price and just go buy a car. Then you know the price. This is what the experimental measurement studies have done. They directly measure CO2 sensitivity without trying to quantify or explain where all the solar influences are coming from (eg UV, cosmic ray seeding of clouds etc). What have these found? Well the newest found a sensitivity of 0.45 C. Last year Spencer & Braswell found 0.6 C, year before Lindzen and Choi found 0.5 C. So its looking like 0.4-0.6 C is about right, and as the WUWT post says, this is 1/7th of the IPCC value.

    A CO2 sensitivity of 0.6 C, logarithmically, only can cause 2 C of warming by an increase in CO2 concentration of 10 times! This is not going to happen. There is not enough usable fossil fuel on the planet to burn and put that much into the atmosphere.

    So why the tax then, when CO2 has a very small effect? It is foolish, unjustified, dishonest, and will be the demise of the ALP if they keep on with this push in the face of honest scientific data.

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    Tony Windsor is a HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!!

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/sacrifices_are_for_others

    Tony Windsor says he wants something done about global warming:

    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2984730.htm

    “My personal view is the precautionary principle… If the climate scientists are wrong and we do something we’ve wasted a bit of money.”

    Well, not “we” exactly:

    CHANGES made to the Federal Parliament’s Register of Members’ Interests reveal the member for New England Tony Windsor has sold his property Cintra to Werris Creek Coal Pty Limited (http://www.northerndailyleader.com.au/news/local/news/general/mp-sold-property-to-werris-creek-coal-mine/1887741.aspx) and then leased the property back.

    The federal MP, who has conducted a long-running and highly vocal campaign against coal mining on the Liverpool Plains, sold the family farm for more than $4.6 million – to one of Australia’s largest coal companies.

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    Another Green Con, feel sorry for ppl who bought rainwater tanks.
    Flannery was the best thing to ever happen to rainwater tanks.

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/rainwater-tanks-fail-to-save-queensland-residents-from-rising-fixed-water-charges/story-e6freoof-1226016358245

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Percival Snodgrass: @101

    feel sorry for ppl who bought rainwater tanks.

    Don’t feel sorry for me yet Perc, I am doing quite well with mine at present. I’m in QLD and with all the rain we’ve had I’ve saved heaps.

    Having said that I got a 20k litre tank(not a pathetic little one) and plumbed it into the whole house with a bore valve back to mains if it runs low. I can get a month to 5 weeks out of it with no rain at all. I only use the mains in the yard.

    I live in a semi rural area so can drink the water and use it in the house. Can’t beat rainwater. I was bought up on it and it tastes GREAT.

    Just remember rainwater tanks have been around for years and years – well before our green friends were even heard of. I was thinking of getting one before all the alarmist hoo haa anyway.

    There are only two things I’m a bit wary of and one is that the government knows I have a tank and it’s just a “flick of a pen” for them to tax the water in my tank.

    The other is if the price of power goes up enough it will increase the cost to pump the water out of the tank and may end up no longer being cost effective.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    So Johnny @ 94…claims he understands the logarithmic effect of CO2, which as the article (link below) shows means that all the warming CO2 can virtually cause has already occurred last century. There is no significant further CO2 warming effect left!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

    Hey, a fact is a fact. The science is settled on this. We have a consensus. The debate is over.

    Johnny admits he’s totally fine with this fact of nature. But facts don’t matter says Johnny— we’re still heading for catastrophic warming in the next 20 to 60 years??? But he is coy about explaining the magic mystery warming formula any further. Must be top secret info for IPCC approved ears only.

    Hello? Ground Control to Major John…That’s just bonkers…

    Don’t squirm. Just answer the question, please…

    Johnny explain to us why you imagine that Catastrophic AGW is still gonna happen even if all the warming that CO2 can cause is already in the system.

    If you can?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Wes if you think “all the warming CO2 can virtually cause has already occurred last century” then I’m afraid it is you who does not understand logarithmic scales.

    I’ll give you the hot tip, scientists that you hate understand logarithmic scales. In fact if any individual doesn’t understand logarithmic scales I suggest they repeat year 10, or maybe year 8/9, maths.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    So MattB (@104) — don’t be shy! Give us your analysis and critique of the graphs wes linked. What is it, exactly, that you think wes doesn’t understand, and what is wrong about the graphs?

    Or, are we just supposed to take your word for it?

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    “BobC” (105),
    First you would have to explain to “MattB” what the words “analysis “critique” actually meant.
    Maybe “MattB” can ask his mummy……..

    00

  • #
    MattB

    BobC – do you mean other than very low carbon sensitivity per doubling? But anyway that is a side issue. There is a certain result per doubling of CO2 concentrations, so regardless of how much impact the earlier doublings have (which my the nature of the relationship there is the same impact going from 20-40ppm as from 400-800ppm), therefore any attempt to point at the large impact of say going from 0-300 and therefore say “all the warming has happened) is either ignorant, or maliciously so.

    But of course John B has already explained this, at length, in this thread, so I’ll at least give you the credit of being malicious.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Percy – you are a buffoon of the highest order.

    That is all.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    So MattB: Quit talking through your hat and tell us what’s wrong with this graph

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I have no problems with that graph.

    What problem do you have with a doubling of CO2 having a certain impact regardless of what happened in the past? as per Wes #103.

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    “buffoon” MattB ???

    (SNIPPED the rest of the snotty comment) CTS

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    NASA CLIMATE MODELS ARE RUBBISH – New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64°C warming

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/

    C3: NASA Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Low Sensitivity To CO2 Doubling: The UN’s IPCC Global Warming Science Is Imploding

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/12/nasa-peer-reviewed-study-finds-low-sensitivity-to-co2-doubling-the-uns-ipcc-global-warming-science-i.html

    00

  • #
    MattB

    (SNIP) CTS

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hey BobC: Anyway that graph has an x axis and a y axis, and correctly plots an equation. Where does tha equation come from… it just occurred to me you were asking what is my problem with the equation, not the graph.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB: (@110)
    March 8th, 2011 at 11:36 am

    What problem do you have with a doubling of CO2 having a certain impact regardless of what happened in the past? as per Wes #103.

    I have no problem whatever.

    You say:

    I have no problems with that graph.

    Fine. Then, presumably, you will have no problems with the following analysis:

    1) The graph (and associated equation) show that a doubling of CO2 will result in an increase in radiative forcing of 2.94 W/m^2.

    2) The record of atmospheric CO2 over the last 50 years shows CO2 concentrations increasing at a steady 0.5%/year — which results in a doubling in 140 years.

    3) NOAA’s estimate of total greenhouse forcing is 150 W/m^2 producing a warming of 35C, or 0.2333 degC/W/m^2.

    Hence (according to the above uncontroversial and universally accepted data), in 140 years we can expect to see a forcing increase (due to CO2) of ~3 W/m^2, which will result in an estimated warming of 0.7 deg C.

    So … explain to me what the problem is.

    (See if you can come up with something slightly more specific than “Scientists say there’s a problem!” —
    Here’s a hint: The “Problem” is entirely due to the predictions of models that have yet to show any . predictive . skill whatever.)

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Ah ok so you are ruling out any positive feedbacks yeah? And warming from increased levels of other gases? And any almost certain growth in emissions under BAU global economic development scenarios? even if we ignore the graph equation’s origin (Which I am certain is likely to downplay the issue by using low sensitivity).

    I thought we were generally agreed on 3K per doubling?

    Great – GHG problem solved by ignoring actual planet’s behaviour and all other gasses.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB:
    March 8th, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    even if we ignore the graph equation’s origin (Which I am certain is likely to downplay the issue by using low sensitivity).

    The graph was calculated by MODTRAN (MODerate resolution atmospheric TRANsmission), which is “…a computer program designed to model atmospheric propagation of electromagnetic radiation”, used by the US Air Force. Wikipedia gives an equation (from a paper referenced by the IPCC) which suggests a forcing increase of 3.7 W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2. This would increase the 0.7 deg C value to 0.86 deg C — not a very significant difference for a 140 year rise.

    Great – GHG problem solved by ignoring actual planet’s behaviour and all other gasses.

    It’s the computer models that ignore the planet’s actual behavior — but sure, let’s look at the actual planet’s behavior, as shown by empirical measurements:

    1) Surface temperature response to increased forcing is seen to be ~0.1 deg C/W/m^2. (This is by actual measurements, not running computer models with large feedbacks assumed.)

    2) Albedo changes over the last 25 years have caused forcing changes of more than 7 W/m^2 — over twice the highest estimates for doubling CO2, and 3 times the forcing change due to GHG since 1900. Temperature correlation with these forcing changes imply a very low climate sensitivity, perhaps less than 0.5 deg C.

    3) The temperatures over the last 30 years have dramatically refused to conform to the IPCC predictions.

    4) Actual measurements of CO2 atmospheric lifetime consistently (over 36 peer-reviewed studies) gives values of ~5 years — insufficient for any significant Anthropogenic contribution. Long lifetimes are entirely the product of unverified models — indeed, falsified by the measurements, which have never been shown to be in error (or even challenged in the literature).

    This is getting really boring, MattB: I’ve linked papers and data, while you reply by blowing smoke. Try to think up a real response, rather than just whinging, why don’t you? (Note: To respond rationally to a paper or argument, you first have to read it and understand it.)

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bob, if we are talking that specific Wikipedia page…
    “Radiative forcing can be used to estimate a subsequent change in equilibrium surface temperature (ΔTs) arising from that radiative forcing via the equation:

    where λ is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in K/(W/m2), and ΔF is the radiative forcing [5]. A typical value of λ is 0.8 K/(W/m2), which gives a warming of 3K for doubling of CO2.”

    So I’m glad we agree on that.

    Can you show me where on that Wiki page the equation is given?

    Anyway while I’m checking your links you may like to check out this baby

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Holy moley Bob WOW, I mean WOW, you are clinging to those CO2 lifetime studies at about 5 years! what a misrepresentation!

    “The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is often incorrectly stated to be only a few years because that is the average time for any CO2 molecule to stay in the atmosphere before being removed by mixing into the ocean, photosynthesis, or other processes. However, this ignores the balancing fluxes of CO2 into the atmosphere from the other reservoirs. ”

    p.s. thanks for pointing me to Wikipedia!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    But of course you been told all this time and time again.

    00

  • #
    Graham Richards

    You nit pickers arguing about graphs are exactly what the green & labor parties love. You can’t see the wood for the trees.
    While you’re bickering about graphs, trivia and trying to be one up on the next guy, they are getting on with the job of selling their lies. There is so much money at stake they will throw up any diversion to distract the people and you ‘nitpickers’ fall for it every time. They love you for it!!
    Gillard & co know CO2 is a scam! They are intelligent people, believe it or not. But the opportunity, to impose a tax of this magnitude and potential, to further their socialist ideology is irresistible. The Fabian Socialists have long awaited the opportunity to tax ” air”. Think about it!! Every government pushing the CO2 crock of ‘stuff’is a left wing socialist government.

    If you are looking for an argument to take to them read the following web page from Reuters:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6791WI20100812

    The Chicago Climate Exchange, the largest carbon credit trader in the world went out of business recently. WHY??
    Because the free market price of carbon credits sank to US$0.10,
    YES 10 CENTS PER TONNE. Why is the media and the rest of Australia not asking the minister for” keeping the climate the same”" why they want a price around $25.00 per tonne. Why has the public not been informed???
    And you guys argue about trivia!! No wonder they love you.
    Go do some serious research!!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Graham – the carbon exchange price has collapsed as it is a voluntary novelty with an oversupply of carbon for the needs of those involved. Please, have your reasons for opposing a carbon tax but the chicago exchange is irrelevant. An argument about the science is far more worthy than believing every piece of anti-GHG-pricing propaganda and swallowing it like gospel.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB:
    March 8th, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    Holy moley Bob WOW, I mean WOW, you are clinging to those CO2 lifetime studies at about 5 years! what a misrepresentation!

    “The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is often incorrectly stated to be only a few years because that is the average time for any CO2 molecule to stay in the atmosphere before being removed by mixing into the ocean, photosynthesis, or other processes. However, this ignores the balancing fluxes of CO2 into the atmosphere from the other reservoirs. ”

    The statement you quote above is a misdirection designed to allow people who are ignorant of equilibrium mechanics (you obviously qualify) to continue believing what they are told. It does not hold up to even a simple analysis, however:

    However, this ignores the balancing fluxes of CO2 into the atmosphere from the other reservoirs.

    So, let’s look at what the “balancing fluxes” actually DO:

    For simplicity, let’s consider just the atmosphere and oceans — the analysis doesn’t change much when you include the other, smaller CO2 reservoirs. (An exception is the periodic yearly exchange with vegetation. This exchange cancels out over each year, except for any increase or decrease in total Earth vegetation.)

    1) Beer’s law tells us that the flow out of each reservoir is proportional to the concentration in that reservoir. That is, the flux from the atmosphere to the ocean is proportional to the concentration in the atmosphere and the flux from the ocean into the atmosphere is proportional to the concentration in the ocean. At equilibrium, the concentrations and fluxes are equal, and there is no net flow, even though the actual fluxes may be quite large (~100 Gt/yr, I recall).

    2) When you inject CO2 into the atmosphere, the atmospheric concentration increases and hence the flow out of the atmosphere increases. The equilibrium has been disturbed and there is now a net flow out of the atmosphere into the ocean. As the concentration in the atmosphere decreases and the ocean increases the net flow decreases exponentially with a measured time constant of ~ 5 years.

    3) This net flow continues until the concentrations are again equal. Since the ocean’s CO2 capacity is ~50 times the atmosphere’s (as even the IPCC admits) the concentrations equalize when ~98% of the CO2 has gone into the oceans and 2% is left in the atmosphere.

    So, when we take into account the “balancing fluxes of CO2 into the atmosphere from the other reservoirs” (AND the fairly well-known differences in reservoir sizes) we come to the startling conclusion that 2% of Anthropogenic CO2 remains in the atmosphere for an extended time! (This can be seen in the C14 bomb spike data, here. While the reservoir sizes are not known exactly, the current C14 data limits residual CO2 to < 3%.) At this rate, the Human race might be able to double CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in ~ 3-4,000 years (if we don't run out of carbon fuel first).

    As you put it: oh WOW oh WOW!

    Even if you were completely ignorant of equilibrium reactions, you should have been able to spot the inane contradiction of the statement:

    “The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is often incorrectly stated to be only a few years because that is the average time for any CO2 molecule to stay in the atmosphere”

    since the “atmospheric lifetime” is defined as “the average time to stay in the atmosphere”.

    Why is it, MattB, that you are willing to swallow whole a statement that is, on its face, complete nonsense; yet you are unable to construct a logical argument?

    (Wait — maybe I just answered my question.)

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Graham Richards:

    I agree with you that CAGW is obviously a political power grab, and that is the biggest threat. However, one way to make that evident is to demonstrate that the “scientific” arguments being used to support the political agenda are bogus.

    As Jo has said: “Not everyone understands the science, but most people understand cheating.”

    (Naturally there are a few people, like MattB, who understand neither. However, logical deconstruction of his comments may convince other readers who don’t participate in the conversation.)

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Matt B @ 122

    the carbon exchange price has collapsed as it is a voluntary novelty with an oversupply of carbon for the needs of those involved. Please, have your reasons for opposing a carbon tax but the chicago exchange is irrelevant

    .

    The closure of the voluntary Chicago Carbon Exchange is significant because it represents the often prescient movement of supply and demand in the free market. It’s not direct evidence against CAGW.

    However, it is direct evidence that millions global investors representing trillions of dollars have judged that to buy CO2 even at 1 cent a ton is not going to result in any profit some years or even decades later! In other words, the investors of planet Earth have ZERO confidence that the CAGW myth is real…but they could be terribly mistaken.

    Here’s some free investment advice:

    If MattB is so certain that the world’s investors are wrong about the significance of CAGW, then he should mortgage his house and buy carbon credit futures on the voluntary EU carbon exchange (whose prices are supported thus far by mandatory state participation.)

    Could be a quick way to become a Green millionaire! Whaddaya say, Matt? ;-)

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Tell you what BobC how about you step up to the plate and take your flimsy arguments to science blogs rather than hide in the skeptic blogs where you can revel in the cheers from the unwashed. You can argue with me about equilibrium as you choose to misrepresent it, or maybe you could publish something worthy of anything but derision.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Wes – alas I am one who has extreme confidence in our ability to switch to a low carbon future, and have no expectations that the price of carbon will go up at all. It is naturally capped by the price of the alternatives. In fact as an advocate of nuclear power I expect it to crash at some stage. There could be some money to be made in short term market plays but I’m not a stockbroker.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    So Bob when you say this “At this rate, the Human race might be able to double CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in ~ 3-4,000 years (if we don’t run out of carbon fuel first).”

    Are you suggesting that the following is false:
    “In fact, the current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 387 ppm (Tans 2010), having increased steadily from a pre-industrial level between 1000 and 1750 AD of 275 to 285 ppm (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007a). When other compounds such as methane are also taken into account, the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is estimated to be about 435 ppm of carbon-dioxide-equivalent, and increasing at a rate of about 1.5 ppm each year (Bowen and Ranger 2009). There is little dispute within the scientific literature that human activities have been the main cause of the increase of more than 100 ppm in the concentration of carbon dioxide since industrialisation (i.e. almost ten times the rise claimed by Hieb (2003)). The IPCC (2007a) concluded:

    “The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the preindustrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution”. (Deltoid). From the thread “Bob Carter has probably published the worst paper on climate change ever.”

    00

  • #
    MattB

    And here is another good demonstration of your absurdly low residence time: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

    I do hope you read it.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    God god MattB from Skeptical Science?!??

    Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

    You know that colder water is exponentially more able to absorb Co2 right?

    Top of the ocean is “getting full” …….Yeh right prove that would you? or even cite proof of that. Or EVEN Guess out loud how that would happen?

    Dumbass

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Oops that was supposed to be block quote not BOLD

    00

  • #
    MattB

    You better let the IPCC know they got it all wrong Mark D.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Sorry MattB first you have to prove that the IPCC even backs up the reference that Climate bastardsScience links to. I could not find it from their link.

    Further, you must agree that Co2 is heavier than air right? And why is the gas evenly dispersed in the atmosphere?

    The same laws apply to solutions slightly more dense. Prove me wrong

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Oh and MattB also while you are at it, explain what will happen to an evenly mixed Co2 atmosphere do when it contacts 33 degree (F) water as it would be found at newly exposed polar waters?

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Oh yes and point out in the IPCC documents, peer reviewed or otherwise what happens to that freshly Co2 “indoctrinated” 33 degree water as it descends and from there moves onto the deep abyss…….

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Mark D – to paraphrase BobC can youuse a mouse… sceptical science links to the IPCC 2.10.2
    Table 2.14, lists CO2 warming potential as 1 for timescales out to 500 years.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Mark is there a point to 134-135?

    00

  • #
  • #
    MattB

    Hey also you guys should let Jo know about this supposedly short lifetime of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere as she should probably put it in the sceptics handbook!

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    MattB, you weary me.

    The link I clicked on in the exact paragraph I quote from within the SS site brings you here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10.html

    Sorry Strike Out. No answer to my questions.

    @ March 9th, 2011 at 2:39 pm edit

    Mark is there a point to 134-135?

    Do you think this is an answer to my questions? My point will be self evident to all the other readers.

    Matt you might be a bit rusty or you might think that evasion is an effective debate tactic. Strike out again

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I weary you??? Hint – Ch2 s2-10 has more than one page. navigate using the little arrows toppish right.

    I’ll make it easier for you: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html but I feel that the original link was intending you to read and learn from the WHOLE CHAPTER!

    Funny – I’d have thought you were familiar with, or would have at least read (skimmed) once, the IPCC reports.

    1) you must agree that Co2 is heavier than air right?
    A1) yes a molecule of CO2 is heavier than the average molecule in air.

    2) And why is the gas evenly dispersed in the atmosphere?
    A2) Because that is how gases work.

    3) evenly mixed Co2 atmosphere do when it contacts 33 degree (F) water as it would be found at newly exposed polar waters?
    A3) You’ll have to clarify sorry, you say newly exposed, but then in Q4 you claim that water then descends to the abyss… so it it newly exposed as in has risen from the abyss, or newly exposed as in was under ice and now isn’t. We’d have a pretty average ocean circulation if the stuff just popped up from the abyss then went back down again.

    A3) I’ll assume you meant popped up from the abyss…. well it will come to equilibrium over time with the atmosphere it is in contact with.

    A4) More of the same.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Yes I read all the far side stuff Matt NOT…Let me help you stay with me: at 130 I excerpted from your “skeptical science link” as follows:

    Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

    Did the IPCC say this:…

    the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full”

    Did the IPCC say getting full?

    So Co2 gas will or will not mix well in a liquid? (obeying the same laws as in the atmosphere)

    With regard to the “newly exposed” ocean yes I mean that which is no longer covered by ice and that which is in contact with the atmosphere and at a temperature cold enough to be extremely easily absorbed as opposed to being caught in a bottleneck as suggested by your link.

    As I asked: be kind enough to: prove that would you? or even cite proof of that. Or EVEN Guess out loud how that would happen?

    The IPCC isn’t outright proof is it? Maybe you have some actual science to back that “bottleneck” theory?

    Yes I’m being redundant but that is because you are being coy AND thick.

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    “MattB”,
    Please share the level of YOUR Scientific Qualifications with us all her.
    We are all dying to know how YOU got to be so DUMB!

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    “MattB”,
    How much are YOU being paid by the ALP(australian LIERS party) and the greens (REDS) to be their STOOGE here on this blog?

    Do YOU get paid extra for weekends or public holidays???

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Percy I have Bachelor degrees in Physics and Environmental Engineering. But I don’t claim to be a rocket scientist, but you did ask. The ALP or the Greens pay me nothing. What do the Tea Party pay you?

    Mark the Bottleneck is that the oceans do NOT act like the atmosphere, in that there are different sections of ocean with quite different characteristics between which there is very little mixing. I understand “getting full” to mean that the higher CO2 in the atmosphere comes to an equilibrium with the water it is in contact with, but that is not distributed to the rest of the ocean over a similar timescale, the oceans just don’t mix like that.

    Here’s a handy site: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Mi-Oc/Ocean-Currents.html
    and an example paragraph
    “Role of Water Masses.
    All these water masses help to transfer oxygen from the atmosphere into the deep ocean. The sinking water is very cold and contains high concentrations of dissolved oxygen acquired at the surface, because cold water can hold more oxygen than warm water. During their flow, they mix with “older” water that has been away from the surface for a longer time, thus ensuring that the bottom waters of the ocean are supplied with oxygen. Additional oxygen is supplied in the southern hemisphere by Antarctic Intermediate Water, formed in a band near 50° S to 55° S latitude. In this region, water does not freeze in winter, but it does cool forming a lowsalinity layer that sinks to about 1,000 meters (0.6 mile) depth and moves north in all three oceans.”

    Ocean circulation is not fast, so for example there are different ereas with far different oxygen concentrations (compared with the relatively homogenous atmosphere). Here’s a lilnk to a course at Columbia: http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_circ.html

    So that is the bottleneck, in that it takes a long time for the water that was at the surface getting more CO2 to circulate and mix.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Actually that’s a Honours degree in Env Eng.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    All these water masses help to transfer oxygen from the atmosphere into the deep ocean. The sinking water is very cold and contains high concentrations of dissolved oxygen acquired at the surface, because cold water can hold more oxygen than warm water. During their flow, they mix with “older” water that has been away from the surface for a longer time, thus ensuring that the bottom waters of the ocean are supplied with oxygen. Additional oxygen is supplied in the southern hemisphere by Antarctic Intermediate Water, formed in a band near 50° S to 55° S latitude. In this region, water does not freeze in winter, but it does cool forming a lowsalinity layer that sinks to about 1,000 meters (0.6 mile) depth and moves north in all three oceans.

    You are claiming that these “colder waters that contain high concentrations of oxygen” contain little dissolved Co2?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    A quick google brought me to this what looks like a 1st year University Level text: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=srUHU4SrCT4C&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=CO2+mixing+ocean&source=bl&ots=PPqQjmvW1T&sig=bUIxPoIq_OoJdcP39Ok96KA6XLI&hl=en&ei=jS53TaqUMYOIvgOe3uzFBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=CO2%20mixing%20ocean&f=false

    One thing it reminded me (por that I’d not really paid attention to before) (Fig 6.16) is that the CO2 concentrations at depth are much higher than they are at the surface, where photosynthesis takes place. So it is a bit of a misnomer to suggest that the newly aquired CO2 will be carried to depth, as depth already stores a huge amount of CO2.

    Fig 6.16 clearly demonstrates, however, that mixing in the ocean is NOT like in the atmosphere

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Mark in 147 – look at Fig 6.16 in the google book. And again the point is that this ocean mixing is on a long timescale…

    I do apologise, the bits I’m referring to are from around P132. Where there is a quote “The oceans mixing time is though to be in order of 1600 years” (the book syas this is short – I guess it is to the planet).

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Checkmate, Mate. Your own fig 6.16 shows my point exactly and you are full of dung. That Co2 got there FROM the surface AND without benefit of any “bottleneck”. (or you could take the position that the deep Co2 came from volcanic activity but then what will you claim)

    A whopping 42 ml/L at the surface compared to 51 ml/L That is very UN MIXED you say!…Most likely from biota consuming the Co2 AND cold water being able to redily absorb Co2. JUST THE REVERSE OF YOUR “Bottleneck”!!!!

    Now go back to Skeptical Science and announce that they are wrong. Then re-review The IPCC documents and decide if they too are WRONG.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Mark D in 150 – please, whatever tail you are chasing here, forget it, it is a non issue. Maybe go and do a degree that includes some basic ocean science or something? Or maybe read a book.

    Anyway – to follow your logic, you are telling me that water with a low CO2 concentration heads to the deep ocean, and against the laws of physics gives CO2 to the deep ocean against the gradient, and then heads up again for more like some sort of hibernating squirrel?

    Summary – because of the slow ocean circulation, it takes a long time for increased CO2 in the atmosphere to mix well with the ocean.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Non Issue?

    You bring it up at 129 so it is your “non issue”

    I correct you through a long and apparently continuing process. You exhibit a profound inability to follow me AFTER I prove you wrong with YOUR “evidence”.

    If I didn’t know you, I’d say you were a leftist troll…..

    For clarity, I TOTALLY disagree with the notion of long lag times for dissolved Co2 gas in the cold ocean waters. That notion goes against well understood gas laws and defies the physical properties of seawater. It isn’t a “non issue” it is one of many obvious errors in the IPCC assumptions as well as your favorite Skeptical Science.

    Wake up Matt I have a small bit of hope for you.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Are you smoking crack?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “That notion goes against well understood gas laws and defies the physical properties of seawater.”

    No it doesn’t. If you can show it does you’ll get published in esteemed scientific literature.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Crack? seriously?

    You have seriously lowered yourself. I’m surprised and disappointed…….

    If anyone knows MattB would you please call him and tell him that some idiot has stolen his computer and he left it still logged in at Jo Nova……….

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I’m just looking for something that would explain your stance here.

    FACT: CO2 levels have risen.
    FACT: If CO2 had a 5 year life in the atmosphere post emissions, then CO2 levels in the atmosphere would be much lower.

    Just how are the CO2 levels in the atmosphere increasing if you are correct about the oceans?

    You can argue if CO2 causes any warming, it is a totally different argument, but lets not ignore the fact that it is there, we put it there, and we kinda know how the carbon cycle works.

    You could easily falsify the established science, simply by measuring CO2 levels and showing that they are 100ppm lower than they actually are.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    MattB @156

    I’m just looking for something that would explain your stance here.
    FACT: CO2 levels have risen.

    I don’t dispute that.

    FACT: If CO2 had a 5 year life in the atmosphere post emissions, then CO2 levels in the atmosphere would be much lower.

    Not a “fact”, you’d have to claim complete understanding of all Co2 volumes in and out. I suggest; WE DON’T have a complete understanding.

    Just how are the CO2 levels in the atmosphere increasing if you are correct about the oceans?

    That is a good question. Is it possible there is something else going on?

    You can argue if CO2 causes any warming, it is a totally different argument, but lets not ignore the fact that it is there, we put it there, and we kinda know how the carbon cycle works.

    Right now I’m not arguing one way or the other about Co2 and warming. I am arguing that you don’t (can’t) know we put it there.

    let me elaborate my “stance”:

    I contend that your post at 129, including the Skeptical Science link;

    “Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10). “

    suggests that there is a “bottleneck” (their word not mine) that somehow slows or prevents the ocean from absorbing or re-absorbing Co2, is wrong. There is no such “bottleneck” and therefore the “guess” that Co2 “turns over” in 500-1000 years is not reasonable but instead ridiculous. The S.S. post also suggests that the IPCC also says that but the link shown does not seem to clearly point to that. I asked you to provide proof of the “bottleneck” phenomenon.

    My stance also includes the simple true observation that Co2 is readily absorbed (dissolved if you prefer) from the atmosphere and particularly at cold water temperatures such as what you find nearer the poles. This freshly absorbed Co2 will circulate as quickly as the oceans waters move, even to depths without, any mysterious “delay” and that if we have less ice then more surface waters at colder temperatures would suggest that more Co2 will be absorbed than when the water is covered with ice.

    My stance doesn’t deny that Co2 levels are rising. It does argues that you, Skeptical Science and the IPCC (impugned by S.S.) apparently misunderstand how easily Co2 moves in and probably out of the oceans or at least fail to prove why gases in solution would behave contrarily. Further, I contend that the well understood behavior of gases would require mixing and as you try to argue for your side, you produced a graph that seems to support my point.

    In layman terms I’d say that the oceans and the atmosphere “breathe” gases in and out continually, in more at colder temperatures and out more at warmer temperatures and I contend that man has very little impact on that process. I invite you to explain how you “know” that the Co2 mix in the atmosphere is flowing into the oceans rather than the other way around; that the oceans dictate the atmospheric mixture.

    I’d invite you to quantify the global exchange rates (in and out) of the oceans, as well as a measure of exactly how much Co2 is added naturally via say undersea volcanic activity. As you say: “we kinda know how the carbon cycle works” right?

    00

  • #
    BobC

    For someone with a science degree, MattB, you can be pretty dense:

    MattB:
    March 9th, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    Tell you what BobC how about you step up to the plate and take your flimsy arguments to science blogs rather than hide in the skeptic blogs where you can revel in the cheers from the unwashed. You can argue with me about equilibrium as you choose to misrepresent it, or maybe you could publish something worthy of anything but derision.

    Now, if you knew that my arguments were ‘flimsy’ (as opposed to just flinging random insults), you would be able to easily counter them. Since you don’t (can’t), it only reveals your own intellectual impotence.

    In fact, these are not my arguments, but are simply restatements of well-known principles — not ‘Beer’s Law’, as I incorrectly stated, but rather ‘Henry’s Law’ (sometimes I have optics on the brain) — which describes gas-liquid equilibria.

    Discussions of these principles in the peer-reviewed literature is completely uncontroversial. What you won’t find in the peer-reviewed literature is inane statements like you posted (@119) that attempt to simply redefine the meaning of “lifetime” in a sort of sympathetic magical attempt at avoiding the issue. (No, where you find these kinds of statements is in the science propaganda blogs like RealClimate.)

    Henry’s Law (and the associated imbalance in reservoir sizes) is the most direct way to model the observed data from the tracer experiment measuring the CO2-sink system impulse response function — the C14 bomb spike.

    Any serious model of atmospheric CO2 must be able to reproduce this measured response. Unfortunately for the proponents of CAGW, none of the models showing long lifetimes and significant Anthropogenic impact on CO2 concentrations are able to do this. Those models are, in fact, falsified by their inability to reproduce the measured data.

    If, for example, 35% of anthropogenic CO2 remained in the atmosphere indefinitely (as claimed by some models) the C14 bomb spike would level off (showing a ‘long tail’) at 35% of the peak level, instead of continuing to asymptotically approach the previous background level as the measurements show.

    Since you rarely find completely inane statements in the peer-reviewed literature (although I’ve seen it happen), most CO2 cycle model papers simply ignore the empirical data, in the hope that no one will notice. It passes peer review, since the Climate Scientist’s peers are all doing the same thing. Anyone who brings this up at, say, RealClimate is first fed the drivel you posted at #119 and then, if they are persistent, banned.

    As to your argument at #156:

    FACT: CO2 levels have risen.
    FACT: If CO2 had a 5 year life in the atmosphere post emissions, then CO2 levels in the atmosphere would be much lower.

    Here you are assuming that anthropogenic CO2 is the only possible source of increased atmospheric CO2.

    While it is convenient to assume your desired conclusion at the start of your argument, if your education hasn’t apprised you that this results in an invalid argument, then you have wasted your time and money.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “There is no such “bottleneck” and therefore the “guess” that Co2 “turns over” in 500-1000 years is not reasonable but instead ridiculous.”

    To be frank there is no point me citing the global oceanographic knowledge to you article by article, book by book, in fact I can’t. But you are opposing that massive bank of knowledge on a hunch. This is a field that exists totally independent of climate change science – AGW just borrows a bit. The oceans are a writhing mass of currents, deep dense ocean water, surface flows, upwelling, and I’m afraid the science says that mixing is not just some ladidah routine homogeneity across the oceans, as it generally is for the atmosphere (or at least the lower atmosphere/troposphere as I understand it).

    Did you know they can pluck any piece of ocean and tell you exactly the proportions of the various deep ocean water bodies that water is made from?

    What you say is true for the upper layer of the oceans in terms of oceans and atmosphere “breathing”.

    Read this from about half way down “Natural Ocean Carbon Cycle”

    http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html

    Just stop for a second and think that when the AGW thing was 1st being suggested, do you think the entire field of ocean sciences would have just conveniently historically agreed a carbon circulation just in case someone wanted to concoct something called AGW? It is just so infinitely improbable you could power a spaceship with it!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “Just stop for a second and think that when the AGW thing was 1st being suggested, do you think the entire field of ocean sciences would have just conveniently historically agreed a carbon circulation just in case someone wanted to concoct something called AGW? It is just so infinitely improbable you could power a spaceship with it!”

    When I posted this, how was I to guess that BobC was typing at the same time that he indeed thinks that “most CO2 cycle model papers simply ignore the empirical data, in the hope that no one will notice. It passes peer review, since the Climate Scientist’s peers are all doing the same thing.”

    I’ll see you on the Heart of Gold!

    And BobC “Since you rarely find completely inane statements in the peer-reviewed literature”… funny Mr “worst science paper ever”.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB: (@148)

    One thing it reminded me (por that I’d not really paid attention to before) (Fig 6.16) is that the CO2 concentrations at depth are much higher than they are at the surface, where photosynthesis takes place. So it is a bit of a misnomer to suggest that the newly aquired CO2 will be carried to depth, as depth already stores a huge amount of CO2.

    Since the solubility of CO2 in water increases rapidly with decreasing temperature (try opening a warm Coke, sometime), and the temperature of the oceans decreases with depth, it is indeed possible for CO2 to diffuse from warm water with a low concentration of CO2 (c1, say) to cold water with a higher concentration of CO2 (c2) as long as kH1*c1 > kH2*c2; where kH1 and kH2 are the Henry’s law coefficients for the given temperatures.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    At any rate:

    Any theoretical argument as to why anthropogenic CO2 can’t be rapidly removed from the atmosphere must also explain why C14-containing CO2 is rapidly removed.

    That CO2 model papers routinely ignore this challenge is evidence that they can’t explain it.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “If, for example, 35% of anthropogenic CO2 remained in the atmosphere indefinitely (as claimed by some models) the C14 bomb spike would level off (showing a ‘long tail’) at 35% of the peak level, instead of continuing to asymptotically approach the previous background level as the measurements show.”

    Excuse my French Bob C but that’s bullshit. That would only be the case were 35% of the total world’s supply C14… This is EXACTLY the issue here… at a gas / liquid interface CO2 passes to and from the gas and liquid… if there is 35% C14 in the atmosphere then 35% of the C entering the ocean is C14…. BUT the C in the ocean is NOWHERE NEAR 35%, so when a molecule is released from the ocean to the atmosphere there is only a miniscule chance of it being a C14!!!!!!

    THEREFORE atmospheric C14 levels drop, but there is still the CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Seriously I can’t believe you’ve posted that rubbish. It is absurd. Maybe you are not Prof Carter as I can’t believe even he could spout such codswallop.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB @ 159 & 160:

    Henry’s Law and a reservoir ratio > 30:1 perfectly explains the C14 bomb spike data. (This explanation also precludes anthropogenic CO2 from comprising more than 5% of the total amount in the atmosphere.)

    Nothing you have posted (or linked to) even tries to explain the measured data.

    You are still blowing smoke.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bob in 161 i’d also ignored that the downwelling is generally at the poles, where CO2 is absorbed, not at the equator where the water is warmer – my bad.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB: @163
    March 10th, 2011 at 1:37 am

    Seriously I can’t believe you’ve posted that rubbish. It is absurd. Maybe you are not Prof Carter as I can’t believe even he could spout such codswallop.

    The ‘codswallop’ is actually standard linear systems theory — apparently a course you neglected to take.

    You did get one thing right — I’m not Bob Carter.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB: @163
    …so when a molecule is released from the ocean to the atmosphere there is only a miniscule chance of it being a C14!!!!!!

    Correct — precisely the same chance of a C14 tagged molecule going the other way, from the atmosphere to the ocean. (Except for the slight imbalance due to the extra C14 injected into the atmosphere.)

    What you are apparently trying to say is that every tracer experiment ever done is invalid because you don’t understand the basic physics involved.

    Pardon me if I’m not overwhelmed by your brilliance.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB @160:

    I doesn’t matter what the pedigree of a theory is, or how many scientists believe in it — if it can’t explain well-established data in its field of claimed competence, then it is false.

    Hysterical hand-waving (such as you exhibit in #163) does not constitute a theory. Try giving us an algorithm that both explains the C14 bomb spike data and also allows AGW. (Caution: No one in the climate science field has yet succeeded in this, which is why the data is ignored.)

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB: (@160)
    … funny Mr “worst science paper ever”.

    I couldn’t figure out what you were talking about here, until I realized that you have been assuming all along that I’m Bob Carter.

    Sometimes, MattB, when you are completely ignorant about something it is a better strategy to simply ask rather than running with your ignorance.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    MattB Says:

    To be frank there is no point me citing the global oceanographic knowledge to you article by article, book by book, in fact I can’t. But you are opposing that massive bank of knowledge on a hunch.

    Do you know when you slip into Argument from Authority or is it a pathological thing?

    I only asked for a citation proving the “Bottleneck Theory”. It figures you wouldn’t even try.
    .
    .
    .
    .

    Not a “Hunch”, I am relying heavily on those “old time” experts that came up with the “massive bank of knowledge” that atmospheric studies are based upon; the various gas laws. You know, back from before Arrhenius time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law

    This is a field that exists totally independent of climate change science – AGW just borrows a bit. The oceans are a writhing mass of currents, deep dense ocean water, surface flows, upwelling, and I’m afraid the science says that mixing is not just some ladidah routine homogeneity across the oceans, as it generally is for the atmosphere (or at least the lower atmosphere/troposphere as I understand it).

    I didn’t say “ladidah” (very scientific) and certainly don’t quarrel with this part:

    The oceans are a writhing mass of currents, deep dense ocean water, surface flows, upwelling, and I’m afraid the science says that mixing is not just some ladidah routine homogeneity across the oceans, as it generally is for the atmosphere (or at least the lower atmosphere/troposphere as I understand it)

    Where in all that writhing is the Co2 “bottled up”?

    Anyway you say:

    AGW just borrows a bit

    I suggest that they have conveniently ignored rather simple processes. If true then it may be a diabolical plot (that is a hunch).

    But even your newest link argues with you and themselves!:

    “The oceans play an important role in regulating the amount of CO 2 in the atmosphere because CO 2 can move quickly into and out of the oceans.”

    and later:

    “Over the long term (millennial timescales), the ocean has the potential to take up approximately 85 percent of the anthropogenic CO 2 that is released to the atmosphere”

    So which is it MattB, quickly or over the long term?

    But this is sweet! right from your link:

    The mechanisms that control the speed with which the CO 2 gas can move from the atmosphere to the oceans (air–sea transfer velocity) are not well understood today.

    You see MattB, everywhere I look I see how little we really know. I marvel at the complexity of nature and I laugh at the arrogance when people suggest it’s all “well understood”

    Your move……

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hey BobC sorry about the identity confusion, I’ve had similar with other Matt’s and Mattb’s around the traps. Only last week there was a Mark D confusion too. Glad that’s sorted. At least it explains your mammoth lack of understanding on this front.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Mark D in 170 – the ability to move quickly between atmosphere and ocean says nothing about the ability of the ocean to quickly distribute internally!

    THe “MECHANISMS” Mark, the MECHANISMS… not what rate it happens at.

    And no Bob C it is not identical to the chance of a C14 going the other way… if it were identical there would be no drop of C14 in the atmosphere!

    Here’s a hint… while the C14 ratio drops, the CO2 levels don’t… that is your smoking gun buddy.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB:
    March 10th, 2011 at 10:44 am

    And no Bob C it is not identical to the chance of a C14 going the other way… if it were identical there would be no drop of C14 in the atmosphere!

    Geez MattB, you do have a reading comprehension problem.

    What I actually said was:

    Correct — precisely the same chance of a C14 tagged molecule going the other way, from the atmosphere to the ocean. (Except for the slight imbalance due to the extra C14 injected into the atmosphere.)
    (Emphasis added so you might actually read it this time.)

    At equilibrium the rates would be equal. When the bomb impulse is added, the rate from air to ocean increases until the concentrations equalize — which they do when ~2-3% of the impulse is left in the atmosphere.

    Here’s a hint… while the C14 ratio drops, the CO2 levels don’t… that is your smoking gun buddy.

    Sure, sure — you couldn’t make a logical or quantitative argument to save your life, could you? (Try actually responding to post #123 why don’t you?)

    Here’s a hint: When the measured data is best fit by a linear model, then the best hypothesis is that the system is linear. Then, the impulse response function shows that no more than 3% of injected CO2 (from any source) will remain in the atmosphere for more than 3 or 4 half-lives.

    Naturally, you have no idea what I’m talking about — but you won’t let that keep you from making more stupid statements.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Well BobC all I can say is you have greater men than me to convince otherwise. Your “slight imbalance” is a doubling according to your graph. I guess you shouldn’t use the word “precisely”
    when you don’t mean precisely. Or did you mean sort of precisely? Or “Precisely as in not at all precisely” maybe? who can tell.

    C14 is MIXING!!! it is not the same as CO2 being removed from the atmosphere, the CO2 is still there, just more C14 heads to the ocean than returns due to the SIGNIFICANT IMBALANCE of the C14 spike.

    My god invoking Henry’s law… the joys the world beholds when year 9 science can save the day in the face of all those Professors who have forgotten about it!

    p.s. so where is all the CO2 coming from that is causing the proportion in the atmosphere to increase… AHHH undersea volcanos perchance? ;)

    Lastly – I could be wrong here but Henry’s law applies to CO2, but would not apply to the C14 proportion of CO2 specifically, as far as Henry’s law is concerned it is just CO2.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB:
    March 10th, 2011 at 11:31 am

    Well BobC all I can say is you have greater men than me to convince otherwise.

    That would be an extremely wide net.

    Your “slight imbalance” is a doubling according to your graph.

    I suppose it depends on your perspective: It is a doubling (at least), but a doubling from (as you said) “a miniscule chance”, so it is still pretty small.

    I guess you shouldn’t use the word “precisely”
    when you don’t mean precisely. Or did you mean sort of precisely? Or “Precisely as in not at all precisely” maybe?

    I meant what I said, which was “precisely, except for…”.

    who can tell.

    Anyone who can read for content, I suppose.

    C14 is MIXING!!! it is not the same as CO2 being removed from the atmosphere, the CO2 is still there, just more C14 heads to the ocean than returns due to the SIGNIFICANT IMBALANCE of the C14 spike.

    Still don’t grok linear systems theory, I see. Do some reading — it might help keep you from sounding so stupid.

    My god invoking Henry’s law… the joys the world beholds when year 9 science can save the day in the face of all those Professors who have forgotten about it!

    Imagine your scorn had I invoked something really antique, like Newton’s laws. Nobody here expects you to be able to make a logical argument, but the above statement is so vacuous that it may set a record, even for you.

    p.s. so where is all the CO2 coming from that is causing the proportion in the atmosphere to increase… AHHH undersea volcanos perchance?

    So the fact that I don’t know where the CO2 is coming from means it must be coming from Humans? This is your idea of a logical agrument? Why pick on Humans? Why not say that, because I don’t know where the CO2 is coming from, it must be coming from Pixies? (The argument would be just as correct — e.g., equally wrong.)

    Lastly – I could be wrong here but Henry’s law applies to CO2, but would not apply to the C14 proportion of CO2 specifically, as far as Henry’s law is concerned it is just CO2.

    The point is that CO2 behaves virtually identically whether it is composed of C12 or C14 — this is why carbon-14 dating works. Are you really so completely ignorant of tracer experiments?

    I’ve given up trying to figure out how your mind works, MattB — I’ve decided that it doesn’t, for all practical purposes. You just respond by pattern matching and picking from a fixed set of snarky comments. I’ve seen computer programs that could carry on a more intelligent discussion.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    That would be an extremely wide net. Bwahhahahahahahahaha (tear in eyes)

    In the “stupid last word” contest MattB wins. Since he refuses to actually answer questions, I won’t waste anymore time.

    I do more laughing though when MattB impugns Henry while standing behind Arrhenius. That IS FUNNY!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I have not dissed Henry in the slightest, I have pointed out that every scientist would be 110% aware of Henry’s Law, and if you think it holds your reasons for opposing AGW then you don;t understand Henry’s Law.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    MattB

    I have not dissed Henry in the slightest, I have pointed out that every scientist would be 110% aware of Henry’s Law,

    Denialist

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mark D.

    THe “MECHANISMS” Mark, the MECHANISMS… not what rate it happens at.

    The actual excerpt:

    The mechanisms that control the speed with which the CO 2 gas can move from the atmosphere to the oceans (air–sea transfer velocity) are not well understood today.

    How’s that definition for pedantic coming? ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedant
    Of particular concern, Matt, is this;

    Pedantry can also be an indication of certain developmental disorders.

    But worse it appears you not only don’t understand the science, you don’t understand language.
    .
    .
    .
    .

    As for Henry he’s dead so no dissing there. You impugned his good name, his good science, and funny enough yourself. Good on you

    last word

    00

  • #
    MattB

    oh dear Mark D.

    “The mechanisms that control the speed… are not well understood”

    Does not mean the same as

    “The speed… is not well understood”

    Can you see that is not pedantic, it is just comprehension.

    Oh dear… and you still think I said something about Henry. Oh dear again.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Love the ad-homs re: my mental state too Mark D – nice work.

    Mark D logic:
    1) Mark D has poor english comprehension.
    therefore
    2) MattB has a developmental disorder.

    Dead set you should shut up rather than continually expose yourself as a moron.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    More language deficit for sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_%28psychology%29 Indicates a person with lower than an IQ of 70 A person with that low an IQ would hardly be a match for you……

    I wasn’t “dissing” you I am showing deep concern. 110% tough love you might say.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    By the way, about that “bottleneck theory” Any progress on that?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Nope the collected field of ocean sciences has not progressed since yesterday, giving you plenty of time to read up a bit and get yourself up to speed.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    In the collected field of ocean sciences what “mechanisms” are they referring to? How will little old me get up to speed when even your masters are having a problem getting up to speed? More humor, I suppose, is what you’ll claim, when you can argue from authority but the authorities say they don’t understand.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Geez MattB: My suggestion (@175) that you might be a computer program that “responds by pattern matching and picking from a fixed set of snarky comments” was meant to be sarcastic — I didn’t expect you to try so hard to prove it.

    I’ve pointed out a fatal flaw in all the CO2 cycle models used to support AGW: The actual measured behavior of CO2 in the atmosphere (the C14 bomb spike “experiment”), cannot be reproduced by any of the CO2 cycle models that support AGW, thus falsifying them.

    Additionally, this measured behavior demonstrates that CO2 has a short atmospheric lifetime (8-10 years) AND most (>97%) of all CO2 injected into the atmosphere is quickly removed, so it is not at all friendly to theories that anthropogenic CO2 sticks around for great lengths of time. I’m not the only one who has been pointing this out. As Segalstad notes, if the AGW models were right, it would be impossible to make carbonated beverages.

    (BTY: The C14 bomb data is a perfectly valid tracer experiment, such as has been long used in science, engineering and medicine to measure the impulse response of continuous systems. In fact, the C14 bomb experiment is nearly ideal in that C14 was already in equilibrium before we started increasing it by nuclear atmospheric testing — why carbon-14 dating works –, so we can also determine what displacement of the equilibrium occurs. The fact that you don’t understand any of this is not relevant.)

    Your response (leaving out the essentially contentless snark) has been incoherent hand waving:
    @163:

    This is EXACTLY the issue here… at a gas / liquid interface CO2 passes to and from the gas and liquid… if there is 35% C14 in the atmosphere then 35% of the C entering the ocean is C14…. BUT the C in the ocean is NOWHERE NEAR 35%, so when a molecule is released from the ocean to the atmosphere there is only a miniscule chance of it being a C14!!!!!!

    and, @174:

    C14 is MIXING!!! it is not the same as CO2 being removed from the atmosphere, the CO2 is still there, just more C14 heads to the ocean than returns due to the SIGNIFICANT IMBALANCE of the C14 spike.

    (Apparently, you are under the impression that multiple exclamation marks are a valid substitute for logic. You may have set a blog record with the 6 in a row in comment 163.)

    Unfortunately for the AGW hypothesis, a perfectly good linear model exists that explains the measured data: It is Henry’s law, with Henry’s constant chosen to match the observed 8-10 year CO2 atmospheric half-life, and the relative reservoir sizes (atmosphere and ocean) picked to match the observed degree of CO2 depletion from the atmosphere (> 97%).

    Currently, the linear model is the only one which is supported by the empirical data — no one in the Climate Science community has been able to craft a model that both supports a high anthropogenic CO2 atmospheric fraction AND can reproduce this data.

    The plain consequences of the only non-falsified CO2 cycle model (the linear one based on Henry’s law) is that Humankind can at most be responsible for 3-5% of atmospheric CO2. Hence, that is also the limit of our ability to decrease CO2 by reducing our use of carbon-based fuel.

    The whole anti-carbon crusade is thus a purely political one, with distorted “science” merely being used as a cover. Of course, you don’t have to examine the science to see that — just read what the proponents actually say.

    If you bother to reply, perhaps you should use a dozen or more exclamation marks in a row — maybe then you will prove something ;-) .

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    (SNIPPED out the unwarranted attack on MattB) CTS

    00