JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



Coalition policy looks like fairyland economics too

Greg HuntGreg Hunt tried to explain the Coalition policy on coal power stations on the 7:30 Report last night. It wasn’t a good look. This is what happens when they deny the science telling us that there is no need to reduce CO2. That’s a harsh criticism, because they are closer to reality than the ALP, but ultimately, as long as they say “we need to reduce CO2 by 2020″, and “the science is settled” they are stuck trying to move the immovable mountain.

Chris Uhlmann does a good job trying to fill in the gaps in the reasoning, and Greg Hunt looks silly denying the obvious. Coal provides the cheapest source of energy around, so if we replace it with anything else there will be extra costs. Hunt keeps waving the magic fairyland contradictory combination of “we’ll only use the cheapest alternative” and “we won’t do anything to raise costs.”

Chris UhlmannThe real problem here is that the Coalition are not free to speak about a science theory. Each time they step slightly outside the politically-correct-line they are bullied and derided, which would be fine if it was just by the Greens, but isn’t fine when it includes most of the media too.

It’s difficult for the Coalition — before they can speak freely, they have to conquer the bullying and name-calling, and shame those who use kindergarten tactics to silence debate. Strangely, that’s much harder than understanding climate science.

Until then, we get these kinds of bizarre exchanges where Hunt appears to say there is a free lunch and the Coalition can find it.

Edited Transcript from the ABC site:

CHRIS UHLMANN: If we could go to your direct action plan. Now, the biggest carbon-emitting power stations in Australia are the coal-fired plants in Victoria.

GREG HUNT: Correct.

CHRIS UHLMANN: What would your plan do about this?

GREG HUNT: Well we actually have a plan which could potentially deal with some of those power stations which only last week said they would continue producing in just the same way under the Government’s carbon tax until way into the 2030s.

Our approach would be – potentially – to provide them with incentives, such as the Lorne Power Station, to help it from transition from coal to gas to save so million tonnes a year. Under the Government’s carbon tax, electricity prices will skyrocket but they’ll be passed through to the consumer.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Sure, but would you agree that brown and coal-fired power stations are much cheaper than gas stations, aren’t they?

GREG HUNT: Well, they are.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And so who pays the price difference?

GREG HUNT: We also have a mechanism built in to ensure there are no price differences, no impact on electricity prices as a result.

CHRIS UHLMANN: How do you move from $30 a tonne to $45 a tonne, which is the cost of gas?

GREG HUNT: What we would do is help in the transition process from coal to gas by providing an incentive but it’s only if this is the lowest cost way of reducing emissions. There’s on approach under the Government’s system…

CHRIS UHLMANN: But, sorry, do you say..

GREG HUNT: ..which would allow that, but electricity prices would skyrocket. No change in electricity prices under us.

CHRIS UHLMANN: How could there be in change in electricity prices when the source of power is going up so much? Would you be paying the difference or would that be taxpayers money?

GREG HUNT: We have consciously built into the model that we’ve got, the fact that we would ensure that unless costs remain the same, we would find other means of reducing emissions. But we have spoken with the companies in question, such as the CEO of TRUenergy, which owns the Lorne Power Station, and we can make that transition. The Government cannot. It is a practical example…

CHRIS UHLMANN: And TRUenergy said this can’t be viable unless electricity prices go up 20 per cent. That’s what you’re proposing, isn’t it? A rise in the cost of electricity – either paid for by the consumers or paid for by Government, which is taxpayers’ money.

So which is it? Where is the cost picked up?

GREG HUNT: Sure. There will be no increase in electricity prices to consumers under us. There will be under the carbon-

CHRIS UHLMANN: Who pays?

GREG HUNT: There will be under the carbon tax, and we’ll provide incentives to reduce emissions and ensure that electricity prices do not change.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Greg Hunt, who pays?

… [snip it gets repetitive ]

CHRIS UHLMANN: So where does the money come from? Or you’re spending the money that Joe Hockey is saving.

GREG HUNT: No, we’re making savings of $50 billion. Within that was any new Coalition expenditure proposals, which includes the $3.2 billion for this, and on top of that there was an $11 billion addition to the surplus.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And $3.2 billion you are saying now will cover the cost of that increased gas price – for how long?

GREG HUNT: We were looking at a period out to 2020…

The video is at the same link.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 1.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Coalition policy looks like fairyland economics too, 1.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/44ndmh3

111 comments to Coalition policy looks like fairyland economics too

  • #
    AndyG55

    Yep, it is unfortunate that the Liberals have also jumped on the CO2 bandwagon, instead of just telling the truth, that he whole co2 bashing is just a farce.

    But as Mr Turnbull said, the Coalition policies can easily be shelved as un-necessary, whereas the idiocy of a CO2 tax is something we would be stuck with, possibly difficult to remove.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    There are quite a number of skeptics in the coalition, reflecting a growing public dissent with the global warming movement and the subsequent collapsing science. It’s unfortunate they are not louder about this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    “The real problem here is that the Coalition are not free to speak about a science theory.”

    What utter crap!! The problem remains that they can’t back up ANY climate denialist theory with evidence!!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The lips are moving, sound is coming out, but Greg Hunt is not saying anything. I don’t TV. Glad I choose not to subject myself to this tripe anymore. Frist?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rjm385

    I think the Coaltion Government isn’t going anywhere with this hocus pocus. Why couldn’t they get someone up there to say what they truly believe instead of this junk.

    As skeptics we have a lot of work to do and I’m not happy about the choices.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Andy:
    Au contraire, a tax can be quickly repealed whereas an ETS with credits confers property rights which cannot be simply repealed without some sort of compensation.

    But I agree, Hunt is hopeless.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DeLatchico

    It would be easier if the Coalition kept repeating (politicians know how to do that) “we won’t be doing anything until the rest of the world and especially the really big players such as China, India and the US commit to doing something. It would be pointless etc., etc.

    Closes the door on the argument without making ridiculous promises everyone knows they won’t keep.

    A further point – it seems all politicians think we’re all idiots; Governments don’t have any money of their own – they have taxpayers money.
    Looks like they have been taking lessons from the Banking community on how to bypass the rules of arithmetic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    AusieDan

    The problem is that while the Nationals know which side is up, the Liberals are divided.
    Some are realist, some are true believers.
    They are strivivg to present a united front to keep the spotlight on Labor.
    Hence the rather akward policy.

    The amusing thing is that there are realists in the Labor side too.
    I suspect that the PM is one of them.
    But so far they have kept better disipline on this one issue.
    They are marching lock step with the Greens towards oblivium at the next election.

    One day we will have a rational government like Canada.
    How long, oh lord, how long can it be?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    The reality I guess is there are as many dopes in the Liberal party as there are in the Labor government. Hunt whose training is in economics is certainly one of the clueless dopes. I noticed he was in the front row beaming up at Flannery in a recent climate change propaganda meeting. Not much hope for his recovery from a sort of climate paranoia. Banker Turnbull who has his eyes firmly set on all the lovely moolah he would be able to make for himself and his famous grandkids from an ETS is certainly scientifically illiterate but he is hardly clueless about how to make money from a decent warming climate scare. These politicians represent the two strains of climate alarmism in the Liberal Party.

    The one great hope for Australia’s continuing prosperity is that Abbott is a convinced closet climate conservative and “Crap”, having looked at the paucity of hard evidence, is his considered opinion. At present all he needs to do is keep showing what a hopeless lot are running the country. The “carbon” tax and its linking to ACC is but one measure of that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J Knowles

    What happened to the leader who, on UK radio, said that AGW was “crap”? With so much material to work from, any PR team could have a field day with AGW.
    Is this a case of the so-called “opposition” feigning opposition?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    Science currently has no clue what actually is efficient.
    We have had manufacturers TELL us what is efficient but no one has actually physically looked at this and measured it to any degree of understanding.
    Current power generation in all sectors waste 95-98% of it’s energy as they are designed for bulk harvest of energy and NOT the individual harvest of energy.

    They still have not understood that centrifugal force is an enemy to the current designs of power generation and ADD’s friction.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Debbie

    I would like to believe that to be a good global citizen it would not be necessary for Australia to sell out to international treaties dreamed up by bureaucrats, bankers & brokers that can be funded by tax payers.
    Apparently our government does not share that belief. Unfortunately it appears that would apply to both sides of politics?
    How is this tax and ultimately an E T S going to help Australia or indeed future climate?
    I can’t see how it possibly could.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Len

    I have been told by no less that the Iron Bar exponent that Greg Hunt came from the UN.He would be carrying the baggage and drivel put out by that socialist organisation. In the US the Tea Party got rid of politicians like Joe Hockey, Turnbul and Hunt. They stood candidates against them at the pre-selections.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    Blimey @ 2

    The problem remains that they can’t back up ANY climate denialist theory with evidence!!

    Just as it was with religious leader Harold Camping, and his failed end-time sign, the onus is on the sky-is-falling climate theory. However, here are some inconveniences for you:

    1. There hasn’t been any overall warming for over a decade. Even the key Climategate figure Trenberth said that it was a travesty that they could not find the missing heat.

    2. All the models predict a hot spot above the tropics. Despite much searching, they have not found one.

    3. GISS, the main body that prophesies thermal doom – using massaged thermometers and data – is denied by satellite data.

    4. The theory used to be called, ‘Global Warming’, but needed to be changed to ‘Climate Change’. Why?

    5. They said our dams would never fill but then blamed the rain and the floods on Climate Change.

    6. They said snow was a thing of the past and that children would north experience for themselves. Since then there have been successive brutal winters in Europe, USA and Asia.

    7. They ignore the cold, that wasn’t supposed to happen, but used a heatwave in Siberia to say, “SEE!! Not so long before that there was a river in the Amazon that had a carpet of floating dead marine creatures, including crocodiles. They died from the cold. Did the alarmists or the leftist media tell you about that?

    8. They lie and use censorship and require a compliant media.

    9. They poison the well with the outrageous falsehood that sceptics receive big funding when it is the climate alarmism that receives astronomical amounts of money.

    10. The keep telling us it’s worse than they expected when the opposite is bleeding evident. Their previous predictions are continually being shown to be hysterical exaggerations.

    11. They told us we were killing all the cuddly polar bears. Notice they are hardly mentioned anymore?

    So Blimes, come back and tell me why it’s worse than you thought.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Simple. Vote #1 for the Sceptic’s Party or the Nationals ahead of the liberals. This will work in the Senate at the very least and give the new government something to ponder. Just make sure you vote Greens last and labour second last!

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar

    Blimey in 2,

    Sorry but your stupidity has confused me yet again. Are you saying Gillards tax is backed by the science of climate change? whereas the Liberals tax is not?

    If so can please point to a peer reviewed paper which shows you can reduce atmospheric temp by applying a tax?

    If your post is just mindless drivel then please ignore my request.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    The coalition are divided on the science, which is why their plans to tackle the problem don’t add up. Basically, as usual, the coalition are trying to figure out how they can use direct action to pork barrel rural electorates.

    Sean McHugh, I know its hard to believe, but 10 years is a short time for our climate. Too short to distinguish long term trends from short term variability. Add another 10 years, and you are getting closer to separating the signal from the noise. So don’t go wetting yourself with excitement when we have a cool year. On its own,it means nothing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Hey JB, have you looked up the term “unverifiable hypothesis” yet?
    If you have trouble finding a definition you might also search “pseudo science”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    observa

    Jo is right to point out Uhlmann’s expose’ of the Coalition’s ‘Labor Lite’ stance here, when they should be telling it like it is. Namely that the new kid theory on the block is an interesting theory, but after Climategate, Glaciergate, Amazongate, Exaggerationgates, etc, not proven, just as McKintyre and Mckitrick showed white noise fed into the Mann Hockey Stick computer model produces the same outcome and subsequently McShane and Wyner drew a straight line through it statistically. At best we can remain agnostic on the new theory of AGW, but in any case Copenhagen demonstrated the futility of any single country acting upon such a theory, for some esoteric insurance principle. Furthermore, for all the ETSs, carbon taxes, reshiftables, corn to ethanol, rainforests to palm oil diesel, hybrid cars, cash for clunkers, pink batts, green loans and inspectors, measuring cow farts, etc right down to Edinburgh University professors calculating CO2 from instant to filtered coffee, AGW religious converts cannot name one developed country that has managed to hold CO2 emissions at 1990 levels, let alone reduce them. Hence there is no point in Australia continuing with such costly, rent-seeking ‘crap’, but rather using its resources to adapt to any negatives of climate change in future. Honesty is the best policy, lest you end up speaking crap like Greg Hunt and the current Labor Govt.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    What Climate alarmists are doing by blaming human CO2 emissions for the majority of climate change is the equivalent of our courts convicting someone for a murder simply because that person was in the vicinity of the murder.

    Sure CO2 may be a suspect, but we need more evidence and we need to exclude the many other suspects climate scientists do not properly understand before we can justify the conviction of CO2. Before any alarmists say we have to act now just in case CO2 is to blame, think about how stupid they would sound in court asking for a murder conviction simply based on proximity to the murder!

    Carbon taxes and dramatically reducing CO2 emissions will change people’s lives. It will rob people of careers, force many to change jobs, effect livlihoods and lifestyles.

    The coalition needs to get a back bone, point out the lack of real world evidence and fight the stupid CO2 tax now!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rob H

    The Coalition are looking like idiots to the average voter, who can’t figure out what they believe. They are trying to have it both ways and voters will penalize them for this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Does anybody else have a bit of Neville Chamberlain/Appeasement deja vu about some of the utterances from the likes of Turnbull & Hunt?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    Rob H @#21: “voters will penalise them for this.”. So Rob who will they vote for? Labor? Greens? There are good reasons why the Conservative primary vote continues to rise at the expense of the former and now more recently the latter. As Jo explains, until the bullying and name calling stops the most sensible position for the Liberal Party to take is an alternative policy on addressing ‘climate change’ without agreeing with a Carbon tax or ETS. You do know who’s side the majority of the Canberra press gallery and the wider MSM is on don’t you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Greg Hunt made economics cry.

    Fact is, neither Howard nor Abbott had/have any intention do to anything about CO2 emissions because they aren’t idiots. The pretense to take some action is to prevent a bleed of voters who are Lib-leaning but are sucked in by the climate caper like the newb John Brookes. It is a seductive siren call to “save the planet” but ridiculously naive to think anything Australia does makes any difference whatsoever.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    Blimey (3)

    The problem remains that they can’t back up ANY climate denialist theory with evidence!!

    The “denialist theory” (as you so unpleasantly put it: that personal quality seems to go with the territory) is the null-hypothesis:
    “the climate change observed today is natural unless and until evidence accrues otherwise” and no such empirical evidence has emerged.

    There is nothing to distinguish the brief period of post-war warming (c.1980-2000) from natural climate fluctuations.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    I know where the money will come from, it’s all quite simple really:

    1, Removal of all perks for MPs at a state and federal level.
    2, Pay cuts for the MPs
    3, Budget freezes and reductions for the public sector
    4, Elimination of the $60M /year dept of climate change oxymoron

    The pollies are only doing their jobs from a sense of service to the people, so they won’t mind, I’m sure.

    Good morning everyone!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    If they play the game right up to the eve of the next election and then suddenly ‘out’ themselves during the election campaign. They will completely blindsided Labor and the Greens.

    The force of public opinion is blindingly obvious, in the feedback comments on any mention of climate change in the media. The comments are invariably in excess of 80% against.

    I’m not normally into predicting the weather or climate. But it is becoming increasingly obvious, that we are on track to pass back below the long-term temperature trend line sometime in the next year or two.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob of Castlemaine

    An imaginary solution for an imaginary problem.
    But I don’t think we should imagine that Abbot himself is taken in by the CAGW orthodoxy, moreover his direct action approach fits best with the small target strategy. No doubt it’s seen as too hard to explain the lack of scientific evidence supporting the scam to a public brainwashed for years with alarmist propaganda regurgitated by a compliant main stream media. Why it’s even possible that some of the measures e.g. tree planting could actually have beneficial impacts, unrelated to carbon dioxide of course.
    But the bottom line, yes coalition greenhouse policy would result in a waste public money but it would be a mere drop in the bucket compared with the economy killing impact of the Green/Labor carbon dioxide tax.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Turnbull, Hockey and Hunt are currently Labor’s biggest assets in the “climate change” scam. Whether the first two are real “believers” is a moot point because their banking interests explain their support for AGW but I think the hapless, inarticulate gullible Hunt really believes the CO2 pollution man-made global warming rubbish! He is an absolute cringeworthy embarrasssmet.

    If Tony Abbott would grasp the nettle, really challenge the “settled science” “overwhelming consensus” mantras and proclaim the truth that the AGW hypothesis is totally unproven and in very real dispute, he would be amazed at the public support he would get. Sadly there are so many nervous nellies in the Liberal Party Opposition they won’t have the balls to back this course but appointing Dennis Jensen in Hunt’s place would be a good start towards such a goal.

    In my long life I have always tried to be an optimist but:-

    (1) when an essential trace gas vital to all plant and animal life is not only called a pollutant but it is said, in the face of all the many combinations of vast multiple factors known to affect our climate, that a few extra parts per million increase will cause catastrophic global warming;

    (2) when that is given as a reason to spend vast sums of money to wipe out current methods of power generation to be replaced by heavily subsidised inadequate methods and technologies, largely destroying or exporting the industies, jobs and economies of developed countries;

    (3) when governments use vast sums of taxpayer’s money to push their deceptions and gullible brainwashed environmental and Green groups demonstrate, begging the government to tax them;

    those things I never expected to see and it is hard not to turn into a pessimist.

    As I’ve said before, Nature may yet play a hand in helping stop this travesty as all the real observational science (as opposed to poorly modelled and interpreted projections) is pointing to a natural cooling period of some 25-30 years. I also think that many of the shonky government employed grants-driven “scientists” are well aware of this and are desperate to get their proposed carbon-dioxide reduction schemes in place so they can claim “credit”. Hence, AGW or man-made global warming morphed into Climate Change and/or Climate Disruption just as Dr.Vincent Gray set out in his “The Triumph of Doublespeak – How UNIPCC Fools Most of the People All of the Time”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    frustrated

    With the Govt being on the nose, I think that the opposition should be taking a direct opposite stance to the Govt on carbon “pollution”. Dislike for the Govt and this tax has inadvertantly created more opponents who realise that the Govt propoganda is nothing but that. These people now searching for an alternative viewpoint. We need to send messages that their are a growing number who disagree with the AGW theories being pushed by organisations all over the world. Especially those with vested interests.
    I had a real problem when the organisers (the menzies institute) of the protests against the carbon tax. They sent out a directive to not bring up the C02 issue at the rallies, but to just attack the tax as a tax. I then realised that the coalition was not serious in refuting the science and that they were also going to demonise carbon dioxide in some way. Im not happy with either side of politics on this issue. Thank god for Nick Minchin. If only he could influence some others in the Liberal party.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Donald

    Greg Hunt should never be allowed within a bull’s roar of any energy portfolio.

    Has anyone ever heard this fellow argue the evidence which does not support the CO2 hypothesis?

    He has a wafer thin understanding of climate physics – it is way past his ability to comprehend. Instead of making an energetic attempt to familiarise himself with the conclusions from papers that show highly significant non-support for AGW, Hunt finds it much easier to swallow the simplistic rubbish designed for scientific illiterates by activist grant seekers.

    This state of affairs has been going on for a long time, including 2009 when he was excitedly assisting Wong with her ETS debacle (before genius Macfarlane took over).

    Hunt does not have the strength of personality to convince anyone of anything, let alone some ratbag confused policy that gives underlying support for the Labor/Greens’ CO2 tripe. People can pick the hypocrisy, and every appearance by Hunt, as with Turnbull, becomes a boost for Labor/Greens.

    Tony Abbott must turf out the feeble Hunt (a mouse in sheep’s clothing) from his shadow portfolio, assert he will have none of the CO2 hypothesis, and put in place the person who can strongly argue against any CO2 Tax.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt b

    After 15 years or so on the ETS bandwagon and as a committed warmist I have to add that the choice at present between the ALP and Liberal policies is the proverbial “choice between a turd and a shit sandwich”, with the turd slightly ahead.

    I am fairly confident that on a global scale the trading scheme is the only way to go, and in certain economies it makes sense too, but looking at the current Australian situation my personal opinion is that the coal (and brown coal) intensive economy we have means that tinkering with a low value tax or (low reduction ETS cap) is a clumsy way to go.

    While it is a bit socialist and not very free market I think the AUstralian plan of attack is government mandated overhaul of energy supply… get rid of the brown coal, replace with nuclear. In fact a 25 year plan to roll out Nuclear extensively would be ideal. THen once you’ve got rid of the elephant in the room of our massively carbon intensive energy sector, sit back and wait for an international agreement.

    If the above sees some costs rise and pass to a consumer then so be it – govt can assist some low income types if need be but for the rest it should drive efficiency where required, and if not it means you can afford the status quo.

    It is not that I don’t think AUstralia should act alone, but acting alone on an ETS is unlikely to do much. The opposition’s plans similar but even worse… need real commitment to change the energy sector not dicking around with soil carbon (useful but not going to make the big changes).

    I don’t know many hard core skeptics who would not support significant roll out of nuclear power, and deferring an ETS until such a time there is global agreement, and you alienate the greens (and lets face it the rest is jsut fluff the main target is those damn Greens admit it! – threat to your non-greenie way of life >>> threat to economy).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt b

    I disagree Keith… Turnbull is the biggest strength as he can credibly (to warmists) blow economic holes in the ALP plan, as he is not a skeptic. A skeptic will find it impossible to get traction.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tim

    I get the impression that the coalition DO understand the science and are closet skeptics. The original phrase used by Abbott says it all: “It’s total crap”

    BUT, to go against the majority of ill-informed voters who have swallowed the alarmist AGW line would be political suicide, and take a massive re-education effort. Better to take a softer line and try to reach these voters with a hip-pocket theme.

    Hypocritical, but pragmatic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Outrider

    Well of course Hunt is sticking with the science – why wouldn’t he.

    Otherwise he’d be telling the Australian public he’s signed on with the rabid denier crowd.

    And face it – you guys are rabid frothers and disinformation merchants of the highest order. Geriatrics, cranks, geologists and sundry 5th columnists.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    CameronH

    They do not have to “deny” anything. They just have to state that they will take no action untill the carbon intensity of China’s and India’s economies is down to ours. %2000 plus tonnes of CO2 per $1 million GDP for China compared with 500 tonnes CO2 per $1 million GDP for Australia. At the current rate this will be in about 20 years time. This should be enough time to flush this whole CAGW farce down the drain.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Grumpy old fart

    You can’t fight the media in politics, and the media are all alarmist. Coming out with a sensible policy based on the real science and balancing the economics properly would put any party amongst the looney right-wing nuts at the moment, because the centre of this debate is so skewed to alarmism.

    It’s the media that are playing politics with this and not doing their job properly. All we can hope is that the blogosphere forces them to stop playing silly buggers and actually do some journalism for once. So keep it up Jo :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    frustrated

    Agree CameronH, especially with the planet cooling and the c02 levels still rising.
    Its only a matter of time until the whole scam falls over. We have already had the stories of 50 million climate refugees by 2010, George Monbiot stating that the world wil run out of food by 2012 etc etc. The more time passes the more the alarmists are exposed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    why some people continue to imagine turnbull or hunt are speaking out of turn, i don’t know:

    19 May: Daily Telegraph: AAP: Abbott says Turnbull backs carbon plan
    OPPOSITION Leader Tony Abbott says Malcolm Turnbull “fully supports” the Coalition’s policy on tackling climate change…
    “I saw Malcolm on Lateline. I thought he gave a very strong performance under a bit of goading and provocation,” Mr Abbott said at the Sanitarium food plant in NSW.
    “Malcolm and I talk regularly about these subjects and he fully supports the Coalition policy.”…
    He (Abbott) said both Labor and the Coalition supported a five per cent cut in emissions by 2020…
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/abbott-says-turnbull-backs-carbon-plan/story-e6freuyi-1226058936918?from=public_rss

    20 May: The Land: Turnbull supports climate policy: Abbott
    MICHELLE GRATTAN, THE AGE
    TONY Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull have closed ranks to limit the damage caused by Mr Turnbull’s indictment of the opposition’s climate policy.
    Mr Turnbull said he had described the Coalition’s policy factually and ”the feedback that I’ve had from the colleagues that have been in touch with me has been quite positive … I challenge you to identify anything in those remarks last night which [was] inaccurate or unbalanced.”…
    http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/political/turnbull-supports-climate-policy-abbott/2169359.aspx

    i’ve said it before, i have only ever voted labor or green in my life and, since climategate, when the CAGW scam was exposed for all but those who refused to see, i vote for no party that intends to commodify carbon dioxide, and that includes the coalition. it’s the most shameful scam ever perpetrated on the public and it is non-partisan. the plan is to base the western world’s economy on carbon dioxide instead of fossil fuels.

    those who believe it is to redistribute wealth to the poorer nations are fools. the poorest countries, who only recovered from the oil price rise of the 70s around the year 2001, will suffer terribly, especially if countries have their exports banned because they are not signed up to the CO2 scam.

    to imagine labor are being led by the greens is another fallacy, being spouted for political reasons.

    as so many labor voters are against the commodification of CO2, why aren’t they on the streets and why aren’t there any leftwing journos breaking ranks with the CAGW “consensus” and siding with the public on this issue?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Its “noob” Bulldust.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt b

    Pat in 39… I dunno, why DO people think there is a turnbull division in the coalition?
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/26/3227862.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    grumpy @ 37

    I agree.

    The political agenda is set by the media. The ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’ is replaced with ‘when will you stop polluting with CO2?’

    Politicians just need to find a snappy answer. The answer to the first question is ‘at what?’, I am still working on the second.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul S

    Just got onto this thread today. Blimey @3. I don’t have to prove there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden. Proving a negative is a logical impossibility – not that logical impossibilities seem to be an obstacle to AGW. Theories require evidence, facts. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Any evidence which contradicts a theory means the theory is flawed or just wrong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    StephenA

    Outrider @ 35:
    And face it – you guys are rabid frothers and disinformation merchants of the highest order. Geriatrics, cranks, geologists and sundry 5th columnists.

    Hey! I’ll have you know that I am most certainly not a geologist!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    More on the theme of fairyland economics, the ABC has an oped from an advocate of 100% renewable energy for Australia. Its the theme for the day at Aunty as another Ross Garnaut study is also out on how exceptionally cheap renewables are getting.

    Ah, ABC airy fairyland! Well it seems the Oz also has a story today about top money manager Jim Chanos, who is famed for shorting Enron before the crash. And he is now shorting green energy.

    As they say, never stand between financial idiots and a short seller.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Matt B: #32

    Matt, for probably the one and only time, I agree with you. Nuclear is the Bogie man to most greens. But already, more people have been killed by wind turbines in the last decade than by Nuclear.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    I agree with others here, the opposition’s message is garbled.
    They should simplify it and stick to the script along positive lines: the science is not settled, there is no need now to handicap the economy until the role of CO2 becomes clearer (than described in IPCC AR4) and there is a worldwide agreement.
    No-one can be labelled a ‘denier’ * for being undecided and the economic argument is self-evident.
    In the interim, they will invest tax dollars in tree planting, improving the soils and ambitious engineering works of water conservation, flood mitigation etc. — investments which will be of real value to future generations.

    *As an aside, the childish taunt ‘denier’ which has been used a few times on this thread is offensive for two reasons…
    …it tries to smear CAGW sceptics by association.
    …but worse, it devalues the terminology of the Holocaust and by extension tivialises the offences of the likes of Irving and Töben.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    John Brookes @ 17:

    Sean McHugh, I know its hard to believe, but 10 years is a short time for our climate.

    What is unbelievable is how frequently and quickly Global Warming Climate Change can move the goalposts.

    Too short to distinguish long term trends from short term variability. Add another 10 years, and you are getting closer to separating the signal from the noise.

    Strange then that in David Suzuki’s book, ‘It’s a matter of Survival’, written twenty years ago, he said that we only had 10 years to take drastic action. Back then, 10 years was a long time for diabolical climate trends to do their evil. So what happened?

    So don’t go wetting yourself with excitement when we have a cool year. On its own, it means nothing.

    You must be confusing me with someone else. My annual reference was not to a single cool year but to a decade plus with no warming. I did also mention successive cold winters (plural) in various continents. By basing their predictions on Global Warming Climate Change for each of those winters, the faithful themselves made admissible, as counter evidence, successive brutally cold winters in the cited continents. I also pointed out how the warmists used a heatwave in Russia. If the warmists can get rapturous over hot season in one country, it is the height of hypocrisy for them to sneer at sceptics for citing even just a year, let alone successive seasons, let alone a decade plus.

    Let’s revisit this:

    So don’t go wetting yourself with excitement when we have a cool year. On its own,it means nothing.

    It only means something if it’s warm, right? Recall I pointed out how the major Climate Change figure, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, found quite disturbing the failure of the globe to warm for over a decade. He didn’t think it was just noise; he thought their measurements must be deficient. It was he who was ‘excited’ and he who was soiling himself, but in different ways to that conveyed by your references.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Pat @ 39
    “those who believe it is to redistribute wealth to the poorer nations are fools”.

    What then are we to make of the following, Pat? Direct from “the horse’s mouth”! Could anything from the UNIPCC be any clearer? In my opinion, we would be fools to ignore it!

    German economist Ottmar Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    Following are excerpts from a November 2010 interview of Edenhofer with NZZ Online.

    (EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.
    One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.
    If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

    Edenhofer continues to be a leading light of the UNIPCC as evidenced by the following.

    On May 9, 2011 the IPCC released a “Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation.” Actually, it only released its summary because, as is always the case with these IPCC products, the “Summary for Policymakers” is produced before the actual work it purportedly summarizes.

    Right up front are the paper’s four “coordinating lead authors.” Representative of the world of global warming schemes, these include two Germans, an African, and a Cuban, as no economic plan is complete without an expert from Cuba. First among them, however, just happens to be IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer.

    Go to ICECAP http.www.icecap.us/ and enter Ottmar Edenhofer in the search box for more details.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Sean McHugh #47

    Trenberth indeed! He probably cursed the earth for being a “denier” when it had the temerity to flout his dictats. Honestly, to think this crackpot recently proposed that CAGW be accepted as the null hypothesis. Oh, and who could forget that Serreze joker who confidently “predicted” the demise of Arctic ice within a year or two. Don’t they hate being confronted with their “predictions” after they have been falsified by reality. Too bad so many of them don’t seem to learn from their experiences.

    “Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad”. There can be be no better example than Trenberth. Hmmm…. On second thoughts Michael Mann and a few others could give him a run for his money!
    .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robber

    Ah, the “Lorne” power station – that must be the one where we replace coal with waves – free like solar right:-)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Its “noob” Bulldust.

    Lots o lulzers @u JB, ur def right!^

    I don’t think the Libs are going to come out of the closet as sceptics anytime soon. They see CAGW as a wedge issue and having reinvented wedge politics under Howard, they believe it is best neutralised. The Libs think 2007 was lost off the back of being wedged by climate policy. And, having seen the adulation Obama got with his “hold back the tides” inauguration speech, they are scared witless about being seen as ‘deniers’ to the electorate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Greg Hunt is a wimp, like Turnbull.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Greg Hunt has already been told that the Coalition plans to reduce CO2 by burying carbon in soil and through forestry will not stand scientific scrutiny. And they will not. So, if you feel inclined to help the Coalition, tell them their alternatives for a reduction by 2020 are full of holes and it’s simpler to do nothing but wait, while taking obvious, prudent, low-cost measures to conserve electricity in its own right as a good practice.

    Their problem is a political popularity type. If they go along with the play of saying there is man-made warming and we have to do something, then they will keep many voters on side. The minute they go the full Monty and say that there is insignificant man-made change, they will loose a lot of wavering voters. They have to win an election first.

    The answer, of course, is obvious. Go nuclear asap.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    The Liberal Party needs to get rid of this Stupid Lying Traitor “Greg Hunt”.

    He is a disgrace to his fellow Australians !!

    He has Zero Scientific Qualifications and is either being deliberately misleading or is just ignorant !

    I would like to know what financial interests he has in carbon trading companies…….

    Here is his bio..
    http://www.greghunt.com.au/Pages/AboutGreg/biography.aspx

    Nope !

    No Scientific Qualifications there !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “John Brookes” (40),
    Wel you should know, since you are the expert refarding “noob”……


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “John Brookes”, “Matt B”,”Blimey “,
    Please quote a reference to even one, just one, Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper, which PROVES, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human beings and carbon Dioxide (Plant Food), are/is causing global warming.

    PS Computer Models do not constitute either Proof or Evidence.

    Have you Gaia Cultists claimed your $10,000 prize at The Punch yet?
    http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/10k-for-the-first-person-to-prove-weve-caused-climate-change/

    Didn’t think so !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    Mark @ 49:

    Yep.

    Trenberth indeed! He probably cursed the earth for being a “denier” when it had the temerity to flout his dictats.

    “Oh woe! It’s a travesty that we can’t find the missing heat . . . . but warning, warning, it’s happening faster than we thought!”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Sean McHugh @ 14 “1. There hasn’t been any overall warming for over a decade. Even the key Climategate figure Trenberth said that it was a travesty that they could not find the missing heat.”

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000/plot/uah/from:2000/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend

    Trenberth was referring to the lack of monitoring in the ocean and how what we do have doesn’t match what the satellites observe.

    “2. All the models predict a hot spot above the tropics. Despite much searching, they have not found one.”

    Wrong again. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dispelling-two-myths-about-the-tropospheric-hot-spot.html

    “3. GISS, the main body that prophesies thermal doom – using massaged thermometers and data – is denied by satellite data.”

    Wrong again. Even skeptic Roy Spencer acknowledges the temp has risen.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/plot/uah/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend

    “4. The theory used to be called, ‘Global Warming’, but needed to be changed to ‘Climate Change’. Why?”

    They are two different terms. The theory of man causing the climate to warm is called Anthropogenic Global Warming, the theory of the climate changing is called “Climate Change”.

    “5. They said our dams would never fill but then blamed the rain and the floods on Climate Change.”

    Rubbish. The IPCC said no such thing. On rainfall they said it’d would change and that any rain that did fall will evaporate more quickly because of the warmer earth.

    “6. They said snow was a thing of the past and that children would north experience for themselves. Since then there have been successive brutal winters in Europe, USA and Asia.”

    By “They” you mean “some ex-meteorologist in Britain (David Viner to be precise)” not the IPCC and he was discussing a local climate, not the entire planet.

    Whilst temps still remain cold enough for it to snow, it will continue to do so and it should produce more snow because a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour which produces more snow.

    Seeing the climate change from -10 to -9 won’t stop snow from falling.

    “7. They ignore the cold, that wasn’t supposed to happen, but used a heatwave in Siberia to say, “SEE!! Not so long before that there was a river in the Amazon that had a carpet of floating dead marine creatures, including crocodiles. They died from the cold. Did the alarmists or the leftist media tell you about that?”

    There’s nothing in the IPCC report that says there won’t be localised cold weather. I never heard of your particular example; care to cite a reputable link or scientific study showing it was indeed a cooling climate that caused it?

    “8. They lie and use censorship and require a compliant media.”

    LOL. Nutter territory there defeated by this website that links to many articls published on newspaper sites.

    “9. They poison the well with the outrageous falsehood that sceptics receive big funding when it is the climate alarmism that receives astronomical amounts of money.”

    Tell me, how much money does it take for us alarmists to make the glaciers melt?

    “10. The keep telling us it’s worse than they expected when the opposite is bleeding evident. Their previous predictions are continually being shown to be hysterical exaggerations.”

    The IPCC recently was shown that their forecast for sea level rise was an underestimate.

    “11. They told us we were killing all the cuddly polar bears. Notice they are hardly mentioned anymore?”

    Depends where you read.

    Polar Bear Births Could Plummet With Climate Change – http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110208112647.htm
    Polar Bears Unlikely to Survive in Warmer World, Biologists Say – http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101124085607.htm

    But it’s obvious you rarely read the science.

    “So Blimes, come back and tell me why it’s worse than you thought.”

    Because people like yourself like to cite obscure web pages or single out one scientific paper instead of looking at the entire body of evidence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Paul S @ 43 “Proving a negative is a logical impossibility – not that logical impossibilities seem to be an obstacle to AGW. Theories require evidence, facts.”

    Proofs are for mathematics. Evidence is for science. The IPCC report is FULL of evidence from peer-reviewed science.

    You stake your believes on Nova’s small handbook. I’ll stick with peer-reviewed science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    manalive@46

    Of course climate conservatives affirm that either natural or internal natural climate variability can adequately account for the slight warming trend over the last century. They don’t deny that as do most climate alarmists. (Thus CAs are also in that sense “deniers” if you please).

    What non climate alarmists, aka climate conservatives, do deny is the scientific possibility of runaway CO2 induced global warming. That because the science tells us the following relationship is operating viz Tb-Ta = K x ln (CO2b/CO2a). As the tangent to this curve (which is the rate of change of temperature in terms of change in atmospheric concentrations of CO2) asymptotes to zero, only the mathematically illiterate could accept, given that basic piece of science, the alarmist position.

    That is the reason the many warming climate alarmists, who have been popping their heads up since the early 1900s, were in effect shown that curve with the implication don’t be so stupid. It took the alarmists a long time to come up with the concept of multiplier feedbacks. If these feedbacks are neutral or negative as seems increasingly likely, climate alarmism is for the scientifically illiterate only.

    Of course assumed scientific illiteracy of the target populace is the likely reason that those in the know about the science introduced the mind numbing idea that CO2 is a pollutant. That propaganda word is designed to further dumb down those not up with elementary science. Climate conservatives also deny that atmospheric CO2 is or can ever be a pollutant or is in any way dangerous to humans below about 10,000 ppm.

    So we are all, CCs and CAs, “deniers” of one sort or another.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Blimey,

    Go ahead voluntarily pay more taxes there is no law against it.

    Your peers suck. Their peer review system is a good old boys network of agenda pushing activists. The real world is not warming in any worrisome way, Co2 can’t do it anyway.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Llew Jones – I think you’ll find the IPCC agree about the logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and the forcing, hence why climate sensitivity is expressed as a “per doubling of CO2″. ;) Only the mathematically illiterate would argue otherwise.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Mark D – “Your peers suck.”

    How could one ever argue against such well thought out logic backed up by such compelling evidence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    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

    Quadrant Online – Peer review locks gate

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/peer-review-locks-gate


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Blimey”,
    Please post your bank details so that we can all send the additional costs of living due to carbon dioxide (plant food) taxes to YOU.
    Stupid Moronic Traitor !
    Why should non believers fund your Gaia Religion……


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Deutsche Bank *really* wants us to trade carbon – THE JOE HOCKEY CONNECTION…..

    Very Interesting That Joe Hockey Was In Favour Of The Ets As Well As Turnbull, Probably Because Hockey’s Wife, Melissa, Is The Managing Director And The Head Of Global Finance & Foreign Exchange For Australia And New Zealand At Deutsche Bank, So Joe Knows All About The $$$$$$$ That Can Be Generated By This Ets Policy.

    Maybe Joe Hockey Should Be Called The “Minister For Deutsche Bank”???

    Then we have the Traitor Turncoat turnBULL………….

    There is plenty of evidence to strongly suggest the true reason why Malcolm Turnbull really “believed” in an emissions trading scheme.

    Simply take the time to review the history of the HIH collapse. Consider the highly questionable role that Goldman Sachs Australia – of whom Malcolm Turnbull was chairman at the time – had to play in this, the biggest corporate failure in Australian history.

    Consider the subsequent $500 million lawsuit brought against the key players in the HIH collapse… including named defendant Malcolm Turnbull.

    MORE:-
    http://barnabyisright.com/2010/04/28/rudd-destroys-his-ministers-beliefs/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Sending more billions where the free insulation went

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

    This mad Traitorous jooLIAR “government” must be stopped !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Blimey:
    May 26th, 2011 at 11:12 pm

    Mark D – “Your peers suck.”

    How could one ever argue against such well thought out logic backed up by such compelling evidence.

    You know? I agree with you! Probably the first time and probably the last time.

    Besides, it worked because you didn’t argue……….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Damian Allen @ 65

    In the same post you give a link to a modelled climate sensitivity study that returns a lower figure AND an article by some dimwit complaining that the peer review process doesn’t allow skeptics to have their say!

    What a laugh!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mark @ 9:12pm May 25,

    According to Julian Turecek, an investment manager at Cleantech ventures, who blogs carbon trading propaganda at macrobusiness.com.au –

    “The current proposal is not a tax, but a fixed price emissions trading scheme. This is exactly the same as the CPRS, which also had a fixed price at the start.”

    If you read around you’ll also see that an “independent” carbon bank has been proposed and is under discussion, to “administer” the money from this fixed price ETS. One with the power to borrow against future CT earnings.

    I’m not so sure that repealing this thin-end-of-the-wedge is as simple as you may think.

    Additionally, given half-senate election situation, there’s little/no chance of the Coalition repealing it until 2016 earliest. Unless there’s a double dissolution, and landslide Coalition win.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    What really troubles me about this whole issue now, is the very recent revelation via Bloomberg (May 17) that bankers have now created ‘Death Derivatives’ -

    Death Derivatives Emerge From Pension Risks of Living Too Long

    Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), Deutsche Bank AG (DBK) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), which bundled and sold billions of dollars of mortgage loans, now want to help investors bet on people’s deaths.

    Pension funds sitting on more than $23 trillion of assets are buying insurance against the risk their members live longer than expected. Banks are looking to earn fees from packaging that risk into bonds and other securities to sell to investors.

    Am I the only one to see a direct connection between the banksters’ push for carbon dioxide derivatives trading, and ‘death derivatives’ trading? -

    http://barnabyisright.com/2011/05/24/doing-gods-work-turnbull-an-angel-of-death-derivatives/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    KeithH -
    re Edenhofer – it’s just words. remember the Make Poverty History summit held at Gleneagles in 2005 where Blair and Bush were lauded in the MSM. well, it’s easy to make promises, but the funds don’t materialise. Edenhofer’s words are simply meant to keep the CAGW believers on side.

    Bruce of Newcastle -
    from your Australian article on Jim Chanos -

    - As for job growth, Mr Chanos said the boom of green jobs could be overblown, as most of the jobs generated are not in technology, but in construction.
    “Put your hand on your wallet,” he said, as many of the green jobs are merely putting people back to work who were employed in housing. -

    that explains why the Unions are backing the carbon tax and GetUp. so many tradies are out of work.

    no doubt many Super funds are tied up in the Green Energy boondoggle, so when it fails, watch out. many i know have moved their Super to Cash options.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Banana

    The issue with green jobs is that traditional jobs lost for each green job is between 2.7 & 3.6, that doesnt add up in anyones language.

    Although, the Victorian Labour Govt didnt mind blowing 20 billion on a desal plant that was built on the basis that it wouldnt rain any more *rolls eyes*. I guess that will keep the union members in work for a while. Wonder what will happen now the seemingly bottomless pit of money has now run out in Victoria with the conservatives.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Blimey @ 59

    “They are two different terms. The theory of man causing the climate to warm is called Anthropogenic Global Warming, the theory of the climate changing is called “Climate Change”.”

    Yes Blimey, they are different terms and it’s nice to hear an AGW believer publicly acknowledge it, except climate change is a fact, not a theory!

    I don’t know of any genuine AGW sceptic who would even suggest that climate does not change. One of the main matters in dispute is whether changes are the result of natural variability and driven by a combination of the multiple known, and maybe even some still unknown forces as has been the case for billions of years or whether there is currently a significant measurable factor that can be proved to be a result of the activities of Man. (The theory of AGW).

    “Even skeptic Roy Spencer acknowledges the temp has risen.”

    Again Blimey, I don’t know of any genuine AGW sceptic who doesn’t acknowledge temperatures have risen since the Little Ice Age, or that there have been quite normal rises and falls at various times during that period, as there has been for all Time that has gone before. The argument is whether rises in the last century and more particularly over the last 40 odd years are unprecedented as the UNIPCC claims or whether they are part of normal historical cycles.

    In one way, the very idea of a “mean global temperature” that can be measured with accuracy to a tenth of a degree is ludicrous, especially when one considers the extremes of temperature in the various parts of the world and that over 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered with water, with the consequent problems in measuring temperature. Yet AGW guru James Hansen, the man with a passionate and some would argue irrational hatred of coal and other fossil fuel industries, after all the gridding, standardising, homogenising and various other adjustments, only claims 0.8C rise over the century. Even if accurate, is that unprecedented? Remember too, that in the early 70′s some of those same scientists now predicting Catastrophic AGW were warning of an imminent Ice Age.

    Whatever extremes people live in, they and other organisms have adapted to that environment and arguably will continue to do so.

    And Blimey, since historical and anecdotal records indicate temperatures have never been static but have always changed, what do you consider to be the magical and elusive ideal “mean global temperature” and just how would you measure or more importantly control it? Impose a Carbon-dioxide Tax to try and reduce the volume of a lifegiving trace gas, already only occupying a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, by a few miniscule parts per million? Do you understand the problem sceptics have accepting the AGW theory and the proposed methods of stopping the alleged results?

    As regards the rest of your post, supporters of either side of the debate could go on ad infinitum posting internet references to support their own views and refute each others arguments but it wouldn’t change set minds.

    Unfortunately, common sense and definition leave the debate when it descends into twisting terms, like climate change for AGW, carbon for carbon dioxide etc., childish name-calling and labelling arguments as either Left, Right, Labor, Liberal, Green whatever. We are all Australians and/or world citizens and I’m sure everyone loves their children and want the best future for them.

    Could we please try and lower the temperature of the debate and start seeking to find areas on which we can all agree, or at least support?

    For my own part, spending money raising the living standards of the billions of poverty-stricken people in the world and preparing for mitigation of the natural disasters we know from experience will continue to occur, makes far more sense than continuing to pour ever-increasing sums into what has become a bottomless pit in the futile attempt to allegedly stop Climate Change!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Pat @ 73

    “re Edenhofer – it’s just words. remember the Make Poverty History summit held at Gleneagles in 2005 where Blair and Bush were lauded in the MSM. well, it’s easy to make promises, but the funds don’t materialise.”

    Pat, haven’t you heard of Agenda 21. Just google “600 billion dollars and Cancun”. Also check on the cost of what Greg Combet signed us up for!

    “Failed Cancun Conference Produces Massive $600 Billion UN Governance Agenda for Population Relocation and Controls, Re-Wilding Industrial ‘Zones’, Social Reformation, Carbon Austerity Equitization”


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Bob of Castlemaine

    Banana @74
    Never fear the bottomless pit continues, one only has to look at Julia and Stephen’s sacred flying pig (NBN). That’s sure to inject another, what is it, $40….$50…$60 Billion of debt into the mix and no doubt Victorian unionists will fill some of those jobs.
    But as with the desal plant, whether there is any lasting benefit from this reinvention of the PMG seems highly unlikely. If past experience with pink bats, education revolution, green loans etc. is any indication all we’ll end up with is an even higher mountain of debt.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    KeithH @ 74 “One of the main matters in dispute is whether changes are the result of natural variability …..”

    It’s not in dispute in the scientific world. They know that GHG exert a radiative force and factor that into theie equations.

    “….. and maybe even some still unknown forces as has been the case for billions of years”

    Maybe, but at the moment the science cannot find any such “mystery” cause whilst they do know the radiative forces of GHG can account for the warming.

    “Again Blimey, I don’t know of any genuine AGW sceptic who doesn’t acknowledge temperatures have risen since the Little Ice Age”

    and yet then later you remark “In one way, the very idea of a “mean global temperature” that can be measured with accuracy to a tenth of a degree is ludicrous” as if to cast doubt upon the temperatures gathered. Many different methods, including satellites that gather data from over the oceans show the temperature has risen.

    “… what do you consider to be the magical and elusive ideal “mean global temperature” and just how would you measure or more importantly control it?”

    The climate has always changed, but more slowly than we are causing it to. The last 8,000 years or so have been incredibly stable and has allow civilisation to become what it is today.

    “Whatever extremes people live in, they and other organisms have adapted to that environment and arguably will continue to do so.”

    Wrong. Rapid changes to the environment are matched with higher extinction rates. Or perhaps you are suggesting that because if maybe a small fraction of people would live thorough wild changes in temperature it is therefore acceptable; regardless of whether it wipes out animal life and renders this world as vastly different place to what we now enjoy.

    “As regards the rest of your post, supporters of either side of the debate could go on ad infinitum posting internet references to support their own views and refute each others arguments but it wouldn’t change set minds.”

    There is a vast difference in quality between peer-reviewed science publish in reputable journals vs the web-blogger articles most climate deniers point towards for their science.

    “Could we please try and lower the temperature of the debate and start seeking to find areas on which we can all agree, or at least support?”

    Hard to move forward with action when one side wishes to ignore the science on the matter. I would also feel no need to reduce emissions if they were found to be harmless, but the science shows quite clearly that it is increasing the temperature of this planet and acidifying our oceans. So go ahead and stick your head in the sand because you like the cheap and dirty electricity you currently get since you seem quite happy to let others pay for your damage.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Yes but blimey you have still not proven your case and without proof you cannot condone the actions wanted by the green/labor coalition.

    Take the latest piece of crap from Flannery and co. They state that the world has warmed by 0.17C/decade since 1970 and this is caused by increases in CO2, what they failed to mention was that the temp rise from 1910 to 1940 was exactly the same and from the 1860′s to 1880 was also the same.

    The reason why they failed to mention these facts is because they dont want you to know these facts, but why Blimey?, why would they deliberately withold scientific evidence from a report? We all know why of course, because they cannot explain why 3 time periods of 30 years has exactly the same warming rate as each other whilst CO2 was at different values thats why.

    Lets not for get the cooling from 1880 to 1910 and 1940 to 1970 had the same cooling rate as well and both lasted about 30 years. The current cooling trend is of similar rates.

    You cannot answer any of these questions Blimey and i am damn sure you wont even try let alone respond to my post but if this report was scientific in nature this evidence would have been given without hesitation so as the reader could evaluate the evidence to form a considered opinion.

    Now the green/labor coalition want to bring in a TAX and so far it has blown up in their face like a bad trick cigar so what they do is they PAY people like Steffen an flannery to produce a piece of crap to sell the TAX, a TAX that is based on a report that does not include all the scientific evidence only the cherry picked bits. These people are treating you like a fool Blimey and you sit here and accept it. You are unbe F$%$%#@ing leivable, do me a favour please…

    Compare the two plans

    One says we will apply a TAX to increase the costs of essential services (electricity, fuel, gas, food etc)so people use less.

    The other says we will develop ways to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (plant tress, carbon sequestration etc).

    Now i admit neither plan is perfect but surely one plan stands out from the other (hint: there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    crakar24, if you go and look at the science then you will find explanations for the various warmings and coolings we’ve had in the past. These include aerosols from volcanoes, changes in solar activity and sulfur emissions to name a few. What we do know is that the usual natural culprits for cooling or warming the planet cannot account for the past few decades.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Blimey” is really bob BROWNSTUFF……
    Well at least full of brown stuff anyway !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush Bunny

    Has the Opposition queried Combet’s commitment to the UN Climate change fund held at cancun, Mexico last December.$600 million of that will come from a carbon tax? Where was that in the budget? Filed under Foreign Aid perhaps?

    Or have they also made comments on the EU intentions to tax QANTAS
    as from January next year when they fly over Europe to add to their
    failing carbon emissions fund? Oh they will be exempted if Australia adopts carbon trading.

    The jury might be out, but the predators are circling?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Notice how all of the AGW proponents who are trying to FORCE their moral C..P onto us always start off with “the science is settled” or something similar in an attempt to negate and stifle any following debate about the “settled science”.

    They then get into suggestions that Australia should lead the way etc etc etc – we all know the agenda.

    What they NEVER get into is the maths about CO2 levels and how much we will change CO2 levels with OUR (Australia’s) carbon (dioxide) tax.

    1 – Percentage of CO2 in earth’s atmosphere = 392ppm – let’s say 400ppm to make it easier

    2 – Percentage of CO2 attributal to man’s emissions @ 4% = 16ppm

    3 – Australia’s contribution to worldwide levels @ 1.5% (of the 4%) = 0.24ppm

    4 – Gillard’s proposed reductions by 2020 of 5% (if achieved) = 0.012ppm

    So Gillard and the Greens and ALL the other people pushing for this tax want to reduce Australia’s CO2 emissions from (wait for it) 0.24ppm to 0.228ppm.

    This will reduce the world’s man made CO2 contribution from (wait for it)

    400ppm to 399.998ppm by 2020?

    The tax is estimated to bring revenues of $12,000,000,000 (that’s $12 BILLION) PER ANNUM but let’s say $10,000,000,000 – ($10 BILLION) to stay on the right side of the ledger.

    Currently 2011 – tax will start in 2012 so let’s say 8 years at $10 billion pa.

    That’s $80,000,000,000 ($80 BILLION) to reduce Australia’s emissions by 0.012ppm?

    ANYBODY THAT CAN SUPPORT THIS SCAM BASED ON THE NUMBERS ABOVE IS, FRANKLY, NOT THE “FULL QUID”

    No wonder Flimflam admitted it is going to take a 1,000 years for us to see any difference – what an absolute joke they ALL are!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Blimey at #82

    usual natural culprits for cooling or warming the planet cannot account for the past few decades

    B – Weren’t you listening on the previous post? As I laid out for you a combination of previous solar cycle length, a PDO signal and a modest contribution from CO2 and other GG’s accounts for the temperature record as I said including “the last century, and the last decade”. And it does.

    There was a net temperature rise from 1900-2000 of about 0.82 C. Of this a third is due to the PDO-AMO oceanic cycle which has amplitude about 0.14 C (so 0.28 C trough to peak) and wavelength about 65 years. That cyclic component was at the bottom of the trough in 1900 and at the top in 2000. It was rising in the last decade of the century when every warmist was having hysterics and waving their little legs in the air in panic. It is falling now, and hey wow, we’ve got record snow packs in the Sierras and lifts operating simultaneously in Perisher and Aspen.

    Furthermore the remainder of the temperature rise can be accounted for by solar magnetic indirect plus TSI direct warming (~0.4 C) much from two short solar cycles (21 & 22) and CO2 (~0.14 C) as consistent with Spencer’s value for 2XCO2.

    If you want to stick your head in the sand that’s OK by me, but don’t ask me to brush the snow off your bum.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob of Castlemaine

    Bruce of Newcastle: @86
    Bruce afraid it’s very much a case of casting pearls before swine. Religion, CAGW included, always has been a matter of faith, proof and evidence just don’t enter into it. One must just accept the authority of the Gospels of the peer pals when they tell us the science is settled.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    B o N – yes I saw your previous post and I pointed out the obvious ommission. Backyard science is a poor substitute for what the experts produce but blogger-science is all you guys are capable of.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Damian Allen “2 – Percentage of CO2 attributal to man’s emissions @ 4% = 16ppm”

    Already you’re on the wrong track, another example of blogger science.

    The 4% of man’s emissions is the yearly figure as it compares to natures.

    Man’s emissions have take the atmospheric CO2 levels from around 280ppm to 390ppm, a 39% increase.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618143950.htm

    CO2 levels are higher today than at any point in the past 2.1 million years.

    Furthermore the carbon isotope evidence shows the additional carbon is man made.

    But I guess you and radio commentators such as Alan Jones know better .. somehow?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Blimey at #88

    I pointed out the obvious ommission

    B – your ommmmision comment neglects to mention that there was no ommmmmmmmmision.

    Aerosols are included in pSCL by the mechanism outlined by Enghoff et al, Rao et al and others.

    You may choose to ignore science. Snake oil salesmen were known to do that until the populace took action for being bilked. You might say the ALP primary vote in the polls is the only thing falling faster than world temperature right now. QED.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    KeithH -
    of course i understand Agenda 21.
    however, just as the EU’s first action was to introduce VAT (and of course it has risen nonstop ever since) in order to fund the bureaucracy in Brussels, that is what i believe the CAGW money is for. namely to pay for this vast CAGW bureaucracy that will oversee the carbon dioxide financial bubble, the bubble to end all bubbles. that’s how i see it.
    best wishes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS….

    http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S021797920904984X.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Blimey@63

    “Llew Jones – I think you’ll find the IPCC agree about the logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and the forcing, hence why climate sensitivity is expressed as a “per doubling of CO2″. ;) Only the mathematically illiterate would argue otherwise.”

    That relationship is basic science and the IPPC could not ignore it but chose to embellish it with feedback qualifiers. Thus it effectively pays only lip service to it in its consideration of “equilibrium climate sensitivity”. Lip service because the basic equation without the IPCC feedback qualifiers is about the best guarantee from science that runaway CO2 induced global warming is impossible.

    Later on in the last IPPC Report the semi-paranoid, frizzling doom and disaster writers, by their hyperbolic predictions make a mockery of understanding what it is saying, most likely because they, according to your suggestion, are indeed mathematically illiterate.

    If we are talking about “doubling” the relevant multiplying factor is ln 2 or ln 4 for a quadrupling of CO2 etc.

    Incidentally “doubling of CO2″ does not tell us anything per se about whether the relationship is logarithmic. You seem to be confused.

    The atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2100 will depend not on any logarithmic relationship between temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration but on what factors in terms of human fossil fuel combustion and the interaction of the biosphere with CO2 are in play. That increase averaged over the last decade is about 2 ppm. If that increases to say an average linear growth of 2.5 ppm this century then we will have 560 ppm by about 2080. Not sure what base the IPCC doubling is based on but 560 ppm is a doubling of the pre-IR generally quoted atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Given that human emissions have recently been between 4 ppm and 6 ppm/year without even considering natural CO2 emissions it is pretty obvious that the biosphere is absorbing much of that CO2 and no one including the scientists have got a handle on it yet. It may be a natural interactive process in which the climate system does a bit of self correction. Say on the basis of increased atmospheric CO2 speeding up the photosynthesis process. At this time who really knows?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Blimey @ 80.

    Well, you certainly are a believer but pardon me if I choose not to believe that correlation of a rise in CO2 equals causation of computer model projected catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

    The same applies to “the science” of the UNIPCC in which you place such blind faith, but which is also based on the output of computer models that certainly cannot and do not contain all known factors influencing climate change in their programs. The GIGO principle applies.
    “We can’t explain the warming so it must be human-induced rises in CO2″, is not scientific!

    In addition, hand-picked Government appointed scientists under the auspices of the UN, acknowledged as one of the most wasteful, corrupt bodies in the world, and actually charged as set out in the original “Framework Convention on Climate Change”, with finding “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods” do not inspire any confidence!

    With the promise of lavish ongoing funding and exotic yearly trips to various talkfests, combined with the backing of financiers like Al Gore who could see the pots of gold to be made in carbon credits and heavily subsidised but inadequate renewable energy technologies and backed by his mates in Hollywood, is it any wonder these scientists “found” what they were asked to!
    The whole process was politicised and therefore corrupted from the beginning.

    Yet, you seem to think this group represents the entire “scientific world”. If that is the case, the question of who has their “head in the sand” is indeed very subjective!

    You’ll no doubt “have the last word” but as for me, it’s a case of agree to disagree.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Pat @ 91

    We seem to be in the same book Pat, just on a different page. I do see and understand where you’re coming from and it is a given that the impost on developed nations will keep rising.
    One can almost feel sorry for the well-meaning committed environmentalists who have had their cause hijacked by the real powers behind the CAGW scam. Cheers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    Blimey @ 59:

    Sean McHugh @ 14 “1. There hasn’t been any overall warming for over a decade. Even the key Climategate figure Trenberth said that it was a travesty that they could not find the missing heat.”

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000/plot/uah/from:2000/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend

    Trenberth was referring to the lack of monitoring in the ocean and how what we do have doesn’t match what the satellites observe.[Blimey]

    For someone who assumes the high ground for researching the subject, you demonstrate serious veracity issues. Trenberth could hardly have made more clear that he was talking about a general lack of warming. This is from Trenberth’s e-mail to Mann:

    http://junksciencearchive.com/FOIA/mail/1255523796.txt

    Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather(see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather). [Trenberth]

    That’s the missing “where the heck is” global warming that he was talking about? That’s what he meant when he said: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” In fact, that was his next statement in the e-mail.

    But of course, Global Warming and its scientists are too untouchable to allow mere words get in the way of what they really meant to say.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Correction and addition to post 93

    IPCC not IPPC The parts per million in para 6 are 2 ppm(/year) and 2.5 ppm (/year).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Llew Jones “That relationship is basic science and the IPPC could not ignore it but chose to embellish it with feedback qualifiers.”

    The IPCC acknowledges that there is both positive and negative feedbacks. Too bad that you think there should be no feedbacks – seems rather absurd given the complexity of our environment.

    “The atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2100 will depend not on any logarithmic relationship between temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration”

    It’s you that seems to be confused, I said no such thing.

    “Given that human emissions have recently been between 4 ppm and 6 ppm/year without even considering natural CO2 emissions it is pretty obvious that the biosphere is absorbing much of that CO2 and no one including the scientists have got a handle on it yet. ”

    As posted in another thread, the scientists are sure that the oceans/trees are NOT absorbing all we emit, that is why CO2 levels are at 390ppm instead of the preindustrial figure of 280ppm. That you think an additional 3-4% each year won’t accumulate shows once again your ineptitude in maths.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Sean McHugh – so your suggesting Trenberth doesn’t know the difference between daily weather and climate. LOL!! That’s something usually reserved for the likes of Andrew Bolt.

    But if you do wish to read what Trenberth thinks I would think it best to read his paper on the matter

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf

    Global warming is still happening – our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren’t able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can’t definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That’s a travesty!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    BSlimey @ 82 says:

    What we do know is that the usual natural culprits for cooling or warming the planet cannot account for the past few decades.

    Baldfaced liar you are! There is absolutely NO irrefutable proof of what you have said. You call yourself a person of science?

    No you are an annoying mouthpiece spouting for a political agenda.

    Your breath smells of the cesspool that “consensus” climate scientists have become.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    Blimey @ 99

    Sean McHugh – so your suggesting Trenberth doesn’t know the difference between daily weather and climate. LOL!! That’s something usually reserved for the likes of Andrew Bolt.

    He’d be glad to know he’s getting to you.

    But if you do wish to read what Trenberth thinks I would think it best to read his paper on the matter

    What I am suggesting is that you are at a point where you are no longer able to let yourself to be honest, even to yourself. You are ignoring and censoring Trenberth’s own words where he asks, “where the heck is global warming?”. You have the temerity to imply that he wasn’t actually discussing global warming.

    Trenberth described with details the contemporary lack of warming and about snow and record cold and then said, that they couldn’t account for the present lack of warming (find the missing heat) and that it was a travesty that they couldn’t.

    We all know that in public and on guard, the alarmists staunchly stick their inerrant gospel, no matter what – just look at you. In the private e-mails however, we see some reality. Trenberth said the was at least an apparent “lack of warming” and that it was a “travesty” that they couldn’t properly explain it. In his previous paragraph he provided illustrations of that lack of warming (abundant snow, record cold, sporting cancellations). That much is undeniable to anyone but a terminal warmist.

    Contrary to your posturing suggestion, Trenberth didn’t and can’t simply be dismiss the cold as temporary absence of warming due to weather. He was wanting to have the climate simultaneously getting hotter, during the supposedly merely-apparent cooling weather periods. This is Trenberth from the page you link:

    there was a major La Nin˜ a event early in 2008 that led to the month of January having the lowest anomaly in global temperature since 2000. While this is true, it is an incomplete explanation. In particular, what are the physical processes? From an energy standpoint, there should be an explanation that accounts for where the radiative forcing has gone. [Trenberth]

    So definitely for him, the cold did cause concern.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Blimey@98

    ““The atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2100 will depend not on any logarithmic relationship between temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration”

    “It’s you that seems to be confused, I said no such thing.”

    Oh no? What did you mean by this? This is what you said:”Blimey@63

    “Llew Jones – I think you’ll find the IPCC agree about the logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and the forcing, hence why climate sensitivity is expressed as a “per doubling of CO2″.

    Now you claim you said no such thing. Is English your first language? Or to put it another way why use the word hence when you apparently don’t know what it means?

    In your response @98 again you don’t seem to have a clue about what is being said as you wander off into some irrelevancy. What is your background? Do you have any training is a science/maths discipline?

    “The IPCC acknowledges that there is both positive and negative feedbacks. Too bad that you think there should be no feedbacks – seems rather absurd given the complexity of our environment.”

    The beauty of the simple relationship between temperature increases driven by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations is that it shows that CO2 by itself acts benignly in Earth’s climate and certainly cannot be the cause of runaway global warming. i.e. there is a law of diminishing returns in play. That is the starting point for curing alarmism. If in fact there is a multiplier effect through “positive” water vapour feedback that may or may not significantly affect the temperature outcome over the long term. However there is growing evidence that overall these feedbacks are most likely neutral or even negative. That is about the best reason to stick with the underlying equation as a starting point rather than succumbing to an alarmism that has no credible science or evidence to back it.

    Anyone familiar with the complexity of the science knows that neither the better qualified alarmist climate scientists nor the better qualified conservative climate scientists know very much at all about the drivers (climate) of weather events. For example if they did we in our country wouldn’t have done our dough in Victoria and Queensland by building white elephant desal plants on the guaranteed word of alarmist scientists. Climate Science is a new and developing discipline that borrows from physics and mathematics so one doesn’t need to be a specialist to know that sometimes climate scientists are groping for answers and are stretching credibility.

    That is why when you quote to us the considered opinion of a group of climate scientists we are not always impressed. There are few if any predictions that the alarmist variety have made and that can be checked, that were anywhere near their prediction. That’s the prime test of the maturity of the science. I notice top climate scientists like Christy and Spencer or even a world authority like Lindzen are more honest and humble about how little is known, in an evidential sense, about many aspects of the science of climate.

    That includes where all the emitted CO2 “disappears to” on say earth’s annual balance sheet.

    “Given that human emissions have recently been between 4 ppm and 6 ppm/year without even considering natural CO2 emissions it is pretty obvious that the biosphere is absorbing much of that CO2 and no one including the scientists has got a handle on it yet.”

    “As posted in another thread, the scientists are sure that the oceans/trees are NOT absorbing all we emit, that is why CO2 levels are at 390ppm instead of the preindustrial figure of 280ppm. That you think an additional 3-4% each year won’t accumulate shows once again your ineptitude in maths.”

    No it is not really anything to do with arithmetic but rather knowing more about where all that missing CO2 is going. There is still a lot of hard evidence required on what amount of CO2 the oceans are absorbing and emitting. Guesses to fit an hypothesis are not science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Mark D – once you get over your name calling episode, then perhaps you could direct me to the science showing how it is natural causes alone rather than anything to do with the known radiative force of the ever increasing greenhouse gases?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Sean McHugh “You are ignoring and censoring Trenberth’s own words where he asks, “where the heck is global warming?”. You have the temerity to imply that he wasn’t actually discussing global warming.”

    No. I read his paper that he published and quote him word for word. You are the one taking a few sentences from a private email and putting your own interpretation on that.

    “This is Trenberth from the page you link:”

    Yeah, so what?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Llew Jones – “Oh no? What did you mean by this?”

    See if you can spot the difference. I say “relationship between CO2 levels and the forcing”, you say “relationship between temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration”.

    “there is a law of diminishing returns in play.”

    I agree and I pointed out that the formulas used by the IPCC also state this.

    “However there is growing evidence that overall these feedbacks are most likely neutral or even negative.”

    And this is where you fall over. Clouds contain the most uncertainty and the science is still very uncertain about where it will fall.

    That climate denialists wish to cling to a few low sensitivity studies and ignore all other climate sensitivty studies highlights their non-scientific approach.

    “No it is not really anything to do with arithmetic but rather knowing more about where all that missing CO2 is going. There is still a lot of hard evidence required on what amount of CO2 the oceans are absorbing and emitting. Guesses to fit an hypothesis are not science.”

    Wrong. The amount of CO2 we expell is well known.

    The upper levels of the ocean are getting more acidic as it absorbs more CO2. The amount of research supporting this is quite large.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=ocean+acidification

    The isotopic evidence shows that we are producing the extra atmospheric CO2.

    The CO2 levels are higher now than in the previous 2.1 million years.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618143950.htm

    Time to give up the climate denial buddy!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    BSlimey, it’s rude to go out of turn. You have to go first; give me irrefutable proof of what you have said @ 82:

    What we do know is that the usual natural culprits for cooling or warming the planet cannot account for the past few decades.

    For your benefit, I made bold the most troublesome word no reputable scientist would use. Since you made the statement, I know you are not a scientist.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Blimey”,
    Read these FACTS you KUCKLEHEAD !
    Nobody that possess more than ONE BRAIN CELL takes you seriously.
    Brainwashed Pillocks like you and your ilk are a danger to Australia and a danger to your own family’s safety !

    Quadrant Online – The case for carbon dioxide

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/02/the-case-for-carbon-dioxide

    Quadrant Online – Climate Modelling Nonsense – CARBON DIOXIDE VAPOUR TRICK

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/10/climate-modelling-nonsense

    Coal Driven Power Stations and Carbon Dioxide

    http://www.4bc.com.au/blogs/michael-smith-blog/coal-driven-power-stations-and-carbon-dioxide/20100111-m2h2.html

    Dodging the Tax Bullet – CARBON DIOXIDE COMPARISON

    http://www.4bc.com.au/blogs/michael-smith-blog/dodging-the-tax-bullet/20091201-k31w.html

    Global Warming Science and Public Policy – SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/sppi_monthly_co2_report_july.html

    Climate Scientist laments: ‘Co2 is not the right villain’ — rising Co2 is ‘obvious boon to agricultural productivity’

    http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:Vf-Um3lqEQ0J:network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/07/steven-d-levitt-and-stephen-j-dubner-the-green-gadflys.aspx+national+post+levitt&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

    Temperature, CO2, Ocean Levels & the Myths Surrounding Them

    http://www.truthmovementaustralia.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2833

    Global warming Co2 – ALEX JONES

    http://www.cleanairandwater.net/global-warming-Co2.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Roy Hogue

    John Brookes @17,

    Sean McHugh, I know its hard to believe, but 10 years is a short time for our climate. Too short to distinguish long term trends from short term variability. Add another 10 years, and you are getting closer to separating the signal from the noise. So don’t go wetting yourself with excitement when we have a cool year. On its own,it means nothing.

    And by the same token the whole history of recorded temperatures that we have is too short to allow assigning any meaning to recent warming. But you’re not about to admit that, are you?

    You wanted to know why I think you’re a fanatic. It’s very simple; you can’t change your mind. Not even overwhelming evidence sways you. That makes you a fanatic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    And we know who does the bed wetting around here, don’t we!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Blimey@105.

    I know you try hard but you really are a bit of a dope, if I wasn’t a gentleman I would say a pisswit, and out of your depth. You probably spend too much time memorising the alarmist’s catechism and too little on thinking.

    Here are some suggestions that may help bring you to up to average troll speed. When I attended high school in Victoria we were taught Clear Thinking as part of English studies. Is there a TAFE college near you where you could learn some clear thinking? Once you got a handle on that perhaps some basic instruction in logic would be the go. You are a long way behind the eight ball so you may also need some assessment for potential learning disabilities.

    The thought has crossed my mind that you come here because you are lonely. I think it is likely that you may better find a solution to that loneliness on say a lonely hearts club. However if you like the company here so much please try to get up, at least to the mediocre level of our better trolls.

    (If you are determined to stay the course perhaps you need to get up to date with the latest “consensus” about isotopes of carbon as a measure of where it came from. Seems it’s got more to do with the length of journey than the source. You may have to throw away that well thumbed KJ Alarmist Catechism and get a RSV. That’s the price of keeping up to speed).

    Here is a question for you, to add to your catechism, from that highly credentialed climate scientist, Roy Spencer:

    BOTTOM LINE: If the C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can people claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??


    Report this

    00