JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Greens reveal their aims: Environment? Who cares?

Hypocrisy soup for an entree anyone?

The Greens say they want to protect the environment, that CO2 is evil, and that we must be considerate of foreigners. But their actions speak louder than their tie-dyed t-shirts.

Example 1: They get a pot of $10 billion to hand out to their friends, their fans and their pet projects — and they’ve chosen to use it on “carbon reduction programs” that we already know won’t do much to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. If they truly wanted to reduce CO2 emissions, they wouldn’t have ruled out nuclear at the start line and they wouldn’t have ruled out carbon capture and storage (CCS). (We know that CO2 emissions don’t matter; who knew the Greens thought that too?)

Australian Greens leader Bob Brown insisted that CCS not be funded by the new entity, arguing that the money represented industry welfare for foreign-owned mining giants and “clean coal” was an illusion.

But the treasury says this will cost a fortune.

FAILURE to develop carbon capture and storage technology will release 25 million more tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by 2050 and increase the hit on the economy caused by Julia Gillard’s carbon tax, Treasury warns.

(As an aside: Notice that Gillard realises how silly this looks, and finds some more funding from a pot near a rainbow…

Opposition finance spokesman Andrew Robb said that every time Ms Gillard spoke she announced a new funding stream.

And we can see how hard it is for the ALP and Greens to add up numbers:

“The economics of the carbon tax has already unravelled,” Mr Robb said.

“There is the budget overrun of $4.3 billion which they acknowledge, another $3 billion to retire 2000 megawatts of brown coal power generation and $10 billion in money that will have to be borrowed for the Brown-Gillard Bank.

“This total of $17 billion cannot be simply dismissed by Labor as being broadly budget neutral.”

And Mr Robb has not added in the billions required to replace Hazelwood either. Bear with me, this point about numeracy matters and I’ll get back to it in a minute.)

Example 2: Are the Greens really tolerant of foreign cultures and non-Australians? Yes and No. The Greens hate the idea that Australian mining profits go back overseas; indeed, they were positively xenophobic about it. Yet when it comes to buying worthless carbon permits, it’s all A-OK if that money-for-nothing ends up in greedy foreign investment bankers hands. Got that?

From Terry McCrann:

…the single craziest aspect of  the  carbon (dioxide) tax lunacy is that it actually aims to have us paying perhaps $4 billion a year to foreigners just for the right to keep our lights on.

Sunday’s documents estimate that by 2020 we’d be buying the other 100 million tonnes or so from foreigners. That’s ‘Julia’s 160 million’ less the 60 million of actual local emission cuts.

We’d be buying them at a price which Treasury estimates would by then run around $37 a tonne.

We wouldn’t actually get anything tangible for the $4 billion – that’s around $170 for every Australian, $680 a year for a family of four. Just the ‘right’ to keep producing electricity from our coal-fired power stations.

So in Green-world: foreigners who risk their money to create Australian jobs and a product that people all over the world want are the enemy, while foreigners who give us nothing but paper promises about atmospheric nullities get the big tick, the champagne, and red carpet legislation — they can take our money and run. Why? It’s not about science, economics or politics. It’s tribal, and the carbon traders are from the same tribe.

The Greens — masters of  numeracy and business (not) — don’t seem to twig that the only reason so many foreigners are invested in Australian mines is that the foreigners are willing to pay more than the Australians are for those productive assets. If the Greens want to keep the profits in Australia, they just need to get a job, earn some money, and invest it, and face the risks of losing it like everyone else. (That’s a tough game to compete in though if you are not so good with numbers — better to stick with tie-die and politics.)

So what do the Greens want if it’s not a “low CO2 world”? Based on the evidence, they  want to hobble miners, shareholders, and investors: the productive skilled business people. Brown has said he blames the miners for the floods and fires. If this is a tribal war, the enemies of the Green power grab are those who are the main competition for power and influence and the ones who can’t be co-opted into the Green-tribe.

Brown and Gillard call the big companies “polluters”, yet they are charged with no crime. “Corporations” are people — shareholders, employees, and consumers. These are the targets of the hate-campaign.

They who are the independent self sufficient souls, will never be serfs to foolish agendas.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 1.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Greens reveal their aims: Environment? Who cares?, 1.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/5t7h942

218 comments to Greens reveal their aims: Environment? Who cares?

  • #
    John Trigge

    Is anyone able to keep track of the monies being promised by this green-led Labor farce of a climate policy?

    It would be useful if there were a web page we could refer to on the income and expenditure numbers being touted by all and sundry in an attempt to buy our compliance to this tax.

    If there is one already I would appreciate the link being advertised.

    00

  • #

    John, lets tally one up. How much is the green gamble costing the country?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    If blind faith in renewable energy was limited to (some) greens then there wouldn’t be any renewable energy. Didn’t Howard introduce the original PV rebate schemes? Which greens forced through the windfarms in WA?

    Jen Marohasy used to do this – an entire series on bagging the greens. Former greens are a bit like evangelical preachers – they do go a bit far.

    00

  • #

    Mattb — the Greens are costing every household hundreds if not thousands of dollars and for no environmental benefit. If they started to really care about the environment, or the people, and I’m talking about achieving measureable outcomes — then I might support the Greens again.

    It sure looks like people who want power have taken over what used to be an environmental outfit.

    If blind faith in renewable energy was limited to (some) greens then there wouldn’t be any renewable energy.

    If renewables were even close to being competitive, we wouldn’t need any subsidies and green schemes to begin with.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “If they started to really care about the environment, or the people, and I’m talking about achieving measureable outcomes — then I might support ”

    I can only assume you leave your ballot paper blank:)

    Also when you say “the Greens are costing every household hundreds if not thousands of dollars and for no environmental benefit.” I assume you mean the government not the Greens, and would accept that Abbott is committed to meeting the same 5% cuts and would without a doubt similarly pander to renewables.

    The following are all straight from the Coalition Direct Action Plan.

    “Our policy will cost $3.2 billion over 4 years” (what’s that per family per year Jo?)

    “clean energy hubs”
    “$100 million each year for an additional one
    million solar energy homes by 2020.”
    “To accelerate the roll-out and uptake of renewable energy right across Australia, 125 mid-scale solar
    projects will be established in schools and communities projects will be established in suitable towns.”
    “a proportion of incentives
    provided through the Renewable Energy Target will be reserved for bigger projects. Research will
    also be undertaken on the potential for high voltage direct current cables to support the
    establishment of large scale renewable energy projects in remote locations”
    “A Coalition Government will support a major study into the potential for algal synthesis and biofuels
    and support a study into replacing high voltage overhead cables in our cities with underground
    cables. We will also save the greenhouse friendly program”

    But let’s blame the Greens:)

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Seriosly though I’m genuinely interested in which party you’ve found that has better policy on any of the environmental issues you DO think are important than the Greens. Note I’m not a member.

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Like it:-

    Is anyone able to keep track of the monies being promised by this green-led Labor farce of a climate policy?

    Have the ALP and some Unions along with them, gone from representing the Labour force , to fronting a Green led Labour farce ? Is that what happens when the children of the traditional labour movement grow up, never having known a hard days graft in their lives ?
    The times we now live in.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I wonder what this means for WA’s carbon capture project (Collie Hub), which I think is part funded by the Feds… interesting to see if this money is quarantined or whether the Feds will axe that too:

    http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/7105_9756.aspx

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Matt B. @ #5
    Do you seriously believe the Coalition would actually do that ?

    00

  • #
    Alexander K

    There is a very strange and destructive political gene that has run through Australian politics since Europeans first settled the continent.
    The current Greenism seems to be the latest evidence of that gene and makes as much environmental sense as deploying land mines. Why do such people want to destroy a successful society?

    00

  • #
    Paul

    iirc, 10% of the carbon dioxide tax goes straight to the UN.

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    I’ve found some command economy advocates IRL. All 3 of them. I knew if I kept looking I would find some!

    Just from where I sit, the few people i know of who support this war on the periodic table are all skinny cap latte sipping yuppies and dinks.

    The komrade labor party has sided with this crowd who’s ideals and naive ideologies override any semblance of reason or practicality. I doubt if many of them have ever done hard work before.

    Just an observation

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Joe V – they will if they win the next election otherwist Tony would be a Liar.

    00

  • #
    Overseasinsider

    I copied the following section from an Australian Political party. Guess which one!!! First with correct answer gets a GOLD STAR!!!

    Climate Change:

    In the current debate, some scientists say that the earth is undergoing a phase of climate change that is dangerously outside its normal warming and cooling cycles.

    This climate change, they argue, is both highly undesirable now for its attributed catastrophes today like droughts and, relying on computer model forecasts, they point to future ongoing catastrophes for humankind if it continues.

    They see this recent climate change as almost entirely due to humans’ production of green house gases, most notably increased atmospheric CO2 levels caused principally by both the combustion of fossil fuels and the planet’s reduced ability to absorb CO2 as the result of clearing of forests.

    However, they also argue these changes may possibly be reversed by humans undertaking dramatic steps immediately to reduce atmospheric levels of green house gases.

    On the other hand, other equally reputable scientists argue that the current phase of climate change is nothing new and is not outside the normal range of climate change cycles that have been happening for many years.

    The earth has been in the past much warmer and much colder than it is today. These periods of warming and cooling are natural cycles for the earth and not man-made.

    For example, as recently as the 14th century the River Thames regularly froze during winter. Paintings and drawings made at that time show Londoners crossing the Thames by walking on the ice sheet. This period is referred to by climatologists as ‘the little ice age’.

    Prior to this there was a period of balmy warming in Europe that contributed to medieval prosperity. Crop yields in Germany and France were above average. Even grapes grew in northern parts of England.

    Additionally, climate change, they say, is not and never was driven by CO2 levels. The present theory of CO2 causing global warming does not match the observed facts associated with current global warming.

    Even if CO2 is accepted as a driver of climate, humans only produce a small digit percentage of the total CO2 in the atmosphere which is an insignificant contribution to overall atmospheric CO2. Therefore, there is little or nothing that can be done by humans that would be reliably predictable and of certain benefit to affect the current phase of climate change.

    Moreover, it should not be automatically assumed that any and all climate change is undesirable. Many changes in the past have been desirable. There is no such thing as an unchanging ideal global climate.

    Finally, they argue that our ability to accurately forecast future weather conditions is very unreliable. Current forecast tools are simply not reliable enough. To attribute catastrophic present day and future weather events to climate change is scaremongering.

    Media’s Reporting of Climate Change:

    Unfortunately much of the media’s reporting of climate change has focused unduly on apocalyptic and alarmist predictions.

    Young children have been worried and frightened by media predictions of their futures filled with absolutely certain catastrophic weather events caused by mankind.

    Sceptical scientists who do challenge some of the climate change assumptions are much less frequently reported by the media than the supporters of climate change assumptions and dire forecasts.

    The climate change debate itself is often characterised as ‘being over’ and ‘virtually all scientists now agree that mankind is entirely to blame as the cause of the recently observed global warming’. Meanwhile many, both inside and outside the scientific community, ask ‘when was there ever any debate in the popular media?’

    The XXXX:

    Accepts that the scientific debate around climate change is unresolved and in that sense the XXXX remains agnostic in respect to scientific elements of the climate change debate.
    Is not indifferent to the economic welfare of Australian families, farmers and businesses. XXXX will not commit itself to any course of action that is certain to damage economic prosperity if the hoped-for benefits to the environment are uncertain or disproportionately costly.
    Does not support carbon trading schemes as they are considered futile and create an unnecessary burden on our economy.
    Does not support Australia being a signatory to the Kyoto protocol.
    Encourages the development of economic alternatives to fossil fuels and cleaner coal mining technologies.
    Wants to see a more balanced media treatment of the debate and issues surrounding climate change in school curriculum and the media.
    Supports a forestry policy that balances sustainable environmental practices with the interests and long term viability ofrural and regional forestry communities.
    The implementation of viable programs to deal with salt damage to agricultural land.

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Alexander K. @#10

    .

    The current Greenism …. and makes as much environmental sense as deploying land mines. Why do such people want to destroy a successful society?

    Because they feel it has left them behind perhaps ? (having no appreciation of the hard work and endeavour they are sponging off).

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Shooters and Fishers?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    lol CDP.

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Matt B. @ #13

    Joe V – they will if they win the next election otherwist Tony would be a Liar.

    Haven’t you thought, perhaps that’s only to get enough of the gullible on board.

    Being committed to, isn’t the same as doing.

    Perhaps you have to trust in what they believe.

    00

  • #
    Overseasinsider

    You worry me Matt!!!! Sometimes I think that you are actually paying attention to what is being said on this blog and “may” be changing your mind. But then other times the “BAD” Matt comes out and blows all those good feelings away. Soooooo, which is it??? “Good” Matt or “Bad” Matt???

    00

  • #

    Mattb, I didn’t say I like the Coalition plan. It’s better, but I wish they’d put out evidence based policy. (There is no evidence we need to limit CO2).

    “Our policy will cost $3.2 billion over 4 years” (what’s that per family per year Jo?)

    That’s a lot less per family than the $17 billion plus wasted above, and that $17 billion is only the half of it. The cost of rebuilding Hazelwood with windpower is countless billions also –I’ve seen estimates of up to $15 billion alone for that.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Joe I see so it’s not a lie as long as what they actually do conforms to your personal political ideology. Thanks for clearing that up:)

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    MattB @ 6

    MattB if you have so much faith in the Greens and their stated desire to “save the planet”, as opposed to being just another mob of power-junkies wanting to get on the political gravy-train, here is a little exercise for you.

    1. Get yourself along to your next local Greens meeting.

    2. When it gets to “general business” announce you have a simple and cheap plan that will save, on average at least 5,000 hectares of forest a year, at NO cost to anyone.

    3. Then explain all that is needed is to change one line of the Federal and States’ electoral acts. That’s the line that makes it illegal to place anything in a polling booth. Change it so each candidate supplies a copy of their “how to vote” card in a standardised format to the Electoral Commission, and the Commission places a copy in each polling booth.

    Explain that this way there would be no need for every candidate in every State election to have 20,000 to 30,000 how to vote cards printed, and in a Federal election, 40,000 to 50,000 printed.

    4. Come back and tell us how “well” your idea went over. Note, this goes over just as “well” at a Greenpeace meeting, and worked equally “well” with the former Democrats.

    I’ve converted a lot of former Greens, Democrats and Greenpeace acolytes with this simple suggestion – once they attempted it.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I highly doubt they will ever replace Hazelwood with wind power.

    00

  • #
    Overseasinsider

    Here you go Matt…. you’re gold star!!!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    MV why are you restricting that to The Greens? It is a pretty random suggestion. What I do notice, however, is that greens voters are far more likely take their how to vote cards back to where they got them from. It’s a nice touch.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    MattB @ 25

    Fair enough MattB – feel free to try it at a Labor/Liberal/Nats meeting also. The result will be exactly the same – you’ll be howled down and thrown out if you push it – and therein lies the point and the difference.

    The Greens are the only political party supposedly dedicated principally to “saving the environment” so the idea should go over best there. Whereas the other parties can get away with a bit of pragmatism and a dose of political reality in a simple matter like this, the Greens cannot.

    Ditto for Greenpeace.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Overseasinsider:
    July 14th, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    I copied the following section from an Australian Political party. Guess which one!!! First with correct answer gets a GOLD STAR!!!

    Looks like MattB wins the prize with his second guess: The CDP (Fred NILE) NSW

    00

  • #
    MattB

    But if the greens were the only ones to adopt it then they essentially opt out of elections as they are missing out on promotion. THey do use recycled paper and recycled paper that is then recycled isn’t all that bad for the environment.

    I will have to try though because to be frank if it was legislated that no one could have election material then why not?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I cheated with my 2nd guess by googling a phrase sorry.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Joanne Nova

    Much as I hate to admit it, Jo, refusing to support giving money to “research” carbon sequestration is about the only thing Bob Brown ever got right – and then for the wrong reasons.

    From an engineering viewpoint carbon sequestration is simply a specialised version of a perpetual motion machine, and about as achievable.

    00

  • #
    Harpo

    I just saw Will Steffan on SBS. It’s going to get 4 degrees warmer and sea levels are going to rise 12m by 2100. At what point am I supposed to take anything that the Climate Commission says seriously?

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    The greens lost all credibility when they started getting into extremism like “warmal globing” and fake save the polar bears. Some of their (NZ experience) ideas were ok a few years back but allot of environmental aspects are just common sense like fix industrial run off into streams clean up waste dump site etc. Then green parties like Greenpeace (see the founders have all left it) have been hijacked by what can only be described as eco-fascists. They aspire to nutcases like Holdren and the early 20th cent eugenists that argue for total population control (Agenda21 is one of those = Humans are just BAD for the planet lets get rid of those pesky surplice humans..except for the elitists..).
    Its all mixed up with normal environmental issues so if you criticize the nutcase policies then your labeled as anti environment.
    They now support all forms of total energy stupidity. As has been outlined by Jo.
    Then there’s the madness (like King George III), CO2=bad, Nukes =bad, hydro=bad, birdkillers(windmills = good) etc we all know what that means, the more inefficient the better. Basically no energy at ALL = GOOD.
    Stop cars ride horses well we can ask the Greens (and MattB) to scoop up the droppings!

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    MattB @ 28

    Once again you slither out from under the issue.

    The issue is supporting a change in legislation. A change in legislation affects ALL parties (and independents). Who said anything about ONE party adopting it as a principal?

    By the way, did I mention this very idea has been presented as a private member’s bill in Federal Parliament at least three times, and State Parliaments at least eight times (that I know of), and overwhelmingly been voted down by EVERY party?

    00

  • #
    Bruce

    Here’s another poll which needs our support.

    http://abc.com.au/newsradio/supp/poll/default.htm

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Nova says:

    and for no environmental benefit.

    Less carbon emissions means less impact on the ocean.

    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

    That’s an environmental benefit.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Nova says:

    If renewables were even close to being competitive, we wouldn’t need any subsidies and green schemes to begin with.

    If the long term cost of negating the effects of climate change were added to the coal-based energy to begin with, we wouldn’t need any subsidies or green schemes.

    Just because GHG’s pollute the planet on a very slow time scale shouldn’t make them less accountable for the damage being caused.

    00

  • #
    Dave

    Blimey you’e mixed up!

    GHG’s pollute the planet

    They protect the planet.

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    I’ve spoken to some very senior consultant geoscientists and engineers involved in mining. Their opinion is that large scale CCS is totally impractical, extraordinarily expensive and a massive consumer of energy.

    For example the pipe system needed to transport the CO2 would be more extensive than that used for the entire Australian natural gas pipeline system. CO2 forms highly corrosive carbonic acid if any water is present so pipes would need to be corrosion resistant and expensive dewatering processes would need to be installed.

    However the oil industry wants CCS because they will use the free CO2 as a solvent to recover more oil from wells. CO2 currently costs a staggering $200/tonne. It is no coincidence that the oil and gas industry is also a massive sponsor of pro-AGW “science”.

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    MattB;
    There is a difference between promoting a token climate policy and not implementing it, which is probably what Abbot would do, and a commitment not to implement a carbon tax that even you should be able to understand. Perhaps not, if you are in the JBrooks school of its ok to lie for the right reason eg. saving the planet, despite the fact that it appears to not need saving.

    As a greens voter you should be really pissed off with Bob Brown who after rejecting Rudd’s CPRS twice agreed to a scheme that met virtually none of his previously stated objections. His negotiating skills are poor, he is economically illiterate and I am convinced that he shares Maurice Strong’s belief that capitalism has to be destroyed by whatever means possible. Only a megalomaniac would advocate ‘one world government’ and then go on to suggest that it could be run from Australia. Perhaps you share his vision?

    Our current minority government is a farce

    00

  • #

    Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
    Oh! Nyuk nyuk nyuk!
    If you even think it is an option, then you need to read this.
    Clean Coal Hole In The Ground – Just Throw In Money
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    If the long term cost of negating the effects of climate change were added to the coal-based energy to begin with, we wouldn’t need any subsidies or green schemes.

    What long term costs?

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    They protect the planet.

    Not according to fact.

    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    There are no such things as greenhouse gases – clouds (suspended water droplets) present a physical barrier to the escape of energy from the earth’s surface – a 2 phase system, gas and liquid.

    A heterogenous mixture of gases is physically 1 phase – and therefore behaves as a single physical entity. The Earth’s atmosphere is fundamentally the physical property of N2 and O2, and may be likened to an ice cube that has an impurity in it of about 0.04% concentration, (the amount of CO2 in air). That small impurity, say a dust particle, does not change the physical properties of the ice cube. Similarly CO2 at 0.04% concentration (by volume) cannot affect the physical behaviour of air despite all the, well meant, scientific theorising based on the assumption that the physical properties of a substance is an aggregate of the individual properties of its constituents.

    In any case the belief in the rule of climate sensitivity, that a doubling of CO2 concentration will cause a 2-5 degree rise in air temperature overall, has not been confirmed by observation. If this rule was true, then the accelerating volume of atmospheric CO2 must be associated with a rising GMT; it isn’t, the GMT has stalled, and apart from statistically specious arguments, it has to be accepted that the AGW rule of climate sensitivity has been falsified.

    So why don’t the proponents of AGW accept this?

    It’s much the same as a mineral exploration target I explored a couple of years back – the geophysical data were interpreted in such a way that geophysical modelling implied the existence of a large volume of buried (hematite) iron ore, depth to this interpreted hematite ore being about 50 metres. Drilling started and at 140 metres depth in the drill hole, no hematite iron ore was found – just 125 metres of Cretaceous Canning Basin acquifer, and underneath it, uneconomic banded iron formation sediments.

    However, until the drilling of the test hole, plenty of debate occurred over what “might” be underfoot.

    The problem for the warmenists is that observation and measurement of the earth’s thermal state has shown a static GMT, while CO2 continues to rise in volume in air. This observation is equivalent to my drill hole “testing” the hypothesis. The warmenists’ reaction to any challenges to their deductions, however, is to seek alternative explanations, or other, ad hoc, arguments to substantiate their initial belief. This is the reaction of the religious mind, and quiet distinct from the scientific one.

    00

  • #
    KDX

    Matt b
    Seriously what is so wrong with ICLEI? Even Agenda 21 is a great document

    sheesh I cant take anything political you comment on seriously…..

    00

  • #
    pat

    arguing over whether or not we should be doing this or that regarding carbon dioxide seems like a pointless exercise.
    scores of countries, including china and india, will be increasing their carbon dioxide emissions forever in order to develop, and so they should.
    CAGW is a financial instrument. it is toxic for poorer countries.
    it is supported by political parties of all persuasions.

    post-Climategate, i thought we’d no longer have to wake up to carbon this and carbon that on the media morning, noon and night.
    i thought we would say goodbye to this CAGW doomsday, end-time religious cult, waiting on the rapture as much as the crazy guy in the US recently.

    i must have been dreaming.

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Blimey@41;
    The process is not ‘ocean acidification’ if they cannot get the title right what else will they stuff up. Next thing you know they will be blathering on about Arctic death spirals. Sorry – my mistake – they have done that already.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Agreed Louis! @ 42. The planetry lapse rates show this clearly.
    Bilmey.. ocean acidification has shown to be bogus by several researchers (not ones employed by the IPCC) and do not affect marine life. Theres more CO2 absorbed in the oceans than the air ever had but huge amounts. (sorry dont have a link at hand).

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Allen McMahon @ 45

    Perhaps Blimey can explain why the oceans didn’t acidify even when the atmospheric CO2 level reached 7000 ppm (about 15 times that of today) about 350 million years ago? I don’t suppose the rules of chemistry have changed, have they? Or perhaps it was something to do with the Ice Age occuring at the time?

    The coral, molluscs and other marine life just lapped it up. Any reason they wouldn’t today? At the bottom of the marine food chain there is the humble CO2 molecule, just like it is on land.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    00

  • #
    Dave

    Blimey
    Your source of information is not good!

    Look at site you listed there – every recording station of NOAA has the disclaimer

    DATA ARE UNVERIFIED

    See Station Papa http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Papa

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Blimey @ 34

    Blimey – Chemistry 101 for you:

    ACID + BASE = SALT + WATER

    Blimey:
    1. You CANNOT “acidify” a base (alkaline): when you add acid to a base you only turn the acid and some of the available alkaline into salt and water. Since there are many orders of magnitude more alkalines available in the oceans than there is CO2 in the atmosphere, even if ALL the available CO2 somehow dissolved in the oceans you STILL would not end up with an “acid” ocean.

    “Acidification of the ocean” is a completely non-scientific term employed only by those jumping on the “climate-change” band-wagon. You will not find it used elsewhere in any reputable scientific literature (chemistry or physics).

    2. The amount of CO2 (or any gas) that can be dissolved in the ocean (or any liquid) has absolutely NOTHING to do with the amount of the gas in the atmosphere, assuming the atmosphere remains at a constant pressure. At constant pressure ONLY a reduction in the temperature of the liquid can increase the solubility of the gas in the liquid (Henry’s Gas Law).

    3. One CANNOT argue both that the planet (including the oceans) is warming (CAGW), AND that the oceans are absorbing more CO2, Blimey. It’s not called Henry’s Gas LAW for nothing).

    Choose carefully Blimey:
    Choose “ocean acidification” and you immediately falsify CAGW.
    Choose “CAGW” and you immediately falsify ocean acidification.

    So which group of your infallible “climate scientists” do you choose to call liars?

    00

  • #
    gnome

    But there is good news folx- some wise fellow on the ABC this morning said we only have to turn off an old refrigerator in the garage to save $80 per year. If I turn off about a dozen my entire electricity bill will be gone.

    I don’t want to seem patronising but what are all these big energy users complaining about- surely they can afford to hire someone to go around switching off refrigerators. It makes me wonder why no-one has thought of it before!

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    therealuniverse # 31

    Its all mixed up with normal environmental issues so if you criticize the nutcase policies then your labeled as anti environment.

    I believe the reason that it evolved this way is that the mainstream parties say they will keep the air and water clean. Basic healthy environmental concern is part of the centre. To have a reason to exist the greens have moved to the extreme. Most of their agenda is (oddly) focused on a hypothetical conspiracy. A conspiracy by the banks or the drug companies or the miners or the paper manufacturers or CSIRO (GM) or the newspaper owners … THEY are all conspiring against the green way. Their percentage of the vote in AU co-incidentally matches well with the number of the voting population that you would expect to be suffering from mild to severe paranoia.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Gnome @ 50

    The refrigerator (beer fridge) in my garage is brand new and not switched on.

    Since it was quite cheap how many more should I buy and not turn on to completely cancel my electricity bill?

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Incoherent Rambler @ 51

    Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean THEY are not out to get me.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    I do not think they are out to get me.
    I know it!

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    Blimey@34

    The oceans are protected by a bicarbonate/carbonate buffering system of almost infinite capacity. In practice any excess CO2 absorbed by the oceans is simply converted to insoluble carbonates (mainly limestone and dolomite) which quickly sink to the ocean floor.

    It is absolutely impossible for the oceans to become acid or even substantially less basic. Every first year chemistry student (should) knows this.

    00

  • #
    CameronH

    Blimey @ 34, You obviously have no knowledge of the chemistry of seawater whatsoever if you believe that there is a problem with a decrease in seawater chemistry from 8.13 to 8.08. I am a chemist who has worked with seawater chemistry for about 30 years. Are you aware that the ph of seawater in estuarine environments varies by more than this over poeriods as short as one day. Do you really imagine that life in the ocean can not handle these types of variations. There are numerous scientific studies done using real world obsevations that show no significant calcification problems with these types of ph changes. See this paper http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080421160728.htm,( sorry but I do not know haow to do links) which shows that there is generally an increase in calcification with increasing seawater carbonate concentration. Most studies with real world observations actually show this. Grow up and do some research. Mindless sheeple like you, in mass in extreme organisations like Greenpeace and WWF are destroying our civilisation and our economy. You should realise that the average citizen will not let this go on indefinately. We are rapidly loosing patience with fanatics and extremists.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Cameron H @ 56

    Don’t sweat it, when it comes to the internet we are all learners here. Thanks for the attempted link. This one should work:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080421160728.htm

    Your original effort picked up the apostrophe and the open brackets. Otherwise it was fine.
    You can test a link by hitting the “preview” button, then right clicking on the link and selecting “open in a new tab”. If it works, it will work in your post (hopefully).

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Speedy@47

    I don’t suppose the rules of chemistry have changed, have they?

    AFIK CAGW is based on tenants not rules.

    00

  • #
    gnome

    It’s OK MV@52- he did say an old refrigerator, but he didn’t specify any other prerequisites like whether you actually have one or not. I figure for someone without it is just as easy to turn off a dozen or more as it is to turn off one.

    Now I only have to work out how many pretentious cups of coffee I need to foreswear to become fabulously wealthy.

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    I meant ‘tenets’ probably a Freudian slip as I consider most CAGW advocates as rent seekers.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    allen mcmahon @ 58

    The “rules” of “old” chemistry have not changed.
    However, with CAGW we are dealing with “post-modern chemistry”.

    In post-modern chemistry there are no “rules”, only “socially desired outcomes”.
    In this post-modern chemistry the perception of the inputs are massaged to meet the needs of the desired outcomes.

    Still – who knows?
    The last guy to mess around with this concept had a predilection for turning water into wine.
    So some good may come of it after all.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Gnome @ 59

    Good point Gnome.
    I think you are really onto something.

    “I hereby declare I will never turn on the twenty fridges I don’t have in my garage, and therefore claim a complete refund of my electricity bills henceforth and forever”.

    I think I will foreswear sacrificing vestal virgins next, and see how that works out for me.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Allen McMahon @ 58

    Sorry – I forgot! But they’re “high integrity” and “robust” tenets. They said so.

    BTW if they were actually supported by “tennants” that would make them rent seekers! (Tenets = principles, Tennants = rent payers.) That’s bad – sorry…

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Gnome @ 59

    We need a name for your discovery.

    “Post Modern Para-Psycho-Physics” maybe?

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Speedy @ 63

    You are absolutely correct.

    About the bad joke that is.

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    The only way this poxey carbon tax will pass legislation is
    for two or three to cross the floor. I can’t see this happening as I don’t think any ALP members are game enough to cross Julia et al. Then you have Malcolm Turnbull who most probably has investments in carbon trading. Personally if the House of Reps rebels that’s the only way we will hasten an election. The GG has no power at all to interfer.

    But should it go through then eventually the legislation won’t take effect for a while, and this gives the opposition time to do their homework. Tony Windsor has a private bill in parliament about changing the mineral legislation (Right now all minerals belong to the Crown and all profits go to the gas, oil or mineral and farmers get nothing). That will have to pass or he won’t support the government – no more. LOL.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    MV @ 66

    Not guilty your honour! Allen Mc beat me to it at 61!

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    gnome @ 61. The biggest electricity outage for domestic users are keeping cold and warm. They advise us to turn off
    appliances at the wall when on standby? Does save a bit.

    But – what about places that have huge electricity bills for freezing and keeping food or drink cold and healthy? I know here in New England and the Northern Tablelands that it is now minus 5 sometimes more at night. I don’t heat at all although I have ducted oil heating throughout the house (brick). But it took me quite a few years to acclimatise to living in a home that drops to 9 c. Mind you I watch DVD’s and TV in my bedroom with an electric blanket. One advantage the doctor told me when I had two flu shots, my robust biology makes me less vulnerable to colds etc. Just keep the thermal underwear on and don a wool jumper in the house, and it works. Saves me about
    $150 per 3 months in electricity. Some of my friends who are elderly pay $900 dollars every three months. Mine rarely goes over $300 but that’s because I can’t afford heating. I don’t think that’s fair is it. I’m 69 on Saturday and really would like the house a bit warmer?

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    PS from 69. I don’t get many visitors and my dogs have their own bedroom but when we have visitors from QLd WE DO
    put on the two bar electric fire? And do put on a small fan
    heater in the bathroom to bathe or shower. But I am counting the hours for when I next get my electricity bill?

    00

  • #
    kramer

    I am not at all surprised that part of these carbon revenues could end up overseas. I have read many environmental papers (and a number of books) that have mentioned the need to redistribute wealth both within and between nations. From what I read in your newspapers over the last few weeks, this carbon tax is going to redistribute wealth to foreign nations and to pensioners and other people in Australia that will need some monetary assistance.

    They also want to put in a global leftist government that will manage the world’s resources and to make sure every human being will have the same carbon footprint. Our standard of living will drop in the developed world and we’ll probably end up working less, making less, and having more time to take nature hikes.

    Gotta love the great transition…

    00

  • #

    Joe I see so it’s not a lie as long as what they actually do conforms to your personal political ideology. Thanks for clearing that up:)

    Mattb, you need to explain that one. I have no idea what you are talking about.

    Jo

    PS: OH. OK. I see it was in reference to Joe not Jo. Yes. OK.

    Hey, 2 comments to go to the big #60k

    00

  • #
    Numberwang

    @Speedy, #64: “Tenants” are renters. “Tennant’s” is a Scottish lager (even better). CAGW believers are not interested in turning water into wine (or Tennant’s), but claim to be able to turn seawater into carbonic acid. That would be a miracle of biblical proportions, and cements the case that CAGW is a religion and not science.

    00

  • #
    1DandyTroll

    @MattB:
    July 14th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
    “If blind faith in renewable energy was limited to (some) greens then there wouldn’t be any renewable energy.”

    If you summaries’ the list of corporations in the renewable energy industry in EU, who already have cap and trade and all sorts of carbon and energy taxes plus VAT on everything, you’ll see that it is mostly done by the same old industry, big nuclear, big oil, big coal, big hydro, because it is Big Energy that is green energy. The few independent “green” energy companies are too few to matter too small to compete, and if they do succeed they get bought up in quick succession.

    If you want to understand why this is you have to go no further than looking at the bureaucracy involved at actually getting the permits required to put up even a single wind turbine and the bureaucracy involved in actually getting the subsidies. No money to persuade the locals to get a land permit, no wind turbine. No land permit, no subsidies, no wind turbine. No subsidies, then what’s the point in getting the land permit, no wind turbine. No land permit for infrastructure, . . .

    Then comes the maintenance cost. First few years is cheesy easy because you have no degradation in generation, due to warranty and assurance deals on parts and what not. The maintenance cost on a 15 year old turbine is about as insane to keep paying for when a 15 year newer turbine cost less to put up. Imagine paying maintenance cost for a installed capacity of 0.5 MW per turbine when your competition (Big energy) is putting up installed capacity of 3 MW per turbine . . .

    The economical life span on a wind turbine is no longer than the subsidies covers, in EU this is down from 25 to 20 years, however the technological life span never seem to reach even 20 year due to the economy of maintenance. Just take a look at the rotting corpses of wind turbines that still litters the US country side because they apparently became too expensive to maintain for their generating output (and no corporations wanting to buy old crap) and apparently even too expensive to dismantle.

    The renewable industry is the subsidies, as in renewed subsidies for old energy industry that now lacks the subsidies of the golden age of 70′s.

    Dandy Troll! You win the 60,000th comment!

    00

  • #

    Re: #60 & #63,

    Maybe trying to get a payout for NOT doing something you weren’t going to do anyway might work in this crazy world. The windmill operators seem to get paid when they don’t produce power. The greenies get paid when they stop things from happening. Certainly doing something doesn’t get you all that much. Let’s pretend seems to be what passes for reality today.

    I installed CFL’s in every light socket in my apartment and turned it into a dark cave. My light bill dropped by almost $20/mo after their installation. Is that ALL I get for saving the earth from catastrophic global warming? After all, the globe stopped warming shortly after I installed the CFL’s so it had to have been me who saved the earth.

    Twenty measly dollars a month for saving the earth from burning up. Now I ask you, is that fair? I should at least get an “I saved the earth” T Shirt and a written thank you from Al Gore for my efforts. Oh but no, I will get glued, screwed, and pounded into the ground for not doing enough. While Al, who has a carbon footprint many hundreds of times larger than mine, gets treated as a fountain of truth and the savior of everything great and good.

    Strange world we live in.

    Actually, I was quite happy with the $20/month saving. I have sensitive eyes and don’t need bright lights to see. Also, I don’t find CFL light all that objectionable. Their reduced heat output means my apartment stays cooler in the summer. Saving the earth was simply an unintended consequence.

    00

  • #
    FijiDave

    Well, then, I’ll be the 61,000th! :)

    00

  • #
    FijiDave

    Crikey, that Lionel beat me, and I did mean the 60,001th….

    00

  • #
    FijiDave

    Lionel @ 75

    While Al, who has a carbon footprint many hundreds of times larger than mine,

    I remember hearing a Ugandan woman state on a radio interview (I can’t remember what it was about, but no prizes for guessing!), “Al Gore’s carbon footprint is larger than that of 42,000,000 Ugandans”.

    If integrity were dynamite, Gore wouldn’t have enough to blow his nose.

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    MattB @#21.
    Apologies for the delay ( had to go to work).

    Joe I see so it’s not a lie as long as what they actually do conforms to your personal political ideology. Thanks for clearing that up:)

    Matt,
    It is what it is.
    Only if things change between declaring an intention & implementing a policy, sometimes it’s only sensible to change. But what changed to make Julia change her mind, Eh?
    Was the missing Hotspot suddenly found ?
    Has it got warmer ?
    Or does she see that UN superannuated position a beckoning ?

    Not to mention how deciding to Tax after promising ( oh so unequivocally) not to, isn’t quite the same as not
    keeping a promise to waste billions.

    Is it ?

    00

  • #
    FijiDave

    So what do we make of this?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/5287638/Climate-change-evidence-undeniable

    Scientists say that evidence for climate change is now undeniable.

    Disastrous floods, heatwaves, storms and droughts are becoming more frequent because of climate change, and will continue to do so.

    Scientists say the world can no longer ignore the link between climate change and extreme weather events, and they are urging countries to face up to the growing risks ahead.

    New Zealander Kevin Trenberth, who heads the climate-analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, said events of the past 18 months had been extraordinary. “It’s as clear a warning as we’re going to get about prospects for the future.”

    My coffee just curdled!

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Fiji Dave, how many times have the trolls here said “That’s not climate, thats WEATHER!”

    For gods sake when will they stop being idiots? 18 months of “extraordinary” when there hasn’t been warming for over 10????? Roy Spencer did an excellent discussion on why some of the US recent “extraordinary” events are because of Cold. (NOT WARMING) Of course Trenberth would probably quickly come back with:”cooling is a sign of warming” but I know better.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/

    00

  • #
    elsie

    The sad, sad demise of Greenpeace
    Thursday, 14 July 2011
    Greenpeace protesters in hazmat suits destroy a crop of genetically modified wheat at the CSIRO experimental station at Ginninderra.
    In the latest ‘COSMOS’ report even this science magazine is appalled by Greenpiece.
    It refers in particular to the vandalism of CSIRO’s experiment on GM wheat as well as other activities.

    The sad, sad demise of Greenpeace

    by Wilson da Silva

    GREENPEACE WAS ONCE a friend of science, helping bring attention to important but ignored environmental research. These days, it’s a ratbag rabble of intellectual cowards intent on peddling an agenda, whatever the scientific evidence.

    ….what was so ‘toxic’ about this wheat strain it had to be destroyed? Its genes had been modified to lower its glycemic index and boost fibre content, creating bread and other wheat products that would improve bowel health and nutritional value.

    Greenpeace has lost its way. Its former glory rested on the righteousness of its actions in support of real evidence of how humanity was failing to care for the environment. Now it is a sad, dogmatic, reactionary phalanx of anti-science zealots who care not for evidence, but for publicity.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    It turns out the CRU ( University of East Anglia ) has some interesting “friends”

    http://climateaudit.org/

    Talking to ex News of the World guys to help them with their “problems” in the media. I wonder how many phones were hacked !!

    Fiji Dave –I spilt my coffee as well. Did you see the bit in the business section — Swan and English ( NZ Finance Minister ) together says the NZ ETS will be aligned with the Aussie tax grab. ( I spilt my second coffee )

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Numberwang @ 73

    I’m losing it! But maybe the only defence is that the greens are busy turning wine in to “water”.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    If the ABC was Relevant (Part 44)
    (The Customer)

    [Scene: A car yard. BRYAN is perusing the stock. He is approached by JOHN]

    John: Morning! Looking for a new car?

    Bryan: Nope. Prime Minister, actually.

    John: You’re the third one this morning. Anything in mind?

    Bryan: You know – nothing fancy – reliable, economical family model. Something to get the country from A to B.

    John: You mean like a Howard?

    Bryan: Yeah – a little Johnny. Nothing flash, does the job. Low maintenance, economical, sensible. Runs for years, no troubles.

    John: So – you used to have one?

    Bryan: Yeah. About 10 years. Great little model – don’t know why I got rid of him – biggest mistake I’ve ever made…

    John: What happened?

    Bryan: Traded him in for a Kevin ’07.

    John: Big mistake…

    Bryan: Lot of people bought it. Good political milage.

    John: How was the Kevin ’07?

    Bryan: Came with a $900 factory rebate – that was good.

    John: Anything else?

    Bryan: Not much. Sounded nice but nothing under the bonnet. It was a lemon.

    John: Didn’t stick around for long did it?

    Bryan: Nah – had a factory recall. Shipped overseas and was never seen again.

    John: What was the problem?

    Bryan: Lots. But the final straw was the navigation system. Plug it in and it automatically loses its own way.

    John: Whatcha got now?

    Bryan: It’s a Gillard-Brown.

    John: The hybrid?

    Bryan: Yeah. The Eco-drive system – not a good idea. An engine that can’t deliver hooked up to a transmission stuck in permanent reverse…

    John: Green paintwork with a red interior. And steering that always lurches to the left for no apparent reason – that’s the one?

    Bryan: The Fustercluck model.

    John: The only one they made, Bryan. Not the vehicle of choice for the road to recovery – but did they finish up fixing the navigation system?

    Bryan: Made it worse. Turn it on and it does a press release, heads off in all directions and goes nowhere.

    John: So that’s why you’re here?

    Bryan: That’s right. I’m stuck with a government that’s wasteful, expensive, ineffective and past its use by date. I don’t suppose you’ve heard of the “Cash for Clunkers” scheme?

    John: Join the queue brother.

    10

  • #
    Mark

    Elsie,

    For once, i’d have to say that Greenpeace did us a favour.

    These GM crops have nothing to do with “feeding the world’s poor”. They have everything to do with ensuring that farmers can only buy new seed from the huge agrichemical concerns (eg. Monsanto).

    00

  • #
    gnome

    Bush Bunny @69 and 70- you are such a wasteful girl! Do you take the food out of the freezer and put it outside on those freezing nights?

    Dogs in their own bedroom- how dare you complain about cold in your freezing heartbreak mansion? Turn off the electric blanket, put the dogs to work. (Here in FNQ mine seem to end up in my bed every morning anyway, despite being nominally banned from the bedroom.) Your dogs will thank you for doing your bit for the planet,

    00

  • #
    Andrew Barnham

    I agree wholeheartedly with MattB’s implication @5; the coalition’s policy is just as much a dogs breakfast.

    It’s only possible saving grace are ‘secondary benefits’. Question is, will policy generate things of true value for the country, or is it just a ‘make work’ scheme (like making the new apprentice tally up all the nuts and bolts in the fastenings drawer).

    It’s other more clandestine saving grace is that it is easy to dismantle.

    But the greens are deserving of being singled out for criticism; it’s not all about the environment, it is about rolling back civilisation in pursuit of the eden/gaia utopia dream.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    In case it wasn’t obvious that economic modellers can make gross assumptions up there with the best climate modellers … not to be outdone the Treasury boffins made the ridiculous assumption that the major GHG emitters of the world would jump on board in the next few years to curb emissions like the suicidal death pact Jooolya and Brown have proposed for Australia:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/fatal-flaw-in-case-for-a-carbon-tax/story-e6frgd0x-1226094872101

    And they didn’t consider any alternative realities…

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    As for GM crops… why wouldn’t we take advantage of technological advances? If the companies are using the advances to exert monopolyy power then it is a case for anti-competition watchdogs, not a reason to abandon the technology.

    Have to disagree with you Mark… besides it was a CSIRO research centre, not big, evil GM crop monster (fill in name here).

    00

  • #
    elsie

    Mark #86′
    With due respect I don’t care if some company makes money from the R&D they do for improved crops. Drug companies make money from the huge outlay they pay for R&D which is then recouped by medications you or a loved one may use. The wheat we grow today is not the original wheat early Man used in the ‘fertile crescent’. Of course William Farrer developed drought resistant wheat by a blunt form of GM. It is sheer anti-science to castigate improved scientific efforts to improve crops.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Bush Bunny @ 67

    “Personally if the House of Reps rebels that’s the only way we will hasten an election. The GG has no power at all to interfer(e)“.

    One of the ways “they” maintain control over us is by keeping us ignorant of our very own laws. You can see this in action any time by going to court and sitting in on a trial by jury.

    Once the jury selection process is over, the first thing that happens is the judge makes a speech where he or she explains to the jury that the jury is there to assess the facts (evidence), and the judge is there to assess the law. In other words, it doesn’t matter if the jury thinks the law itself is rotten, they are only there to judge the matter on the facts presented.

    This is, of course, utter poppycock. A jury can be totally convinced by the evidence that the defendant did, in fact, do exactly what they are accused of, and STILL find them not guilty because they think the law itself is unfair. This is called a “perverse decision” by judges and lawyers.

    But you will never hear a judge mention this, and if you can get a group of lawyers to talk about it, it is almost like listening to born-again Christians discussing Satan and hell, in whispered tones of awe, fear and revulsion.

    Nowhere does this ignorance of our laws become more apparent than when the Reserve Powers of the Governor General are discussed. And what are the Reserve Powers of the GG?

    Pretty-much whatever the GG wants them to be.

    As I pointed out in a lengthy post on another thread, the government of Australia is Queen Victoria, and her heirs and successors (the reigning monarch). The monarch, in turn, is required to govern in accordance with the will of the people. The GG is the monarch’s representative here in OZ. Parliament exists solely to represent the will of the people to the monarch, as embodied in the position of GG.

    In OZ, proposed legislation does not become a law until and unless it has been given “Royal Assent”. This is signified by the GG “signing” the law, and then the law being “proclaimed”.

    The GG does not have to grant Royal Assent. The GG has several choices.
    Grant the law Royal Assent.
    Send the proposed legislation back to the Parliament for further consideration.
    Set the proposed legislation aside for consideration by the monarch.
    Dismiss the existing Parliament (NOT the prevailing government but the whole Parliament – ie a double dissolution), issue writs for a new election and appoint a caretaker government until the elections are held.

    Now, if you Google “Reserve Powers of GG” you will read a lot of crap claiming everything from “the GG doesn’t have these powers”, right through to “the powers exist but only in theory – the accepted convention is that they are not exercised”.

    This, of course, is dog droppings. Each of the above “Reserve Powers” has been exercised at some time by past GG’s, most recently by John Kerr in 1975 when he dismissed the Parliament (NOT the Whitlam government as is so often misquoted), and issued writs for a full election.

    I have written in the past about the futility of simply ranting on blogs and holding protest rallies and such, unless there is a clear aim to DO something. Starting a campaign to bring pressure to bear on the GG by posting registered letters requesting her to send the legislation back to Parliament would be a good start.

    No, it won’t actually stop the process. But as was proved in the battle against the ID Card Legislation in 1986, if enough Aussies demonstrate their knowledge of the law to the politicians through the GG, none of them will have the kojones to actually do anything, even if they get their precious law onto the books.

    The only measure of power our politicians and their Masters have over us, is their complete confidence in our ignorance of the legal mechanisms available to us .

    Take that away from them – as we did in 1986 – and they turn into sniveling, obedient cowards.

    At least for a while.

    My apologies for such a lengthy post.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Joe in #79…. as I say if the lie suits your politics than it is excusable… Julia’s certainly suits mine:) To me the key is that she didn’t say “no tax” then win a commanding victory and then just decide to introduce one… but to form a government she looked at the various demands of coalition partners and made a decision in line with what is ALP policy, albeit one that was deferred heading in to the last election.

    If the greens demands were so obscure Oakeshot and Windsor could have put a stop to it. But instead 4 totally diverse political backgrounds have agreed on a plan. If enough hate it they can vote them out… that’s politics.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Australian ICLEI/Agenda 21 member list. http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=11454
    Australia
    • Adelaide City Council
    • Adelaide Hills Council
    • Albury City
    • Alexandrina Council
    • Alice Springs Town Council
    • Ararat Rural City Council
    • Ashfield Municipal Council
    • Auburn Council
    • Australian Capital Territory Government
    • Australian Local Government Association
    • Ballarat City Council
    • Bankstown City Council
    • Bass Coast Shire Council
    • Baw Baw Shire Council
    • Bega Valley Shire Council
    • Benalla Rural City Council
    • Berri Barmera Council
    • Blue Mountains City Council
    • Borough of Queenscliffe
    • Brisbane City Council
    • Burwood Council
    • Byron Shire Council
    • Cairns Regional Council
    • Campbelltown City Council
    • Campbelltown City Council
    • Canada Bay Council
    • Cardinia Shire Council
    • City of Boroondara
    • City of Brimbank
    • City of Bunbury
    • City of Burnside
    • City of Charles Sturt
    • City of Geraldton-Greenough
    • City of Gosnells
    • City of Greater Bendigo
    • City of Greater Geelong
    • City of Joondalup
    • City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder
    • City of Kingston
    • City of Lake Macquarie
    • City of Mandurah
    • City of Marion
    • City of Melbourne
    • City of Melville
    • City of Mitcham
    • City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters
    • City of Onkaparinga
    • City of Perth
    • City of Port Phillip
    • City of Rockingham
    • City of South Perth
    • City of Stirling
    • City of Subiaco
    • City of Sydney
    • City of Victor Harbor
    • City of West Torrens
    • City of Whitehorse
    • City of Whittlesea
    • City of Wodonga
    • City of Yarra
    • Clarence City Council
    • Clarence Valley Council
    • Colac Otway Shire Council
    • Darwin City Council
    • Devonport City Council
    • District Council of Mount Barker
    • District Council of the Copper Coast
    • East Gippsland Shire Council
    • Frankston City Council
    • Fraser Coast Regional Council
    • Gold Coast City Council
    • Gosford City Council
    • Greater Shepparton City Council
    • Hobart City Council
    • Hobsons Bay City Shire Council
    • Holroyd City Council
    • Hunter’s Hill Council
    • Indigo Shire Council
    • Knox City Council
    • Kogarah Council
    • Larry Quick (Associate Member)
    • Leichhardt Municipal Council
    • Lismore City Council
    • Liverpool City Council
    • Macedon Ranges Shire Council
    • Manly Council
    • Manningham City Council
    • Marrickville Council
    • Mike Galea (EnvironArc Pty Ltd)
    • Mildura Rural City Council
    • Moira Shire Council
    • Monash City Council
    • Moonee Valley City Council
    • Moorabool Shire Council
    • Moreland City Council
    • Mornington Peninsula Shire
    • Mosman Municipal Council
    • Mount Alexander Shire Council
    • Murrindindi Shire Council
    • Nillumbik Shire Council
    • North Sydney Council
    • Palerang Council
    • Parramatta City Council
    • Penrith City Council
    • Rural City of Wangaratta
    • Shellharbour City Council
    • Shire of Augusta-Margaret River
    • Shire of Busselton
    • Snowy River Shire Council
    • Strathbogie Shire Council
    • Sunshine Coast Regional Council
    • Sutherland Shire Council
    • Swan Hill Rural City Council
    • Tablelands Regional Council
    • The Barossa Council
    • The City of Unley
    • The Shire of Peppermint Grove
    • Toowoomba Regional Council
    • Town of Cambridge
    • Town of Kwinana
    • Town of Vincent
    • Townsville City Council
    • Warringah Council
    • Warrnambool City Council
    • West Wimmera Shire Council
    • Willoughby City Council
    • Wyndham City Council

    00

  • #
    1DandyTroll

    “Dandy Troll! You win the 60,000th comment!”

    You know. I do like yellow(ishly sickly) balloons (you can get freakish big weather balloons for cheap, all legal like), so fill one with helium and when it’s fat enough write: I’m green under the right lightning. And send it on its merry way to travel the world through the troposphere and what not of the atmosphere, being all cheeky being all dandy the king of the jet stream. :p

    00

  • #

    [...] Greens reveal their aims: Environment? Who cares? [...]

    00

  • #
    pat

    jo -
    u need a new thread strictly to cover Climate Audit and Bishop Hill – tho it’s late in both US and UK and there may not be many more comments today.

    once the full implications sink in about UEA hiring a PR company, Outside Organisaton, and spcifically Neil Wallis, former News of the World guy just arrested in the UK, to spin Climategate, there is no end to what can be revealed by some online searches before stuff disappears. already Outside Org has begun disappearing info on Wallis’ position with the company, etc.

    the meme that so appeals to the Bob Browns and the CAGW crowd, namely that Murdoch media has been on the side of the sceptics, which i’ve tried to shoot down so often, is UNRAVELLING right now.

    ross has already put this link in the comments above, but here it is again. spread this far and wide.

    “Covert” Operations by East Anglia’s CRU
    http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/14/covert-operations-by-east-anglias-cru/

    Bishop Hill News of the World and UEA
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/7/14/news-of-the-world-and-uea.html

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    US about to default, Obama walks out of talks. etc.
    And US will be downgraded regardless of debt ceiling
    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-07/15/content_12907037.htm
    How can this stupid Govt entertain such stupidity with all this going on.
    See no Evil Speak no Evil Hear no Evil. Blind deaf and dumb. Dumb and Dumber.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Mark @ 86, I don’t know If I could ever say Greenpeace did something right, I do know that you are on to something with regard to GM seed and the monopoly potential for seed and food production.

    Any of you that disagree need to cast a skeptical eye on the matter.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Thank God the barossa council are not on that list LOL.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Real Uni at 97.

    Now if the us dollar is halved in value how does that affect my home mortgage?

    The way I see it if my country defaults on debt I win (cause I’m a taxpayer and my portion of debt goes away) If that devalues the dollar by half, I win again because over time I’ll realize a purchasing power increase against the fixed value mortgage. Further, stock markets will have to go up because the dollar is devalued against their real asset value. This means my modest 401K will also benefit. Where is the downside for me?

    I invite the economists to disagree

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    I forgot to add on more thing: after the US Dollar is halved in value against world currency, the demand for US goods will skyrocket causing a boom economy. Again what Is my downside?

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Mark D,

    I am not an econimist but how about this, your credit rating will drop, Obama will ask the Fed Reserve to crank up the printing presses to flood the economy with more worthless peices of paper and remember for every dollar they print you owe more with interest an interest you can never pay back. In the end you will need a suitcase full of $100 bills to buy a loaf of bread.

    What will your 401K be worth then?

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    In regards to CCS, the theory behind CCs is that under the right geological conditions you can pump CO2 into spent oil reserves, the up side is that you can gain access to the small amount of oil never possible before and you get rid of some CO2. In the USA they had such an opportunity, the geology “was perfect” so they pumped it full of CO2 and as expected got the last bit of oil out, capped it, waited around for 5 minutes to see what happens and then walked away calling it a roaring success.

    About a month later a farmer wanted to know why all the water on his property had bubbles in it!!!!!!!!!!

    Once again knowledgable man was outsmarted by mother nature.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Heres one I think this hacking scandal is going to blow big and not looking good for the globalists and especially the ‘globalist in chief’ Murdoch, who are planing to make or have made already billions from carbon trading fraud.
    But http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/14/covert-operations-by-east-anglias-cru/

    Today brings news of the arrest of the managing director of a firm hired by the University of East Anglia’s CRU (Climatic Research Unit) to carry out “covert” operations

    Hmm so you didn’t think its (CRU UEA data fraud) one of those pesky lil ‘conspiracies’?
    @ MarkD looks like crakar24 answered your question, agreed craker24.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    CO2 sequestration is much like taking the gas coming out of a pig’s rear end and putting it into the pigs front end.

    00

  • #

    Mark:
    July 15th, 2011 at 8:38 am
    Elsie,

    For once, i’d have to say that Greenpeace did us a favour.

    These GM crops have nothing to do with “feeding the world’s poor”. They have everything to do with ensuring that farmers can only buy new seed from the huge agrichemical concerns (eg. Monsanto).

    Apart from the obvious question of economies of scale, eg what small companies would have the capital base or infrastructure to be able to produce the ammount of seed needed for cropping requirements.

    You are correct in this case, this trial has nothing to do with feeding the world, it was a trial of a wheat variety that has a low GI (considering the growth in the incidence of Type 1 and specifically Type 2 diabetes, anything that can reduce the contribution of basic foodstuffs to this is a good thing), and high fibre (also has health implications for reducing the contribution of basic foodstuffs to the increasing incidence of bowel cancer).

    The activities of Monsanto and other like companies have produced rust resistant grain crops, drought tollerant species of various broad acre and horticultural crops, pest resistant crops, lower irrigation intensive crops and a wide range of chemicals for use in agriculture and horticulture that are more effective in pest control and with reduced witholding periods.

    These things have led to more productive, higher yield crops with reductions over time in the inputs required and the production costs for farmers. The economic benefits alone of what have been achieved in agriculure and horticulture over the last 50 yrs because of the huge ammount of capital expended by these companies in R & D have allowed developed countries to produce surplus basic foodstuffs that has been used to help alleviate famine and food shortages in the developing world with little impact in the market price for the local markets.

    You sir are an idiot, and your room temperature IQ shines brightly through the mindless, uninformed dribble you have posted.

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit

    @ MattB #25: “… greens voters are far more likely take their how to vote cards back to where they got them from…”

    Now I wish I’d saved the photo I took at last year’s Federal Election! I was manning an election booth (for another party) in a Perth suburb, and at the end of the day when we and the other parties’ volunteers were tidying up, picking up rubbish and removing posters etc., I noticed that one party’s volunteers were missing in action:

    Yep, you guessed it: The Greens! They rocked up at 10am (the rest of us were there at 6!) with their paper bags of recycled-paper “how to vote” cards, their posters and signs, stayed till 3 … AND LEFT EVERYTHING BEHIND! As I said, I did take pictures and meant to send them to the local papers. Wish I had, now!

    Says it all, really. Priceless :-)

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Greens = secret society.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/greens-deny-hypocrisy-in-media-scrutiny-call/story-e6frg996-1226095297945

    He rejected suggestions of hypocrisy, given the Greens’ own party conferences are off limits to the media.
    “The Greens’ conferences are subject to the vote of the membership who feel sometimes shy about speaking up – we politicians don’t,” Senator Brown said in Canberra.

    Shy.. thats right, so they dont get shown up as sharletons.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Lets see the merit of this thread, to summaries:

    1, Dullard wants to introduce a TAX that will leave the budget 4.3 billion in the red over the next 4 years

    2, Dullard will guve Brown 10 Billion to spend on……….well i am not sure what on, but is this 10 bil on top of the 4.3billion debt or part of it?

    3, Dullard wants to shut down Hazelwood and other coal fired power plants at a cost of over 3 billion, even though to replace it would cost well over 20 billion.

    4, As we are a primary producer we can never realistically reduce our emissions as per the 5% and 80% targets so we will need to buy credits from bankers to give the appearance that we are at a cost of what? Trillions by 2050 (MattB be a dear and check my math)

    Does anybody here seriously think this is good policy? Forget about the theory behind AGW for a moment and just focus on the policy, does anyone here think this is good policy?

    An additional thought, Bob Brown does not like the fact that foreign companies come here, spend big dollars on investment, employment, TAXES and add to the growth of our economy because they take the portion know as profit out of the country. Instead he wants to crush this pratice but is quite happy for us to send billions of dollars to bankers/ex politicians in exchange for a peice of paper known as a carbon abatement credit or CAC.

    Imagine yourself sitting in a position where you had full coverage of all the nations on the planet, you can control how much energy they use via controlling the price of a CAC, the amount of energy a nation has at its disposal controls the growth of its economy therefore if you raise the price of a CAC you slow its economy, in effect you control the world. Now i dont want to be too dramatic here but think about what Brown is happy to do with our economy via CAC’s and think about what he said the other day about the NWO and how it could be located in Australia (LMAO Bob).

    Obviously Brown is no more an environmentlist than Garnaut they both want one thing and one thing only.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Anne-Kit @ 107

    There is actually more “pollution” involved in recycling paper than in producing it from scratch (more and harsher chemicals, bleaches etc involved). Especially to return it to a quality suitable for printing.

    There is a valid case for recycling paper and saving some trees if the end product has a long service life – income tax returns, cardboard record storage boxes etc, but NOT for something as temporary as a “how-to-vote” card.

    When I ran as an Independent here in QLD in 1990 I had prominently displayed across the bottom of my how-to-vote cards “Not Printed on Recycled Paper”, with an explanation as to why on the back with actual facts and figures.

    Caused a bit of a stink with all the other parties who all had the then mandatory (politically correct) “Printed on Recycled Paper” on their cards.

    If you want to have fun with Greens, go along to one of their shindigs and point out to all the mothers that their beloved disposable nappies are A) made from expanded wood fibre, and B) are virtually indestructible and will outlast their children’s children in the landfill tip.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    MV I wager you’ll find far more greens mums are using cloth nappies. You’re probably a bit old to see that little revolution taking place.

    00

  • #

    MV I wager you’ll find far more greens mums are using cloth nappies. You’re probably a bit old to see that little revolution taking place.

    Care to provide some peer reviewed research to back up that assertion or are you just like the mentiond disposable nappy?

    00

  • #
    Dave

    MattyB

    Baby in Cloth nappies use 200Kg of CO2 over 2.5 years
    Baby in Disposable nappies use 550Kg CO2 over 2.5 years
    Baby in Nappies (cloth) saves 83kg per year for average life of baby in nappies
    http://ozclothnappies.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/cloth-nappies-cut-carbon-emissions-by-around-half-environment-agency/

    MattyB not in nappies (of any sort) breathes out nearly 365kg of CO2 per year
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

    Conclusion: No MattyB reduces Global warming more than Cloth nappies?

    00

  • #
    Bruce D Scott

    Thank you Jo, I love this site because I find it very informative and helps me separate the “science” from “political science”. By the way, I ordered the Sceptics Handbook 1&2 about 7 days ago, I hope I did it correctly.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Paul, despite lack of peer review evidence I am confident that greens voters are more likely to use cloth nappies than other voters as:

    1) The environmental benefits are questionable
    2) They are far less convenient than disposable nappies
    3) (2) is compensated by a smug superiority over your average consumer oriented planet hater.
    4) just like AGW you can quickly google and find “research” that shows that cloth nappies have a greater carbon footprint, and that research confirming this has been suppressed by the UK government AND lefty-green mum’s organisations have lobbied for changes/suppression of research including having it removed from websites.

    You still want to argue this?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “MattyB not in nappies (of any sort) breathes out nearly 365kg of CO2 per year
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
    The origin of your numbers concludes:
    “A. No. While people do exhale carbon dioxide (the rate is approximately 1 kg per day, and it depends strongly on the person’s activity level), this carbon dioxide includes carbon that was originally taken out of the carbon dioxide in the air by plants through photosynthesis – whether you eat the plants directly or animals that eat the plants. Thus, there is a closed loop, with no net addition to the atmosphere.”

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    On this blog I’ve previously argued the case for challenging the science. Although I understand the reasoning based on what they believed to be the political climate on “climate change”, rather than pursue it, regrettably Tony Abbott and the Liberals chose to legitimise the false “settled science” mantra. In doing so they have painted themselves into a corner and severely limited their ability to fight this fraud. The Nationals to their credit seem to have been the only ones to call it for the scam it is.

    Australia is now paying the price for not having had that debate and it has degenerated into being seen as a mainly political issue on party lines. This is particularly the case as regards the media with only one or two exceptions.

    In my opinion, politicians of almost all parties have totally misread the depth of feeling in the electorate. In my long life I have never known such a general feeling of anger and frustrated hostility towards any government and/or Prime Minister.

    The media plus Gillard/Brown and cronies in particular see opposition to the carbon dioxide tax as driven by Tony Abbott. Let me tell them, Tony Abbott is incidental to the rage felt by voters who through lying politicians have seen their wishes arrogantly ignored and over-ridden.

    What they fail to recognise is that unlike most rusted-on labour supporters and gullible brainwashed ideologically driven Greens, there are a huge number of people who have done their own research and made up their own minds on the real evidence. That is the source of the opposition.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    MattB @ 116

    “. . . this carbon dioxide includes carbon that was originally taken out of the carbon dioxide in the air by plants through photosynthesis – whether you eat the plants directly or animals that eat the plants. Thus, there is a closed loop, with no net addition to the atmosphere.”

    Too true MattB. And the stuff we call “coal” that we would like to burn in our power stations was once plant material and part of the same “closed loop”, therefore releasing the CO2 now results in “no net addition to the atmosphere” – if one considers the matter over a long enough time-frame.

    Trouble is greenies think the world only started 1,010 years, 6 months and 15 days ago – give or take half a day. I think the blame for that can be found here:

    http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/mann%27s-hockey-stick-climate-graph.htm

    00

  • #

    You still want to argue this?

    So the correct answer is you are making an assumption, an unfounded assertion, a claim not backed up by evidence, an opinion, and in so doing are also answering the second part of my original question in the affirmative.

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    00

  • #

    Hmm!
    I wonder what Australia’s portion of this little lot will be?
    http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/14/76-trillion-to-engineer-a-green-economy/
    Note the price tag. Only $76 Trillion.
    Good old UN.
    Trust them to find a way to spend other people’s money, er, minus their costs of course.
    No wonder a certain ex PM is eying off Ban Ki-moon’s job! ‘Doc’ Evatt would be so proud.
    Note just one quote from the article:

    Furthermore, the developing world has serious economic challenges, such as gaining access to reliable electricity. Over 1.4 billion people in the developing world, mostly Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, are without electricity. Yet the U.N. wants to drive a global change that would force pricier, intermittent electricity to these areas.

    Tony.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Tony the whole point of an ETS is to control the economies like Aust etc and to keep 3rd world countries like sub-sahara/asis in abject poverty.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    MattB

    This little debate over nappies is a good, small example of where the enviromental movement has been ruined by the AGW crowd.
    Talking about carbon foot prints in relation to nappies is BS ( and to think someone wasted time and money on research into it is nuts).
    I would have thought the simple argument that cloth nappies are significantly cheaper ( over the time the baby needs them )than disposables and the fact that it reduces the demand on landfills dramatically would be enough.

    00

  • #
    PeterD

    It’s not as if the headline is news to anybody.

    The science is yesterday’s argument, and like the ‘environment’, has run it’s course. The useful idiots have done their job and the goals, in Australia at least, are a political lay-down misere.

    It’s time to stop fighting a battle when the other side has abandoned the field.

    What we have to do now is fix the system that has betrayed us, while there is still the remnant of a system to fix. The battle is political.

    There will be no point revelling in the righteousness of scientific truth under the auspices of a global government.

    00

  • #
    mullumhillbilly

    MattB@116
    Your reasoning is clear and logical there, so that’s probably why the Green’s dont get it. Burning wood is not renewable energy under the govt’s carbon plan.

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    @pat:
    July 15th, 2011 at 11:56 am
    Comment 96

    UAE has already removed the history of the CRU section from tyhe website. They don’t want the people to know that BP and shell founded the CRU to create a scientific reason to close the competing coal industry.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    bananabender

    Had no idea that the United Arab Emirates was implicated in the CRU scandal.

    Umm.. OK, being a smartarse… Couldn’t help myself!

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    To theRealUniverse@32

    Okay what’s the problem in Agenda 21? I have heard of this “hidden in plain view” agenda before but did not look into it until now. As one example let’s try this chapter about the euphemistically titled “demographic dynamics”:
    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_05.shtml

    I’ve only glanced over this page, but I can’t find anything insidious.
    What did I miss?
    Are there other pages of Agenda 21 that are worse? Which ones?

    As a skeptic and a freedom lover… I need to know!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Andrew – conspiracy concerns about Agenda 21, especially in terms of trying to “expose” local governments that have signed up to Local Agenda 21 (LA21) programs (which are pretty much just a case of ICLEI helping you do some sustainability planning but you know stuff like composting workshops and energy management/audits) are the kind of things that differentiate lunatics (Damian Allen) and normal folks. I mean you could have the opinion LA21 is a waste of time (after all it is essentially a direct action plan) but there is no deep evil take over the world agenda by socialists going on.

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Matt B @93

    Joe in #79…. as I say if the lie suits your politics than it is excusable… Julia’s certainly suits mine:)

    If the lie suits the politics , as you put it, of only 10% – 20% of the people though,
    and that’s not of experts, but of the will of the people, what will the people do next ?

    Tax & People as Thatcher found to her cost were a bridge to far, and there was no lie there, just unfairness.
    While people can have a certain tolerance for unfairness, being lied to is insulting and the people won’t forget.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Some interesting reads about this ANTI HUMAN UN Agenda21……….

    The Totalitarian Threat of Agenda 21

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-totalitarian-threat-of-agenda-21.html

    UN Agenda 21 & Maurice Strong: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

    http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=18097

    Is the Soros-Sponsored ‘Agenda 21’ a Hidden Plan for World Government? (Yes, Only it Is Not Hidden)

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-soros-sponsored-agenda-21-a-hidden-plan-for-world-government-yes-only-it-is-not-hidden/

    UN AGENDA21

    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

    00

  • #
    scott

    Just to chime in :
    Ugandan Population
    – 2009 estimate 32,369,558[2] (37th)
    – 2002 census 24,227,297
    (42 mill was a little out)

    Anyways… JO the 10% being paid to the UN, Can you verify that? I have heard it a lot, and think the general population will go crazy when they hear of it!
    thanks

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Interesting articles about the REDS (greens)……..

    THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF AUSTRALIA SUPPORTS THE GREENS

    http://www.cpa.org.au/guardian/2010/1467/02-to-cpa-members.html

    The Greens’ policies would destroy the Australian economy

    http://brookesnews.com/?p=26

    How the ABC shields the Greens

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

    Andrews on the dark heart of the Greens

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

    00

  • #

    Let’s guess what happened here eh!
    Treasury modelling for the CO2 Tax Carbon Tax Price on Carbon Clean Energy Future was done on the price of $20 and that’s the modelling they are using.
    Garnaut asked for $26 and the Greens, well, sort of anyway, accepted that. (You see, they know that to retain the power they now have, they have to support Labor, in much the same manner that Labor has to keep the Greens on side for them to remain in Minority Government)
    Government, having done the modelling on that $20 took that to the Greens, who said “No no no, we won’t go for that.”
    Government says, well, okay we’ll meet you half way then.
    Greens, “well okay I guess”.
    Hence the price was announced at that $23 even though the modelling was done on only $20.
    Sort of leaves a 15% hole between what was announced and the modelling.
    Not Treasury’s fault, but if word gets out, you can bet the fingers will be pointed at them.
    Or, I suppose they could always blame Howard!
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    We used cloth nappies for a while, and then switched to disposables. The disposables are *much* more convenient, but cost a lot. I think they are also more comfortable for the bub – which shouldn’t be ignored.

    Just when bub was out of nappies, he suddenly developed an appetite, so cost saving on nappies was balanced by increased food bill. You can’t win.

    But I am confused. I don’t think we ever properly sorted out the massive price increases for Coke, because of all those bubbles. I’m pretty sure we never got to the bottom of the 15 tonnes of CO2 released while making mattresses. Why are we moving on if we haven’t resolved these momentously important issues?

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    Andrew McRae:
    July 15th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
    Comment 128

    To theRealUniverse@32

    Okay what’s the problem in Agenda 21? I have heard of this “hidden in plain view” agenda before but did not look into it until now. As one example let’s try this chapter about the euphemistically titled “demographic dynamics”:
    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_05.shtml

    The Final Solution probably sounded fairly innocuous too.

    00

  • #
    scott

    WIll the price of Fire Extinguishers now be beyond the reach of the working family?

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Here is some information about how 10% of gillard’s carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax will be given to the UN……..

    Australia to Give $599m In Climate Change Handouts – And That’s Just The Beginning!

    http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/04/australia-to-give-599m-in-climate-change-handouts-and-thats-is-just-the-beginning.html

    AUSTRALIANS DEMAND AN ELECTION, NOW !!

    00

  • #
    KDX

    Matt b @
    there is no deep evil take over the world agenda by socialists going on.

    From memory out of the 196 member states of the UN only 85 are democracies…
    And the other 111 are… military dictators, communist tyrants and the odd narcissistic sociopath thrown in for good measure.

    So technically your statement isn’t incorrect, it’s just that not even remotely close to being true. More green kool-aid Matt?

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    MattB

    but there is no deep evil take over the world agenda by socialists going on.

    Go and read for yourself about Maurice Strong and John P Holdren. THEN make your statement.

    FACT the globalists banksters are wrecking the US and other economy.
    http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/ http://theinternationalforecaster.com/
    And theres plenty of other agreement if you look (not in the MSM) even Bllomberg has written about it.
    Pretty high level opinion if you ask me.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    MattB

    but there is no deep evil take over the world agenda by socialists going on.

    Go and read for yourself about Maurice Strong and John P Holdren. THEN make your statement.

    FACT the globalists banksters are wrecking the US and other economy.
    http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/ http://theinternationalforecaster.com/
    And theres plenty of other agreement if you look (not in the MSM) even Bloomberg has written about it.
    Pretty high level opinion if you ask me.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    (sorry double post doggy internet!)

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    The cost of wind power is substantial. Especially if it’s to notionally replace reliable, conventional (nuclear is conventional) power.

    I’ve spent many moments of my holiday in (mostly) Germany looking at the devastation that wind farms have wreaked upon the formerly-beautiful landscapes. But the costs are more than cosmetic or directly resulting from the cosmetic (e.g. turning off tourism).

    To build a wind turbine in Germany costs about 900 Euros (about AUD$1200) per kW of nameplate (peak) capacity). Plus the cost of real estate for the turbine, service roads, rights of access for power lines, sub-stations and HT power lines into an increasingly-unstable electrical grid.

    The largest wind turbines currently in production have a peak generating nuisance of 1000 kW … i.e. 1 MW (megawatt). Performance, in practice, as a whole is that they produce about 16% of rated peak power over a year. Very sporadically. And never consistently predictable over any period of importance.

    If we shut down a 2 GW coal-fired power station and want to replace it with wind, it means that just restoring the average capacity requires building more than 12,000 “one megawatt” wind turbines. At an equipment cost of AUD$14,400,000,000. Fourteen thousand, four hundred million dollars. Before dealing with any issues or intermittency or fluctuating supply.

    Of course, one can’t plant these wind turbines close to each other. Because you get a copse-effect where the wind doesn’t significantly carry past the first few rows of “trees”; largely because of Le Chatelier’s principle … the wind finds an “easier” way around the obstruction. In fluid mechanics (pipe flow), one typically expects a return to initial flow after “20 diameters” from the obstruction to the flow, where the “diameter” is not infrequently (justifiably – because it’s confirmed empirically) “fudged” to be the size of the obstruction. You want the flow to return to “initial” because anything else reduces the efficiency of the wind turbine, resulting in even more feeble “power” generation.

    If we apply that rule generously and take just 10 diameters, then the wind turbines cannot be any closer than about 1.4 km from each other. i.e. each turbine “requires” approximately 2 square kilometres of surface area and the length of inter-connects grows correspondingly.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Bernd,

    And the number of new copper mines we have to find to produce all the copper transmission cables to feed the windopower electricity into the grids.

    They are stark raving mad.

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    KeithH # 118

    Abbott can still hedge his bets here by saying that the Coalition approach, implemented over time, will be less damaging than that of Labor – given the science isn’t settled. It’s a ‘we don’t know for sure, so just to be on the safe side…..’approach. Ok, so they start with planting a whole lot of trees as reforestation etc. It is still an asset that can be used later once the warming scare has gasped its last dying breath.

    It was all about timing. I know of people who are anti Labor’s tax, but still can’t quite bring themselves to question the whole notion of climate change. I present them with the evidence and you can see they know it makes sense, but the brainwashing has been thorough over many years. However, more people are now becoming receptive to the idea that there are questions over the science. Call it financial self interest, and all of a sudden they are taking an interest. I would say that the ideologues claiming every weather event here as evidence of climate change (given many also know their history and poetry) has also contributed to heightened cynicism.

    If Abbott had come out and said it was all crap again, the media could have had a field day with him. Out of necessity, he’s being PC, and tactically he’s doing small target and letting Julia take the heat. The left are getting desperate now for some scandal to take the focus off Labor and their screw-ups, and how much everyone detests the lies of Julia. Van Onselen in the Australian is coming across as almost fixated in this respect.

    On the whole though I now I sense the media are, themselves, backpedalling on the issue of climate change. They’re not quite so certain anymore and are hedging their bets. At this point some might be concerned with ending up looking like fools, and climate change is not quite as fashionable as it once was now that there are real consequences to be borne and the economic future is looking a little dicey at the moment. Others in the media seem to have new confidence now in letting their inner sceptic shine through with some recent critically argued and informed articles. Ergas and Sheridan being the highlights in The Australian.

    We all need to keep chipping away, each and every one of us. It is why I come to this site. I come here for inspiration and insight so that I can get the message out (it is also much better than tv). Every day I reply to articles in the Australian. My comments don’t always make it, but sometimes they do. Around 50 – 70% of my office is now sceptical or is questioning received dogma because of my influence.

    I was listening to Bob Carter’s keynote for the recent Heartland conference (and can I say that I am just as proud of Carter as a Kiwi as I am of Ed Hillary). At the end of this keynote he talked about the falling belief in AGW, which tells us we are making headway.

    http://www.livestream.com/heartlandinstitute/video?clipId=pla_299c86af-4db7-418a-a908-083ea13e1814&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb

    00

  • #
    Dave

    Brooksie @ 135

    STICK TO THE TOPIC PLEASE! Greens Reveal their aims: (not personnel life!)
    A bit confused – understatement!

    I think they are…..
    You can’t win……..
    But I am confused….
    I don’t think……..
    I’m pretty sure……
    Why are we moving on.

    If you’ve had a few, we understand but this

    We used cloth nappies for a while…………more comfortable for the bub?

    We really didn’t want to know you wear nappies?

    00

  • #
    Tom

    I think it’s important that every cent of the Greens’ new slush fund is examined forensically for waste, conflicts of interest, prima facie bribery/corruption and financial misappropriation. It promises to be the biggest single theft of public money in the history of Australian parliamentary democracy.

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    I do hope Bob Brown and his Greens have seen this… that the German government wants to encourage the construction of new coal and gas power plants with millions of euros from a fund for promoting clean energy and combating climate change.

    http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110713-36277.html

    00

  • #
    DavidH

    Thank you lmwd @145, it’s exactly what I have been thinking. The idea that we can all chip away at the brainwashing was the gist of my first ever post here. Thanks also for the link, which I’m about to watch. I noted with some bemusement that there was an ad on the Heartland Institute page for the New Internationalist Magazine on “Switching off denial – a guide”. I clicked on it and let it load fully – if we all do that there will be quite a few dollars less in the coffers of those bozos.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    TheRealUniverse and Crakar24 re 103, 105

    You have provided the “standard” answer. However, give it some more thought: Lets say my mortgage is say $200,000 USD and fixed interest, there is no language in that mortgage that says I have to pay it back in any other than US dollars (I looked). Lets say a loaf of bread does cost a wheel barrow full of USD$. Then if I have the means to make bread, I can pay off that mortgage with very little effort. The lower the value of the dollar, the easier it becomes to pay off that mortgage! Same goes for any other of my debt. So I should stockpile flour and yeast.

    On the 401K, since it is invested in mutual fashion, I assume some of those companies will survive. If one of them is a bakery and has plenty of flour or grain inventory, their stock value will skyrocket and my 401K will go up in value. the hungrier people get the higher the bakery stock will go.

    Lets say I have been stockpiling more things; tools, food, water, fuel, and my abilities. These things will always have real value. That value goes up just as fast as the dollar devalues.

    Lets also say that I have almost no cash so a devaluation of the $ by itself means little to me.

    Lets also say I have been hoarding silver coins, ammunition, weapons, toilet paper, soap, alcohol, medical supplies, etc. (you might understand why I have no cash)

    Other than chaos, potential lawlessness and physical harm that may happen, I don’t see a downside to me.

    This may sound twisted to you because you have been taught the “standard” answer. I have no doubt that wealthy people with a lot of cash and no abilities (say a banker for example) would suffer greatly. We’re hooked on cash and it’s worth because “The Man” wants it that way. By the way there is a name for what I described above it’s called the barter system. It predates banks, cash and paper stocks, it predates world governments, and the UN.

    Help me to see any errors in my thinking.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    lmwd @ 145

    Your post is a litany of exactly what is wrong with Australian politics today.

    ” Abbot can hedge his bets . . . we don’t know for sure, so just to be on the safe side . . . It’s all about timing . . . .the media would have a field day with him . . . . out of necessity he’s being politically correct . . .”

    Whatever happened to political leaders having their own vision of the future, presenting it to the people, and sticking by it? If there are Australians who want a political version of “The Never Ending Story” they already have Labor and the Greens to vote for.

    What you have described is exactly what exists today amongst ALL politicians and parties, including Abbott and the Libs – “Political Survival 101″ – and be damned with what is true or right or proper or is actually in the best interests of the nation. As long as the snout stays firmly in the trough what does it matter what happens in the meantime.

    Understand this: the ONLY credibility Abbott has in this whole debate is that he once said (to paraphrase) “CAGW is a load of crap”. He’s been trading on it ever since while not only refusing to repeat it, but back-pedaling on it on a daily basis.

    It is only a matter of time before a confused electorate decides there is not much difference between Abbott and the Libs, and JuLIAR and Labor. At that point the opinion polls will start to even out again. JuLIAR and Labor are banking on it, and remember, they have time on their hands. It’s another two years until the next election. The Greens have even more time – they now control the Senate for the next six years.

    Unless Abbott and the Libs come down very firmly on the opposite side of the CAGW fence very soon, the the next election will be very much a re-run of the last one. Only JuLIAR will have $10 billion worth of tax cuts sitting on her side of the fence as a carrot. And remember, she can call an election whenever the numbers appear to have turned on her side.

    Both business and ordinary working Australians need to know how they will be affected by this issue, regardless of which party wins the next election. At the moment they have a choice between the JuLIAR/Labor version of how they will be screwed to “save the planet”, at least in some detail, and the Abbott/Libs version of how they will be screwed to “save the planet”, lacking any detail at all. In those circumstances they are just as likely to vote for the devil they know.

    What the polls consistently show is that an increasing majority of Australians don’t want to be screwed “to save the planet”, because they don’t believe the planet currently needs saving from anything.

    Tony and the Libs need to get that message and get it fast.

    Some choice.

    00

  • #
    Numberwang

    @Speedy, #84:
    And rent-seeking agribiz corporations are busy turning food staples into ethanol and biofuel.

    00

  • #
    Numberwang

    @MemoryVault, #114:

    “Trouble is greenies think the world only started 1,010 years, 6 months and 15 days ago – give or take half a day.”

    Actually, they think it started about 200 years with the Industrial Revolution (also conveniently skipping the Medieval Warm Period).

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Numberwang @ 153

    Obviously you did not click on the link.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Numberwang @ 152

    And that is criminal…

    00

  • #
    Pete H

    Matt b @
    “there is no deep evil take over the world agenda by socialists going on.”

    You are naive beyond comprehension! Go read up about Maurice Strong etc you silly little boy! It was fools like you that allowed every dictatorship in history to ruin decent peoples lives.

    You have no mandate but you come on here and try to force you views down peoples throats but never answer the one question. Prove here and now that CO2 is causing AGW. You do not do science, simply agenda. You have been asked times beyond count to prove it and then you run away until the next thread.

    Once and for all, it is up to you to back up your claims and whilst you are at it, explain to a non Antipodean how an Australian Prime Minister gets away with lying to the electorate and then it takes an O.A.P. to face her down and tell her she is lying?

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Louis,

    There’s also about 2500 tons of reinforced concrete under each turbine tower.
    Each tower has at least 100 tons of steel in it if tubular steel, or a couple of hundred tons of pre-stressed, reinforced concrete.
    The nacelle on top of the tower weights about 50 tons; made from various metal and plastics.
    The rotor, including hub adds another 20 tons of materials; typically composites.

    Temporary access roads have to be cut and hardened to the construction site to transport the components for on-site assembly. Tens of thousands of kilometres of them.

    And that to provide less usable electricity than one medium-sized coal-fired power station.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    PaulM #107

    Well, at least where I am the room temperature is in double digits. Must be really cold where you are.

    You can laud the philanthropy and altruism of Monsanto all you like. I’ve read enough to know that I will maintain a healthy distrust of any business with their MO.

    Planting their crops then suing neighbouring farmers for restitution when it spreads? That’s great Paul, just great.

    00

  • #

    Oh! Ho, ho ho!
    Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
    You just gotta love the ABC.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-15/carbon-capture-process/2796006
    The punters will see that, and say.
    Great!
    What’s so difficult about that?
    Well!
    Let’s say just one large scale coal fired power plant, oh, around 2000MW Nameplate Capacity.
    It burns 6.5 million tons of coal each year, and has a life expectancy of 50 years (minimum)
    So, at the average multiplier of 2.86 tons of CO2 for every ton of coal, that’s, um, 930 Million tons of CO2 to be kept in that, er, hole in the ground, so that it can never reach the surface.
    That CO2 has to be captured, liquified, pumped through a pipeline, and then into the ground ….. all at the same rate it is being emitted. Not one of those processes is simple. Along the way, the process consumes 40% of the power produced by the plant. Huh! Sort of defeats the purpose, eh!
    Naah!
    I prefer the ABC image.
    Tony.

    00

  • #

    TonyfromOz:

    Not only a billion tonnes per year of CO2 to be kept in a hole in the ground but if it truly stays there, all that oxygen and carbon unavailable to the biosphere. Tell me again why we want to sequester oxygen?

    00

  • #

    Mike,
    just a minor clarification.
    That almost one billion tons is over the life of the plant, that 50 years I mentioned, not just for one year.
    If someone with enough lunacy decides that if this something that could even be achieved, and then applied to retrofit every coal fired plant in Australia, the amount of CO2 to be buried would amount to 250 million tons each year.
    See the impossibility of even considering it to be even remotely viable. You would need to find huge areas each year to bury it, and then reroute all the pipelines to each new hole.
    Incidentally, in the U.S. those CO2 emissions from coal fired power alone amount to 2.8 Billion tons, and from all electrical power generation 3.5 Billion tons of CO2…..and that’s each year.
    Tony.

    00

  • #

    Tony: I think I read somewhere that the biggest problem was that most of the storage is not permeable enough to pump the Co2 in quickly enough. Sounds about right to me.
    The people proposing this are those who will object to nuclear waste storage which is orders of magnitude smaller as a problem and has the advantage that it eventually goes away.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    (Note to ED, I am modifying this post and trying again because it seems your spam catcher doesn’t like too many links)

    allen mcmahon says:

    Blimey@41;
    The process is not ‘ocean acidification’ if they cannot get the title right what else will they stuff up. Next thing you know they will be blathering on about Arctic death spirals. Sorry – my mistake – they have done that already.

    Let’s look at a few scientific references for the definition and whilst we’re at it what they have to say about it. After all, if you can’t understand that science has defined the term to be what it is, what hope do you have?

    On this page there are more than 20 scientific papers all using the term Ocean Acidification.

    Get the point yet? It’s called Ocean Acidification; cry about the name all you want, the results remain the same.

    theRealUniverse says:

    Bilmey.. ocean acidification has shown to be bogus by several researchers (not ones employed by the IPCC) and do not affect marine life.

    Not according to the science quoted above. Feel free to post peer-reviewed science that show why the above mentioned papers are wrong.

    Theres more CO2 absorbed in the oceans than the air ever had but huge amounts. (sorry dont have a link at hand).

    No need for the link. The oceans contain a lot more mass, I’d expect it well capable of containing more CO2 than the atmosphere. That fact alone does not prevent ocean acidification from occurring.

    Speedy says:

    Perhaps Blimey can explain why the oceans didn’t acidify even when the atmospheric CO2 level reached 7000 ppm (about 15 times that of today) about 350 million years ago?

    The change in ph levels hundreds of millions of years ago occurred very slowly by comparison to today’s rate of change. The CaCO3 compensation required cannot keep up.

    Dave says:

    Blimey
    Your source of information is not good!
    Look at site you listed there – every recording station of NOAA has the disclaimer
    DATA ARE UNVERIFIED
    See Station Papa http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Papa

    On each page I have looked at there is means of obtaining “Finalized Data”. I suggest if you wish to conduct science, then use the finalised data rather than the web-based “unverified” source.

    memoryvault says:

    Blimey @ 34
    Blimey – Chemistry 101 for you:
    ACID + BASE = SALT + WATER

    Hmmm what to believe, memoryvault’s equation or that of scientists studying in the field of ocean chemistry producing peer-reviewed research. Oh such a tough choice.

    memoryvault says:

    1. You CANNOT “acidify” a base (alkaline): when you add acid to a base you only turn the acid and some of the available alkaline into salt and water. Since there are many orders of magnitude more alkalines available in the oceans than there is CO2 in the atmosphere, even if ALL the available CO2 somehow dissolved in the oceans you STILL would not end up with an “acid” ocean.

    That you think Ocean Acidification means the entire ocean will turn to acid is quite funny!!!! No one is suggesting that!!!!

    memoryvault says:

    “Acidification of the ocean” is a completely non-scientific term employed only by those jumping on the “climate-change” band-wagon. You will not find it used elsewhere in any reputable scientific literature (chemistry or physics).

    I’ve listed papers from numerous reputable scientific journals. Good luck with your nutter conspiracy theory!

    memoryvault says:

    2. The amount of CO2 (or any gas) that can be dissolved in the ocean (or any liquid) has absolutely NOTHING to do with the amount of the gas in the atmosphere, assuming the atmosphere remains at a constant pressure. At constant pressure ONLY a reduction in the temperature of the liquid can increase the solubility of the gas in the liquid (Henry’s Gas Law).

    !LOL! at your ridiculous statement.

    You think if the atmosphere has 0% CO2 in it, the ocean would take up the same amount as if the atmosphere were 100% CO2!!

    I see your reference to Henry’s Gas Law, now show me the part that says chemical reactions cannot occur EVEN when the pressure is equalised.

    You’re confusing the release of pressurised gas with that of a chemical reaction with the gas.

    Your suggestion, if taken one step further, is suggesting the ocean NEVER takes up CO2. Good luck explaining where all the extra CO2 emitted into the atmosphere has gone.

    memoryvault says:

    3. One CANNOT argue both that the planet (including the oceans) is warming (CAGW), AND that the oceans are absorbing more CO2, Blimey. It’s not called Henry’s Gas LAW for nothing).

    You make me chuckle. The oceans continue to absorb more because temperature alone does not determine how much the ocean absorbs, but it does affect the uptake as this latest report suggests “Climate Change Reducing Ocean’s Carbon Dioxide Uptake”

    bananabender: says

    Blimey@34
    The oceans are protected by a bicarbonate/carbonate buffering system of almost infinite capacity. In practice any excess CO2 absorbed by the oceans is simply converted to insoluble carbonates (mainly limestone and dolomite) which quickly sink to the ocean floor.
    It is absolutely impossible for the oceans to become acid or even substantially less basic. Every first year chemistry student (should) knows this.

    As already stated, the CaCO3 compensation works very slowly and won’t match the change in ph levels occurring now. Every second year chemistry student (should) knows this.

    CameronH says:

    Blimey @ 34, You obviously have no knowledge of the chemistry of seawater whatsoever if you believe that there is a problem with a decrease in seawater chemistry from 8.13 to 8.08.

    No the danger comes from the larger changes we are committing to.

    CameronH says:

    I am a chemist who has worked with seawater chemistry for about 30 years.

    Perhaps you should look outside your expertise in chemistry and also study biology. Scientists that do that DO find there is a threat to our ocean life.

    CameronH says:

    Are you aware that the ph of seawater in estuarine environments varies by more than this over poeriods as short as one day.

    Such logic is flawed because it is not short term variation that is of concern. An analogy; in one year we could live in temperatures that range from 0 to 45 degrees. That doesn’t mean we could live on a planet that was permanently at 0 or 45 degrees. That such reasoning hasn’t occurred to you gives me great concern for the science you conduct.

    CameronH says:

    Do you really imagine that life in the ocean can not handle these types of variations. There are numerous scientific studies done using real world obsevations that show no significant calcification problems with these types of ph changes. See this paper http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080421160728.htm,( sorry but I do not know haow to do links) which shows that there is generally an increase in calcification with increasing seawater carbonate concentration.

    Do you know how to read your own links? They say “Ocean acidification remains one of the most important environmental and societal concerns of the 21st century.”.

    CameronH says:

    Most studies with real world observations actually show this. Grow up and do some research. Mindless sheeple like you, in mass in extreme organisations like Greenpeace and WWF are destroying our civilisation and our economy. You should realise that the average citizen will not let this go on indefinately. We are rapidly loosing patience with fanatics and extremists.

    I’m not a member of Greenpeace or WWF but I do have a good understanding of science and how greenhouse gases are affecting our planet. As shown above, the research has been performed by many people from different organisations around the planet. The experts think that Ocean Acidification is a serious problem.

    00

  • #
    Dave

    163 above

    1.

    The oceans continue to absorb more because temperature alone does not determine how much the ocean absorbs, but it does affect the uptake as this latest report suggests “Climate Change Reducing Ocean’s Carbon Dioxide Uptake”

    from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110710132816.htm

    Where’s the data?

    The writer is a neuroscientist and freelance science and medical writer based in Madison, Wisconsin. http://jillsakai.com/

    2.

    On this page there are more than 20 scientific papers all using the term Ocean Acidification.

    The link is to an Anti Jonova Site – then links to Google ???

    Where’s the data?

    The links stated are not scientific proof or even raw data?

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Blimey @ 163

    Blimey, what such a great big post to display so little knowledge and so much ignorance. I could spend all night replying to each and every point, but then, that’s exactly what you’re trying to provoke, so why bother.

    Let’s just stick with one point – Quote:

    “Hmmm what to believe, memoryvault’s equation

    ACID + BASE = SALT + WATER

    or that of scientists studying in the field of ocean chemistry producing peer-reviewed research. Oh such a tough choice”.

    If you think there’s a choice Blimey, then you’re more divorced from reality than I even I gave you credit for.

    All I can think of to write now is to thank you for perhaps the dumbest, most ignorant non-scientific post made by anybody from either side of the CAGW debate, probably in the last twenty years. Rest assured I intend seeing it spread far and wide, especially at the cultists’ sites like septicalscience and unrealclimate.

    How does

    “Warming cultist denies an ACID + BASE = SALT + WATER – claims 100% of climate scientists agree – 500 years of organic chemistry refuted”

    sound to you?

    Trust me mate, you have just made yourself the laughing stock of both sides of the debate.

    sound to you,

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    MV # 151

    You said

    What the polls consistently show is that an increasing majority of Australians don’t want to be screwed “to save the planet”, because they don’t believe the planet currently needs saving from anything.

    Tony and the Libs need to get that message and get it fast.

    You gladden my heart with your post! So wonderful to learn that the polls are telling us our job is finally done with all those voters out there now being out of the closet and informed sceptics who no longer believe the planet needs saving. No point in coming back here then is it? And here I was thinking that most of them just didn’t want the extra tax, while still being brainwashed into believing in man-made climate change and that something needs to be done about that derdy polluuushun Co2…..at some point…when other big countries do it…..and only so long as it doesn’t cost them too much….oh, and just not right now while the economy is so shaky.

    Thank you for informing me the next election is assured and even Barnaby could run for PM and win. Hell, if Abbott doesn’t publicly fall into the sceptical line pronto, Barnaby will be the next PM, clearly. Those newly converted sceptical voters don’t want to be screwed to save the planet you know.

    Toodles and see you at the next big scare. Carter in his Heartland keynote tells us it will be ocean acidification, but I’m sure Barnaby has that in hand also and will astound us with his vision for Australia thereby completely negating the doomerism of the scaremongers.

    Oh, will you look at that. Blimey is onto it already.

    00

  • #

    Blimey writes this cute quote at post 163:

    Let’s look at a few scientific references for the definition and whilst we’re at it what they have to say about it. After all, if you can’t understand that science has defined the term to be what it is, what hope do you have?

    On this page there are more than 20 scientific papers all using the term Ocean Acidification.

    Get the point yet? It’s called Ocean Acidification; cry about the name all you want, the results remain the same.

    The term “Ocean Acidification” is a media wet dream.It is for the purpose of making it appear sinister and scary.A propaganda tool for people like you who demonstrate a lack of rational thinking.But it is not a big deal when you read up on the science.

    Here in this link is rational approach to the subject Ocean acidification

    I find this in the below interesting.

    The most important limiting factor in aquatic ecosystem is the dearth of hydrogen ions (H+), which has also been overlooked. The more acidic the water, the higher biological productivity becomes, and the denser the amount of life. In the sea this is borne out by the observed fact that highly productive upwelling areas are more acidic [note 1 below]. In other words, acidic seas are a good thing.

    Plankton blooms come from upwelling of lower ph waters.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    lmwd @ 166

    I’m sorry you took what I wrote as a personal attack on you, rather than as a condemnation of the Abbott/LIBS wishy-washy “a foot in each camp” approach to the matter. It was never meant to be personal.

    If you honestly believe Abbott can “maintain the rage” for the next two years while kneeling and paying homage at the same alter of “climate change”, as Labor and the Greens, then so be it.

    You believe there is political mileage in it; I believe it is political suicide. Time will tell which one of us is right.

    00

  • #

    When it comes to schemes like carbon capture and sequestration, the most important question to ask is this: Will less CO2 be produced designing, fabricating, building, operating, maintaining and decommissioning these projects than the CO2 it is intended to store? If the answer is YES, then in an engineering sense it is viable.

    But if CO2 is not the cause of climate change (and the 800 year time lag of CO2 increases in ice core data AFTER the temperature increases confirms this), then the answer is a resounding NO.

    CCS is a cure for which there is no disease.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Blimey gets 28 search hits on this page. The oceans are turning to acid…oh someone please help!

    A ph test kit would tell him more than all the arguments he can find to support the doom and gloom predictions. More argument from authority than facts — as usual.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Blimey and any “scientist” that says the oceans are “acidifying”:

    Once and for all the oceans will NEVER have a PH lower than neutral. You can whinge all you want, you can link all you want to other idiots but you can’t hide from reality. The word “acidification” as applied to sea water is flat out propaganda. The more you say it Blimey, the more clearly the world sees you as a blundering propagandist fool.

    Further, the notion that the CaCO3 works “slowly” is as dumb as the “hidden deep ocean heat”. I guess we should expect Blimey to be consistent if nothing else so his comment:

    Perhaps you should look outside your expertise in chemistry…

    admonishing a real scientist with 30 years experience proves it! Please help me find a single word that properly expresses that level of stupid.

    stupidification
    Yes that should do…..Blimey is living a process of stupidification.

    Funny, hilarious actually.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Dave says:

    The writer is a neuroscientist and freelance science and medical writer based in Madison, Wisconsin.

    No Dave, the writer has summarised the report, the report is listed in the Reference at the end of the article. Do try to read a bit more.

    Dave says:

    The link is to an Anti Jonova Site – then links to Google ???

    Well done on your comprehension Dave. Now try just a little hard and click on some of those links. You’ll be surprised to find they lead you to the science.

    Go on Dave, don’t be afraid.

    memoryvault says:

    I could spend all night replying to each and every point

    Sure you could memoryvault. I love it when little kids argue like this. “I know the answer”, said the little boy, “but I just don’t want to tell you!”.

    Rather feeble excuse.

    Let’s just stick with one point – Quote:

    ACID + BASE = SALT + WATER

    What you have is a few words that nearly describe a chemical reaction. You’ve yet to get to the atomic level of the equation, nor have you shown how this impacts on the chemical equations for ocean acidification.

    You’re missing a few steps in your “scientific” process.

    lmwd says:

    Carter in his Heartland keynote tells us it will be ocean acidification

    Catches on fast does Bob!

    sunsettommy says:

    The term “Ocean Acidification” is a media wet dream.It is for the purpose of making it appear sinister and scary.A propaganda tool for people like you who demonstrate a lack of rational thinking.But it is not a big deal when you read up on the science.
    Here in this link is rational approach to the subject Ocean acidification

    Glad you agree on the term, some of your colleagues here can’t accept the term ocean acidification.

    And I am glad you like to read up on it and find it interesting, however might I suggest you read about science from peer-reviewed scientific papers rather than a website for a NZ Café & Dive shop. Just how freekin desperate for an alternate view are you!!

    Roy Hogue says:

    More argument from authority than facts — as usual.

    As shown on this page there are a lot of experts, actively publishing peer-reviewed research in journals in this field of expertise that are telling us there is a problem.

    Alternatively we have memoryvault telling us … er … something (he’s yet to join the dots and I doubt he ever will) and we’ve sunsettommy getting us his science from a website for a cafe and dive shop. I’m sorry I doubted you guys! HAHAHAHA!!

    Mark D. says:

    Once and for all the oceans will NEVER have a PH lower than neutral.

    No one said they would. When CO2 dissolving in the ocean it creates carbonic acid. That is where the term ocean acidification comes from. That you, and others here, misinterpret that to mean the whole ocean will become acid is your problem.

    Further, the notion that the CaCO3 works “slowly” is as dumb as … admonishing a real scientist with 30 years experience proves it!

    CameronH, the so called real scientist with 30 years experience, is welcome to come back and explain why the ocean ph levels are changing if CaCO3 compensation is keeping up. Perhaps at the same time he can explain why the article he cited says “Ocean acidification remains one of the most important environmental and societal concerns of the 21st century.”.

    Although perhaps it would help his argument if his science comes from something other than a Cafe and Dive shop website.

    00

  • #

    Blimey,

    CameronH, the so called real scientist with 30 years experience, is welcome to come back and explain why the ocean ph levels are changing if CaCO3 compensation is keeping up. Perhaps at the same time he can explain why the article he cited says “Ocean acidification remains one of the most important environmental and societal concerns of the 21st century.”.

    Although perhaps it would help his argument if his science comes from something other than a Cafe and Dive shop website.

    Seriously.

    Have you seen the PH level data for the worlds oceans?

    The way you write,I would think you have not.

    Here is a quote from this link,

    The following figure is from the Royal Society report cited above. It shows a “Map of mixed surface layer (upper 50 m) pH values in the global oceans for the nominal year 1994. The lowest values are observed in upwelling regions (eg Equatorial Pacific, Arabian Sea) where subsurface waters with lower pH values are brought to the surface. The highest values are observed in regions of high biological production and export. In these regions DIC is fixed by phytoplankton and exported by the biological pump into the deeper layers resulting in higher pH values in the surface waters.” If the lowest values are observed where upwelling surface waters are brought to the surface, it indicates that it is not caused by atmospheric CO2, which would have greater effects near the surface. In fact the report states: “In the deep oceans, the CO2 concentration increases as sinking organic matter from biological production (which varies seasonally) is decomposed. These additions of CO2 to the deep oceans cause its pH to decrease … When this CO2-rich deep water upwells to the surface, it creates regions with lower pH in the surface waters”. No atmospheric CO2 required for that.

    I see that you could not offer a rational reason why I should not take Dr. Anthoni seriously.Just name calling of his website was apparently the best you could do.

    Since you show deep concern over “acidification”.You should stop walking in the rain.Since it will eat your clothes and face away.After all Rainwater is highly acidic.

    You are a sad joke.

    00

  • #

    What you have is a few words that nearly describe a chemical reaction. You’ve yet to get to the atomic level of the equation, nor have you shown how this impacts on the chemical equations for ocean acidification.

    You’re missing a few steps in your “scientific” process.

    The laugh is on YOU Blimey.He is making a fool out of you.You still fail to see why.

    You are missing a few steps in climbing the rational thinking ladder.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Blimey (@163):
    July 16th, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    theRealUniverse says:

    Bilmey.. ocean acidification has shown to be bogus by several researchers (not ones employed by the IPCC) and do not affect marine life.

    Not according to the science quoted above. Feel free to post peer-reviewed science that show why the above mentioned papers are wrong.

    Well Blimey, here’s a paper that shows that current pH levels are nothing unusual historically, and the past levels have been siginificantly more “acidic” (i.e., less alkaline) than current pH. Sea life seems to have survived.

    Here’s another link to a site that has the resultant graphs (in case you don’t want to pay at the above link). (And before you complain that this is “just a blog”, read through and notice that they have many peer-reviewed references of historical studies of ocean pH.)

    Also note that the recent (last 200 years) and distant pH variations are 2 to 3 times greater than the change predicted by current models (0.1). Also note that the Ocean’s pH has cycled many, many times over these ranges.

    Of course, it’s hard to get grants for studies of boring proxy measurements nowadays — it’s much more lucrative (and easier) to run computer models that predict impending disaster.

    Hence, you find NOAA (on their propaganda blog) making claims like “Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units”, when it has actually cycled over twice that range nearly 6 times during that period; and “by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.” — claims that completely ignore (or are ignorant of) actual peer-review studies that show them to be groundless.

    The modelers’ (and your) claims of “unprecidented ocean acidification” are complete bunk and completely contrary to the actual data that exists. They are so ignorant of the actual data that they don’t even know that the 0.1 drop claimed since the industrial revolution is idiotic when compared to measured changes over that time.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Blimey just loves his experts. But then there’s the little matter of ocean ph staying nicely alkaline by actual observation. Oops!

    00

  • #

    Shellfish At 3,000 ppm CO2

    Shellfish thrived during the Devonian at 3,000 ppm CO2. Their Aragonite shells did not dissolve. Unless the properties of Aragonite have magically changed, it seems safe to assume that modern Aragonite shells will probably not dissolve at 500 ppm.

    LOL

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Addendum to #175:

    Blimey’s scary “facts” are the results of models and simplistic theories that haven’t been checked against the real world. Actual empirical measurements show the models to be worthless and the theories to be incomplete (or just wrong), for past, current (and undoubtedly future) ocean pH.

    No big surprise, as all of the CAGW crowd’s models have proven to be seriously wrong, no matter what they predict — case in point: Longwave back radiation has been measured to be steadly decreasing as that evil greenhouse gas CO2 steadly increases. Apparently more CO2 is correlated with less greenhouse effect. Don’t expect that to be featured on RealClimate (or in Blimey’s “arguments”) anytime soon.

    (Although, who knows: Perhaps the spin-meisters at RC could claim that this was just a “feedback” effect that really proved they were right — analgous with the 800 year lag between temperatures and CO2 increases; which normal people take as proof that CO2 doesn’t drive temperature.)

    Since Blimey’s agenda is purely political and has nothing to do with science, he is uninterested in actual measurements of relevant data. His mistake is to assume that no one can tell he is prevaricating.

    The Internet is not your friend, Blimey.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    BTY: Has anyone else checked out these “anti-Joanne Nova” web sites? They’re pretty funny — the basic argument goes like this:

    1) EXPERTS have said Nova is wrong.
    2) We have TOLD Nova what these experts have said.
    3) She STILL won’t agree.

    How stupid is she?

    (Of course, what they don’t mention is that Jo replies to these arguments with verifiable facts that show that they are wrong. A reasoned argument that shows some “expert” to be wrong is, however, beyond the logical competence of these clowns, so goes right over their heads.)

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    sunsettommy @ 174

    That’s unfair, Tommy, I’m not making a fool of Blimey.

    He’s doing a perfectly good job of it all by himself.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Mark D in 150,

    Sorry for the late reply.

    Maybe this will help you understand “The last official act of any corrupt government is to loot the people”, If you dont know it you are being looted.

    Lets start from the beginning.

    Firstly the banks handed out mortgages to any who wanted one, the only criteria was that they could fog up a mirror the banks then bundled these mortgages and sold them to overseas investors (banks mainly) as triple A rated investments and not only this they sold them more than once in some cases up to 20 times. This is a highly illegal act by the way.

    So in the end the US banks made so much money they dont have a name for it yet (gazillions?)then the inevitable happened, the economy slowed. interest rates went up and there was mass foreclosures across the country and foreign investors were left with useless peices of paper but the banks were rich, the foreign investors were not happy about this and demanded their money back.

    Oh bumma had two choices:

    1, Arrest, charge and jail the bankers for fraud or

    2, Bail out the banks and stick the American tax payer with the bill.

    Oh Bumma choose number 2.

    In fact you will note the banks are foreclosing on people in the US right now, people who are maintaining payments, why are they doing this? Well its simple the banks need the houses to balance the books. As the fallout of the crime continues Oh Bumma continues to get the Fed Reserve to print off money so he can keep the banks afloat whilst the American tax payer suffers as a result.

    Your government spends trillions of dollars each year on wars of conquest, gives billions of dollars each year to the only democracy in the middle east to buy nice shiny bombs and build its infrastructure, gives billions of dollars to the banks whilst your infrastructure crumbles around you through neglect (Think Katrina and now the floods). All this spending does not increase your sovereign wealth, all it does is drive up inflation. What you describe in post 150 will not happen because Moodys is looking at lowering you rating, have a look at Greece and Ireland their rating has been reduced to junk, governments have brought in austerity measures so they can pay back loans from the IMF (the biggest crooked bank of them all).

    In these countries retirement age has been pushed out by 10 years or more, pensions have been cut in half, wages have been slashed but dont worry the banksters are still making lots of money. WHEN Moodys drops your credit rating foreign investment (China) will dump their US dollar holdings then the US death spiral will begin and you will end up just like Greece. Your 401K wont be worth the paper it is written on not that it matters as Clinton spent most of it by trying to pretend he had a budget surplus.

    Here are a couple of links:

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wildbankers.php

    This link explains why you are in the situation you find yourself in.

    The second was written in 1998 and explains why your country was broke back then now it is much, much worse.

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE2/doodoo.php

    All this shows why your 401K wont be worth the paper it is written on.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    sunsettommy says:

    Seriously.
    Have you seen the PH level data for the worlds oceans?

    Yes, and I am also aware of the change in ph levels.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WOA05_GLODAP_del_pH_AYool.png

    Here is a quote from this link, … Just name calling of his website was apparently the best you could do.

    That website is full of assertions without evidence to support it. I point out once again that “webscience” can be made up by anyone with enough skills to create a webpage, as opposed to peer-reviewed science which holds much more cedibility.

    But as for your particular quote here, upwelling of colder nutrient rich waters doesn’t stop ocean acidification, as shown in the map of ph change the entire ocean is affected.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WOA05_GLODAP_del_pH_AYool.png

    Since you show deep concern over “acidification”.You should stop walking in the rain.Since it will eat your clothes and face away.After all Rainwater is highly acidic.

    A walk in the rain would obviously expose you to a minor amount of ph change compared to permanently living in the ph change. I am also not required to create a shell in which to live. Your analogy fails.

    You are a sad joke.

    Feeling a little frustrated I see.

    sunsettommy says:

    The laugh is on YOU Blimey.He is making a fool out of you.You still fail to see why.
    You are missing a few steps in climbing the rational thinking ladder.

    So you keep claiming, without any explanation of why that might be. Such is the blinding belief that all science, except that of your own cafe and dive shop webpage, must be wrong.

    BobC says:

    Well Blimey, here’s a paper that shows that current pH levels are nothing unusual historically, and the past levels have been siginificantly more “acidic” (i.e., less alkaline) than current pH. Sea life seems to have survived.

    Here’s what the abstract says:

    We used positive thermal ionization mass spectrometry (PTIMS) to generate high precision d11B records in Porites corals of the mid-late Holocene from the South China Sea (SCS). The d11B values of the Holocene corals vary significantly, ranging from 22.2‰ to 25.5‰. The paleo-pH records of the SCS, reconstructed from the d11B data, were not stable as previously thought but show a gradual increase from the Holocene thermal optimal and a sharp decrease to modern values. The latter is likely caused by the large amount of anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution but variations of atmospheric pCO2 cannot explain the pH change of the SCS before the Industrial Revolution. We suggest that variations of monsoon intensity during the mid-late Holocene may have driven the sea surface pH increase from the mid to late Holocene. Results of this study indicate that the impact of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 emissions may have reversed the natural pH trend in the SCS since the mid-Holocene. Such ocean pH records in the current interglacial period can help us better understand the physical and biological controls on ocean pH and possibly predict the long-term impact of climate change on future ocean acidification.

    A slow increase, then sudden decline is not the same as what you suggest.

    Here’s another link to a site that has the resultant graphs (in case you don’t want to pay at the above link). (And before you complain that this is “just a blog”, read through and notice that they have many peer-reviewed references of historical studies of ocean pH.)

    Yes, CO2Science is well known for misinterpreting the results of papers, so let’s skip the Exxon funded blogger site and go directly to ALL of the scientific papers cited.

    Caldeira, K. and Wickett, M.E. 2003. Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH. Nature 425: 365. says

    The coming centuries may see more ocean acidification than the past 300 million years.

    Liu, Y., Liu, W., Peng, Z., Xiao, Y., Wei, G., Sun, W., He, J. Liu, G. and Chou, C.-L. 2009. – we covered already.

    Lough, J.M. and Barnes, D.J. 1997 also says there has been recent decline, although they wish to suggest this may simply represent a return to long-term average conditions.

    Preindustrial to Modern Interdecadal Variability in Coral Reef pH suggest there is Pacific Oscillation influence on the ph levels. Does this mean the authors think ocean acidification is one big scare campaign as CO2Science interprets. What do the authors (Carles Pelejero, Eva Calvo, Malcolm T. McCulloch, John F. Marshall, Michael K. Gagan, Janice M. Lough and Bradley N. Opdyke) say in subsequent related research?

    Carles Pelejero, Eva Calvo say “ocean conditions are already more extreme than those experienced by marine organisms and ecosystems for millions of years, emphasising the urgent need to adopt policies that drastically reduce CO2 emissions”

    Malcolm T. McCulloch says “Observations of surprisingly large decreases in pH across important carbonate producing regions, such as the Great Barrier Reef of Australia, raise serious concerns about the impact of Greenhouse gas emissions on coral calcification.”

    Lough says “our findings are consistent with studies of the synergistic effect of elevated seawater temperatures and pCO2 on coral calcification”

    Opdyke says “This drop in magnesium concentration is consistent with a surface ocean that is slowly dropping in pH due to progressively higher partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    I can’t find a reference to other participating authors on this topic, nor can I find one single paper refuting ocean acidification by any of these authors. No doubt CO2Science will continue to misinterpret the findings.

    Finally, CO2Science’s last reference on that page is to Evidence for ocean acidification in the Great Barrier Reef of Australia where they say:

    This suggests that the increased levels of anthropogenic CO2 in atmosphere has already caused a significant trend towards acidification in the oceans during the past decades. Observations of surprisingly large decreases in pH across important carbonate producing regions, such as the Great Barrier Reef of Australia, raise serious concerns about the impact of Greenhouse gas emissions on coral calcification.

    Hence, you find NOAA (on their propaganda blog) … resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.” — claims that completely ignore (or are ignorant of) actual peer-review studies that show them to be groundless.

    LOL. Your CO2Science website cites a paper that says “The coming centuries may see more ocean acidification than the past 300 million years”.

    Again it seems your foolish enough to swallow CO2Science’s portrayal of the science without bothering to check for yourself the science they cite.

    Roy Hogue says:

    Blimey just loves his experts. But then there’s the little matter of ocean ph staying nicely alkaline by actual observation. Oops!

    Ah, right, more talk, no evidence. Good one Roy.

    sunsettommy:

    Shellfish At 3,000 ppm CO2

    See response to “Speedy” back in post 163 and learn a little.

    BobC adds:

    Blimey’s scary “facts” are the results of models and simplistic theories that haven’t been checked against the real world. Actual empirical measurements show the models to be worthless and the theories to be incomplete (or just wrong), for past, current (and undoubtedly future) ocean pH.

    Many of the papers listed here are using empirical measurements so your claim is invalid.

    No big surprise, as all of the CAGW crowd’s models have proven to be seriously wrong, no matter what they predict — case in point: Longwave back radiation has been measured to be steadly decreasing as that evil greenhouse gas CO2 steadly increases. Apparently more CO2 is correlated with less greenhouse effect. Don’t expect that to be featured on RealClimate (or in Blimey’s “arguments”) anytime soon.

    No big surprise you don’t realise models used for ocean acidification are different to those for global warming. Also not surprising to see you’re will to take 14 years of local data and extrapolate that in order to determine the long term effect on the rest of the world.

    1) EXPERTS have said Nova is wrong.
    2) We have TOLD Nova what these experts have said.
    3) She STILL won’t agree.
    How stupid is she?

    Case in point. How many times have you been told the lag is because CO2 is the feedback not the initial cause, yet still you repeat the same stupid remarks.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-jo-nova-doesnt-get-the-co2-lag.html

    I bet it’s not a week before you or some other swallower of Nova’s “science” makes the same mistake.

    00

  • #

    Blimey, nice try. As I’ve said a thousand times, the theory that CO2 amplifies the temperature in ice cores is probably true to some small extent, but it’s so small it can’t be measured.

    Go on name ONE paper produced since the ice core data resolution was improved (circa 1999 onwards) that calculates climate sensitivity.

    But yes, it’s time to whack that piece of Cook bluster like I savaged the last one. Since Cook, and all the b-grade profs, made so many embarrassing mistakes in that, I figured no one would really be able to take them seriously on anything.

    00

  • #
    MattM

    I’m just a dumb mechanical engineer working in the coal mining industry, can someone please explain where the replacement 2000MW of electricity is coming from after Julia buys back the dirty ole brown coal fired power stations in Victoria and SA?

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Joanne Nova says:

    Blimey, nice try. As I’ve said a thousand times, the theory that CO2 amplifies the temperature in ice cores is probably true to some small extent, but it’s so small it can’t be measured.

    So you say, again without evidence to support your claim. Science contradicts you.

    Positive feedback between global warming and atmospheric CO2 concentration inferred from past climate change. Scheffer, Brovkin, Cox

    Joanne Nova says:

    Go on name ONE paper produced since the ice core data resolution was improved (circa 1999 onwards) that calculates climate sensitivity.

    Heh? This would be a different argument to the previous one, but hey whatever. Here’s three for the price of one.

    Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years. Royer, Berner & Park (2007)

    Here we estimate long-term equilibrium climate sensitivity by modelling carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 420 million years and comparing our calculations with a proxy record. Our estimates are broadly consistent with estimates based on short-term climate records, and indicate that a weak radiative forcing by carbon dioxide is highly unlikely on multi-million-year timescales. We conclude that a climate sensitivity greater than 1.5 °C has probably been a robust feature of the Earth’s climate system over the past 420 million years, regardless of temporal scaling.

    Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, David Beerling, Robert Berner, Masson-Delmotte, Mark Pagani, Raymo, Royer, Zachos (2008)

    Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica.

    Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. Chylek, Lohmann (2008)

    This suggests a 95% likelihood of warming between 1.3 and 2.3 K due to doubling of atmospheric concentration of CO2.

    Joanne Nova says:

    But yes, it’s time to whack that piece of Cook bluster like I savaged the last one. Since Cook, and all the b-grade profs, made so many embarrassing mistakes in that, I figured no one would really be able to take them seriously on anything.

    Savaged? I would share that view if rather than just writing your own words, you could use science based on evidence to support your argument.

    As to your four “points”.

    p1. Hotspot – http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.80/full
    p2. CO2 & ice cores – see above & http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf.
    p3. Temperature – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/11/the-long-awaited-surfacestations-paper/ – it’s still warming.
    p4. Sensitivity – http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/papers-on-climate-sensitivity-estimates/ – many papers suggest your hope in one flawed one might be misplaced.

    See how easy it is to use science to support your argument.

    Now you try.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Blimey (@182):
    Case in point. How many times have you been told the lag is because CO2 is the feedback not the initial cause, yet still you repeat the same stupid remarks.

    Right … CO2 lags temperatures by ~800 years both as temperatures increase, and as temperatures decrease. In the real world, this kind of delayed correlation is precisely what you would expect if temperature changes were the cause of CO2 concentration changes. It cannot indicate that CO2 causes temperature changes.

    But, we’ve been told by “experts” that exactly the opposite is the case — because they have models that “prove” it.

    Demonstrate it, bright boy — with data, not models. (And, no — models do not generate “data”, which eliminates about 95% of all CAGW “pal-reviewed” papers).

    Also:

    Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica.

    So — if you assume that CO2 is responsible for nearly all temperature changes (and ignore the lag and all other climatic drivers such as changes in the Sun and albedo), then you can calculate a high sensitivity.

    I guess we’re stupid because we don’t believe “experts” when they clearly demonstrate that they can’t distinguish between models and reality, and are incapable of recognizing circular reasoning. Of course, if that’s the characteristics that define a “climate science expert”, then I guess that would make you a “climate science expert” also. (There is, however, a more common term for it — “idiot”.)

    BTY: Maps made at the time of Alexander the Great (4th century AD) and copied in the 16th century show Antarctica’s coastline as it would appear if the seas were ice-free (link).
    How do you suppose that was possible, with the presumed low levels of CO2 atmospheric concentrations back then? Ah, but that’s just more data to explain away – it’s the models and theories that are really important, right?

    Like I said Blimey: Your scary “facts” come from models and theories that don’t stand up to real world validation.

    No big surprise you don’t realise models used for ocean acidification are different to those for global warming.

    I never said they were the same. You have a reading comprehension problem.

    Also not surprising to see you’re will to take 14 years of local data and extrapolate that in order to determine the long term effect on the rest of the world.

    So the AGW hypothesis fails the predictive test once again, but we shouldn’t be concerned — eventually it will be proven right — sorry, but we don’t share your religious convictions. At least it’s 14 years of data — You want to use models that, for the last 30 years, have demonstrated zero predictive skill to claim knowledge of the climate of the world for the next 100++ years.

    And: The CO2 greenhouse theory doesn’t allow even local decreases in the greenhouse effect to be associated with increases in CO2 concentration unless:

    1) The greenhouse theory has a serious flaw,
    2) The calculations of CO2′s contribution to the greenhouse effect are in serious error,
    or 3) There are feedbacks operating that are a) capable of overpowering the effect of CO2, b) completely unknown to the modelers, and hence c) are not included in the AGW models.

    Regardless of which is correct, the conclusion is the same: The AGW models are useless for climate prediction.

    See how easy it is to use science to support your argument. Now you try.

    You just don’t get it, do you Blimey? When you use models (and theories) that have been designed to promote a particular point of view, and which have zero demonstrated predictive skill you are not using “science” – you are using bunkum. If you really can’t understand why we’re not bowled over by that, then you truly are an idiot.

    I would suggest using data to justify your positions but, inconveniently, all the actual data (that is, not manipulated or “generated” by models) is pointing the other way.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    BobC says:

    Right … CO2 lags temperatures by ~800 years both as temperatures increase, and as temperatures decrease.

    Correct. Well done BobC. You’re starting to grasp the concept of feedback.

    It cannot indicate that CO2 causes temperature changes.
    But, we’ve been told by “experts” that exactly the opposite is the case

    As shown in the above peer-reviewed papers, not only was it shown that the known radiative properties of CO2 can increase temperature, the climate sensitivity was calculated from the data too.

    What science do you present? Nothing! Just your own ignorance.

    So — if you assume that CO2 is responsible for nearly all temperature changes (and ignore the lag and all other climatic drivers such as changes in the Sun and albedo), then you can calculate a high sensitivity.

    Firstly they don’t assume. Secondly the climate sensitivity is the response to a forcing, whether the response is a GHG or some other facility matters not.

    The lag was predicted before the ice core data was available.

    You keep presenting the lag as if it somehow disproved AGW, yet you can’t produce the SCIENCE to show how that is so.

    Repeating “lag lag lag” all the time only re-displays your own lack of ability to grasp the concept of feedback and its relationship with the temperature, whilst at the same time denying the existence of the very science that shows the lag not only helps explain the resulting temperature, and how it was predicted before the data became available.

    I guess we’re stupid because we don’t believe “experts” when they clearly demonstrate that they can’t distinguish between models and reality, and are incapable of recognizing circular reasoning. Of course, if that’s the characteristics that define a “climate science expert”, then I guess that would make you a “climate science expert” also. (There is, however, a more common term for it — “idiot”.)

    No, you’re an idiot for thinking that your maths and understanding of climate is better than that of the people that dedicate their career to such an undertaking. Do you perform surgery on your children too?

    BTY: Maps made at the time of Alexander the Great (4th century AD) and copied in the 16th century show Antarctica’s coastline as it would appear if the seas were ice-free (link).
    How do you suppose that was possible, with the presumed low levels of CO2 atmospheric concentrations back then? Ah, but that’s just more data to explain away – it’s the models and theories that are really important, right?

    Because the Antarctic is nearly ice free every single summer.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png

    By the way, even if it were, you still would need to connect the dots and explain how this disproves the huge amount of evidence showing that GHG contribute to the warming we’re experiencing now.

    Like I said Blimey: Your scary “facts” come from models and theories that don’t stand up to real world validation.

    We’re still waiting for your facts to arrive.

    At least it’s 14 years of data

    Over less than 1% of the earth’s surface. Well done for global analysis!!!

    You just don’t get it, do you Blimey? When you use models (and theories) that have been designed to promote a particular point of view, and which have zero demonstrated predictive skill you are not using “science” – you are using bunkum. If you really can’t understand why we’re not bowled over by that, then you truly are an idiot.

    I don’t rely on models.

    Models don’t make the temperature rise, the sea ice melt, glaciers melt, sea levels rise, change incoming/outgoing radiation measurements, change how plants/animals respond to a warming planet, make the height of the tropopause increase, make jet streams are move poleward, widen the tropical belt nor make the warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere have a GHG signature.

    The science of AGW doesn’t rely on models. If that isn’t clear to you by now then you’re truly an idiot.

    01

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The lag was predicted before the ice core data was available.

    Blimey @187,

    If you want me to believe the lag was predicted before the ice core data was available then you better present your case with a paper written before the ice cores were available, not with something discussing those ice cores.

    You may think we were all born yesterday but I assure you that I was born many years ago and have seen a lot of BS arguments. They all smelled just like yours.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Blimey,

    In case you can’t read between the lines even a little bit, the point above is spelled b-i-a-s, bias. The whole thing reeks of it.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Blimey, you’re completely incoherent:

    BobC says:

    Right … CO2 lags temperatures by ~800 years both as temperatures increase, and as temperatures decrease.
    Correct.

    Well done BobC. You’re starting to grasp the concept of feedback.

    I see… “feedback” (like your use of “science”) appears to be a sort of magical incantation — the use of which (you suppose) “proves” whatever point you want to prove.

    So kindly eludicate, Blimey: If ‘B’ always follows ‘A’, how does the claim of “feedback” prove that ‘B’ causes ‘A’? Feedback is a process, Blimey, that has to be demonstrated to exist — it can’t just be assumed for convenience.

    But wait!

    it [was] shown that the known radiative properties of CO2 can increase temperature …

    Oh, I see — a theoretical model of CO2′s GH effect shows that feedback must exist. But this can be easily checked: According to the model of CO2′s GH effect and the IPCC’s assumptions of always positive WV feedback, it shouldn’t be possible to increase CO2 concentration without also increasing the GreenHouse effect. But Actual Measurements show that increasing CO2 and decreasing GH effect can coexist.

    Either the model or the assumptions (or both) must be wrong. That’s ‘science’ Blimey — testing hypotheses against real data.

    Here ( link link link link ) is a collection of articles (some are published and peer-reviewed, some are –gasp!– just logical arguments) addressing the issue of the validation of the AGW hypothesis and models’ predictive skill. The conclusion is that they have no demonstrated skill distinguishable from chance.

    A competent scientist, Blimey, doesn’t need to be told what to think (by, e.g. peer-review), but is able to reason for themselves. Try it, you might find you can actually do it.

    No, you’re an idiot for thinking that your maths and understanding of climate is better than that of the people that dedicate their career to such an undertaking.

    It’s clear you’re not a scientist, Blimey (and not just because you can’t construct a valid logical argument without a half-dozen appeals to authority): Scientists who exist on government grants must “dedicate their career” to getting more such grants — those who don’t soon drop out of that classification. Since the (US) government has thrown $80B at climate research which finds reasons for government intervention ( link ), they have selected for a class of ‘scientists’ who are willing to come up with the ‘right’ results in order to remain funded. Here’s a particularly egregious example (in one of NASA’s online journals) of such a scientists who openly fudged his data in order to agree with his colleagues’ models.

    Do you perform surgery on your children too?

    No, I perform due diligence on the surgeons (and other doctors) who treat my family. I reject the ones who don’t pass. My daughter is alive today because I bothered to educate myself about relevant specific treatments and proceedures.

    Kindly follow the link in the last paragraph and find out what I’m talking about — you desperately need to know. (I make no hypothesis whether your ignorance and naivety is feigned or real.)

    10

  • #
    Blimey

    Roy Hogue says:

    Blimey @187,
    If you want me to believe the lag was predicted before the ice core data was available then you better present your case with a paper written before the ice cores were available, not with something discussing those ice cores.
    You may think we were all born yesterday but I assure you that I was born many years ago and have seen a lot of BS arguments. They all smelled just like yours.

    Perhaps you should understand that the resolution of ice core data was not sufficient to detect the lag. Papers discussing the found lag exist only after 1999, hence why Jo was interested in papers since that date.

    I think I smell your ignorance with a hint of stupidity.

    BobC says:

    Blimey, you’re completely incoherent:

    I guess I over estimated your ability to understand how a feedback enables CO2 levels to continue to climb even whilst temps are starting to cool.

    Suffice to say CO2 levels are a slow feedback to temperature levels, not to the direction of temperature change. Got it yet? I’m betting your little brain is still confused and rather than attempt to understand you’ll make further ignorant claims.

    Oh, I see — a theoretical model of CO2′s GH effect shows that feedback must exist.

    No, a model that describes the mathematics of how a feedback can exist to explain the temperatures seen against the backdrop of changing solar and greenhouse gases.

    Compare that to your evidence … cue the crickets!

    But heck, you don’t even need a model to know that a feedback can still be increasing from the temperature, even if the change in temp is downwards. This is simple maths. That you can’t grasp such a concept demonstrates your own inability, not a flaw in any peer-reviewed research.

    But Actual Measurements show that increasing CO2 and decreasing GH effect can coexist.

    LOL. No it shows there is seasonal change in downward infrared radiation and guess what, CO2 levels also change on a seasonal basis.

    Either the model or the assumptions (or both) must be wrong. That’s ‘science’ Blimey — testing hypotheses against real data.

    Heh, nah, I’d describe it as someone clutching at straws, ignoring all science that shows GHG do have an effect and misinterpreting the significance of other science.

    Like the way people ignore all the evidence to show a warming planet and instead bury their head in the sand of ignorance.

    Here’s a particularly egregious example (in one of NASA’s online journals) of such a scientists who openly fudged his data in order to agree with his colleagues’ models.

    And there you go into nutter conspiracy theories about all scientists conspiring to pretend the world is warming, CLASSIC! Ignoring ALL physical evidence (see my previous post) and trying to defame one, without a scrap of evidence to suggest that the floats were not showing a bias, without mentioning that he adjust earlier data downwards to show less warming and to what effect?

    THE OCEANS STILL GETTING WARMER

    No, I perform due diligence on the surgeons (and other doctors) who treat my family. I reject the ones who don’t pass. My daughter is alive today because I bothered to educate myself about relevant specific treatments and proceedures.

    You can’t educate yourself about how a feedback can rise whilst the underlying cause can be decreasing. You ignore all evidence of a warming planet in order not to disturb your own belief, a state of self-delusion so I must ask, what witchdoctor did she see?

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    After reading Blimey at 191……..

    I guess I over estimated your ability to understand how a feedback enables CO2 levels to continue to climb even whilst temps are starting to cool.

    AND

    You can’t educate yourself about how a feedback can rise whilst the underlying cause can be decreasing. You ignore all evidence of a warming planet in order not to disturb your own belief……..

    Do you mean “evidence of a warming planet” like cooling?

    BobC, I agree with you when you say: “Blimey you’re completely incoherent”

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Blimey:
    July 29th, 2011 at 10:49 pm

    Roy Hogue says:

    Blimey @187,
    If you want me to believe the lag was predicted before the ice core data was available then you better present your case with a paper written before the ice cores were available, not with something discussing those ice cores.
    You may think we were all born yesterday but I assure you that I was born many years ago and have seen a lot of BS arguments. They all smelled just like yours.

    Perhaps you should understand that the resolution of ice core data was not sufficient to detect the lag. Papers discussing the found lag exist only after 1999, hence why Jo was interested in papers since that date.

    I think I smell your ignorance with a hint of stupidity.

    No Blimey, you’re just smelling yourself.

    Roy clearly asked you to back up your claim that “the lag was predicted before the ice core data was available”. You repeat his question, then fail to answer it.
    That’s stupidity.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Let’s see: (In ice core data): Temperatures lead CO2 concentrations by ~800 years. This could mean that “CO2 levels are a delayed consequence of temperature levels”. (Or, it could be that other things are causing both of them.)

    What it can’t mean is that “CO2 levels cause temperature levels”, as that would violate causality (link for the benefit of Blimey, who needs remedial instruction on these matters).

    Blimey, however, is stuck on the idea that CO2 levels causes temperature levels to change, so he describes it thus:

    Blimey:
    Suffice to say CO2 levels are a slow feedback to temperature levels, not to the direction of temperature change. Got it yet? I’m betting your little brain is still confused and rather than attempt to understand you’ll make further ignorant claims.

    Blimey apparently believes that, with the use of the word “feedback” (which he obviously has no understanding of) he has magically reversed cause and effect.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Addendum to #194 (hit wrong button!)

    Blimey, not content with his irrational claim, cements (he thinks) the argument with scorn, derision, and other ad hominem fallacies.

    Not only does Blimey fail in reading comprehesion (see #193), but he obviously wouldn’t recognize a logical argument if it bit him in the ass.

    Show a little class, Blimey. Your current tactics are merely showing everyone that you have no concept of logical argument and civil discussion (or, for that matter, class).

    Give us the ‘maths’ you’re always swearing by, why don’t you — that should be fun to pick apart.

    (Time for the moderator’s to enforce some civility?)

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Let us assume, with the IPCC (and Blimey), that CO2 increases the Greenhouse Effect and tends to make temperatures higher than they would be without CO2 in the atmosphere. This is not an unreasonable assumption to make, as long as you are willing to breeze by the numerious problems with the calculations themselves, and the lack of empirical support.

    So, what does the 800 year lag in the ice core record tell us? To review: CO2 concentration lags temperature change by ~800 years, with the two often going in opposite directions. A reasonable guess, as I noted in #194, is that CO2 concentrations are caused by temperature changes, but with the aforementioned lag.

    Given our assumption in the first paragraph — that increased CO2 tends to drive temperatures upwards — and accepting our guess in the previous paragraph — that increased temperature causes (after a lag) increased CO2 — we can conclude that, therefore, the increasing CO2 will tend to drive temperatures even higher, which in turn will cause (after a lag) even more CO2 to be released, and so on. This, then, is the positive feedback effect that Blimey so often invokes and so little understands — else he would realize that “feedback” by itself is meaningless, without the modifier “positive” or “negative”. (Check the ‘maths’ Blimey — you might learn something.) Of course, whether this positive feedback really exists is something that can only be verified by actual measurements, which so far haven’t been in its favor.

    Back to the ice cores: What does it mean that temperature often reverses itself, decreasing while CO2 concentration continues increasing, and vice-versa? The obvious conclusion is that the CO2 positive feedback effect (and CO2′s effect on temperatures in general) is a very minor effect — often overwhelmed by much stronger (and unknown) climate drivers.

    Fast forward to the present: We still don’t have empirical verification that CO2 has a detectable effect on temperatures, and we still don’t know what the major climate drivers are, nor how to predict their effects — but we do know that these unknown drivers are very much more potent than CO2.

    It is a vast understatement to say that the ice core data doesn’t lend any support to the AGW hypothesis — it actually shows that hypothesis to be complete bunk. Until the major climate drivers are known and included in the climate models, those models have nothing to say about future climate.

    Not suprisingly, this is exactly what actual attempted validation of those models shows.

    Apparently, the word “feedback” isn’t quite as magical as Blimey supposes — it certainly doesn’t substitute for logical argument.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    On reflection, I think my previous post is a complete waste of time Re: Blimey. (Hopefully, other more rational people may get some use from it.)

    Therefore, I have plagerized this “argument” at Blimey’s level:

    Blimey supposes his toeses are Roses,
    But Blimey supposes Erroneously,
    For nobody’s toeses are Roses (or Posies)
    As Blimey supposes his toeses to be.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    BobC@96

    I find my self in complete agreement with you. It seems to me that defining climate as average weather, as the IPCC does, is not only a useless definition but also allows alarmists to select slices of past temperature records favourable to their presuppositions about what causes global warming.

    It also seems to me that the only sensible definition of climate, which can only be local or regional is the sum of all the known and as yet possibly unknown factors that produce weather events. These factors in a given climate by definition must vary in intensity and will not always be present in a given weather event.

    In that sort of idea CO2 is just one of many much more powerful climate drivers and which may not, given the data you mention, be very a significant climate driver at all.

    I can not help but think that expressing climate as “average weather” is a deliberate deceptive propaganda ploy by the IPCC and its fellow travelers.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Mark D. says:

    Do you mean “evidence of a warming planet” like cooling?

    The cooling I referred to was during the interglacial periods. You seem confused by the though of cooling back then and warming now.

    BobC says:

    No Blimey, you’re just smelling yourself.
    Roy clearly asked you to back up your claim that “the lag was predicted before the ice core data was available”. You repeat his question, then fail to answer it.

    The dates of the papers answer it. If Roy Hogue, you or anyone else would like to present evidence to prove me wrong, please go ahead – I would welcome the change from your usual efforts.

    That’s stupidity.

    The paper I cited pre-dates the knowledge of the ice core lag. It doesn’t get much simpler!

    You want more proof (I just love this piece of irony for you), here’s David Evans (Nova’s partner) saying …

    As more ice core data was collected, the temporal resolution was improved. By 2004 or so, we knew from the ice core data that in the warming events of the last million years, the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon started. Causality does not run in the direction I had assumed in 1999—it runs the opposite way.

    Oh the satisfaction of using the work of one “anti-science” campaigner against another. Nova/David and the rest of their swallowers fail to understand the lag, time and time and time again.

    Blimey apparently believes that, with the use of the word “feedback” (which he obviously has no understanding of) he has magically reversed cause and effect.

    Er, no. You obviously didn’t read the papers I cited earlier. The evidence suggests Milankovitch cycles are the initial likely cause with GHGs a FEEDBACK effect.

    There is NO reason a feedback can’t continue to rise even though the temperature starts to drop. This isn’t a difficult concept to understand so I wonder why you have so much trouble. Limited brainpower perhaps?

    Blimey, not content with his irrational claim, cements (he thinks) the argument with scorn, derision, and other ad hominem fallacies.

    Pot Kettle.

    Give us the ‘maths’ you’re always swearing by, why don’t you — that should be fun to pick apart.

    For actual figures, try the peer-reviewed science listed earlier.

    HERE’S an example of how CO2 feedback could increase whilst Temps go down, that’s simple math and such an effect can be EASILY demonstrated.

    Your assumption that Temps and CO2 levels going in opposite directions means it cannot possibly be a feedback is in mathematical tatters. Poor you!!

    Let us assume, with the IPCC (and Blimey), that CO2 increases the Greenhouse Effect and tends to make temperatures higher than they would be without CO2 in the atmosphere. This is not an unreasonable assumption to make, as long as you are willing to breeze by the numerious problems with the calculations themselves, and the lack of empirical support.

    And if you’re willing to deny the existence of a large number of scientific papers studying the effect.

    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/index/

    So, what does the 800 year lag in the ice core record tell us? To review: CO2 concentration lags temperature change by ~800 years, with the two often going in opposite directions. A reasonable guess, as I noted in #194, is that CO2 concentrations are caused by temperature changes, but with the aforementioned lag.

    No need to repeat your ignorance, we get that already; you can’t understand simple maths.

    Peer-reviewed science disagrees with you – who would have thought?

    Monckton?

    Back to the ice cores: What does it mean that temperature often reverses itself, decreasing while CO2 concentration continues increasing, and vice-versa? The obvious conclusion is that the CO2 positive feedback effect (and CO2′s effect on temperatures in general) is a very minor effect — often overwhelmed by much stronger (and unknown) climate drivers.

    Oh gosh, you repeated the mistake again!! HAHA!!

    Whilst you’re at it, please explain why the other KNOWN forces of climate cannot explain the past 35 years of temperature increase.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/trend

    The sun’s been cooling, aerosols recently increasing which both have the opposite effect on the temperature. So please explain what replaces the known radiative property of CO2 to cause the recent decades of warming.

    No need to wait until after you understand feedbacks, it’s obvious that time may never come.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    He’s baaaaack…….

    Blimey:

    There is NO reason a feedback can’t continue to rise even though the temperature starts to drop. This isn’t a difficult concept to understand

    Well I’m afraid it is difficult to understand. Temp. rise is the evidence right? then temp. fall is the failure of your theory. End of story. Or maybe you can tell us where the “hidden heat” is hiding.

    Forgive me skipping the rest of your crap till here:

    please explain why the other KNOWN forces of climate cannot explain the past 35 years of temperature increase

    duh maybe the UNKNOWN?

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Mark D. says:

    Well I’m afraid it is difficult to understand.

    For some people, obviously it is. Is it multiplication or division that has you stumped?

    Forgive me skipping the rest of your crap till here:

    Not really, choosing to ignore the evidence before you … what’s the word for that again?

    00

  • #
  • #
    BobC

    Blimey’s back — and his incompetence, ignorance, and mendacity is on full display:

    I said: Roy clearly asked you to back up your claim that “the lag was predicted before the ice core data was available”. You repeat his question, then fail to answer it.

    Your answer, which is a lie:

    The dates of the papers answer it. If Roy Hogue, you or anyone else would like to present evidence to prove me wrong, please go ahead – I would welcome the change from your usual efforts.

    The paper I cited pre-dates the knowledge of the ice core lag. It doesn’t get much simpler!

    Well, it could be correct, rather than false: The date on the linked paper is 1990 — however, the paper makes no predictions about “CO2 lagging temperatures” in the ice cores. The authors do note that the time resolution is coarse and state:

    …whether the temperature changes lead of lag the changes in CO2 or CH4 concentrations is not relevant for the study of fast feedbacks.

    Not what any intelligent person would characterize as a “prediction” (but then, we’re talking about you).

    Then, you claim to add more evidence:

    You want more proof (I just love this piece of irony for you), here’s David Evans (Nova’s partner) saying …

    “As more ice core data was collected, the temporal resolution was improved. By 2004 or so, we knew from the ice core data that in the warming events of the last million years, the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon started. Causality does not run in the direction I had assumed in 1999—it runs the opposite way”.

    Uh, Blimey; Evans is saying that he only found out that CO2 lagged temperatures in 2004 (same as everyone else) when ice core analyses with better temporal resolution became available. I know it must be hard for you to keep track of what you’re saying, but this is the exact opposite of your claim and supports Roy’s claim.
    It is ironic, however, that you quote someone who supports Roy’s claim while thinking that it supports yours — so you got that right, at least. Your mental abilities (such as they are) are clearly on display here.

    Oh the satisfaction of using the work of one “anti-science” campaigner against another.

    Well, I admit it is kind of amusing watching you try (and fail) again and again to create some sort of logical argument. It’s getting boring, though.

    Some other examples:

    HERE’S an example of how CO2 feedback could increase whilst Temps go down, that’s simple math and such an effect can be EASILY demonstrated.

    I looked at the link, but it beats me how the home page of a picture sharing site has any relevance to what you are trying to say.

    Your assumption that Temps and CO2 levels going in opposite directions means it cannot possibly be a feedback is in mathematical tatters. Poor you!!

    Well, beside the fact that “TinyPic — Free Image Hosting, Photo Sharing & Video Hosting” has nothing to say about the subject, I made no claim that temperatures and CO2 decoupling disproved the positive feedback effect of CO2 (which I also clearly explained in post #196, in contrast to your rather haphazard use of the term). What I said is that it indicated that there were climate drivers capable of overwhelming the effect of CO2. Apparently, you are unable to follow a logical argument this simple.

    A few more examples (this is getting tedious):

    And if you’re willing to deny the existence of a large number of scientific papers studying the effect.

    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/index/

    This is a large number of scientific papers all right, covering just about every aspect of AGW there is. You must be hoping that there is some evidence for your claim in there, but you don’t produce it. Why don’t you just refer us to “Nature” next time? I’m sure we could look through 50 years of journals trying to make your case.

    No need to repeat your ignorance, we get that already; you can’t understand simple maths.

    What “simple maths” have you supplied? I’m having a hard time imagining any “maths” simple enough for you to follow. (Perhaps you think that is what was on the picture sharing site?)

    Oh gosh, you repeated the mistake again!! HAHA!!

    Maybe this looks like a logical argument from the perspective of someone in 4th or 5th grade (about what I estimate your mental age at). I encourage you to continue spewing this infantile pap — it will be effective at convincing people that there is nothing behind the AGW hypothesis but irrational shouting.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    202Blimey:
    August 11th, 2011 at 12:55 am
    Math too difficult for you?

    http://i52.tinypic.com/11cgjfl.png

    Oh gee — a spreadsheet model showing CO2 feedback being overwhelmed (after a lag) by “Milankovitch Force”. Pretty much the same conclusion I made in #196: That CO2 forcing (including it’s positive feedback effect) is frequently overwhelmed by other, more potent, climate drivers as shown in the ice core data.

    Your inability to follow a logical argument is secure.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Well, it could be correct, rather than false: The date on the linked paper is 1990 — however, the paper makes no predictions about “CO2 lagging temperatures” in the ice cores.

    Not what any intelligent person would characterize as a “prediction” (but then, we’re talking about you).

    You seemed to have missed the part where they talk about slower feedbacks. A slower feedback increases temperature, which then raises the CO2 levels.

    But I’m guessing this is all a bit too difficult for you to understand.

    Uh, Blimey; Evans is saying that he only found out that CO2 lagged temperatures in 2004

    The paper of 1990 predates both 1999 & 2004.

    Your mental abilities (such as they are) are clearly on display here.

    LOL! Amusingly so are yours.

    I made no claim that temperatures and CO2 decoupling disproved the positive feedback effect of CO2 (which I also clearly explained in post #196, in contrast to your rather haphazard use of the term). What I said is that it indicated that there were climate drivers capable of overwhelming the effect of CO2. Apparently, you are unable to follow a logical argument this simple.

    Actually most of your post 196 is waffling on about how I should have used the term positive feedback instead of just feedback when talking about CO2. You are right, although I can’t ever recall someone using the term negative feedback in relation to CO2 so perhaps you’re just being old and pedantic.

    In post 196 you make mention that temp and CO2 levels go in opposite directions as if that had some significance. As I have demonstrated, all it shows is you inability to think outside of the swallower box.

    Not only that, you then go on to disagree with the peer-reviewed research and say that CO2 has only a minor effect.

    Your mathematics to support your statement is, er, totally non-existent. Oh who to believe, the experts or you, what a dilemma!!

    This is a large number of scientific papers all right, covering just about every aspect of AGW there is.

    Yes, and indexed so that even an idiot could find what they were looking for. Granted, and I accept your criticism, a moron might have trouble locating something supporting the GHG theory from that list.

    Oh gee — a spreadsheet model showing CO2 feedback being overwhelmed (after a lag) by “Milankovitch Force”. Pretty much the same conclusion I made in #196: That CO2 forcing (including it’s positive feedback effect) is frequently overwhelmed by other, more potent, climate drivers as shown in the ice core data.

    Er, no, a spreadsheet showing your idea about temp going down whilst CO2 continues upwards has no mathematical leg to stand upon.

    But you couldn’t even read the first line could you, or I would have to explain that here once again.

    I assume your “glasses of selective reading” must have fogged, because you failed to respond to the following:

    Whilst you’re at it, please explain why the other KNOWN forces of climate cannot explain the past 35 years of temperature increase.
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/trend
    The sun’s been cooling, aerosols recently increasing which both have the opposite effect on the temperature. So please explain what replaces the known radiative property of CO2 to cause the recent decades of warming.
    No need to wait until after you understand feedbacks, it’s obvious that time may never come.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Geez Blimey, you couldn’t illustrate your idiocy better if you had a coach helping.

    Let’s look at your “simple maths” (which you manifestly can’t understand). Here is your “explanation”:

    a spreadsheet showing your idea about temp going down whilst CO2 continues upwards has no mathematical leg to stand upon.

    (Never mind that exactly this has been observed many times in the ice core records — Blimey thinks it has been “mathematically” disproved.)

    And, to completely insure that we get your stupidity, you add:

    But you couldn’t even read the first line could you, or I would have to explain that here once again.

    So, let’s look at what the “first line” says: (Here’s the link, for anyone who wants to follow along.)

    This example is purely to demonstrate how a feedback (CO2 levels) can still be increasing, even when Temperature is cooling.

    Well, what do you know? The spreadsheet author claims that the spreadsheet shows “temp going down whilst CO2 continues upwards” — precisely what you just claimed “has no mathemtical leg to stand upon”. And, indeed, if you read through the numbers (which I realize you are incapable of doing) you see this is just what happens. This happens, because the author causes the change in CO2 level to be a function of past, not current temperatures, modeling a lagged response just as I assumed in post #196 (which you apparently couldn’t follow either).

    To make sure you get the point, the author repeates it at the bottom:

    What is demonstrated here is the mathematical ability for a feedback to increase whilst temps decrease.
    The temperature peaks between t = 2.8 and t = 3.1
    The CO2 level … peaks almost half a cycle later at t = 5.3

    So, apparently, Blimey acts like a disagreeable idiot because — he is a disagreeable idiot.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    BobC says:

    And, indeed, if you read through the numbers (which I realize you are incapable of doing) you see this is just what happens. This happens, because the author causes the change in CO2 level to be a function of past, not current temperatures, modeling a lagged response just as I assumed in post #196 (which you apparently couldn’t follow either).

    CO2 peaks EIGHT columns after temperature.

    The “CO2 Level” from one column to the next is simple done by adding the “Change in CO2 level” value.

    The reason CO2 peaks EIGHT columns later is because the “change” in CO2 level is being driven by the temperature, rather than the CO2 Level” being directly a function of temperature.

    So, apparently, Blimey acts like a disagreeable idiot because — he is a disagreeable idiot.

    So even an “idiot” can make a fool of your logic.

    Oh, and I see you continue to ignore the difficult questions! LOL.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Blimey, you’ve done it again! (Or still.)

    So even an “idiot” can make a fool of your logic.

    It’s true you are an idiot (thanks for the confirmation), and probably a fool as well.

    But logical? Not so much. Why don’t you try reconciling these statements:

    Blimey (refering to what the spread sheet shows):

    your idea about temp going down whilst CO2 continues upwards has no mathematical leg to stand upon.

    The author of the spreadsheet, on what the spread sheet shows:

    This example is purely to demonstrate how a feedback (CO2 levels) can still be increasing, even when Temperature is cooling.

    He even repeats it, in case you didn’t get it the first time:

    What is demonstrated here is the mathematical ability for a feedback to increase whilst temps decrease.

    And, of course, the numbers in the spreadsheet show the same thing.

    Blimey, you flunk logic, reading comprehension, numeracy, and basic civility. Anybody who can’t see through you is dumber than you are, and there is nobody here like that (not even the warmists).

    I don’t think it’s necessary to waste time parsing any more of your rants — a good working assumption is that they are 90% lies.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    And, I might add (for the benefit of others who may have been turned off by Blimey’s irrational rants):

    What the spreadsheet shows (temps going down, while CO2 levels continue to increase) is seen many times in the ice core records. This represents empirical evidence that there are climate drivers signficantly more potent than CO2, even including the positive feedback effect due to the CO2-temp link.

    There are no skeptics who “deny” the evidence of the ice core records in this regard (the 800 year ‘lag’ of CO2 behind temperature), so the spreadsheet is arguing against a straw man.

    (I wouldn’t give Blimey’s posts the compliment of calling them “arguments”, as that would imply some logical content.)

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    What the spreadsheet shows …

    Is that you were wrong to suggest that ‘temps go up whilst CO2′ goes down means anything but ignorance on your behalf.

    The science goes on to show that the amount of temperature change cannot be explain by solar forcings alone.

    We’re still waiting for your “science” to support your point of view, as well as an answer to the end of post 205

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Blimey:
    August 15th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
    What the spreadsheet shows …
    Is that you were wrong to suggest that ‘temps go up whilst CO2′ goes down means anything but ignorance on your behalf.

    Blimey, you don’t seem to be able to tell a spreadsheet model from reality. Here (ice core records) is the reality. Notice how, from 117,000 ya to 114,000 ya temperature falls while CO2 continues to rise (what the spread sheet shows) — and from 108,000 ya to 106,000 ya temperature rises while CO2 drops (what you think is impossible). (There are many other examples, but this one might be obvious enough that even you can see it.) Apparently, the ignorance is yours.

    We’re still waiting for your “science” to support your point of view, as well as an answer to the end of post 205

    Oh, very well (although it’s rather like trying to teach a pig to sing). For science, check the data linked above. Here’s your question in #205:

    Whilst you’re at it, please explain why the other KNOWN forces of climate cannot explain the past 35 years of temperature increase.

    Here’s the answer: We don’t KNOW what the effects of clouds are; We don’t KNOW what the effects of solar variations are; We don’t KNOW what the effects of aerosols are (nor, the amount of aerosols over most of that period). However, these effects are included in the climate models by entering parameters relating to the assumed strength of these effects (and the assumed effects of CO2). By adjusting these parameters, a model can be made to “explain” MOST of the past 35 years of temperature change.

    The models so adjusted, however, cannot explain the temperature rise from 1900 to 1935; They cannot explain the temperature drop from 1940 to 1970; They cannot explain the lack of temperature rise for the last 13 years. And, of course, they are completely worthless at explaining the MWP, LIA or anything else in the historical and paleological record.

    The models, in other words, have no predictive or postdictive skill (except for the brief time period for which they were fitted). This indicates to a person of normal intelligence that these models are worthless as predictors of Earth’s climate.

    What it indicates to you is anyone’s guess.

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    They cannot explain the lack of temperature rise for the last 13 years.

    By that do you mean ‘after adjusting for enso, solar variation and volcanic activity, there has been no movement in temperature over the last 13 years’.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    212Tristan:
    September 20th, 2011 at 3:32 pm

    By that do you mean ‘after adjusting for enso, solar variation and volcanic activity, there has been no movement in temperature over the last 13 years’.

    This is even more inane than your usual “nuisance” comments, Tristan. Exactly what about my comment #211 leads you to assume that I am claiming that “there has been no movement in temperature over the last 13 years”, when I obviously was refering to the fact that, on average, the temperature hasn’t increased over that time? Again, I wonder if English is your first language.

    And, of course, you can’t “adjust” for effects you don’t understand — unless, like government-funded climate scientists, your goal is to come up with a predetermined result. Unfortunately, the “adjustments” to these arbitrary parameters in the models needed to match the warming from 1970 – 1998 are different than the adjustments necessary to match the nearly static temperature average since then. This “regime change” is apparently due to the political necessity of pretending that the climate models have any relevance whatsoever.

    Pretty much any model with enough adjustable parameters can be made to match reality if I’m allowed to continuously make adjustments to the parameters. Only a fool would think that such a model would be a good predictor of the future, however.

    00

  • #

    BobC says:

    Blimey, you don’t seem to be able to tell a spreadsheet model from reality.

    Clearly I can since I specifically said the spreadsheet was not real figures, but purely to demonstrate that a feedback can still increase whilst the initial force is decreasing.

    Did you forget already?

    Notice how, from 117,000 ya to 114,000 ya temperature falls while CO2 continues to rise (what the spread sheet shows) — and from 108,000 ya to 106,000 ya temperature rises while CO2 drops

    Yeah I notice may places where CO2 and temperature do not correlate. Unless you do a proper analysis (such as is done in peer reviewed science) and consider all other forces in play, you’d be foolish to draw a conclusion about CO2′s role – yet that’s exactly what you do.

    what you think is impossible

    I never said such a thing. It’s very possible since temperature changes are not related to just CO2 forcings. I stated as much when describing the Milankovitch cycle.

    For science, check the data linked above.

    Nowhere in that science can I see anything that says CO2 is not a feedback. The science agrees it lags, that doesn’t mean it is not a feedback nor does it mean the known radiative properties of CO2 have suddenly disappeared.

    Furthermore the science YOU/NOVA cite actually confirms what I have been saying. I quote

    The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter 4200 years of the warming. The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks (39) that are also at work for the presentday and future climate.

    I’ve fixed this next quote for you …

    Here’s the answer: We BobC don’t KNOW what the effects of clouds are; We BobC don’t KNOW what the effects of solar variations are; We BobC don’t KNOW what the effects of aerosols are (nor, the amount of aerosols over most of that period).

    You may not know, the climate scientists working in their field of expertise have a better idea and acknowledge the uncertainty. The feedback effect from clouds has a large amount of uncertainty; the amount of uncertainty about CO2 forcings is considerably less.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg

    Having error bars, not knowing something, is not justification to be complacent about climate change.

    The models match better when the known radiative property of CO2 is included.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

    We know enough about the sun, aerosols and GHGs to know that the increase in GHG is the most likely cause for recent warming.

    If you wish to state otherwise, please do so with some science to support your position.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Gee, Blimey snuck a late post in, thinking nobody would notice.

    It’s too late for the “last claim wins” strategy, however, as you have totally shredded any possible claim of logic and intelligence with your multiple contradictory statements, some of which I have summarized in posts #206 & 208. (There is also a multitude of other confused, illogical, innumerate posts by Blimey in this thread. I suggest anyone who is tempted to give him any credibility read these.)

    Since you’re so enamored of models, take a look at this one. It fits the full 160 year instrumental record of the Earth’s temperature much better than any of the GCMs do, using the record of solar activity alone. The model has a total of 4 adjustable parameters, relating to the observed lag between solar activity and climate.

    I know you won’t (can’t) do this, however, since:

    1) The article isn’t peer-reviewed by any of the climate science gang, so you don’t have any authorities’ stamps of approval to replace your thinking.

    2) There is some math in the article that you will be incapable of understanding.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if you did come back and make some inane and insulting comments, however.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Excellent link Bob, I especially found reading the O2 “fingerprint” (missing) a rather profound OMG moment. This is such a simple de-bunker why hasn’t that been a greater point for us non warmists? Burning fuels takes up two molecules on O2 to create a single molecule of Co2. Therefore if the measured atmospheric Co2 is the result of human fuel burning then the corresponding O2 decline should be clear and at 2:1 ratio.

    Shouldn’t this be high on the list of points for skeptics to hit home?

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Hi Mark,

    I can’t help remembering my basic chemistry. So let’s see if the reaction is balanced:

    2xO2 -> CO2

    There are 4 oxygen atoms on the left and only 2 on the right. My chemistry teacher is rolling over in his grave.

    The fuel needs to be accounted for:

    2xO2 + CH4 -> CO2 + 2xH2O

    Now 4 oxygen atoms, 4 hydrogen and one carbon on the left. On the right also 4 oxygen, 4 hydrogen and one carbon.

    Funny how the beneficial combustion product, water is produced at twice the rate of carbon dioxide.

    CH4 by the way is the much dreaded methane, the simplest hydrocarbon molecule.

    00

  • #

    [...] Greens reveal their aims: Environment? Who cares? [...]

    00