JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Nobel prize winner — Ivar Giaever — “climate change is pseudoscience”

It was for a moment the clash of the Nobel Prize winners on climate change… just barely, but nothing like this has happened before in the debate-that-isn’t. Normally this is not a show the heavyweights turn up too. But there were three Nobel winners in the room at the same time.

Paul CrutzenMario Molina and Sherwood Rowland won the 1995 Nobel  for work on Ozone. Both of the first two are fans of the man-made global warming theory and they both spoke just prior to notable skeptic Ivar Giaever (who won a Nobel for tunneling in superconductors in 1972).
[UPDATE: Watch Giaever speak - the whole speech - it's excellent. h/t Roberto Soria]

As usual, the core arguments of believers comes down to argument from authority. Can they attack the credentials of the dissenters? The skeptics, the real scientists, talk about evidence.

From Scientific American by Mariette DiChristina

Crutzen:

“The scientific evidence is really overwhelming. Most experts agree; maybe two or three in 100 disagree.” He added, “I know who they are and why they are wrong.”

Molina:

“Anticipating the next speaker, Ivar Gieavaer(sic), who shared the 1973 prize for work on tunneling in superconductors but was to offer a skeptical take on climate change, Molina said that critics aren’t usually the experts. Listening to them, he added, is like going to your dentist when you have a heart problem.”

Giaever stood his ground, dished it out for the Nobel committee, and pointed out the instruments are inaccurate, the results too small to mean anything, and called climate change “pseudoscience”. Merciless.

As he took the stage for his turn, Gieavar’s (sic) immediate remark was, “I am happy I’m allowed to speak for myself.” He derided the Nobel committees for awarding Al Gore and R.K. Pachauri a peace prize, and called agreement with the evidence of climate change a “religion.” In contrast to Crutzen and Molina, Gieavar (sic) found the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements—and small enough not to matter in any case: “What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing.” He disagreed that carbon dioxide was involved and showed several charts that asserted, among other things, that climate had even cooled. “I pick and choose when I give this talk just the way the previous speaker picked and chose when he gave his talk,” he added. He finished with a pronouncement: “Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely.”

(my emphasis).

H/t Climate Depot and Marc Morano

 

A long while ago, I wrote about the thought experiment — the delicious idea of someone like Julia Gillard coming face to face with someone like Ivar Giaever — and calling him a “science denier”… How arrogant art thy name-callers?

——————————————

 

UPDATE #2

I very much enjoyed watching the whole speech.  This is breaking new ground. Not that he is telling die-hard skeptics anything new science-wise, but he’s convincing, authoritative, and entertaining and he’s reaching a layer of society with quiet but penetrating influence. No I don’t expect news headlines. It’s more that the seed has been planted, the message will spread and today we are just a bit closer to the point where it becomes very uncool to be caught looking like the gullible fool who didn’t question the propaganda. The alarmists must fear something exactly like this.

Giaever tells it well mostly. He has new ways to explain old themes and several times he’s crafted a funny line and delivered it with aplomb – nice timing.

No doubt he’ll be attacked. They will say he’s old, past it, not a climate scientist, because that’s the kind of people they are. They will go on and on about 1998, and why he was “cherry picking” even though that doesn’t make any difference to his main points or his final conclusion. I wouldn’t have included the part about “cooling since 1998″, mostly because it will distract from the excellent points everywhere else, and we don’t need to talk about the big El Nino in 1998 -  we need to talk about how sea levels started rising long before coal fired power stations; we need to talk about the difference between science and religion; we need to talk about how impossible it is to measure global average temperatures to just 0.8C.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.7/10 (136 votes cast)
Nobel prize winner -- Ivar Giaever -- "climate change is pseudoscience", 8.7 out of 10 based on 136 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/84qe2nh

221 comments to Nobel prize winner — Ivar Giaever — “climate change is pseudoscience”

  • #
    Speedy

    If these warmist guys are supposed to be Nobel scientists, why didn’t they use scientific argument?

    It doesn’t matter who says it, it’s what they say.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

    • #
      crakar24

      Speedy,

      They got the Ozone hole theory horribly wrong…….birds of a feather…….


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Ivar Giaever’s comments suggest that the Nobel Committee itself was not so corrupt in 1972. My late friend, Glenn Seaborg, another Nobel Prize winner who received a Nobel Prize in 1951 was highly critical of the lock-step, consensus, post-normal science that plagues climatology and almost every other branch of modern science.

        Concurrent corruption of sciences and constitutional governments appears to have started in 1945 when the United Nations was established out of fear of the nuclear fires” that consumed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

        http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-418


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Tel

          I often get the feeling that modern humans are afraid of science because of what it has achieved and what it could achieve. They both love science because of their comforts and hate it and long to live the life of a primitive. We kind of reached a limit, not in what science would deliver, but in how humans could assimilate the change. Now we are feeling our way around that. I suspect that the major design of the government takeover of scientific research is to ensure that no significant discoveries are made (while making huge announcements of the insignificant discoveries).

          Having said that, the drone aircraft that Obama has discovered are convenient for extra-judicial killings will probably be one of the inevitable game changers. You can imagine what they will be like when production really ramps up.


          Report this

          10

  • #
    rukidding

    So the scientist that worked on the ozone science did they say that if we changed refrigerant gases all would be well with the ozone layer.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Yep, and the hole over Antarctica is still there.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Colin Henderson

      As it turns out the Ozone theory is based on computer models and not empirical science, just like CAGW.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      chris y

      Here is what Rowland said about the Ozone hole in 1986-

      Press-Courier, June 11, 1986
      Rowland, who in 1974 published pioneering research on chlorofluorocarbons- gases used as refrigerants and aerosol-can propellants. This led the United States to ban their use in spray cans, but it continues elsewhere. The scientists said they did not know why extreme signs of ozone depletion are first appearing in Antarctica.”

      Got that? They did not understand the science, but regulations were forced through anyways. Its the same old story- “even if the theory is all wrong, we are still doing the ‘right’ thing.”

      Sherwood Rowland is also a big fan of CACC-
      “If you have the greenhouse effect going on indefinitely, then you have a temperature rise that will extinct human life,” in 500 to 1000 years.
      Sherwood Rowland, UC Chemistry professor, ozone guru, June 1986


      Report this

      00

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Timely to add this link about the methods that underpin the use of environmentalists such as Rowland by big business to lock in profits.

      REF: Dirty Deeds No Longer Dirt Cheap

      Part of the process of regulatory capture by special interests is to use zealous muppets to push for the same goal that the special interests want, it’s an example of the cats paw method of manipulation.

      pull [someone’s] chestnuts out of the fire To be forced to save someone else’s skin by risking one’s own; to extricate another from difficulty by solving his problem; to be made a cat’s paw of. This expression derives from the fable of the monkey and the cat. See cat’s paw, VICTIMIZATION.

      REF: Cats Paw

      The application of the technique within CAGW is obvious with the envirozealots once again the clueless muppets with the ETS, carbon trading, rent seeking Banksters on the other side of the equation.

      As with the Baptists & Bootleggers, Enviros and Dupont, and now the Enviros and the Banksters, the money side of the equation always got what they wanted, and the muppet side had no impact on what they thought was happening.

      People still drank booze, The Ozone hole is still there, and people will continue to use fossil fuels and emit CO2 – in all cases the end user/consumer simply pays more for what they consume as they are now in a monopoly/cartel market run by gangsters instead of an open, voluntary, free market with genuine competition improving products/services and forcing prices down and living standards up.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      In “Environmental Overkill” Dixy Lee Ray years ago pointed out the fundamental fact that the O3 is created by UV dissociating O2 and being absorbed in the process . It’s no surprise that the concentrations of O3 decline over the poles in their winters .

      This fraud has now led to Primatine Mist , the most affordable asthma inhaler in the USA being banned for the bit of CFC propellant . No concern that this alone is likely to kill people .

      I’ve long wondered about the quality of the work that won those ozone hole Nobels .


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Escovado

      If I recall correctly, the ozone scare began around the same time that Dupont’s patent on CFCs expired. But that’s just coincidence.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Tel

        The same coincidence seems to happen with generic drugs, where the researchers “discover” they are actually harmful just a short time after the patents expire.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    “Show us the evidence!”

    “Don’t show us models and computer games – that is for the kiddies – show us some real empirical evidence – show us the results of an experiment”

    For scientists (and especially for Nobel Prize winners), why is this so hard?

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      When warming was hidden and dangerous, one scientist hearing the call of duty reported to his commander keen to avert a crysis. We asked for the Gordon Freeman of climate science, but they sent us the Leisure Suit Larry. WoW, he thought he had a halo and a goldeneye but it was all down to the sims. Somebody smelt a pong and launched a counter-strike. Revealing all the DiRT on the scientist made ClimateGate a grand theft automatically, and our civilisation should see that FOIA stalker gets a medal of honour for preventing doom!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Manfred

      As I’m sure you know, a model offers a shortcut (and likely much less expensive) route to any answer the heart desires. Helpfully, the model is usually very complex (and requires secret computer codes), is definitely too tricky for most to understand properly, save of course for the obvious – that it predicts the end is nigh and that more funding is needed.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Richard111

    Well. Scientific American. What can one say? Don’t they employ proof readers? Especially as it seems they publish from authors who can’t spell.

    Ivar Giaever; incorrect three times above. How many times in the whole article? I read that as a deliberate insult.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean

    I am cautiously optimistic because at least scientists with different points of view are in the same room arguing. But having attended many scientific seminars I always found the discussions after the formal presentations to be where you really got to the heart of the issues. Was there any discussion back and forth afterwards that was recorded?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Good science can and is required to work with reasonable terms and explanations. The science about the behaviour of the atmosphere should be no exception. But WMO, IPCC and other institutions simply are using the layman’s term of weather and climate not even recognizing that this is very unscientifically. Actually nowadays climate is still defined as average weather, which may be fine for the general public, but nonsense as scientific term.
    More here: http://www.whatisclimate.com/b202-open-letter.html
    A science that is not able to define what it is talking about should be regarded a pseudo-science.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I wrote something very apt in a piece some time ago –

    “When you add in the fact that senior figures in other scientific disciplines, are finally starting to speak out against the climate scientists’ notions of how science should be conducted, it’s a bad sign for the future. The establishment is breaking ranks and they’re being cut loose. They’re in the water, there’s blood in it and the sharks are circling in closer and closer. It’s old scores time”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/the-climate-wars-revisited-or-no-truce-with-kings/

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Watch the full video of Ivar Giaever’s talk in Lindau yesterday:
    http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/#/Video?id=1410
    Spread the link far and wide…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    The mad scientist award has to go to Hartmut Michel:

    “Our cars should be driven by electric engines using electric energy directly derived from sunlight,” he said. No energy storage would be needed: “The sun is always shining somewhere.”

    Hey Poindexter, we already have electric cars that can only travel on streets with electrified tracks, they’re called TRAMS.

    Nobel Prize winner, people. Nobel Prize winner.

    But good on Giaever for stickin’ it to `em. He finds himself in the good company of Matt Ridley for calling out man-made global warming as a pseudoscience.

    – - – -

    Meanwhile, elsewhere in Germany, pre-industrial society is being blamed for 5% of today’s man-made CO2 level, which is then claimed to represent 9% of today’s warming via shenanigans we can only imagine. They actually say they are going to combine the output of their dodgy model with a climate model and “find” an answer. What “find”?? Don’t they mean “invent”??

    Perhaps they are trying to start a new craze amongst the youngsters: a competition to see who can publish the most provocative inference based on the most ridiculously underspecified model. It will be called “Plancking”. :)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Brian of Moorabbin

      “Our cars should be driven by electric engines using electric energy directly derived from sunlight,” he said. No energy storage would be needed: “The sun is always shining somewhere.”

      So his solution is to just keep driving to where the sun is?

      It may be night-time in Australia but its ok, the sun is shining in Europe so you can still drive…

      Did his Nobel Prize come from a Wheaties packet?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        “The best hope for democracy lies in the unregulated marketplace of ideas, in which the maxim ‘Let the buyer beware’ remains the surest safeguard against cheats and charlatans, including those waving their PhDs in your face”

        Lee Harris


        Report this

        00

  • #

    Good presentation. But he disappointed me with his agreement with China’s one-child policy. The state should never have that kind of power.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Caused me to find http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1973/giaever-bio.html :

      On a personal note my wife and I are now the proud grandparents of almost four grandchildren.

      Always easier to tell the other guy not to reproduce .


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Brian of Moorabbin

        Always easier to tell the other guy not to reproduce.

        Or to reduce the consumption (or refrain from using) various commodities, services, etc.

        The Greens have been doing this for decades. Just look at how many of them jumped onto private jets to fly to Cancun, Durban, Rio, et al for their ‘Climate Summit’ junkets.

        Like Cardinal Al Gore of the Church of AGW and his ‘multiple homes, multiple SUV, private jet lifestyle’, whilst simultaneously preaching that the rest of us must “do with lees (or do without completely) to save the planet”…

        “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” was what the pigs eventually painted on the wall of the barn in Orwell’s classic tale… Kind of aptly describes those with their snouts firmly in the AGW-cash trough, no?


        Report this

        00

      • #
        DavidH

        Or as P.J. O’Rourke put it in an essay on overpopulation, “too many of you, just the right number of me”.

        I quote from memory not the book, so I hope I got it close to right. The book is “All the Trouble in the Torld”, from 1994. Al Gore gets a pretty thorough serving in the chapter on the environment.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Andy B

    I agree with P Gosselin, I was greatly enjoying the talk and then out of nowhere he drops in a non sequitor slide about how the government should impose a one child policy like in China.

    It seemed completely irrelevant to the rest of his talk. For a moment I was wondering had he intended it as a joke, or sarcasm? That is, was he joking that if you are really really serious about global warming you should implement a one child policy?
    That’s the only way I can understand it fitting in with the rest of his talk.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Has any one died from the dreaded hole in the ozone layer?
    In 20 years , no one has been able to supply me with peer reviewed proof of climate change . Anything forewarded to me has had so many adjustments as to be palpably inaccurate.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      ExWarmist

      I was turned in a Newt by the Ozone Hole…

      (But then I got better…)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      dr ian hilliar

      In his 1965 paper-”40 years of Ozone at Oxford” in Annals of Optics ,spring 1965, Gordon C Dobson mentions the incidental finding of a “relative ozone lack” in Halley Bay, Antarctica, in 1957/58/59. this occured for a 3month period , in spring, at the end of which the ozone levels went back up from n/2 to “normal”,ie similar levels to the other 21 intruments around the world. He attributed this relative ozone lack to 3 factors. 1/ no ozone produced over the 7/12 of the long antarctic winter, as no sun affecting upper atmosphere. 2/ circumpolar vortex/strong persistant westerly wind extends up th straosphere and stops infilling from outside. 3/ extreme cold . He observed that the ozone lack would be bigger as it got colder , and vice/versa. Not a lot of CFCs around in the late 1950s early 60s from my recollection.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    spartacusisfree

    There is a surprising result from this man’s resignation from the APS. It was with great interest earlier today that I noticed the official APS justification of the IPCC version of the GHE detects, as have I, a glaring mistake in the maths, specifically the exaggeration in the models of warming in the IR by a factor of ~400%.

    It’s here: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm

    In Eq. 17, the author shows that the only way you can get the energies to balance is if you reduce the emissivity of the lower atmosphere from 1 to 0.76, an error of ~80 W/m^2 for the inputs in that report.

    So, the APS know there has been a confidence trick by Trenberth/IPCC. The heat input is exaggerated by 50 times the final claimed AGW [1.6 W/m^2]. Yes, 50 times, but the proof is hidden.

    This is the cause of the claimed positive feedback in the models. It doesn’t exist. It’s a scam and that’s APS official information!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Hi Spartacusisfree,

      do you mean…

      If the air layer is a blackbody (ea = 1, considerable CO2), the atmosphere is Ta = 255 K (as before) and the surface is Ts = 303 K (16 K warmer than actual value of 287 K). If ea = 1/2 (from less CO2), the atmosphere is too cold at Ta = 230 K and the surface is also too cold at Ts = 274 K. By adjusting ea to 0.76, we obtain the “correct” surface temperature, Ts = 287 K.

      It is the adjustment of ea to 0.76, down from 1 (air layer is a blackbody (is this assumption correct??? Is this where it begins to go wrong?).

      I’s definently odd that the justifcation for this adjustment is that you have to make it to get to the observed value of Ts = 287K. Looks like the maths must be wrong, if the maths was correct, the value of Ts = 287 would fall out at the end, and they would not have to “fudge” for it.

      The author also does the standard blowoff of the Suns Influence with the typical “no causal mechanism” claim ignoring Svensmark, Magnetic Fields, and Cosmic rays seeding Clouds – hence clouds as a climate forcing.

      REF: CosmoClimate

      And Warmists wonder why they have no credibility when they fudge the numbers, ignore contrary evidence, and fail to correct their own errors as a consistently applied methodology.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi gguys

        The air is not a black-body.

        The term black body has a very specific meaning in thermodynamics but “Climate Scientists” use the term with gay abandon and recklessness.

        They haven’t got a clue.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        spartacusisfree

        The assumption that IR from the Earth’s surface is the S-B black body level in a vacuum is wrong. I and other metallurgists have measured such data and to get radiative flux > natural convection for emissivity = 0.9 you need >100 deg C. For aluminium it’s >300 deg C.

        They assume this because at TOA they think DOWN emissivity = 1 so to balance that 238.5 W/m^2 they need the same UP at BOA. This could be the case if there was direct IR thermalisation [Aarhenius], but that is impossible because of quantum exclusion. In reality, thermalisation must be indirect from kinetic factors [climate science thinks molecules have memory - they do not]. I can describe this in detail if you want.

        Real TOA DOWN emissivity tends to zero because IR energy preferentially ends up in space as there are few clouds for indirect thermalisation. The 333 W/m^2 ‘back radiation’ from the lower atmosphere is imaginary. It results from the failure of the two-stream approximation at boundaries plus an inability to realise that single pyrgeometer data are a temperature signal, not real energy.

        In reality, the only IR warming in the atmosphere is the 23 W/m^2 [63-40 through the atmospheric window]. There can be no substantial CO2-AGW and metallurgical data show it limits at ~200 ppmV in a long physical optical path.

        Basically the Trenberth/IPCC Energy budget is not only wrong physics but because the sums don’t add up, it’s also a confidence trick which any competent scientist should have been able to work out. I did, the APS guy did, why didn’t anyone else?

        As for atmospheric emissivity. Clear emissivity <1. Under clouds it's higher because you have the clear sky emissivity plus the grey body atmospheric window emission, much of it from the thermalisation of IR psuedo-scattered by GHG molecules and absorbed at droplets.

        In short, climate science has got just about everything wrong and they arrogantly run around screaming that anyone who doesn't accept it is a 'denier'. I suggest that about 80% of them should retrain for a useful technician career with the remaining 20% kept on after completing a formal course in physics to correct the indoctrination in false science.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Spartacusisfree

          As a fellow Metallurgist I must unfortunately disagree with part of your last comment that:

          “climate science has got just about everything wrong.”

          That statement has an implication that they “tried” to get it right.

          They obviously never tried anything but to assemble something that might have been mistaken for reality if given a cursory view.

          As you have said, none of the CAGW theory stands up to scientific scrutiny; it was only ever a socio-political- money grubbing exercise.

          But to give them credit: It Worked.

          They fooled us all; for a while.

          :)

          Global Warming Catastrophe Theory reminds me of a Reynolds number.

          DIMENSIONLESS!


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Colin Davidson

      I disagree.
      It is Equation 16 which is in error, and a common error it is too.

      In that equation (purporting to be the Surface energy balance), the energy flows of Evaporated/Transpirated water vapour and Direct Conduction have been overlooked/deliberately omitted.

      These are infact of far greater effect than the Radiative term. The transport of energy into the atmosphere from the Surface is 60% Evaporated/Transpired water vapour, 20%radiation and 20%Direct Conduction.

      This is not a minor error. 80% of the energy transport into the atmosphere has been left out of the critical equation. If you use Equation 16, you get hufge errors from there on.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        spartacusisfree

        Agreed.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Col

        Totally agree.

        I once did the exercise of working out how much energy was required to lift clouds up tom their average height.

        Rather rough but interesting.

        BHP Newcastle used to quench coke with two tons of water. The resulting steam cloud size of about 30 yards diameter helped estimate very roughly what a small white fluffy cloud might wiegh.

        The PE = mgh

        As you correctly indicate, this energy has never been accounted for and neither has the energy of Momentum of moving air-streams.

        That’s why the claim to have completely modelled the Climate’s Temperature with CO2 levels is rubbish. There are a million factors and

        they don’t even know this let alone know how to estimate them sensibly.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        AndyG55

        Its not even a set percentage. Convection will always counteract any warming from other sources.. that’s its purpose !!

        While you can say its a certain percentage, you need to also understand that it is the DOMINANT, CONTROLLING percentage.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Colin Davidson

          Sorry, I disagree.

          Convection is a process entirely within the atmospheric boundary. It plays no part in the transfer of energy across the Surface/Atmosphere boundary. It concerns the transport of energy within the atmosphere only.

          It is incorrect to classify Direct Conduction and Evaporated Water as “Convection” (or as Kiehl & Trenberth do with Conduction, “Thermals”).


          Report this

          00

          • #
            spartacusisfree

            An interesting point. Convection, conduction and radiation from a surface are coupled because the same vibrationally-activated sited transfer quantised energy to adsorbed gas molecules or directly to the aether as EM energy. This is why you can never get black body S-B IR from any surface in the atmosphere. This is the Big Lie in climate science.

            Evaporation involved the phase transformation energy as liquid on a non-porous surface forms vapour, a transient phenomenon, or liquid in a porous solid wicks to the surface where it forms the vapour.

            So, evaporation is an additional process which converts part of the incident SW energy to vapour latent heat in parallel to the convection and radiation [conduction is minor except where convection is inhibited as with the mirage].


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Col

            I don’t think that it is all that essential to get too involved with fine detail because the mistakes or deliberate distortions of Climate Science involve wholesale or gross mechanisms.

            In Metallurgy we have to account for three main balances on any system we examine and unlike Climate Science EVERY factor must be quantified.

            The three factors are:

            1. Mass

            2. Heat

            and

            3. Momentum.

            If you disregard any of these, you will not have a correct balance.

            The basic problem we have is simple on the first side, that of Energy Input.

            We all know that the main input is from the Sun but there are other less easily quantified items like retained heat from the previous day or season that can be tapped from the Earth’s surface or oceans. Then there are the real difficulties we have with volcanic vents and the less obvious energy that is gradually escaping from Earth’s core to deep space.

            On the Energy Loss side we have leakage of the precious energy from the top of the atmosphere out into deep space.

            Getting a handle on how much energy is being radiated out into deep space is the main issue and Climate scientists have done very simplistic Energy balances with just a couple of factors and because they have used an expensive computer they claim to be spot on.

            As a few of us have said; the energy lost in convection is energy that must be accounted for. Latent heat of vaporisation is taken from the ocean or ground whenever rain water puddles dry up. It must be replaced to hold temperature constant. That water vapour when it rises and accumulates as cloud does need a lot of energy.

            Rising warm air may rise because of convection caused by the buoyancy effect delivered through the presence of more dense layers of air but there is still energy involved.

            If you look at any cloud mass you are looking at tens of thousands of tonnes of water suspended in the air. Amazing. It will gradually radiate to space, cool and recycle as rain.

            I’d better stop there because all I want to say is that it is complicated in ways that the “Computer Models” have not dealt with.

            Basically you cannot call something a “model’ if it does not represent at least a part of real time behaviour of the Atmosphere wrt CO2 and Temperature.

            Claims to have so modeled the atmosphere are farcical and deserve to be exposed as fraudulent science.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Thanks KK, and CD.

      Cheers ExWarmist


      Report this

      00

    • #
      cohenite

      The assumption of a blackbody is used to calibrate pyrgeometers which are used to measure backradiation.

      Philipona, who is the AGW expert on backradiation says this about calibration:

      “The calibration of the ASR is based on a reference blackbody source traced to absolute temperature standards. The pyroelectric detector has no window to prevent thermal and spectral transmission effects. Scanning the sky with a narrow viewing angle and integrating with the Gaussian quadrature, rather than taking hemispherical measurements, prevent errors related to the cosine effect.”

      There are a number of uncertainties here; for instance, Gaussian quadrature is a means of approximating values within a domain or area in the instance of LWd which is defined by the cosine values; however this method of approximation is not suitable for functions which have singularities, or in the case of LWd, values which have quantum uncertainty.

      The problem is exactly how many of those probability fronts collapse through other functions before getting to the surface? That is, if the wave doesn’t interact with the surface it won’t become a “photon” to transfer energy to the surface. To say otherwise would be to deny that electromagnetic radiation interferes and cancels other electromagnetic radiation especially at the same wavelengths, which would contradict established quantum principles.

      Given this, the problem remains: is the pyrgeometer taking into account this “cancellation” process and, by not doing so, not giving a true estimation of the NET effect of the radiation exchange between the surface and the atmosphere.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        spartacusisfree

        Pyrgeometers measure the temperature radiation field, not a real energy flux. The manufacturers correctly point this out – you need two back to back to measure real energy flow: http://www.kippzonen.com/?product/16132/CGR+3.aspx

        ‘Two CGR 3s can form a net pyrgeometer’

        The problem is the meteorologists who are taught false physics – ‘they think ‘downwelling LW’ is real and that you can measure it with a pyrometer. It’ll take some time to re-educate the universities who teach this incorrect physics. It’s why Lindzen and Trenberth have got things so wrong. The former imagines that without convection GHG warming could rise to ~80 K. The latter has used Houghton’s incorrect assumption of black body radiation from the lower atmosphere [p11, 3rd Ed.] and the two stream approximation which does not work at boundaries to make his humongous error.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          cohenite

          Spartacus:

          Pyrgeometers measure the temperature radiation field, not a real energy flux. The manufacturers correctly point this out – you need two back to back to measure real energy flow

          You may be interested in comment 1 here.


          Report this

          00

  • #
  • #
    spartacusisfree

    To be precise, the IR energy input has been exaggerated by ~400%. The total heat input has been exaggerated by about 40%.

    So, they shifted the heat transfer to the IR rather than convection. This is the origin of the positive feedback. It’s imaginary.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I think it is a rambling presentation, with a clear mistake that will be picked upon. The death toll in the Japanese earthquake last year was not around 100,000 people, but 16,000-18000. Whilst correct in saying not one of these people died of radiation, it should be pointed out that the reactors largely survived both the earthquake and the tsunami. What failed were the backup diesel generators, which provide emergency power.

    This was made after praising the Chinese for their one-child policy, which means their are 375m less Chinese. This caused a huge amount of suffering from forced abortions, large fines and discrimination in jobs simply because they want to do a very human thing.

    That said, Gaiever makes a good distinction between Real Science and the other varieties –
    1. Pathological Science – People who fool themselves.
    2. Fraudulent Science – made up results.
    3. Junk Science – very poor testing of hypotheses.
    4. Pseudo-Science – starts with a hypothesis that is very appealing emotionally, and then looks only for items which support it.

    It is the last that Gaiever suggests is what global warming is about. My own view is that CAGW has gone beyond just looking for confirmations. Most of the effort is now on suppressing and attacking the items and people who point to the contrary. It is not just a new religion, it is like a terroist cell like the Baader-Meinhof gang of the 1970s, being impervious to other disciplines or contrary facts.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Philip Bradley

      I agree. It is the orchestrated campaign to hide contrary evidence that disturbs me the most. In other branches of science, finding and publishing results that question generally accepted theories makes your career as a scientist. In climate science, it gets you fired.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        PB says,

        I agree. It is the orchestrated campaign to hide contrary evidence that disturbs me the most. In other branches of science, finding and publishing results that question generally accepted theories makes your career as a scientist. In climate science, it gets you fired.

        This is one of the many practices that identifies “Climate Science” as a pseudo science.

        Climate Science (as practiced in it’s broadest terms) would also almost qualify as a pseudo-religion, as it has many of the characteristics of a religion or cult.

        However I find the most pertinent description of CAGW is as a “System of Control”. The necessary and sufficient marking characteristic of any System of Control is the delegitimisation of (1) dissent and (2) the questioning of the core assumptions/tenents of the system of belief/ideology.

        (Subtle Systems of Control allow mock-dissent where people are encouraged to dissent on issues that do not threaten the entrenched status quo of the psychopathic power elite).

        The point of any system of control is too allow psychopaths to maximise their own self interest while safely harvesting the real goods and services produced by normal people. The “System of Control” is used to blind the masses to their manipulation and to bring about their willing surrender to the psychopathic power elite.

        Most people have no practice with any real dissent, and with any real questioning of the core assumptions that govern their lives – they are in fact, blind to the structures and governing frameworks that shape their lives, rendering them easy prey to the psychopathic power elites.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    elva

    For far too long the warming argument has been backed up by the appeal to authority by saying, “scientists say…”

    People, in general, receive a vague impression that millions of white coated scientists have all agreed on a terrible fate awaits us with CO2 emissions. Yet, most scientists are not climate or weather experts. There are literally millions of other scientists who don’t give a hill of beans about climate.

    The tens of thousands working on the HADRON collider finding the Higgs boson and other particles would not and could not give a toss about some heat wave in the middle of summer. So you can scratch out those scientists from the list of “scientists say…” for starters let alone those who work in astronomy, medicine, engineering, u-name-it.

    Advocates of global warming should be careful to rein in their hyperbole or over use of saying, “scientists say…”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Nic Lonsdale

    We don’t all run Windows – do you ahve a link to the video that will run on a non-windows computer ?


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Nic, even I had to download the MS software yesterday and I’m using a windows machine. But yes, if there is another version, I hope someone posts it.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Since I usually use a Linux desktop to browse the web I had the same mortified reaction. Nobel Prize winners delivering the video over the web in a platform-specific package virtually nobody uses, what geniuses. Calling the head of sales for microsoft must have been their very first move in getting a web site. No pro freelancer or web design company would ever use this monstrosity.

      But a funny thing happened to me on my way to the download page.
      MS say they offer a Silverlight installer for Linux.
      Have not actually installed it yet because I am currently still in cognitive dissonance over this sudden change in tactics by Big Brother Bill. Usually MS tries every trick they can to attract developers to Windows, and lock users into Windows, their cash cow product.

      Silverlight for Linux? It’s a total WTF moment. I guess it is because Adobe supports a Flash plugin for Linux, so this is Microsoft’s “me too” attempt.
      A Microsoft product on Linux??? Why??? What game are they playing?? Presumably it is bait-and-switch.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    The ABC always says the words ‘scientists say’ instead of ‘some scientists say’. The difference in letters is small, the difference in meaning immense. The ABC are simply being propagandists for AGW, in defiance of their obligation to the taxpayers who fund them.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      And let us not forget that the term “scientist”, also includes social scientists and political scientists.

      In some jurisdictions, it is illegal to call yourself an engineer, unless you are qualified as such, and have a current practicing certificate. But I know of no jurisdiction where it is illegal to call yourself a scientist – anybody can be a scientist, the word has become meaningless.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        I once read an interesting guide to this semantics dilemma, which went along the following lines:

        If the name of the alleged “science” requires the word “science” in it, then it isn’t.

        Hence, physics, chemistry, maths, geology etc are all “sciences”.

        Climate ‘Science’, Political ‘Science’, Economic ‘Science’ Sociological ‘Science’ etc are not.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Angry

      Yes indeed SEMANTICS is extremely important.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    O/T but relevant, given the usual highly-crafted Reuters treatment:

    3 July: Reuters: Scott DiSavino & David Sheppard: JPMorgan probed over possible power market manipulation
    (Additional reporting by Dan Wilchins; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe, Alden Bentley and Styeve Orlofsky)
    U.S. energy regulators have subpoenaed JPMorgan Chase & Co to produce 25 internal emails as part of an investigation into whether the bank manipulated electricity markets in California and the Midwest…
    News of the subpoena follows a series of more advanced probes of other big Wall Street banks and a record $245 million penalty against Constellation Energy that have sent shudders through electric markets this year, rekindling memories of the California power crisis and Enron melt-down a decade ago…
    FERC does not normally disclose investigations, but it chose to subpoena JPMorgan after the bank claimed emails – some between commodities chief Blythe Masters and head of principal commodity investments Francis Dunleavy – were protected by attorney-client privilege, which the regulator disputes.
    “The investigation focuses on JPMorgan bidding practices that may have been designed to manipulate the California and Midwest electricity markets,” FERC lawyers said in the subpoena.
    “Any such improper payments to generators are ultimately borne by the households, businesses, and government entities that are the end consumers of electricity.”…
    In one of the emails revealed by FERC in the court filing, Dunleavy, head of principal investments within the bank’s commodities group, told commodity chief Masters that he will “handle” the matter but said “it may not be pretty.”
    The bank maintains the remaining 25 emails are protected under client-attorney privilege…
    Over the past several months, FERC has announced “notices of alleged violations” by units of Barclays Bank, in April, and Deutsche Bank, last December…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/03/us-utilities-jpmorgan-ferc-idUSBRE8620LK20120703


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    When you consider Obama won the Nobel peace prize you can then understand just how cheap this award really is.

    There was a time when the receiving of a nobel meant you had reach a pinnacle in your field where few others would tread but now it is akin to winning a teddy bear by putting ping pong balls in a clowns mouth.

    The awards are handed out to reach a political end and not as recognition of ones contribution.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    LIBOR scandal downplayed by Agnes, but fascinating piece of derivatives info here:

    2 July: Reuters Blog: Libor rigging looks like victimless crime
    By Agnes T. Crane
    The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.
    Libor is the key rate in the $350 trillion derivatives market, so a half basis point move comes to a $17.5 billion distortion annually.
    The actual gains to Barclays was much smaller than that, since it was only one of many players in the Libor market and it’s not clear how often or by how much Libor was actually moved away from the true market rate…
    http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2012/07/02/libor-rigging-looks-like-victimless-crime/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    catamon

    Hope the paladins of truth, beauty and the way here have gotten any statements by MRabbott written down?

    Do the google paywall leap to read.

    Meanwhile, speculation is building that Tony Abbott’s entire anti-carbon-tax campaign has been a semantic trick – that he intends to repeal the ‘carbon tax’ (the fixed-price period) and retain the ETS part of the Clean Energy Future package – not least because a survey of business leaders by the Australian National University’s Crawford School of Public Policy shows that while more than half of respondents thought the ‘carbon tax’ will be repealed, 80 per cent expected an ETS to be functioning by 2020.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Angry

      I must have left the monkey cage door open the “catamon” specimen has escaped again!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      It will get very interesting if talk today about the government implementing the ETS early proves to be correct. Especially if it happens before the next election.

      That would leave Abbott with a “promise in blood” to repeal a tax that no longer exists, and a fully functioning ETS exactly in accord with the written, official Liberal Party policy (an ETS with a $15.00 a tonne floor price).

      In those circumstances, how would the Liberals campaign against something perfectly in accord with their own policies?
      .
      Don’t say you weren’t warned.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        catamon

        That would leave Abbott with a “promise in blood” to repeal a tax that no longer exists, and a fully functioning ETS exactly in accord with the written, official Liberal Party policy (an ETS with a $15.00 a tonne floor price).

        MV, i dont think that its politically do-able for the ALP to change the program for the Carbon Price implementation. Legislation wont get through the Senate since the Greens will oppose, and the Coalition wont vote for ANYTHING that isn’t exactly what they want. (look at the Asylum Seeker deabate over the last few weeks). Regulation to that effect would face getting rejected by the senate as well. I think that the “talk” is only that. To many downsides politically for the ALP to even try, apart from any arguments as to whether it would be good policy or not.

        Its not even worth doing to try and wedge Abbott somehow. He’s got enough problems at the moment. Big Clive throwing his weight around is an issue for him, as well as the ongoing Ashby vs Slipper court matters (popcorn tomorrow!!), and if that wasn’t enough there is the Jackson / HSU goings on with Abbott’s boy Lawler right in the thick of it.

        Its actually looking more and more likely that the Libs will have to come up with an excuse to replace Abbott this year which is difficult while their polling is high. Who with?? Anybodies guess, but i dont think they are smart enough to go to Turnbull. Whatever, they need a huge clean out in their strategy and tactics brains (hah!) trust. Personally i hope they replace him with Julie Bishop, but then i dont exactly have the best interests of the Libs at heart.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Winston

          i dont think they are smart enough to go to Turnbull

          What did I tell you. Labor and Green luvvies are cracking their neck for an ex-investment banker to be next P.M.- Amazing- Dream on.

          Personally i hope they replace him with Julie Bishop

          Anybody but Abbott- best ringing endorsement I’ve heard, and instills even more confident that TA is our best bet, the “insiders” on the left are petrified of him, in spite of false bravado to the contrary.

          Personally, I think our best hope is that Gillard does convert the Carbon tax to an ETS early under some pretext, then Abbott would have to say “There will be no ETS under a government I lead”, in which case he can be Prime Minister in perpetuity- even post-mortem if he likes.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          memoryvault

          .
          Cat

          An ETS with a floor price of $15.00 (or less) is completely in accord with official Liberal Party policy and hence would not need Greens support to get through the Senate.
          Why would the Liberals oppose their own, official written policy?

          As for Abbott/Turnbull, I have long had a standing $50.00 bet (donation to Jo) with someone on this site that the Libs will replace Abbott with Turnbull either immediately before, or soon after, the next election.

          As for it having too many downsides for Labor to try, where’s the downside?

          It gets rid of Gillard’s “there will be no carbon tax” tax, which Labor never wanted anyway.
          It cuts Abbott and the Liberals off at the knees, clearing the way for a return of Turnbull, probably the only person capable of leading the Liberals to defeat in the next election.
          Since the Greens won’t go for it, it shows Labor is no longer kowtowing to them.

          What’s not to like (for labor)?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            catamon

            Why would the Liberals oppose their own, official written policy?

            The question should be, why would the ALP endorse it?

            return of Turnbull, probably the only person capable of leading the Liberals to defeat in the next election.

            LOL! many on the left side of the fence consider that Turnbull is probably the Libs best hope of actually winning in 2013 since he could easily abandon a lot of the brainfart / policy that Abbotts wabble have been coming out with.

            I’m sure the Libs would love the ALP to back off in any way on any policy since they would finally have something to point to as a win, which they haven’t had their whole time in ooposition. Dont think Gillard is going to give them that though.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Cookster

            Catamon,

            Legislation wont get through the Senate since the Greens will oppose…

            This is probably true but not absolutely certain. The Greens are experiencing a fortuitous and finite window of opportunity to exert influence on Australian political policy thanks to their share of government with Gillard led Labor. By opposing Abbott’s legislation they bring on the double dissolution and their window of opportunity will close for the foreseeable future. If they are smart, now is the time for the Greens to learn the meaning of the word ‘compromise’. I doubt they are shrewd enough to go this way but I thought worth bringing this up.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Cookster

            that the Libs will replace Abbott with Turnbull either immediately before, or soon after, the next election.

            Only chance is it could happen after, not before the next election. This has been tried and Turnbull was leading the LNP to a hiding against Rudd until Abbott rescued Australia from Rudd’s ETS. LNP popularity subsequently rose almost immediately towards the levels we see now. Appointing Turnbull would amount to a betrayal of grass roots conservatives just as Gillard has betrayed Labor’s grass roots blue collar supporters.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Don’t worry on our behalf Catamon – we are very aware of the potential for an Abbott led parliament to retain the ridiculous bankster driven ETS.

      See ExWarmist July 5, 2012 at 8:38 am above for how this comes about.

      If you stopped assuming that we are ignorant and naive – you might have a better conversation here.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        pattoh

        Even with a threat of a coalition favoured ETS, the Greens are on the nose enough to be replaced with sceptics & make the senate less friendly to any continuation of this fraud.

        I get the feeling that the power bills which arrive after this quarter will have major political significance.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      cohenite

      catamon; the problem for the Greens and their sock-puppets, the ALP, is even if they back-peddle on the CO2 tax they will be stuck with the blame for bringing the wretched tax in, in the first place. The argument will be if they did it once, in complete contradiction of a VOW not to do it by both the PM and that absolute idiot, Swan, then how could you trust them not to do it again.

      Any which way they twist they are dog’s meat.

      And forget business, pack of cowards that they are; as long as there is a democracy they still only get one vote, no matter how much $ they have.

      Palmer is a spoiler, no doubt about that.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Angry

    What’s the point of the carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax, if it makes no difference to the temperature?

    Easy question. Just name the number. 0.00005? 0.00025? Less?

    READ MORE………

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_whats_the_point_of_the_tax_if_it_makes_no_difference/P20/

    CARBON DIOXIDE IS PLANT FOOD AND NOT POLLUTION !!

    ELECTION NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Nobel prize winner — Ivar Giaever — “climate change is pseudoscience” [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    O/T but perhaps some of our resident trolls would like to offer an abject apology to Tony:

    Industry fumes as refrigerant costs soar

    Farmers, retailers and other sectors of industry are concerned about a huge jump in the price of refrigerants.

    The price rises – some as steep as 400 per cent – kicked in at the same time the carbon tax came into effect.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-05/refrigerant-costs-soar-post-carbon-tax/4111770

    From the figures quoted and comments made it appears most people are unaware of the “CO2 equivalency” multiplier effect.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Winston

      The last two lines are priceless, and can be cut and pasted across a number of industries as this shit hits the fan.

      Climate Change Minister Greg Combet was unavailable for an interview.

      However, a spokesman told AM that some price rises seem to be larger than what would be expected under the carbon tax.

      Who’d have thought, eh?


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Thanks memoryvault and and for all you others who are interested,

      These cost increases are for all those gases, some of them up to a 400% increase, are just the tip of the iceberg.

      As Greg Combet said, (no, not again) they gave away 95% of the credits for those gases, so those current price rises only indicate 5% of the actual credit price for each gas. The price will increase again next year as less credits are given away, and the price of Carbon (sic) rises, and the same again the year following, and with the introduction of the ETS, when no credits will be given away at all, hence the price rises to the full multiplier.

      It’s not a matter of just changing to a cheaper refrigerant either as compressors are designed to work with specific gases, with some compressors having to run at three times the pressure, hence greater electrical power consumption, so the electricity account rises. So to change to a different and possibly cheaper gas will require a whole new refrigeration system.

      Refrigeration is not the only place those gases are used, as there are in fact a plethora of other uses, some of them in medical applications, hence hospitals on the current list of those Top emitting entities.

      Also keep in mind that with the introduction of the ETS, they’re not just after those top 300 or so, but every entity that distributes those gases.

      Again, here’s that chart, and just look at those multipliers.

      There may be small uses for some of those gases, but at those multipliers, you can just see what those costs will be.

      CO2 Equivalence Chart

      But then again it could be those, er, ‘poles and wires’ eh!

      Also, for those who think this gouging will be subject to the threat of that $1.1 Million etc fine, watch for the investigations and prosecutions, and the same also applies for the power generators who have increased their prices, and the same applies for all the power providers who have passed on the full 2.5 to 3.5 cent per KWH price increase, all attributable to the introduction of the Carbon tax (sic). It will be a case of … “Hey, look, isn’t that Britney Spears.”

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Bungalow Bill

        Hi Tony,

        As Greg Combet said, (no, not again) they gave away 95% of the credits for those gases, so those current price rises only indicate 5% of the actual credit price for each gas.

        As we discussed the recently, the price of R410A for example, increased from $90.58/kg to $227.91/kg (excl GST) on 9th July, as per Heatcraft’s price list. We have established that the Carbon Tax liability for R410A is $39.84/kg. If what you say is correct, and only 5% of the Carbon Tax has been passed on it would then only contribute $1.99/kg ($39.84 x 0.05) of the $137.33 increase.

        So why does Tony Abbott and others keep on blaming the Carbon tax for the increase when it is clearly not the case? At a wild guess I’d say because it suits their agenda, and they’re pretty sure no one is going to investigate the pricing structure of refrigerants.

        So if the CT contributed only a $1.99/kg of the increase, what caused the other $135.34/kg?

        It would appear that there are global production problems and as a consequence, shortage of supply. Good old supply and demand does it again, and Tony Abbott wants us to believe it’s all because of the CT.

        Heatcraft, on their website have advised of continuing price volatility, as have AG Coombs.

        Read about it here : http://www.agcoombs.com.au/news/-/73/refrigerant-price-increases-and-the-carbon-levy-on-refrigerants/

        At an interview in Darwin on Tuesday, Abbott, with two fishing industry representatives, Trevor Simmonds and Michael Goonan were waging war on the CT.

        Read it here : http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/News/tabid/94/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/8789/Joint-Doorstop-Interview-Darwin.aspx

        Michael Goonan says :

        MICHAEL GOONAN:

        I’d like to thank Tony for coming down today and showing some support. At the end of the day, I am directly affected with this tax, with the price of refrigerants. Last year alone, leaking systems, we used 100 kilos of refrigerant. It’s not cheap in the best of scenarios but with this new tax it’s definitely not going to make it easier. At the end of the day, this cost has to be swallowed up by the consumer. At the end of the day, if you increase the cost in manufacturing, retail will be affected directly.

        So this guy, complaining about the cost of refrigerant, admits he used 100 kilograms because of “leaking systems”.

        Goonan clearly was happy to let the refrigerant vent into the atmosphere because it was cheaper than maintaining his system. What an environmental vandal!!! Clearly, this is the sort of person who would rather shit in his kitchen sink than walk to the toilet for a crap.

        I’d hope he can do the sums, maintain his systems properly and in the long run save himself some cold hard cash, and stop trashing the environment.

        It’s not a matter of just changing to a cheaper refrigerant either as compressors are designed to work with specific gases, with some compressors having to run at three times the pressure, hence greater electrical power consumption, so the electricity account rises. So to change to a different and possibly cheaper gas will require a whole new refrigeration system.

        This has been raised before. Heatcraft advise there options available at low cost to change the type of refrigerant. In many cases there is no need to install a new system.

        In regard to your comments about Electricity prices, AGL advise the average residential usage is 1625kwh per quarter or 17.80kwh per day not 20-30kwh as you claim.
        In my case we consume 4400kwh per year (12.05kwh/day). According to our AGL account we emit 6 tonnes of CO2. At $23/ tonne that comes to $138/ year in CT. Our costs will actually rise by $260/year. The remaining $122 must be for poles and wires.

        Cheers!!!!


        Report this

        00

        • #
          crakar24

          Firstly isnt it funny that the Smiths went away when i said i no longer wanted to play.

          BB,

          I was of the understanding that the 95% figure only went to the biggest dir-e poloodhas (did i spell it right?) so the average Joe gets nothing only the power companies/Alcoa and the like. Correct me if i am wrong.

          On your second point, all refridgerant systems are pressurized and if all systems never leaked then no one would need to refil them. The fact is these systems are massive and you could never get rid of all the leaks it is impossible hence the reason why they lose pressure. Just like your car aircon, in a perfect world you never need it regassed but i bet you do and just let it leak out you nasty environmental vandal.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Bungalow Bill

            crakar

            I was of the understanding that the 95% figure only went to the biggest dir-e poloodhas (did i spell it right?) so the average Joe gets nothing only the power companies/Alcoa and the like. Correct me if i am wrong.

            I haven’t checked. Ask Tony, he’s the one who made the statement. My figures were based on his statement. If Tony is correct, most of the increase is due to “market forces”, and not the Carbon Tax as Tony Abbott would have you believe.

            On your second point, all refridgerant systems are pressurized and if all systems never leaked then no one would need to refil them.

            Our fridge at home is 18 years old and has never been regassed. It still works as efficiently as ever.

            The fact is these systems are massive and you could never get rid of all the leaks it is impossible hence the reason why they lose pressure.

            So you would be happy to purchase a brand new massive cooling system that leaked 100kg of refrigerant a year.

            Just like your car aircon, in a perfect world you never need it regassed but i bet you do and just let it leak out you nasty environmental vandal.

            It doesn’t matter if it’s a car airconditioner or a massive coolroom. Preventative and regular maintenance keeps things operating efficiently and saves you a lot of money in the long run. It’s a pity Michael Goonan hasn’t realised it, and you too for that matter.

            Cheers!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Winston

            Bill,
            Does the Carbon Tax ENCOURAGE one to service their car air conditioner and massive cool room, or DISCOURAGE them due to increased costs? Would that be the Law of Unintended Consequences perhaps?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            Who said anything about brand new BB?

            How many times have you had to regas your car aircon?

            How do you know your 18 year old fridge is full of gas?

            Once again and for the last time………if aircon/fridge systems were perfect then there would be no such thing as aircon/fridge mechanics. Wht do they exist? Well because things break, things leak but you cant see that from your arm chair.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Bungalow Bill

            crakar

            How many times have you had to regas your car aircon?

            None.

            How do you know your 18 year old fridge is full of gas?

            Because it still works as well as the day we bought it. If it didn’t have any gas in it, it wouldn’t keep my beer cold would it?

            Once again and for the last time………if aircon/fridge systems were perfect then there would be no such thing as aircon/fridge mechanics. Wht do they exist? Well because things break, things leak but you cant see that from your arm chair.

            Nobody said they were perfect, but if you perform regular periodic maintenance things tend to last longer, and perform at peak efficiency which in turn reduces your operating costs. Are you under the impression that industry just repairs equipment when it breaks down? I’m glad you’re not the Chief Maintenance Engineer at Qantas.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dave

            .
            Normally the refrigerant gas in the car air conditioning system has to be recharged completely within four years from the manufacture date and thereafter every two to three years.

            This is stated in the car owners manual – Kia??

            So do I not do this??


            Report this

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            None.

            Really well there you go BB your short life experience has proved me wrong congrats to you.

            Because it still works as well as the day we bought it. If it didn’t have any gas in it, it wouldn’t keep my beer cold would it?

            Of course it works as good as the same day you bought it thats why you cant find a shop in Australia that sell them.

            But then this

            Nobody said they were perfect, but if you perform regular periodic maintenance things tend to last longer, and perform at peak efficiency which in turn reduces your operating costs. Are you under the impression that industry just repairs equipment when it breaks down? I’m glad you’re not the Chief Maintenance Engineer at Qantas.

            How do you maintain a refridgerant system? Well you cant open a connection coz all the gas will escape so do you suck up all the gas replace all the seals regardless and then put all the gas back in?

            You might do that on a jet but on nothing else like a fishmongers fridge or they will go broke in no time.

            Once again people like you that rely on wiki etc for the basis of your argument are shown to be wrong.

            Sometimes no most times it is more cost effective to simply use the equipment and when it brakes get it fixed or replaced rather than fix something many times that is not broken.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            Dave,

            You may have to wait while BB scours the internet ooking for a rebuttal.

            The short answer is yes you must do this however BB is trying to mount a case that says the manufacturer is wrong so be patient.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dave

            .
            Yeah crakar24 – now it’s Abbots fault, the refrigerator manufacturers fault, car manufacturers fault, etc that they leak??? They’ve never had to do this!!

            Just service them – but never, never ever regas them! :)


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Bungalow Bill

          Winston,

          In Goonan’s case it was clearly cheaper for him to just regas as required and not bother fixing the leaks.

          If Tony is correct and the increase due to the CT is only $1.99/kg for R410A, then the CT would not make any difference. However the increase of $134.34/kg due to market forces, on its own should be a strong persuader. If Goonan continues to regas 100kg at a time and ignore maintaining his system he’s a fool. And in this situation market forces have done the work of the CT.

          The problem is Abbott is trying to blame it all on the CT when it clearly is not the case. He’s just hoping no-one does the sums and calls him out.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Bill, and others,

            what everyone has lost sight of here is the actual original cost of the gas itself.

            The part of the legislation you are referring to deals with the importers of the gas.

            They pay for the gas, and the Government has introduced that extra Tax at the front end on top of the cost of the gas.

            The importer then onsells the gas to the next step, the refrigeration places that do that work. When they sell the gas, they then charge that consumer the cost of the gas PLUS the cost of the credits calculated on the weight of the gas multiplied by the multipliers detailed in the legislation.

            Those servicing outlets then charge the consumer what they had to pay in total for the gas. (Gas price plus credit price)

            This is part of the legislation, all sellers of those gases must add the cost of the credits to the gas they sell.

            The end consumer pays the servicing Company, who pays the Importer, who then forwards the credit amount to the Government.

            The Importer has added on his extra for the Tax he had to originally pay the Government plus his profit margin, and the Refrigeration Company also adds on their profit margin as well.

            So the cost of the credits is added to the cost of the gas.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          Wow, what a great post.

          So Tony Abbott is a liar.

          And the guy complaining about refrigerant costs admits that his fridges aren’t working properly!!!


          Report this

          00

  • #
    pat

    it’s all about carbon dioxide replacing the petrodollar as the world’s currency. how insane is that?

    5 July: SMH: Adam Morton: Big polluters convinced carbon price is here to stay
    EVEN if the carbon price is repealed by a Tony Abbott government, it is likely to be brought back again within a few years, according to a survey of experts who work for the heaviest-polluting companies.
    The latest study of expectations about the climate change laws, by the Australian National University’s Crawford School of Public Policy, found 40 per cent thought the scheme would be repealed by 2016. But 79 per cent expected a price on carbon to be in force by 2020.
    ”An overwhelming majority think there will be a carbon price in the medium to long term, but more than half the experts from liable entities think the legislation will be repealed along the way,” said the economist Frank Jotzo, the author of a report on the survey…
    Dr Jotzo said he did not claim the survey was representative of all companies liable for the tax, but that the respondents were responsible for more than half the emissions covered by the scheme…
    Three-quarters did not expect the Australian scheme to have linked with the seven-year-old European system by 2018. However, 60 per cent thought Australian businesses would be trading carbon permits with Europeans by 2020…
    The ANU report follows a survey by multinational GE and The Economist finding that three-quarters of senior executives polled expected the scheme to survive, but only a third believed the opportunities created by carbon pricing would outweigh the longer-term risks of the scheme.
    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/big-polluters-convinced-carbon-price-is-here-to-stay-20120704-21hix.html

    Fairfax reporters wouldn’t consider informing their readers of the following, would they?

    ANU: Frank Jotzo: …He has been advisor to Australia’s Garnaut Climate Change Review, advisor to Indonesia‘s Ministry of Finance, consultant to the World Bank, and is a Lead Author of the Fifth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    http://crawford.anu.edu.au/crawford_people/content/staff/rmap/fjotzo.php


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    so on what basis would The Australian be arguing for an ETS?

    5 July: Australian Editorial: Carbon tax policy confusion
    Today, it seems climate change is no longer about the economy, the environment or national security, let alone the moral imperative of our national politics…
    This newspaper has argued that an emissions trading scheme is an efficient and effective way to reduce carbon emissions.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/carbon-tax-policy-confusion/story-e6frg71x-1226417219394


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    4 July: TVNZ: Carbon market ‘buried in a six-foot hole’ – energy trader
    Government decisions to leave the emissions trading scheme at current settings indefinitely means the New Zealand carbon market has been “buried in a six-foot hole,” says Nigel Brunel, head of carbon and energy trading at OM Financial.
    While Carbon Match principal Lizzie Chambers says “suspended animation” is more accurate, the impact of the government’s ETS reform decisions, announced Monday, will likely keep international carbon emissions reduction units (CERs) cheaper than New Zealand-produced Units (NZUs) for the foreseeable future.
    Even with a likely drop in the price of NZUs, which are trading between $6.85 and $7.05 per tonne of emitted carbon, offsetting carbon emissions by buying offshore credits will make more sense for a major emitter than investing in NZUs.
    A price drop is expected because Monday’s announcements left some major emitters in the electricity, heavy industrial and transport sectors holding more NZUs than they need because their ETS will be unchanged, instead of rising as expected.
    Brunel said “the premium of NZUs over European carbon has been a bit fake because there’s no supply of NZU’s to push it to a discount” and major emitters were now sellers.
    ***”The carbon market is now in the lap of Europe and the control of the banks,” as the latest changes would discourage active involvement in the New Zealand carbon market by carbon-intensive industrial players and plantation foresters, at least until depressed global prices revived, Brunel said…
    http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/carbon-market-buried-in-six-foot-hole-energy-trader-4955455


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Looks like Global Warming is continuing at a pace May 2012 has come in at +0.29C, wow thats hot.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    as if there isn’t enough fraud in the financial sector already:

    4 July: ICIS: Higher CER issuance predicted but project registration falls
    A UN agency has revised upwards by 13m its estimate of the number of certified emissions reduction (CER) carbon offsets to be issued by the end of this year.
    UNEP Risoe predicts that 1.1bn CERs will be issued by the end of this year, which also marks the end of the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. This is up from the previous estimate of 1.09bn…
    Issuance of the other UN offset credits, emissions reduction units (ERUs) were “very low” in June, at 1.6m, the agency added.
    “The total issuance is now 170m ERUs and we project 248m ERUS to be issued [by] the end of this year,” it said.
    EU companies covered by the bloc’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) used a record number of CERs and ERUs to cover their emissions this year, as the UN offsets are cheaper than EU allowances (EUAs).
    On Tuesday, EUAs for December 2012 delivery were assessed at €8.25/tonne of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e), while the equivalent CER contract was assessed at €4.10/tCO2e and the equivalent ERU contract at €3.80/tCO2e…
    Burden of investment
    Meanwhile, researchers at the agency have warned that the clean development mechanism is failing in its aim to bring about cheaper emissions reduction options for developing countries.
    “Data is now accruing that challenges the cost efficiency of emissions reduction options exploited,” the agency’s researchers said in a recently published study.
    “Developing country investors are by far the largest investor group in CDM” and the majority of these investors “has its investment capital at stake in very unprofitable projects, from a carbon revenue perspective”.
    “While the CDM promotes emissions reduction in developing countries, it does not reduce the global cost of reduction. It only shifts the burden of investment,” the researchers said.
    http://www.icis.com/heren/articles/2012/07/04/9575372/higher-cer-issuance-predicted-but-project-registration.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    You’d hate to be remembered as the person who said this though:

    “Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely.”

    The climate changes. It is an observation not a science.

    Was this an attempt to simplify s statement like, “Are proponents of AGW engaging in pseudoscience? Absolutely. What sort of audience needed such a strange simplification?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      If you capitalise “Climate Change” to make it a proper noun, then the question and answer make perfect sense, since it refers to the belief system and not the phenomena.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        Blame right wing spin doctors for the term “climate change”. It was proposed by Frank Luntz, a pollster for George W Bush, as an alternative to “global warming” because it didn’t sound as scary:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming


        Report this

        00

        • #
          crakar24

          How many Smiths are there? This looks like the UNI drop out version


          Report this

          00

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            Yeah – the quality varies significantly depending on time of day and day of the week.

            It’s also obvious from the posting rate per hour that the number online at any given time also varies; none during school hours, then a gradual buildup throughout the evening to a crescendo of activity (250+ word posts, one after the other, sometimes only a minute apart, from around midnight to 2.00am). Then a dwindling off to 3.00am when it stops.

            .
            Still, I suppose it keeps them off the streets and reduces the spray-can graffiti.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            Interesting hours of activity, what state do you live in MV? I only ask as i am wondering if it is a time zone issue. 2am on the east coast is 11pm in WA (bed time for UNI dead beats AKA Getup muppets).

            I reckon there is one of them that has a bit of common sense about them, if only we can get them away from the cult for long enough maybe, just maybe we can save them.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            Hi Crackar,

            I’m in QLD.
            The times quoted were AEST. However, I strongly suspect they might be WA based comparing the time zones.

            Yes, there is one amongst them older and far more shrewd than the others, and it shows immediately when he is involved. My best guess would be a group of young undergraduates in a sociology-type department at a WA university, organised and sometimes directly led by a faculty member, a professor with a passing interest in the constitution, or a friend (another faculty member?) who is. Also somebody with a deep and abiding personal dislike for Jo Nova, given that I have not seen any trace of Team Smith elsewhere.

            .
            Hmmm. WA university, sociology-type department, faculty member who hates Jo Nova.

            Do we know anybody who fits that description?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Brian of Moorabbin

            Nope, not a clue MV…

            Anyone else got any ideas?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Crackar

            Speaking of Cults, did you hear about Tom Cruise and his family?

            His wife Katie, wants away from him because he has plans to send the daughter to Scientology Finishing School.

            She is filing for divorce with sole access.

            It seems that Tom has been so conditioned by his Cult that he can’t see the wood for the trees.

            I can think of nothing so traumatic as being cut off from family permanently as Katie apparently intends.

            Watching this crash in slow motion will be interesting; can he come to his senses, see who is bleeding him financially and then make

            a break; or will his emotional need for approval from the big S prove too strong and see him lose his family.

            Cults are truly bad news. You only have to listen to the ABC and Triple JJJJ to experience the group love, through sharing common

            beliefs. Such “dogma” is absorbed by the young subjects because it is “approved” thought because it comes from “people just like

            us, friends we trust”. Does that send shivers down your spine?????

            The only purpose of the “approved thought” is to entrain the aimless young mind and give it something to focus.

            The “approved thought” can be anything and is used regardless of content or usefulness to the individual being “processed” or

            brought into “the Fold”.

            In the case of the ABC and its little brother JJJJJ the purpose is obvious. Some privileged child whose parents have influence gets

            a cushy job that needs little training or skill and the whole machine grinds on making carbon copy little voters for the party

            writing the script.

            Don’t people watching abc and jjjjj feel USED?

            Don’t they understand they are being USED??

            The whole business is spooky! How could so many crims have ripped so much money out of western democracies by using the lie that we

            are “polluting the atmosphere with Carbon”. They have done well for themselves but I do not admire their ugly behaviour.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Winston

            KK,
            Along the lines of the need to belong and gain acceptance being so powerful as to provoke the most immoral behaviour, I would heartily recommend a film by Louis Malle I saw as a young man, and had a profound effect on me at the time- called Lacombe Lucien, it is about a 17yo French lad, a bit slow and lacking maturity, who is rejected when he wishes to join the resistance in Vichy France. He gravitates to a group of Nazis who accept him and manipulate him to their ends, channeling his inner rage in the service of atrocities committed on his former neighbours and friends. It made Malle plenty of enemies among his fellow Frenchmen, and among the left leaning who subconsciously don’t relate to the themes of the banality of violence in
            the name of gaining acceptance in the collectivist clique. I think that film reinforces the truth of much of what you suggest.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Winston

            Must check it out as soon as I finish war and peace which is taking forever to get through.

            No doubt it reinforces the idea that times may change but people still have the same problems to deal with; temptation, wanting to belong, right an wrong?

            :)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            I am with you MV, but who in Perth could it be????????


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            You’ve got to admit it would be an interesting project for a group of students to be an “Adam Smith” type character on a blog like this. There are many many fields of study in which students could learn a thing or two. From Social Sciences, New Media, Debating, through to climate science etc.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Tristan

            OK, I admit it, I’m one of the Adam Smiths.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Gee Aye

            wow… what a lot of responders. Funny how the conversation swirls about. I was actually hoping for a capitalised rant by ANGRY (GRRRR). At least Rereke mentioned capital.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Adam Smith

            I’m an Adam Smith.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Winston

            No, you’re not.


            Report this

            00

          • #
  • #
    pat

    singling out China, as usual:

    3 July: Euractiv: EU faces prolonged wait in aviation ETS row
    A global resolution to Europe’s battle with China and other countries over curbing aviation emissions is unlikely before October 2013, risking growing pressure from domestic airlines and trade partners…
    A decision is expected shortly on how the EU will respond to defiant Chinese and Indian airlines that failed to meet a 31 March deadline to submit an annual emissions report to the European Commission.
    A working group of the International Civil Aviation Organization last week proposed three market-based options, including cap and trade to cut aviation carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.
    Officials say that an ICAO draft plan is not likely until March 2013 and that the full ICAO council – representing the international body’s 191 member states – would then not consider it until a meeting due in October 2013. The council meets every three years, meaning that if no decision is made, it could be 2016 before a resolution would be considered again.
    Julie Oettinger of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said Washington supported the European Union’s goals to cut aviation emissions but said global action should come through ICAO…
    “The European Commission has a constitutional obligation to enforce the law, and we will do so,” Jos Delbeke, director-general for Climate Action, told the Transatlantic conference.
    Non-compliant airlines face fines from EU member states, a spokesman for the EU executive said. For instance, maximum fines in Germany would be 50,000 Euros this year, rising to 500,000 Euros next year, while in Britain, the fines would be 1,560 Euros rising next year to 15,600 Euros.
    http://www.euractiv.com/transport/eu-faces-prolonged-wait-aviation-news-513673

    25 June: Deutsche Welle: EU emissions policy threatens to trigger trade war
    Russia is rejecting Lufthansa Cargo and Finnair requests for additional rights to fly through Russian airspace. Finland’s Transport Ministry says the block appears to be retaliation for the emissions fees. Although the Russian government hasn’t publicly confirmed that, Moscow has threatened to restrict European access to air corridors because of the dispute…
    Nancy Young, Vice President of Environmental Affairs for the US trade group Airlines for America, told the Chamber of Commerce recently that European policymakers seriously underestimate the strength of opposition to the program. “It’s not just about the airlines, it not just about the United States, it’s about the precedent of one country or set of countries grabbing jurisdiction over the entire world,” she said…
    http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16048424,00.html

    LOL!

    3 July: Reuters: Barbara Lewis: EU’s Barroso presses for more climate ambition
    Ten environmental groups active on EU policy on Tuesday gave the Commission low scores in a Green10 (G10) report on its track record, half-way through its five-year term, which ends in 2014…
    Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard, who is from Denmark, got the highest mark out of those assessed in the G10 report, earning 5.5 out of 10. The non-governmental groups praised her resolve in including airline emissions in the ETS in the face of strong opposition from non-EU governments.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/03/eu-environment-idUSL6E8I36WN20120703


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s Costello at his best explaining to Bolt what a barking mad tax Gillard has lumbered us with.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE5CC4h57GA&feature=g-vrec


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      Here’s Costello at his best explaining to Bolt what a barking mad tax Gillard has lumbered us with

      Oh that’s interesting, because the last election Costello contested was in 2007 where the Coalition took a policy proposing a “world-class” Emissions Trading Scheme that would be “among the first” in the Asia-Pacific region:

      To reduce domestic emissions at least economic cost, we will establish a world-class domestic emissions
      trading scheme in Australia (planned to commence in 0). We are also committed to capturing the
      opportunities from being among the first movers on carbon trading in the Asia-Pacific region.

      You can read the policy for yourself on page 27 of the Coalition’s election policy document:
      http://australianpolitics.com/elections/2007/liberal-policy/07-10-12_AustraliaStrongProsperousAndSecure.pdf

      I guess one explanation could be that Peter Costello (and John Howard) are total liars who never intended to implement this policy? If that is the case, we should be thankful that they were voted out of government in 2007.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Neville

        ASmith he explained that in the interview, try to keep up.
        Now by how much will our idiot tax reuce the temp and change the climate?

        If you can’t answer then we’ll all know you’re a fraud and con merchant, so put up or shut up.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          ASmith he explained that in the interview, try to keep up.

          Oh OK, so you have just admitted that Costello is a liar.

          Since that is the case I won’t be lectured by him or you for that matter.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          ASmith he explained that in the interview, try to keep up.

          Well what Costello didn’t mention in that interview is that he, Alexander Downer and David Kemp took a submission to cabinet in 2003 for AN EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME!

          Costello is into this policy up to his head, it is al convenient for him to now pretend that he is against it when he supported it in government!!!

          Oh, and Costello’s assertion that the ETS is going to reduce our income by 10% per annum up until 2020 is just an absolute load of bullshit that of course he didn’t reference because he just pulled the figure from his arse.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Neville

            A smith you’ve explained nothing, so tell us why we’re introducing this idiotic tax? By how much will it reduce the planet’s temp, Mr fraudster and con man?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Adam,

            You are very good on where and when, but not so hot on why.

            During 2002/03, there were series of discussions held between Australia and New Zealand, between senior officials, across a number of disciplines. These were planning sessions so that both countries could present a consistent position at all future UNFCCC meetings (this was, you might remember, pre-Kyoto). At those meetings it was presumed that all developed countries would be expected to do something “to mitigate the effects of global warming”, on less developed countries.

            The common position arrived at, was that both countries should adopt the same solution, but that the solution adopted should be the “least case” solution, so that additional initiatives could be implemented if necessary. That “least case” solution was the ETS that the Ministers took to cabinet in 2003.

            For reasons that I do not fully understand, Australia was supposed to introduce the ETS first, but failed to finalise the required legislation.

            So eventually the Clark Labour Government, in New Zealand, unilaterally introduced the planned ETS in 2008. It was later amended in 2009 by the first Key National Government. The New Zealand Government has recently announced that planned extensions to the original ETS were being postponed until 2015, because they are unaffordable within the current global economic environment, however the New Zealand scheme still remains within the framework originally defined by the UNFCCC.

            The New Zealand ETS scheme (and the 2003 Australian scheme), appears to have very little in common with the approach now adopted by Australia, which seems to be more about gathering punitive taxation, than reducing or sustainably managing undesirable emissions (of all types).

            It would be of great use to everybody on this blog if you explained what you know, and how you interpret what you know to support your argument, rather than grandstanding, by trying to find fault with other opinions, and making comments that ignore some important facts (like the passage of nine years) that do not neatly fit with your opinions.

            We are all here as Joanne’s guests. Most of us respect that, and I ask that you do the same.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Well, I expected a reply, but ….

            Perhaps Adam gets confused if you put more than two facts in the same comment – how tedious.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Bob Massey

        Like all things Adam you tend to dwell in the past but Witchcraft burnings ended nearly 200 years ago but hey why not re-introduce it since it suits your MO.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          Like all things Adam you tend to dwell in the past but Witchcraft burnings ended nearly 200 years ago but hey why not re-introduce it since it suits your MO.

          This post doesn’t make any sense.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            AndyG55

            Costello now realises, as MANY people do, that AGW/CC/’whatever they call it next’ is a load of BS !!!
            So of course he is now against an ETS,,.. because he knows it a pointless and unnecessary piece of crap legislation.!

            CO2 does not cause any climate problems, there has never been any scientific proof that it does.

            CO2 is PLANT FOOD, and is highly necessary for the continued existence of humans on this planet.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Axel West

    Just a correction in relation to all the (sic)s; in Norway, it would correctly be Giœver.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Manfred

    I think that the science is becoming daily less relevant, particularly to the plutocracy. Reading the unrelentless contibutions by the Smith Collective was disturbingly demonstrative of this point. The patent irrelevance of people to the Smiths of this world, displaced by an inhuman fixation on policy is the rank smell of totalitarianism. Where do the climate ‘scientists’ fit in? Outright policy complicit? Unwitting dupes? Funding opportunists? ‘Save the planet’ types? Looking forward to a political appointment in the largesse of the new world order?

    One way or another, it’s really time to wake-up to the stench!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    What annoys me is that no interviewer of Labor MP’s or recipients of their lavishly funded propaganda brochures, attempts to question or pull them up as to providing any scientific evidence why, after Earth surviving billions of years of climate change due to natural variability, according to Labor/Greens it has now suddenly exclusively all become “dangerous” climate change!!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      Keith you are being unfair.

      Current “climate change” is a pronounced and observable cooling trend.
      As such it is extremely threatening to the careers of all those who jumped on the anthropogenic global warming bandwagon.

      .
      Hence “dangerous” climate change.
      Because for them, it is.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Dave

    .
    REAL FIBS BY Clean Energy Future!!

    CleanEnergyFuture website:

    REAL PEOPLE???? REAL STORIES??? All make believe!
    The pig farmer story here: “Grantham Piggery” at above webpage!

    Mr Alan Skerman (ex DPI, Qld Water resources, DAFF etc etc) and this pig farm is an environmental research project by QLD GOVT – old climate change dept – started in 2008 till 2011. Research???

    All the spin in the world by the CleanEnergyFuture idiots cannot hide the lies they continually tell!

    Real People, Real Stories – BULLS%&T they’re real!

    More like REAL LIES by COMBET & GILLARD!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Manfred

    MSM are substantially without engagement in perspectives other than the warmist position. I don’t pretend to understand well the phenomena whereby the MSM have moved from watch-dog to lap-dog. Whatever explanation(s) may exist, as much out of bias as anything else, I anticipate they are unnerving and involve manipulation.

    With the advent of increasing economic distress in Australasia, what will the MSM report? Will we hear the plaintive cry of ‘don’t shoot the messenger’? Or will the MSM simply be absorbed and managed by the Agenda 21 folk? Are we then likely to see endless pages of relentless Doublethink in the tradition of The Smith Collective telling us that living in Stepford is our ultimate destiny ?

    Hell no.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    So the Warmbots of Team Smith now have a Profiling Team hard at work locating and identifying them.

    Have read very few of their posts but appreciate the efforts of those who are looking at their work and analysing it for clues as to how we

    may be able to save them from the Karbon Kult. The first step with any “retrieval” is to locate them. Step two is isolation from the

    “Programmer” followed by gentle reintroduction to the real world.

    Usually work is the best therapy but with the Carbon Tax there won’t be many jobs left next year, they will all be overseas.

    So how can they be deprogrammed?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Catamon

      now have a Profiling Team hard at work locating and identifying them.

      Its very amusing isn’t it?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      Usually work is the best therapy but with the Carbon Tax there won’t be many jobs left next year, they will all be overseas.

      Actually, there’s now over 11.5 million people employed in Australia, the highest level on record, and this is expected to increase next year by a few hundred thousand.

      Your claims that there will be no jobs in Australia left by next year is just scaremongering.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Dave

        .
        MORE LIES

        Unemployment and Underemployment are worst figures in decades – all under this ALP government!

        While the official unemployment rate sits at 5.3 per cent, figures from Roy Morgan estimate work hardship really affects 16.8 per cent of the workforce – or 2.01 million Australians -who want either a full-time job or more hours to cope with living pressures.

        From Perthnow

        And this from Mr. Wilkins University of Melbourne researcher says:

        Mr Wilkins said the ABS official unemployment figures do not reflect the full story of how the economy was performing at the moment.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          While the official unemployment rate sits at 5.3 per cent,

          This is wrong. Unemployment is currently 5.1% based on the latest data.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Dave

            .
            Based on wrong ABS figures – and admitted.

            Again more LIES – so your 5.1% wrong again!


            PAUL Mahoney, the head of the ABS’ labour statistics branch, on Tuesday conceded that estimates of population growth used in its monthly labour force data series were sometimes shown to be incorrect once updated statistics became available

            Besides the underlying rate is closer to 16% – the worst in 20 years (and under ALP) – but you’ll just blame Costello in 2003, or even Billy McMahon.

            So don’t worry your self about it.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Hi Manfred

    Yes, the Stepford image is so appropriate.

    My other effort to draw parallels between the Man Made Global Warming by Carbon Dioxide Cult and Scientology , above, has the main

    ingredients: people with money (taxpayers), getting that money off them (Climate Scientists and politicians), getting money off the

    Government who originally stole it from us (big business and windmill makers like GE and financiers like Westpac).

    Maybe we could invite the high profile cult breaker, Katie Holmes (Cruise) over here to speak to all the warmbots hooked on junk science

    dished out by an “Auntie” who is any thing but a loving member of the family. Anyone who would program the minds of young kids needs to be

    stopped.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Where’s Adam Smith? Is their a Labour Party meeting over there somewhere tonight?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Angry

      “ceetee”, TEAM SMITH probably started using ONLY so called “green” electricity from windmills and solar.

      I guess the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining at the moment to power the teams laptops around the kitchen table.

      Maybe they should get some monkeys to pedal bicycles so they can still post their BS…..


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Manfred

    Hi KK,
    Unlike Stepford, I fortunately find that most I speak with are non-believers. Subject to confirmation and reporting bias, one is left wondering how much social narcosis is necessary to obviate the inevitable financial pain? I suggest that the Stepford ‘programming’ will lose traction at the same rate as the pain restores consciousness.

    The grand awakening will be the moment (an epiphany) when the child-like society we live in presently decides that adulthood is a far preferable state and one in which the promise of self-ordained destiny stands a small chance of fulfillment.

    Adolescence, as we all know, can be a ‘difficult’ but eventually rewarding time. The Comrade Collective has no answer to this – standing in the way only serves to further excite frustrated adolescents. The Collective will become anachronistic and passé. New knowledge, standards of science and civil behaviour will supplant their gray, unrelenting banality. The Smith Collective et al. display insufficient imagination to survive.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    The govts of the “Anglo Imperial Empire’ (US, Canada, Australia NZ) have a severs case of ‘solar rectonosis’ the sun shines out of their backsides.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    My favourite bit of the post is when you follow

    Nobel prize winner — Ivar Giaever — “climate change is pseudoscience”

    with

    As usual, the core arguments of believers comes down to argument from authority.

    Poe’s Law activated!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Tristan

      Further to that, here’s some of Ivar’s lines from his speech:

      I am not terribly interested in global warming, like most physicists I really don’t think much about it. But in 2008 I was on a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it, and I spent a day or so, half a day maybe on Google and I was horrified by what I learned.

      Off to a great start!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Duster

        Actually, it was Nobel Prize Winners all the way down. It highlights the futility of brandishing Nobel Winners as weapons in the debate.

        The real points all have to do with physics and mathematics, especially statistics. The harsh truth is that climate scientists may very well be “experts” in climate science, but not one AGW team member has yet demonstrated a superior understanding of either physics or statistics to experts within those fields. So, trying to decide whose opinion should receive greater weight comes down to answering the question, “how special is climate science?” The answer is, “it isn’t. Just complex physics in a noisy system.” So any qualified physicist should be able to communicate reasonable conclusions regarding the validity of climate model output.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Tristan

          The harsh truth is that climate scientists may very well be “experts” in climate science, but not one AGW team member has yet demonstrated a superior understanding of either physics or statistics to experts within those fields.

          That’s interesting, because many of the experts within those fields are in the fields of climate science! But I guess if you want to go to the physicists themselves, then the two largest organisations, the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft and the American Physical Society both adopt the stance of accepting the IPCC’s conclusions. Between the two of them they number over 100 000 members. :)


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Angry

        [snip... insults need some justification... If I let these go through, then I need to let all the others go through too -Jo]


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          [snip ditto. Explain why Tristan is wrong and we're all ears... - Jo]


          Report this

          00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            OK

            I have seen and read very reliable reports which insist that not every member of the APS is represented by the “Management” of that organisation.

            There has been at least, one very high profile resignation from the APS for the very reason that he claimed that the “Management”

            was not representing him in the issue of “Climate Physics” nor were they requiring correct scientific method in work quoted.

            Tristan’s comment is so obviously the thing we all object to in science: “The Appeal To The Authority” of the 100,000.

            It is a meaningless comment.

            In personally denying the assumed special scientific qualities of climate scientists I can do no better than quote Duster from above:

            “how special is climate science?” The answer is, “it isn’t.

            Just complex physics in a noisy system.” So any qualified physicist should be able to communicate reasonable conclusions regarding

            the validity of climate model output.

            It is very obvious for those of us with specific training in thermodynamic engineering calculations, which very closely parallel the

            earths Atmospheric analysis, that climate science has been unaware of many factors and taken advantage of “The Noisy System” to

            deliberately hide a few others that are inconvenient to gaining the “correct’ end results.

            ps. My apologies for needing moderation but events such as the recent swamping of the blog by Team Smith do little to improve goodwill towards those who appear on the blogg without any intention of engaging in scientific discussion apart from providing references to important paper which can be read so that we can discover the true enlightenment of Climate Science.

            :)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            p.s

            Have noted that Ivar Gioever has also resigned from the APS. That’s two very high profile physicists and many of the others maybe like Ivar who admitted leavibg the topic of AGW unexplored until he was made by circumstances to take a closer look.

            After taking a look at the suppose science he said that he was horrified by what he found.

            How many of the fabled 100,000 in the German and US equivalent APS would perhaps be similarly outraged but by force of circumstance (having a family to feed and mortgage to pay) choose to not raise attention to their true beliefs being misrepresented.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Tristan

            I have seen and read very reliable reports which insist that not every member of the APS is represented by the “Management” of that organisation.

            Obviously. the APS is not a hive mind.

            Tristan’s comment is so obviously the thing we all object to in science: “The Appeal To The Authority” of the 100,000.

            I merely provided the official positions of two important physics societies in refutation of Duster’s claim. That is not an appeal to authority.

            “how special is climate science?” The answer is, “it isn’t.

            Precisely. The only thing that makes it controversial is the financial ramifications of its content.

            It is very obvious for those of us with specific training in thermodynamic engineering calculations, which very closely parallel the earths Atmospheric analysis, that climate science has been unaware of many factors and taken advantage of “The Noisy System” to deliberately hide a few others that are inconvenient to gaining the “correct’ end results.

            News Flash: Man on blog claims ________.

            Fascinating. Tell us again about your thermodynamic engineering calculations and how none of the people with your special set of knowledge work in the field of climate science.

            After taking a look at the suppose science he said that he was horrified by what he found.

            News Flash: Man who admits to knowing nothing about climate change spends half a day on Google and makes uninformed declaration.

            How many of the fabled 100,000 in the German and US equivalent APS would perhaps be similarly outraged but by force of circumstance (having a family to feed and mortgage to pay) choose to not raise attention to their true beliefs being misrepresented.

            Except that the DPG and APS aren’t employers so….


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Sonny

    STOP GEO-ENGINEERING! STOP SPRAYING HARMFUL CHEMICALS INTO THE AIR WE ALL BREATH! THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING!.

    Jo, plea can you bring this disturbing phenomenon to your readers attention. The truth is out there. Google “chemtrails”, “geo-engineering”, “Australia”. I saw a chemtrail in the sky over Melbourne today that spanned the horizon and lasted for 2 hours. This is not a
    natural “contrail” phenomenon.

    Or simply just dismiss it as a “conspiracy theory” and return to your happy place.

    [OK, dismissed. Please do not post off-topic. Feel free to send post suggestions to Jo via e-mail]ED


    Report this

    00

    • #
      crakar24

      OMFG, you mean it has nothing to do with hot exhaust from the engines and cold air temps?

      Seriously i read one half wit somewhere wanted to put shards of glass up there to reflect the sun.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Sonny

        Happy placer.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Sonny

          I find it interesting that the word “health” is not mentioned yet the phrase “dosage” is.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Joe V.

            As there appear to be at least 3 main comment post time:dated after this one, has a new a new type of Sticky post ( a Sticky -at-the-end) been discovered ?


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Joe V.

              I think I may have just disproved my own theory, to explain the behaviour of Post #59, but there’s something up with it, appearing after #56, #57, & #58 , all timed later.
              ( has Blog behaviour finally become more fascinating than Climate Science.)


              Report this

              00

              • #
                Myrrh

                I noticed that when I posted the earlier timed posts followed, I thought they had got stuck in a queue somehow, but then I noticed you’d added post 63 – not long after I’d posted, so roughly at the same time. I was about to reply then, but had to leave the computer. Very odd. Perhaps it’s some sort of time warp..?

                Was it 6:49 pm when you posted?


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Joe V.

                Yup, it woulda been about 6.49. Well 9.49 BST anyway. I guess that’s why they call it British Summer Time, as I can barely hear myself think from the rain hammering on the conservatory roof, as the latest ‘extreme weather event’ crosses the country (otherwise known as a typical British Summer.


                Report this

                00

          • #
            Joe V.

            I meant this one (above) :
            As there appear to be at least 3 main comment post time:dated after this one, has a new a new type of Sticky post ( a Sticky -at-the-end) been discovered ?


            Report this

            00

  • #

    [...] the entire climate-scare situation is succinctly summed up by Nobel prize winner Ivar Giaever, who recently stated quite simply [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fred from Canuckistan

    Please . . . it is Climate Scientology.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Nobel prize winner — Ivar Giaever — “climate change is pseudoscience” « JoNova: Science, ca…. Share this:EmailPrint [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ally E.

    I see what you mean, Jo. That is an excellent speech. Absolutely brilliant. :) :) :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    the company claims it’s on schedule paying back the govt loan, but seemingly only because they’ve taken out another loan with someone else!

    4 July: Washington Times: Chuck Neubauer: Lights go dim on another energy project
    Geothermal losses pile up
    A geothermal energy company with a $98.5 million loan guarantee from the Obama administration for an alternative energy project in Nevada — which received hearty endorsements from Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — faces financial problems, and the company’s auditors have questioned whether it can stay in business…
    Mr. Reid, a Nevada Democrat who led passage of the $814 billion stimulus bill and worked to include the loan guarantee program to help finance clean-energy projects, predicted in 2010 that NGP would “put Nevadans to work” and declared that Nevada was the “Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy.”
    Mr. Chu celebrated NGP’s potential in his June 2010 announcement of the loan guarantee, saying the federal government’s support of the company demonstrated its commitment to geothermal power to achieve the nation’s clean-energy goals…
    In January, Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California Republican andchairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Mr. Chu that the NGP loan guarantee raised questions about why the Energy Department was investing significant taxpayer resources in a company with well-established financial problems…
    A committee report said the loan did not finance any new construction and “did not help to create a single job.”…
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/4/lights-go-dim-on-another-energy-project/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    a bit of fun for the CAGW zealots who refuse to understand they are merely pawns in the game.

    this week, the MSM reports former French President Sarkozy fled to Canada because he knew his Paris residence and office were to be raided over illegal campaign funding. he is reportedly staying with canadian billionaire, Paul Desmarais.

    if u ever wanted to understand political kingmakers, Desmarais has to be a perfect example, and there’s a “strong” connection…to Maurice Strong, that is, who was President of Desmarais Power Corporation of Canada. it helps if u know the names of all the Canadian Prime Ministers:

    Paul Desmarais
    He is CEO of the Power Corporation of Canada (PCC), a Canadian company active in the fields of mass media, pulp and paper and financial services…
    In 1974, Desmarais named employee Paul Martin, Jr. as president of a Power Corporation of Canada subsidiary, Canada Steamship Lines Inc. In 1981, he sold the company to Laurence Pathy and Paul Martin, Jr.The latter became Prime Minister of Canada in December 2003. Paul Desmarais is also the former employer of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Jean Chretien, Brian Mulroney and Maurice Strong, the “father of the Kyoto Accords, which was sacked for taking part in a fraud of 10 billion USD under the food program in Iraq Oil cons…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Desmarais

    Maurice Strong
    Strong had his start as an entrepreneur in the Alberta oil patch and was president of Power Corporation of Canada until 1966. In the early 1970s he was Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and then became the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong

    much more online for those who care to search.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    With so much published information out there in public now about the price increases associated with the Carbon Tax (sic), such as the increased cost of power from the plants, every power provider with new and published cost lists, the price increases for residential gas supply, the cost increases for refrigerant gases, I guess those ‘Carbon Cops’ must be positively flat out.

    So, for all you people who visit this site and have questioned these rises, or associated them with something else, we look forward to hearing from you when those prosecutions and huge fines start being reported.

    Hear those crickets?

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      With so much published information out there in public now about the price increases associated with the Carbon Tax (sic), such as the increased cost of power from the plants, every power provider with new and published cost lists, the price increases for residential gas supply, the cost increases for refrigerant gases, I guess those ‘Carbon Cops’ must be positively flat out.

      Yes, the cost increase for electricity will be about 10% and the cost increase for gas will be about 9%.

      These are the two major cost increases that will be seen throughout the economy.

      Of course what you don’t mention is that for the average household, the cost of energy is only about 2.4% of their weekly expenses, which comes to $19. Data from here:
      http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10March+Quarter+2012#expenditure

      Oh, and remember, people are receiving income tax cuts and increases to government payments to cover the cost increase.

      Now I agree with you that low income house holds spend relatively more on energy (they actually spend less in real terms but it is a greater proportion of their expenditure), hence that’s where most of the income tax cuts are going.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Dave

        .
        $19 for a sausage sandwich – so Combet and the Climate Institute LIED again!

        “For around the cost of one sausage sandwich per week, putting a price on pollution will help change the investment and power generation decisions necessary to help put Australia on the path to a lower pollution, clean energy future,”

        said Mr Connor.

        Weekly household power bills on average would increase from $37.49 to $39.94 – a difference of $2.45, or $127.40 a year

        according to the Climate Institute.

        You, Combet, Gillard & AGW crew are all telling LIES constantly!


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          Weekly household power bills on average would increase from $37.49 to $39.94 – a difference of $2.45, or $127.40 a year

          Oh OK, so the difference is going to be $2.45 on the figures you quoted (but didn’t actually reference).

          So you seem to be getting worked up over not a lot.


          Report this

          00

      • #

        Hey Doc,

        Get back to me on this one will you.

        Take out your most recent electricity bill. Roll over onto page 2 and have a look at the consumption there.

        You say here:

        Of course what you don’t mention is that for the average household, the cost of energy is only about 2.4% of their weekly expenses, which comes to $19.

        See how you have quoted here that the Average is $19.

        That’s 10.7KWH a day Doc, AVERAGE you say. (For all you people out there who can’t figure the Maths on this, it’s simple really. $19 is 1900 cents. Electricity costs 25.378 cents per KWH, hence that’s a weekly consumption of 74.87KWH, and the divide by 7 for 10.7KWH)

        Now Doc, hey, don’t even bother to tell me what yours is.

        Is your total around that average of 10.7KWH Doc, and if not then someone must be using a hell of lot less than that average to even out your bill.

        All of you do the same exercise. Divide the total KWH of the billing period by the number of days in that billing period and it gives you your daily average.

        Bet you it’s not as low as 10.7KWH a day.

        No Doc, the average is between 25 and 30KWH a day, which makes the average cost for electricity between $44 and $54.

        Hey, no cheating now Doc, remember, this is all electric, not electricity augmented by Town or bottled gas, just all electric.

        Just wonderin’ Doc.

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          No Doc, the average is between 25 and 30KWH a day, which makes the average cost for electricity between $44 and $54.

          How can the average be between this two figures that differ by over 20%?

          You still haven’t explained why the average weekly electricity increase will be greater than $3.20.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Where did all the Adams and other trolls go!

    Oh yes it’s the week end and they don’t get paid overtime.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard

    “Anticipating the next speaker, Ivar Gieavaer(sic), who shared the 1973 prize for work on tunneling in superconductors but was to offer a skeptical take on climate change, Molina said that critics aren’t usually the experts. Listening to them, he added, is like going to your dentist when you have a heart problem.”
    —————————————————————–

    Didn’t even have the courtesy of letting him speak before they trashed him. Nice.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    AndyG55
    July 6, 2012 at 12:58 pm
    Costello now realises, as MANY people do, that AGW/CC/’whatever they call it next’ is a load of BS !!!
    So of course he is now against an ETS,,.. because he knows it a pointless and unnecessary piece of crap legislation.!

    WHAT!? When / where did Costello ONCE mention that he no longer believes in the science of global warming during that interview with Andrew Bolt?

    In fact what Costello said was that it was wrong that the Coalition didn’t ratify the Kyoto Protocol! Why would he say that if he didn’t believe in global warming? Why should Australia have ratified the Kyoto protocol if greenhouse gas emissions aren’t potentially dangerous?

    Oh, and I thought it was really cute how Costello blamed the the Coalition’s adoption of an ETS on John Howard! Do you notice that Costello blames ALL the problems with the Howard government on John Howard, while conveniently failing to mention that he, along with Alexander Downer and then environment minister David Kemp, took a policy to cabinet for Australia to have an ETS in 2003!

    Costello is just re-writing history and trying to make himself out as anti-action on climate change, when the fact is he wanted action sooner than John Howard!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Adam,

    You are very good on where and when, but not so hot on why.

    During 2002/03, there were series of discussions held between Australia and New Zealand, between senior officials, across a number of disciplines. These were planning sessions so that both countries could present a consistent position at all future UNFCCC meetings (this was, you might remember, pre-Kyoto). At those meetings it was presumed that all developed countries would be expected to do something “to mitigate the effects of global warming”, on less developed countries.

    I have no idea what you are talking about. The Kyoto protocol was negotiated in 1997 when Australia’s Minister for the Environment was Senator Robert Hill. I am talking about about a later period in 2003 when Australia’s Treasurer Peter Costello, Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer, and Minister for the Environment Dr David Kemp took a submission to cabinet proposing that Australia implement an Emissions Trading Scheme. This has nothing to do with bilateral negotiations with New Zealand.

    The common position arrived at, was that both countries should adopt the same solution, but that the solution adopted should be the “least case” solution, so that additional initiatives could be implemented if necessary. That “least case” solution was the ETS that the Ministers took to cabinet in 2003.

    What on earth are you talking about? In 2003 when an ETS was proposed, there hadn’t even been a substantial review into Australia’s potential policy responses. This didn’t happen until the Shergold Report that was finalised in 2006. It was a radical idea in Australia politics to implement an ETS around 2003, this would’ve made Australia a world leader on carbon emission reduction policy.

    For reasons that I do not fully understand, Australia was supposed to introduce the ETS first, but failed to finalise the required legislation.

    There was no legislation put to parliament. The Prime Minister John Howard blocked the idea in cabinet.

    But my whole point is that Peter Costello was at the forefront of Australia adopting an ETS, but now he is re-writing history by pretending to be anti-ETS when he was the guy putting it forward 8 years before the parliament finally passed such a policy as legislation!

    So eventually the Clark Labour Government, in New Zealand, unilaterally introduced the planned ETS in 2008. It was later amended in 2009 by the first Key National Government. The New Zealand Government has recently announced that planned extensions to the original ETS were being postponed until 2015, because they are unaffordable within the current global economic environment, however the New Zealand scheme still remains within the framework originally defined by the UNFCCC.

    Interesting, but irrelevant to the point I was making.
    —–? Inserted by a mod who forgot to tag it? Presumably starting somewhere around here?– Jo]
    The New Zealand ETS scheme (and the 2003 Australian scheme), appears to have very little in common with the approach now adopted by Australia, which seems to be more about gathering punitive taxation, than reducing or sustainably managing undesirable emissions (of all types).

    It would be of great use to everybody on this blog if you explained what you know, and how you interpret what you know to support your argument, rather than grandstanding, by trying to find fault with other opinions, and making comments that ignore some important facts (like the passage of nine years) that do not neatly fit with your opinions.

    We are all here as Joanne’s guests. Most of us respect that, and I ask that you do the same.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      The New Zealand ETS scheme (and the 2003 Australian scheme), appears to have very little in common with the approach now adopted by Australia, which seems to be more about gathering punitive taxation, than reducing or sustainably managing undesirable emissions (of all types).

      Actually you are completely wrong because the New Zealand scheme is based on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme that was put to Australian parliament in 2008.

      Your second point about the ETS being about punitive taxation is completely hilarious because others here have complained that the scheme will actually cost $500 million more than it raises in the first year! What is it, something to create more debt or a money spinner? And of course you ignore the fact that the sale of permits raises money that pays for income tax cuts that anyone who earns under $82,000 a year gets.

      It would be of great use to everybody on this blog if you explained what you know, and how you interpret what you know to support your argument, rather than grandstanding, by trying to find fault with other opinions, and making comments that ignore some important facts (like the passage of nine years) that do not neatly fit with your opinions.

      We are all here as Joanne’s guests. Most of us respect that, and I ask that you do the same.

      Well thank you for bossing me around. What I don’t appreciate is you editing my posts without putting your name to the edits.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I have no idea what you are talking about.

      Yes, well that is obvious.

      The Kyoto protocol was negotiated in 1997 when Australia’s Minister for the Environment was Senator Robert Hill.

      Quite correct, that was when the protocol was agreed, and “… set binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions … against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012.” [my emphasis]

      I am talking about about a later period in 2003 when Australia’s Treasurer Peter Costello, Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer, and Minister for the Environment Dr David Kemp took a submission to cabinet proposing that Australia implement an Emissions Trading Scheme. This has nothing to do with bilateral negotiations with New Zealand.

      In the period 2002 to 2003, a number of meetings were held between officials from both countries in an attempt to harmonise the approach. This was felt desirable because of the volume of trade, between the two countries. The consolidated information from these discussions was to provide raw input into the various review and drafting processes for the legislation in both countries.

      Working meetings between officials are not unusual, and are not “negotiations”. That is your word, not mine.

      It was a radical idea in Australia politics to implement an ETS around 2003, this would’ve made Australia a world leader on carbon emission reduction policy.

      But under the original proposal New Zealand would have been a close follower.

      There was no legislation put to parliament. The Prime Minister John Howard blocked the idea in cabinet.

      I didn’t say that legislation was put to parliament, I said it was taken to cabinet. And when I said, “finalise the required legislation”, I meant the drafting of legislation, and I accept that distinction may have been confusing.

      But my whole point is that Peter Costello was at the forefront of Australia adopting an ETS, but now he is re-writing history by pretending to be anti-ETS when he was the guy putting it forward 8 years before the parliament finally passed such a policy as legislation!

      The ETS that Costello tried to get past Cabinet in 2003, seems to me to be quite different to this new Carbon Tax (your PM’s phrase). I think is is perfectly reasonable for Mr Costello to believe in and promote one scheme, and yet object to another that he does not believe to be as good. That is the act of a rational person, especially if, in the intervening years, and with the evidence of the New Zealand scheme to hand, he appreciates more of the unintended consequences, for both schemes, than he may have done previously.

      … the New Zealand scheme is based on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme that was put to Australian parliament in 2008

      … and was the evolution of what was discussed back in 2003. That was the trigger for Clark’s introduction of the New Zealand ETS.

      Your … point about the ETS being about punitive taxation is completely hilarious

      I don’t see why you think that is odd. Your own Prime Minister made no secret of the fact that she wanted to punish “the Dirty Polluters”. Whether or not the tax has a positive or neutral impact in the first year, is immaterial. The key point is that eventually people will be punished (probably financially) for the production of greenhouse gasses. I do not believe for a moment that your Government will give money away indefinitely. If they did, they would be seen as being reckless and imprudent. It may cost $500 million more in the first year but I notice that you are silent for the years following. Thus this statement, like most of what you write is propaganda – it is good propaganda, I’ll give you that, but propaganda never the less.

      And if somebody has been editing your posts, it is certainly not me.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        Quite correct, that was when the protocol was agreed, and “… set binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions … against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012.” [my emphasis]

        So what is your point?

        In the period 2002 to 2003, a number of meetings were held between officials from both countries in an attempt to harmonise the approach. This was felt desirable because of the volume of trade, between the two countries. The consolidated information from these discussions was to provide raw input into the various review and drafting processes for the legislation in both countries.

        There was no review or drafting process for legislation on an ETS in Australia during that period! Around that time the Australian Prime Minister was a hardcore climate change sceptic! The first report on what to do about climate change wasn’t requested by an Australian Prime Minister until Howard did so in 2005 which was published as the Shergold Report in 2006. Peter Shergold was John Howard’s departmental secretary. Surprise, surprise, Shergold recommended Australia adopt an Emissions Trading Scheme, which was a recommendation that both the Coalition Government and the Labor opposition accepted and took to the 2007 election.

        You are proposing some coordination between Australia and New Zealand that was a domestic policy issue that had nothing to do with New Zealand!

        Working meetings between officials are not unusual, and are not “negotiations”. That is your word, not mine.

        You are trying to re-write Australian political history. An ETS was not on the agenda at that time in Australia.

        But under the original proposal New Zealand would have been a close follower.

        What proposal! Find me one document that suggests the Australian Government had proposed adopting an ETS before 2006.

        There was no legislation put to parliament. The Prime Minister John Howard blocked the idea in cabinet.

        I didn’t say that legislation was put to parliament, I said it was taken to cabinet. And when I said, “finalise the required legislation”, I meant the drafting of legislation, and I accept that distinction may have been confusing.

        Well great, but you haven’t told me anything I don’t already know because I told you that Costello, Downer and Kemp took a joint proposal to cabinet which was knocked back by Howard. But of course by late 2006, Howard had accepted the findings of the Shergold report and had changed his mind and now accepted that Australia needed an ETS to reduce emissions at the least cost.

        The ETS that Costello tried to get past Cabinet in 2003, seems to me to be quite different to this new Carbon Tax (your PM’s phrase).

        How the hell do you know this!? We won’t know for sure exactly what Costello, Downer and Kemp proposed to cabinet for another 22 years when those cabinet documents are no longer protected by law.

        I think is is perfectly reasonable for Mr Costello to believe in and promote one scheme, and yet object to another that he does not believe to be as good. That is the act of a rational person, especially if, in the intervening years, and with the evidence of the New Zealand scheme to hand, he appreciates more of the unintended consequences, for both schemes, than he may have done previously.

        … the New Zealand scheme is based on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme that was put to Australian parliament in 2008

        Well here you have just screwed up completely because the ETS that started last Sunday is extremely similar to the amended version of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme as agreed to between the Labor government and Coalition opposition in late 2009!

        So either the ETS Australia has now is unlike the Costello one, which you have asserted without presenting any evidence is different, or it is like the amended CPRS which New Zealand ultimately implemented before Australia!

        One of those positions is correct, but not both.

        … and was the evolution of what was discussed back in 2003. That was the trigger for Clark’s introduction of the New Zealand ETS.

        New Zealand and Australia’s ETSs are very similar because New Zealand relied on the economic modelling that was done in Australia. You can read it here:
        http://archive.treasury.gov.au/lowpollutionfuture/default.asp

        I don’t see why you think that is odd. Your own Prime Minister made no secret of the fact that she wanted to punish “the Dirty Polluters”. Whether or not the tax has a positive or neutral impact in the first year, is immaterial. The key point is that eventually people will be punished (probably financially) for the production of greenhouse gasses. I do not believe for a moment that your Government will give money away indefinitely. If they did, they would be seen as being reckless and imprudent. It may cost $500 million more in the first year but I notice that you are silent for the years following. Thus this statement, like most of what you write is propaganda – it is good propaganda, I’ll give you that, but propaganda never the less.

        This whole quote is a load of propaganda!

        You don’t have the faintest idea how Australia’s ETS works or the political history of carbon pollution reduction policy in Australia over the last decade.

        The revenue from the sale of carbon permits is split in the following ways. About 30% is used to pay for income tax cuts by increasing the tax free threshold. From July 1 of this year the first $18200 a person earns is now free of income tax. This will be increased over the next two financial years so it will be $21400 on July 1, 2015. Another 30% of the permit revenue is being spent increasing government transfer payments such as aged pension, Youth Allowance, AusStudy, Newstart, Carers Payments, Disability Support Pensions and Family Tax Benefits. Another 20% of the revenue is spent on a new bank to fund low interest rate loans for renewable energy projects, another 10% is spent on carbon farming so farmers get paid to sequester carbon in their soils, the remaining 10% is spent on other landcare projects again to manage land in ways to capture carbon.

        Compare that to the idiotic Opposition approach which is just planting a bunch of trees on an area the size of New South Wales at a cost of tens of billions of dollars.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Adam,

          So what is your point?

          I would have thought it was obvious. The signatories had ten years to go from a political commitment at Kyoto to a workable and far reaching scheme to change the behaviours of multiple populations. This is hardly business as usual, and not something that can be done without dedicated specialised input over a long time frame.

          There was no review or drafting process for legislation on an ETS in Australia during that period!

          No, there were discussions between officials – fact gathering – intelligence processing – analysis – and review, to identify options and contingencies to inform any future drafting process. Do you suggest that policy is just made on a whim?

          Around that time the Australian Prime Minister was a hardcore climate change sceptic!

          But politics is politics, and the Prime Minister can change at the next election or be outed in a coup. If the incoming Prime Minister wants to act on the matter right away, they will expect to have the required informaiton available.

          The first report on what to do about climate change wasn’t requested by an Australian Prime Minister until Howard did so in 2005 which was published as the Shergold Report in 2006.

          I presume, that a considerable amount of information looked at by Peter Shergold was the output of the previous analysis. I also doubt that the Prime Ministers Department would have had the resources to pull all of the information together from scratch, within the required timeframe, but I may be wrong, the DPMC may have lots of people with spare time.

          You are proposing some coordination between Australia and New Zealand that was a domestic policy issue that had nothing to do with New Zealand!

          Adam, have your not heard of “The Australia and New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement (CER)”? Initiatives taken as a result of the Kyoto protocol, had the potential to impact CER, and were not considered to be merely “domestic policy issues”, by either country at the time. Yes, both countries would implement their own legislation, but they wanted to ensure that the schemes harmonized under CER.

          New Zealand and Australia’s ETSs are very similar because New Zealand relied on the economic modelling that was done in Australia.

          That Australian Treasury Report was published in 2008, which was the same year the Clark Government introduced the New Zealand ETS, but it is probably a mistake to imply a cause and effect relationship, purely on timing. I don’t know if it was an influencing factor or not, but it is certainly wrong to say the New Zealand Government “relied on the economic modelling that was done in Australia”. Economic modeling for Australia does not pertain to New Zealand. The question that may have been asked could be, “Does the current Australian economic situation impact the proposed scheme, and if so how?” That I would expect.

          You don’t have the faintest idea how Australia’s ETS works …

          That is correct, I do not fully understand all of the details, but I do know that it is significantly different from what was being discussed in 2002/03. And it is that difference that invalidates any comparision between what Costello supported in 2003, and what he does not support now. It seems to me, as an external observer, that the only similarity between the two is the acronym “ETS”, and it is that acronym that your criticism of Costello relies upon.

          … or the political history of carbon pollution reduction policy in Australia over the last decade.

          Ah, now we get to the nub of it. You are talking ‘political history” – The Acts, Sayings, and Travails of Great People in the Wide Expanse of History – a very academic approach towards changes that occur in the world.

          Whereas I am talking about all the research, collation, analysis, and assessment that must occur before “political history” can be made.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Adam Smith

            I would have thought it was obvious. The signatories had ten years to go from a political commitment at Kyoto to a workable and far reaching scheme to change the behaviours of multiple populations. This is hardly business as usual, and not something that can be done without dedicated specialised input over a long time frame.

            An Emissions Trading Scheme or other price mechanism on carbon pollution WAS NOT the first policy response by an Australian government to the regulation of carbon emissions. What Australia did is enact a mish mash of over 200 rebates, subsidies, grants in order to reach our Kyoto targets, which for Australia were pretty easy to achieve. The ETS the government has enacted is the NEXT response that will enable Australia to achieve more difficult targets at a much lower cost to the economy. Some organisations like the Productivity Commission and The Grattan Institute estimate that the mish mash of carbon abatement policies enacted following the Kyoto negotiations have cost the Australian economy something like $100 billion over a decade, which of course was ultimately passed on to consumers as higher prices for goods and services. The ETS is designed to get the market to drive cheaper abatement alternatives.

            No, there were discussions between officials – fact gathering – intelligence processing – analysis – and review, to identify options and contingencies to inform any future drafting process. Do you suggest that policy is just made on a whim?

            BULLSHIT! There was nothing of the sort around that time. If there was you could prove it by citing some documents.

            But politics is politics, and the Prime Minister can change at the next election or be outed in a coup. If the incoming Prime Minister wants to act on the matter right away, they will expect to have the required informaiton available.

            You seem to be completely over estimating the role that New Zealand plays in Australian politics! When the Australian Government is considering a particular policy it goes to the Australian public service, it doesn’t start negotiating with New Zealand.

            I presume, that a considerable amount of information looked at by Peter Shergold was the output of the previous analysis. I also doubt that the Prime Ministers Department would have had the resources to pull all of the information together from scratch, within the required timeframe, but I may be wrong, the DPMC may have lots of people with spare time.

            Shergold spent over a YEAR compiling his report, it even included the Treasury analysis that I linked to earlier.

            Adam, have your not heard of “The Australia and New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement (CER)”? Initiatives taken as a result of the Kyoto protocol, had the potential to impact CER, and were not considered to be merely “domestic policy issues”, by either country at the time. Yes, both countries would implement their own legislation, but they wanted to ensure that the schemes harmonized under CER.

            Yes I have heard it. It does not include New Zealand determining Australia’s domestic climate change policies.

            That Australian Treasury Report was published in 2008, which was the same year the Clark Government introduced the New Zealand ETS, but it is probably a mistake to imply a cause and effect relationship, purely on timing. I don’t know if it was an influencing factor or not, but it is certainly wrong to say the New Zealand Government “relied on the economic modelling that was done in Australia”. Economic modeling for Australia does not pertain to New Zealand. The question that may have been asked could be, “Does the current Australian economic situation impact the proposed scheme, and if so how?” That I would expect.

            BULLSHIT! The economic modelling was PUBLISHED in 2008, it was used for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme that was released in draft form in 2007 but was based on the earlier economic modelling. The Australian Government Treasury has done more economic modelling on carbon pricing than any other government treasury in the world. It is a WORLD LEADER is this type of modelling. The New Zealand Treasury simply doesn’t have anything approaching the same level of expertise as the Australian Treasury, hence they relied on the work the Australian Treasury had done a year earlier

            T

            hat is correct, I do not fully understand all of the details, but I do know that it is significantly different from what was being discussed in 2002/03.

            How on earth do you know this!? We won’t know what Costello, Downer and Kemp proposed until those confidential cabinet documents are made public in 22 years time, or if someone leaks them before then. How exactly are you an expert on confidential Australian cabinet submissions?

            And it is that difference that invalidates any comparision between what Costello supported in 2003, and what he does not support now. It seems to me, as an external observer, that the only similarity between the two is the acronym “ETS”, and it is that acronym that your criticism of Costello relies upon.

            Oh for crap sake “E.T.S.” means “Emissions Trading Scheme”. In fact what you seem oblivious to is the fact that Costello SUPPORTED the negotiated ETS between the Labor Government and Opposition when he was still in parliament on the grounds that it would diffuse what was a very difficult issue for the Coalition which was split between supporters and opponents of such a scheme. It is only now that Costello is re-writing history and saying he never supported an ETS when he did so from about 2003 to whenever he says he stopped supporting it!e.

            Ah, now we get to the nub of it. You are talking ‘political history” – The Acts, Sayings, and Travails of Great People in the Wide Expanse of History – a very academic approach towards changes that occur in the world.

            Well bloody hell mate, you are lecturing me about what was in confidential cabinet documents that you have never seen!

            Whereas I am talking about all the research, collation, analysis, and assessment that must occur before “political history” can be made.

            If you actually had evidence about the nature of the ETS that Costello et al proposed in 2003 to the Australian cabinet you’d be able to present them, but instead you are just wildly speculating while saying a bunch of things that are untrue because you didn’t actually follow what was going on in Australia at that time.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Higgs and the Hotspot.
    While Scientists might tend to eventually see what they’re looking for, if they look hard enough, with the ‘near’ discovery of the Higgs Boson being trumpeted only now, where do the contrived claims of discovery of that elusive Tropical Hotspot sit, in comparison ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Myrrh

    spartacusisfree
    July 5, 2012 at 7:36 am · Reply
    To be precise, the IR energy input has been exaggerated by ~400%. The total heat input has been exaggerated by about 40%.

    So, they shifted the heat transfer to the IR rather than convection. This is the origin of the positive feedback. It’s imaginary.

    ——————————————————————————–

    This has to begin with the original premise of the comic cartoon energy budget of the Greenhouse Effect – KT97 and kin – which claims that shortwave directly heats land and oceans and thermal infrared doesn’t reach the surface; the AGWScienceFiction meme “shortwave in longwave out”.

    (It is a physical impossibility that shortwave, Light, heats land and oceans in the real world, for example water is transparent to visible and it is transmitted through and not absorbed, and, the thermal infrared, the direct beam longwave heat energy, is the actual direct heat we feel from the Sun, so we know it reaches the surface…)

    From your post what it appears they are doing is including the real direct heat from the Sun in their “backradiation” figures. Thus making it appear more powerful than it is.

    The direct heat from the Sun is the Sun’s thermal energy on the move to us, it is a coherent stream of energy capable of doing work, like heating up matter, while any ‘backradiating’ thermal infrared is not coherent, it is diffused.

    So, AGWSF fisics has first taken out the real direct heat from the Sun claiming it plays no part in heating the Earth’s land and oceans and second, given the properties of the invisible thermal infrared heat direct from the Sun to shortwave, which are the visible and the two shorwaves either side of UV and Near Infrared.

    In traditional physics, still being taught, the categories of Light and Heat are different, because these are different energies. The differences are well understood.

    From the wiki page on UV:

    “Discovery
    The discovery of UV radiation was associated with the observation that silver salts darkened when exposed to sunlight. In 1801, the German physicist Johann Wilhelm Ritter made the hallmark observation that invisible rays just beyond the violet end of the visible spectrum darkened silver chloride-soaked paper more quickly than violet light itself. He called them “oxidizing rays” to emphasize chemical reactivity and to distinguish them from “heat rays” at the other end of the visible spectrum. The simpler term “chemical rays” was adopted shortly thereafter, and it remained popular throughout the 19th century. The terms chemical and heat rays were eventually dropped in favour of ultraviolet and infrared radiation, respectively.[3][4]”

    Thus in traditional physics the different categories of Heat and Light.

    Light affects matter on a different scale and in a different way to direct Heat energy – by electronic transitions and converting to chemical energy not heat energy as in photosynthesis and, for example, in UV and the production of vitamin D. UV works on the DNA level of matter, from this its use in purifying water.

    Heat energy, thermal infrared, affects matter on the atom/molecule level by moving the whole into vibration states, this is what it takes to heat matter up. You can use mechanical energy to create heat by rubbing your hands together and thermal infrared which is heat transfer by radiation does this in heating your body when it is absorbed, by moving the water in your body into vibrational state.

    AGWSF is obviously pseudoscience – it has created a complete fictional world with a different Earth and Sun and atmosphere and tweaked real traditional physics to provide a pretended physical explanation.

    I’m becoming more convinced that unless this aspect, the cartoon energy budget of the Greenhouse Effect, is made the basis of pointing out the pseudoscience then the arguments will continue to go around in circles. Some think that what AGWSF means by its words is the same thing these mean in real world physics and those who have only been taught AGWSF fisics can’t appreciate that the world they are describing is fictional and impossible in the real world.

    When I first began exploring this there were many, and still are, arguments about ‘backradiation’ and the second law, but I couldn’t find any discussion, just mentions in passing, on something that intrigued me, how AGW claimed that carbon dioxide was “well-mixed and could accumulate for hundreds and thousands of years in the atmosphere” when it was heavier than air. I had the opportunity of questioning a PhD teacher of physics who claimed this and taught it at uni level and it was from his explanation of the claim that “carbon dioxide is an ideal gas” that I discovered AGW fisics is not describing real gases which have volume, attraction, weight and subject to gravity, etc., and from this, I later found AGWSF had also excluded the Water Cycle to cover up the sleight of hand it used in producing its claimed Greenhouse Effect of a 33°C warming by greenhouse gases.

    Besides from the complications arising out of the different paradigms in play, the created fictional world v the real world, confusion abounds because the claims of AGW take in such a vast range of science disciplines and some will readily see tweaks made in their own field, but will miss something from another thinking that it’s ‘common knowledge’, for example. But these physics claims of the Greenhouse Effect cartoon energy budget could be deconstructed to show that they are fictional on a basic physics level if there was a more systematic input from the different disciplines involved.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Myrrh

    My post 59 makes sense at 11.10pm if this is Canberra time which is 9 hours ahead of me – and so also my last post 64, it’s 21.37 as I type, was typing, got distracted by a text message – now 21:43


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Rod Stuart

    The Ivar Giaver video is interesting.
    I find it a shame that he spoils it with his comments near the end that are really aligned with the Eugenics mob.
    If he were to educate himself on the one child policy in China, and its origins in the Club of Rome propaganda machine sold to Deng Xiaoping, he might change his tune…I hope.
    Have a look at the section on China in this piece and see if it doesn’t sicken you.
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Rod

      I have’t got that far but given that he has 3 and a half grandchildren it is possible, as someone pointed out earlier, that he is speaking tongue in cheek.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    jim2

    It would be nice if the site didn’t use Silverlight. I run Linux and can’t view the video. Silverlight isn’t really necessary for a plain ole video. Can someone port it to a more common platform?


    Report this

    00