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



Breakthrough: Labor Party discovers perpetual fountain of cash

The Labor government recently promised to reduce the price of carbon from the world-record-high of $25 a ton to a probably-could-be might-look-like $6 a ton price, as it switches (possibly) from a Carbon Tax to an Emissions Trading Scheme.

The compensation that was promised to offset the Carbon Tax will still be paid to voters, even though the Carbon Tax might end. Thus bread and fishes will be supplied, but hardly anyone will have to bake or fish. The innovation comes thanks to the impending-electron-factor — a strange combination of the Fibbs-Boson*, and a Poll flavored Quark.

Bonus for families as price of carbon falls

 by: ADAM CREIGHTON, From: The Australian

July 20, 2013 12:00AM

THE Rudd government has banked massive overcompensation into the federal budget for at least the next six years, if the carbon price fails to meet Treasury’s optimistic price projections.

More than 80 per cent of households will be overcompensated for the effect of the proposed emissions trading scheme by between $140 and $410 a year in 2019 if the price of carbon permits only rises to $10, new modelling shows. Even if the price of carbon reaches the $38 a tonne in 2019 that Treasury currently projects, more than 60 per cent of households, including practically all pensioners and single parents, will receive excess compensation of up to $45 a year in 2019. National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling senior researcher Ben Phillips said given a possible drop in the carbon price to $6 under an ETS, the compensation package was “arguably too generous”, offering between three and five times the carbon price impact in assistance.

“Around 90 per cent of households are fully compensated,” he said. “Households reliant on pensions and allowances are likely to remain adequately compensated for a very long time because their payments increase with the inflation or wages.”

Governments world-wide are admiring the brazen technique where 90 per cent of households are fully compensated.  Both Singapore and Chile have issued a blanket invitation for the other 10% of Australian households to emigrate.

 

*Pace Josh the Cartoonist. (He does a great Calendar).

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.6/10 (54 votes cast)
Breakthrough: Labor Party discovers perpetual fountain of cash, 8.6 out of 10 based on 54 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/k6aj3qw

392 comments to Breakthrough: Labor Party discovers perpetual fountain of cash

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    … the price of carbon permits only rises to $10, new modelling shows …

    In the strange world of politics, it is generally accepted that you can get away with any lie, as long as it so audacious, and so big enough, that the average punter just cannot get their head around it. Something that big and scary just has to be true.

    Modeling, any modeling, has become the big lie for the twenty-first century.

    At one time, models were only used to simulate and explore the interactions between known scientific principles. Da Vinci built wooden models of some of his ideas. A few worked. Most did not. But in the process of building and testing the models, the extent of knowledge and understanding increased.

    But a model is not reality. It can never substitute for reality. I can model a beautiful six bedroom mansion by a lake. Great! Try living in it – Second life anyone?

    Models are just a collection of assumptions, and those assumptions will reflect the biases of the modelers, and the desires of the sponsors.

    So as soon as I see phrases like, “new modelling shows”, my fraud meter goes off the scale and alarm bells start ringing.

    You see, the use of such phrases, means that the author is hiding something. If they cannot clearly explain the principles behind the modelling assumptions they are using, then they don’t actually understand what the model is doing, and how the results are actually arrived at.

    They are merely tweaking parameters to get the political result they want. And the political result invariably has nothing to do with reality, except that the reality of your life is about to get worse.


    Report this

    291

    • #
      blackadderthe4th

      ‘Modeling, any modeling, has become the big lie for the twenty-first century.’

      Can we trust climate models?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvO9AoKz7lc


      Report this

      125

      • #
        Backslider

        Oh, what a punch line:

        Even most skeptics now accepted that the earth was warming

        Please show us a skeptic who has denied that the earth has warmed.

        Please also show us that we have had warming in the past 17 years…… yes the earth was warming (emphasis of the commentator).


        Report this

        161

        • #
          blackadderthe4th

          ‘Even most skeptics now accepted that the earth was warming’, yes due to the co2 levels as projected by the models!

          ‘Please also show us that we have had warming in the past 17 years’ yep.

          AGU, Richard Alley

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5sxBSa6Tck

          ‘yes the earth was warming’ that becomes a statement of the bleeding obvious!


          Report this

          129

          • #
            Other_Andy

            On six different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 18 and 23 years.

            For RSS the warming is not statistically significant for over 23 years.
            For UAH the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
            For Hadcrut3 the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
            For Hadcrut4 the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
            For GISS the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
            For NOAA the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.

            Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC’s climate-science chairman, admitted in February 2013 that there had been a 17-year “pause” in global warming.
            Dr. Ben Santer has said that 17 years or more without warming would raise concerns about the reliability of the models.


            Report this

            230

          • #
            Other_Andy

            You haven’t answered Backslider’s questions either so I’ll repeat them:

            1. Please show us a skeptic who has denied that the earth has warmed.

            And don’t insert a silly straw man.

            2. Please also show us that we have had warming in the past 17 years……

            Trouble reading graphs I see.
            The graph Richard Alley is using starts at 1880.


            Report this

            181

          • #
            Peter Miller

            Blackie

            Have I got a bridge you have just got to buy.

            For an extra 10%, I will even make it CO2 resistant.


            Report this

            100

            • #
              Ross

              Peter , Blackie is obviously unaware that the figures that Other-Andy produced in his 7.23am post are derived from the data sets he mentioned ( including all their alterations) and it uses a tool on Skeptical Science website to do the statistical analysis. So how can he object to the conclusions?


              Report this

              80

          • #
          • #
            Ian

            Blackadder4th. I’ve been reading through your posts. Are you for real? These posts make you look a complete buffoon.. You ask others to answer you. Well answer this. Read it carefully so you answer what you’re being asked. Has there been any statistically significant global warming in the last 15 years? Don’t answer there has been global warming state if it has been statistically significant and if you answer yes give a link to where you got that information from. And do you read the the literature at all? I see in one of your, sorry have to say this, ridiculously biased and quite silly posts,”“…but there has been warming….” i repeat there has being warming! Show me a graph where warming is missing?” Can you show me a graph where this warming is statistically significant? And while you’re at it just look at sites like RealClimate which is the epitome of pro-AGW blogs where they note on many occasions that there are many factors other than CO2 that impact on global temperature. Are you aware of even one of these other factors?


            Report this

            110

            • #

              I wonder if Blackudder is actually some sort of Political Sciences tutorial student sent here to test his political tug muscle at the direction of some sock and sandal wearing obersturmlecturer in some last ditch effort at relevance. Youtube?, go back for new instructions Noddy, like how to cut and paste Ripleys “Believe it or not”. Now read this carefully and try to comprehend. There is not a gnats pubic hair worth of evidence to suggest that manmade CO2 emissions are having a detrimental effect on the climate of this planet. Anyone who suggests there is has designs on both your mind and/or your wallet OK?. Don’t be a donkey.


              Report this

              60

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘There is not a gnats pubic hair worth of evidence to suggest that manmade CO2 emissions’ but it matters not where the co2 comes from, because that does not change its properties!

                Only 500 million years of evidence that CO2 is a GHG and heating up the planet!

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbUnp0QDaRo


                Report this

                011

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                I for one am not going to follow any link to Youtube that is quoted by you. The only two links I have followed in the past both referred to your own site, so they are not corroboration of your views, only a restatement.

                The two I saw were also incorrect in terms of the scientific literature, so I assume they are all incorrect. After all, any moron can put something up on Youtube, it is not hard.

                Can you explain, in the English written word, and without referring to Youtube, why and how CO2 is a green house gas.


                Report this

                60

            • #
              Michael

              Well answer this. Read it carefully so you answer what you’re being asked. Has there been any statistically significant global warming in the last 15 years?

              This shows your confirmation bias. You have cherry picked a period by looking for the best start date you can find that confirms your bias, and then say it has to be statistically significant. This is science by a graph and manipulated statistics, and not science by taking into account all the information and all the science available. Conclusions on a graph out of context is not science. Lets give it some context.

              Firstly lets look at all the instrumental data, can you see a long term trend? Can you see that the current period is at the top of the long term trend?
              http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

              Now lets look at what a major scientific organisation has to say.
              “A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for meaningful assessments of climate change,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “WMO’s report shows that global warming was significant from 1971 to 2010 and that the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented. Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat.”

              “Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans – as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events – means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times” said Mr Jarraud.
              http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html

              So from 1971 to 2010 on decadal timescales the warming is statistically significant when taking into account that you need around 30 years to see a trend in climate. Especially when taking into account natural factors which account for short term variability.

              But since you seem to want to cherry pick your start period at 15, why not look at 13? Here we can see that warming took of again virtually straight away (actually I say that tongue in cheek, it never stopped, we just have natural variability and the movement of energy into the oceans)
              http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1999/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1999/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1999/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/trend


              Report this

              113

              • #
                Heywood

                Great. Another thread becomes a wall of Michael.


                Report this

                90

              • #

                Michael, … yawn… is that the time?


                Report this

                60

              • #
                AndyG55

                1. GISS is a Hansen manufactured load of crap before the satellite record bought his a bit into line with reality.

                2. Quote from WMO “Natural climate variability,” they got that part right at least. Of course when you are at the top of a NATURAL warming period, you have warmer years.. DOH !!!

                3. You look back from now. at the longest time of no significant warming. That is NOT cherry picking. (your graphs are)

                All the AGW climate scientist CONSENSUS is that there has been no significant warming for a period of at least 15 year. Even rabid warmists like Trenberth and the IPCC admit this FACT. Its only ignorant mongs like you and the morons from SkS who try to say otherwise.


                Report this

                80

              • #

                @Blackthingy 1.1.1.1.1. How is that supposed to be a riposte? Did you read my statement at all?. Again, don’t be a Donkey…


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Michael

                GISS is a Hansen manufactured load of crap before the satellite record

                It is the global temp record from NASA. If anything it is the satellites that have needed more adjustments and been incorrect more often. Satellite trends are the same just not as pronounced.

                “The largest of these errors was demonstrated in a 1998 paper by Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel of RSS. In that paper they showed that the data needed to be corrected for orbital decay of the MSU satellites. As the satellites’ orbits gradually decayed towards the earth the area from which they received radiances was reduced, introducing a false cooling trend.[9]”

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made

                top of a NATURAL warming period, you have warmer years.. DOH !!!

                We were in a natural global cooling trend until industrialisation caused warming started to kick in. DOH!!! (last 1000 years)

                All the AGW climate scientist CONSENSUS is that there has been no significant warming for a period of at least 15 year.

                Thats BS of comments taken out of context without looking at the whole story. They ALL say that there has been natural cooling factors and heat transferring into the deeper oceans. That is the AGW scientists consensus. You would not have to make stuff up if you had anything substantial.

                You look back from now. at the longest time of no significant warming.

                I look back at the whole instrumental record. That is the most accurate reflection of temp trend we have. I also refer to WMO’s definition of climate to be at least 30 years to see a trend and I also point to research of 2000 years of temp records that also shows the hottest global period is now. Any further back than that has bigger error margins and will be affected by more longer term (geological time) natural climatic effects. So for every time period relevent whether it be for the instrumental record, 30 years or a couple of centuries the warming is evident. Your cherry picked period is just that, cherry picking without context.


                Report this

                010

              • #
                Heywood

                “I look back at the whole instrumental record. “

                This is a red herring, and deflects from what was initially stated. Few skeptics deny that there has been warming across the instrumental record.

                You initially claimed,

                “You have cherry picked a period by looking for the best start date you can find that confirms your bias,”

                AndyG55 responded with

                “You look back from now. at the longest time of no significant warming. That is NOT cherry picking”

                Instead of addressing this, you introduced the red herring mentioned above.

                You go back in time from now, one year at a time, until there ceases to be non-statistically significant positive trend in temperature. Your 13 year example exhibits a slight positive trend, but go back another year or two, it doesn’t. Beyond 1997 (backwards), the instrumental record exhibits a statistically significant positive trend. The 15 years quoted is from 1997 (so, nearly 16 years) and is NOT a cherry pick.

                Actually interesting looking at the periods of negative trends (albeit statistically insignificant) plotted against a linear trend of CO2 readings from Mauna Loa for a similar period. I wonder just how long these “natural variations” are suppressing the atmospheric temperatures despite the increase of CO2?


                Report this

                60

              • #
                Michael

                Your example is a perfect example of excessive cherry picking with dates all over the place. Yes my 13 year was a cherry pick, that was the point. Anybody can go and find a date that says what they want it to say, up to a point, and as long as it is out of context.

                The 15 years quoted is from 1997 (so, nearly 16 years) and is NOT a cherry pick.

                Of course it is a cherry pick, how is it not. It is climate, it is a planet, these things take time. So you don’t pick a date that proves your point, you use as much data as is available that will smooth out natural fluctuations and look at the trend. When you look at the whole instrumental record the trend is obvious. It is also obvious that we are at the top of the long instrumental trend, and it is obvious that there are many fluctuations due to natural variations but that the long term trend is up.

                So you guys have not shown why any of that is incorrect. When looked in context we have had 2 back to back la ninas that normally cool the planet, but we have not cooled. Their is evidence that warming is going into the deeper oceans. The ocean is rising at twice the rate than the longer term average, the ocean is becoming more acidic, the Arctic is melting to record levels, weather trends are all heading in the direction suggestive of AGW. Anecdotally extreme weather such as floods and heatwaves seem to be breaking records regularly and much more. To ignore all that seems unethical and immoral to me. The chances that the majority of the science is right is to strong.


                Report this

                09

              • #
                Heywood

                So your verbose response basically says in three long paragraphs what I acknowledged in one line when I said that few skeptics deny that there has been warming across the instrumental record.

                You claim it is a cherry pick, but this argument is a straw man.

                The point is that the negative (albiet statistically insignificant) trend lines in the graph I linked to above continue to get longer, whilst atmospheric CO2 steadily increases. You don’t need peer reviewed papers to see the disconnect.


                Report this

                60

              • #
                AndyG55

                And as the global temperature continues to drop over the next several years.. your rants will get even more meaningless.

                And we will continue to laugh at your feeble efforts.


                Report this

                60

              • #
                Backslider

                We were in a natural global cooling trend until industrialisation caused warming started to kick in.

                So again you assert that we were pulled out of the LIA by industrialization.

                Ok, so where is the peer reviewed science for that hogwash?

                Do you yet have an answer as to why it warmed before the LIA?… warmer than today and warm enough for the Vikings to settle Greenland?


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Michael

                The point is that the negative (albiet statistically insignificant) trend lines in the graph I linked to above continue to get longer, whilst atmospheric CO2 steadily increases.

                Like I have pointed out a thousand times, only from your cherry picking, which will always find a negative trend except in the case of the year after a new record (probably the next el nino affected year, the last equal hottest year being 2010 the last el nino affected year). But the following year you will point to a new downward trend of one year, or go back as many years as necessary to try to claim an insignificant trend etc. So basically you still don’t get it. You don’t trawl through the dates chopping and changing part years etc like 1997.33 and 2000.8 (so sad that you cannot see how ridiculous that is) while you attempt to prove your confirmation bias by manipulating graphs.

                Again if you look at the whole instrumental record it is warming, if you look at the 30 year as recommended by the WMO as the minimum or if you look at on decadel trend timescales the warming is proven and is continuing. If you look at the years 2001 to 2010 you get the hottest decade on every continent for at least the industrial record and possibly 2000 years according to recent research. You also get 2011 and 2012 as the hottest la nina affected years on record (looking at the data in context) and when you look at the whole instrumental record you see many so called pauses and dips due to natural variations but the trend always continues up. There is nothing to suggest that will not/is happening here. In fact most of the evidence suggest that it is. Then if you look at all the science such as ocean warming, acidifying, rising, arctic melting, increasing extreme weather, increasing trends in hot day and hot nights etc it is clear that nothing has changed at all.

                It is only desperation from the pro fossil fuel profits industry that is running around like headless chooks trying to ignore the evidence and the consequences already occurring and cherry picking ad nauseum to prove their bias.


                Report this

                010

              • #
                Michael

                And as the global temperature continues to drop over the next several years.

                Blatant lie, there is no drop. We are at the top of a warming trend (call it a pause if it makes you feel safer) but 2010 was the hottest year and 2011 and 2012 are the hottest la nina affected years. To say temps have dropped is blatantly not true.

                “The decade 2001-2010 was the warmest since records began in 1850, with global land and sea surface temperatures estimated at 0.46°C above the long-term average (1961-1990) of 14.0°C. Nine of these years were among the ten warmest on record. The warmest year on record was 2010, closely followed by 2005, with a mean temperature estimated at 0.53°C above the long-term average. It was the warmest decade ever recorded for global land surface, sea surface and for every continent. ” http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_943_en.html


                Report this

                08

              • #
                Michael

                Latest NOAA report

                “June was one of the hottest such months on record globally, based on newly released data from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The month extended the unbroken string of warmer-than-average months to 340, or a stretch of more than 28 years. That means that no one under the age of 28 has ever experienced a month in which global average temperatures were cooler than average (based on the 20th century average).”
                http://www.climatecentral.org/news/june-extends-globes-warm-streak-to-340-months-16258


                Report this

                08

              • #
                Ian

                It was significant from 1971 to 2010 because the early 1970s were a cooling period. Cherry picking? Not you Michael, you wouldn’t do that would you?


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Heywood

                Ha ha.

                You completely miss my point. Again.

                Keep repeating your crap though. I’m happy to be waisting your Sunday..


                Report this

                40

              • #
            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              ‘Don’t answer there has been global warming’ of course there has! And don’t you tell me how to answer questions!

              ‘there are many factors other than CO2 that impact on global temperature’ such as

              ‘Nearer our own time, the coming and going of the ice ages that have gripped the planet in the past two million years were probably triggered by fractional changes in solar heating (caused by wobbles in the planet’s orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles’.

              http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html

              @Ian
              July 20, 2013 at 3:05 pm

              Which of course are not a factor presently! But that is the ENSO!

              AGU, Richard Alley, ‘I’ve just showed you warming has continued’.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5sxBSa6Tck

              And watch the longer original, link in the description.


              Report this

              112

      • #
        Other_Andy

        There you are….

        Still waiting for those two simple questions to be answered from:

        http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/try-to-keep-up-with-australian-politics-the-zombie-parliament-may-rise-again-is-that-a-tax-a-trade-or-an-army-i-see/#comment-1297611

        1. If increased CO2 causes Global Warming as the computer models predict, why hasn’t it been warming for the last 18-23 years?
        2. How can Global Warming cause ‘Extreme Weather’ as there has been no Global Warming for the last 18-23 years?

        Thanks in advance.


        Report this

        160

        • #
          Heywood

          He can’t answer. Searching for your question on YouTube didn’t return any results.

          Funny, he measures success on this blog by the number of YouTube views he gets. It’s obvious he is just fishing for views for his and his boyfriends YouTube channels.

          Also amusing that he doesn’t realise that the videos can be accessed from places other than this blog, but counts views as bloggers here giving a shit. He should know that staunch warmists seek out these videos to jerk off to as it reinforces their own bias.

          Can we trust climate models? ?? Data says no.


          Report this

          130

        • #
          Michael

          Still waiting for those two simple questions to be answered from:

          I answered them ages ago, you should go and check before repeating yourself. Anyway I will repeat myself for your benefit.

          To answer your 2 very simple questions. Your whole premise is incorrect. There has been warming for 250 years. (1.5 degc and 0.8 deg c in the last 50 years according to the peer reviewed Berkely study.

          There is a definate warming trend from UAH, RSS and GISS for 13 years.

          and from 32 years it is huge!!!

          But lets stop the simplistic non scientific cherry picking games and look at the whole instrumental record.
          http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

          When looking at a trend in data you do not play with dates until you find a period that fits your confirmation bias. What you do is look at all the data you have. So whether it is satellite or land based temps, when you look at all the data available the conclusion of warming is clear. Weather will not change immediately but as we sustain these high temperatures things like , atmospheric warming, Arctic melting, glacier melting, ocean temps (peer reviewed science says heating has occurred and is going deeper), sea level and much more will affect climate more and more.

          Also Kevin is not puzzled, you have taken his comments out of context, your comment is old, and he has explained what is happening.


          Report this

          011

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Can we trust climate models?

        No, because:
        a) The models themselves have not been placed into the public domain;
        b) The assumptions used for control parameters have never been placed in the public domain;
        c) The input data has never been placed in the public domain;
        d) The computed output of the models has never been placed in the public domain.

        All we have, in the public domain, are statements about the conclusions, and a bunch of “predictions” that have proven, over time, to have been completely wrong, or in the best cases, wildly inaccurate.

        It is just like George W. Bush saying, “You will just have to take my word for it”.

        If the modelling was trustworthy, they would fully publish the four items listed above. If they published, and the large number of professional modellers, who are not climate scientists, could review them, and find an example of “best practice”, then, and only then, can we trust the models.


        Report this

        161

        • #
          blackadderthe4th

          ‘d) The computed output of the models has never been placed in the public domain.’ this is just a so ridiculous a statement that I cannot take you with any credibility! After all you AGW anti-science mafia are always casting misplaced doubt on the forecasts?


          Report this

          129

          • #
            Heywood

            So no problem with statements a, b and c then?

            If you cant analyse the method, the output is not credible.

            It really isn’t that hard to understand, well, for you I maybe.


            Report this

            120

          • #
            Heywood

            ..and the question that should be asked us ‘can we trust YouTube videos posted by an anonymous troll?’


            Report this

            140

            • #
              Yonniestone

              As the “AGW anti science mafia” maybe we should make him a forecast he can’t refuse.


              Report this

              120

            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              ‘posted by an anonymous troll?’ here Heywood your pretty clever for a cat, working a computer and all! Hahahahah…….!


              Report this

              123

              • #

                Go back to Facebook Blackfodder. We’re wasting far too much time on you.


                Report this

                60

              • #
                Ian

                Your grammar is crap and makes you look more of a dolt than ever. This comment of yours reads ‘posted by an anonymous troll?’ here Heywood your pretty clever for a cat… It should read ‘posted by an anonymous troll?’ here Heywood you’re pretty clever for a cat… Only a minor point but then you’re very familiar with those as is shown by your replies (note the correct use of you’re and your–it’s quite easy if you try}. Incidentally did you read the paper by Lassen and Thejll from the Danish Meteorological Institute inwhich they suggest arctic ic extent may be significantly influenced by the sun’s cycles


                Report this

                30

            • #
              AndyG55

              Yes Heywood.. you can trust them..

              to be a load of CRAP !!

              I looked at one of them for 10 seconds, and it was a nothing video, a pointless rant from a puerile pre-adolescent.

              Did not even bother looking at any of the others.


              Report this

              50

              • #
                Heywood

                Even that 10 seconds counts as a view and gives blackdickheadthe4th a raging hard on.

                It’s obvious he is just here to troll and increase his view count on You Tube. Michael has just posted a couple on another thread, it is only a matter of time before BA4 makes an appearance. They tend to turn up nearly the same time every day.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                AndyG55

                “They tend to turn up nearly the same time every day.”

                That’ll be when Mummy lets them have their computer time.


                Report this

                70

              • #
                Heywood

                Picked it like a dirty nose!!! Michael winds up his comments and blackbladderthe4th appears.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Michael

                Picked it like a dirty nose

                Lol, must be a global conspiracy from the UN, quick get our tin foil hats…

                Pray tell, even if true, why? I am free to post, have not been blocked etc. As if I don’t spend enough time responding to posts :-) now there is 2 of me?


                Report this

                011

              • #
                Heywood

                Actually never said you were the same person, merely pointed out that you were generally here at the same time.

                But feel free to misrepresent what I said, it isn’t the first time.


                Report this

                30

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Ah, but the forecasts are not the same thing as the computed output of the models.

            The output of any model is just tables of numbers, with trends, and degrees of variation. This output has to be translated into English (or French or Swahili or whatever) to make a forecast for people-consumption.

            The way the models actually undertake the calculations is somewhat suspect – they are probably Fourier Analyses, but without knowing the parameters we are not sure.

            But the bigger question – the area that is most suspect – is way the output of the models are interpreted to produce the conclusions presented in the forecasts. Here, I am being generous, in assuming that some form of scientific interpretation takes place.

            I might equally assume that the models are all snake-oil and flashing lights to bemuse the punters, and the “forecasts” might be pure political spin that presents a message on behalf of the politicians, that allows them to increase the level of taxation to “fight this massive problem”. After all, the politicians, and the NGO activists, stand to make money if they claim to be trying to solve the problem portrayed in the forecasts. And there are lots of Public Servants, whose jobs depend on there being something to worry about.

            I guess I am concerned that, because the actual workings of the climate change research are not publicly accessible for scrutiny, somebody may be ripping off the system. If they are not, then why not publish the models and provide the data? There are lots of Engineers who could verify that nothing was untoward.

            But the workings are not published, and all requests are not only denied, but vehemently refused. It has got to make you think, don’t you agree?


            Report this

            160

        • #

          @ Rereko 1.1.3. Exactly. The inference being that were they placed in the public domain they would not stand open scrutiny. In the recent past I remember those who stated with utmost certainty that the sun had no part to play in climatic shifts. That sort of bloody minded subjective dogmatism incorporated into any statistical model would surely render it next to useless. Surely an absolute pre-requisite of any scientific endeavor is open minded inquisitiveness. Models are used by partisan political scientists to give a veneer of credibility and gravitas to their faux science IMHO. There, I said it.


          Report this

          70

          • #
            John Brookes

            In the recent past I remember those who stated with utmost certainty that the sun had no part to play in climatic shifts.

            But they were climate “skeptics”, no? Because climate scientists always realised that the sun mattered.


            Report this

            011

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              … climate scientists always realised that the sun mattered.

              Nice try, but not true, John.

              You have it base over apex.

              At every Government-level presentation I have attended, on the subject of climate change, the possibility of variations in the suns output is rarely mentioned.

              When questioned, by the more sceptical members of the audience, the presenters will admit that the models do not consider the actual variations in solar activity, arguing that, over the time-scales that the models “consider”, assessing an annual amount of solar input is sufficient.

              From my cynical point of view, I can understand that.

              It is obviouosly convenient to have annualised “constant” values, that represent the solar input, since it makes the calculations much simpler, and individual values can be adjusted to better align the output of the models, with expectations.


              Report this

              60

      • #
        Grant (NZ)

        Answer this one question…

        Consider the atmosphere above an actively growing crop. During the day the plants take in CO2 and give off O2. The CO2 concentration can reduce to levels below 100ppm. (at some times the limit to growth of plants is a lack of C02). At night the plants respire and emit CO2 to the point where the concentration reaches 1200ppm. The hottest time of the day coincides with the lowest concentration of CO2 while the coldest time of the day coincides with the highest concentration of CO2.

        Now Blackadderthe4th, you explain the greenhouse effect while keeping your explanation consistent with empirical observations.


        Report this

        100

        • #
          AndyG55

          Also consider adiabatic inversions, where the CO2 level below the inversion can get up to around 3000ppm, but the air stays cold and inverted until the Sun’s energy reaches the ground and warms it and the air below the inversion enough to create the normal adiabatic temperature gradient.


          Report this

          60

      • #
        Neville

        Blackadder, you are really, really getting most thoroughly on peoples’ wick! Well, I suppose I should speak only for myself, but I suspect there’d be PLENTY of others who are completely tired of your shenanigans. You clearly haven’t read, or you’ve possibly ignored, my previous advice.

        What exactly IS your rationale? Is is “argumentum ad youtubeum”? Is it that you think that by bombarding people with irrelevant clips, then they’ll all roll over and let you pat their collective tummies?

        Again, I advise you very seriously, go and acquire some real scientific education – then perhaps you will be able to understand what the (actual) science is telling us – and you, should you simply open your eyes a little. That’s to say, instead of your usual penchant for singing the hymn of the day from the warmist hymn-book, and sedulously attempting to convince real people that black is white, cold is hot, and CO2 is responsible for all our woes; but the great god AGW must be appeased.

        I suppose we should all salute you as a troll of the first water, but we won’t; you’re getting very tiresome.


        Report this

        50

    • #
      thojak

      R.W.: I seldom comment here on JoNova, however ‘lurking’ every start-up of the computer/internet and over the years, I’ve got to wonder/query about which country in the world is the misled in terms of the non-question ‘cAGW’. I don’t know which is ‘leading’ the brainwash-race, but certainly Australia and Sweden (‘my’ country) are at the front of 1st place, competing v e r y nose-to-nose at ‘winning’… ;)

      Last year, our local regional ‘government’ (hah!) decreed, that there have to be a minimum of 3,6 meters above MSL for s.c. ‘zero-level’ for permit of new-building of houses. My Gosh! 3,6 mtrs plus will eradicate 2/3 of the community where I live (lucky the houses are already built + there as-is). This rule has, of course, devastating consequencies for people living on (i.e.) islands, as this, where I live, Tjörn.

      Looking thru the ‘basis’ for these regulations, there is found to be ‘a ensemble run of [climate] models’ biased from the ‘SMHI’ – that is the Swedish ‘MetOffice’ – and the ‘scientists’ (hah!) behind this ‘report’ are mr Markku Rummukainen and Hans Bergström. Be very aware of these persons!!!

      Funny (not!) is at checking out this ‘ordial’ via talks to more/higher-ups people, one who was member of the ‘working-group’ whom I talked with said, that this query should (in his mind) be settled at local level, but, as he said, didn’t really know… (But he/they surely know how to write rules!!!)

      As for the ‘competition’, I think we here in Sweden are most screwed/brainwashed (yet believing we’re the consius of the World!) and Australia is a very close runner-up-contender.

      Pls. check out the relations between Will Steffen and Johan Rockström of ‘SEI’… The Hydras tentacles are all over… Sigh!

      Cheers from the BestCoast of Sweden!
      //TJ


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Any idiot can give away someone else’s money.

    Classic populist tactic designed to suck in the gullible vote – always ends in tears.

    Unfortunately, the gullible never learn nor understand why they are usually the ones to suffer in the end.


    Report this

    111

  • #
    Herr Majuscule

    Kevin Rudds’ foreign allegiances.

    At its 1962 Congress in Oslo, Norway, the Socialist International plainly declared:
    .
    The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government…. Membership of the United Nations must be made universal.
    .
    The SI has never wavered from that goal, though it has softened its rhetoric, adopting the mushier, less threatening term “global governance” to replace its earlier appeals to “world government.” This is important to keep in mind, since current and former Prime Ministers and Presidents who are members of the SI comprise a large and influential contingent of world leaders who figure prominently at global and regional summits. Currently, the Socialist International boasts 170 political parties and organizations worldwide, including many that are currently in power running national governments.
    .
    Prominent SI member parties include:
    .
    • Britain’s Labour Party (Gordon Brown, Prime Minister),
    .
    • Australia’s Labour Party (Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister),
    .
    • South Africa’s African National Congress (Jacob Zuma, President),
    .
    • Spain’s Socialist Workers’ Party (Jose Zapatero, President),
    .
    • Nicaragua’s Sandinista Liberation Front (Daniel Ortega, President),
    .
    • Namibia’s South West Africa People’s Organization (Hifikepunye Lucas Pohamba, President),
    .
    • Chile’s Socialist Party (Michelle Bachelet, President), and
    .
    • Egypt’s National Democratic Party (Hosni Mubarak, President).
    .
    These and other SI member parties and their leaders have been fairly open in their calls for “global governance” to address what they claim are “global crises” that cannot be addressed (they say) in the current system of sovereign nation states. As The New American has reported, Prime Ministers Gordon Brown and Kevin Rudd have been especially outspoken, with hysterical pronouncements on the supposed need for UN governance to stave off supposed catastrophic global warming. In a speech this past November, Prime Minister Rudd denounced global-warming skeptics — including respected scientists and politicians — as evil “climate-change deniers,” who are “dangerous” and are “holding the world to ransom.”
    .
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/8534-the-grasp-of-socialist-international


    Report this

    40

  • #

    M’lud Edmund,

    Wherefore art thou? A young trollboy pretender to thine throne, calling themselves BlackAdderTheFart, seeks to traduce your honoured name. Yet another ignorant and vain creature struts upon a little rock. Fly up and teach him manners.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvECtlJQ4dU

    Pointman


    Report this

    110

  • #
    pat

    20 July: SMH: Peter Hannam: Confusion reigns in carbon debacle
    After another week of heated debate over carbon, many investors, businesses and voters probably wish policy making could approach the certainty held by climate scientists.
    ”We know climate change changes everything,” said David Jones, head of climate monitoring at the Bureau of Meteorology, after another unusual spell of warm weather gave Melbourne its highest July maximum in more than 150 years of records, while Sydney notched five straight days of 20-plus temperatures for the first time in 85 years. (Saturday’s Sydney forecast of 21 degrees maximum would set a record stretch if realised.)
    ”It changes the humidity, it changes the temperature, it changes the wind, it changes the pressure patterns, it changes the sea-surface temperatures,” Jones said. ”In Australia, it’s just a case that the whole distribution of temperature is now moving to a higher level.”…
    Frank Jotzo, director of ANU’s Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, had been considering updating a paper on ”Policy uncertainty about Australia’s carbon price” published last year, but decided the effort would be pointless given the latest policy revision.
    Associate Professor Jotzo co-authored the report, which surveyed 76 carbon specialists. ”Really the defining feature we got from these responses was confusion,” he said…
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/confusion-reigns-in-carbon-debacle-20130719-2q9wj.html

    20 July: Age: Adam Morton/Nick Miller: The truth about carbon
    There is no one answer, but it is worth noting that an overwhelming weight of economic institutions and investigations – including from the OECD, World Bank and, in Australia, the economically dry Productivity Commission and economic advisers to both sides of politics – agree that emissions trading must be at least part of the answer.
    http://www.theage.com.au/world/the-truth-about-carbon-20130719-2q9ur.html


    Report this

    11

    • #
      bobl

      Aha,
      So we do have weather in Australia after all!

      If you want to deal with carbon dioxide plant trees, that’s a safe and productive bet that at least does no harm – ANYTHING ELSE is a disaster waiting to happen. I only support feeding CO2 to plants.


      Report this

      60

  • #

    Joanne’s main Thread above (which has been typically hijacked by the child who thinks it has found an audience for its puerile Youtube inanity) hides within it the big Labor con.

    All the coal fired power and all the natural gas fired power that is generated has the Tax on CO2 added to it. That tax is added in the form of a cost for every ton of CO2 that is being emitted. The plant’s operators pay that tax, which, no matter what people say, is just that, a tax, a user pays tax.

    Now every single cent of that tax is passed down to consumers, calculated, and added to the wholesale price for ALL the electricity that the plant has generated.

    Retailers then purchase all that electricity, add on the extras and then sell it to ALL consumers of electrical power.

    In its wonderful TV ad campaign, composed by people absolutely clueless as to electricity consumption, people advised by Labor hacks who are absolutely clueless as to electricity consumption, hacks directed by Labor politicians who know even less about electricity consumption than the two previously mentioned groups, they all then mentioned (very brilliantly they all thought as the patted each other on the back) that those in the community who are disadvantaged (hint – vote for us because see how much free money we have given you) will get compensation for the increased electricity costs they have to pay, with the hint that you could save even more if you used that electricity more judiciously, say perhaps get some of those curly wirly twirly bulbs.

    Now let’s see really how they have conned you.

    Note I said that the full cost is passed down directly to every consumer of electrical power.

    The compensation is paid to a large sector of the community, as the campaign so effectively stated.

    Electricity is consumed in three sectors, the Residential, Commerce and Industrial Sectors.

    The Residential sector consumes only 24% of the total electrical power that is generated.

    Now, as we have all been subliminally led to believe, some of us are being compensated.

    That could be as high as 75% of us in fact.

    However, that 75% receiving compensation are getting that compensation directly related to their power bills.

    Their Residential power bills.

    So, there is 75% compensation attached to only 24% of electricity, or 18% of all the electricity being generated.

    18%

    So the Government is raking in that huge amount of money, and giving some of back to only 18% of all consumption.

    Oh, and on those increased electricity bills, err, don’t forget to add on the GST component as well.

    And if you think you power bill is high, multiply that by at least a thousand for each Coles or Woolies supermarket, and don’t ever tell me that out of altruism, they won’t recover that extra increase in their overheads, and the same goes for every Commercial and Industrial consumer who uses electricity, all passed down directly to every person.

    Don’t ever allow yourself to be conned that only the polluters pay this TAX, because every single cent of it is passed down directly to every single consumer of electrical power.

    But hey, don’t worry. You get compensated for it, well, some of us anyway.

    These Labor rissoles are laughing all the way to the bank.

    Tony.

    POST SCRIPT: Oh, and changing to those twirly wirly curly bulbs will save you 1.5% of your power bill, or around, umm, 7 cents a day, or $25 a year, so if you change every bulb in your home, then you should start to see that huge saving kick in after two or three years, provided you purchase only the more expensive brand name bulbs that is, because the generics burn out just as regularly as the incandescent bulbs you replaced them with in the first place, and don’t tell me I’m lying, I’ve had 4 of them fail in the last five years, and one of them didn’t even work from purchase, and being an electrically trained person, I only got the name brand bulbs. I wouldn’t go near the generics with someone else’s money.


    Report this

    180

    • #

      And now, as that above slowly sinks in, that’s just from the electricity generating sector, which makes up around 45% of all CO2 emissions.

      Now think of all those other emitting entities who now pay the added extra for every ton of CO2 that they also emit.

      Now think of all those Natural Gas consumers, and, umm yes, that’s all you people on bottled gas or town gas, as well as the electricity supplied to your homes. Natural Gas is costed at the CO2 price multiplied by 21. It is directly charged to all distributors, who pass that extra cost directly down to all consumers.

      Now think of all distributors of all gases, also with their own multipliers, also passed directly down to all consumers.

      Now think of all importers and distributors of refrigerant gases who pay sometimes as much as CO2 cost multiplied by 3800+.

      Think of the sometimes trace gas Sulfur Hexafluoride costed at CO2 multiplied by 23,900, and even the tiniest amount means a huge windfall for the Government.

      None of the above are compensated, and while the emitters and distributors pay, (the same as for the power plant operators) they are just the middlemen who must keep all those meticulous records, a now added extra cost, also passed on to all consumers, because after all this TAX is something we as consumers pay, send the money to the retailer, who then forwards it to the source, who then forwards it on to the Government.

      Oh, and don’t forget the added GST on all of the above.

      None of this actually lowers emissions, be they CO2 or any other of the 24 gases.

      It’s just an enormous money churn that the Government just rakes in. These people make Scrooge McDuck look like Snow White.

      So then, the compensation comes in at 75% of 24% of 45% of the total take, or 8.1% of the whole take, and that percentage is based just on CO2. As part of the overall is Equivalent gases, that compensation could be as low as 4%.

      Magnanimous bastards.

      Tony.

      POST SCRIPT: Link to an image of the chart from the Government Legislation showing Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Gases


      Report this

      121

      • #
        Mark D.

        Tony it has sunk in. If I may offer some clarification.

        You said:

        The plant’s operators pay that tax, which, no matter what people say, is just that, a tax, a user pays tax.

        and then:

        ….middlemen who must keep all those meticulous records, a now added extra cost, also passed on to all consumers, because after all this TAX is something we as consumers pay, send the money to the retailer, who then forwards it to the source, who then forwards it on to the Government.

        EXACTLY RIGHT!! The end consumer pays the tax always. It is built into the generating plants operating expense. The end consumer pays that tax via higher cost electricity.

        Feckin bastard; anyone that doesn’t believe/know/understand that simple reality.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        pattoh

        Tony

        With respect to the multiplier of 21 for natural gas (as methane) surely that would be for vented or lost CH4 or does that multiplier apply to combusted CH4 + O2 > H2O + CO2?


        Report this

        50

        • #

          It applies to the retailers. For all the gas they purchase from any of the gas source suppliers, that TAX, the CO2 X 21 is added to every mcf (thousand cubic feet) of gas that they purchase, a cost then passed down to all residential gas consumers and all others who consume Natural gas.

          Same same for refrigerant gases as well. The retailer is charged the price of the gas and then the CO2 multiplier is also added, costed per KG, and the price list shown at this link for only four of the more commonly used refrigerant gases, so a typical industrial large gas bottle for R404A containing 50KG, then the government’s take comes in at $3,750 ….. per bottle. Oh, plus GST as well.

          Tony.


          Report this

          90

          • #
            pattoh

            Ah well its a good thing we still have the odd source of Biomass(not termite habitat ) to burn to keep us warm out in the bush. I’ll have to move back to Qld if the gubmen put the fiscal fiend on that too.


            Report this

            30

      • #

        Tony, my God what a rort!. I sincerely hope you people vote these gangsters out later on this year. I have a bit of a theory that goes like this. Bad governments hide behind excessive revenue. It buys them respite. Since the general population have no appetite for further state demands on their funds the state has had to come with creative ways of sucking that revenue out of somewhere. The commercial and industrial sectors are easy pickings since they are an amorphous non voting entity. They can be attacked, demonized and isolated. Particularly on the back of a fraudulent environmental emergency which somehow can magically be averted with great big wads of cash. They can be bled just enough to stay viable yet static. This is the new socialism and its happening everywhere. The problem is, too many people are thick and won’t see the sleight of hand card trick. Industry isn’t and will simply pass on any extra costs as you have outlined in your post. Politicians have always been salesmen. Of late the product they are selling is shoddy and grubby and far too expensive.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      bobl

      Tony.

      I think you should also have noted that our Carbon tax is NOT a tax on CO2 it is simply an electricity tax because it is levied on all electricity regardless of it’s source. If I could purchase say hydro-power without the tax at its nominal price ex of carbon tax then maybe it’d be a Carbon Tax, but I can’t and so its not. The Electricity tax is just like fuel excise, an excuse to tax an inflexible good (Great way to steal money from the masses) – but a lousy way to stimulate an economy.

      PS On the twirly bulbs, yes you are right though the LED bulbs now being released are great to help get consumption under the generation of your rooftop solar system so the B***ds have to pay YOU! Just need to get the fridge off the grid to get there now!


      Report this

      60

      • #

        bobl,

        As an aside, and in reference to all those rooftop solar systems, just imagine when the power cuts start kicking in after those really old and unreplaced super plants shut down with nothing to replace them.

        As those power rationing, brownouts, blackouts, kick in, all those grid connected rooftop systems stop delivering their power, because as mandated by law, grid connected systems cannot feed back to the grid during a blackout, so the Inverter is automatically turned off, so now power can be on the grid in case people are working on it. (Islanding) So now, with the Inverter turned off, not only is no power being fed back to the grid, but the home is also no getting any power either.

        I can see all those panel owners ringing up their panel retailers and, umm, very politely telling them that their rooftop panel system is not delivering any power to the home.

        Oh, the bitter irony! (Nyuk nyuk nyuk)

        Oh, and another point you mentioned. Has anybody heard those spruikers, or read in the blurb that comes with power bills, how, for an extra cost, you can have green power connected to your home.

        Hmm, so now the renewable power only green electrons from the grid know exactly which home to go to, eh!

        Hey, and isn’t it always for a little extra cost.

        Tony.


        Report this

        90

        • #
          bobl

          Eventually want to enable islanding mode once I get some batteries so I can have power when the grid doesn’t. Still for an extra $700 you can get a nice little genset for those times, cheaper than batteries anyway.

          I just think it’s ironic that they want us to buy green energy but I can’t actually buy those green electrons they are talking about. Gotta be something illegal about trading like that, fraud perhaps?


          Report this

          50

    • #
      cohenite

      Good post Tony. Since the government closed down the NGER list of companies and their emissions I have been wondering how to explain how the #@%&! carbon tax impacts on people. I shall bookmark your comment.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      John Brookes

      Tony, I think the savings from compact fluorescents come in a bit higher. There are 4 of them on in my house, each saving around 60W. They’ll be on for 5 hours, making 1.2kWh. At current prices that quite a bit more than $0.07 per day.

      I take your point about using brand names though. Ones that fail prematurely are really annoying – given that we know that they can be built to last.


      Report this

      52

      • #

        The idiotic and disingenuous ban on incandescent light bulbs costs us a packet and has markedly increased our use of electric lights. We are at the end of a long line, as are many people in the country, so our voltage is fluctuating. Curly bulbs and halogens dont cope well with this. So they last a short period of time and dont put out much light. So we have increased the number of light fittings by plugging in more standard halogen lamps and other portable fittngs in each room so we can see what we are doing.

        The bulbs are more expensive so now I have added another item in our accounts for light bulbs, which is heading toward $500 per year. Our electricity costs were about $2500 per year not long ago, and are now over $5000 a year and going up.

        Flourescent lights use a more power when they are turned on and off and work better when left on. The savings in compact flourescents are possibly calculated on leaving the things on, not turning them on and off and on and off, as they are actually used in real life. So am I supposed to leave the lights on to save energy? The nearest local electrician is 150 km round trip away and charged one of my neighbours toward $2000 to change not that many fittings in their place and is otherwise known for exorbitant charges as he has the market cornered (and probably has to pay his own electricity bills). Changing the whole place to LED is not really an option because of this.

        I managed to break one over the top of my head by accident trying to get it into a recalcitrant ceiling fitting so now I probably have mercury in my body to add to the benefits of having arthritis in my toes from stubbing them on furniture in the dim lights (compacts take ages to get bright enough to see what one is doing so when I walk into a room to get something and flick the switch I get to stumble around in the dark while I do it and then am usually leaving the room by the time the light is getting to useable levels).

        AAaarrggghhhh. I hate these petty daily religious observances and humiliations I am forced into by the new green religion I dont even believe in. I have to pay extra indulgences for my lights. I have to get up three times during the night (and use and cut more wood) because the stupid environmental laws mean my new wood heater cant be shut down to slow burn all night because it MIGHT make smoke and annoy the neighbours (the closest of which is 5 km away) and is fairly tamper proof for me to change it. I get health consequences from mercury from bulbs, and I am much poorer because of it – not to mention the production losses from the Native veg act. When my 1970s water heater needs replacing I will have to have a new stupid one that does not heat water so much – the new reverse cycle ones dont work properly here because the climate is too cold. – Do I sound annoyed?

        I believe from what I have seen that the forced implementation of the ban on incandescents has used vastly more energy in manufacture, and changing factories, and other costs than it will ever save. The reasons for bannig incandescents, like all “green” schemes, is power and influence and political control and not to “save the planet”.


        Report this

        31

        • #
          Grant (NZ)

          I hear you all the way. These “long life” bulbs just don’t cope with rural living. I have developed a habit of turning on the lights in a room and waiting outside for the lights to “warm up” before entering it, to avoid the need to wake the rest of the house up with my reaction to yet another foot stabbed by duplo left out by the kids. (The Army should use that stuff instead of mines – would inflict more casualties.)


          Report this

          21

    • #
      John Brookes

      And about the compensation…

      Firstly, we’ve had the carbon tax for a year now, and I’ve noticed very little change in the price of anything (except petrol, and that is exempt from the carbon tax for now). Surely if the impact on the cost of living was as big as you are implying, it would be showing up in the price of things?

      I can’t remember the exact figures, but most of the carbon tax collected was returned as compensation (as it should be). So you would expect a significant fraction of the population to be fully compensated. Basically anyone who is a low income earner/low power user will be more than fully compensated. Anyone who is a high income earner/high power user will not be fully compensated.


      Report this

      112

      • #

        Apparently Im not a significant fraction.
        Sheep farmers dont usually come under the concept of “high income earners” shepherds never have been known for that – our costs have increased to a significant portion of our household income and cost – like 10% of what we live on. ie $2500 a year and going up.

        I cant pass these costs on – farmers are price takers – we just have to get poorer or leave the land (and let it go back to bush just like the greenies want) – So we can basically get stuffed and get poor and go on the dole.

        But I forgot – I am a nasty wicked capitalist exploiter because I work my but off the get a high quality product on the market.
        Apparently I am supposed to be a poor victim dole bludger or public servant to be virtuous.


        Report this

        31

  • #
    pat

    TonyfromOz & others might like to read all the detail in here:

    19 July: ABC: Kathryn Diss: Carbon capture & storage plans have angered SW locals
    Tony Ferraro’s property is one of a dozens between Yarloop and Collie that the State Government wants to access to develop Western Australia’s first onshore carbon capture and storage project…
    Farmers are not the only ones uneasy about the idea.
    Greyhound trainer Frances Farrell moved to the region five years ago for the peace and quiet.
    “I honestly thought the carbon tax was to get companies to clean up things,” she said.
    “Not for the government to pump it into the ground ‘out of sight out of mind’, so no, I don’t want it on my property…
    “I refused entry, I said no way.
    “They didn’t have any answers, I got a list of questions, who knows what happens if it leaks into the groundwater…
    Ms Farrell is one of many landowners who have refused access for testing.
    ***The State Government has since moved to legislate the process by including it in the Petroleum and Geothermal Act of 1967 and the change is currently before Parliament.
    The act classifies land below the earth’s surface as belonging to the government therefore removing a landowners ‘right of veto’ or ability to refuse access to land.
    Landowners will be given 90 days to reach an agreement and if that doesn’t happen, the government can take the case to court.
    The region’s local MP, Liberal Murray Cowper, is fighting the proposed changes…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-19/carbon-capture-storage-feature/4832170


    Report this

    10

    • #
      ianl8888


      The act classifies land below the earth’s surface as belonging to the government therefore removing a landowners ‘right of veto’ or ability to refuse access to land

      Always been the case. Carr, when NSW Premier, proudly boasted that he owned the sub-surface clear through to the centre of the earth

      Of real import are the actual geological conditions into which the CO2 will be pumped for storage. I haven’t seen the geology report as yet, but have been promised it “soon”


      Report this

      40

    • #
      John Brookes

      To quote the Duke of Edinburgh speaking to a Rio Tinto executive who mentioned carbon capture & storage, “You’re not one of those nutters are you?”


      Report this

      16

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    OT (for something new).

    In praise of solar technology (advanced nuclear fusion technology), can we have a post dedicated to effective applications?

    e.g.

    - Clothes peg (co-exists with Wind technology)
    - Glass windows (home heating)
    - Firewood (via photosynthesis)
    - Food production
    - Atmospheric heating
    - Hydrocarbon production

    Other suggestions welcome


    Report this

    40

    • #
      bobl

      Love this idea practical home energy solutions

      My idea of Trigeneration – Skylight – Light, Heating and Vitamin D supplementation


      Report this

      20

    • #
      bobl

      Maybe even better, walk out the back door and sit outside


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Brian G Valentine

        And contemplate the end of civilisation. Wouldn’t it be pleasant to go back and live in trees, like out=r distant ancestors?


        Report this

        20

        • #
          bobl

          Dunno about that Brian, one does have to maintain perspective, I said nothing about returning to the trees (Planting some more maybe, and even sitting under some) but not living in them… However it is nice to contemplate the good things the world gives us, Coal/Uranium included.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Brian G Valentine

            Uranium, indeed, the principal source if geothermal heat (along with thorium and potassium-40).

            This now bring up another matter in my mind: the source of apparently asymmetric warming observed in the 1980′s – 1990′s.

            Of course this has been ascribed to CO2 in the air, and amounts to the entire argument for AGW because no other reasons have been positively identified. The geothermal gradient has been discounted as a source. Yet plate tectonic activity is certainly a source of the geothermal gradient, and is not constant, and it is not at all evident to me that this was not a contributing factor to any perceived or observed warming. I think this and variable solar activity account for the whole of the anomaly

            sorry for rambling here


            Report this

            20

    • #
      bobl

      Even More Low energy solutions

      Legs
      The Wheel
      Bicycle (for transport)

      Dirt and Poo
      Chickens
      A Cow
      The Fishing rod
      Rain (for food)

      Trees (airconditioning certain species create great microclimates)
      Jumper/Blanket

      A Ti Tree in the backyard – The cure to almost everything

      Fire – Mans oldest invention

      Gravity is kinda handy here and there

      And

      The Diesel generator – for those little luxuries


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      Good point.

      Sunshine make people happy.

      Evidently it makes some people euphoric, and lose their common sense, and and delude themselves into thinking

      - Maybe I can power my automobile with this
      - Everybody ought to power their automobile with this, why doesn’t the Government make people power their car with this?
      - For that matter, why don’t people power every thing with this?
      - Maybe people can win political elections by spreading the word
      - It is necessary to invent reasons why people should use this energy source alone, otherwise they will gravitate toward saner alternatives
      - Alternatives to this energy source kill people. They will drown them, parch them, prevent life on Earth
      - Invent names and pejoratives for people who deny this


      Report this

      30

  • #
    pat

    ianl8888 -
    hope u will publish the geo report when u do get it.

    it did appear necessary to amend the Act to include this specific process. after all, govt will not be extracting, but injecting??


    Report this

    30

    • #
      ianl8888

      I’ll comment on the report when I finally receive it. Unlikely I can fully publish it, Govts very much like to suppress hard, reliable technical information

      No, the State Govts own the sub-surface and contained minerals (exceptions are the two Territories and sub-marine land beyond low tide mark to the international marine boundaries – the Feds own this). Interestingly, I have never been able to ascertain with any reliability where the “sub-surface” actually starts (1m down, 10m ?? etc) … this may never have been tested in a court, I suspect

      The WA amendment was to set the 60 day limit to landowners holding out. There is no statutory limit to holdout for private exploration, only political pressure on the relevant Minister to actually make a decision (I have been involved with quite a few cases where the Minister resolutely refused to make any decision, yea even unto the next election)


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Michael

    THE Rudd government has banked massive overcompensation into the federal budget for at least the next six years

    So finally we all admit that most people were overcompensated and that the impact was way less than all the anti carbon tax alarmism? Good.

    The next point then is that the libs have also said they will keep the overcompensation, while removing any tax at all and adding a big expensive and ineffective direct action policy. Add to this their new and unneccesary rich mans parental leave scheme and it is clear that the libs do not just have a money tree they have a whole money forrest.


    Report this

    111

  • #
    Heywood

    Overcompensated??

    Impact way less??

    Tell that to my power bill you hypocritical wanker!!

    Obviously you don’t run a small business.

    For someone that supposedly visited 32 countries in a year you must have the carbon footprint of a small country, and you have the gall to come on this blog and lecture us??


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Michael

      Mostly blame your state government. The carbon tax only represents 5 to 10% of the increase.

      Also personal attacks don’t prove anything, you don’t know who I am and how I live, stick to the facts. FYI I travelled quite carbon low, 3 months in europe for instance on the trains using a eurail pass and staying in backpackers. No taxis, just public transport and walking to get around. Shared room with just a bed and shared common areas and kitchens. Probably a lower carbon footprint than living at home in my house and driving a car everywhere.

      “By far the largest contributor to the increasing prices over the past six years has been network costs. Network costs represent between 45% and 55% of a typical electricity bill, and it is this component has increased the most aggressively (see the graph below from the Productivity Commission). In NSW, network costs accounted for 80% of the price increase in 2010-11 and 50% of price rises in 2011-12…”

      “…Over the last six years, most of these “regulatory determinations” have been authorised by state-based regulators. And those that weren’t, were authorised by the Australian Energy Regulator (AER), an independent statutory authority”https://theconversation.com/factcheck-have-power-prices-gone-up-94-under-labor-15701?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+15+July+2013&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+15+July+2013+CID_6778423eb53b1c96bebaf8464b900b6c&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=act%20check%20a%20coalition%20claim


      Report this

      19

      • #
        Heywood

        “The carbon tax only represents 5 to 10% of the increase.”

        Actually 11.5% according to my provider, and “green scheme” levies used to pay for my neighbours solar farming FITs. Extra network costs related to interfacing intermittent power sources such as solar and wind are also included. It’s more than just the carbon tax.

        “FYI I travelled quite carbon low”

        How did you get there, paddle?


        Report this

        61

      • #
        Dave

        Michael,

        You’re full [snip - crass], nothing else.

        All you do is sprout how wonderful your carbon footprint is:
        1. I traveled to 32 countries last year.
        2. I travel on trains, not taxis or I walk.
        3. I stay in back packer joints.
        4. I share my room and kitchen and common areas.
        5. etc etc etc

        Then you finish with this:

        Probably a lower carbon footprint than living at home in my house and driving a car everywhere

        So Phacken what, you’re in Europe, when you could do everything on the internet at home with a lot cheaper carbon footprint. Leaving a house back here, you’re so full of it.

        A Green Vandal who travels the world yelling his carbon footprint is so low it’s better than being here. Your LCA would be a nightmare compared to the average Australian, in fact you are probably the parasite that increases the CO2 and then blames everyone else for it to gain the dough to live. Fruitloop. And so you take your children and your children’s children, or do you just leave them at home.

        Michael Rudd, egotistical maniac, braggart and fool all in one. Oh! And trying to build a reputation as the world’s biggest supplier of quotes of peer reviewed papers to rival BlackMinus3 on YouTube.

        You’re worse than Adam Smith. The average Australian is not impressed with your “I KNOW EVERYTHING ATTITUDE”.


        Report this

        51

        • #
          Heywood

          Well said Dave..

          Aahhhh The Dr Smith comittee. I haven’t heard that name for a while. Many many similarities, although Michael Rudd ( lol) has better scripts.


          Report this

          51

        • #
          Michael

          Wow, hit a nerve, did I? Sure probably a bad year, but I am not a greenie and never said I was, just a realist. I travelled to see the world before it becomes to difficult to and see all the things I have only ever read about. From where I stand the world is likely to leave it to late to avoid unnecessary hardship and suffering. I have seen how far many glaciers have receded, I have seen and talked about the changes in climate for myself from people who know what they are talking about and get a whole world perspective. At best I think that eventually we will see that we have left easy action to late and more harsh measures will kick in. Such as being much more expensive to travel due to increases in travelling costs to deter travelling and reduce emissions. There were signs of that when the EU tried to bring in a charge for airplanes from countries not shouldering their responsibilities. Other things will be the increasing changes in climate making it more difficult and more dangerous to travel, and not as much fun. Then there is the loss of some of the beautiful things we take for granted as glaciers melt, damage from extreme weather etc.

          So I travel now, unless there is some global significant action on reducing CO2′s what I do is not going to change anything. But even then I try to do it as low as possible, and at home have solar panels, low energy appliances etc. Basically we need to get all our power from renewable sources or everything else is window dressing.

          Yes I quote a lot of peer reviewed science, because there is a lot of it that points to the dangers and the reality of AGW. You guys hate it because it shows how little actual science you actually have. You guys focus on misrepresented cherry picks out of context, misquoting out of context, overemphasising the unknowns and over representing things like models as being all the science, when the science isn’t actually based on them. If you had more than that you would be able to present it instead of focussing on personal attacks and those minor misrepresentations.

          Sure its not perfect, no science is, but the evidence and the science point to a greater than 90% chance and that is more than enough to work towards mitigation and adaptation and encourage our governments to move to renewables sooner rather than later and more quickly.


          Report this

          010

          • #
            Brian G Valentine

            No one is paying a bit of attention to anything you have to say.


            Report this

            61

          • #
            Heywood

            “but I am not a greenie and never said I was,”

            Hmmm.

            You are in this blog butting in to peoples business throwing around pre prepared facts and figures and waving your hands around screaming “we have to save the planet”.

            You are the electronic equivalent of the Greenpeace dickheads in shopping malls who accost you pushing their agenda whilst you are just trying to do your shopping.

            Yes, you are a ‘greenie’.


            Report this

            50

            • #
              Michael

              throwing around pre prepared facts and figures

              Not pre prepared facts and figures, peer reviewed science. That is where all my information I post comes from, normally with the links.

              You are the electronic equivalent of the Greenpeace dickheads in shopping malls

              You still don’t get that your conspiracy/greenie/communist agenda nonsense is just that, nonsense. Designed to reduce the argument of anyone who does not subscribe to your view into one coming from a hidden agenda and bias. What you forget is that my view comes from the 99%+ of the peer reviewed science, scientists and global scientific organisations and has not specific agenda or political affiliation. It is just, the science. Your opinion blog science on the other hand is actually what has hidden agendas and biases based on ideology.


              Report this

              09

              • #
                Brian G Valentine

                That “AGW science” of yours is nothing but a pile of dog shit, can’t you see that? It was all cooked up to “explain” some N Hemispherical warming in the 80′s-90′s (and it is based on some highly spurious thermometry at that) –

                This “science” explains nothing else of the climactic period such as rain fall (at which it fails totally), fails at a posteriori modeling completely, and has made no accurate prediction of anything to date.

                If you can show us otherwise (you can’t) we”ll listen, otherwise, you can stuff it in the same place it came from


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Michael

                It was all cooked up to “explain” some N Hemispherical warming in the 80′s-90′s

                Been warming since industrialisation when we moved out of a global cooling trend and still at the hottest period on the industrial record now, despite natural cooling influences. Been proved ad nauseum over many decades. All the predictions are occurring.
                * Atmospheric warming, yep

                * first decade of the 21st century hottest on the instrumental record on EVERY continent.

                * anti science lobby persist in ignoring natural factors as that heat is despite back to back la ninas (that global CO2 is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases cause warming. It keeps our planet 30c warmer). Take the la ninas out and you have even more warming.

                * Ocean warming, yep

                * Sea levels rising, yep

                * Arctic melting faster than everywhere else (and still melting, record reached last year), yep

                * Globally ice volume falling, yep

                * Acidification in oceans increasing, yep

                * Extreme weather increasing, yep

                * day heat records beat cold records 3 to 1 and increasing

                * night heat records beat cold records 5 to 1

                * Observations show increased extreme precipitation by 7% for every degree increase in temps

                * Increase in storm surges, and some research is showing an increase in hurricane intensity
                etc


                Report this

                09

              • #
                Brian G Valentine

                You neglected to include a few important effect of it:

                - It makes my head ache to hear nonsense from punks spewing it
                - It makes me sick to my stomach
                - It makes my arse itch


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Ian

                Michael what you conveniently forget is that the journal editors and their boards don’t send out too many papers that are not completely in tune with the major (read government financed) view, for peer review. I’m sure you remember the emails from scientists at the UEA (Phil Jones et al) to other climate scientists stating that they all must ensure the editor of a journal that did send out sceptical literature and then did publish it lost his position. Surely you’ve read the dismissal of the climate sceptic Murray Salby by Macquarie University. Can you not see the connection between low levels of sceptical material in the peer reviewed literature and the need to keep government funding? Do you know how peer review works? I don’t think so


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Michael

                What a load of rubbish. It is actually you that are supporting a scientist mainly for his ideological views and not his actions. I don’t know where the truth is on Salby but you have automatically assumed he is innocent of any wrongdoing, when that may not be the case.

                “had previously been banned for three years from accessing US taxpayer-funded science research money.”
                http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-sacked-australian-university–banned-national-science-foundation

                There are low levels of ‘non skeptical’ material plainly because there is not a lot of science to support the ‘non skeptical’ side. All the actual science supports real skeptical scientists brave enough to accept what the science is telling us and trying to inform about the consequences of AGW. AGW is supported by science globally from every internationally recognised scientific organisation on every continent, across all forms of governments and including governments not friendly to AGW due to the heavy influence of the fossil fuel industry like canada. Your conspiracy claim is easily shown to be nonsense behind the weight of such evidence.

                “The list contains scientific organizations around the world that acknowledge the global impact of rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities. While many more organizations could likely be added, the list is limited to those that have either issued a singular statement of their own or signed in agreement to a collective statement regarding the anthropogenic impact of rising emissions on global climate and the global biosphere.
                All statements have been issued since 2001.
                At present, there are 171 organizations on the list that span all continents outside of Antarctica.”
                http://scentofpine.org/consensus/


                Report this

                07

              • #
                Backslider

                Been warming since industrialisation when we moved out of a global cooling trend

                And there you go again, suggesting that industrialization pulled us out of the LIA.

                WHERE IS your peer reviewed science for that, sonny.


                Report this

                30

          • #
            Dave

            Michael,

            Well said:

            So I travel now, unless there is some global significant action on reducing CO2′s what I do is not going to change anything.

            That alone sums up your whole attitude here.


            Report this

            50

            • #
              Heywood

              Good point.

              Essentially saying “I don’t have to practice what I am preaching, because nobody else is doing it. I’ll just have my little selfish indulgence first and then have a go at others who do the same.”

              A little hypocritical.


              Report this

              60

              • #
                Michael

                Yes and no.

                I do practice what I preach. I take public transport, I have solar panels (have not had a power bill for 3 years), water tank, turn everything of at the power point when I leave etc. BUT I am not a greenie, I am a realist. As such I don’t expect everyone to stop living a life, to not have dreams and ambitions, to not travel if you love people and the world and want to experience it, after working without a holiday for 4 years. You guys are really unreasonable and just trying to find a way to personally attack so that you don’t have to face the fact that all the science and logic is on my side. Even when I travel I try to minimise my impact as much as possible, as outlined above. But as a realist I also know that unless a critical mass of global action occurs so that CO2 emissions start to fall, my actions will be for naught. So I argue and encourage for that critical mass of action.

                So attack me if it makes you feel better, it does not change the science.


                Report this

                09

              • #
                Heywood

                “(have not had a power bill for 3 years)”

                I’m glad that you are a solar farmer, and having your neigbours pay your electricity bill for you through taxes and levies on their electricity bills. (I bet you are in NSW and getting 60c kWH FIT). Totally just for reducing carbon footprint, sure…

                “Even when I travel I try to minimise my impact as much as possible, as outlined above”

                I suspect that your walking around using public transport in Europe and staying in backpackers is more of a financial consideration, than an environmental one.


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Michael

                I’m glad that you are a solar farmer, and having your neigbours pay your electricity bill

                Well not sure what you mean, but just a normal suburban house with 1.5kw panels. I don’t apologise for being paid to make my renewable energy. Everybody else had the opportunity to do the same and it is reducing greenhouse gases.

                using public transport in Europe and staying in backpackers is more of a financial consideration,

                It was always both. Did mean we spent only half our budget (could have done it the expensive way), but did always feel a bit guilty travelling as well. So definately both.


                Report this

                08

              • #
                Heywood

                “I don’t apologise for being paid to make my renewable energy”

                How noble of you, using OTHER PEOPLES MONEY for your own financial gain.

                “Everybody else had the opportunity to do the same “

                Glad YOU could afford it. I know many that can’t. But that’s OK, the end justifies the means huh?


                Report this

                60

              • #
                Michael

                OTHER PEOPLES MONEY for your own financial gain.

                Twisted thinking. I paid up front to be able to produce electricity that would not damage the climate, to protect future generations. I am not ‘MAKING MONEY’, I am recouping my costs. It was not free and it was when they were still a lot more expensive than today.


                Report this

                08

              • #
                Heywood

                “Twisted Thinking”

                Spin it any way you like, you are gaining a financial advantage thanks to the extra levies on power bills.

                “I paid up front to be able to produce electricity”

                Yes, and that up front cost was subsidised by the taxpayer in the form of RECs. You didn’t pay the full cost of installation.

                ” I am not ‘MAKING MONEY’, I am recouping my costs. “

                Is there a difference?? Over generous FITs, paid by other electricity users, many who can’t afford even the subsidised cost of installation, are paying your electricity bill. There may be ‘compensation’ for the carbon tax, but there is no compensation for the increased costs on electricity due to small and large scale ‘renewable’ levies. You can be smug and say that everyone has the opportunity, but that is complete crap, besides, if everyone had solar who would fund your FITs??


                Report this

                50

              • #

                Oh, Michael,

                Surely you’re not telling us that you are still connected to the grid with your rooftop panel system.

                So, two thirds of the electricity that your residence uses comes from the grid, err, coal fired power plants.

                No! Surely not!

                So despite all you’ve been trying to tell us, you actually not only have no solution, but in fact, you’re part of the problem you tell us that WE need to solve.

                So, where you say this in 11.1.2.2.1:

                I do practice what I preach.

                Then, that’s just a flat out lie then.

                Two thirds of the electricity your home consumes comes from coal fired power.

                And you’re happy with that, eh!

                You’re a bloody hypocrite.

                Tony.


                Report this

                80

              • #
                Grant (NZ)

                A little hypocritical.

                There was a discussion here some time back about the post-modern thought process and how most of us here don’t understand it. The problem here for us is that Michael subscribes to post-modern thinking. For him, hypocrisy does not apply to himself. His beliefs shape the way other people should behave and the group should create the narrative for everyone else to live by.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Backslider

                So I argue and encourage for that critical mass of action.

                What action Michael? Please outline your plan to save the planet.

                Don’t you think you should lead by example? The rest of humanity also are perfectly entitled to say “Why should I worry about my carbon footprint?” as you do. You are a hypocrite.


                Report this

                40

          • #
            Grant (NZ)

            I have seen how far many glaciers have receded, I have seen and talked about the changes in climate for myself from people who know what they are talking about and get a whole world perspective.

            So you have seen the cause:effect relationship between CO2 and these effects? Please, so we can all learn here, show the proof of that cause:effect relationship. Could you have been mistaken? Could you have been observing the effects of natural climate cycles that have occurred for millenia?


            Report this

            30

            • #
              Michael

              So you have seen the cause:effect relationship

              Its not rocket science.
              So we have increased CO2 by 40% since industrialisation. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases are known to cause warming and keep our planet 30 deg c warmer than it would have been. So then what would be the effects of that? Well some of the predictions include:
              * Atmospheric warming, yep
              * first decade of the 21st century hottest on the instrumental record on EVERY continent.
              * Ocean warming, yep
              * Sea levels rising, yep
              * Arctic melting faster than everywhere else (and still melting, record reached last year), yep
              * Globally ice volume falling, yep
              * Glaciers melting, yep
              * Acidification in oceans increasing, yep
              * Extreme weather increasing, yep
              * day heat records beat cold records 3 to 1 and increasing
              * night heat records beat cold records 5 to 1
              * Observations show increased extreme precipitation by 7% for every degree increase in temps
              * Increase in storm surges, and some research is showing an increase in hurricane intensity
              etc etc.

              Add to that measurements of an energy imbalance between energy coming in to that leaving, a tell tale sign of greenhouse warming (slowing of energy from leaving) and that the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling and it is all pretty much commonsense. Combine that with studies examining natural factors which have been mostly in the cooling direction and you get the conclusion that we could not have warmed without the influence of CO2. Then couple that with long term studies of most of the above which show the rate of change of most things are above what would occur naturally and it is hard to ignore the cause and effect here. I hope that helps.


              Report this

              05

              • #
                Grant (NZ)

                Michael, I asked for proof of the cause:effect relationship. You have merely recited a number of anecdotal observations that do not nullify the hypothesis that the climate of the 20th and 21st Centuries have been consistent with prior natural variations.

                You have not answered my question providing proof of the cause:effect relationship. Therefore we cannot conclude that CO2 emissions have had anything to do with the measured climate. You also seem to fail to recognise that there is no such thing as a static climate. Climate changes all the time.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Backslider

                I am STILL waiting for your peer reviewed science to support your assertion that industrialization pulled us out of the LIA (at least three times you have asserted this). Where is it?

                Please also explain to us the warming period prior to the LIA, which was warmer than today.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Michael

                I asked for proof of the cause:effect relationship.

                You have proved you do not understand science and the scientific method. You do not understand that the climate changes all the time and that it is a large planetary system. You are under the mistaken impression that our planet can be placed in a test tube and have singular tests applied to it, where we leave everything constant and only change one thing.

                This is unrealistic, naive and impossible. Seriously you need to stop reading opinion blogs and look at some scientific history. What you are asking for is a laymans uneducated understanding of how science on the natural world can be performed. Most of the full on proper science that our world is based on and that runs most of the technology that we enjoy cannot be proved in this simplistic laboratory model kind of way. We cannot ‘prove’ evolution, quantum physics, plate tectonic, gravity and the general theory of relativity, to name a few.

                Science is done by putting forward a hypothesis, developing it into a theory and proposing tests, observations, data and predictions to try to disprove the theory. All of these have been done and the greenhouse effect is a strong and mature accepted theory and all the observations and data point to a world warming due to mans emissions of CO2. NATURAL causes have been examined and mostly in cooling directions, there is no way to explains all the many observations and fingerprints and the warming since industrialisation without AGW.

                I hope you realise now that the climate is not magic and their are known forcings upon it and one of the known forcings is CO2 and that explains all the data, trends, observations and fingerprints. If you have trouble understanding the scientific method then please explain specifically what you would consider ‘proof’ of AGW.


                Report this

                02

            • #
              Michael

              “Glacial ice in the Peruvian Andes that took at least 1,600 years to form has melted in just 25 years, scientists reported Thursday, the latest indication that the recent spike in global temperatures has thrown the natural world out of balance. “
              http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/world/americas/1600-years-of-ice-in-perus-andes-melted-in-25-years-scientists-say.html?hpw&_r=0


              Report this

              05

    • #
      John Brookes

      So Heywood, is Tony from Oz correct when he says that businesses will just pass their increased costs onto their customers? Or does Tony not understand business reality?


      Report this

      18

      • #
        Heywood

        Of course they will, if they can, but the reality of the situation is that they may not be able to in order to remain competitive. If they don’t, they take a hit to their bottom line. This could potentially have the consequence of the business failing or laying off staff.

        Don’t forget, low income individuals are allegedly compensated, but small business isn’t, and they generally use more electricity.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Mark D.

        is Tony from Oz correct when he says that businesses will just pass their increased costs onto their customers? Or does Tony not understand business reality?

        There are of course different forms of “business”. Leaving government and subsidized business out, you are aware that the owners of any business want to see a profit that exceeds other ways of making money right? I mean if you are considering a small business with 1,000,000 of the owners capital tied up (and at some risk) you do realize that the owner could just put that same amount in a bank or stock market and live off the interest? So, when you speak of costs to operate said business going up the owner will have to decide whether to pass the cost along or accept a reduced profitability. This is easy especially when all her domestic competition will be doing the same thing (they’re not all dumb). Do you follow this?

        When market forces (competition, government controls and regulation etc.) make it difficult or more risky than it is worth to stay in business, what do you think the owner does with her 1,000,000 in capital?

        If she is smart*, she will liquidate, shut her business, lay off her 10 employees and put her capital in the stock market. Now she is in a pool of other investors and all those shareholders expect and demand that the corporations they have invested in operate profitable businesses and of course the Directors are bound to do so (or they get replaced). What do you think they do with increases in operating costs? What do you think happens if they just “absorb” those costs and reduce the return to the investors? That’s right, the investors look for other more profitable companies to invest in.

        So in summary, yes businesses will ALWAYS pass rising costs along.

        BUT there is something else that happens: Competitors outside of the reach of the forced cost increases (in this case off the shores of OZ) will have a competitive advantage. John, why do you think this might be bad for OZ?

        *if she is not smart, she will slowly use up her 1,000,000 paying for the higher cost to operate and eventually go bankrupt, shut her company and lay off her 10 employees.

        ** alternatively if she is cunning, she’ll seek and obtain government bailout money to subsidize her failing business and then returning a portion of that to political campaign donations thereby keeping the money flowing. Who pays for that Johnny?

        PS Johnny Boy, have you priced an airplane ticket to Europe lately?

        If you have a demonstrable example that differs from the above I’d most certainly like to hear about it. I’m all about learning new ways to make money.


        Report this

        70

        • #
          John Brookes

          So in summary, yes businesses will ALWAYS pass rising costs along.

          Except when they can’t. Lets face it, most businesses don’t choose what they charge. It is dictated to them by the market.

          Its also strange that you don’t mention that the business might invest in more energy efficient equipment. If you have an energy intensive business you may gain an edge on your competitors by using energy better, particularly in the past few years where power costs have risen rapidly.


          Report this

          16

          • #
            Mark D.

            Lets face it, most businesses don’t choose what they charge. It is dictated to them by the market.

            Interesting world view there.

            Its also strange that you don’t mention that the business might invest in more energy efficient equipment. If you have an energy intensive business you may gain an edge on your competitors by using energy better, particularly in the past few years where power costs have risen rapidly

            Not strange John, it is ASSUMED. When it is your own money invested you ALWAYS look for efficiency. Long term you might see some improvement by “investing” in new equipment but guess what? Most things aren’t that inefficient. There isn’t much to be improved upon when it comes to power and everything about a carbon tax would be hard to recover through replacing equipment.


            Report this

            41

            • #
              Michael

              Interesting world view there.

              Don’t get your thinking here. We live in a democracy with a free market where business’s charge what they can depending on customers capacity to pay and competitors prices in the context of making a profit. So the market of customers and competitors is how prices are set. Because they also need to make a profit they need to reduce costs as much as possible to maximise profits. Therefore minimising energy use, especially in light of a carbon tax, looking at other forms of energy, would be a prime consideration. That is how our economy operates does it not?


              Report this

              18

              • #
                Heywood

                Obviously ignored the bit where Mark said,

                “When it is your own money invested you ALWAYS look for efficiency.”

                Most businesses already have found the most efficient way of doing things.

                You are correct when you say “So the market of customers and competitors is how prices are set”, but in the real world, if costs go up, and prices remain the same, something has to give, usually in the form of losing staff or closing down. Ever run a small business??


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Michael

                Ever run a small business??

                Yes, had my own computer business for 12 years

                Most businesses already have found the most efficient way of doing things.

                No, this is wrong. Any business not continuously looking for new ways tos become more efficient is not doing its job. Also stuff is always changing, technology is always changing. There will always be better way to create and use energy, more efficient machines, maybe put up panels yourself etc etc. Depends on the business, but a successful one never stops improving.


                Report this

                17

              • #
                John Brookes

                Have to agree there Michael. Business conditions are always changing, and you have to constantly adjust. I used to always keep a close eye on the AUD/USD exchange rate, and my competitors pricing.


                Report this

                16

              • #
                Heywood

                “Any business not continuously looking for new ways tos become more efficient is not doing its job”

                Perhaps I should clarify.

                What I meant to convey was that businesses will continue to find the most efficient way of operating, even WITHOUT the extra burden of artificially inflated energy prices.

                Kinda goes back a couple of comments when Mark D said “When it is your own money invested you ALWAYS look for efficiency”.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Backslider

                Yes, had my own computer business for 12 years

                So tell us why it went bust Michael.


                Report this

                30

            • #
              Mark D.

              No this is wrong

              Michael you are a pretender. Name any business that requires a large amount of energy in the creation of their product that has not already considered the efficiency and cost of the energy they use?

              You’re both (you and John) really clueless if you think a heavy industrial user of energy can just swap out their equipment every time costs go up. The investment put into that infrastructure is calculated to pay over a long period of time. Fuel and energy costs are built into everything in our economy and that is Tony’s point. You both are in denial if you dream that energy taxes somehow only punish the big bad corporation.


              Report this

              50

      • #
        Ian

        In the cae of the miners they’ll go elsewhere and other firms will send jobs offshore.. I wonder if you’ve been out of Australia recently and seen for yourself how expensive Australia is when compared to countries like Spain, Portugal, Greece, France and the UK. I’ve just been to all of these countries for extended periods


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Michael

          Yes I have travelled a lot, and I agree that we are very expensive. But you get cause and effect wrong here, we are largely expensive because of mining. Big mining wages have pushed up housing and rental and the prices of most other things. Mining has pushed up the australian dollar which makes us hugely expensive compared to overseas (good for us when we travel though), and then our wages in general. So are you willing to take a pay cut Ian? The carbon tax is barely figured into it.


          Report this

          04

        • #
          John Brookes

          If they are so cheap, why are they so crook?


          Report this

          01

      • #
        Ian

        Yes he is. In business it’s not the cloistered University world that you know. Business has to make a profit and passing on government costs to the consumer is an absolute necessity


        Report this

        20

  • #
    cedarhill

    Funny. Makes sense since Rudd is defining the Australian version of “the standard lying Labor model of elementary politics”.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    AndrewWA

    It was Keating that talked about Australia becoming a “Banana Republic”……

    How to bankrupt your country… making payouts before or without the income.

    Mongolia had a government which was elected on the back of a promise to pay evry man woman and child in Mongolia US$20/month out of the Human Development Fund so that they could all share in the wealth being generated by the Mining Boom in Mongolia.

    Only thing was that the large projects were still to be built so no income for 4 years. At a cost of >$60million per month this was undoubtedly a road to ruin.

    The Carbon Tax was stupid but building an argument to compensate people for its’ impact is absolute lunacy.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Michael

      The problem is an increasing crucial greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (CO2). The most efficient way to fix the problem is a tax, please try to follow the logic. The only way to mitigate the problem is to reduce how much CO2 we put up there (more CO2 = more heating). By increasing the cost of burning carbon you encourage polluters to investigate ways to reduce the CO2 they emit and other ways of creating power that don’t include emitting CO2 (so they can reduce costs). You also make renewables and other sources of power generation more cost effective therby encouraging new industries and creating jobs. You also encourage consumers to try to find ways to reduce their power bills, by investigating other options, other home practices and taking energy efficiency into consideration when purchasing energy devices.

      This is regardless of if you compensate people for it. They will try to mitigate the cost so that they can keep more of the compensation for themselves and makes no difference to the actions polluters take to try to reduce costs and find alternative. It is simple economics of externalities, if you understand the concept. Generally works whereve a decent price on carbon has been put and has already reduced emissions here.


      Report this

      08

      • #
        Heywood

        That’s if warming doesn’t prove to be net positive.

        “For now, see the estimates from Bosello et al. for 2050 showing global warming *saving* about 850,000 lives (1.76m saved from cold, vs 820,000 more dead from heat), ”

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800905003423.

        “The biggest environment problem, by far measured in human deaths, is air pollution.
        Global warming, which creates a lot of attention, is on an entirely different and smaller level. The World Health Organization estimate (a very maximal estimate) is about one-fortieth of the deaths from air pollution. Even if you assume all deaths from floods, droughts and storms, the number is an even smaller two-hundredth of air pollution.

        And no, the number of deaths from global warming won’t increase, but more likely decrease over time, as many infectious deaths will disappear because of increasing wealth, and because fewer cold deaths will increasingly outweigh increasing heat deaths.

        Source: Communicable deaths and air pollution deaths from Global Burden of Disease, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/20/lomborg-lets-get-our-priorities-right/


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Michael

          Your article was behind a paywall. From the abstract it seemed to be all about the other downsides to fossil fuel production and climate change. From what I could access it seems to support that fossil fuel burning has many externalities on top of the changes to climate. I fully agree that pollution is a big issue as well, even more of a reason to switch to renewables. Your other stuff is nonsense, where do you get increasing wealth and savings from the cold?

          From your article “Direct cost estimates, common in climate change impact studies, underestimate the true welfare losses.”

          “Wells are drying up and underwater tables falling so fast in the Middle East and parts of India, China and the US that food supplies are seriously threatened, one of the world’s leading resource analysts has warned.”
          http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/jul/06/food-supply-threat-water-wells-dry-up

          “A heat wave in England is being blamed for hundreds of premature deaths, and a wildfire warning has been issued as the mercury continues to rise.

          Research conducted for The Times by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine estimated the death toll for the first nine days of the heat wave as between 540 and 760 people in England alone.”
          http://www.weather.com/news/uk-heatwave-kills-hundreds-puts-farms-risk-20130719

          “As a comparison, Las Vegas experienced temperatures of 47C (117F) last week during a heat wave which blistered the Southwest and part of California. In fact the heat was so bad, aviation officials in Phoenix had to ground several planes because it was just too hot to fly.

          Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/354828#ixzz2ZfmvqdK9


          Report this

          08

          • #
            Heywood

            “where do you get increasing wealth and savings from the cold?”

            Where did it say that?? Read it again. It is talking about increasing wealth across the planet, ie. more countries emerging more and more from the third world (China for example). As the population become less poor, their standard of living increases and this their health. It is not saying that cold weather will increase wealth. Less deaths due to better living conditions (thanks to increased wealth) PLUS less deaths due to cold (Thanks to warming).

            Yes, people die in heatwaves, but many more die in cold snaps.

            “Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics, and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold.”

            http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/494582_2

            “We estimate the effect of extreme weather on life expectancy in the US. Using high
            frequency mortality data, we find that both extreme heat and extreme cold result in immediate
            increases in mortality. However, the increase in mortality following extreme heat appears entirely
            driven by near-term displacement, while the increase in mortality following extreme cold is long
            lasting. The aggregate effect of cold on mortality is quantitatively large. We estimate that the
            number of annual deaths attributable to cold temperature is 14,380 or 0.8% of average annual
            deaths in the US during our sample period.”

            http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~moretti/weather_mortality

            What about deaths due to more extreme weather??

            “Proponents of drastic greenhouse gas controls claim that human
            greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming, which then
            exacerbates the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events,
            including extreme heat, droughts, floods, and storms such as
            hurricanes and cyclones.
            In fact, even though reporting of such events is more complete
            than in the past, morbidity and mortality attributed to them has
            declined globally by 93%–98% since the 1920
            s. In the U.S., morbidity
            and mortality from extreme weather events peaked decades ago.
            Depending on the category of extreme weather event, average
            annual mortality is 59%–81% lower than at its peak, while mortality
            rates declined 72%–94%, despite large increases in the population at
            risk. Today, extreme weather events contribute only 0.06% to global
            and U.S. mortality
            . These improvements reflect a remarkable
            improvement in society’s adaptive capacity, likely due to greater
            wealth and better technology enabled in part by use of hydrocarbon
            fuels. Finally, mortality from extreme weather events has declined
            even as all-cause mortality has increased, indicating that humanity is
            coping better with extreme weather events than it is with far more
            important health and safety problems”

            http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf


            Report this

            40

            • #
              Michael

              Poor people are getting poorer and third world countries are suffering disprortionally to changes in climate. I don’t know who you think is getting more rich, but check the figures, it is a very small proportion of the population that are already rich.

              You are also missing the fact that research has pointed to changes in the arctic jetstream, due to the warming arctic, that is causing spillover into the northern hemisphere causing cold snaps and extreme weather on the cold side. Perhaps you should have a close look at the latest WMO report on extreme weather.

              “The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming.

              Precipitation and floods: The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901. Globally, 2010 was the wettest year since the start of instrumental records.
              Most parts of the globe had above-normal precipitation during the decade. The eastern USA, northern and eastern Canada, and many parts of Europe and central Asia were particularly wet.
              According to the WMO survey, floods were the most frequently experienced extreme events over the course of the decade. Eastern Europe was particularly affected in 2001 and 2005, India in 2005, Africa in 2008, Asia (notably Pakistan, where 2 000 people died and 20 million were affected) in 2010, and Australia, also in 2010.”

              http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html


              Report this

              07

              • #
                Grant (NZ)

                Poor people are getting poorer

                because suckers who believe in CAGW are denying them access to cheap energy.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Michael

                because suckers who believe in CAGW are denying

                Nope. Because greedy corporations and fossil fuel companies suck people dry for their own profits and interests. Except for here in Australia, under labor, most countries response to the GFC was to throw money at banks and big business, who promptly put it in their pockets and still sacked everyone. The rich are now richer than they were before the GFC while the poor are poorer.

                Luckily here Labor decided to give money back to the taxpayer who spent it on small business. This saved emploers and jobs and was one of the main reasons we did not go down the hole like everyone else.


                Report this

                14

              • #
                Dave

                Hey Michael,

                Just to let you know, K Rudd is going backward in the polls, so very soon the CO2 Tax will be gone. (Probably November – so he’s still PM for the G20) – you should go to it, and present some of your articles and peer reviewed stuff.

                After that you can travel as much as you want without worrying about your Carbon Foot print.

                Oh! THAT’S RIGHT, YOU DON’T GIVE A STUFF ANYWAY.

                Instead turn your solar panels off, and use cheap coal fired power. Feeling better already, and be prepared for a LONG ANGRY SUMMER, with air con. :)


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Michael

                Maybe, maybe not, but Australia will be the worst under an Abbott government. They have no policies, they basically have not changed a policy since the last election, the only party with ideas is the ALP. Look at the refugees for example, libs hang on Howards success without coming up with anything of their own and rejecting other solutions (malaysia policy). Their policy is in shambles, most of it has been enacted by LAbor and have not worked like they said, then you have turn back the boats, rejected and dangerous, so clueless, but try to sneak in on the past. Now labor come up with a second new idea and he is trying to claim it for himself.

                Climate change: old policy and conflicting messages on whether he supports his scientists or not.
                Parental Leave: From being against parental leave now he has a ridiculously expensive and unneccessary rich mans one.
                NBN: superr fast to get to your house and then crawls into your house on old crumbling copper wires.
                Education policy: ummm, oh thats right, they don’t have one, apparently it aint broke, even though we are going backwards.
                and I could go on.

                A party locked in the past in their science, ideas and policy.


                Report this

                06

              • #
                Dave

                Michael,

                You say:

                but Australia will be the worst under an Abbott government.

                It would really be hard to be worse than this cluster stuff Gillard/Rudd tag team since 2007.

                You’re sarcasm is too subtle, everyone will think you’re serious, even with the following:
                I traveled to 32 different countries
                I didn’t have a holiday after 4 years of work
                I had a computer business for 12 years.

                You’re funny Michael, but you’ve got to put the sarc tag at the end of each of your comments. What’s your real job?


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Heywood

                “Poor people are getting poorer”

                Actually, the gap between rich and poor is getting bigger, but overall, globally we are better off.

                We are getting healthier overall.

                http://www.who.int/entity/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/EN_WHS2013_Full.pdf

                “Because greedy corporations and fossil fuel companies suck people dry for their own profits and interests.”

                Ahhhh. Now I know why you are here. Occupy Jo Nova??. Bwahahahahahaha.

                “Luckily here Labor decided to give money back to the taxpayer who spent it on small business”

                Yeah. The poker machine industry made a killing. You forgot to mention killer pink batts and gold plated school halls. That made a lot of “greedy corporations ” (developers) very rich. Thanks to Kev.

                “NBN: superr fast to get to your house and then crawls into your house on old crumbling copper wires.”

                You do love those tax payer funded indulgences don’t you. Don’t worry, even under the coalition plan you can still have the bandwidth to stream your donkey porn and illegal movies. You might even have some bandwidth spare to keep astroturfing this blog.

                “Parental Leave”

                The one comment from you I agree with. Weird….

                So, what about

                – In three years, not passing one single growth policy. Because we were in a GFC “Kev and Julia” had the once in a lifetime chance to spend on infrastructure to build the nation (not footpaths and school halls). But they stuffed it. We spent billions and got absolutely nothing visionary for it (except for the NBN, which was not part of the spend anyway).

                – Divisive policy that favoured unions over business. Compare what the current government has done with what Keating and his Industry Commission did to understand mining and energy in Australia. Businesses like Orica and Rio Tinto implemented single status work force under Hawke/Keating government resulting in massive gains in productivity and salaries that underpinned the mining boom. Those businesses would have failed in Australia before the mining boom if they had stayed unionised.

                – Opening the boat people can of worms that John Howard had managed to seal.

                – Good programs like housing insulation were poorly managed.

                – Education. Spending money rather than looking at the causes of our disappointing (and slipping) education performance. Why have standards fallen during a period when spend-per-child went up?

                – Using optimistic forecasts of variable tax revenue, based on commodity and carbon to create recurrent spending programs and ‘compensation’ handouts, leading to a massive structural budget deficit.

                – The biggest terms of trade boom in history (never to be repeated) was wasted. And Australians have been saddled with debt for future generations to repay.

                – Too much focus on headlines and not enough on implementation and consequences. For example, the announcement of asylum seeker camp in East Timor. We find out later East Timor was not consulted and not interested.

                – Class warfare: out to divide the nation instead of unifying.

                – Spending too much time acting as if they were in Opposition and attacking the Opposition.

                – Disrespect for voters: Attacking those who they thought would oppose them instead of trying to find common ground.

                – The NBN was off budget, not given a business case, loaded with political imperatives, and presented in a very populist manner as if the cost of the network is free.

                – The MRRT: Ross Garnaut says it will not likely raise much money yet it was supposed to fund programs.

                – Defence: The joint strike fighter mess, and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

                – Continuing the blame game in health, education and GST split.

                – Duplication with states: Canberra employs more than 4,000 public servants in education and 5,000 plus in health because our states act in all those areas as competing, independent countries. The German Federation employs about 50 public servants per 1,000 inhabitants. Why do we have a 100 plus in federal and state administration?

                – Media regulation: a conceptual and parliamentary fiasco.

                – Too much spin, deceit and lying.

                – Water policy: A lot of federal money went to buy back water. We find out later that we don’t know where this water is.

                – Climate policy: Acting as if Australia alone could fix the global climate, not explaining policy in terms of benefits to the world environment, discounting Australia’s OECD ranking for the cleanest air in our cities, discounting the relatively vast land and girt by sea areas to absorb CO2, discounting our relatively sparse population as if total population has no bearing on pollution, and cornerstoning climate policy on the single statistic of the emissions per capita

                Shall I go on??


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Michael

                Shall I go on??

                Please don’t, what a load of rubbish. I could, but haven’t got time to rebut it all. Facts are that during a global financial crises,
                Australias economy jumped 2 places on world rankings,
                for the first time we had triple A credit ratings from all 3 agenicies
                Our debt is second lowest to gdp in the developed world
                our unemployments more than half of europes
                etc etc

                I know of most schools very happy with their additional infrastructure (school halls is a load of crap, it built lots more depending on what the school needed)

                THen you have all the extra computers, and it is Labor that have investigated the shocking education system the libs left us (and are not going to change) and want to focus and use the money better, after a period of investigation, gathering statistics and informing parents. It takes time but they are the only ones willing to tackle it.

                Real increase in pensions, falling under the libs.

                The only ones with a real policy on boat smugglers (malaysia solution) but blocked by libs teaming up with the greens because they wanted the boats to keep coming and sinking for political gain.

                Australia does not think it can fix the climate, what they are doing is to contribute their fair share as many other countries are doing. It is a global problem, to solve it needs everybodys effort. Australia is one of the highest per capita emitters in the world and 12th for total historical emission out of 200 countries. We have significantly contributed to the amount of extra CO2 up there.

                Media needs shaking up, it is a shame they did not stick with it. We have one of the most concentrated and one sided media in the world.

                Howard put us in Iraq and afghanistan

                The rest is mostly meaningless fluff. Labor has actual policy and vision, libs have nothing except that ‘howard did it’


                Report this

                06

              • #
                Michael

                Duplication with states

                Most of the states are libs and hence are deliberately unhelpful. Labor have wanted to stop the blame game but the lib states are plying politics and power games and won’t let go of any control. You cannot stop the blame game without putting all the power at one source. State power was determined in the constitution and is not labors fault, it has always been there.

                You throw in a lot of things just to make your list look long.


                Report this

                05

              • #

                Now I know where I remember Michael from.

                He’s one of the people from the Thunderbirds series.

                Tony.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Heywood

                Straight from the ALP briefing sheet. Well done. So, who’s paying you to be here again?


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Heywood

                Missed this little gem before.

                “The only ones with a real policy on boat smugglers (malaysia solution) but blocked by libs teaming up with the greens because they wanted the boats to keep coming and sinking for political gain.”

                Actually it was the High Court that killed the Malaysia solution, but don’t let the truth get in the way of your political bias.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Michael

                Actually it was the High Court that killed the Malaysia solution

                Actually yes and no. Like any government they changed the law to allow offshore processing and the Malaysia solution. They are allowed to do that as a government. This was blocked by the libs and the greens. As a consequence they could only do what the libs wanted, ie offshore processing, which they said would not work anymore as the people smugglers know that they all get to Australia anyway. As predicted this did not work, proving that the libs have no solution and have not even attempted to create one for boat smugglers, their whole rhetoric being ‘howard did it’.
                Now for the second time the only ones with ideas and plans and a solution are labor, the libs still in ‘we will get in without having fresh policies because the public are stupid’ mode.


                Report this

                04

              • #
                Heywood

                “Actually yes and no”

                No. There is no “yes and no”. The high court stopped deemed the Malaysia people swap solution illegal. Period.

                “MARK COLVIN: The Gillard Government’s Malaysian solution looks dead tonight.

                The High Court has found against the Immigration Minister Chris Bowen on his declaration that he had the right to send asylum seekers from Christmas Island to Malaysia for processing. It leaves the Federal Government’s policy against people-smugglers in tatters. The full bench of the High Court found against the Government by a majority of six to one. It imposed a permanent injunction against deporting asylum seekers to Malaysia.”

                http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3306870.htm

                “Like any government they changed the law to allow offshore processing and the Malaysia solution”

                Actually they didn’t change anything. They PROPOSED a change to the law, which which was opposed to by the Coalition AND the Greens on the grounds that Malaysia was not a signatory to the UN convention on refugees. You easily forget (or completely ignore) that the ALP and the Greens were in coalition with each other at the time. The ALP could have pushed through this law but couldn’t even get the support of their partners in crime. Funnily, the opposition (named that for a reason funnily enough) gets the blame for the failure of the policy, when “Team ALP” could have done it without them. Take out your frustration on Bob “The Pirate” Brown.

                “libs have no solution and have not even attempted to create one for boat smugglers, their whole rhetoric being ‘howard did it’.”

                Perhaps you should investigate how many boat arrivals we had between 2002 and 2008, before Rudd avoided “lurching to the right” and dismantled a system THAT WORKED!!

                Whilst you are checking the link, have a look at the number of boat arrivals in 2012, subtract 800 from the figure, and bask in the glory of how useless the Malaysia solution would have been.


                Report this

                20

            • #
              Michael

              Wrong on so many counts. firstly, whatgreens did or did not do does not absolve the libs of their decisions. The Australian people pay them to make decisions in their interests not for their own political and power grabs. Secondly it is a lie that they did it because of the lack of signatory status.Their turnback the boats policy is against un rules and is sending them back to a country that is not a signatory. Lies to hide that they want them to come and drown.

              Thirdly, you are again doing the lib policy plea. Your only policy is Howard did it. News flash Abbottis nowhere near Howard and that is not a policy,it is proof of a lack of policy.

              Lastly, once the first plane took the first load to Malaysia the boat people would have dryed up. So to all the people that have come since then, thanks libs.


              Report this

              03

              • #
                Heywood

                Nice try… No dice…

                Why the different email address?? Different Michael perhaps?? Unlikely. Fake email. Maybe…


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Michael

                ???Well apart from the typo, how did you see my email address? The form says it is not published.


                Report this

                03

              • #
                Heywood

                “The form says it is not published”

                It isn’t. No need to be paranoid. Your avatar is linked to your email address, and it changed.

                “The Australian people pay them to make decisions in their interests not for their own political and power grabs”

                Their interests?? That’s very subjective. The Australian people also pay the Greens too, but can’t bring yourself to lay any blame on them either. As I pointed out, they had a signed agreement to support the ALP during that period.

                “Secondly it is a lie that they did it because of the lack of signatory status.”

                A lie? Actually the Coalition proposed an amendment to the bill to ensure that asylum seekers can only be sent to countries that are members to the UN convention, but the ALP refused. This shows they were concerned the lack of signatory status of Malaysia.

                “.Their turnback the boats policy is against un rules”

                Really?? Which rule?

                ” Lies to hide that they want them to come and drown”

                Wow. Really?? Do you honestly believe that they want ANYONE to drown??? That is just a sick and twisted statement and reinforces your strong political bias. You should be ashamed.

                “Your only policy is Howard did it”

                And there is no reason it won’t work again. It was highly successful before.

                “that is not a policy,it is proof of a lack of policy.”

                Actually they are VERY clear on their policy, just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I have listed the policy below for you to familiarise yourself

                We will deliver stronger borders – where the boats
                are stopped – with tough and proven measures

                If elected Prime Minister, the first overseas trip
                that Tony Abbott makes as Prime Minister will be to
                Indonesia to renew cooperation against
                people smugglers

                We will re-introduce the use of Temporary
                Protection Visas (TPVs) to deny the people
                smugglers a product to sell

                We will immediately give new orders to the
                Navy to tackle illegal boat arrivals and ‘turn back’ the
                boats where safe to do so

                We will give priority in processing to offshore
                special humanitarian visa applicants, over illegal
                boat arrivals

                We will ensure, offshore special humanitarian visa
                applicants receive priority in obtaining permanent
                residency in Australia over illegal boat arrivals

                We will boost rigorous offshore processing
                for illegal arrivals so that bad behaviour has
                consequences

                We will establish presumption against refugee
                status for people who arrive on boats without
                identity papers

                Where asylum seekers deliberately discard their
                identity documentation, we will deny them the
                benefit of doubt when determining their refugee
                status

                We will establish and increase mandatory
                minimum jail sentences for people smugglers

                We will reserve 11,000 of the 13,750 refugee
                places each year for offshore applicants

                “Lastly, once the first plane took the first load to Malaysia the boat people would have dryed up”

                Until all 800 places were filled, then guess what…………


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael

                The Australian people also pay the Greens too, but can’t bring yourself to lay any blame on them either. As I pointed out, they had a signed agreement to support the ALP during that period.

                Firstly the greens did not have an agreement to support every bill from LAbor, I am annoyed at them, and none of that changes the fact that the libs pull millions in public salaries to make decisions and be accountable for those decisions. They are all culpable equally.

                Until all 800 places were filled, then guess what…………

                They would not have been filled up, to go to Malaysia and be put on the end of the queue there (some have been there over a decade on that queue) would have taken away ANY incentive to make the trip. All the arrivals since then are on the heads of the greens and the libs and yes I do believe this was done by the libs on purpose as saying that they are the only ones with an answer (blatently and patently untrue, they just block everyones elses solution) is there major political spin.

                And there is no reason it won’t work again. It was highly successful before.

                Most of there previous policy has already been enacted and especially the ones that would make a difference. The times and the reasons are different and it has been proved that it does not work anymore. They have very little left that would deter anyone except for turning back the boats which is universally accepted as being an unworkable solution, dangerous to refugees, the navy and not acceptable to the indonesians.


                Report this

                03

              • #
                Heywood

                “Most of there previous policy has already been enacted and especially the ones that would make a difference”

                Bullshit #1. Offshore processing is the only part of the previous policy enacted by the ALP. In conjunction with TPVs and turning boats around it may have worked, but no, the political ego of the ALP wouldn’t allow them to admit their mistake of softening the laws to start with. Did I mention how many people arrived illegally via boat between 2002 and 2008??

                ” it has been proved that it does not work anymore”

                Bullshit #2. The government has NOT instituted the same policies that DID work under Howard so there is NO WAY it has been proven. Just because the ALP briefing sheet says it can’t, doesn’t mean it’s true.

                “they have very little left that would deter anyone except for turning back the boats which is universally accepted as being an unworkable solution, dangerous to refugees, the navy and not acceptable to the indonesians.”

                Bullshit #3,4 and 5.

                “universally accepted as being an unworkable solution”
                Funny. It worked before and it hasn’t been attempted since. The US Coast Guard have managed to use this technique for many years to great success.


                “dangerous to … the navy”
                Actually several high ranking officers from the Navy and Army have stated that it is absolutely possible to turn the boats around;

                “Former navy chief Chris Ritchie, retired major general Jim Molan and a recent defence attache in Jakarta, Gary Hogan, have all made the case that while turning back boats would be difficult and had risks, it had been done before and could be done again. They have argued it would send a strong message to the region.”

                I reckon they know more about the situation than you do.

                .
                “and not acceptable to the indonesians”

                What right does Indonesia have to tell Australia to let boat people barge in? If our navy turns back Indonesian boats bringing “asylum seekers”, it is our right and our business as long as we do it in international waters. Indonesian agreement would be nice, not essential.

                Rudd thought it was a good idea to turn boats around before it became politically inconvenient due to the usual crocodile tears of leftards.

                “If they’re out in the high seas what you would do is then seek to turn them back through the agency of the Australian navy,” said Rudd as Opposition Leader in 2007.

                Of course, Indonesia keep flip flopping.

                “Mr Morrison was speaking after Dr Natalegawa appeared to shift ground last night on whether Indonesia would cooperate with any future Coalition government on its controversial policy of turning back asylum-seeker vessels.

                Earlier yesterday, in comments seized on by the Coalition, Dr Natalegawa said Indonesia was willing to discuss Tony Abbott’s vexed policy.

                Dr Natalegawa said his government’s opposition to any “unilateral” action that undermined regional cooperation did not disqualify Australia from acting in its own national interest to stem the flow of boats.

                Asked whether Indonesia was prepared to discuss the tow-back policy, he told Sky News: “In the final analysis it is important for us to be talking, and of course we are open to discussion.”

                They are mostly economic refugees anyway apparently.

                “People are coming here, not now as a result of persecution, but because they’re economic refugees who have paid money to people smugglers.” – Foreign minister Bob Carr, Meet the Press, June 9 2013.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Michael

                “Former navy chief Chris Ritchie, retired major general Jim Molan and a recent defence attache

                Lol, former, retired and recent. Yeah right.

                What right does Indonesia have to tell Australia to let boat people barge in?

                Indonesia is a transition country, they are not indonesians, they have the problem due to people trying to come here due to the libs torpedoing the Malaysia solution.

                Offshore processing is the only part of the previous policy enacted by the ALP. In conjunction with TPVs and turning boats around it may have worked

                Its the main part that deterred people before. It does not work now, as TPV’s will not work either because they know that once they get into the country they are 99% certain of staying here. That is the previous experience they are aware off and why new regional plans are needed. What they will do is scuttle the boats if you try to turn them around, they started doing that before. You should not outsource our problems to Indonesia. He is going to damage our reputation in the region, a reputation that has grown around the world under labor.


                Report this

                03

              • #
                Heywood

                “Lol, former, retired and recent. Yeah right.”

                So many years of experience from people who are subject matter experts, but ALP Activist Michael knows better. Tickets much?

                “Indonesia is a transition country, they are not indonesians,”

                They are Indonesian flagged vessels with Indonesian crew. Guess what champ, we can and should turn them around.

                “Its the main part that deterred people before”

                Really? Evidence please.

                “That is the previous experience they are aware off and why new regional plans are needed”

                If they were aware of it, why didn’t they flood in between 2002 and 2008? Have you added up how many came in that period yet? In case you missed the data, here it is again.

                “He is going to damage our reputation in the region, a reputation that has grown around the world under labor”

                Wow. Nice sloganeering. You should put that on a poster with a big picture of your idol Kevin. I am sure that his PNG solution is doing wonders for our “reputation”. What a great idea to send all these people to a detention centre to be raped and tortured. Not that it’s a problem, because the government will take at about three months to do anything about it.

                Interesting that your bias sees Abbott as having purely political motives, but can’t see Rudd’s PNG solution as the same. Funny how ads are running in my local regional paper informing the people smugglers that Australia is no longer an option. I am sure that the read our regional papers in Indonesia. The message is not for the asylum seekers at all, but for the electorate. Rudd is trying to secure the moron vote, and it seems that he has already captured you.


                Report this

                30

      • #
        Backslider

        other ways of creating power that don’t include emitting CO

        So Michael, wouldn’t you agree that we should ramp up and go nuclear?


        Report this

        40

  • #
    old44

    Maybe Adam Creighton doesn’t read his own newspaper and hasn’t realised the effect on Carbon pricing that the removal of 2,000,000,000n tonnes of permits by the EU will have, or maybe he does know and is just stupid .


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Sean

    Australia is such a joke. When are you going to get a real country?


    Report this

    41

  • #
    Bulldust

    I find the misdirection on tax ‘compensation’ quite bemusing. The politicians will say they are compensating families a few hundred dollars by maintaining the CO2 tax relief but neglect to mention that bracket creep will steal multiples of the same amount from you in the same year. Are Autralians so retarded that they do not undertand this?

    I have modelled (trust me, I am an economist) bracket creep, and for the average salary with a cost of living (assumed RBA mid-point 2.5%) increase it is in the range of 600-800 dollars per year. People over $80k are now experiencing their third year of bracket creep under Labor. Do the maths. I choose 80k, because they were so rich that Labor decided they did not need ‘carbon tax’ compensation.

    Time to get rid of the Labor shysters.


    Report this

    61

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      (trust me, I am an economist)

      Thanks for the laugh :-)


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Backslider

      I choose 80k, because they were so rich that Labor decided they did not need ‘carbon tax’ compensation.

      Right, so if you don’t live in the Western Suburbs of Sydney you are rich.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      John Brookes

      Bracket creep is a fabulous thing. A government can never increase taxes, because it is unpopular. However governments regularly decrease taxes in their attempts to woo the electorate. So you have bracket creep so that you can have a tax increases by stealth.

      If you don’t have tax increases by stealth, then you end up like so many countries who chronically undertax and end up with huge government debt.


      Report this

      05

      • #
        Bulldust

        Or you end up lying about the inflation rate to achieve the same end. US tax brackets are inflation indexed, as are their social security payments, giving the government massive incentive to mess with the index, which they do. Not unlike tinkering with the ‘science’ of climate. It is a sad truth that just about everything or anybody can be bought for a price. That’s free markets for you…


        Report this

        40

  • #
    Angry

    The alp (Australian LIARS PARTY) obviously has a Magic Pudding where you can continue to cut slices off and yet still retain 100% of the pudding !

    PS My BULLSHIT METER is broken after all the CRAP posted bv this “michael” imbecile !!


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    Michael – Re #11.1.2.2.3 (run out of Reply threads)

    You are under the mistaken impression that our planet can be placed in a test tube and have singular tests applied to it, where we leave everything constant and only change one thing.

    That’s a bit of a leap in logic and frankly quite condescending. I have never made such a suggestion. However, there are many observations which negate the theory of CO2 as a greenhouse gas of the potency ascribed to it by the models/IPCC. The challenge I put to blackadderthe4th back at #1.1.4 has been assiduously ignored.

    Science is done by putting forward a hypothesis, developing it into a theory and proposing tests, observations, data and predictions to try to disprove the theory.

    Again, I find that a little condescending. I do not publish my qualifications (though two of them have Science in the title) and were acquired nearly 30 years ago, and in the intervening period I have gained some “EXPERIENCE” which augments the formal training I have received. I do have more than a rudimentary grasp of the concept involved. Thanks for your concern though .

    I hope you realise now that the climate is not magic and their are known forcings upon it and one of the known forcings is CO2 and that explains all the data, trends, observations and fingerprints.

    That’s a bit much to “hope” given your previously exposed opinion of me . Quit with the condescension – it is now very offensive.

    I know that the climate is not “magic”. A also know that there are a lot of “climate scientists” running around telling us that it is way more complex than they realise. I think Dr Kevin Trenberth sort of intimated that in one of his more honest utterances in the Climategate e-mails. And the inaccuracy of the models tells us that there is a lot that is not understood. Look back a few posts, and you will find a graph that shows the forecasts of some 60 models of the Tropical Mid-Troposheric Temperature from 1980 through to 2020 along with the Actual observations. All the Models over-estimated that Actuals. They got it wrong. So we don’t understand climate, and the influence of CO2 is greatly overstated. The models need to be revised in light of the experience of 20 years actual observations.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Michael

      some 60 models of the Tropical Mid-Troposheric Temperature from 1980 through to 2020

      I could take you a bit more seriously if you did not refer to tropical mid tropospheric temperature trends instead of global surface temperatures. This is cherry picking, the theory states that the warming increases as you head towards the poles (did you know the Greenland was over 3 degree c for 2010 above the 1961-1990 average?), and that the biggest effect will be land based (as that warms fastest). Your kevin trenberth quote is a cherry pick out of context (if its the one I think it is) and your reference to climategate is again trying to intimate illegal or deceptive activity when at least 6 inquiries have cleared them of any wrongdoing. This was blatant theft and then the misuse of comments and emails out of context.

      Also did you know that the 2001 – 2010 decade was the hottest decade on the instrumental record, globally, on every continent, for land, for ocean and for the southern and northern hemispheres? Did you know that 2010 was also the wettest on the instrumental record? and lots more.

      So basically the science is not based on the models, it is the basic physics, with predicted fingerprints observed, with predicted trends all occurring, but of course this will not be fully predictable with the effect of natural variations, which you do keep ignoring. The cherry pick start year of 1998 was an exceptionally strong el nino coming out of a la nina and the 2001 – 2010 decade was predominantly la ninas with a few weak el ninos. Then you have ocean warming going into the deeper oceans, the melting ARctic, the acidifying oceans etc etc. Many many lines of evidence give strong confidence that the science of AGW is both correct and occurring and to ignore the less than 10% chance that it may not be right is both immorally reprehensible when the consequences are so high.

      I too have a science degree (only 1) but that does not make me a climate change expert and I know that 97%+ of actual practising and publishing climate change experts do agree AGW is occurring and I am not going to ignore the science as my children deserve better than that. So whether I was condescending or not, I have successfully answered your question from a scientific perspective and you have not answered my question of what you consider ‘proof’ if you do not accept my answer. Science at this level on the natural world (and it does not get more natural and complex that the global climate) can only come down to a balance of probabilities when taking all the evidence and the science into account. I think you should read the full version of the latest report from the WMO and be better informed in the actual science rather than opinion bloggers releasing information that misrepresents the facts of the situation (like tropical mid troposphere temperatures).

      The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming.

      Precipitation and floods: The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901. Globally, 2010 was the wettest year since the start of instrumental records.
      Most parts of the globe had above-normal precipitation during the decade. The eastern USA, northern and eastern Canada, and many parts of Europe and central Asia were particularly wet.
      According to the WMO survey, floods were the most frequently experienced extreme events over the course of the decade. Eastern Europe was particularly affected in 2001 and 2005, India in 2005, Africa in 2008, Asia (notably Pakistan, where 2 000 people died and 20 million were affected) in 2010, and Australia, also in 2010.

      http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html


      Report this

      02

      • #
        Heywood

        ” could take you a bit more seriously if you did not refer to tropical mid tropospheric temperature trends instead of global surface temperatures”

        Did you even look at the graph??

        It compares the modelled predictions for tropical mid tropospheric temperatures with the actual measured mid tropospheric temperatures. Apples with Apples and not a cherry pick. Why?

        “I selected the period since 1979 and the tropical mid-troposphere because (1) we have the best observations which include satellites, (2) this is the period of the greatest response to the accumulated greenhouse gases and (3) this is the region that has the most unambiguous ghg response in the models.”
        – Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

        Here is another of his graphs, gloabal comparison this time, so you can “take it more seriously”.

        “So basically the science is not based on the models”

        No, but government policy IS, and when the models are wrong, and exaggerating warming by up to a factor of 2.5, then policy can be mis-directed.

        “Therefore models, on average, depict the last 34 years as warming about 1.5 times what actually occurred. Santer et al. 2012 (for 1979-2011 model output) noted that a subset of CMIP-5 models produce warming in LT that is 1.9 times observed, and for a deeper layer of the atmosphere (mid-troposphere, surface to about 18 km) the models warm the air 2.5 times that of observations. These are significant differences, implying the climate sensitivity of models is too high.”

        Funny, you say that it is all about “basic physics” but all of the different climate models are based on the same rules of basic physics, but they exaggerate the warming and are as divergant as a frayed rope.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Michael

          Did you even look at the graph??

          Seen it a million times because its what you guys throw up everywhere. It is a cherry pick because it is regional temps based on where the least amount of warming according to AGW will occur. It is deliberate misleading that actually fits the predictions of AGW. Like I said before, the models are not the science, I look at the physics, the data, the trends and the observations. Models are merely projections of certain scenarios, they are useful to try to find out where ewe might be headed under certain circumstances, and have been remarkably accurate in many circumstances but they are not what the science is based upon.

          To see some really useful graphs go here.. There are also some excellent graphs in the WMO document, One that sticks in my mind is the decadel trend for the last 100 years, which shows only once where a decade was less than the previous decade (the 60′s I think).

          You rely on model projections instead of the actual science, data and observations, is that all you have? HAve a look around you at the consequences? Most occurring faster than expected, even though you say we are warming less than expected. This probably means that the climate is more sensitive to changes in temperature than we expected, and thats not counting that we are likely to see a large catch up warming (just like has occurred for the last 100 years) once the next el nino kicks in. See you are still ignoring actual trends, natural variations and observations and consequences, for a single parameter, temps against models.

          Shame on you, do the right thing and read the WMO document.
          “A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for meaningful assessments of climate change,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “WMO’s report shows that global warming was significant from 1971 to 2010 and that the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented. Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat.”
          “Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans – as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events – means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times” said Mr Jarraud.
          http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/images/clip_image002_006.gif
          http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html


          Report this

          02

          • #
            Backslider

            Still waiting Michael for you peer reviewed science to back up your assertion that the industrial revolution pulled us out of the LIA.

            Still also waiting on your explanation of the warm period before the LIA…. you know, the one that was warmer than today, when the Vikings settled Greenland?


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Mark D.

            Pretty tiring Michael, you roll on and on hand waiving and spinning the same pile of crap into a seamless web of nothing.

            1. AGW = Bad theory not even good hypothesis.

            2. Every observation you claim to be confirmation of AGW are all within understood climate variation = no confirmation of AGW hypothesis.

            3. Missing heat somehow causes “extreme weather” = ranting to cover up the reality of the first two items.

            4. Precautionary principle to bolster failed hypothesis = twisted worldview that humans are inherently bad.

            5. Failed use of propaganda argument from authority by citing debunked “97%” consensus = you are coming unglued.

            3,4,5 seem to point to you needing professional help. I’m worried for you.


            Report this

            20

            • #
              Michael

              Every observation you claim to be confirmation of AGW are all within understood climate variation = no confirmation of AGW hypothesis

              Nope, natural variations, as I have pointed out repeatedly, do not explain most observations and the current warming and trends in most observations (sea level, arctic melting, temp etc) are occurring faster than normal as well.

              Missing heat somehow causes “extreme weather”

              The actual evidence confirms continued warming AND extreme weather. Your opinions are not science..
              “The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming.

              Precipitation and floods: The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901. Globally, 2010 was the wettest year since the start of instrumental records.
              Most parts of the globe had above-normal precipitation during the decade. The eastern USA, northern and eastern Canada, and many parts of Europe and central Asia were particularly wet.
              According to the WMO survey, floods were the most frequently experienced extreme events over the course of the decade. Eastern Europe was particularly affected in 2001 and 2005, India in 2005, Africa in 2008, Asia (notably Pakistan, where 2 000 people died and 20 million were affected) in 2010, and Australia, also in 2010.”
              http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html


              Report this

              02

              • #
                Mark D.

                Mikael! Your “science” isn’t fact.

                Time and time again your Science comes up lame and wanting. It is only by faith not fact do you arrive at the conclusions you’ve endorsed.

                ALL observations are within margins. There is no proof of man caused climate events and even man caused warming is not proven. Your team has been caught out with no warming. Then the warming is “found” in the deep oceans-yet it somehow appears mysteriously to cause “extreme weather”!?!?!?. “wettest since 1901? Oh yes, even if true (I don’t buy it) the data then was robust wasn’t it…..Then there is the reality that precipitation is a surface cooling event that moves heat out where there is even less CO2 before radiating to space.

                What is known is that some climate scientists twist and “correct” data.

                That some climate scientists exaggerate what is truly “known”.

                NONE have demonstrated how CO2 would absolutely overpower the other climate systems. Only the honest ones admit that we really don’t have complete knowledge and understanding of climate systems.

                It is PROVEN that all things climate related have become political not science. You Mikael are proof of that. Politics is dreadful science. Shame on you for endorsing it. Shame on you for needlessly frightening the young and for using them to further a Leftist cause.

                Sad to say, Mikael, you are losing the PR war along with the feeble false science. It must just drive you nuts doesn’t it?


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Backslider

                Michael. What you are quoting is not peer reviewed science. It’s alarmist bunk.

                We are STILL waiting (I think I have asked five times now) for your peer reviewed science in support of your assertion that warming caused by The Industrial Revolution pulled our climate out of the LIA. Where is it?


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Michael

                ALL observations are within margins. There is no proof of man caused climate events and even man caused warming is not proven

                Wrong! do you actually ever look at any of the reports, science and observations I put forward? Complete knowldege is a furphy, nobody has complete knowledge. Nobody has seen a proton or an electron or even know exactly what they are, but that did not stop the quantum revolution and the associated developments, like the computer you use to decry science. Again, your opinion is not science, opinion blogs are not science. Science is all the peer reviewed evidence, scientific reports, data and observations I post regularly.

                Long term trend of warming
                http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

                Decadel time scale trend
                “A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for meaningful assessments of climate change,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “WMO’s report shows that global warming was significant from 1971 to 2010 and that the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented. Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat.”
                “Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans – as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events – means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times” said Mr Jarraud.
                http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/images/clip_image002_006.gif
                http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html


                Report this

                03

              • #
                Mark D.

                Secretary-General Michel Jarraud?

                He’s addressed as Mr.? No PhD?

                You call a quote from a political appointee (hack) science?

                Laughable really.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Backslider

                your opinion is not science

                Right, but the following is “peer reviewed” science, right Michael?

                “A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for meaningful assessments of climate change,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.

                Ok Michael, we accept Michel Jarraud’s assessment that a decade is a minimum time frame for assessments of climate change. Considering that we now have over 20 years without warming, our assessment is that CAGW is bunk.

                I note YET AGAIN that you are NOT ABLE to support your assertion that The Industrial Revolution pulled our climate out of the LIA.


                Report this

                10

          • #
            Grant (NZ)

            It is a cherry pick because it is regional temps based on where the least amount of warming according to AGW will occur.

            You lose points for your over use of the term “cherry pick”. Any time you are shown actual values that contradict the projections of the GCMs you resort to the “cherry pick’ defense. Do a search through this thread and see how many times you have used it. The fact of the matter is that it matters not where they start the comparison they are comparing Actuals with Predictions. If the Predictions from the models do not match the Actuals which is considered incorrect.

            The point of that graph you have seen many times, is that it shows that the models did not get their predictions correct. Your correct responses are:
            i) they better go back and revise the models
            ii) where else have they stuffed up.


            Report this

            20

            • #
              Michael

              they better go back and revise the models

              They do continuously. They are always fine tuning the science and the models. The bit that you miss is that by actual observations, we have warmed, even though we have had predominantly natural cooling cycles. You focus on projections because you don’t want to accept the inconvenient truth that all of the predictions of AGW are occurring. Some are not as fast as the models due to natural variations (predominantly la nina this decade and negative pdo), but others are faster than predicted. Loss of Arctic sea ice is faster than predicted. Sea level rising is ahead of predictions. Ocean acidification is ahead of predictions. Global ice volume falling is ahead of predictions as is glacier shrinking. Extreme precipitation events are up 7% per degree. Daily heat records beat cold ones 3 to 1 and at night time 5 to 1. Species in the NH are moving northward and upward. plus much more. These are by observation and measurement.

              So a projection is a projection but climate change as the science says it would is occurring.


              Report this

              02

      • #
        Backslider

        did you know the Greenland was over 3 degree c for 2010 above the 1961-1990 average?

        Wow Michael! So you want to talk about Greenland? Ok, let’s talk about Greenland prior to the LIA when the Vikings settled there. That period was clearly warmer than today.

        Please explain why it was warmer then.

        Please show us evidence of the climate catastrophes that happened during that period.

        Please also show us your peer reviewed science in support of your assertion that warming caused by The Industrial Revolution pulled us out of the LIA.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Backslider

        I could take you a bit more seriously if you did not refer to tropical mid tropospheric temperature trends instead of global surface temperatures

        The thing is Michael that this is where THE HOT SPOT is supposed to be…. where is it? Show it to us. Your “peer reviewed science” says it should be there, so please show it to us.

        It doesn’t exist, which is why you do not wish to talk about it or look at the data……


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Grant (NZ)

          Thanks Backslider. My point exactly. It is supposed to be there. Where is it? If it isn’t there then the models must be WRONG.


          Report this

          50

          • #
            Backslider

            Yes, we could perhaps take Michael a little more seriously if he could provide explanations for some of the finer points he likes to avoid (see my posts above also).


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Heywood

            But the models aren’t “the science” he claims. … The problem is that if the models are so wrong perhaps the underlying premise is also wrong.

            Michael is still trying to prosecute the case that there has been warming and that humans have contributed to that. What he doesn’t quite get through that thick activist skull is that we aren’t denying that.

            Actually I think James Delingpole sums it up well. 

            Our beef with the alarmists is not over the issue “Do humans contribute to climate change?” It’s over “Do humans significantly contribute to climate change?” “Is there any evidence that this climate change is catastrophic or unprecedented?” “Do we need to do anything about it?” “Can we do anything about it?” “And are we sure that the cures currently being proposed aren’t worse than the problem they’re supposed to solve?”


            Report this

            30

            • #
              Michael

              Cool, so you accept AGW. I have spent a lot of time arguing with a lot of people that very question.

              Now if you accept AGW then the precautionary principle kicks in. Consequences are already kicking in, Arctic melting, sea level rising, ocean acidifications, increasing floods and increasing heat waves. We need to mitigate possible adverse effects by reducing CO2 emissions.


              Report this

              04

              • #
                Heywood

                “so you accept AGW”

                I accept that the world has warmed, and that man has had an influence. I have never claimed otherwise.

                I have said in the past not to make broad assumptions about what people believe.

                … and don’t think you can claim some victory here on me. I have held this belief long before you came along. Actually all you have done since you appeared on this blog is carry on like a spoilt child because we don’t all bend over and agree with everything you say..


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Heywood

                “Now if you accept AGW then the precautionary principle kicks in”

                How do we know just how much “Precautionary Principle” to kick in without driving people to ruin or crippling the economy??? What is the temperature going to be in 2100??

                Let’s consult the model outputs. Oh no… A frayed rope….


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Michael

                I accept that the world has warmed, and that man has had an influence.

                That is all I claimed.

                I have said in the past not to make broad assumptions about what people believe.

                Remember this? “But holier than thou Michael the ALP climate activist”
                Pot calling the kettle black?

                How do we know just how much “Precautionary Principle” to kick in without driving people to ruin or crippling the economy?

                Exactly. So we reduce CO2 as fast as is practicable to attempt to mitigate possible adverse effects on future generations. We just don’t know how bad it could be, and the potential consequences are just to high to take that risk. As for your economy crippling claims, this just does not hold water with actual experience.

                “British Columbia’s pioneering carbon tax shift, passed in 2008, has been remarkably effective in reducing fuel use, with no apparent adverse impact on the province’s economy. These findings come from a new study by Sustainable Prosperity researchers to be published in the upcoming issue of Canadian Public Policy, a highly respected academic journal. “
                http://www.sustainableprosperity.ca/article3685


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Heywood

                “That is all I claimed.”

                Actually you claimed a lot more than that, like consipiracies about fossil fuel companies subsidising this blog etc.

                “Pot calling the kettle black?”

                Not quite. You are a staunch ALP supporter and a an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause (AGW) as evidenced by the number of posts above and on other threads. By definition, you are an “ALP (supporting) climate activist”. Your constant dismissal of any reference that you consider not worthy of your attention displays a holier than thou attitude.

                “As for your economy crippling claims, this just does not hold water with actual experience.”

                Actually didn’t claim it will, but won’t accuse you of misrepresenting me, again, because I can see how my comment it can be misinterpreted. My point was that whilst yes, it has warmed, we really do not know what the appropriate level of response would be. On one extreme we can do absolutely nothing, and roll the dice. This is a definite short term low cost/low pain option. The other extreme is stop all emissions immediately, which, as you would agree I am sure, would be devastating to the population, and cause many more deaths than warming ever could. The trick is finding a ‘middle ground’ which does not cost the earth and does not “cost the earth.” At the moment, I don’t believe that a economy wide carbon trading will do anything but piss people off, put an extra burden on business, especially manufacturing, and make bankers, lawyers and some governments very rich. You can throw around statistics and figures all you like, but I know many in small business who are impacted by the current carbon pricing schemes/environmental levies. There is also the question of mitigation vs adaptation. Which would be better to invest in? Mitigation? Adaptation? Combination of both?

                I also personally believe that emotion and mis-information from over zealous enviro groups is causing the wasting of Billions of dollars on useless projects (such as some wind and solar projects) when it could be used to invest in actually proven technology that can provide low emission baseload 24/7/365 energy such as nuclear.

                Somebody asked you before about your thoughts on nuclear power, what about it??


                Report this

                20

              • #
              • #
                Michael

                like consipiracies about fossil fuel companies subsidising this blog etc.

                Actually I don’t think I have, but never mind.
                I am a swinging voter, and have probably voted for the libs more than labor, but vote on policy and Abbott does not have any and is not a conviction politician, only in it for the power and whatever it takes to get it.

                I am a staunch advocate and supporter of actual science and accept what it is telling me. I do not agree that the no action is a low cost/low pain option, that is not what the science is saying and that is not what current consequences and observations are showing us. I disagree that emotion is wrong, the future habitability of the planet for our children and future generations is at stake and I find that very emotional. We have no choice but to mitigate and adapt, we have lost the choice to choose, consequences are already kicking in.

                If there is a lot of waste then people need to stop arguing about the science, arguing even if it is us increasing the CO2 (I have had that argument here), arguing whether the greenhouse effect is even real and more. If we put all our efforts into finding solutions they may be more effective. I actually think having a renewable revolution is something the planet needs to get back on our feet and will help get the world working again. I see wealth highly concentrated and cloistered in old industries, who are zealously protecting their own interests at the expense of everybody else.

                I am not wedded against nuclear, everything should be considered, though I think we can actually do it with renewables without that risk. Technology in this area is improving in leaps and bounds, costs are coming down and efficiency is increasing.

                So I don’t think we can get rid of CO2 emissions tomorrow, I am not advocating that, but I do think we can cope with a global carbon tax, I do think, on the experiences of several places with the right mix (such as a revenue neutral, decent sized carbon tax like in BC) that we can encourage development and switch to renewables a lot faster and in a way that will be good for world development. The old way, has and is causing much pain, just look around the world.


                Report this

                02

              • #

                Oh Michael, you poor deluded fool. You say this:

                I actually think having a renewable revolution is something the planet needs to get back on our feet and will help get the world working again.

                You just keep rabbiting on about what you think it is that you think you know.

                When it comes to the above statement you made, then it is plainly obvious you know even less than zero about renewable power, and haven’t even bothered to find out about it, just parrotting what your string pulling masters tell you to say.

                You keep telling us ….. and telling us ….. and telling us that you know the cause.

                You’re all talk, because that’s all you have. If you tell us so confidently that you know the cause, then all you need to do is to actually open your eyes and see that those people pulling your strings have done absolutely nothing to shut down those emissions.

                If, (as you say, using that tired old meme ….. Oh, think of our children and our grandchildren) the problem is so dire, as you ad nauseum keep saying, then are your masters actually doing something to stop this impending train wreck catastrophe?

                No!

                They’re not doing anything to shut down immediately the main cause of those CO2 emissions.

                All they are doing is making money from it, money that all of us pay, all of us.

                Talk, talk, talk. It’s all you’ve got.

                If the problem is so drastic, then bloody well do something.

                You then add this prize little gem:

                …..though I think we can actually do it with renewables without that risk. Technology in this area is improving in leaps and bounds, costs are coming down and efficiency is increasing.

                I have never seen so much bullshit.

                Five and a half years I’ve been writing about this.

                It hasn’t improved. Costs are going up. Efficiency is no better.

                If you actually believe this, then you are an astounding fool on the grandest of scales.

                You make out that you know more than everyone else here, and never cease telling us just that.

                This one Comment of yours, all of the above (18.1.3.1.6) proves, and proves beyond reasonable doubt, that you know less than zero, and in fact, are not even bothering to find out.

                Why don’t you just bugger off and actually go and do some research.

                You’ve got nothing.

                Except talk that is.

                Tony.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Heywood

                “I disagree that emotion is wrong, …. I find that very emotional.”

                I never said it was wrong to be emotional about it, as clearly you are, but decisions that can have a potentially economy wide effect should not be made based on emotion, nor should it be made based on the precautionary principle “worst case scanerio”. We are dealing with peoples livelihoods, businesses, investmenets, jobs, future etc. Emotion shouldn’t drive decision making.

                “I am a staunch advocate and supporter of actual science and accept what it is telling me”

                Well good for you, but there is as much misinformation, exaggeration and spin on the alarmist side of the fence as there is on the skeptical side, even in the scientific literature.

                “I think we can actually do it with renewables without that risk”

                Have you actually looked into the risk of nuclear? You might be pleasantly surprised. Modern Gen IV reactors have an impecible safety record and the development of Thorium reactors makes nuclear even safer. You might also be surprised at the radiation death toll and exposure of Fukushima (sp?) (Hint…. Less than 1). Renewables are not yet capable of reliable 24/7/365 baseload power, but nuclear is.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Mark D.

                TonyfromOZ, the bell has rung. You may take your well deserved belt and leave the ring. Your opponent was out of his weight class and he remains face down on the mat.

                Good onya.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Michael

                Talk, talk, talk. It’s all you’ve got.

                Ok I do do this earlier but it got rejected as to long, so I will break it up.

                Scroll up to most of my posts, nearly all of them provide reams and reams of peer reveiwed science, data and observations that back up my claims, while the majority of what I get back is opinion.

                “Renewable energy provides more than a quarter of electricity supply for the first time

                Germany produced record volumes of renewable energy in the first half of this year, according to new industry figures that will come as a boost to the fast-growing European renewables market.

                Germany’s National Association of Energy and Water (BDEW) published initial estimates late last week revealing that, from January to June, renewable energy technologies accounted for more than a quarter of the country’s electricity supply for the first time ever.

                Wind accounted for the largest share of renewable energy, delivering 9.2 per cent of Germany’s energy mix and producing 24.9 billion kWh of electricity in the first half of 2012 compared to 21 billion kWh during the same period last year.

                The level of biomass also rose from 14.5 billion kWh in the first half of 2011 to 15.3 billion kWh a year later, accounting for 5.7 per cent of electricity supply.

                Significantly, the amount of solar photovoltaic power increased 47 per cent in the first half of 2012, rising from 9.8 billion kWh in the first half of 2011 to 14.4 billion kWh in the same period this year.”
                http://m.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2195598/germany-breaks-renewables-record-during-first-half-of-2012

                http://m.guardiannews.com/environment/2012/oct/11/norway-carbon-tax-oil?cat=environment&type=article
                ‘Norway is to double carbon tax on its North Sea oil industry and set up a £1bn fund to help combat the damaging impacts of climate change in the developing world.’

                ‘in one of the most radical climate programmes yet by an oil-producing nation, the Norwegian government has proposed increasing its carbon tax on offshore oil companies by £21 to £45 (Nkr410) per tonne of CO2′

                ‘The Oslo government is also to spend £69m on buying carbon credits in 2013, to help offset its emissions, force through new building regulations to make all new homes carbon-neutral by 2015 and increase efforts to heavily cut emissions from cars, switching to electric vehicles.’

                ‘The Scottish government, which often looks to Norway as a model for its independence plans, has greatly increased its funding and support for renewable energy investment. It announced a £103m investment fund for marine renewables and community power schemes on Wednesday and has a £4m “climate justice fund” to help developing countries.’


                Report this

                01

              • #
                Michael

                “In the latest example of the widening gap in climate change policies between the USA and Europe, the Government of Norway last week announced the world’s largest new tax on carbon emissions, stating in explicit terms its desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate against global warming — just two weeks after the US House of Representatives passed legislation which, to the extreme opposite, explicitly bans the regulation of greenhouse gas.

                On October 8, the Government of Norway announced that it would nearly double the carbon tax rate for its offshore oil and gas production in 2013, setting one of the highest carbon tax rates in the world. The announcement is part of a comprehensive “Climate Agreement” provision within the national budget plan for 2013. The budget will:

                increase funding for climate research
                increase funding for sustainable technology development
                increase energy use requirements in building regulations
                increase funding for public transport
                increase funding to prevent deforestation
                increase funding to assist developing countries to exploit renewable sources “instead of using fossil energy sources”
                prioritize public transport, including increased funding for footpaths and cycle paths
                increase CO2 taxes for passenger vehicles, along with incentives for public transport, in order to “reduce private automobile use””
                http://planetsave.com/2012/10/17/climate-change-policy-gap-between-usa-and-europe-widens-as-norway-announces-worlds-largest-carbon-tax/

                ————-
                “British Columbia’s pioneering carbon tax shift, passed in 2008, has been remarkably effective in reducing fuel use, with no apparent adverse impact on the province’s economy. These findings come from a new study by Sustainable Prosperity researchers to be published in the upcoming issue of Canadian Public Policy, a highly respected academic journal. “
                http://www.sustainableprosperity.ca/article3685
                http://www.sustainableprosperity.ca/dl1026&display
                ———-
                “A new target to generate the equivalent of half of Scotland’s electricity needs from renewable energy by 2015 has been set by the first minister.”

                http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20140313
                ————
                “Over the last three months wind farms produced more electricity than any other power source in Spain for the first time ever, an industry group has said.
                The country delivered over six terawatt hours of electricity from wind farms during January, according to data from grid operator Red Electrica de Espana, the Spanish Wind Energy Association said in a statement.”

                “The performance means wind energy exceeded output from both nuclear and coal-fired power stations and represents more than a quarter of Spain’s total power generation.”
                http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/04/windfarms-break-energy-record-spain


                Report this

                01

              • #
                Michael

                As to the baseload issue, this is a furphy.
                Did you know that Iceland is virtually 100% renewable and that Norway is about 90%. Spain has a solar thermal plant that can provide power 24/7. It is all just technology adjustment and energy efficiency. Solar prices have fallen so much it is actually a disincentive to improvements. There are some technology efficiency enhancements that are ready to go but are not cost effective to put into action yet.


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Dave

                Michael,

                Why are you lying?
                You say Iceland is virtually 100% renewable.

                1. Geothermal energy 65 percent.
                2. Hydropower is 15 percent.
                3. Fossil fuels (mainly oil) 20% percent

                They have always had geothermal and hydro long before greenies came along.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Michael

                Why are you lying?
                You say Iceland is virtually 100% renewable.

                Wow, harsh much? That was the information I was given when I was there last year, and some sources on the internet say that as well. But I am happy to accept your wikipedia information. Around 80% renewable I think is pretty good, and so much for not being able to handle baseload. It just comes down to the right mix of renewables and technology.

                “But the linchpin of the scheme is something few other countries could offer: clean electricity. Really clean. Iceland generates 100% of its energy from renewable hydroelectric and geothermal sources, of which it has plenty. Melting glaciers feed hydro plants, and the same forces that fuel volcanoes drive geothermal power. Iceland wants a world that’s keen to abandon fossil fuels to come and take advantage.

                Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2042236,00.html#ixzz2aETDgYG9

                They have always had geothermal and hydro long before greenies came along.

                This comment is irrelevant. The assertion was that it could not be done.


                Report this

                02

            • #
              Michael

              “China’s decade-long boom in coal-driven heavy industry is about to end as the leadership shifts priorities towards energy conservation, say officials and policy advisers.
              The advisers predict China’s coal consumption will peak at only a fraction above current levels after the State Council, or cabinet, last week set an ambitious new total energy use target for the five-year plan ending 2015.

              Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/time-for-change-china-flags-peak-in-coal-usage-20130206-2dxrv.html#ixzz2MoKor9al
              ———-
              “First Solar bought the 50-megawatt Macho Springs project from Element Power Solar, according to a statement yesterday. El Paso Electric Co. (EE) agreed to buy the power for 5.79 cents a kilowatt-hour, according to a Jan. 22 procedural order from the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission.
              That’s less than half the 12.8 cents per kilowatt-hour average price for new coal plants, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Thin-film photovoltaic power typically sells for 16.3 cents a kilowatt-hour, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
              The price would be “the lowest solar power purchase agreement price we have ever seen,” Aaron Chew, an analyst at Maxim Group LLC in New York, said in an e-mail. It’s less than half the price that First Solar will get for its Antelope Valley, Topaz, and Agua Caliente projects, he said.”
              http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/03/1529651/new-mexico-utility-agrees-to-purchase-solar-power-at-a-lower-price-than-coal/

              “A new analysis from research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance has concluded that electricity from unsubsidised renewable energy is already cheaper than electricity from new-build coal and gas-fired power stations in Australia.”
              http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/renewables-now-cheaper-than-coal-and-gas-in-australia-62268

              ————————————–
              China

              “China has laid out an ambitious road map to reduce emissions by 40-45 per cent by 2020, including the world’s largest national carbon trading scheme.

              Speaking at the Australia-China Climate Change Forum in Sydney yesterday, China’s most senior climate change official challenged the “misunderstanding” that China – the world’s biggest polluter and second largest economy – was failing to act on emissions.”
              http://www.carbonnews.co.nz/story.asp?storyID=6697

              ————
              “Almost three quarters of the electricity consumed in Portugal during the first quarter of the year came from renewable sources, according to new figures from the country’s grid operator REN.
              The company confirmed this week that the combination of favourable weather conditions and the country’s investment in wind and hydro-electricity capacity meant 70 per cent of electricity was generated by renewable technologies during the first three months of the year.
              The figures show that hydroelectric output rose 312 per cent year-on-year, accounting for 37 per cent of total consumption, while wind energy generation rose 60 per cent, delivering 27 per cent of total consumption.
              The performance is likely to have resulted in a significant emission reductions, given output from coal and gas-fired power stations fell 29 per cent and 44 per cent respectively, compared with the first quarter of 2012.
              The surge in renewable power also offered a boost to Portugal’s economy as it allowed the country to export electricity equivalent to six per cent of national consumption.
              However, the figures also showed that the recent decline in Portuguese energy demand has slowed. In 2012, energy consumption fell six per cent year-on-year, largely as a result of the economic slowdown. But in a statement REN’s João Milheiro Batista said that power consumption in the first quarter fell by just 0.4 per cent when corrected for temperature effects and working days, adding that “in March there was even an upturn, with 4.7 per cent growth, or 1.6 per cent corrected for temperature and business days”.
              The figures represent the latest in a series of record for Portugal’s renewable energy sector and are likely to mark a record for any major economy.
              They also follow hot on the heels of a new report from the IEA suggesting global installed solar PV capacity is approaching 100GW and data from the Chinese government showing wind energy output rose 41 per cent last year to 100.8 billion kilowatt hours.”
              http://m.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2260701/recordbreaking-portugal-generates-70-per-cent-of-power-from-renewables

              US and China
              http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0426/Hope-for-US-China-collaboration-on-climate-change-clean-energy


              Report this

              01

          • #
            Michael

            My point exactly. It is supposed to be there.

            The hot spot is not a consequence of the science of AGW.


            Report this

            14

            • #
              Brian G Valentine

              The hot spot is not a consequence of the science of AGW.

              As a matter of fact that is supposed to be the only physical consequence that is not influenced by natural variability.

              You have performed exceedingly poorly on a sceptical blog. Grade: F+. You do seem to have the ability to plod along undaunted.


              Report this

              40

              • #
                Michael

                As a matter of fact that is supposed to be the only physical consequence that is not influenced by natural variability.

                Proof please that it is part of the theory of AGW and that it is not occurring.
                Opinions are not fact.


                Report this

                04

              • #
                Heywood

                Start here for some background.

                Interestingly, this thread is dominated by your namesake. Worth a read.

                Then look here.

                Then

                Then

                Then

                Finally

                Some peer reviewed papers for you.

                http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044018

                http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2011.pdf


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Michael

                Interestingly, this thread is dominated by your namesake.

                I am not trawling through blog posts and comments. Do you have a peer reveiwed scientific source that proves the hotspot is part of the AGW theory and is not occurring.

                The papers, seem to only talk about comparisons between models and tropical mid troposphere satelite data. I have said before that I consider the focus on tropical and not global data a cherry pick as increased heating towards the poles is a consequence of the model and that most of the heating would be surface. SO it is deliberately ignoring all the inconvenient data. The theory is Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming. Did not find any proof that the hotspot is part of AGW.


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Heywood

                “I am not trawling through blog posts and comments. Do you have a peer reveiwed scientific source that proves the hotspot is part of the AGW theory and is not occurring.”

                Here is that holier than thou attitude again. You link to blog posts whenever it suits you but when someone else does, you demand rolled gold peer reviewed research.

                Read the fucking posts (which are fully referenced – don’t bother with the comments, that is an aside to the issue) for the background and then look at the papers if you want to know, otherwise STFU.


                Report this

                10

            • #
              Brian G Valentine

              If AGW was to be observed anywhere it would have to be the Tropics, because the insolation is pretty much constant there, so solar variability wouldn’t have that much influence on the observation

              ya NUMBSKULL you can’t even think out the obvious for yourself. By the way we’re sick of hearing what other people have to say, we want to hear your own thinking (more precisely, your “thinking”).


              Report this

              30

              • #
                Brian G Valentine

                I apologize for coming down so hard on you Michael, but God gave you a mind, and if you can’t reconcile AGW with what you know is true about the world we live in – then AGW has to go.

                So good night from me in the USA, good day to Australia

                Ed se stanno leggendo questo, buona mattina alla mia famiglia a sud di Firenze


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Michael

                ya NUMBSKULL you can’t even think out the obvious for yourself. By the way we’re sick of hearing what other people have to say, we want to hear your own thinking (more precisely, your “thinking”).

                I can’t win here, when I provide peer reviewed science or other information from other sources I am told off for providing to much science. When I give opinion I am told that all I do is talk. So basically I will be attacked and critisised no matter what I do.

                No you are incorrect. The theory predicts that more warming would occur at the poles, and that is what we are finding.


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Brian G Valentine

                No you can’t win here, because you don’t do any thinking.

                The “tropical hot spot” is supposed to an upper atmospheric disturbance arising from amplified GHG “forcing” in the Tropics. AGW is supposed to warm the Earth’s surface, with a diminishing temperature difference between the Equator and the Poles. If that’s going to happen, then the upper atmosphere around the Equator has to warm significantly faster than the surface, otherwise, surface temperature differences between the Equator and the Poles would grow under the condition of the nearly constant insolation near the Equator.

                I don’t know of a climate model that does not project this “hot spot,” and if the model did not, it would poise a significant difficulty to somehow account for what AGW prescribes as a decreasing temperature difference between Poles and Equator.

                John Cook is not your “go to” guy on this issue. Since the “hot spot” hasn’t been observed, Cook made up his mind that it wasn’t supposed to be there in the first place. Essentially, he is stating that climate models are wrong.

                In this case Cook and I agree, although in very little else.

                I’m guessing you have no formal training in science. You and countless others, who are easily flummoxed by self-appointed “experts” who feel that the only “proof” of anything they need is their own authority.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Firenze: Una casa di volta di grande Leonado


                Report this

                01

              • #
                Heywood

                Tough crowd Rereke, a red thumb for saying “Florence: A home from time of great Leonardo”.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael

                Ok Brian, I do have a science degree but I am not a climate scientist. This would probably still make me more qualified to comment than 97% of the people I argue with over AGW. As most do not have formal qualifications but think they are experts from what they read on an opinion blog. What I accept is the science from 97% of climate scientists, the virtually 100% agreement of internationally recognised scientific oganisations on every continent and that less than 3% of peer reviewed science disagrees with it. I also look at the data, trends and observations with an open mind and by taking all the information, and the science into account, rather than making blanket decisions on cherry picked periods without understanding the context.


                Report this

                03

              • #
                Heywood

                Up yourself much?


                Report this

                11

              • #
                Michael

                Ok now onto the tropospheric hot spot. As I understand it, and what I was saying above when asking for proof that this was specifically part of AGW (something you have not given), is that the hot spot comes out of a consequence of any surface warming, not just AGW. Could be solar, or other type of natural forcing, including ENSO if I understand correctly.

                I also understand that this has been found globally and in the tropics on shorter timescales.
                http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf
                (John Christy is a co author here.

                It has also been found that different data sets produce different results and that research has shown that the most likely explanation is that their are errors in the satelite observations or calculations themselves. This makes sense as there have been errors before that when fixed have turned cooling trends into warming trends on satelites due to orbital decay. Satelites are not full proof.
                http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5740/1551.abstract

                Nevertheless other measurements using weather balloons and correcting for winds have found it.
                http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n6/full/ngeo208.html

                Long story short, it is not a crucial prediction of AGW that proves or disproves it and is a difficult little bugger to find and measure anyway.


                Report this

                05

              • #
                Mark D.

                John Christy is a co author.

                Hmm, so you trust Christy?


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Heywood

                “Hmm, so you trust Christy?”

                Come now Mark. When it suits the argument of course!

                I am thoroughly enjoying the warm July day today. Looking forward to more.


                Report this

                20

              • #

                Okay, then, so as you tell us without any letup, you know everything about everything, all told to you by others, so it must be true, then, well, in your mind anyway.

                Yet, when it comes to actually doing something, all you have is a big bucket of nothing, and in fact when it comes to the major cause of those emissions, you know absolutely nothing whatsoever, and in fact assiduously avoid even replying, you know the usual response from your side of the debate ….. Hey look over there, isn’t that Britney Spears.

                You do absolutely nothing except (in your mind anyway) come over all the usual I’m superior to you as you, like a typical automaton, repeat everything your masters tell you to say.

                When asked why you haven’t even bothered to find out what your side is actually doing to avoid this catastrophe, you don’t even bother to respond.

                What is it with people like you.

                Know everything, and yet when asked, know less than nothing.

                You’re a fraud.

                Tony.


                Report this

                31

              • #
                Mark D.

                Followup question: Was John Christy one of the 97%?


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Heywood

                ” Was John Christy one of the 97%?”

                …and Lindzen and Currey.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Brian G Valentine

                Among engineers I know (and I am one), maybe 10% of them buy into AGW, the rest of them think it is a complete fraud even though they don’t go around yelling about it like I do. (I think the the 10% have ulterior motives.)

                You can’t push fraud on people if it doesn’t make sense to them. And they couldn’t care less what a “consensus” view was.

                Other people are afraid to go against the crowd I suppose, because they have no taste for getting “slimed” by despicable people such as John Cook and Bill McKibben

                (and if they are good for nothing else, their talent for sliming is unparalleled)


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Backslider

                and that less than 3% of peer reviewed science disagrees with it.

                You know what Einstein said about that, don’t you?

                No number of experiments can prove me right; a single experiment could prove me wrong. ~ Albert Einstein


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Michael

                Hmm, so you trust Christy?

                lol, you guys are so funny. His on your side isn’t he? I thought you might be more prepared to accept the peer reveiwed science if you knew that. I was obviously wrong, your confirmation bias is so strong you ignore all science that does not fit it even when it comes from your side. Proves my point I guess.

                when it comes to the major cause of those emissions, you know absolutely nothing whatsoever, and in fact assiduously avoid even replying, you know the usual response from your side of the debate

                Actually I answered that question, has it not come up? I had so much info I think it got rejected. I have answered many questions, normally with peer reviewed science (though yours was more media reports because what countries are doing is not really a science article). I don’t see a lot of informed answers coming back. I can see a lot of ridicule and one liners while you assiduously ignore my actual inconvenient science. lol you guys are so predictable. I explain and provide links to the science and I get complaints about not answering anything and a bundle of one liners and one conspiracy theory mentioning fraud. Shame on you guys.

                so as you tell us without any letup, you know everything about everything

                So I specifically admit to not being a climate scientist, and tell you I refer to all the actual science, climate scientists and scientific organisations, rather than you guys just thinking your opinion is gold, and I GET THAT. Look in the mirror mate…


                Report this

                05

              • #
                Michael

                their talent for sliming is unparalleled

                I do not think you guys have any self awareness of your own actions.


                Report this

                05

              • #
                Michael

                No number of experiments can prove me right; a single experiment could prove me wrong. ~ Albert Einstein

                Well that certainly applies to your CO2 emissions experiments, doesn’t it.


                Report this

                05

              • #
                Michael

                When asked why you haven’t even bothered to find out what your side is actually doing to avoid this catastrophe, you don’t even bother to respond.

                Done. Like I said, I did, but it was to long and was rejected.

                Also, ‘my side’ cannot do anything on there own. The political system is so poisoned by misinformation, special interest groups and fossil fuel money and influence that it is very difficult for the science to be actioned upon. So we have the science, most governments agree with the science, but because of the above it is very difficult to make decent headway, also apart from the fact that when you get 2 people in a room it is difficult to agree but then try and get all the countries of the world together….holy cow.


                Report this

                05

              • #

                The your job’s done here.

                You can bugger off now.

                Tony.


                Report this

                40

  • #
    Michael

    The problem is that if the models are so wrong perhaps the underlying premise is also wrong.

    Actually they are not so wrong.
    “Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions? Let’s review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:
    That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
    That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
    That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
    That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
    Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
    That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
    The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
    They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
    They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
    The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
    The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
    The expansion of the Hadley cells.
    The poleward movement of storm tracks.
    The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
    The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
    The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
    That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.”
    http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html

    Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html


    Report this

    06

    • #
      Heywood

      SkepticalScience??

      To quote someone you know…

      “opinion blogs are not science”

      I love it how your OCD keeps bringing you back here.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      How much of his shit can you throw around before you realize that anyone can produce contradictory evidence?

      Most of that junk is variable or unconfirmed, John Cook or whoever it is that is using you as their tool hasn’t trained you very well at anything.


      Report this

      32

      • #
        KR

        Valid, successful predictions? Here’s a video discussing just a few of the successful predictions made by climate science. I suggest starting after 4:15, prior to that is just admin-trivia.

        ‘Skeptical’ predictions? Not so good… and in general (personal opinion) not based on any coherent/consistent (between skeptics) world view.

        Reality is a harsh critic – and does not respect opinions. Your opinions are either with or against the evidence, there is no level playing field when judged against the universe at large.

        For those of you predisposed to reject anything regarding standard climate science, I would ask that you actually look at these links before judging. And consider which outlook is more successful in predictions.


        Report this

        16

        • #
          Heywood

          Here is a climate scientist (as opposed to a cartoonist) who discusses accuracy of models.

          “Therefore models, on average, depict the last 34 years as warming about 1.5 times what actually occurred. Santer et al. 2012 (for 1979-2011 model output) noted that a subset of CMIP-5 models produce warming in LT that is 1.9 times observed, and for a deeper layer of the atmosphere (mid-troposphere, surface to about 18 km) the models warm the air 2.5 times that of observations. These are significant differences, implying the climate sensitivity of models is too high.”


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Michael

            Another opinion blog. Also as stated a hundred times the science is not based on the models, and if you are going to claim sensitivity is to high, does that mean you accept the science of AGW?


            Report this

            04

            • #
              Heywood

              A climate scientist. On a blog. Discussing actual papers. With references.

              But holier than thou Michael the ALP climate activist demands rolled gold peer reviewed references for everything, unless it suits him of course.

              “and if you are going to claim sensitivity is to high, does that mean you accept the science of AGW?”

              I didn’t make that claim, but the climate scientist in the link does, but another example of misrepresenting what I say.


              Report this

              30

        • #
          Brian G Valentine

          Good thing I wasn’t in the audience for that presentation, Mr KRap.

          I would have torn that all to pieces. I’m getting less and less tolerant of foolishness as I get older, isn’t that awful.


          Report this

          20

        • #
          Backslider

          Another Youtube phreak huh KR. Who are you? Backidiotthe4th’s liddle brudder?


          Report this

          20

        • #
          Mark D.

          Why do I get the feeling that the Warmist camp has determined that video is the best way to convey their propaganda campaign?

          It’s like the back room at Craptical Seance has created a special list of links to flood the blog world and their minions are off spreading it like HIV infected semen.


          Report this

          30

          • #
            Brian G Valentine

            Because they have no data. All they have is anecdotal “evidence” of climate variability (all of it within the bounds of recorded history)

            And epithets. Countless of them, which they hurl ceaselessly


            Report this

            30

    • #
      Backslider

      Michael – do I need to ask a moderator to direct you to answer questions in support of your assertions?


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Michael

        do I need to ask a moderator to direct you to answer questions

        2 things. Firstly I have answered all your non questions previously, you are really just time wasting. You never provide any actual sources (at all, let alone science ones) to prove your opinions that you want my comment on. So provide that proof first, I am not replying to, what is basically less than opinion. You need to prove your assertion, it needs to be a specific assertion and not a ‘how about when the vikings were around’. Make a claim, prove it, show relevance, and I may respond to it.

        Secondly, you lost all credibility with your CO2 and carbon calculations. You need to admit you were wrong. You used the figures, you missed that the figures were for 2 different things and you got them all wrong. But you displayed the ultimate in closed mindedness and confirmation bias but not just admitting it and fixing it. Instead you just kept trying to throw it back on me, asking me to fix it for you blah blah blah. I did do the calculations correctly. I did show the source for my conversion, I did explain how carbon and CO2 are related and how they are used in the carbon cycle. I did provide an independent scientific source that confirmed my answers correct. So basically until you regain your credibility and either admit you were wrong or provide new calculations, sources and independent verification then I don’t think we have anything to talk about. You just repeat nonsense questions ad infinitum.


        Report this

        04

        • #
          Backslider

          Firstly I have answered all your non questions previously, you are really just time wasting.

          No, you have not answered my questions, the most relevant one being:

          Where is your peer reviewed science in support of you assertion that The Industrial Revolution pulled the earth’s climate out of the LIA?

          Also:

          You assert that all warming is Anthropogenic (all the way back the The Industrial Revolution) – prove it.

          How do you explain the warm period prior to the LIA, which was warmer than today (and the one before that etc. etc.)? This again is a question based on your own assertions, not my opinions.

          You never provide any actual sources (at all, let alone science ones) to prove your opinions that you want my comment on.

          I do not need to provide anything. My questions are based on your own opinions, not mine.

          you lost all credibility with your CO2 and carbon calculations.

          My calculations were based on your own numbers – that what you posted is misleading is something for you to consider. Subsequently I asked you numerous times for accurate numbers, which you never provided.

          If you wish to talk about mistakes, then look at your own mistake in converting “atmospheric carbon emissions” directly into “atmospheric CO2 emissions”. The two are NOT the same thing.

          either admit you were wrong or provide new calculation

          I am perfectly happy to recaculate once you provide the numbers.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Michael

            I am perfectly happy to recaculate once you provide the numbers.

            If you have no idea what you are talking about, and have not done your research then you are talking out of your #$$%. Keep your opinions to yourself until you actually know what you are talking about. You are wrong on all counts.


            Report this

            04

            • #
              Backslider

              So I take it Michael from your need to resort to being offensive that you are unable to support your own bullshit.

              What opinions exactly Michael should I keep to myself? What exactly am I wrong about?

              How do you know I have not done my research? I am asking for your numbers, not mine. I take it then that you do not actually have numbers, but rather just a mish mash of quotes from all over the place.

              You are upset because you are unable to come up with the numbers. Clearly they were not included in your Astroturfing Kit.

              You are upset because I have exposed the fact your assertion that The Industrial Revolution pulled our climate out of the LIA is complete and utter bullshit. You do not have one sentence of peer reviewed science in support of it, even though you whine about the need for this in almost every post you make.

              You are also upset because I have asked you to explain past warm periods and you cannot.

              Who doesn’t know what they are talking about Michael?


              Report this

              20

              • #
                Michael

                lol, you are so funny when you are making excuses for your lack of information.

                I provided the numbers, I did the calculations, I provided sources for my information and I found an scientific independent separate source that came up with the same numbers.

                All your questions were answered, and I have provided what you asked for. Until you can prove me wrong by producing some numbers, performing your own calculations and providing sources and an independent confirming scientific source, I am not interested in your games. You don’t know what you are talking about and should just go back to the sandbox. I proved my case, can you?


                Report this

                04

              • #
                Backslider

                Here you go Michael:

                Something from the Journal Science, no less, which is completely at odds with your assertion that The Industrial Revolution pulled the Earth’s climate out of the LIA.

                Read it and weep.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Michael

                lol, that webpage is not a respected peer reviewed journal.


                Report this

                04

              • #
                Backslider

                Michael Michael – What I have linked to is an article from the Journal Science… which I do believe is a respected peer review journal.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Michael

                What I have linked to is an article from the Journal Science

                Recheck your link buddy. You have made another mistake. I copy it for you below.
                http://climate.webege.com/file.php?ret=36


                Report this

                04

              • #
                Backslider

                most of the warming this century has been in the last 40 years

                Bullshit. This century is only in it’s fourteenth year.

                Most of the warming in the 20th century was in the first half.

                It is research of 78 researchers from 9 regional working groups from 60 seperate scientific institutions

                Argument from authority yet again Michael. We are well aware of the warmist need to deny the MWP. Your paper is crap.

                he expected the warming to be linear at .5 per century

                Bullshit.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Backslider

                Recheck your link buddy. You have made another mistake.

                No mistake. YOU check the paper and then tell us all its not from the Journal Science.

                Fuckwit.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael

                Most of the warming in the 20th century was in the first half.

                You seriously need to learn to read a graph.
                http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

                or read some peer reviewed science

                “The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.”
                http://berkeleyearth.org/images/annual-comparison-small.png

                Argument from authority yet again Michael.

                Yep, your one single scientist is correct while a combined effort from scientists around the world pulling data together from multiple organisation are wrong. You are so funny.


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Michael

                No mistake. YOU check the paper and then tell us all its not from the Journal Science.

                I did, even your mate Heywood told you to stop being so silly. Is thsi going to be another one of those long running arguments going on for days because you refuse to admit when you are wrong?


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Backslider

                I did, even your mate Heywood told you to stop being so silly. Is thsi going to be another one of those long running arguments going on for days because you refuse to admit when you are wrong?

                No, he did not say that at all. He said exactly:

                Don’t give the arrogant dickhead ammunition.

                He means not to give you a reason to carry on with yet more bullshit. He rightly nails you as a dickhead.

                What am I wrong about now Michael? I am wrong to give you easy access to read the full papers for free rather than just the abstracts as you normally do? (because we all know that you don’t pay for the papers so you can read them in full).

                Like Heywood said, you are a dickhead.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Backslider

                You seriously need to learn to read a graph.
                http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

                or read some peer reviewed science

                “The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.”

                You seriously need to learn comprehension.

                First you talk about warming this century being in the last 40 years, when this century is only in it’s fourteenth year.

                I give you the benefit of the doubt for your mistake and point out that most of the warming LAST CENTURY was in the first half. It was.

                You now show your “proof” that I am wrong by talking about the last 250 years. Sorry Michael, but the last 250 years is not last century.

                Please learn comprehension, then try again.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Backslider

                You seriously need to learn to read a graph.

                Eh…. I just had a moment spare and took a look at your graph Michael.

                It is YOU who needs to learn how to read a graph…. count the rectangles sonny.

                You have less than 5, I have more than six. You lose buster.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Michael

                First you talk about warming this century being in the last 40 years, when this century is only in it’s fourteenth year.

                So your argument is that you don’t understand there hasn’t been 40 years in this century?

                I give you the benefit of the doubt for your mistake and point out that most of the warming LAST CENTURY was in the first half. It was.

                “and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years”
                Whos comprehension problem?

                I gave you 2 sources of information, one being GISS of the temperatures since 1880, this is one of the most global data sets, including the Arctic, clearly showing the greatest rise in the last 40 – 50 years. Then I show you Berkeley, an analysis of around 1.2 billion temp records, has been peer reiviewed, paid for by fossil fuel money, and the method was applauded by Watts (until his confirmation bias did not like the answer). 1.5 deg in the last 250 years, 0.9 of that in the last 50.

                But you still say…

                and point out that most of the warming LAST CENTURY was in the first half. It was.

                …without any proof at all.


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Michael

                count the rectangles sonny.

                So if we are working on rectangles…
                1900 was about -.15 to
                1950 was about -.2
                So lets see in the first half of the century it got .05 degree cooler?

                1950 was about -.15 to
                2000 was about .4
                So lets see the second half of the century it got .55 warmer!

                2 people can play the pedantic game. And you said…

                and point out that most of the warming LAST CENTURY was in the first half. It was.


                Report this

                02

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    The problem with this AGW nonsense is, it sounds “sciency” enough for some half-baked “intellecshooalz” to derive some sort of sexual titillation out of it


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Mark D.

    Michael, I asked two questions:

    Hmm, so you trust Christy?

    And

    Followup question: Was John Christy one of the 97%?

    Your non answer was this:

    lol, you guys are so funny. His on your side isn’t he? I thought you might be more prepared to accept the peer reveiwed science if you knew that. I was obviously wrong, your confirmation bias is so strong you ignore all science that does not fit it even when it comes from your side. Proves my point I guess.

    A complete evasion. Only someone afraid of the truth evades questions. Try again! Do YOU trust Christy?


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Michael

      Hmm, so you trust Christy?

      Oh I didn’t take it literally. What I take seriously is the peer reviewed science. Off course it is not foolproof and dependent on the journal it is in. It is possible to get science published in a journal where the topic is not that journals speciality or where the editor and the reviewers are all sympathetic to the topic. I do not deny that, but I do take it much more seriously. Apart from the fact that it is generally reviewed by scientists expert in the field, it is then published to the general scientific community at large, where any errors are then quickly found, rebuttals similarly published etc. It is a self correcting mechanism.

      So if it was able to be published in a respectable scientific journal, I will read it and take on board what it is saying and then put it into context with the science at large. Is that what you meant. The real question is, why did you guys not even consider it?


      Report this

      04

      • #
        Mark D.

        Again, evasion! It’s two Yes-No questions

        DO YOU TRUST CHRISTY?

        IS CHRISTY ONE OF THE 97%?

        Two more frigging paragraphs of evasion.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Michael

          DO YOU TRUST CHRISTY?

          You have a comprehension issue. I did answer the question and no it is not a yes/no question. Typically simplistic response, as is your response to the science when you cherry pick a graph and make determinations without context or science and ignoring the whole body of information.

          It is not a case of trusting or not trusting, it is having faith in the peer reviewed system as being the best way to progress science. He was one of the authors on the paper, it was peer reviewed, so I will respect that, read and evaluate it. As to Christy as a person? not a lot of respect, I know he is part of the small community of climate scientists that do not accept the science and continuously put forward cherry picked assertions and misrepresentations for ideology or personal gain (I don’t know the guy so can’t say which). But the paper is peer reveiwed science and that gets my attention, unlike you guys that ignore all science unless it fits your confirmation bias, even when its from scientists on your side. So the bigger question is why did you guys ignore it and DO YOU trust Christy.

          Also 97% of what, you did not specify. Try and understand what you read instead of trying to turn a non issue into a fake something. You are just playing games while desperately trying to evade your own science.


          Report this

          03

          • #
            Mark D.

            Michael, you are truly a loathsome example of a human being. A slippery, deceptive, propaganda spewing ideologue. It took 4 times to get a response to two simple questions and even when you finally answer with some substance, your reply is still slimy with evasion and misdirection. NOT NICE!

            I have a comprehension problem? We shall see: With your slippery response I still have enough proof of your slimy character. You had a sense of why I was pushing for you to answer but you tried to carefully slink away from the trap set. Writhe and wriggle but you knew you couldn’t get away. You knew I already had you cornered but you still tried to slip out. Your lousy character now exposed, you try to use the word science as a shield deflecting all things uncomfortable.

            You use the work of Christy when it suits you. (can you say CHERRY PICKING?) But then you know you have to admit that a respected, highly credentialed scientist knows what he’s talking about (after all you cite it). So you must now explain why everything else Christy says about the same “science” is contrary to what “science” you believe.

            Hilarious bit of self contradicting deception here:

            I know he is part of the small community of climate scientists that do not accept the science…..

            So demonstrating a complete lack of logic and reasoning. How could he be the peer reviewed scientist AND not accept “science” at the same time. Especially dumb for you to say because you’ve cited his work!

            But worst of all, in finishing that sentence it appears you are willing to commit libel:

            As to Christy as a person? not a lot of respect, I know he is part of the small community of climate scientists that do not accept the science and continuously put forward cherry picked assertions and misrepresentations for ideology or personal gain

            You are in dangerous waters here. I hope Joanne and the moderators take note.

            Then finally, the self administered coup de grâce: you pretend to not know the “97%” I ask you about. Stunningly blatant evasion. Let me make this perfectly clear for you: Was Christy included in the survey of climate scientists you constantly toss around as proof of consensus? Specifically, did he respond to be counted as part of the 3% or part of the 97%?


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Michael

              You had a sense of why I was pushing for you to answer but you tried to carefully slink away from the trap set.

              It was always obvious you were trying to desperately set a trap while you avoided the actual relevent question, why did you guys ignore the peer reviewed science of christy? Are you near a mirror as you slither and slide and try to set traps.

              I answered the relevent question, I respect the peer reviewed science, irrelevent of who wrote it and evaluate it on its merits. You have shown that you ignore any peer reviewed science that does not fit your confirmation bias. They are the important observations that people need to come away from this.


              Report this

              00

      • #
        Backslider

        What I take seriously is the peer reviewed science

        No, you do not. I provided you with a link to an article from the Journal Science and the best you could come up with was “lol, that webpage is not a respected peer reviewed journal.”

        We are not talking about the web page. We are talking about an article from the Journal Science, which I do believe is a “respected peer reviewed journal”. You do not wish to look at it because I warned you that it contradicts your own bullshit:

        It also remains unclear why just at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and before the emission of substantial amounts of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, Earth’s temperature began to rise steeply. Was it a coincidence? I do not think so.

        Rather, I suspect that the post-1860 natural warming was the most recent in a series of similar warnings spaced at roughly 1500-year intervals throughout the present interglacial, the Holocene.

        …The geographic pattern of Holocene climate fluctuations remains murky, but several things are clear. The Little Ice Age and the subsequent warming were global in extent. Several Holocene fluctuations in snowline, comparable in magnitude to that of the post-Little Ice Age warming, occurred in the Swiss Alps. Borehole records both in polar ice and in wells from all continents suggest the existence of a Medieval Warm Period. Finally, two multidecade-duration droughts plagued the western United States during the latter part of the Medieval Warm Period. I consider this evidence sufficiently convincing to merit an intensification of studies aimed at elucidating Holocene climate fluctuations, upon which the warming due to greenhouse gases is superimposed.

        Science, New Series, Vol. 291, No. 5508. (Feb. 23, 2001), pp. 1497-1499.

        Michael… rotate.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Michael

          I provided you with a link to an article from the Journal Science

          You should recheck your link. You keep making mistakes and then not have the credibility to admit to it and fix it.


          Report this

          01

      • #
        Backslider

        I will read it and take on board what it is saying and then put it into context with the science at large.

        What you mean to say Michael is that if it agrees with your meme you will accept it. If it does not, you will not.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Backslider

        Here is another one for you Michael, peer reviewed from the journal Natural Science:

        On the recovery from the Little Ice Age


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Backslider

        Oh! An absolute must read for you Michael:

        On the Coherence between Dynamics of the World Fuel Consumption and Global Temperature Anomaly

        From the journal Energy and Environment, peer reviewed, naturally.

        My, you must be positively drooling having all this peer reviewed science thrown at you Michael.

        Read it all, then have a think about the concept of falsifying your own beliefs.


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Backslider

        But wait Michael! There’s more!

        Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere

        Another peer reviewed article from the journal Energy and Environment.

        You will like this Michael as it discusses how GH gases work, in particular your favourite molecule in detail and shows what happens with a doubling of CO2 from 285 ppmv (pre-industrial era) to 570 ppmv (gotta love that!).

        Take particular note how it shows that doubling CO2 increases its IR absorption from 17.0% to a whopping 18.5%. Won’t that fuck your numbers up!


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Michael

          Another peer reviewed article from the journal Energy and Environment.

          I worry about you. The link goes to the site below, NOT THE JOURNAL (as do all your links). You playing games? (or is it your site and you are trying to get the hit rate up?).Also most of the time it doesn’t work, claiming to be busy, when it does work you have to be a member. Learn to find an actual journal to link to! (or do you spend so much time at opinion blogs you don’t know the difference?)

          http://climate.webege.com/file.php?ret=44


          Report this

          02

          • #
            Backslider

            I worry about you. The link goes to the site below, NOT THE JOURNAL

            You are a dick head Michael. I do not post links to paywalls, simple as that. Where the article located is irrelevant, its the article that is important.

            when it does work you have to be a member

            Well gee. Membership is free, which is far better than a paywall where you also must be a member AND pay for articles that are otherwise freely available.


            Report this

            10

            • #
              Michael

              Where the article located is irrelevant, its the article that is important.

              Yes it does, you either read and understand the science or you grab links of opinion blog sites that tell you what to think. In my experience I am often pointed to articles because a blog has painted a cherry picked portion of it a certain wa, but when I go read it I find that the conclusions and its purpose are entirely different.

              Well gee. Membership is free

              This would be the same as me asking you to join the skeptical science website to read some science. Before you respond unthinkingly just think what you would have said to me if I told you to read science on John Cooks website and you had to be a member. Would you do it? (considering that you rarely even read science I post from actual journals, having previously said it was to much to read, the question is mainly rhetorical)


              Report this

              01

              • #
                Backslider

                Yes it does, you either read and understand the science or you grab links of opinion blog sites that tell you what to think

                The fact is Michael that you are simply afraid of the science. The website that I linked to does not present any opinion whatsoever. It presents simply the abstracts and then downloads for the full papers.

                Your excuses are pathetic.

                Its pretty clear that the only thing you read are abstracts and then formulate your own conclusions from those. I don’t believe you have ever read a full paper in your whole life.

                You scream and shout “Where is the peer reviewed science, where is the peer reviewed science” but when it is presented to you you refuse to look at it.

                Troll.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Why are you replying to a post from July 29th? If you have made a mistake and this is a comment on the sun articles you posted then you have missed the point again. I am quite happy with the science and the articles, the fact is they DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR CASE. Feel free to explain specifically how they do.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Backslider

                Why are you replying to a post from July 29th

                It’s perfectly ok for you to thread bomb old threads…. isn’t it?

                The fact is Michael that you have not read any of the science. All you have been able to do is whine that I have posted links to a site that you claim is “skeptic” and horror of horrors you must sign up to download the PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE…. for free no less.

                The fact is Michael that the site I have posted to presents only the abstracts of peer reviewed science and the downloads for them. Nothing more. If you care to look you will find they require you to sign up solely as a measure to curb hot linking and SPAM bots.

                Oh, BTW, the JoNova website happens to be a skeptic site which requires you to use a valid email address, which is no less than the site I post links to… your whining is just more dodging and weaving from you to AVOID THE SCIENCE.

                You scream “Peer review, peer review”, but won’t actually look at any science which clearly contradicts your alarmist stance.


                Report this

                00

        • #
          Heywood

          Backslider,

          Don’t give the arrogant dickhead ammunition.

          Here is the link to the paper.

          http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3217


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Michael

            Actually this paper has been superseded by the much more researched and comprehensive pages paper. It is research of 78 researchers from 9 regional working groups from 60 seperate scientific institutions.

            I saw many problems with the paper, one of the main ones being that he expected the warming to be linear at .5 per century when most of the warming this century has been in the last 40 years. It also does not follow solar irradience, especially when most of the warming has occurred while tsi has been flat. Also he talks about it being a rebound from the LIA as if the earth has a natural temp to rebound to. This is not the case, the earths temp bounces all over the place depending on the forcings upon it. So not overly impressed and quite obviously superseded.

            “Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”
            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo1797.html


            Report this

            04

            • #
              Backslider

              most of the warming has occurred while tsi has been flat.

              Bullshit. Most of the warming occurred in the first half of the 20th century.

              You know nothing.


              Report this

              10

            • #
              Backslider

              There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age

              Wow! And they call US deniers??

              This is a problem we get with conclusions based solely on temperature reconstructions, particularly when there is a clear bias toward a particular conclusion.

              This paper instead looks at the physical evidence Worldwide for these periods:

              Glacial Geological Evidence For The Medieval Warm Period – Jean M Grove and Roy Switsur – Journal Climatic Change.


              Report this

              20

              • #
              • #
                Backslider

                Full paper.

                $39.95 – you can get the full paper free from my link, or just by searching Google/Yahoo


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael

                globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age

                What part of that don’t you understand? It was regional in different areas over different periods, not the same as the current global increase with EVERY CONTINENT in the 2001- 2010 decade being the warmest on the industrial record.

                This is a problem we get with conclusions based solely on temperature reconstructions, particularly when there is a clear bias toward a particular conclusion.

                Would this be similar to say selecting a start date on a strong el nino year, finishing on a la nina affected year and ignoring the long term trend, and the rest of the data and science?

                Also your paper is 1994, science does get superseded, it is continuously improving, more data comes in, new developments occur etc. Or would you say that your 1950 black and white telly is equivalent to the latest flat panel led?


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Heywood

                Apologies Backslider. Weird really, when I clicked on the link last night, the full paper opened up in a new window…

                Try this link..


                Report this

                10

              • #
                crakar24

                FFS all you have to do is go to CO2 science, use the alpha index (select “M”) and you will find the MWP. In this section you will find dozens of peer reviewed and published studies that show there was a pronounced warm period in the Southern Hemisphere that corresponds to the studies done in the Northern Hemisphere that show a pronounced warming.

                Any further denial of this fact by Michael will only show that she/him/shim is a complete and utter moron, ergo please can we all stop providing this nincompoop with entertainment?


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Michael

                FFS all you have to do is go to CO2 science, use the alpha index (select “M”) and you will find the MWP.

                Or I could send you a link to skeptical science that focuses on providing and explaining the peer reviewed science and has won science awards for its education in climate science. But then you would not look and hurl a rage of ad hominem attacks against the website owner. So please stick to direct links unless you agree you are hypocrites.


                Report this

                02

        • #
          Heywood

          And the others. Three seconds of Google searching is all it took….

          Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere

          http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf (re-printed from Energy & Environment)


          On the Coherence between Dynamics of the World Fuel Consumption and Global Temperature Anomaly

          http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/q8g396420r003483/


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Michael

            Can I have more information on what you think these papers are saying? When I present peer reviewed science I generally explain them and then give the sourece, rather than just post links out of context. People would get annoyed if I just link bombed.


            Report this

            04

            • #
              Heywood

              Ask Backslider.

              I just found the links to the papers for him.


              Report this

              10

            • #
              Backslider

              Can I have more information on what you think these papers are saying?

              All of the links I provided include the abstract, dumbo.


              Report this

              10

            • #
              Backslider

              When I present peer reviewed science I generally explain them and then give the sourece

              Right. So you admit that you have been subjecting us to YOUR OPINION while at the same time berating all of us for having opinions. You are a freak.


              Report this

              20

            • #
              Michael

              All of the links I provided include the abstract, dumbo.

              So you admit you don’t know? This is my experience, link bombing without any understanding because a blog site told you it was relevant. This from a person who previously admitted he would not read my peer reveiwed science because it was to much reading. You need to understand it to quote it, that was my point about me being able to explain the science and then pointing to the actual science as proof.


              Report this

              03

              • #
                Backslider

                So you admit you don’t know?

                So I admit I don’t know what? What is your question?? I have actually read the full papers of all I linked to. I did tell you what they were about sufficiently, at times the title is enough.

                This from a person who previously admitted he would not read my peer reveiwed science because it was to much reading.

                No, I said that I would not read the paper at that particular time (I believe it was after midnight for me).

                You need to understand it to quote it

                Oh yes Michael. Do you mean how you just read the abstracts and just quote those? I don’t believe that is understanding.

                You now berate me because the papers I link to are not exactly where you prefer them to be. Are you subscribed to all the journals or paywalls? I think not.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Backslider

                This is my experience, link bombing without any understanding because a blog site told you it was relevant

                Yes Michael, I know that is what you do. It is pretty clear that most times you have only read the abstract of the papers you link to or those you say are “superseded”.

                Papers don’t get “superseded” Michael. If you wish to present an argument like this about a paper, you must show where exactly it has been challenged and by whom.


                Report this

                30

  • #
    Backslider

    “and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years”
    Whos comprehension problem?

    Your number is bullshit, simple as that.

    Everywhere else (one example) I find that its generally agreed that the rise in global temps the past ~100 years has been 0.7 degrees.

    So your argument is that you don’t understand there hasn’t been 40 years in this century?

    This century began in the year 2000. Its now 2013, so we are in its fourteenth year. You are off with the fairies… can I have some of whatever you are on?

    So lets see the second half of the century it got .55 warmer!

    We are not talking about the second half of the century. You said the past 40 years, which puts your start date at 1973. You lose again.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Backslider

      So lets see the second half of the century it got .55 warmer!

      So it’s 0.55 now is it? You said it was 0.9 in the past 50 years, which means that the rise this past 13 years has been 0.35. Where is your peer reviewed science for that crap?? You are totally full of bullshit.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Michael

        o it’s 0.55 now is it? You said it was 0.9 in the past 50 years

        Do you actually read anything I post with comprehension and understanding? One was GISS from NASA and the other one was the berkely study of 1.2 billion records. You do ramble about nonsense thinking it has substance and refuse to actually display understanding of what is presented.

        We are not talking about the second half of the century. You said the past 40 years, which puts your start date at 1973. You lose again.

        Seriously, are you 10? This is not a game, this is the future habitability of our planet for our kids and future generations.

        My 0.55 was based on the actual figures at 1900, 1950 and 2000 of GISS and it was you who said the first half of the last century was obviously hotter than the second half. It was clearly hotter in the second half by a long way and feel free to do an actual analysis using trendlines, I think counting big squares is not very scientific, don’t you?


        Report this

        03

        • #
          Backslider

          One was GISS from NASA and the other one was the berkely study of 1.2 billion records

          So what are you telling us? That the numbers do not agree with each other?

          This is not a game, this is the future habitability of our planet for our kids and future generations.

          *sniffle*… please don’t make me cry.

          it was you who said the first half of the last century was obviously hotter than the second half

          It is you who has the comprehension problem sonny, I never said any such thing. What I said was that most of the warming was in the first half of the 20th century, which you will find is a fact.


          Report this

          10

  • #
    Backslider

    While we are at it Michael, perhaps you can help me to resolve this in accordance with you AGW theory. I would have expected it to be going up over those 40 years, not down….

    Perhaps you would like to overlay this on top of one of your CO2 graphs?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Michael

    While we are at it Michael, perhaps you can help me to resolve this in accordance with you AGW theory

    Your kidding right? Obviously a clear case of extensive cherry picking to confirm your bias. Seriously how long did you play around with the figures to get the graph you wanted. I should have kept my promise to myself to stop interacting with you after that CO2 calculations fiasco, your such a time waster.


    Report this

    13

    • #
      Backslider

      Obviously a clear case of extensive cherry picking to confirm your bias.

      Bullshit. Its a forty year period, twice that which is required for statistical significance according to whoever you care to consult. The period is significant in that it was a time when CO2 emissions really ramped up. What do we find? Cooling rather than warming.

      I did not play around at all. I already knew, because I have taken the time to read scientific literature, that this was a period of cooling rather than warming. Its a period that you warmists also deny, along with the MWP and LIA…. because all of your crap is clearly bullshit when we look at these.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Michael

        Bullshit. Its a forty year period

        Firstly Hadcrut is not global, it does not include the poles, so the data set itself is cherry picking,

        Secondly, real science does not occur by graph manipulation, out of context, ignoring natural variations, devoid of science and by looking for a specific period to fit your confirmation bias.

        Thirdly, it proves my point, the long term record contains many dips and pauses but with an obvious and sustained long term trend.

        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

        Your manipulations are pathetic and prove your confirmation bias.


        Report this

        01

        • #
          Backslider

          Firstly Hadcrut is not global, it does not include the poles, so the data set itself is cherry picking

          HADCRUT4 Global Mean does not give a global mean?… ok Michael, then try this:

          Best 95% upper confidence bound

          Have a play with it yourself…. choose whichever data set you want.

          real science does not occur by graph manipulation, out of context

          Well Michael, you will need to talk with Woodfortrees if you think there is something wrong with their graphs. There is no manipulation whatsoever.

          I simply chose a known cooling period, of forty years no less, and this is your best defense:

          cherrypicking, manipulation, out of context!!!!

          You are full of shit Michael. The truth is that a FORTY YEAR period (twice that required for statistical significance) DOES NOT FIT your AGW theories, simple as that. It does not fit your own bias and you just shit yourself when you see it.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Michael

            DOES NOT FIT your AGW theories, simple as that. It does not fit your own bias and you just shit yourself when you see it.

            Not at all. It fits perfectly. Like I have said to you a million times. The graph displays many dips and pauses but in real science you take all the data available and look at the long term trend in the context of all the science, the observations, the data and experiments.

            You make your decision on one cherry picked section of a graph while ignoring that there is a long term warming trend, that is affected by natural variations and many other sources and places of warming and also fits all the fingerprints of what would occur in a world warming by AGW.

            The science is not cherry picked temperature graphs, there are many lines of evidence.

            So thanks, you prove my point, there is zero evidence of any pausing in the long term temperature trend, far from it in fact, because even though there are many natural cooling influences, temps have not fallen at all. 2001 – 2010, hottest decade on the record on all continents and 2011 and 2012 hottest la nina affected years on record.


            Report this

            02

    • #
      Backslider

      As for your crap science that denies the MWP and LIA, I would suggest you read some real research rather than number fiddling, beginning with this:

      Glacial Geological Evidence For The Medieval Warm Period – Jean M Grove and Roy Switsur

      This research shows, using PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, that yes, both the MWP and LIA happened and were global. The question for you will be “Do I believe the number fiddling or hard physical evidence?”

      then:

      Was the Medieval Warm Period Global? – Wallace S. Broecker

      then:

      Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal – Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas

      Feel free to Google the papers and áy for them if you don’t care to use my links.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Michael

        As for your crap science that denies the MWP and LIA

        Been proved multiple times.

        So going on your own example of persisting with pointing only at a blog site

        “While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.”
        http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

        “PAGES (Past Global Changes) is a scientific network which supports research aimed at understanding the Earth’s past environment in order to make predictions for the future. It’s funded by the U.S. and Swiss National Science Foundations, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Over 5,000 scientists from more than 100 countries subscribe to PAGES, which is essentially an organizational group to bring international scientists together.”
        http://www.skepticalscience.com/pages2k-confirms-hockey-stick.html


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Backslider

          So going on your own example of persisting with pointing only at a blog site

          More bullshit from you Michael. The links I have given you are to peer reviewed papers. The site is NOT a blog. As I said, you can Google them if you wish to pay for them.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Michael

            The links I have given you are to peer reviewed papers

            Newsflash, not a journal site (http://climate.webege.com/file.php?ret=49). Skeptical science also is full of links to the peer reviewed papers.


            Report this

            03

            • #
              Heywood

              ” Skeptical science also is full of links to the peer reviewed papers.”

              Why don’t you head over there AAD. Obviously you would be in your catastrophist element. You would enjoy the mutual circle jerk that is the cartoonist’s website.

              BTW – It isn’t an ad hom if he referred to himself as a cartoonist.


              Report this

              10

              • #
                Michael

                You would enjoy the mutual circle jerk that is the cartoonist’s website.

                Hypocrites. It is ok to try to keep sending me, and asking me to join a skeptic website, but then start the personal attacks and insults the minute I mention one. Also you are quite aware it is a science award winning website for its peer reviewed focus and correct science approach to climate science. He earns a living in various ways because his efforts are largely voluntary.


                Report this

                01

              • #
                Heywood

                Nobody asked you to “join” any skeptical websites. I tried it over at SkS some time ago, and was quite polite and asked a couple if questions about CO2 sensitivity. The millisecond they worked out that I might have an alternative view to the meme, I was abused and vilified. When I asked why, my posts were merely deleted and I was banned.

                So, when SkS supporting [SNIP - crass] such as yourself turn up on a blog that I frequent, I treat them as I was treated.

                So, if it gets an award for abusing, vilifying and censoring alternative points of view, then as far as I am concerned, it is worthless.

                So it won an award. Big deal. This blog has won awards too. So what?


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael

                Nobody asked you to “join” any skeptical websites.

                You cannot access any of Backsliders links without joining a ‘skeptic’ site.


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Backslider

                You cannot access any of Backsliders links without joining a ‘skeptic’ site.

                It’s not a “skeptic” site.

                Its an information site that does not present anything other than peer reviewed science papers. No commentary, no meme, no alarmism, no propaganda.

                I use it because I do not believe in sending people to paywalls to obtain papers that are otherwise freely available.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Backslider

                Here you go Michael, just for you:

                Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts – D.H. Douglass and R.S. Knox

                Now, if you are going to tell us that Pielke is a ‘skeptic’ then you will need to seek psychiatric help.

                This is the paper for with your friend Dana Nutticelli was torn to shreds trying to debunk.

                READ IT.


                Report this

                10

            • #
              Backslider

              It is ok to try to keep sending me, and asking me to join a skeptic website

              Which part of “you can Google them if you wish to pay for them” do you fail to comprehend?

              It’s not a skeptic website. It describes itself as non alarmist, nothing more. The only thing it does is distribute peer reviewed papers, nothing more. There are no articles or any kind of skeptic commentary. The only thing you will find are the abstracts. Fail again Michael.

              I read in their privacy policy that you are asked to register solely to prevent SPAMbots, web scrapers and hotlinking because its a low bandwidth server (clearly a free service).

              The fact is Michael that as much as you march around like King Farouk screaming “peer review, peer review” you are unwilling to look at any science that may contradict your alarmist views. Do it, for the sake of your children and future generations.


              Report this

              10

              • #
                Mark D.

                Do it, for the sake of your children and future generations.

                Nice advice Backslider but do we really want to encourage him in reproducing?


                Report this

                10

    • #
      Backslider

      I should have kept my promise to myself to stop interacting with you

      Well Michael, I am STILL waiting for your peer reviewed research which shows your assertion that The Industrial Revolution pulled the Earth’s climate out of the LIA (even though your “science” (number fiddling) shows that the LIA was only regional.

      Every paper I have ever looked at on this point says that the warming was natural.

      Every paper that I look at shows that there is no close correlation between CO2 and global temperatures, other than the fact that CO2 rises AFTER temperature. That’s a well know fact.

      Oh, while we are talking about “regional”. If you still wish to argue that the MWP and LIA were in fact “regional”, then anything else you care to argue about, for example Arctic sea ice, that also is a regional fluctuation (which it probably is BTW)…. or anything else for that matter. If we accept your arguments, then there is NO SUCH THING as global warming, only regional variation. I’m sure the numbers could all be just as easily fiddled to prove this.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Michael

        Well Michael, I am STILL waiting for your peer reviewed research which shows your assertion that The Industrial Revolution pulled the Earth’s climate out of the LIA

        Done. Several times.


        Report this

        01

        • #
          Backslider

          Done. Several times.

          Bullshit. You did not once reply to my requests for your peer reviewed science on this.

          You do not have any, clearly.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Michael

        Bullshit. You did not once reply to my requests for your peer reviewed science on this.

        Go up a few and then keep going up. Done multiple times on multiple threads in various ways. You are just a time waster that keeps asking the same question time and time again while persisting in ignoring the answers.


        Report this

        01

        • #
          Backslider

          Done multiple times on multiple threads in various ways.

          No Michael, you have done nothing but AVOID my question. I posted the same question at least five times, each time you ignored it completely.

          The fact is that you do not have the science.

          Michael thinks that The Industrial Revolution pulled the world’s climate out of the Little Ice Age.

          Show us the peer reviewed science.

          Would you like me to show you the peer reviewed science which shows that you are completely wrong?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Michael

            Show us the peer reviewed science.

            Ok. For the last time, and then I am not dealing with you anymore. You will characteristically dismiss it and then ignore it and ask for it again. Does not change the fact that it is peer reviewed, current, is work from a large number of scientists, from a large number of organisations over multiple regions.

            Firstly multiple graphs of a large number of temp reconstructions
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-6-10.gif

            Then the peer reviewed science.

            “Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”
            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo1797.html


            Report this

            02

            • #
              Backslider

              Michael thinks that The Industrial Revolution pulled the world’s climate out of the Little Ice Age.

              Sorry, there is nothing there that supports your view, in fact it denies both the MWP and LIA.

              Sorry sonny, but I do not care how many scientists supposedly put this together since there are mountains of research which clearly show these two periods as very real and very global.

              we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia

              This is clear bullshit. First you look at the physical evidence, not carry on with a bunch of number fiddling.


              Report this

              10

            • #
              Backslider

              You will characteristically dismiss it and then ignore it and ask for it again.

              You did not ONCE give this in reply to any of my questions.

              It also does not support your view.


              Report this

              10

            • #
              Backslider

              Firstly multiple graphs of a large number of temp reconstructions

              I like your graphs Michael…. all of which clearly show the cooling which you accused me of cherry picking and manipulating graphs.

              You are SO full of it!


              Report this

              10