The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Atmosphere of trust needed for effective action on global warming > Comments

Atmosphere of trust needed for effective action on global warming : Comments

By Krystian Seibert, published 6/4/2010

Australia's ability to address policy challenges such as climate change depends on restoring trust in government.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
It does not really matter whether AGW is real or not.
Would you trust the government to administer the ETS scheme ?
On performance you could not possibly do so.

In any case the ETS schemes are badly flawed,
The European scheme has collapsed from E30 to E1 a credit unit.
They are easily open to fraud and that is what has happened in Europe
when expired units were recirculated from Hungary.

It is impossible to protect the system when you are selling something
that can neither be seen or measured. Why do you think the dealer
spivs are all lined up ready to go with derivatives and all the other
Credit Default certificates, err Indulgences ?
Where are you Martin Luther ?
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 13 April 2010 12:01:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The simple fact is that www.realclimate.org (or any other website for that matter) and the institutions listed by Ken Fabos do not provide proof that global warming has been caused by human activities. All have one thing in common: belief in the religion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), i.e. they treat AGW as a matter of faith.
AGW assertion is not science. AGW assertion is not evidence.
Climate models are not science. Climate models are not evidence. Climate models are not proof. In any case, none of the climate models has been validated as representing actual climate experience. Consequently, the outcomes predicted with these models are at best speculative.
Despite increasing CO2 emissions, there has been no global warming this century. In fact, Phil Jones of the CRU agrees that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years.
Climate change has always been the norm.
Posted by Raycom, Tuesday, 13 April 2010 10:03:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom,

Roy Spencer and Dick Lindzen are well known AGW contrarians, they employ climate models in their research to advance their case against AGW. Do you think they should stop using them?

You infer that various scientific institutions:

National Centre for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Climatic Data Center
National Snow and Ice Data Center
etc

are somehow analogous to churches because you think AGW is, asserted?

Raycom, without relying on "any other website for that matter" (joke), can you please explain both radiosonde and satellite evidence showing that the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling?

I ask this because atmospheric physicists/chemists say that this is evidence of AGW, particularly when they couple it to the isotopic signatures of carbon dioxide and oxygen.

You also say "none of the climate models has been validated as representing actual climate experience" - is this your assertion, if not, whom?

I am assuming you know the difference between hindcasting and projections - but how much do you know of the validity of the SRES?

I am also assuming you don't know much about time series statistical analysis (you have taken Phil Jones comment out of context) - would I be right?

Of course climate changes, it always has and always will. However, what makes you think that releasing vast amounts of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere can't significantly contribute to it this time?
Posted by qanda, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 12:11:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Qanda – You beat me to it. Could those who refute the global climate measurements of climate scientists, provide evidence to substantiate their refutations? No I thought not so why persist? These unsubstantiated squawkings have grown so very tedious and have been done to death.

Last year denialists were parroting the rubbish the sun was causing the warming. Then they pitifully tried to exploit the MWP. Now an ice age cometh and global warming has stopped. So where is the evidence? Come on gentlemen - show us the money!:

http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=70256&CultureCode=en

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/

When some 6,000 meteorological stations around the planet submit data to climate institutes, there can be no doubt about average global temperatures and no margin for fudging unless of course you are sufficiently gullible to believe in pathetic old Monckton's conspiracy theory of a "New Vorld Order."

There is no dispute among scientists anywhere on the warming abilities of CO2 and other GHGs and when scientists estimate that humans emit 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes, sensible humans become concerned.

The GISS’ latest analysis for global surface temperatures revealed that the past year tied for the second warmest on record and the warmest year on record in the Southern Hemisphere.

Globally, January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record.

Those who harp on about 1998 are simple fools desperately trying to support a vacuous argument since GISS found that 2005 was the warmest year on record, though the difference between the Hadley and GISS record was so minute it was of no consequence, however, it exposes the appalling lack of integrity among denialists.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html

The big polluters who have brought the planet to its knees and continue to do so may find that bludging off the environment is no longer acceptable – with or without an ETS.

Those who object to an ETS need to offer an alternative for mitigating anthropogenic pollution. How about a "Polluter Pays" policy rather than the demands for a 'business as usual' scenario to pump up the obscene profits of corporate cowboys who are plundering the planet?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/18/worlds-top-firms-environmental-damage
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 1:58:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10243#168040

While we're listening to crickets chirping, this report:

http://tinyurl.com/y42lzfz

may not restore our trust in government/s, but it may go some way to restoring trust in the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia following various external assertions - not least those made by the likes of Raycom.

Unfortunately, there will still be some who will claim the panel conspired to hide a conspiracy, or something similar.
Posted by qanda, Thursday, 15 April 2010 4:13:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy