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 > The Garnaut Reviews’ errors and material omissions > Comments

The Garnaut Reviews’ errors and material omissions : Comments

By Tim Curtin, published 25/3/2011

If the Garnaut report were governed by corporations law no-one would be prepared to sign it.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
>> Why does Andy have to supply solutions? <<

Bolt (and others here) says we have to adapt - I agree (didn't think that was alarmist at all, but there you go).

It would be helpful if 'Andy' and others (who 'want' a debate) could contribute to the debate.

Rather than just be negative (as some clearly are) ... contribute. How do you propose we adapt, rpg?

Do you want to fund adaptation at all, rpg?

I will say again (you obviously have your thumbs in your ears and your fingers covering your eyes):

It is a well known truth (although 'Andy' seems just to have discovered it) that CO2 has long atmospheric residence times - more warming is still to come and it ain't going away anytime soon.

Solomon (and others) have written some very good literature on this. Do you want the link?

rpg, you claim to be a professional engineer (there are many 'types' of engineer, btw) - your anger belies your 'professionism'.

>> You obviously have no problem joining in the happy chanting of alarmism, regardless of reasoning .. 2 degrees, yes that's the number of DOOOM! <<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11759#201589

"why 2 degrees?"

Because 3,4,5,6 are worse. Don't forget, they are average temperatures. Some places will be more, some less. Corollary, 2 is not "the number of doom", even without your shouted exclamation.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 26 March 2011 11:49:14 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
Oh, I just saw Tim Curtin's alter-ego sock-puppet Tom Tiddler pop up - in "users currently online".

How about it TimTom, join the fray - it's your thread anyway.

Maybe we can invite some replies to your thread here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php

Over to you?
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 26 March 2011 12:01:01 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
What I fail to understand in this whole debate is why it even matters whether carbon increases global temperatures, and what the cuase of the changing climate is. Surely having the knowledge and technology to 'do things better' with less general environmental impact is reason enough to make the changes we need.
Last time I checked it took millions of years and very specific climatic conditions to produce the coal and oil and natural gas that we are currently exploiting at a ridiculous rate. One day (and every calculation differs as to exactly when) there will be none left. Why is it that we have to wait until then to actually do something to reduce our reliance on them. They won't last forever, and that is not a disputed fact by anyone, and so we have to slow down, even stop, using them. Let's start doing that as soon as we can just because it's possible to and it's 'better' in the long term.
Posted by coothdrup, Saturday, 26 March 2011 12:59:26 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
Thanks for the Comments on my piece so far. Here is the first of my responses
Rich2, Friday, 25 March 2011 9:35:54 AM

“1. We are putting a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (through burning fossil fuels) that wouldn't otherwise be there.”

#1. It is also true that only 44% has added to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as 56% has been absorbed by the globe’s biospheres, resulting in more food (cereals and meat etc), fish, and forestry (total area under trees has increased enabling large increases in utilisation of this renewable resource, FAO data). Garnaut as an economist should not studiously refrain from mentioning let alone valuing these huge social benefits.

2. “This has resulted in the % of CO2 in the atmosphere steadily increasing year on year”.

#2. It has grown at only 0.295% p.a. since 1958, and there has been no acceleration in that rate.

3. “The overwhelming scientific consensus is that this has caused and will continue to cause global average temperatures to rise….”

#3. There has been overwhelming consensus in the recent past that cholera and malaria were both caused by bad air (as malaria’s very name still implies), and it took John Snow (854) and Ronald Ross (1895) respectively to prove that cholera is caused by contaminated water and malaria by water-bred mosquitoes. As my full paper shows (at www.lavoisier.com.au), today’s climate consensus has been created by suits who have not ever published econometric analysis (like that inspired by John Snow) demonstrating the claimed correlation between CO2 and temperature, whereas I have done for dozens of places in the USA with no sign of such a correlation, and in all of which (other than deserts) the main explanatory variable for temperature change is “precipitable water” with amazingly strong statistical significance.

Climate scientists rely instead on graphs with curves of CO2 and temperature “anomalies” manipulated to look as though they rising in tandem with each other. Those graphs are not supported by regression analysis and are no more valid than one plotting sales of mobile phones since 1990 along with CO2.
Posted by Tom Tiddler, Saturday, 26 March 2011 3:19:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amicus,

You didn't hear correctly. Hundreds of years? Why then was last year the hottest on record?

Coothdrup,

Most sensible comment on the thread. You're right. It doesn't matter, we have a chance to fix it so why wouldn't we try instead of arguing against, Abbott style, oppose everything, just because. And he nearly believed in the ice Age, even does. Why would he? Was he there? It's just written in books and he believes that so why not what is actually happening today?

He believes in God and he doesn't exist, so why not climate change and how to fix it?

Tom,

You just exposed your "expertise in your last lines. By using the word "manipulated". Ho hum, another conspiracy theorist, don't sail too close to the edge, you might catch cholera.
Posted by RobbyH, Sunday, 27 March 2011 10:12:20 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
Robby H Last year the hottest on record, really, you reckon? I think you need a Bex and a lie down. I have heard this nonsense over and over. THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD. Says who? Oh yes the Climate Research Institute and the IPPC who both get their funding because of they are terrorising gullible people saying we are all going to die!
Wasn't it Hitler who said use the big lie and if you keep saying it people will start believing it. The Met bureau in Melbourne told me in 1990 that the Melbourne temperatures had been stable for 100 years. That I believe and people who are paid to say otherwise will do just that!
Posted by JBowyer, Sunday, 27 March 2011 11:33:44 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

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