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 > Can we sue our government over 'climate change'? > Comments

Can we sue our government over 'climate change'? : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 15/9/2015

The court decided that the IPCC's AR5 was, as it were, the scientific Bible, and based its resort to science on what it found there.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
Well if anyone wins a case like this then I'm going to start a banana plantation in Tasmania.

The reason why I going to grow bananas there is because once it spectacularly fails due to Tasmania's cold weather I can sue the Government for not previously implementing policies which dramatically increase CO2 in the atmosphere and thus cause 10+ degrees of global warming. This warming would definitely have happened since the previous court case established it as fact. A consequence of this global warming, which they were negligent in not encouraging, would have been to wipe out bananas in the tropics since it would have been too hot for them to grow. Thus my banana plantation in Tasmania would have been the world's major supplier of bananas and I should have been a multi-billionaire. So obviously I can sue the Government for my loss.
Posted by thinkabit, Tuesday, 15 September 2015 8:34:43 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
As a (just) nominal Christian and a non-Catholic, I doubt many modern Catholics still regard the Pope as being infallible; but this Pope thinks he is. He believes that humans can and should be able to change the climate. It's strange then that he, in his infallibility, can't stop kiddy-fiddling in his own church.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 15 September 2015 10:10:32 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
It is strange that there is a system of law which can produce such a ridiculous outcome as this Dutch case.
In Australia this nonsense would have as much chance as the baseless “stolen generation”.

No evidence, no case.

There is no science to demonstrate any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.

The failed assertions of the IPCC are opinion, not fact.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 15 September 2015 3:02:57 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
Don,

You said:

>"I don't rule out some sort of action. It would need to be based on a claim about negligence on the part of the Government, argued to have something like a duty of care to the plaintiffs. Then the plaintiffs would need to show, I think, that the harm of global warming was known, and that the Government should have acted to do something about it, and that what it had done was not enough."

I think you have missed the most important point the plaintiffs would need to show, i.e. that if "the Government [had] acted to do something about it" the action taken would have reduced the harm done. The plaintiffs would have to demonstrate and quantify by how much the harm would have been reduced if the government had taken the proposed actions.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 15 September 2015 3:09:12 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
I used to wonder how a successful society could quite quickly collapse. How for example, could the Roman Empire collapse so quickly?

Well I am starting to understand. Watching the most successful society the world has known, the western democracies, fall into chaos is at least educational.

Is it coincidence that this is happening since we let the ladies out of the nursery & kitchen? Did other failed societies make this same mistake? Perhaps it's not the ladies, but that Clinton woman does provide good evidence for that case.

Could it be the closing of the mental institutions? Letting all those Lefties & Greenies out to walk the street was never a good idea. Giving them their own media organisations, the ABC & BBC was really stupid, but letting them use the courts to enforce their batty philosophy is even worse.

Who would have thought we were going to give the great world we've built to these ratbags.

Well at least we now have the Muslims coming to sort out this mess. I doubt they will pay much attention to those people in fancy dress, wearing funny wigs we call the judiciary.

That Chinese curse about living in interesting times is proving very true. Thank god most of my life was in saner times.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 15 September 2015 3:45:35 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
"Urgenda has had a striking success"

Not really. All that they have won is a lower court ruling by a junior activist judge. That the Dutch government is appealing is a sign that they are confident of overturning the ruling.

However, in Australia with the separation of the court system and the state, the courts are not able to dictate policy, especially those that require substantial spending. A similar ruling in Aus could simply be ignored by the parliament.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 15 September 2015 4:18:47 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
simply Hasbeen the civilisation prospered via the Christian Judea ethics that they adopted. Now in favour of paganistic earth worshipping we have dumbed down every area of society so much that reason has disappeared. We invite people who hate us to our shores, we promote immorality and perverted sex to our young kid, we have fools using pseudo science to destroy our economies and we think by spending more money on education will make us brighter.The Chinese and Indians must just laugh at the stupidity of the regressives.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 15 September 2015 4:52:24 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
A good post by Don Aitkin and sensible, rational comments by all ... so far!. I am surprised such comments are allowed on a web site run by the Australian Institute of Progress, Climate Institute and other socialist organisations dedicated to blocking real progress.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 15 September 2015 5:26:05 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
Hasbeen

Male failure to value motherhood, by making it a non renumerated
Job without status or societal value.
Saw women abandon it in droves for a fairer go.
Giving them equal financial control and freedom to come and go.
The privledges that men took for granted but denied women for centuries.

It is the men's fault that women walked out of the kitchen as they say..
And the Western world now does not have the numbers to thrive
As a vibrant prosperous society driven by young people . Because there
Are not enough of them
And we must import races who do not have our best welfare at heart.
Motherhood is the engine room of any society.

But men sneer at women and motherhood, treating it as slave labour.
With no financial or societal value. Only male work has value.
Can you blame the women for closing the financially valued and societally approved men's work, meaning jobs outside the home.
Chalk another nail in the demise of the Western world up to men.
Posted by CHERFUL, Tuesday, 15 September 2015 10:46:01 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
He above post should read choosing not closing
Posted by CHERFUL, Tuesday, 15 September 2015 10:50:41 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
Re taking climate change to the courts.

Then you would also have to take all the people who benefit
From the use of coal to court for causing harm too.

That would be everyone who uses coal fired electricity to cook
Heat and light their homes around the world.

Especially the billions in China and India.
What do the Pacific Islanders use for cooking etc?

The popes non contraception policy only adds to the coal use.
Yet he has the arrogance to blame rich nations for it.

Global warming is all about the left wing hippy types tiring to punish their
Usual target The west and Capitalist nations.
Anyway there are new innovations with solar panels which will make them very affordable in coming years. As soon as the billions using coal make the switch to the new affordable solar, problem solved. So stop bleating on about it.
Posted by CHERFUL, Tuesday, 15 September 2015 11:07:13 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
Garbage CHERFUL, of the men I know well, only a couple, about 5% really wanted to be a father. For some it was an accident when quite young, but for most, present company included, becoming a father was done to help the woman they loved achieve her dream, not theirs.

Most of these men then worked their guts out, with no spare money to achieve any personal dream, paying for the ladies dream. Almost to a man, they would prefer a cheap house, or to live in a shed, if it gave them the money for a boat, or a nice car.

I suppose there are some SNAGs around who may want to impress the neighbours with their new carpet, but I've never met one, nor one wanting a new kitchen or bathroom. Expenditure on such things is at the little ladies urging. Someone described marriage for men as the worst hire purchase deal on earth. Everything you've got down, everything you earn for the rest of your life, & you can't trade in the old one.

A very common thing in classic car circles is the 60 year old bloke, who has just bought a 35 year old sports or luxury car. He has dreamed about owning one of them, ever since they were new, & at last, with those kids gone, & now they aren't worth much, he can finally afford one. Of course he only bought himself something, after the new carpet, kitchen & bathroom were all paid for.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 16 September 2015 3:42:18 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
Peter Lang: It depends on whether or not the court does what the Dutch court did — regarded the latest IPCC Report os revealed truth. I agree with you that our more adversarial court system probably couldn't easily do that. But it might.

Shadow Minister: Well, it was a striking victory that mightn't last long. But it is the first time that a court anywhere has decided in such a way. That makes it striking. And it as a victory. You imply that it will be overturned, and I hope you're right!
Posted by Don Aitkin, Wednesday, 16 September 2015 3:49:06 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
Oh dear. Two typos, and I thought I'd checked.

So 'regard the latest IPCC Report ...' and '... was a victory...'
Posted by Don Aitkin, Wednesday, 16 September 2015 7:29:41 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
Has been,
Not a sports car,
And wearing a cap and a big silver necklace with his unbuttoned shirt.

I always laugh when I see one of those coming.

I say look, here comes a mid-life crisis. The cap is to hide the bald head.

Marriage is a bad deal for women. It's a form of patriarchal control of women.

Women don't need it.
Posted by CHERFUL, Thursday, 17 September 2015 10:38:35 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
I would have thought that it would be very difficult to sue the Australian government for failing to act on climate change, until such time as someone is able to prove in law that you had had a loss which was directly linked to anthropogenic climate change.

A more interesting question is who exactly one would sue, if you could establish the link between your loss and AGW. The obvious candidates are the fossil fuel companies, and the countries that have burnt the most fossil fuels, but then how about all the people and companies downstream, such as the coal fired power stations.
Posted by warmair, Friday, 18 September 2015 10:06:30 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
Dear Don,

You wrote;

“It makes you think, too, that if such a case were successful, why couldn't the sceptical in our community try for a counter ruling, using much the same arguments but using other science to support their case?”

Because my dear chap there is something quite inconvenient that would get in the way, a warming planet.

The year-to-date temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.51°F (0.84°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest for January–August in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.18°F (0.10°C).

The year-to-date globally-averaged land surface temperature was the highest for January–August in the 1880–2015 record at 2.32°F (1.29°C) above the 20th century average. This value exceeded the previous record of 2007 by 0.29°F (0.16°C).

The year-to-date globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.22°F (0.68°C) above the 20th century average and the highest for January–August in the 1880–2015 record. This value surpassed the previous record of 2014 by +0.13°F (+0.07°C).

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201508

And check out the graph in the Guardians article;

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/17/2015-hottest-year-on-record-noaa

That my friend is the science, but not the kind that would help your case.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 18 September 2015 12:03:13 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
SteeleRedux,

Clearly you haven't been following very closely for the past 25 years.

Temperature is not a measure of damage or benefit. It's a measure of temperature. At the moment we don't whether GHG emissions are likely to do more good or more harm. For the past 200 years they've very clearly been massively net good. Economic cost-benefit analyses using defensible assumptions demonstrate that GHG emissions will probably do more good than harm this century. The CAGW cultists should start doing some objective research. It's the CAGW Cult followers that are the real deniers of relevant science, the modern-day 'flat earthers', and all the other derogatory terms most CAGW Alarmist resort to when they cannot provide a rational argument.
Posted by Peter Lang, Friday, 18 September 2015 2:02:05 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
Steele,

The changes you refer to are small and well within the error bars for such data. Second, nothing whatever in them points to carbon dioxide as the cause. That, as someone else has pointed out, is the problem for those who would try to use the courts to compel governments to do something. Unless of course the courts rely on the IPCC material as the Bible of science. It could happen.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Friday, 18 September 2015 2:02:22 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 delusional Steele Redux reports global warming in the alternate reality he frequents.
Meanwhile, in the real world:
“Since September 1994, University of Alabama in Huntsville’s satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant global warming trend. For over 20 years there’s been no warming trend apparent in the satellite records and will soon be entering into year 22 with no warming trend apparent in satellite data — which examines the lowest few miles of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Satellite data from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) group also shows a prolonged “hiatus” in global warming. After November of this year, RSS data will be in its 22nd year without warming. Ironically, the so-called “hiatus” in warming started when then vice President Al Gore and environmental groups touted RSS satellite data as evidence a slight warming trend since 1979”.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-21st-year-without-global-warming/#ixzz3m4UIUrYD

Our courts have rules about evidence, and Steele’s delusions would not make the grade.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 18 September 2015 5:15:26 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
Dear Peter Lang,

Sorry old chap but I've been following this for the last 25 years.

You write;

“At the moment we don't whether GHG emissions are likely to do more good or more harm.”

No but the best experts have predicted great harm. Why should I doubt them?

You added;

“all the other derogatory terms most CAGW Alarmist resort to when they cannot provide a rational argument “

and then proceeded to use the term “cultists” and “alarmists”. What does that mean for your own capacity for rational argument?

Dear Don Aitken,

The changes I refer to are incremental as you would expect, but they are inexorably heading in the exact direction as predicted by climate scientist. At what level would they have to reach before you changed your mind on this issue?

Dear Leo Lane,

Mate, you have me at a loss. How on earth can you look at the graph you posted and decide there is no warming occurring? That beggars belief. Now I get that poor old Roy Spencer, right-wing Christian, Heartland Director and Marshal Institute fellow might have many motivations to drive self imposed blindness to facts even when he collects them himself, but what is your excuse?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 18 September 2015 6:07:56 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
Any flow on of such an action to the burners of coal would mean that
power stations would immeadiatly turn the big switch to OFF !

This raises a point I have wondered about, if the greenies keep
screwing the power generators and their profitabilty drops to the
point where they become insolvent they will just turn that switch off
as it is a criminal offense to continue trading while insolvent.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 18 September 2015 6:10:21 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
SteeleRedux,

Wrong! The best experts have NOT predicted great harm.

Policy relevant facts on climate change:

1. Climate change does not change in smooth curves as the climate modelers' would have you believe. It changes abruptly. Always has and always will.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=1 ,
http://web.vims.edu/sms/Courses/ms501_2000/Broecker1995.pdf

2. Life thrives when the planet is warmer and struggles when colder. It thrives during warming periods and struggles during cooling. See Figure 15.21 here: http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/1983/1/McCarron.pdf . Note that the climate warmed from near glacial temperatures to near current temperatures in 7 years 14,600 years ago and in 9 years, 11,600 years ago. And guess what? Life loved the rapid warming periods. Life burst out and thrived.

3. For 75% of the last half billion years - the period when animal life has thrived - there has been no ice caps at either pole http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-3.html . We are currently in a cold-house phase. It strains credulity to argue that 1% warming (i.e. 3K/273K) will be catastrophic when we won’t get anywhere near the global average temperatures of the previous warm times.

4. The planet has been cooling for the past 50 million years and we are currently in only the third cold-house phase in the past half billion years.

5. We won’t get out of the current cold-house phase until plate tectonics movements reopen a path for global circulation around the equatorial regions http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html .

6. Warming and increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been a major benefit to life and to humanity for the past 200 years. It strains credulity to accept the increased plant productivity that this positive trend is delivering will suddenly change and turn negative.

7. Despite 25 years of climate research and spending reportedly $1.5 trillion per year on the ‘Climate Industry’ http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm , we have only a very poor understanding of the damage function. In fact, most people who blabber on about 'climate science' and call those who do not accept their interpretations of the relevant facts "climate deniers" haven’t even heard of the damage function, let alone able to define it and quantify it.
Posted by Peter Lang, Friday, 18 September 2015 6:50:08 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
cont ...

8. According to the most widely accept Integrated Assessment Model (IAM) for projecting future climate damages, abatement costs, social cost of carbon, net-cost benefit of proposed policies, the abatement policies that have a net cost - irrespective of any climate considerations - would be a net cost, not a net benefit for all this century. See the chart here:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/files/2014/10/Lang-3.jpg
explanation here: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii/

9. Figure 3 in http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0613-3 (free access to earlier version here: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf ) shows that global warming projected by the climate modelers would be net beneficial for most of this century. The only component that becomes a significant net cost, late in the century, is energy. This cost is based on the assumption that energy costs must rise as GHG mitigation policies force us to move to renewables. However, we won’t move to renewables (because they cannot provide the energy the world needs). We'll move to cheap nuclear power. With cheap energy and all other parameters summing to be a significantly net-beneficial any GW that does occur would be net beneficial to well beyond this century. (Professor Richard Tol - has been a recognised world leader in estimating the damage effects of climate change for 25 years or so.)

10. What is needed to support rational policy analysis are probability distributions for:

a. time to next abrupt climate change

b. direction of next abrupt climate change (i.e. warming or cooling)

c. duration of next abrupt climate change

d. total amount of change

e. damage function (i.e. net economic cost per degree of warning or cooling)

It is concerning that we’ve spent 25 years on climate research (and are spending some $1.5 trillion per year on policies justified on the basis of CAGW) to get to the point we are at now where we know little that is relevant for rational policy analysis.
Posted by Peter Lang, Friday, 18 September 2015 6:51:36 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
Still arguing AGW ?
Doesn't matter whether it is true or not.
The IPCC models have the wrong fossil inputs, they are too high.
We will have to change to some new energy regime before any rise comes about.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 18 September 2015 9:10:01 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
Dear Peter Lang,

Humans have inhabited the world for approximately 200,000 years and in our current form for well over 100,000. There is solid evidence showing the biggest contributor for us having been able to develop into modern civilisations has been a period of relatively stable weather lasting just over the last 13,500 years. Some call it the Eden period or the 'Long Summer'. It allowed us to move from hunter gatherers to agrarian lifestyles.

Sure there have been warmer periods and most certainly colder, but this is the level that happens to suit my species and I'm fond of it.

I've made the point many times, if maintaining this level meant shoveling coal into dirty power stations to stave off a fresh ice age I would be there shoveling with the best of them. But the best evidence, which you seem not to dispute, is that the world in indeed warming. The rate is spectacular and the future is at best uncertain and at worst very bleak indeed.

You sir are happy playing dice with my species. Thankfully you are very much in the minority as more and more countries take action. You just need to get out of the way.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 19 September 2015 7:16:40 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
Steele Redux> "You sir are happy playing dice with my species. Thankfully you are very much in the minority as more and more countries take action. You just need to get out of the way."

Silly scaremongering. And it's you who is in the minority (with the less than 1% of world population). It's the gullible few who believe the scaremongering of alarmists and unquestioningly accept the nonsense put out by those people. Less than 1% of the world's population view wasting money on climate policies is where they want money spent. But gullible ideologues like yourself think you know better than the >99% of the world population who don't agree with you. If you think the 99% is wrong, then provide evidence of 73 million people (1%) who would vote for wasting the money. BTW, the UN recently ran a pole and >7 million people responded - they rated climate change the least important program to spend money on.

Your comment about the relatively stable temperatures during the Holocene, is not relevant. Humans live from the poles to the tropics. Life (food) grows better in warmer climates. Sea level rise is a trivial cost. Any global warming that does occur will warm the high latitudes much more than the low latitudes. This is all good. You don't understand that a 1% change in temperature and heat is not threatening. Even your bible, IPCC AR5, has back pedaled on the impacts. And the AR5 authors couldn't even agree to give the best estimate of ECS, because increasingly the empirical evidence is showing that the estimates based on models is overstating ECS by nearly a factor of 2. The basis for your beliefs are falling apart.

Cooling may be catastrophic, but warming isn't. And GHG emissions are reducing the probability of the next abrupt cooling.

You simply don't have a rational argument. Go and catch up, or remain a 'flat earther'
Posted by Peter Lang, Saturday, 19 September 2015 8:33:57 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
Hasbeen said;
I used to wonder how a successful society could quite quickly
collapse. How for example, could the Roman Empire collapse so quickly?

Joeseph Trainter in "The Collapse of Complex Societies" said that it
was caused by diminishing returns.
In Romes case declining output from silver mines that needed more and
more slaves, then the silver to pay the army declines and soldiers
left the army. Rome lost control of the remoter provinces.

Gail Tveberg on Resilience web site has proposed the same cause ie
diminishing returns.

Even remote history has lessons.

Sound familiar ?
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 20 September 2015 8:44:13 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
Bazz,

Those pushing for carbon tax and renewable energy targets are pushing for diminishing returns. I just posted this on another web site, so I'll post it here too:

The Australian Government’s 2014 review of the Renewable Energy Target (RET) found:

"The effect of the RET on economy-wide employment … was considered in modelling by Deloitte … which found that an average of 5,000 full-time jobs would be created to 2030 if the RET was abolished" http://webarchive.nla.gov.au/gov/20150401030326/https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/321-employment

The Deloitte Access Economics modelling report says (p2):

"… abolishing the RET results in an increase in GDP over 2014 and 2030 of $28.8 billion in NPV terms. The effective cost of carbon abatement to GDP due to the RET is estimated to be $103 per tonne of CO2-e — more than four times the carbon tax.

• The rise in industry output also leads to an increase in labour demand, with an average of 5,000 full-time jobs created over the modelling period if the RET is completely abolished. Over the same time horizon, household consumption is estimated to rise by $20.5 billion should the RET be completely removed. "

The red line on this chart shows that optimal carbon pricing would be detrimental for all this century: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii/
Posted by Peter Lang, Sunday, 20 September 2015 10:20:11 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
From the delusional world of Steele Reflux:” the best experts have predicted great harm.”.
Who are these “best experts”, and why are you the only one who knows about them, Steele?
We know the failures, like Hansen, and the IPCC. Surely they are not the best that the climate fraud-backers, like yourself, have to offer?
But you are incapable of reading a graph, aren’t you Steele, so how would you identify an expert?
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 20 September 2015 12:14:39 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
Quote Peter
"Cooling may be catastrophic, but warming isn't."
It is obvious that both when taken beyond a certain point are catastrophic. We know from past ice ages that a small change in the radiation balance amplifies temperature differences, due to such factors as the increased water vapour, albedo etc.

Global warming will and is causing sea level rise, even if global warming stopped tomorrow, the sea level will continue to rise for decades or more, until ice melt comes into balance with snow fall. There are a number of examples of coastal cities being severely damaged by flooding from the sea, and this problem will only become more severe as global warming continues.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/08/19/coastal-cities-at-highest-risk-floods

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/impacts/effects-of-tidal-flooding-and-sea-level-rise-east-coast-gulf-of-mexico#.Vf4hK30oQng

As an Australian I am not happy with the idea that the best agricultural areas will move polewards, unfortunately the impact on Australian agriculture will be severe, we are already seeing the southern grain growing areas receiving less rain, for example in WA where I understand some 1200 farms were abandoned in the last 10 years or so. Warming temperatures are a threat to global food supply, because the majority of the worlds grain and agricultural produce comes from temperate areas and not the tropics. Krill only survive in the very cold seas near the poles and yet they are one of the most productive sources of protein and energy for the wild food change, so no productivity and warming do not move in lockstep.

With global warming comes climate change, the weather systems passing over Australia have dramatically altered their path, 40 years ago the typical winter high pressure system crossed the continent pretty much straight across the center. This winter only a few actually made it over the mainland with the majority passing to the south of the continent. This affects just about everything the land produces from grain to grapes.

As for anyone who seriously believes global warming has not continued over the last 20 years or so there really is only one sensible response "sorry your wrong the data does not support the claim."
Posted by warmair, Sunday, 20 September 2015 1:41:35 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
Dear Peter Lang,

My goodness young man you certainly have a way with numbers, I'm just not sure that you know what you are doing.

For my sins I have had a look at some of your stuff and frankly my friend it ain't pretty. What on earth were the variables you throw into the model to come up with a graph like the one you posted?
http://catallaxyfiles.com/files/2014/10/Lang-3.jpg

Lol.

We had another climate sceptic here who was a lawyer in fact who operated very similar to your good self. Spewed forth copious amounts of data that was misinterpreted, misrepresented, and misdirected by him. Are you sure you are not he? If you are then we might be in for some good times.

Dear Leo Lane,

Normal tactics I see, call for expert opinion and rule it out at the same time. Hansen and the IPCC represent a huge mountain of knowledge and experience yet you reject them out of hand because they don't fit your ideology.

Tough my friend. How about you providing experts of your own and see how they fare against them. The floor is yours.

Last time we danced I seemed to recall you ended up in the corner with you pants around your ankles. Why not another round for old times sake.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 21 September 2015 11:59:48 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
SteeleRedux,

>"For my sins I have had a look at some of your stuff and frankly my friend it ain't pretty. What on earth were the variables you throw into the model to come up with a graph like the one you posted?
http://catallaxyfiles.com/files/2014/10/Lang-3.jpg
"

Try reading the link provided. It explains. It's not my analysis or my input data. It's the default inputs for DICE-2013R, the most widely cited and used IAM for analysing cost-benefit of GHG mitigation policies, carbon pricing, SCC, etc. The key defaults are on the high (alarmists) side of the IPCC central estimates. If you'd bothered to read, you would have understood all this. Which just goes to show you are the classic denier. Your smart-ass condescending comments show arrogance and your lack of ability to deal with the facts demonstrates ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. You are an example of the flat-earthers - just another gullible cult follower.

You didplay many of the '10 signs of intellectual dishonsty': http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 22 September 2015 11:57:55 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
, Reflux has no experts, and no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate. His serial loser state continues.
I will again post science that he has seen before, on other threads:
“Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.”

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/07/22/peerreviewed-study-rocks-climate-debate-nature-not-man-responsible-for-recent-global-warminglittle-or-none-of-late-20th-century-warming-and-cooling-can-be-attributed-to-humans/#ixzz3mQrGLKXM

Part of Reflux’s delusional state is that whenever he makes a fool of himself, he recalls it as a victory. He has no science, and no rational observation, to present, but perceives his abject failure as a win
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 22 September 2015 1:13:05 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
GLOBAL WARMING IS ANOTHER OF THE MANY MANY LIES. Why do you go along with it , Pope Francis (anti-Pope) whose climate BS change advisor is a Zionist. They love to blame we humans because the global elitists are anti-human. Global warming scam equals Carbon taxes (stealing more and more money from WE THE PEOPLE). Disgusting.

http://o.b5z.net/i/u/10152887/f/A_major_deception_on__global_warming__Wall_Street_Journal_Professor_Frederick_Seitz_19960612.pdf

The Global Warming Scam and lies (MORE TAX and blaming humans, more debt slavery)
https://w3.newsmax.com/LP/Finance/RWL/RWL-Dark-Winter?Dkt_nbr=jhtrrfa9&nmx_source=TheStandS4Network-Conservative&nmx_medium=widget&nmx_content=448&nmx_campaign=widgetphase2

It is why he has exhausted his savings and retirement funds to spread the word about his research through his organization, Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC).

http://educate-yourself.org/lte/globalwarming13sep06.shtml
Global Warming
A Colossal Hoax Designed to Further Enrich NWO 'Globalists'
“The IPCC review process is totally flawed. … The scientific basis for the Kyoto Protocol is grossly inadequate.”
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, director emeritus of the Royal Meteorological Institute of the Netherlands in 2005
"The Fourth Report of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] might just as well decree the suppression of all climatology textbooks, and replace them in our schools with press communiqués. ... Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, and lulled into mindless acceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ..".
- Marcel Leroux (from What is Wrong with the IPCC? by Hans Labohm)

The Dark Winter Survival Guide (a $49 value): In John’s book, Dark Winter, he goes beyond blowing “global warming” out of the water . . . he reveals a calamity far worse than most climate scientists can imagine — all based on proven solar cycles. I worked hand in hand with John to create a DETAILED action plan for you to avoid the biggest pitfalls and even thrive during this coming era of chaos.

http://allenbwest.com/2015/07/nobel-scientists-comments-about-global-warming-will-burn-liberals-up/

Liberals in truth mean TYRANTS. Anything they say, just think the opposite.
Posted by Constance, Tuesday, 22 September 2015 6:17:36 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
http://donaitkin.com/climate-change-and-the-fabian-society/aka (COMMUNISTS) infiltration and destruction of the Labor Party. Santamaria knew. Do you remember the Democratic Labor Party? Whitlam corporatised Australia. Thanks, TRAITOR! And Gillard was installed by the CIA (MOSSAD). Looks like Turmbull was too. Politics is just a game of pretend Democracy. Just like the Republicans and Democrats.

YOU ARE A FRAUD, DON - just like Climate Change. Just like the Son of Trotsky - Al Gore living in a 23 bedroom air condition mansion. Hypocrite.

Thanks for our Marxist education, Redcoat Don.

Whackademia: An Insider's Account of the Troubled University by Richard Hil (an outcast)
by Richard Hil

"Everything is a rich man's trick" - by JFK (who they killed). All the assassinations and terrorism.

Explosive book reveals 'toxic' culture at Goldman Sachs
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=34319

MALCOLM TURNBULL SET UP GOLDMAN SACHS IN OZ.


They've controlled the Commie propaganda machine prestitute press for 100yrs. Murdoch is one. And our hidden true history.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/clintonbodycount.htm

I know Corporatisation really means Communism. And that's what the cabal like's to do sue nations till they go broke. Think TPP (highly secret)- thanks Julian. They control our court systems, our economy and our politics. We are under occupation.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA IS A CORPORATION OWNED BY BANKSTERS
http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/09/20/commonwealth-australia-corporation

Zombie ZOGS (Zionist (Communism) Occupied governments in Western Countries):
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/11/20/pcr-interviewed-russia-italy/

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/30/police-state-upon-us-paul-craig-roberts/

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/06/25/europes-complicity-evil-paul-craig-roberts/

Yep, we are under occupation and there is nothing in the Corporate Commie press. The revolution is underground. We are living in Orwellian times.

The New World Order of chaos and destruction:
HAARP - New World Order Mind Control and Weather Warfare Weapon
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/haarp_mind_weather_control.htm
Joseph P. Farrell - Babylon's Banksters, Global Financial Blackmail, Geo Warfare & The End Game
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2010/11nov/RIR-101125.php

Kongpop U-Yen - Space Weather Induced Natural Disasters
Feb 14, 2014 ... ... correlation with abrupt weather conditions and tectonic activities, including storm formations, flash floods, volcanic activities and earthquakes.
www.redicecreations.com/radio/2014/02/RIR-140214.php

They caused the recent Chile earthquake and Fukishima disaster.

Haiti/Chile EarthQuake H.A.A.R.P 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR6O3kJTqaI
Posted by Constance, Tuesday, 22 September 2015 6:42:13 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
GET READY Brisbane !- they are about to- TURN UP THE HEAT.. Geo-Engineering Gone Too Far
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zT1S5uwlzs

Australian Cloud Seeding at its Worst-est
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99Z0d0QXmhU

CHEMICAL CLOUDS sprayed above Brisbane- PART 2 -WARNING F words again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhr6L6VbnFI
Australian Politician tells Truth&Exposes Agenda 21,Club of Rome
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo5n4zeEetg

Pilots, Doctors and Scientists Tell the Truth About Chemtrails
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeTaejpg18g


I see Chemtrails all the time, and also strange aircraft at night and more stuff on this that you would not believe.

Warning F Word
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55bYHZYG4A0

Chemtrails also contain Lithium to further dumb down people in addition to aluminium which causes Autism and neuro developed disorders

Peter Beattie Talks Chemtrails
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sW0KSzGQvA

HAARP - Chemtrails - How They are Change You - Bioengineering
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5y1WorkLJw

What in the World Are They Spraying? (Full Length)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA

http://educate-yourself.org/lte/globalwarming13sep06.shtml
Global Warming
A Colossal Hoax Designed to Further Enrich NWO 'Globalists'
“The IPCC review process is totally flawed. … The scientific basis for the Kyoto Protocol is grossly inadequate.”
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, director emeritus of the Royal Meteorological Institute of the Netherlands in 2005
"The Fourth Report of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] might just as well decree the suppression of all climatology textbooks, and replace them in our schools with press communiqués. ... Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, and lulled into mindless acceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ..".
- Marcel Leroux (from What is Wrong with the IPCC? by Hans Labohm)
Cont on site
Posted by Constance, Tuesday, 22 September 2015 6:51:13 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
Dear Peter Lang,

You write;

“It's not my analysis or my input data. It's the default inputs for DICE-2013R, the most widely cited and used IAM for analysing cost-benefit of GHG mitigation policies, carbon pricing, SCC, etc.”

If that is truly the case then this request should be pretty easy for you. Can you please show me where this graph has been replicated in a peer reviewed paper? We can go from there.

BTW I have read the links my friend which is why I am taking you to task.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 22 September 2015 8:13:41 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
You are not taking me to task. You are trolling. You'ver made a number of assertions in various comments which demonstrate you do not know what you are talking about, but are gullible and a denier of the relevant facts.

The results are usually plotted as cumulative, as is explained in the post (why didn't you mention that? Readon is you are trolling). I plotted them as per period. (same data, just replotted, plus 1/2 Copenhagen (Optimistic) Particpation Rate. Reason for this explained in Part 1: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/26/cross-post-peter-lang-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed-part-i/

The DICE analyses have been widely published and discussed. Clearly you don't realise that. Here's the DICE-2013R Manual. http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/documents/DICE_Manual_103113r2.pdf You can search for the analyses that are based on it.

Most of these types of studies show the results as cumulative plots. The reason they sum their projected discounted climate damage costs and abatement costs for 300 years is to make it look like there is a benefit in implementing the advocated abatement policies. . Many assumptions are involved and the main ones are biased to make the damage costs seem high. However, any projection of costs and benefits beyond a decade is unreliable, out to a century is ridiculous, and three century ... well only alarmists would accept such analyses as justification for expensive mitigation policies.

No point me writing any more, because trolls like yourself, just don't want to know. Deniers deny the relevant facts.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 22 September 2015 9:22:02 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
Dear Peter Lang,

So no peer reviewed papers then.

Lol.

A timely exit my friend.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 23 September 2015 12:10:18 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
Steel Redox,

What a pathetic excuse you use to exit. You haven't any flawr in any of the most important items 6 to 9. You haven't found any flaw in these:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/26/cross-post-peter-lang-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed-part-i/
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii/

You haven't pointed out any flaws or any significant issues in the assumptions or the default inputs to the model. You haven't found any error in the DICE Model which is what produced the chart. Apparently you not even aware what it is, or how long it has been the leading IAM used for the IPCC reports, the US and other countries estimates of SCC, costs and benefits of mitigation policies and optimal carbon prices.

Let's face it - you know nothing about the subject. So, your excuse that the plot I produced showing the DICE discounted net costs-benefits per period to 2100, instread of cumulative to 2300, is really pathetic. Typi9cal of a troll.

If you can't show significant errors in points 6 to 9 of my list, you have failed to make your case. I'd point you to "10 si8gns of intellectual dishonesty"
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 23 September 2015 7:54:11 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
Dear Peter Lang,

Whoa there young fella. Who said I'm the one exiting? This is what you wrote just a single post before;

“No point me writing any more, because trolls like yourself, just don't want to know.”

If that wasn't an exit what was it?

Perhaps it was just an excuse so you could yet again post links to your blog entry on http://catallaxyfiles.com .

Yes we all know how the internet works my friend, the more links from other sites the higher up the rankings you go. But at some point it becomes a little unseemly. We are there now.

Look I get that there is a clique of older geologists who have a particularly hard time with the notion of human induced climate change. It goes against what they have been taught and their world view.

Professor Ian Plimer is a case in point. He has repeatedly lambasted those who accept the science of AGW. His latest article here; http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17274 railed against environmental protection regulations. What he didn't tell us was that he is a director of Lakes Oil, a company who was seeking to frack their way across significant areas of Western Victoria.

So when you talk about honesty I'm hoping you include yourself. Do you have any commercial interests in any energy or mining companies? If you do would you mind spelling them out for the audience here.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 23 September 2015 10:30:55 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
You seem conflicted. You call me your friend (I haven't a clue how you'd arrive at that). You call me "young friend" then you call me "old geologists".

You have nothing constructivew to offer. You haven't shown any significant flawes in the points 6 to 10 I made. Instead, you have reverted to the Climate Cultists standard approach of denial of the relevant facts and trolling:

\
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 23 September 2015 10:40:38 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
Dear Peter,

Just like 'mate' the term 'friend' has numerous colloquial uses. I would hope I am not required to spell out which one I'm using at this time.

Speaking of 'conflicted' you sir raised the topic of honesty. You seemed to have little compunction in throwing the term dishonest around with gay abandon, yet when I, quite respectfully I thought, asked if you had any commercial interests in mining or energy companies you appear to have avoided the question entirely. What conclusion do you think would be fair for the wider audience to draw at this point of proceedings?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 23 September 2015 10:50:41 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
ARE YOU A CRYPTO, DON?

The Fabian Society exposed: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlQ0fzABh5Y

Zombie ZOG
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/11/20/pcr-interviewed-russia-italy/

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2009/12/a-review-of-norman-finkelsteins-the-holocaust-industry/

"What's Really Going On!!" w/ Jeff Rense & Jordan Maxwell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PncSl_QWmk&spfreload=10

Gillard dismisses Communist link claims
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2062452.htm

GetUp exposed: George Soros’ tentacles reach into Australia
http://australian-news.net/articles/view.php?id=91

http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/?p=3350

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/bill-shorten-getup-staying-mum-on-awu-cash/story-fn59noo3-1227403009264?sv=a7b6497d0231f50e2c58a8ea2fab6f7c

http://beforeitsnews.com/tea-party/2013/04/julia-gillard-pm-atheism-adultery-feminism-and-fabianism-2484826.html

http://www.whitenewsnow.com/irish-news-white-ireland/49654-austerity-immigration-destroying-ireland-print.html

http://fitzinformer.blogspot.com.au/2010/07/crypto-jewish-world-of-cbcs-kevin.html

http://cryptojew.org/main_page.html

Peter Sutherland: Global agenda, nationalism & migration
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=34250

• Explosive book reveals 'toxic' culture at Goldman Sachs (MALCOLM TURNBULL – is he another false Christian Crypto?). Pro Phallic (so did witches) worshiper Gay marriage just like his Jew new minister, Josh Frydenberg as resources, energy and northern Australia minister. DISASTER for continuing pillage of CSG mining taking private land and CAUSING CRIMINAL ILL HEALTH ON OUR CHILDREN ESPECIALLY – chemical burns, breathing difficulty etc.
• And the demonic TTP SECRET trade agreement of the Sons of Trosky NEO-CONS.

• Goldman Sachs Betrayal Of America (Malcolm Turnbull set it up in Oz)
http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=645 (exJew site)

Pope Francis to arrive in U.S. as his brothers in the faith make a Yom Kippur eve deal with Satan
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com.au/

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=34049
Why does Freemasonry Openly Support Pope Francis?

Catholics Unveiled Masonic Jewish Plot in 1936 (Encore)
http://www.henrymakow.com/jewish_peril.html
Copy of original article
http://www.watch.pair.com/catholic-gazette-b%27nai-b%27rith.pdf

Freemason plan of infiltration of the CC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_Vendita

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/queen-esther-patron-saint-of-judaic.html

http://incogman.net/2011/08/crypto-judaism-in-the-catholic-church/

The Plot Against the Church
by
Maurice Pinay
a.k.a.
Father Joaquin Sáenz y Arriaga, S.J.
PhD. (Philosophiæ Doctor - Doctor of Philosophy)
Th. D. (Doctor Theologiæ - Doctor of Theology)
J.C.D. (Juris Canonici Doctor - Doctor of Canon Law)
http://www.traditionalcatholicmass.com/home-m126.html
Posted by Constance, Wednesday, 23 September 2015 12:30:57 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
"yet when I, quite respectfully I thought, asked if you had any commercial interests in mining or energy companies you appear to have avoided the question entirely. What conclusion do you think would be fair for the wider audience to draw at this point of proceedings?"

I think a reasonable person would see that you are not addressing the subject of the points 6 to 9. They'd recognise that you are trollimg and avoiding the relevant points. Your question asking for my personal details instead of dealing with the substance of the issues is ad hominem fallacy and one of the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty. My personal circumstances are none of your business and not relevant to the points I raised. However, if you like to provide your personal details, circumastances, affiliations, and interests, I'll happily answer the specific question you asked.

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made)."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 23 September 2015 12:47:32 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
Dear Peter,

So no disclosure then. Understood.

BTW I wasn't referring to personal details but to business details and I am happy to state quite categorically that germane to this thread I have no commercial interests in energy or mining companies. See it was that simple.

In your second post on this thread you attacked with the words;

“I am surprised such comments are allowed on a web site run by the Australian Institute of Progress, Climate Institute and other socialist organisations dedicated to blocking real progress.”

I'm wondering where your attack fitted within the fallacy framework? Remember your definition; “An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.” Your claim was OLO is run by a “socialist organisation(s) dedicated to blocking real progress”. It had no basis in fact or even reality. Perhaps it lies within another category altogether.

As to whether you and Plimer having interests in mining or energy companies constitutes an 'irrelevant fact' really should be decided by others but I warrant the majority would deem shares in such has having a not insignificant bearing on the veracity of your argument. It is for this very reason we demand politicians divest themselves of control over commercial interests when they enter parliament.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 23 September 2015 11:02:14 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
Rusty Reflux, having no respectable basis for his support of climate fraud, stoops to demanding the commercial interests of those who oppose fraud.Apparently anyone profiting if the fraud is defeated, is disqualified from asserting the truth, under Reflux rules.
Support for climate fraud stems only from ignorance, or from dishonesty.
Rusty cannot plead ignorance. He has been invited, often, to refer us to any science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. He cannot do so, because, as he well knows, there is no such science.
He might have noticed that when a main fraud promoter, the IPCC announced some years back that global warming was human caused, its computer models predicted that a “hot spot” in the troposphere would be identified, which would be the “signature” for human caused global warming.
The IPCC computer models, as they routinely are, were wrong again, and no “hot spot” was found. No hot spot, no “signature, and no apology from the lying IPCC, which then announced that it was 95% certain that global warming was human caused. It had no science to support this ridiculous assertion.
Reflux’s only basis to support the fraud is his dishonesty.
As for his addressing posters as “friend”, it is a way of insulting those who reject the fraud, designating them a friend of a dishonest person , who blatantly supports a proven fraud.

The VW car company is a significant victim of the climate fraud, and no doubt if they act to oppose the fraud, Reflux wiil assert that they are disqualified from opposing the fraud, because of their commercial interests.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 25 September 2015 3:34:42 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
Dear Leo Lane,

Lol.

Amazing. You have managed to spew out the word 'fraud' 11 times in a single short post.

At some stage one progresses from repetition to affliction. You have well and truly made that leap my friend.

“Tourette syndrome ... is an inherited neuropsychiatric disorder with onset in childhood, characterized by multiple physical (motor) tics and at least one vocal (phonic) tic.”
Wikipedia
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 27 September 2015 4:13:05 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
Still no science or rational assertion, Rusty, so you revert to irrelevance by counting words.
Do you think that your pointless comment, in any way, ameliorates your dishonest fraud-backing?
Have you counted the number of times you have supported climate fraud, with no science on which to base your assertion?
The IPCC presented proof of the “hot spot” predicted by their computer model, which I mentioned above.
Here is what an independent scientist commented on their dishonest effort:
“. There should be no detectable hot spot from 1997 to 2013 because there has been no net surface warming. If the analysis shows a hot spot between Jan 1997 and Dec 2013, they are making it up, literally, because if the physical model is right, there should be none. And there should be none because we know there has been no net change in the surface temperature. If there exists a hot spot up there which created no change on the surface, then a CO2 increase is nothing to be alarmed about. Which is it: Not there or no surface effect?”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/14/claim-climate-scientists-find-elusive-tropospheric-hot-spot-over-the-southern-ocean/

You can be in no doubt, now, of the dishonesty of the fraud-backing IPCC.
Any more irrelevant comments, Rusty?
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 27 September 2015 6:47:28 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
Actually Leo, the VW car company is not a victim of what you cal the climate 'fraud'.

It is in fact in breach of pollution regulations, what you would call 'actual' pollution, not carbon emissions. The emissions in question were actually the nitrogen dioxide emissions that contribute significantly to smog pollution and are estimated to contribute to thousands of pollution related deaths each year.

Ironically, this breach of non-carbon emission pollution laws are actually what you people are saying are not getting enough attention because of some focus on carbon emissions and climate change.

Jesus, you're ignorant.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 27 September 2015 7:12:28 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
Bugsy,I should have considered the matter more closely before commenting, because I assumed that the emissions were of carbon dioxide, a wrong assumption.
It invalidates my example of damage which can be incurred as a consequence of the climate fraud.
I will simply have to find another example as an illustration of the principle, which, of course, is valid, and is the substantial point of my post.Or I could say "If, for example, VW were the victim of the climate fraud...."
You have a most suitable mind for nitpicking, Bugsy. You are almost as irrelevant as Reflux
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 27 September 2015 9:00:15 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
Bugsy, the wording of your post of 27 September was strange in that you used the phrase “what you cal the climate 'fraud'.”. Are you aware of references to the climate fraud, where it is called something else? What did you have in mind, to prompt this strange reference?
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 29 September 2015 10:33:57 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
Geez, you are an odd duck Leo.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 29 September 2015 11:45:58 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
Another evasion, Bugsy, with the obligatory customary insult.
Obviously you are a supporter of climate fraud and your remark was an underhand mode of criticism, since you have no valid criticism to make.
It would be reasonable to question whether your fraud support is based on your ignorance or your dishonesty.
Are you able to assist us? You might have some idea of the basis of your problem.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 12:47:22 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
Actually my support for evidence-based climate science is based on your ignorance and dishonesty.

You don't seem to have even heard of 'quotation marks' or seem to think that other people have different frames of reference to yourself.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 12:58:11 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 true Bugsy; irrational, and disingenuous. Your asserted base does not exist, and you have have referenced no evidence based science. The science evidencing CO2 caused global warming was shown to be wrong when global warming stopped, contrary to the “science” produced by the IPCC’s computer models.

Your quotes were obviously scare quotes to indicate your disagreement with the expression climate fraud. Explain how you could mean them otherwise
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 4:41:54 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
Gee, you're a bright one aint ya?
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 4:45:10 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
Compared to you, Bugsy, definitely, although I do not believe that you are as stupid as you pretend to be.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 9:17:43 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. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

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