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 > Economic eyes wide open! > Comments

Economic eyes wide open! : Comments

By Peter Vintila, published 22/8/2008

Our major political parties share a thin liberal commitment to the politics of climate change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
"The planet's fevered condition".. oh, yes, that would be the reason why there's been no global warming in the last ten years and 2008 is the coldest year this century:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7574603.stm
http://tinyurl.com/6a65z9

After an initial period of concern I have come to believe that Rudd may simply be waiting for the public (and his ministers) to wake up to the global warming hoax before committing Australians to economic suffering on its behalf. The 'disappearance' of Peter Garrett is a hopeful sign in this direction.
Posted by Jon J, Saturday, 23 August 2008 8:17:37 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
“In a post-denial world” reminds me of the other AGW alarmist mantra “the science is settled”.

Except that it’s not.

As the previous poster pointed out, the temperature hasn’t increased since 1998 – that’s after ten years of constant increase in CO2!

You and the IPCC have been successful in pulling the wool over people’s eyes, and many politicians and business people, for their own reasons, have gone along with the fraud.

But I’m pleased to say that now the game is up, and you will be shown up for the con artists and spivs that you are.
Posted by Froggie, Sunday, 24 August 2008 6:34:41 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
The scariest thing about this article is its lack of insight. Those who ask that we think twice before wrecking the national economy are fundamentalists? Really? What about those who demand a global warming response which, as this author impliedly concedes, is completely inconsistent with a liberal capitalist economy? They demand that without concern for the massive social upheaval and destruction of economic welfare which must surely accompany such a path.

And those who say "hang on, let's make sure that we don't wreck our economy for a largely symbolic gesture" are said to be the fundamentalists.

The real goal for people such as this author is, in the end, a socialist one. Poor people in the third world should be allowed to keep polluting, because they haven't had their go yet. The planet is either in danger, or it is not.

The point to this argument (assuming there is one) must surely be that pollution has to be reduced. Accepting for the moment that global warming is a real threat, our goal surely has to be to reduce pollution, not export the production of it and get poor in the process. Will adoption of an ETS make any appreciable difference? No. Why? Because those who have to act will not follow our example. They have a sense of entitlement to the economic good fortune countries like ours have already achieved. It's hard to argue with that view, mostly because they wouldn't listen if we did.

The whole issue then comes down to this: do we indulge the social consciences of some to put masses of the poorest out of work and turn a large number of wealthier people poor?
Posted by Nick Ferrett, Monday, 25 August 2008 11:50:30 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
Jon J: "oh, yes, that would be the reason why there's been no global warming in the last ten years and 2008 is the coldest year this century"

Did you actually read the article that you posted a link to? ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7574603.stm
"World heading towards cooler 2008"

.. "The principal reason is La Nina, part of the natural cycle that also includes El Nino, which cools the globe. Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850, and Met Office scientists say temperatures will rise again as La Nina conditions ease. "

The artcile goes on toe discuss record-breaking global ice loss. You can see NASAs take on it here too:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

"'Global warming stopped in 1998,' has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Nińo of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend."
Posted by Sams, Monday, 25 August 2008 12:14:51 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 problem with setting up the economy as the “god who must be revered” is that all other aspects of society are abandoned. A “healthy” economy does not succour better social outcomes and almost certainly the demands of continued growth are wrecking the environment. So complaints that any remedial measure such as the ETS will result in “massive social upheaval and destruction of economic welfare” are spurious; continuing avidly along our current path is far more likely to lead to upheaval and destruction as we abandon any pretence of living within the means of the planet. A healthy economy is based on a healthy society, not the other way round.
There are huge economic opportunities in learning to use our resources more wisely, and if the ETS is only a first attempt at pointing us towards them it is not be excoriated but embraced. Let us deny this society based on fear and rediscover some traditional Aussie “can do” and who knows, we may discover that it is good for our families and our neighbourhood too.
Posted by Robert, Monday, 25 August 2008 2:31:49 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
Quite correctly 10 years is too short a time period to decide that
global warming is a non-event.

The point I would make is that if we do go out ahead of the big
economies and reduce our financial resources and global warming happens
anyway we will not have the resources to mitigate the effects of GW.
What we will have done will have zero effect anyway.

We will have squandered it all for absolutely nothing.
I think Brendan Nelson's suggestion is too timid and that there should be
a halt placed onto the start until others at least make a commitment.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 25 August 2008 4:53:17 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
Sorry Sams, Hansen and NASA have been thoroughly discredited as reliable sources of information. Hansen is a political activist:

http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/global-warming-myth/disputing-global-warming/nasa-astronaut-hansen-political-activist/

... who thinks oil company and coal company executives should be put on trial.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080423182208.aspx

People are entitled to their political views, but when it comes to putting the livelihoods of ordinary people on the line, then I think they should be subject to certain limits.

There are many sober minded scientists who do not agree with the IPCC line on AGW. The science is definitely NOT settled, however much you may wish it so.

Australia will have no influence whatsoever on India and China regarding the use of fossil fuels. All we will be doing is crippling our economy and putting people out of work for a purely symbolic gesture.
Posted by Froggie, Monday, 25 August 2008 5:41:00 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
Froggie: "There are many sober minded scientists who do not agree with the IPCC line on AGW."

If you bother to go and look at the peer-reviewed climate science journals, you'll find out just how much of a fantasy world you're living in.

Froggie: "NASA have been thoroughly discredited as reliable sources of information."

Mate, the day you send probes all over the solar system and land humans on the moon, I might believe you, but until then ...
Posted by Sams, Monday, 25 August 2008 8:48:33 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
Sams, I said HANSEN and NASA have been discredited. Also, as it happens I have seen "peer reviewed climate scientists" disagree with the alarmism put out by the AGW proponents.

Also Sams, "peer review" ain't worth a damn when they are all singing from the same song sheet for their supper.

"Peer review" said the world was flat, until Galileo had the guts to object.
Posted by Froggie, Monday, 25 August 2008 10:13:21 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
Froggie" ""Peer review" said the world was flat, until Galileo had the guts to object."

Obviously your knowledge of history is as good, if not better than your knowledge of climate science. I'll leave it at that :-)
Posted by Sams, Tuesday, 26 August 2008 12:17:27 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
Froggie;
You should have written that the IPCC got it wrong when they
said that the sun went around the earth and that Galileo put them right.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 26 August 2008 2:24:29 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
Quite right Sams, my apologies for the error, and Bazz is correct.

One concomitant with "Peer Review" is "Peer Pressure". It takes a very brave scientist to voice any doubts he may have about AGW.

One did recently though:

Dr Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. Dr. Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as the Chairman of Natural Resources Stewardship Project.

I'm sure you'll find some way to denigrate these scientists though.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4511

Oh yes and there's Dr Vincent Gray:

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32

Art Raiche, former Chief Research Scientist of the CSIRO

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

and Dr David Evans:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/DavidEvanswager.htm

I'm sure you'll find some way to denigrate these scientists though.
Posted by Froggie, Wednesday, 27 August 2008 9:37:26 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
Froggie, is that all you can scrape up. These have been dealt with in other threads ad nauseum - threads that you participated in. Has something happened to your memory? Retired coal chemists for example are not active climate scientists.

Retired scientists, who are not climate scientists, and are working for fossil fuel-funded propaganda organisations do not count either. Like a card-carrying Flat Earth Society member you seek to undermine scientific consensus and reject peer review and other legitimate scientific processes to try to been the fact to fit your prejudice.

The fact that you would list such people shows that you are clutching at straws.

Froggie: "I'm sure you'll find some way to denigrate these scientists though."

.. he says pretending this is some brand new list of names. You are just putting on a show for people that haven't seen the other threads. I hope the money's worth it.
Posted by Sams, Wednesday, 27 August 2008 10:09:00 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
Hi Sams

Well I can see that you've got too much emotional investment in your pet theory to ever have any doubts.

Maybe it's because they are retired that they have nothing more to fear?

It seems odd to me that in your view, "consensus" only works one way i.e. pro-AGW...

I wouldn't mind if the ETS were not going to cause a great deal of financial pain to ordinary working families. In any case, an ETS will never be implemented by India and China, they have said as much, so all we will be doing is sacrificing our Australian industries to the profit of those in other countries. So, absolutely no effect on global climate change, or even in Australia, unless you can see some force field shielding Australia from the supposed effects in other parts of the world.

Funnily enough, I'm not being paid to say what I'm saying. Maybe you are being paid for your views, though. What did you say your job was?
Posted by Froggie, Wednesday, 27 August 2008 10:34:26 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
Froggie: "It seems odd to me that in your view, "consensus" only works one way i.e. pro-AGW..."

Look the word up some time.

Froggie: "so all we will be doing is sacrificing our Australian industries to the profit of those in other countries"

Climate change is affecting, and will affect, China and India just as much as us. In fact China is already hurting from record-breaking droughts. They will be forced to act. The alternative is to sit around and watch the world disintegrate around us while we wait for someone else to act - not very smart.

Froggie: "Maybe you are being paid for your views, though. What did you say your job was?"

My job? Computer programmer, IT consultant, managing director of an IT company, and my own private project: pointing out unscrupulous liars who, if I had my way, would be put on trial in much the same way as war criminals for deliberately misinforming the public. If the climate turns bad enough, my wish may come true.
Posted by Sams, Wednesday, 27 August 2008 11:18:52 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
Hmmm, not much light here.

What proportion of global warming is caused by human caused GW ?

We are experiencing a little cooling over the last few years.
If human caused global warming cannot overcome that small change and
continue temperature rise then is the Human caused global warming all
that significant ?

If I get increased power bills and it turns out that it was all a
big embarrassing mistake will I be able to claim back the unwarranted
charge ? Hmmm that would indeed put the cat amoung the pigeons.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 28 August 2008 7:47:04 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: "We are experiencing a little cooling over the last few years. If human caused global warming cannot overcome that small change and continue temperature rise then is the Human caused global warming all that significant?"

This has been discussed many times - e.g. see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/ as you would well know.

Think of it like this (hypothetical): suppose scientists discovered that the sea level was rising 1 cm per month. That would be devastating. Now someone comes along as says "but it dropped a metre since last night!" referring to the low tide. Does that mean we shouldn't worry about the rising sea levels because the tide is "overcoming" the sea level rise in the short term? Of course not: the important part is how high the sea gets at high tide.

The point is that we are currently at "low tide" in terms of the heating from the sun, as it is close to the minimum of its roughly 11 year solar cycle. We are about to find out just how high the next high tide is.

There is no doubt whatsoever that five year mean temperature has risen sharply since humans started producing CO2 en masse:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif
and is continuing to rise (and faster than predicted).

There is no known natural process that could cause this so quickly:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/28/2349041.htm
"North Pole ice cap 'melting faster than ever'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7585645.stm
"Arctic ice 'is at tipping point'"
Posted by Sams, Thursday, 28 August 2008 10:21:42 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
Sams

I can now understand why you are a supporter of AGW. Perhaps your faith in the theory is connected with the fact that “Climate Change predictions” advanced by the IPCC is based on computer programmes.

I don’t think anyone is saying that climate change is not occurring. What we are arguing about is whether or not it is the result of man’s actions, or whether it is due to natural processes (perhaps not yet fully understood by the infant science of climatology) as it has occurred throughout history.

As for China, this country has always been subject to drought and floods. The question is, does this result from man’s actions or is it natural?

According to the following article droughts and floods have been a feature of climate in Chinese historical records since at least 206 BC.

www.lanl.gov/chinawater/documents/zhuerming.pdf

I also suggest that you read this book, which is available on line:

The Asian Monsoon by Bin Wang

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=yRT57TENzT8C

The author specifically mentions “Global warming” as a possible cause, and discounts it due to lack of evidence.

We do know that world climate has changed even during the last thousand years. Climatologists do not deny the occurrence of the “little ice age”. The IPCC, however, has done its best to discount it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

John Steinbeck wrote the “Grapes of Wrath” about the “Dust Bowl” of 1930’s America. Admittedly the disaster was exacerbated by poor agricultural practices, but it was primarily the drought that caused it:
http://www.ccccok.org/museum/dustbowl.html

Finally the following shows that the climate has changed significantly throughout the millennia since 10,000 plus years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_environmental_events

Sams, you are not a climate scientist, and neither am I.

I believe with an open mind and some honest investigation, you will find that the IPCC process is a deeply flawed one, which has been undertaken for political reasons.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

More and more scientists are having the courage to speak out against it.

There is plenty of evidence running counter to the assumptions of the IPCC. You will find it easily enough if you are willing to open your mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Posted by Froggie, Thursday, 28 August 2008 10:59:51 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
Froggie: "There is plenty of evidence running counter to the assumptions of the IPCC. You will find it easily enough if you are willing to open your mind."

We call statements like this "weasel words" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words
"Weasel words are usually expressed with deliberate imprecision with the intention to mislead the listeners or readers into believing statements for which sources are not readily available."

There is not plenty of evidence at all. If there is, point to it in recent climate science journals. But no, of course you won't, because you reject peer-reviewed mainstream science - how convenient. Too scared of what's written there no doubt.

There is certainly plenty of propaganda put about by fossil fuel companies and their pathetic minions, but the climate science journals put paid to that. You keep quoting the same old handful of scientists (not climate scientists. many retired, almost every one linked to the fossil fuel industry) over and over again in this charade that you put on for the readers. Yet you fail to mention the thousands of active, qualified *climate scientists* who are against you.

You point to this articles but even there you can see today's temperature sky-rocketing on an unprecedented rate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

far faster than any natural process seen so far.

Froggie: "Sams, you are not a climate scientist, and neither am I."

But I am a physics PhD, so that helps me follow the real research, not the old wives tales bandied about by dishonest people and the ignorant fools that follow them. The fact that you reject peer-reviewed mainstream science, and yet point to scientific research to try to back up your weak arguments speaks volumes. Trying to reject discount mainstream science is the same tactic used by the Flat Earth Society, the pokies companies, and the tobacco industries.
Posted by Sams, Friday, 29 August 2008 8:15:06 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
Ah, the "appeal to authority" I'm a physics PhD, so I can know the truth. Having looked at all your posts, I can see where you are coming from.

Why don't you comment about the articles regarding the climate in China? It doesn't assist your argument, does it?

Peer review = Peer pressure. Peer review is not the silver bullet you imagine it to be.

Just ignore all the scientists who disagree with the theory, call them fossil fuel company shills, retired or whatever, and denigrate, denigrate, denigrate.

However, there is no need for you to become so desperate. Your beloved IPCC has managed to impose its political views on governments all around the world, so you will probably get what you want. A world where the governments take even more power to tax and order people's lives. All based on climate change, which has been going on for millions of years.
Posted by Froggie, Friday, 29 August 2008 9:17:28 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
Froggie: "Peer review = Peer pressure"

Do you propose that scientific articles should not come under scrutiny by other scientists in the same field who are best equipped to understand them. That would be an absurd state of affairs.

Froggie: "Why don't you comment about the articles regarding the climate in China? It doesn't assist your argument, does it? "

Because you only presented one specifically about China, and its a book that I don't have access to. In any case, I'm certainly not going to go off and read a entire book on some crackpot's say so. Why don't we instead discuss something we can all access, such as the documented effects of climate change in China and the action they are taking:

http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/File199.pdf

"Due to global climate change, the climate in China has experienced significant changes in recent years. During 1986-2006, China experienced 21 warm winters nationwide in succession. Consequently there was a marked increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather/climate events and associated disasters all causing increased losses, such as shortage of water resources and a sharp imbalance between regions, a deterioration in ecology and environment, a tremendous loss in agricultural production, a heavier pressure on food security, a rising sea level, and a threat to coastal economic and social development"

"Major advances have been made in developing efficient coal-burning power generation technology, heat-power co-generation technology, clean coal power generation technology, utilization technology of oil field torch gas, and etc. Energy efficient and saving technologies have been widely used in building materials, steel, chemicals, construction, transportation (electric vehicles), mining and other sectors. Research and development of renewable and new energies like wind power, bio-energy, solar energy, hydro power, thermal power and fuel cells have been witnessed substantial progress."
Posted by Sams, Saturday, 30 August 2008 12:43:35 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
Another couple of scientists who don't agree with the AGW alarmism:

Emeritus Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu of Alaska’s International Arctic Research Center http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/indiv/iarc_all_staff.php?photo=sakasofu

Well yes he is retired, but does that prevent him having an opinion, given his qualifications?

Then there's John Christy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy
Posted by Froggie, Sunday, 31 August 2008 10:18:17 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 endorsers of human-caused climate change, including the overarching science academies of the G8+5 nations:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), NASA, CSIRO, InterAcademy Council (IAC), the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States, National Research Council (US), European Science Foundation, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Federation of American Scientists, World Meteorological Organization, Royal Meteorological Society (UK), Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, International Union for Quaternary Research, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union of Geological Sciences, European Geosciences Union, Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences, Geological Society of America, American Geophysical Union, American Astronomical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia), Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), American Statistical Association, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, American Association of State Climatologists, Network of African Science Academies
Posted by Sams, Sunday, 31 August 2008 10:22:13 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
I do not have builtin belief either way about global warming.
However there does seem to me to be a question over what proportion
of global warming is caused by human activity ?

If human activity is such a large influence then why has it not been
able to overpower the slight decrease in global temperature that has
been experienced in recent years and so force significant
temperature rise ?

If we cannot answer these simple questions then it seems rather
reckless to be imposing economic penalties on ourselves.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 1 September 2008 7:47:01 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: "If human activity is such a large influence then why has it not been able to overpower the slight decrease in global temperature that has been experienced in recent years and so force significant temperature rise?"

You are just repeating the same question you asked above (Thursday, 28 August 2008 7:47:04 AM) that was already answered. Your argument is equivalent to saying that the sea level isn't rising, by looking only at a low tide. We are at a trough in the 11 year solar cycle. See NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
It hasn't stopped the alarming rate of reduction of global ice and glaciers, and the melting of the permafrost, warming of the oceans, and other longer term effects.
Posted by Sams, Monday, 1 September 2008 8:24:04 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
No Sams it is not the same question and I am still looking for an
answer to the first question;

However there does seem to me to be a question over what proportion
of global warming is caused by human activity ?

If global warming was such a panic stations matter then it should not
have been brought to a grinding halt by a couple of months of near
zero sunspot counts.
I hear tell that there has been a single next cycle sunspot seen so
maybe we are about to get off the bottom.
Radio condx to Europe are noticeably better today so maybe the
temperature will rise soon.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 1 September 2008 4:18:51 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. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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