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 > Will the Emissions Trading Scheme be our next Republic? > Comments

Will the Emissions Trading Scheme be our next Republic? : Comments

By Carol Johnson, published 17/4/2009

We have a situation where both the left and the right are combining to oppose the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Since there has been no overall increase in global temperatures for about ten years now (see http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif), the evidence for 'global warming' is looking increasingly thin. Rudd appears to be taking a sensible wait-and-see approach, while doing and saying just enough to prevent a hysterical outcry on the part of the Greens. He may even WANT the emissions trading scheme defeated, as a good way to get out of a pledge which will have embarrassing consequences in the future, while at the same time making both the Greens and the Liberals look bad.

Rudd is a known disciple of Lincoln, who said 'you can't fool all the people all the time'. People who have been fooled by the global warming hoax are waking up, and those who inveigled us into it are going to be more and more unpopular as time goes by. Maybe Rudd is smart enough to realise this.
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 17 April 2009 11:54:31 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
JonJ

I'm curious. Since you linked to it ... if you 'eye-ball' the black line, when do you think global warming stopped?

1955
1980
1990
2002

I'm assuming you understand global warming does not mean an increase in temperatures every year.
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 17 April 2009 5:12:43 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
Q&A, since you bring it up - what would it take for you to believe carbon is not causing climate change? Is it possible your opinion could be changed, or are you secure in your belief.

Also, how many years of cooling will it take for you to admit "global warming" has stopped, 10, 100 a thousand years?

What's your definition of Global Warming.

We all agree climate changes, no problem there - what we appear to disagree on is the cause, a lot of us believe it is natural and will go on changing from cool to warm and so forth.

You appear to believe the earth is constantly warming, allowing for cooling of course, in your convoluted way of betting on both horses here. So it's global warming when it cools as it is now, and yes statistically there is variance, but at some stage you have to admit that the cooling "variation", actually is "cooling" - when will you know that?

What's your reason for believing humans cause warming, do you have proof that man made Carbon DiOxide is factually linked to warming temperatures, and not just coincidental data, an actual paper and some facts please? (please no links to silly circular logic websites that self reference as proof)
Posted by odo, Friday, 17 April 2009 11:11:21 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
Q&A - I've downloaded the figures and done the maths, and they show that 1998 was hotter than any year since. Obviously there are fluctuations from year to year; and obviously if something as big as the earth's atmosphere and aquasphere gets hot, it's going to take a while to cool down. In other words, this year's temperature is probably going to be pretty much the same as last year's regardless of underlying trends.

Also, before 1970 there were many fewer weather stations supplying data points, so I am not prepared to put much credence in pre-1970 figures as the basis for 'global' estimates.

But in essence we have about twenty-eight years of warming and ten years of non-warming which is still going on. Why is this a problem for global warming theory? Because CO2 levels have gone on rising steadily over that period. Therefore, global temperature changes cannot be attributed solely to CO2 levels, but they must be affected by something else -- call it Factor X -- which has kept them roughly static since 1999.

OK, what is Factor X? Can you point to it in any of the global warming models? Of course, it MIGHT be 'natural variation', but as the years roll by it becomes harder to explain why 'natural variation' should exactly offset the 'global warming' that the models tell us we should be having. If Factor X can keep temperatures steady for ten years, how do we know it can't keep them steady for a hundred, or a thousand? Whatever it is, it's a hell of a big gap in the IPCC models -- and getting bigger year by year.

Anyway, Odo's challenge is to the point. Tell us, on behalf of the global warming credulists: how long do global temperatures have to decline or remain static before you will begin to doubt the model? And what would you have replied to this question ten years ago?
Posted by Jon J, Saturday, 18 April 2009 7:34:38 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
The bad news for Carol Johnson is that the climate change debate already is a fiasco. Unlike the republic debate, it has the potential to undermine our government by removing a major plank its policy platform and severely reduce its credibility. I predict there will be much “egg on face” in the near future.

Whilst I have never found any correlation between atmospheric carbon content and the near earth temperature measurements (both uncontested research), I have been able to convince myself that the biosphere is working very hard to mitigate human carbon emissions. (See posts under “What would it take to change your mind”).

I’ve already acknowledged a change in my position and now accept that because I can see an increase in the biospheres’ response to total FFC (Fossil Fuel Combusted), that there is a cause and effect, something is happening, but is it natural?

What I cannot find evidence for is any direct correlation between ACC and the global temperature measurements. This leaves me with two questions; firstly, if an ETS is the answer, what was the question? And secondly, how have so many scientists, journalists, intellectuals and politicians been distracted by the “noise” generated by the global phenomena we have come to know as the AGW debate?

Perhaps the latest book by Ian Plimer might throw some light on this. (The Weekend Australian, Christopher Pearson). I have no doubt that many OLOers will play the man, but for those of us more interested in the origins of the anthropological “noise” than the rapidly decaying AGW case, perhaps both Carol Johnson and Ian Plimer have something to offer to explain this phenomena?

We can clearly evidence that when faith based concepts are challenged, the responses get more convoluted, making lees and less sense to realists, as evidenced by religious theology, political dogma and social ideology.

Just how and why so many of us devour such a variety of ever more complex faith based, mystical mumbo jumbo is a mystery. It seems to me to be one of the greatest impediments to progress for our species.
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 18 April 2009 10:04:42 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
John J

I note the graph you provided continues to be flogged off around the country. Please advise why you et al have omitted to provide the information accompanying that graph which clearly contradicts your claims.

Since you have accepted the graph from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
as firm "evidence" that there has been no “overall increase in global warming” (my eyes must be glued on) why have you not accepted the additional information the authors also provided?:

“The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2008. The year 2008 was tenth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001, 2007 and 1997. This time series is being compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre. The record is being continually up-dated and improved (see Brohan et al., 2006).

".......Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century.

“The 1990s were the warmest complete decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.546°C above the 1961-90 mean. Thirteen of the fourteen warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past fourteen years (1995-2008). The only year in the last fourteen not among the warmest fourteen is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990).

"The period 2001-2008 (0.43°C above 1961-90 mean) is 0.19°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24°C above 1961-90 mean."

May I, as an average punter, for the time being, be sufficiently presumptuous to believe that 8 out of the 10 warmest years on record, have occurred in the 21st century? Therefore, why do you claim that "People who have been fooled by the global warming hoax are waking up?"

Do you intend submitting your hypotheses to the CRU/UEA?
Posted by Protagoras, Saturday, 18 April 2009 1:42:37 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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