What every climatologist has been warning you about is now a reality. Humans are in-fact changing the earth in ways only now we are just starting to understand. Not only have we let our populations run out of control, mankind has also sped up the processes of the green-house effect.

What should of taken 10's of 1000's of years in a very slow drying out period, the processes of the next extinction has just pressed the excelerator and the clock is ticking.

http://tinyurl.com/83kejfn

Its time to rethink what we are doing to this planet......and what if anything can man do to reverse this drastic situation.

Your thoughts.

cc

I can now see why you hate the Scriptures so much because it exposes false religion such as gw where men are foolish enough to think they can dictacte the climate.

On issues which require radical solutions that are
likely to harm vested economic and political interests,
not much progress is going to be allowed to be made.

Doing anything positive is politically difficult, for
the economic interests - for example, those behind "smokestack"
industries are a powerful lobby that is reluctant to commit
the necessary resources to the task.

It therefore isn't surprising that new ideas, instead of being
welcome for the opportunities they open up for the improvement
of the human lot, are threats to those who have become
comfortable in their ideologies.

In Australia in 2006, leading climatologists with the country's
pre-eminent public research organisation, CSIRO, were forbidden
by the organisation's management from publicly discussing
the implications of climate change. Managmeent was acting on
behalf of the government. And Australia is one of the
standout countries in terms of human development status.
It's not corrupt. It's science is world class. None of this
mattered. In 2006, the Australian Government's position
was to cast doubt on global warming and refuse to enter into
UN agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol.

With the release of the Stern Report on climate change, the
Australian Government's position changed somewhat -
yet the PM still remained half-hearted about a commitment
to counter global warming.

Of course, the current Government is attempting to do
something about it. However - the Coalition is determined
to change things when and if - they get into office.
This only proves again that when ignorance and vested interests
are confronted by scientific facts - not much will change.

Come on runner:) you don't really believe that. The science on this is irrefutable, however lets see what others have to say on this.

cc

Oh do come off it.

Just quote me one single paper that is not just a computer model con job, that has anything to support the theory of CO2 causing anything but a very small effect.

All your con men have to presume massive positive feed back from water vapor in humidity & cloud to get anything of any meaning.

Every bit of research for the last 10 years finds that this feed back is actually negative, & is right now reducing temperature.

AGW theory calls for increased CO2 to increase evaporation & water vapor. However it is becoming obvious that as CO2 increases, it takes the place of water vapor, which is reducing in the upper atmosphere.

If you want to join the argument, do a bit of research somewhere other than a ratbag greenie blog.

Satellites can't find any heat.

Argo buoys can't find any heat

Weather balloons can't find the fabled hot spot.

The only place any one can find any heat is in a computer, or behind a greenies fevered brow.

At last! not sure it is planet 3 or partner.
But never thought this day would come.
I agree!
Badly damaged by the thought, pressed on it by the extreme right, that this is a leftist plot we know the planet is warming.
And we know, those capable of clear thought,more rain is as much a part of it as less.
We know ice is melting faster in some places slower in others.
Every month we see the wettest/hottest dry est day for ten twenty one hundred years.
Some will say so what?, its natural.
Some will say its not man made not even assisted by us.
Research the impacts of introduction of prickly pear to QLD.
Then consider the human race, our population in 1750, then now.
This thread planet 3.1 is going to be huge.
It always is, you I every believer will be condemned as lefty loony.
I share without reserve the view the very left is a blot on reality, but so too are the deniers on the rat bag right.

<< Your thoughts.>>

My thoughts … ye're talkin thru yer hat laddie !

You show us a link to a story on tree die backs under a heading of “Rapid Climate Change”.
I saw the program –and noted the ABC’s positioning of it just before their “I Can Change You Mind About Climate Change” special.
It examines a HYPOTHESIS that trees are dying off due to a series of hot days .
And even if it were ever proven, it can hardly be said to be proof of “rapid climate change”.

I’m with you -- if you want to preserve the natural environment, reduce pollution, or develop solar power.
But when your climate change programs see OZ impose a STARTING $23 carbon tax while our dirtier competitors sit on their hands.
And when your recommendations call for climate change reparations for economically underdeveloped nations with over overdeveloped fertility rates.
And when the groups you align yourself with talk of world parliaments and a re-distribution of world resources on a per capita basis -- you can count me out.

Well what a mixed response. It seems optimism or blunt denial for breakfast this morning.

We have Hasbeen with....." Oh do come off it."

Runner with....." the discovery of a new found religion"

Belly with...." But never thought this day would come." I agree:)

Lexi with "
likely to harm vested economic and political interests"

SPQR with ( and the most entertaining one )......."ye're talkin thru yer hat laddie! "

SPQR. A few hot days:) I think thats the whole point matey-boy:) but I think I'll wait for a few more while I eat my coco pops.

c

Is Rapid climate for real, well I would suggest everyone go and read/watch the report again. Quote...

http://tinyurl.com/83kejfn

"The effect climate change may have on our forests is a huge concern. But an even greater worry - how will dying trees affect the climate? In 2005, the heart of the world's biggest rainforest's suffered a drought so hot and severe it turned the Amazon jungle from a carbon sink to a carbon source. A second once-in-a-century drought happened five years later.

And this from......
Kane Smith - 30 Apr 2012 9:20:06am

In this debate the possibility of the average person understanding science for and against the climate debate is not likely for most of us. Thus I look at the issue in my own mind like this, if the science is all a con and we spend billions of dollars on re-engineering our life's and the we do not see climate change the we can say what a complete waste of money, on the flip side if the science is right and we do nothing and all the bad stuff happen then we will say why did we not do something when we could, so the choice is act and maybe waste a whole lot of money, or do not spend money and maybe waste a plant.

....and the blind right up to their old tricks once again.

One of the main points that the Gillard Government has, is that this tax will benefit not only the world fund, also helps with shortening the disparity's between the rich and the poorer Australians.

Enjoy.

http://tinyurl.com/cz2rpyh

Every country right around the world is having the same effect! I would love someone to explain that one, if climate change is false.
Belly points out that its more than just the trees that change is happening (ice melts etc ) and what is more worrying, is the food for 7 billion people that rapid change WILL cause.

cc

Plant,

<<Every country right around the world is having the same effect! I would love someone to explain that one, if climate change is false>>

Okay Plant I’ll try, though I do expect that I’ll run up against the old paradox: you can send a hoarse lefty to water but you can't make him think.

First of all a concession: CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL.
The climate is ALWAYS swinging one way of another. And often you get decades or even centuries where the trend is all one way.
A just-right Goldilocks climate only exists in fairy tales – and, left-wing political party statements of climate policy (though it be somewhat redundant to distinguish between them since they're peas in the same pod)

Now a correction: every region is NOT experiencing the same.
Some places are hotter, some places are colder. It only appears uniform when you play with numbers and start “average” things out

<<In 2005, the heart of the world's biggest rainforest's suffered a drought …[its] second once-in-a-century drought happened five years later>>

Once in a century/millennium classifications are only estimates--very rough estimates.Sometimes you get a run of droughts or floods, or worse Labor governments. Sometimes you have a run of heads or a run of tales. Sometimes all the buses arrive at once.

So now, you can relax and go back to eating your coco pops -–by the way, I hope they’re made from FAIRDTRADE coco & rice!

SPQR,

No doubt you'll enjoy this article. I've just posted it on another thread, but it seems a shame to leave it out of this one.

The Heartalnd Institute, that slightly kooky bastion of climate denial, has come up with a bumper media campaign that appears to be ever so slightly more insane than usual:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder?CMP=twt_gu

Poirot,
The Heartland Institute is a little slow I'd say. Warmists have been been using mass murder/genocide/war crimes imagery for years!

Besides, they'd have to be real good to out do this guy:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111068/Revealed-the-racy-novel-written-by-the-worlds-most-powerful-climate-scientist.html

or old Bank Ki Moon when he spruiks AGW.

SPQR,

You're on to something with your comment that the Heartland Institute is a little "slow".

I'd say they're more than a little "slow" - they're downright "moronic".

I shall try again...

In most industrialised democracies, "wedge politics" -
deliberately creating a division between sectoral
interests - is the name of the game.

Hence interest group self-interest and antagonism
between citizens permeates policy making. The
much-touted notion in liberal democracies that
governments govern for all, is not believed by
significant numbers of voters. It's all too obvious
that governments actually don't do this. This destroys
social capital, that is, trust, togetherness and the
tender feelings of a caring society. There is "them"
and "us", rather than simply "us" and much effort is
employed in partisan politics which could be much
better utilised in positive pursuits.

Tor Hundloe points out in his book, "From Buddha to
Bono: Seeking Sustainability," that:

"There is a tried and true way of reducing and, if
need be, completely curtailing adverse environmental impacts:
taxation on pollution. Taxes reduce consumption. If high
enough they curtail it..."

Hundloe goes on to say: "In the early 1970s - the Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and development (OECD) recommended
the use of pollution taxes."

"It took the medical profession from the 1960s to the present
era to get the public, and the governments we elect, to act
on the toxic, life-taking efforts of tobacco. Eventually sanity
prevailed, although it took decades."

Hundloe states that - " It is clearly time for economists to
commence their campaign for pollution taxes and getting prices
to tell the truth. With all their power and influence in
society and government, economcists are sitting on their
collective hands. Not good enough."

I agree.

You can't compromise nature and get away with it. Weather events are getting more extreme. Antarctic ice melt is increasing.
We must get off Coal and Oil.
AU is behind in the renewable change.
It is time to do instead of arguing the toss.

Now three acting as a singular wit:) just loving the banter. Yes folks, we environmentalist's are not very smart....Oh dear. At least one point made it through, and thats the benefits of hindsight and the carbon TAX, only for some.

SPQR and off-ling....since the CSIRO are in the making of new in-roads of gen/mod/foods, drought resistant strains, unlike some academics, just might breed brand new tree,s to take the place of old and existing vegetation.

But do we have the time in the realm's of science to achieve such terraforming given the time limits?

"So now, you can relax and go back to eating your coco pops -–by the way, I hope they’re made from FAIRDTRADE coco & rice!

Gen rice SPQR:) cause its about the only answer we have considering the demands of what we humans need from this planet.

( more funding hint,hint )

GMF to adapt in this drying world, or.....well.....lets just wait around and see what happens, I bet I'll have the last laugh.

cc

Sorry lexi and belly, the deeper understandings......"In most industrialised democracies, "wedge politics" -
deliberately creating a division between sectoral
interests - is the name of the game.

Delivered as a true profesional.

I think Monday will have the call.

Thats then Sunday is over.

cc

"One of the main points that the Gillard Government has, is that this tax will benefit not only the world fund, also helps with shortening the disparity's between the rich and the poorer Australians." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5123#137914

Why was it again that it appears to many that AGW theories have more to do with Left wing ideology than science?

"shortening the disparity's between the rich and the poorer Australians" is basically code for hitting middle income earners again, it's too hard to make a cost stick to the really rich but middle income earners are easy pickings.

Maybe if they were really serious about climate change what the government introduced would have had more emphasis on reducing an overall reduction of carbon emissions and less to do with transferring money from middle income earners to others.

R0bert

We must get off Coal and Oil.
579,
Then lead by example and stay away from your computer !

Planet 3.1 well I have never agreed with planet 3, so that was my thoughts.
Lexi a touch of brilliance in your posts.
You have the answer, to what is driving politics to the edge of decency and this issue.
Also stopping new fuels and quite a lot.
We, believers, must not take the bait.
OK some true left are involved, and true right are behind the opposite views.
Both damage the truth.
Let us look Abbott first said man is effecting climate change.
Then unseated a far better man by SAYING HE NO LONGER DID! not evidence he has changes his mind he is not to be believed on any issue.
Conservatives however take the same cutting target to the election, but a different way of achieving it.
In this year alone world wide, other country's are starting reduction schemes.
And most people , far more than half, say they believe man is impacting on climate change.
Lexi HIGHLIGHTS this truth , our future is put in danger by the interests of big money big influence and that is the battle yet to be fought.
Take back our world or be slaves forever.
Now ample pages from every side exist to learn much.
Say, just for the sake of debate, man is not contributing!if you must.
But global warming is real and increasing faster than we have been told.
What are the impacts?
Lexi one day I would want an end to left right fighting, minority's always lead away from solutions.
And a middle road intent on the best out comes for all.
Planet 3.1 do not let the trash talkers get you down, some from the opposite side actually can put the point well without denigrating us.

Plant,

<<GMF to adapt in this drying world, or.....well.....lets just wait around and see what happens, I bet I'll have the last laugh.>>

A funny thing happened -- here in eastern OZ --on our way to adapting to a AGW afflicted world. All the farmers and market gardeners, heeded our esteemed Australian Climate Commissioner, who prophesized a dry world where all the dams and streams would run dry.And went out and brought and sowed drought resistance crop seed.

It hasn’t stopped raining since and most of those dry conditions loving strains have drowned.

We would be laughing now too , except we’re up to our chins in flood water, and too afraid to open our mouths!

Dear SPQR,

Without the natural greenhouse effect the average world temperature would be -18C instead of 14C. After water vapour, CO2 is the next largest contributor. What law of physics would you like me to ignore to come to the conclusion that a doubling of CO2 will have zero effect on the climate of this planet?

Some believe in people that say they can see into the future.
Forecasting weather is hard enough from day to day let alone predicting a flood or drought.
Predictions probably will become even more erratic, Forecasters are battling to keep up with change, as storm cells have a mind of their own.
A lot of time has been lost in the repair of our air space, probably means more dollars to compensate.

Csteele,

<< What law of physics would you like me to ignore to come to the conclusion that a doubling of CO2 will have zero effect on the climate of this planet>>

Now it is possible that I missed it, but I don’t recall writing anywhere that CO2 had "zero effect"!
Please refer me to my post where I made that claim.

I am sure CO2 does impact on the environment --so does a ferret farting in French Guyana -– the question is to what degree.

On the other hand CSteele, let me ask you: what airy fairy law or insight tells you that OZ imposing a carbon tax will STOP climate change?

Of course climate change is real. What I'd like explained is what was done when the last climate change came on ? Was there a Tax ? Perhaps the Dinosaurs refused to pay Carbon Tax ?
Do some of you think evolution will suddenly stop because we're here ? Or do some of you think evolution excludes climate change ?
No amount of cutting back will stop climate change. Even if Mankind were to suddenly disappear climate change would continue.
Is that so difficult to grasp ? Just because some are concerned about it doesn't mean they can do something about it. Stop fooling yourselves just accept that all Parties will come to an end. Even the Mayas knew that !

“CO2 causing anything but a very small effect”, “is right now reducing temperature”, “Satellites can't find any heat.”, “Argo buoys can't find any heat”, “Weather balloons can't find the fabled hot spot.”, “The only place any one can find any heat is in a computer”

Let's see, CO2 is conservatively responsible for about 20% of the 32C warmer our planet is at the moment because of the natural green house effect. Being conservative again let's call that 6C. In a very simple system doubling levels should give us another 6C but of course we have infrared bandwidth restrains etc so lets slice a third off that and leave it at a 4C increase which is about what is predicted and hardly a “small effect”.

Okay, that's what the physics says, now what part of that should I dismiss? I would happily believe otherwise, I mean who needs the worry right? Come on big boy, gimme what ya got, put me out of my misery, even a revelation from God might do it, seems to work a treat for the creationists.

Physics is so over-rated anyway, who needs it when you can fake the moon landings in a studio.

Csteele,

'ello, 'ello, 'ELLO!, What's All This, Then? ..... Hmmm.

<< “CO2 causing anything but a very small effect”, “is right now reducing temperature”, “Satellites can't find any heat.”, “Argo buoys can't find any heat”, “Weather balloons can't find the fabled hot spot.”, “The only place any one can find any heat is in a computer”>>

I do hope you are NOT implying that the above are from me --none of them are mine!

Nice little performance though, you touched on everything from the moon landing to creationism. But I really must drag you back to that question: what airy fairy law or insight tells you that OZ imposing a carbon tax will STOP climate change?

Dear Individual,

After decades of carelessly dumping noxious gases and
particulates into the atmosphere, most of the
industrialised societies are now enforcing clean-air
standards. This is being done because the most
far-reaching effect of air pollution is a change in
the global climate.

As a result of the burning of fuels
and wastes, and the razing of forests, the amount of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is steadily increasing.
This gas creates a "greenhouse effect" on the planet, for
it allows solar rays to reach the earth's surface but
prevents heat from radiating back into space. The consequence
will be a global warming, which will eventually cause
the melting of the polar ice caps, a rise in sea levels, and
changes in weather patterns.

This warming effect is already under way, and average global
temperature is expected to rise by 3 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit
by 2050. This may seem like a small change, but minor
fluctuations in global temperature can have drastic
consequences. During the last ice age, when much of North
America was covered with sheets of ice more than a mile thick,
average temperature was only about 5 degrees cooler than today.

By the end of the 21st century,
global temperature may have increased
by as much as 9 degrees,
raising sea levels by ten to twelve feet,
turning tropical areas into deserts,
and creating a climate far
warmer than anything humanity has ever experienced.

Most of the climatic, agricultural and ecological patterns
that we are familiar with today would be completely disrupted,
and there is no knowing what the ultimate consequences would
be for life on the planet and for human society.

This and other atmospheric pollution is not an inevitable
outcome of industrial technology; it derives also from
political decisions to tolerate pollution rather than bear the
costs - probably including slower economic growth - of
limiting it.

The alarmists are liars.See now they are trying to turn AGW theroy into AGC. Their latest scam is proposing that warming is changing the flow of ocean currents thus cooling the planet.Why? Because the planet is moving to a cooling cycle.

It is Orwellian double speak.Warming is actually cooling. There are lies,damn lies and statistics which they have manipulated to suit their flawed theories.

Steele, Lexi, even the mob at the climate research unit, at the U of East Anglia, that bunch of con men, only claim a possible warming of 1 degree from CO2. Please go back & re do your research, & find this for your self, so you can believe it.

What they claim will give greater rise of temperature is positive feed back, from water vapor, & cloud, mostly. Unfortunately, like much of their stuff, they can produce no research to confirm this theory, & in fact have made little apparent effort to find any such evidence. Could it be that they know it doesn't exist?

However, if you make any attempt to find the truth, rather than confirm your politically induced feelings, you will find a great & rapidly growing body of evidence, that any such feed back is in fact negative.

This ties in well with the fact that there has been no warming now for about 14 years. Even the climate research unite admit this, although some try to claim it has swum deep into the ocean, while no one was looking.

Emotive stuff is all well & good when talking about the movies, not science, & csteele your understanding of physics is at about primary school level, if your last post is an example.

Hasbeen,

Are you familiar with the phrase "long term trend"?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

I have a question for all the warmists here that consider that demand driven industry is emitting CO2 that is changing the climate.

Demand for industry is driven by humans, right. So why not direct your energies into reducing the number of humans in the world?

It seems to me that would reduce demand for industry and consequently the CO2 levels and as a bonus we become more sustainable.

It has beed demonstrated that births can be reduced from 6.5 per woman to 1.7 by education in family planning and providing the means.

I find it perculiar that population reduction was not discussed at Kyoto, Copenhagen or in the Indonesian talk fest. Too hard maybe?

Unless we tackle the ever growing population anything else is simply moving the deck chairs.

Banjo,be careful what you wish for because many of the elites are working on drastically reducing the world's population.These lunatics may make us all victims.

apart from a troll, no other desciption fits, most deniers here should ask them selves this.
Is global warming, [not carbon tax not man made] happening?
What are the implications?
If not man made why are country's like the European economic community taking action?
Why is China?
What are the implications of acting if we are wrong.
What are the implications of not acting.
One poster , please reconsider, ignores a FACT, higher and lower rain fall, was first put forward in the year 1998 as a symptom of global warming.

Runner,
The author never even mentioned the Scriptures, let alone professed to "hate" them.

That's the problem with religious zealots - they see everything in total black or white. Everything is either right or completely wrong with nothing in between and with a sense of paranoia thrown in.

Science in never "settled" but adapts to accommodate changing data. Conclusions based on data can be valid until they are totally disproven.

To base a scientific opinion on unrelated text is like saying that the climate was different in the past because, according to one particular story, beanstalks were once known to reach into the clouds

Wobbles
'Runner,
The author never even mentioned the Scriptures, let alone professed to "hate" them.That's the problem with religious zealots - they see everything in total black or white."
And yet the author wrote yesterday on another thread
'Runner, you know dam well the religious fraternity has the money-tree influence just like any big business and that's why our beloved leader has to play the truth down.'

So I suggest checking your facts Wobbles before opening yor trap and making accusations

And, believe me, wobbles - runner is an expert on opening his trap and making accusations.

Dear SPQR,

No, I hadn't seen your answer before posting. The last one was meant for Hasbeen. My fault for missing his label.

Dear Hasbeen,

Are you really telling me to go and take the word of some people you have labelled as conmen? Oh, I see, it is only the pieces of information that you deem acceptable that should be believed, the rest is some grand conspiracy. Think about it, can't you see something slightly absurd in what you have just done?

You claim; “that any such feed back is in fact negative”. Are you really making the argument that effect of the increases in CO2 and water vapour which have driven the natural green house effect to give us a temperature 32C above what it would have been without these gases has suddenly peaked and can go no further because any additions will result in a lowering of temperatures?

Can I have some of what you are smoking?

Come on mate, try and explain it to this poor sod with only primary school physics and the other readers who might also be a little confused. As an ex-pilot you would have had to have some physics training, you obviously are quite knowledgeable on the topic, don't tell me to go and read more just tell me directly why I'm wrong and you are right.

Hay warmest boys & girls, remember James Lovelock, the Gaia man, & one of the founders of the whole concept of AGW.

I'm sure you all keep up with the latest information on the scam, so you will know of his recent interview with MSNBC. Yes that's right, the one where he said that he, & Al Gore were "unnecessarily alarmist" in the past with their pronouncements on global warming.

Of course many of us tried to tell him, & you lot, that he was talking cr4p, but in the words of the song, "you wouldn't believe me".

Still I'll bet all that "unnecessarily alarmist" talk was great for promoting book sales, & boosting lecture rates. I wonder if he expects us to believe it was an accident?

Hasbeen good morning, how are your day Lilly's.
Mate I get via your posts on the subject you got your knowledge from John Laws and Alan Jones on this subject.
SPQR has not answered my claim the science told us years ago more rain and less, more storms higher tides are part of global warming.
Councils and city's around Australia and the world, are planning for Global warming.
Recent unheard of flooding in Asia is conveniently ignored.
A handful of experts on every thing except climate are worshiped for calling us warmest alarmists.
Rather like those paid THINGS,in medical coats explaining how tests proved tobacco was safe.
A whole Library of books await telling about just how power privilege and influence hood winked so many so often.
And it will be about such as SPQR and hasbeen.

The cost of climate change will never be this cheap again, as today.
It's hard to think that some still can't agree that nature has been compromised.
By far the biggest man made compromise is CO2, Beyond the levels of what nature intended.
Oil and coal being used all around the world has got to be the blame.
This sounds simple enough, we stop CO2.
In WA i seen road trains running on gas, so that is a big improvement.
Diesel trains, put them on gas. [ natural or manufactured.]
New motor vehicles are being manufactured to be electric or gas.
Those alterations would have to drop the import of fuels drastically.

After decades of carelessly dumping noxious gases and
particulates into the atmosphere
Lexi,
Most people know that, it's a no-brainer. The question is what can we do about it to change it ? At this stage, nothing ! You can not rewind the change that has been going on for several hundred years now by fining those who simply supply the demand for commodities by those who condemn the manufacturers. It has been stated to saturation point that you can't stop climate change no matter what you do. Climate change caused by mankind or otherwise is a progress. It isn't something that hits suddenly therefore it can't be stopped suddenly.
Pollution will continue for as long as human stupidity continues. Just look at all the pollution emanating from the war oil fires, bombs, crashes, destruction, sinking ships etc.
No tax can stop stupidity when the tax itself is borne of stupidity.
All we can do is really get alternative fuels & lubrication asap. much of it is already at hand but not yet available. The other one is that people curb their demands for everything polluting. Stop demanding Air Conditioning & other comfort commodities. That will slow down climate change by a smidgeon but it will not stop it. Start building on hills.

Banjo>>"I find it perculiar [sic] that population reduction was not discussed at Kyoto, Copenhagen or in the Indonesian talk fest. Too hard maybe? Unless we tackle the ever growing population anything else is simply moving the deck chairs."

Population is not discussed because obscenely wealthy and politically powerful organised religious corporations don't want it discussed.

Individual>>> "No tax can stop stupidity when the tax itself is borne of stupidity."

Absolutely correct. History indicates that no matter what warnings they receive, humans do not change course until overtaken by total disaster. All anyone can do is hope for the best and prepare for the worst and, if you can avoid it, stop breeding so you don't feel guilty about landing your descendants in the poo.

On another thread Lexi said, "The UN estimates that production will need to increase by
70 per cent by 2050 in order to meet the world population need".

This seems to come from the National Farmers federation, so I have little doubt this is what the UN believes. Thanks Lexi.

If that estimate is anywhere near right, it is obvious that starvation is a much bigger threat to humans than any change to climate. I think that is why China is now buying up huge chunks of farmland in Aus and Africa. There is no way we can increase food production by that much in 38 years.

So it will matter little if climate change is a natural occurance or human induced, the threat of starvation for millions is far greater.

We need to take action in reducung birth rates in the over populated countries and those that are subject to famine. I have little time for Iran but credit where credit is due, they have shown the world that lowering birth rate dramaticly is possible without draconian methods.

Instead of worrying or argueing about climate change, turn thoughts to population growth, it is not a falicy or a con job it is a real and growing problem. There is no doubt that it can be remedied.

Any reduction in population will have the added benefit of lowering the CO2 levels and is that not what the alarmists want?

Interesting post from elsware. It checks out on Snopes as well.

The Washington Post

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelt which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

I apologize, did I forget to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 88 years ago.

It's all just about a new tax isn't it!!

Yes it is!

Folks we do have a problem.

Over the past quarter century, pollution of the environment
has begun to threaten the ecological balance of the planet
and the health of many of its species, including ourselves.

I think we all recognise that the pollution problem is an
exceedinlgy difficult one to solve, for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, some people and governments see pollution as a regrettable
but inevitable by-product of desired economic development -
"Where's there's smoke, there's jobs."

Secondly, control of pollution sometimes requires international
co-ordination, for one country's emissions or pesticides can
end up in other countries' air or food.

Thirdly, the effects of pollution may not show up for many
years, so severe environmental damage can occur with little
public awareness that it is taking place.

Finally, preventing or correcting pollution can be costly,
technically complex, and sometimes - when the damage is
irreversible - impossible.

In general, the most industrialised nations are now actively
trying to find ways to limit the effects of pollution,
but the populous less developed societies are more concerned
with economic growth, and they tend to see the problem as
part of the price they have to pay for it.

I don't think that anybody would deny the fact that the planet
has a finite amount of resources or that it can tolerate
only a limited amount of pollution. If world population
continues to grow rapidly, if industrialisation spreads
around the world, and if pollution and resource depletion
continues at an increasing rate - and all these things
are happening - where is human society headed?

As I've stated in the past - the most optimistic answer to
these questions would be that, one way or another, sweeping
changes await all of us. To do nothing, doesn't seem like
an option that we have. Certainly not if we care about our
future generations and this planet.

history shows you have little to be worried about especially when the pseudo scientist have a quid to be made. In the 70's the scare from the scientist was the coming ice age, then we had the hole in the ozone, the the y2k bug and now it is gw. If a tithe of this religous money in the pockets of the High Priests and bureacrats had been spent on cleaning up the planet you probably would have very little pollution. Unfortunately the idiotic evolution fallacy allows many pseudo scientist to say what they like and the gullible swallow it again.They can tell you what the climate was 3 million years ago (yeah!) Can someone tell me what the next scare will be now that gw has been exposed to all but a few desperant followers and cheating Governments?

this thread starts with the typical wild assertion that 'every' climatologist believes in man-made global warming (or is it climate change, now that the warming isn't going as planned?).
What about the over 31 thousand American scientists, most of whom are climate scientists, or from very closely related fields, who have signed a petition against the theory?
See http://www.petitionproject.org/ for their names and qualifications.
If that list is only for American scientists, how many more worldwide do not believe the myth of man-made climate change?
We are being led into disaster by the blinkered and morally blind.

Well said Runner. I couldn't have said it better myself.
I have no doubt that there is Global warming taking place. The planet has been warming since the 1800's. See http://sahultime.monash.edu.au/. Before then the Globe was in what is called, 'The Little Ice Age' from about 1300 to about 1780's when the Thames froze over. Before 1300's Iceland/Greenland was a habitable green wonderland.
The Global Climate goes up & down with irregularity on its own. As far as human input they have measured lead from the Greeks & Romans, & Soot from the Industrial Revolutionin in the Greenland Ice Flows.
Please don't get me wrong. Even though I don't believe the World Governments on Climate Change, I do believe change is happening. Whether Pollution has anything to do with it is irrelevant.
I do believe that Pollution MUST be reduced, if only just for health reasons. Another reason would be to break the stranglehold of the Oil Cartels.
But a Carbon Tax is BS.

We humans are doing well, our Church's sexually assault children then hide it.
We have millions starving, and millions more running away from war.
While the whole nation of North Korea is a slave nation, so to is or very near Iran , and some other country's
We are divided by religion and hate.
Everything we touch is in danger from animals to the sea its self.
If we are not haveing an impact on our climate change it must be by accident!

'We are divided by religion and hate.'

Well at least because of religion you had a fair chance of being born Belly. With no religion we murder many unborn who have not the right to an opinion on OLO.

I think God would prefer an honest and righteous atheist,
to a person whose every word is God, God, God, and whose
every deed is foul, foul, foul - including the burning
of abortion clinics and the killing of doctors who perform
abortions.

Oh Lexi

'I think God would prefer an honest and righteous atheist,'

Surely you know their was only ever One who was and is rigthteous. Apart from Him their is only self righteousness. He is the only One qualified to forgive the baby killers or those who kill the baby killers.

Ah runner,

Thanks for proving my point.
A righteous God sets the standards of behaviour -
therefore he will indeed judge those who preach
God, God, God, but behave - foul, foul, foul!

So we have mountable evidence for the facts except for runner (who's completely off the planet) and some of the biggest deniers of the human impacts thats more than in your face when cover ups are on the table.

OK...the tree's are not dieing, marine life and other land species are not going extinct, wood chipping rain forests will be just fine, in time we will learn to breath carbon dioxide, don't slow down human breeding, people who make oil and nuclear accidents should never be held responsible for their actions, the human population of 7 billion is just fine, GOD is real...lol, pollution's not a problem, the CARBON TAX is wrong( and we should keep on TAXING the workers )(Oh dear)..let the disparity between the classes grow wider and out of control ( hello! is no-one watching other countries loosing the plot?), don't even think of TAXING the rich( you'll just upset them and make them cry....poor me ) and last of all, the planet at our currant rate is fully workable.

I haven't heard so much bull in all my life:)

A big thanks to those with commonsense as an asset with truth as their weapon.

Rapid climate change is real, and deep down, our leaders and you, all know it.

The CSIRO are on the mission of making drought resistant crops, which you all know, and about the rest of what cant handle the present conditions, I think I mentioned terraforming as the answer to the currant decline of, and if we can do it with crops, we can do it with other flora as well.

Science will save our planet, but all must work as one!

Well done.

cc

While the whole nation of North Korea is a slave nation, so to is or very near Iran.

Jeez you talk some sh!t sometimes. Iran is no where near a slave state, probably more free than we are! At least they can still let off fireworks for their kids birthdays! And they don' live that much differently than we do. Have you been there? Or do you just quote crap that your lying government spews out everyday?

How would you feel if I told you Chines people feel freer than we do? As long as you don't criticize the government you can do the hell you want. More than we can say! And yes I've been there! Not having a nanny looking over your shoulder every minute of the day or a Union thug telling where you can and can't work is a damn good life!

plant3.1: Rapid climate change is real, and deep down, our leaders and you, all know it.

Yep, it certainly is. It was the coming ice age in the 70's. That didn't eventuate. So... Global Warming in the 2000's. So... What if that doesn't actually eventuate. Oh well. Back to the coming Ice Age for the 2020's, I suppose.
World Governments have to keep the people in anxious turmoil at all times It's good for business.

'A righteous God sets the standards of behaviour -
therefore he will indeed judge those who preach
God, God, God, but behave - foul, foul, foul!'

True Lexi but He will also judge people foolish enough to ignore the forgiveness offered through His Son.

The West is enslaved by debt.The invisible chains and the distractions of the media just give us the illusion of being free.

The imperial banking/finance system owns most of us and we brag about being better off than the other slaves.

Climate change is real and has has been always, since earth first formed. The unknown bit is whether humans have any influence over our climate. Also if CO2 has any influence in warming the atmosphere or not. CO2 emmissions have increased dramaticly in recent times and yet the temp has remained very stable over the last 14 years.

Even after climategate, wrong predictions about sea rises, permanent droughts, not enough rain to fill dams, kids not knowing what snow was, hockey sticks and so on and on,it seems there are still some holding the religous belief that man has caused global warming and climate change. It is a religion to them because there is no evidence to back up their beliefs. Only theory that is rapidly losing favour.

Me, well I am a practical bloke and know there some things we humans have no control over. Like volcanos, earthquakes, tides and lightning strikes. Continental drift is another and so is any change in climate. One must have a very high opinion of our place in the scheme of nature if he thinks our actions can change the world climate.

Mother nature will change the climate when she wants and how she wants, as seen in the past. But it would be good if we could change the climate. April is ussually a nice month, lets make it permanent and please no frosts and no rain at weekends.

Dear runner,

In that case you should not be so foolish.
Seek forgiveness. Or better still -
don't sin.

Lexi

'Dear runner,

In that case you should not be so foolish.
Seek forgiveness. Or better still -
don't sin.'

As you well know Lexi all have sinned including you and yes I do seek and ask forgiveness regularly.

Well looks like Hasbeen has pulled a hammy. Come on you believers in physical impossibilities, anyone going to enlighten this poor fellow as to why a doubling of the second most important green house gas will have no effect on the world's temperatures.

I'm that desperate I will even accept a "Because God told me so" from Runner because we are talking the miraculous.

Runner do you remember?
My words about as a younger man looking for a better world?
And my belief in Christ.
I was quite wrong, it took folk like you, to show me no God existed.
I however bought the dreams and rules to live by, those very wise humans manufactured all those years ago.
As much a work of art as the painting on the ceiling of that chapel,and as beautiful.
I understand it is up to me, to do no harm to others to not judge without reason.
In hope that one day we all will know we are our own God,I would if a space ship landed today, want these to be the first words they spoke.
* there are no Gods*
Then such as you could stop judging every one,but your self.
Man made climate change is real.

Belly I find it sad that someone can have such a blind faith in man made gw and yet reject a reasonable faith in the One who never lied. The Scriptures clearly speak of those who deny Creation and believe a lie in its place. How true its turned out to be.

Belly & runner.

So I guess God is as real as man made Global Warming/Freezing. It all depends on how much blind faith you have in fairy tales or the World Governments.

As my Grandmother used to say, "Believe none of what you hear & only half of what you see."

Dear runner,

Its fine to believe that you're on the right path -
but to believe that yours is the only path is a
different story. Goodwill towards all is true
religion.

Dear runner,

I am really quite curious as to where you make your disconnect, or your leap of faith, when it comes to man made global warming.

Is it the whole idea of the natural global warming effect? Or is it the record of CO2 increases showing the inexorable drive upward? Or could it be that you don't think these increases are man made and have a different explanation as to where all the carbon we have released through the burning of fossil fuels has gone? Or is your leap of faith like that of Hasbeen's, a commitment to believe that this mass of CO2 will have no discernible effect on global temperatures. Or like any good Fundamentalist do you dismiss science in general?

Each one requires a leap of faith that I am incapable of. For me the physics of global warming, while certainly complicated at particular levels, is really quite simple in its overall take on the issue. 

For any thinking person not making the leap of faith that you, JayB and Hasbeen indulge in it will never be a matter of dismissing the physics behind global warming that will change our minds about the future consequences, rather it will be accepting a mitigating factor that science has not thus far been able to produce. 

I for one would love to see it but it ain't here yet.

Like any faith there is a degree of comfort afforded those who believe in miracles. Perhaps this is why you three have been so vociferous in pedaling your particular brands of denial.

Anyway back to the original question, as any faith requires a disconnect of some degree I would love to know which one was yours?

csteel: For any thinking person not making the leap of faith that you, JayB and Hasbeen indulge in.
Perhaps this is why you three have been so vociferous in pedalling your particular brands of denial.

Csteel, You do me wrong. I for one have never doubted the fact of Climate Change. See my previous posts. What I do doubt is the how much influence humans have on the effect. Is it 90%, 50% 10% or 2% of CO2. The Ozone Layer & Methane or CFC's.
How much are World Governments willing to use scare tactics on you to make money for themselves, to your detriment? Governments love to use fear in their propaganda. It's what Governments do. The gullible, with their faith in World Governments, act like Chicken Little & immediately insist that the sky is falling & that we all believe it is so, as well.

Jayb1, Page 9: Please don't get me wrong. Even though I don't believe the World Governments on Climate Change, I do believe change is happening. Whether Pollution has anything to do with it is irrelevant.
I do believe that Pollution MUST be reduced, if only just for health reasons. Another reason would be to break the stranglehold of the Oil Cartels.
But a Carbon Tax is BS.

Any tax is BS. This tax will force change, no one is going to do anything about it until there is a disincentive. There is no tax on renewable power.
CO2 output can be measured, so big industry knows what the costs are going to be, so measures can be taken to eliminate or minimize the output. If they haven't done anything about it in the last 12 months, they are fools to them-self. Smaller operators have even longer lead in time. Can't be any farer than that.

csteele
'Is it the whole idea of the natural global warming effect? Or is it the record of CO2 increases showing the inexorable drive upward?'

You were obviously not around or ignore the fact that many scientist (pseudo) insisted that we were in for another ice age. This was just 40 years ago. They used the same tactics in smearing anyone who disagrees as you and others do today.

When are pseudo scientist ever going to be humble enough to admit that they can not accurately predict climate in 2 days let alone 50 years. To do damage to ones economy and drive jobs offshore on this basis is absoulutely idiotic. Even if your faith was valid the tax will make no difference to how much carbon is produced. It will just drive jobs offshore as anyone who knows the most basic economics will tell you.

Your smearing is typical of those whose theories are questioned by others. You write

'Or like any good Fundamentalist do you dismiss science in general?'

Science for many is a byword for absolute. You will find that secularist using pseudo science are even more dogmatic about their faith than many religous people.

You also ignore that many of the great scientific breakthroughs have come from those you would label 'fundamentalist'in a smearing way.

As for the man made gw religion, it is many of your own ilk (pseudo scientist) who question or debunk the nonsense given to us by the IPCC and other Government funded gravy trains.

Read Peters second epistle an you will find up when the planet is really going to burn. It will be man made then but it won't be industry that provides jobs, electricity and the comforts that we enjoy in the Western world.

plant3.1

when you wrote 'So we have mountable evidence for the facts', you obviously ignored the link I gave yesterday, http://www.petitionproject.org/, or did it not fit in with your thinking, therefore you chose not to address it? Yet you accuse those who don't agree with you as lacking in common sense?

Maybe you are a plant in the forum.

579: Any tax is BS. This tax will force change, no one is going to do anything about it until there is a disincentive.(tax)

Will they, or will it be business as usual & pass on the cost to us. Will they all opt for cleaning up their act. Whatever is the cheaper option for the business. Most likely the former.

Will the money collected by the Government (the tax money) be used solely for reimbursing us, the people, for the extra cost that business passes on to us.I very much doubt it. "Here, 'some' of you, (if you qualify) can have a token amount. Vote for me. ;-)"

No, the Carbon Tax collected will go into Consolidated Revenue & disappear, as usual. Governments are like that. That’s what happened to the Tobacco Tax, The Road Tax, the Ambulance Levy, Petrol Tax, etc, etc,.

Frederick Seitz, who is highlighted on the website Austin Powerless cites was the high priest of sceptical movements in more than the than just the AGW debate.

Oreskes and Conway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
were critical of Seitz's involvement in the tobacco industry where he stood against the scientific consensus that smoking was dangerous to people's health and created doubt about it.

Some people are guns for hire, naturally contrarian, or like media attention, so don't be too enamoured with all the merchants of doubt, Austin.

We live in a world where more and more people see massive conspiracies when they don't like what they see before them and they can't, or won't, try to understand the science or mechanisms underlying it. Everything, they believe, is creation or concoction.

The guiding principles underpinning the current environment governance are defined under the generic heading of “sustainable development”. The origins of these principles can be traced back to the Club of Rome through to Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report, from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) which was published in 1987, then to the Agenda 21 plan as part of the Rio Declaration in June 1992, under the auspices of the UNCED. The CSD was created in December 1992 with a five year review of Earth Summit progress in 1997. The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) subsequently “strongly affirmed” the Rio principles in September 2002.

The sheer volume of United Nations organizational bodies, committee’s groups, sub groups, reports, papers, definitions and abstracts is nothing short of astonishing. In addition to the dozens of front line Sustainable Development bodies, almost every other UN body has adopted its own principles and charter in relation to Sustainable Development.

I cite the following example of one such body and of the level we humans, particularly the shrieking progressive left have fallen to in their quest to place humanity on the lowest rung of the biological ladder;

<< Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money have been spent on a program that has forcibly sterilized Indian women and men, the Observer has learned. The Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programs. The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, although it warned that there were "complex human rights and ethical issues" involved in forced population control. --Gethin Chamberlain, The Observer, 15 April 2012 >>

When we hear the hysterical squawks of those promoting peak oil, peak food, peak carbon dioxide, peak population or peak anything, we know we are listening to the dangerously gullible fellow travelers and useful idiots who promote a mantra that sounded sensible to recently sterilized Indians, “they seemed like they knew what they were talking about”

LONDON: Huge plant-eating dinosaurs may have produced enough greenhouse gas by breaking wind to alter the Earth's climate, new research suggests.

Like leviathan cows, the mighty sauropods would have generated enormous quantities of methane.

Sauropods, recognisable by their long necks, were common about 150 million years ago.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/inherit-the-wind-dinosaurs-blamed-for-changing-climate-20120507-1y92q.html

you would laugh yourself silly if it was not tax payers money used for this kind of 'research'.

Luciferase

One out of 31,487 aint so bad is it?

If you can only discredit one of the petition's signatories, does that negate it? Who would you rather listen to - Tim 'a hard rain's a (not) gonna fall' Flannery? Or Peter Garrett?
Anyway, Seitz's actual statement was 'there is no good scientific evidence that passive inhalation is truly dangerous under normal circumstances'. While I disagree, there are many who would back him up. Being a phyicist, Seitz is much better qualified to comment on Man-made global warming than he is on the effects of passive smoking.
I don't know why you brought conspiracies into this thread. Do you see a conspiracy here?
What's the opposite of a 'merchant of doubt'? - 'person of blind faith'? Don't be too surprised if some people actually think for themselves and come to their own conclusions.
As for 'guns for hire', what would you call Gillard after she announced a carbon tax that we were promised we would not receive - just to keep the Greens on side?

Hi Belly,

Earlier you wrote: "Every month we see the wettest/hottest dryest day for ten, twenty, one hundred years."

No we don't. Every day, I check out the highest/lowest temperatures for each of the capital cities, by decade (records seem to go back to 1850, i.e. 16 decades). I check to see whether or not the number of 'highest' temperatures in the past decade is greater than the number of 'lowest' temperatures in the past decade. 'Highest' temperatures are just slightly ahead: today, for example, there was one 'highest' and one 'lowest', so a net zero either way.

What would one expect if temperatures were constantly rising ? Wouldn't one expect that the past decade would have witnessed, for every day, a 'highest', with very few, or no, 'lowest' temperatures ?

As an atheist, straight leftist, I crave to believe in catastrophic warming, like CC Steele's 32 degrees, a belief which has me green with envy. 32 degrees, wow.

If someone put forward the theory that sea-levels were going to rise by 3 metres in the next one hundred years, i.e. 1 cm/yr, I would metaphorically embrace them, even though the sea doesn not seem to have risen at all over this way in fifty years. Actually, the rate seems to be far less than this, more like 30 cm per 100 years, or much the same as it has been doing since the waning of the Ice Age 15,000-18,000 years ago (i.e. 150 ft in 15,000 years = one foot (30 cm) per 100 years).

I want to believe that catastrophe is about to overwhelm

Pacific islands, and that it is all capitalism's fault. I want to believe that we will all fry in less than fifty years, OR all starve to death because of over-population, or all drown because of sudden sea-level rise, or some other dreadful fate. I have a dread that life might go on much the same, in spite of capitalism and its evils.

After all, even Runner would agree that humans deserve disaster, since they have constantly sought self-enrichment and comfort, and ignored - wilfully ignored - the proper teachings of Greens on the one side and churches on the other.

So that's my dilemma - I'm not convinced by the imperative for human disaster, nor by the implied means of redemption, back to a pure state of Green-ness and saintliness.

I want to believe that we are all doomed ! Please give me reason to curse humanity and predict its violent demise !

Cheers,

Joe

Mr powerless, Funny how its only American scientists, who by the way still are very religious and anyone going against the bible-belt thinkers, will quickly find their career,s very short lived.....very poor evidence indeed.

Try some real evidence that tells quite a different story......thats if you don't have a Government gun pointed to one's head:)

Now c02 buildup along with all the other gas's thats in play (like methane) that was talked above, leaves lose water via tiny holes called stomata. These need to be open to draw in carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. But if too much water is lost, the trees can shut down their stomata.

Dr Martin Bader said....( A real non influenced scientist )

"We came out on a forty-degree day and did our measurements, and realised that shortly after nine o'clock, the tree basically shut down, because at that time of the day, there was only a small opportunity where the tree could actually photosynthesise. So it can't basically eat.

The tree avoids dying of thirst, but then begins to starve. Martin had measurements on a Banksia that died just a few months ago.

Any time of day was over thirty degrees, the tree ran into pretty high stress levels, and then we had a couple of days consecutively over thirty, thirty-two degrees, and it was just too much, apparently. That tipped the tree over. Sixty or seventy per cent of the Banksias died last summer.


"Maybe you are a plant in the forum" No, Iam quite human:) Try and stay away from conspiracy theories, and "One out of 31,487 ain't so bad is it"......there must of been one Australian in there under the same threat...lol.

cc

Loudmouth

'After all, even Runner would agree that humans deserve disaster,'

I could not agree more Loudmouth but I am thrilled that I have received mercy rather that what I deserve.

The worst noticeable thing at the moment is, the rise in ocean temperature's. This in turn is dictating unusual weather patterns, as well as ice melt.
So just because you have not broken into a sweat in the last 60 days don't mean a thing.
A mere one degree c rise in ocean temp is causing major ice melt, and undercutting the ice shelf, and increasing in intensity.
The green house effect is the problem resulting in extra heat being stored in the ocean's.

Anybody interested in the work of Seitz and other merchants of doubt might be interested in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute and in following links therefrom. Particularly note the section headed "Conflict of interest".

Those convinced man has no influence upon world climate other than to improve it by belching out as much carbon dioxide as possible, including Seitz, the 31000 odd who signed a petition stating such, and Austin P. presumably, have my sympathy for being in such tiny minority.

579, don't you read other posts or do you just ignore them? because they don't reflect your particular faith.

Please Look at these.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

&

http://sahultime.monash.edu.au/explore.html

Jayb,

Regarding wattsupwiththat:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

"...He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials, other than being a weather announcer...Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute..."

That would be this Heartland Institute:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder?CMP=twt_gu

Dear runner,

You silly lad, it was precisely investigations into why the world was not cooling as predicted by planetary cycle analysis which lead to investigations showing the threat of global warming. 

However much you want to behave like the church did when it ignored the child abuse within its ranks, the great lump of extra CO2 is still there and increasing in concentration daily. They thought they got away with denials but not so in the end, you need to remember these things have a habit of catching up with you.

Dear Loudmouth,

I'm interested to know why you don't accept that without the grren house effect of mainly CO2 or water vapor that the planet would be an average 32C cooler than it is now?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

If you were on the moon, which is the same distance from the Sun as us, in bright sunlight, then the sun went down and you were in darkness the temperature would drop around 250C. This is because the moon has no water vapor (or very, very little of it) or no CO2 or other sundry gases that make up our atmosphere. The NASA boys did the calculations for the moon suits based on the physics which is why they had incredible amounts of protection from the heat including cooling systems. What would they have been dressed in if you or runner were in charge?

Or if you do accept it why do you make the leap of faith to decide that a doubling of the second most important warming gas will have zero effect on the average temperature of our planet?

I keep asking all you deniers and don't ever get an answer.

It's the physics you see and unless you are an Einstein or a Newton you are going to have to be pretty darn good to talk your way out of billions of tonnes of extra CO2 floating around our modern atmosphere. But I'm happy to give you a hearing. Let's have at it hoss.

Btw you are stealing my shtick. That's okay, I thieved it off your side.

Some nice research and more to come.

^ America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-14588-0. "(p1) ... there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities.

While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

* * * (p21-22) Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."

cc

Poirot: The Washington story checks out with Snopes as well. Unless that's a denighers website as well. Don't know. All I can say is Global warming was happening in 1922 according to scientists & we'd all be doomed, even back then. Regardless of whether Watts has a degree in anything. All he did on that Web site was quote a news paper article of a report from scientists from 1922. So were you intending to ridicule the man or the article or me?

Oh pretty please dear Poirot may I have a go?

Dear JayB,

Just so we are clear I intend to ridicule you and I promise it will be fun...at least for me.

You claim “All I can say is Global warming was happening in 1922 according to scientists & we'd all be doomed, even back then.“

What the hell? Really? Global warming was happening in 1922 according to the scientists?

Balderdash, Bunkum and Codswallop! Or in a slightly more modern vernacular; “Get your hand off it mate”

The newspaper does not mention 'global warming' nor even 'scientists' rather it talks about a stronger than normal Gulf Stream.

I mean here it is as quoted by you in the article; “Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm.”

Go to this Wikipedia link on the Gulf Stream and look under 'Localised Effects'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream

“Northern parts of Norway lie close to the Arctic zone, most of which is covered with ice and snow in winter. However, almost all of Norway's coast remains free of ice and snow throughout the year. Weather systems warmed by the Gulf Stream drift into Northern Europe, also warming the climate behind the Scandinavian mountains.”

I mean denialists had great fun recently when “Snow fell as the House of Commons debated Global Warming yesterday - the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/29/commons_climate_change_bill/

Note the year, 1922, the date of your supposed great global warming. This my young chap is what is meant by localised events.

Cont...

Cont...

But here is the doosy.

You quoted the following from the associated press article;

“Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelt which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.”

The only problem is the last line about sea level rise and uninhabitable coastal cities was not in the original article but is an addition.

Here is a link to Snopes with a picture of the article.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp

Here is the link to the PDF of the source report kept on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) site;
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

Don't worry I'm not blaming you for this dastardly piece of underhanded, unethical, typical denialist shenanigans, rather I'm blaming the person I think you originally pulled the article from, one Lars Hagen of The Roanoke Slant. Or perhaps there was someone else further down the sordid food chain.
http://roanokeslant.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/more-global-warming-alarmist-and.html

I am however blaming you for being an idiot and believing this stuff so completely that you didn't think to check something so obvious.

If I were you right now I would bow my head in shame and vow never to darken the door of this thread again. Let this be a lesson to you young lad.

Who is next?

Oops sorry, nearly forgot. Thank you Poirot for the indulgence. I hope to return the favour some day. Damn good fun.

The pleasure is all mine, csteele.

Hi Csteele,

So I'm a denier now, because I raise some questions ? Oh well, if the cap fits ....

But 32 degrees C ? Is that what you are claiming, that without AGW, the planet would on average be 32 degrees C cooler ?

The average year-round temperature in Kazakhstan is 1 degree C. Are you suggesting that - in line with a world average - without AGW, its mean annual temperature would be -31 degrees C ?

Australia's mean annual temperature is something like 20-22 degrees C, I don't know for sure, somebody can enlighten us. Are you suggesting that, without AGW, Australia's mean annual temperature would be -10 degrees C ? If so, why oppose AGW ?

Just kidding ;)

Darwin's mean annual temperature (i.e. day and night) is around 26 degrees C. According to the Book of Steele, its proper mean annual temperature is -6 degrees C. Is that so ?

I hope that, until my last breath, I am still allowed to ask questions, C. Steele, without some Yezhov or Beria wanting to put me up against a wall. Ask your parents.

I am just starting to understand what being a dissident entails, and one thing it does seem to provoke is a temptation to tell one's would-be executioner to shove it all up his @rse.

Okay, I'll pack my bag and have it ready by the door for when you come for me :)

Cheers,

Joe (a.k.a. Loudmouth the Denier)

csteel: The only problem is the last line about sea level rise and uninhabitable coastal cities was not in the original article but is an addition.

It appears that you are right on that account.

Washington Post: Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm.

Csteel: I am however blaming you for being an idiot and believing this stuff so completely that you didn't think to check something so obvious.

Obviously since one sentence in the article is fake then the whole article is fake. Is that what you are saying?

Csteel: Let this be a lesson to you young lad.

Old fart would have been better. But thank you anyway, dear.

Oh well Dr Adolf Hoel must have been some dole bludger of the street without any credability sent to test the depths at 3100 meters. I can see that. He wasn't American.

csteele demonstrates how low and smearing and desperate the warmist are to silence those who show how much fantasy they believe in

'However much you want to behave like the church did when it ignored the child abuse within its rank'

you show to what level of deceit you are prepared to go.

Dear Loudmouth,

Okay, I'm certainly prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and try and provide some answers from my very limited knowledge.

My manner, or shtick, in this thread is not one I normally adopt but I've had fun framing my arguments in the way many of the more strident anti-GW types are inclined to. It is certainly the lazy way of debating but I can see the attraction.

You seem to be confusing Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) with the green house effect.

From my understanding there are certain molecules that have, because of their structure, the capacity to vibrate at particular frequencies. Molecules rather than atoms alone that have this propensity. A CO2 molecule is a bit like a floppy dumbbell, one carbon atom with an oxygen atom attached on either end. This characteristic allows it to absorb a frequency of infra-red radiation that in a world without these molecules would move more easily out to space. The vibration and movement induced causes them to collide with other atoms and molecules in the atmosphere and create heat. This is the green house effect without which our global temperature would be 32C lower on average. It would not get as cold as the dark side of the moon since the atmosphere even without the greenhouse effect our atmosphere provides a degree of blanketing.

AGW is more about the enhancement of the green house effect by the potential doubling, through human activity, of the second most important molecule capable of contributing to the green house effect, CO2, plus the resultant increase in the concentration of the primary molecule H2O.

My point throughout the thread has been if the physics tells us these are the two most important molecules contributing to our planet being 32C warmer then why would a doubling of the concentration of CO2 have no effect? Doesn't make sense. Those who want to argue degrees of effect I can understand, but as I have said it requires a leap of faith to dismiss AGW in its entirety.

Dear JayB,

Shh.

runner,

"...low and smearing...desperate....deceit..."

You really are a wonderful advertisement for your faith. You appear to employ your Christianity as a convenient shield, behind which you cower while lobbing incendiary taunts in the direction of anyone holding an opposing view. You go merrily along judging your fellow man, casting aspersions on their characters and generally impugning their honour.

If I was Jesus, I'd come down and give you a good clip under the ear, and tell you to get your act together.

Dear runner,

“to silence those who show how much fantasy they believe in”

Lol.

Are you trying to do my work for me? Punctuation is a marvellous thing if you don't want to end up with egg on your face.

Through this thread I have had the guilty pleasure of adopting the 'Right back at cha!' style of reply.

I mean 'false religion', 'con men', 'ratbag greenie', 'greenies fevered brow' were delivered in the first four posts. You lot set the tone pretty quickly.

And what made you think that after bringing the phrase 'baby killers' into a debate on climate change you didn't deserve to cop something about child abuse within the church?

If you consider I'm playing unfair then look to you own 'mote' brother and clean up your act. I will respond accordingly.

But I do have to tell you the amount of whinging that has gone on from not just yourself when I have served some of your own medicine back is pretty unbecoming. It is what bullies do and doesn't reflect well on any of you.

What with all the hot air just from these posts alone global warming must have increased this week.
Get over it, accept it, you can't change it.

jayb re read your post referring to me and runner, are you telling me after reading my post you think I am a believer?
Runner I find you no Christian.
And got a grin out of the fa#$ting Dinosaur, see it existed about two hundred million years before your God was invented!
The noises coming out of the deniers here should warm the planet by two more points.
How, in 50 years will they hide the silly ideas and thoughts they hold to today.
Man is impacting on climate change,reducing our impact is the right thing to do.

Yeah ssh jayB, your spoiling the weeks entertainment:)
The education board must finding its employees at the bottom of my cocco pops box.....maybe I might get lucky one day and find a free PHD or a uni equivalent.

Now runner and friends, the on-flight movie is showing its credits and all the pop corn is gone.

Thank you.

cc

I go away for a couple of days and what do I find when I get back:
Plant, having not stopped stuffing himself on Coco Pops since the thread opened,is now suffering the symptoms of sugar overload.
Belly, is still reading from Peter Garret's old Climate Minister press releases (pretty soon he’ll get up the part which talks about six metre sea rises in our lifetime), and
Poirot missing her usual partner, Bonmot, for her Abbot & Costello routine,has co-opted his understudy CSteele.

CSteele you have missed the point of Jay’s article. Which is the symptoms that we, or rather you, have been lead to believe are SPECIFIC to AGW were apparent long before the late 20th century warming kicked in.

This fits in well with the skeptics contention that the Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age --but it does not fit well with the fashionable hypothesis that everything started to come apart about 1975.

As for your prepubescent pillaring of the link because you detected an additional line about the sea rising . The aim of the article was illustrate that species were extending their range towards the equator, and the seas have been rising long before it became fashionable to notice –see graph:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

So ,in conclusion, it is NOT an error in Jay’s article/citation.
IT IS an error in your understanding.

Belly,

No 'highest maximums' over the past decade at all in today's weather details, in none of the eight capital cities. Not even from the 'heat island' effect <:(

But of course, that's how it is reported in the Murdoch paper, that notorious lick-spittle of capitalism >:(

Have a nice day,

Joe

Oh Joe, lighten up old fella.....you might want to enjoy some of Fester's humor along with esteels wit or lack of it:)

Esteel should remember this and some of her comments that went with it:).....my photographic mind does not miss these little snippets, but playing to the idiots of this like most Australians banker mentality, I just choose not to bite.

You know the old convict saying,"never argue with an idiot" and there's no shortage of them in QLD.....go and laugh that one off H. bay bankers. Private fun message:) Some really think being smart is something to do with their mouth...lol....what Dic...heds.

Joe said....Have a nice day!...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcokL59jeqU

Oh and esteel....if you want to take me to court, well what are you waiting for:)

Oh dear...lol

cc

plant, you wrote 'Funny how its only American scientists'. The very point I made in my first post was 'If that list is only for American scientists, how many more worldwide do not believe the myth of man-made climate change?', which you conveniently ignored. Don't let the facts get in the way of your theories.
To make it worse, you claim that the bible-belt has control of American scientists - are you serious??!!
Again, like Luciferase, you see conspiracy theories here. How's about you explain that?
As for 'One out of 31,487 ain't so bad is it', why don't you agree?
As for being a plant in the forum, I didn't mean a vegetable. See if you can work out another meaning for 'plant' - apart from heavy machinery and veggies etc.

Luciferase, you will have to be more lucid. Are you in the minority or are the 31,000 plus in the minority.
BTW, is your obsession with Seitz a smoke screen so that no-one will believe the thousands of other scientists who you can't discredit?

The sky is not falling. The rain was falling last night.

Gezzz..where all full of insults today. No Mr powerless, I use the term plant for maybe what your smoking. I when calling you out for using conspiracies, however you have me there:) The US Government or any institution that has whistleblowers," Julian assange " and that can panic the public.

Julian Assange is the controversial public face of WikiLeaks, an international website that gives whistleblowers an anonymous way to publish sensitive documents. WikiLeaks has published leaked documents on hundreds of topics, including oil scandals in Peru, the Church of Scientology, climate research, the contents of a Sarah Palin email account, and procedures for the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay.

In April of 2010 it released Collateral Murder, leaked video of a deadly 2007 U.S. Army helicopter attack on Iraqi citizens, and in July of that year it released more than 92,000 documents relating to the war in Afghanistan. White-haired, secretive and nomadic, Julian Assange has lived long periods in Australia, Kenya, Sweden, and other countries.

And.....wasn't he nicely stitched up for his going against the US government.
Your right to an extent of which the sky for sure isn't falling, however the planet is under siege.

How much time do you think we have before the finial straw brakes the camel's back. I'll just stick to the first post and its contents, you know:) keep on topic.

cc

Dear SPQR,

Come on mate, I know we have locked horns previously but I always thought you more than capable of putting together a good argument and of recognising the indefensible when you see it.

That last post was not your finest effort.

One thing I learned early on with posting on OLO, you needed to have your facts straight because if you didn't sooner or later you would get caught out. In the early days I will admit to having retreated with my tail between my legs after a lazy effort found me out.

And JayB got caught out badly on this occasion, there is no way to spin it otherwise. He quoted a Washington Post newspaper article from 1922, the contents of which had been doctored in the retelling by someone keen to further an anti-GW agenda. The last line stuck out like the proverbial dog's balls which is why I made the effort to check. He did not and since he posted it in the first place he needs to take ownership of it and face the consequences.

Then you go and claim; “The aim of the article was illustrate that species were extending their range towards the equator, and the seas have been rising long before it became fashionable to notice.”

Really? I think JayB's sloppiness is catching. Have you even read the article? It talked about species extending their range toward the poles not the equator, and further there was absolutely no mention what so ever about rising sea levels. The aim of the article was tp detail some of the observed effects of a stronger than normal Gulf Stream. Nothing more.

Therefore sir, you do yourself little credit by stating; “So ,in conclusion, it is NOT an error in Jay’s article/citation.” when in reality that is exactly what it is.

I want the old SPQR back please.

Now perhaps you can be the one who will enlighten me as to why I should ignore the physics of a doubling of atmospheric CO2. The others seem to be struggling with it.

CSteele,

<< Really? I think JayB's sloppiness is catching. Have you even read the article? It talked about species extending their range toward the poles not the equator>>

“How absolute the knave is! We must speak by card or equivocation will undo us”

You are right about the direction –my error.

You are right about it not being sourced from “scientists”.
And you are right about it not mentioning AGW.
(At the time the acronym had not been invented. Any CSteele of the 1920s would have been fussing over global freezing or the latest Charleston steps).

But all of these are quibbles about minor points.

This is what your PDF says:
“The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers who sail the seas above Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in Arctic conditions and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earths surface”

That is exactly what we hear almost daily from the warmist sources. I could not count the number of documentaries the ABC or SBS has run which say exactly that, and present it as a first time happening –and solid evidence of AGW.This is I believe, the point Jay was trying to get across to you.

<<Now perhaps you can be the one who will enlighten me as to why I should ignore the physics of a doubling of atmospheric CO2. The others seem to be struggling with it.>>
I’ll answer that one when you tell me how OZ adopting the carbon tax will save the world.

SPQR: You are right about it not being sourced from “scientists”.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers.
I with you SPQR, I wonder who the hell expedition leader Dr Adolf Hoel was, if not a scientist of his day. He must have been some dole bludger of the street with a long line & a thermometer who thought it might be fun to test the temperature at a depth of 3100 meters. God I’m a facetious B@$t@rD, sorry.
cSteel: I think JayB's sloppiness is catching. Sorry. A momentary distraction & being in a hurry led me astray. I hope you have all had your needles.
CSteel I have never heard any comment on http://sahultime.monash.edu.au/explore.html, or is that something you choose to ignore, as it shows variation of world climate patterns over a long period of time. In fact no one has mentioned it. Strange.

Dear SPQR,

You claim; "That is exactly what we hear almost daily from the warmist sources. I could not count the number of documentaries the ABC or SBS has run which say exactly that, and present it as a first time happening –and solid evidence of AGW.This is I believe, the point Jay was trying to get across to you."

If that was indeed the point JayB was trying to get across then I probably would have agreed with him. I, on more than a few occasions, warned my more environmentally minded friends about the dangers of so completely tying the GW argument to the drought because when it finally rained people would have a good excuse to disregard it. It is why Flannery ticked me off so much.

But this wasn’t JayB’s point at all rather he claimed "It's all just about a new tax isn't it!!". He was looking to discredit the entire notion of AGW and you just can’t. Whether people shift their personal stance on the matter doesn’t impact on the great mass of extra CO2 we have shot up into the atmosphere, physics rules that roost.

What it does impact on is the degree to which the CO2 concentration will continue to grow. Australia’s effort by itself will have virtually zero impact but the message we can send out to the rest of the world about a highly polluting nation taking responsibility for its emissions may well allow a more collective action to be taken.

Dear JayB,

You still here?

You really do need to just apologize properly to those assembled and say ’I will see you in another thread’.

What you don't get to do after serving up that piece of claptrap is to demand I spend time examining another one of your offerings on this thread.

Here is the deal, if you move on then I undertake never to mention what went down here and if we meet again I will take your arguments as they come.

Your choice.

How can lil' 'ol Oz affect AGW by its carbon tax? By setting a moral example, of course, as csteele says, for the rest of the world to follow.

While at it, we are transitioning, sooner rather than later, to a cleaner future which will ultimately involve base load power from hydrogen produced by artificial photosynthesis well before the depletion of fossil fuels.

To those who are so absolutely, positively sure AGW is a complete and utter crock (sorry you're wrong), then at least acknowledge the transition to something better for our children is worthwhile as well as the broadening of the tax base the carbon tax brings with it. I cannot for the life of me see what is wrong with these benefits.

I am amazed the Gov't has not highlighted this. The Coalition has had free air with it's "big new tax" campaign while barely having to acknowledge compensatory income tax cuts, one-off fixed income rises to cover inflationary impacts, and aid to exporters to maintain global competitiveness.

The inability of the Gov't to effectively sound its own trumpet on its achievements suggests it may be happy to leave history to judge it well after the electorate punishes it for its foresight. As long as it makes an ommelette that can not be unscrambled by a government that follows, it will have achieved its goal.

It would have been jolly indeed to see the Mad Monk negotiating his way through minority government while carrying through reforms of the magnitude this Gov't will have achieved by its end. Perhaps, oh just perhaps, Australia will wake up to to the value of the reforms when presented with its choices at the next election, despite a murderously rabid press and the ravenous negativity it projects in cahoots with the Mad Monk and his motley, muck-raking band of muchachos.

Abbott's unstatesman-like performance following the budget and his lynch-mob approach in parliament over Slipper and Thomson must surely make even the most devout conservative blush to think this dishonest hypocrite could be the next prime-minister of Australia

Lucerferase,
I am one of the majority who thinks that AGW is a complete crock, driven by faith not fact.

The wheels have fallen off the AGW wagon and the believers are now stumbling around desperately trying for a foothold.

The present government is doomed and the carbon tax will play a big part in that, not to mention complete incompedence of the government. They need the revenue from the carbon tax because of billions squandered, that is the real reason for it.

You are fooling yourself if you think that legislation passed cannot be negated.

Time will tell and for those few that still believe in AGW, you must have a very high opinion of human importance in the natural scheme of things if you think our actions can alter the world climate.

UK kids not knowing what snow is, indeed! Some people are gullible.

Loudmouth Joe,well highest rain fall in ten years still gets a run.
England had its drought,we all could benefit from haveing followed that,I did.
Followed by floods, like us.
It is hard,knowing the cycles have always been around and always will be.
But not as hard as watching the under informed refuse to even consider if growth from about half a billion humans,to 7 billion, and the beginning of oil use changed anything.
If it did not? show me the rivers and streams we have not changed.
The forests gone forever.
One thing, as I said in my first post,this thread is huge,and changes nothing.
Banjo? wheels fall off? no mate not a chance!

CSteele,

It never ceases to impress, how you big hearted guys are ever willing sign any number of blank cheques on our behalf.
And what is almost as impressive is your faith that the rest of the world will follow your lead.

You probably can't remember that in a bout of moral fervor --much akin to what many are expressing about the carbon tax--we went out on a limb and were among the first to sign the Refugee Convention.
That was some six or more decades ago – we are still waiting on the bulk of Asia to follow our lead.
Though it has to be admitted that we are reaping the "benefits" of being early adopters in the field , by the boat load.
And it will be the same with your carbon tax.

The whole of idea of basing culpability of per capita output is a con.
It is designed to entrap the more affluent into bankrolling the more fertile.
It won’t stop climate change. All it will do is create a sense of entitlement; a belief that we owe the rest of the world a living.
See here:

"If something nasty happens - meteorologically and climatically - in the developing world today, a cacophony of voices invariably insists it is the developed world's fault. Most delegates at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCCC) seventeenth annual meeting of its Conference of the Parties (COP-17) in Durban, South Africa, agreed with this alleged causal connection."
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13002

cSteel: this wasn’t JayB’s point at all rather he claimed "It's all just about a new tax isn't it!!".

No, that was just one point & you choose to pick that one. Now if it comes to making a fool of yourself then by you record,we should never hear from you again.

Jayb: CSteel I have never heard any comment on http://sahultime.monash.edu.au/explore.html, or is that something you choose to ignore, as it shows variation of world climate patterns over a long period of time. In fact no one has mentioned it. Strange.

So you refuse to look at an arguement that may prove you wrong. Rather "head in the sand" stuff, isn't it. It's from University Scientists so it must be true.

cSteel: Here is the deal, if you move on then I undertake never to mention what went down here.

Sorry I can't. I'm having too much fun with a bigot.

Hi Belly,

One 'highest maximum during the past decade' today, Perth in 2005.

Yes, global warming is probably occurring, and perhaps some of it is man-made, on the evidence available, i.e. that world temperatures have risen by perhaps 1.6 degrees C in fifty years, and sea-levels by a couple of inches.

So IF governments do nothing for the next century, IF they stick with coal and other carbon-derivatives, IF few wind-farms or solar arrays etc. are built, IF research nowhere finds any way to develop more efficient and environmentally-friendly means of energy generation, THEN temperatures might rise by as much as 5 degrees C, and sea-levels by 30 cm, a foot.

Is that it ? Is that likely to happen, that governments do nothing everywhere ? Are there any governments anywhere doing nothing, not investing in research, not funding wind or solar power generation ?

As for rainfall increasing, for example in northern Australia, is that a bad thing ? If it is occurring, then why not invest in vast tree-planting schemes across the north, to utilise the water on the one hand, and take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere on the other ? Not to mention employment for the next century for remote Aboriginal workers ? Win-win-win !

Cheers,

Joe

Thanks Loudmouth, at last someone with a bit of sense.

Problem with a lot of people is that they want, "instant gratification." The GW problem should stop "now." It just doesn’t work like that. There was a "little ice age" between 1325 & 1850. The World has been warming up since them, not just in the last 10 years. Why panic anyway. The World & all its species will adjust anyway, it always has. Some species die off some new ones evolve. A process that has been happening ever since the first spark of life some billions of years ago.
Get used to it children. Adapt or die. Mother Nature doesn’t jump to your command. You jump to hers.
Governments are always slow on the uptake of new technology. Eventually it does happen. The Australian Government is notoriously slow. In fact it’s very much like Ayres Rock when it comes to adopting new technology. Australia invents a lot of things but shelves them. E.g., We were the World leaders in Transistor Tech. Until a Parliamentarian stood up in Parliament, held up a tiny transistor in one hand & said the transistor will never replace the valve, holding a valve in the other hand. We were the World leaders in Computer Tech until the Government said it was a waste of resources & closed it down. Australia is slow in the uptake of Alternate Energy because the Government is stuffing around with side issues.
Every house should be given a free 3kW Solar System & a Solar hot water system. That would see a sensible use of a Carbon Tax. People could see what they are getting for their money & it would be of great benefit to them. Then they could shut down the Coal fired Power industry. Loss of Jobs? Some. But it would only be a change of direction. New jobs would be created to take the place of one’s lost. Down goes the CO2 level.

hi plant,

You asked where the insults were. I don't get you. As for 'calling you out for using conspiracies' whatever that means, you may recall your post on Tuesday afternoon where you wrote 'Try and stay away from conspiracy theories'. I noly responded to that.
Talking about responding, are you still finding it too hard to respond to my questions? As in when you you wrote 'Funny how its only American scientists'. The very point I made in my first post was 'If that list is only for American scientists, how many more worldwide do not believe the myth of man-made climate change?', which you conveniently ignored. And you're still failing to reply just as you're unable to explain your claim that the bible-belt has control of American scientists.
And as for your admonition to ' keep on topic', you laughably started rambling on about Julian Assange just before that. Eh??!!
Unless you come up with an intelligible, relevant reply, I will have to ignore your future posts.

Luciferase, you also became irrelevant to the thread when you wrote 'Abbott's unstatesman-like performance following the budget and his lynch-mob approach in parliament over Slipper and Thomson must surely make even the most devout conservative blush to think this dishonest hypocrite could be the next prime-minister of Australia'.
Don't you know that the 'dishonest hypocrite' has been proven right over Thomson? Slipper will be next. Wouldn't you call Juliar a 'dishonest hypocrite'? Or are your 'Labour blinkers' firmly fitted?

Belly,
Yes the wheels have fallen off the AGW wagaon, and why?

1. Corrupyion of figures used to support claims.

2. Time has shown a lack of factual evidence.

3. Grossly exaggerated predictions of the effects of global warming.

These factors have lead to the majority of people losing faith and becoming non-believers. You, Labor and thousands of others have been duped. Scared into believing.

If you want Labor to change course, become more practical like its blue collar founders were. That means changing policies that are obviously wrong. Removing spin doctors.

Get off the now wheelless AGW wagon. Get a new leader that recognises wrong policies, speaks truth, and hitch up a new wagon based on practical outcomes for Australian people. Genuine ones.

Dear SPQR,

That the rest of the world will react to the example set by a number of countries including Australia taking concrete steps to address their emissions is certainly a leap of faith on my behalf, but we live in hope.

What isn't a leap of faith is accepting that the many billions of tonnes of extra CO2 we have pumped into the atmosphere will have an impact on global temperatures. 

I mean we can slap our gums forever but that CO2 is still there and growing.

So I ask the question again of both you and Banjo what part of the physics of that mass of CO2 do you want me to dismiss so that I can stop worrying about the issue?

Dear JayB,

Didn't think you were the type to bow out gracefully. 

You know of course when a policeman gives false evidence and is found out it often means that all his previous cases are re-examined to see if they are tainted as well.

Knowing the amount of time it would take to check each of your current offerings to see if they have been over hyped, or deceitfully added to, or purposefully misquoted, or taken entirely out of context by the anti-GW mafia, why should I or anybody else be bothered?

Proper contrition by yourself would have aided your cause since it would have given the rest of us some comfort that you were going to be at pains to make sure it never happened again.

That has not been forthcoming. 

So now when Banjo speaks of ’Grossly exaggerated’ and ’lack of factual evidence’ I think of you.

Pity.

Csteele you don't need to dismiss any part of the physics of CO2 to stop worrying about it. What you have to do is understand it.

That is have some even moderate idea of what you are talking about.

Do be careful however. If you ever do get to understand it, you will have to give up some of your dearly held misconceptions. This can lead to depression in the not so bright, or the highly opinionated.

Dear Hasbeen,

Well the floor is all yours mate, show us what ya got.

Mind you, csteele, you'd be battling to become more highly opinionated than the magnificent Hasbeen. He assumes he "understands" climate science more thoroughly than the majority of climate scientists (ie, the people who are qualified to interpret data and who have reached consensus on AGW).

Aren't we lucky to have him on board : )

cSteel: I mean we can slap our gums forever but that CO2 is still there and growing.

Yes it is. & that will cause it to warm up a bit. It'll rain, the trees will grow & it'll cool down again. Just like it did in the Little Ice Age. It's called the feedback system. The Earth has been using it for a couple of Billion years.

I see James Lovelock has revoked some of his original findings from his book "Gaia" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17988492

cSteel: You know of course when a policeman gives false evidence and is found out it often means that all his previous cases are re-examined to see if they are tainted as well.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I guess you'd never get to throw a stone. My posts must really get under your skin. I guess truths hurt. The way you carry on you'd think I personally added the extra sentence. I didn't.

Come Lady's! enjoy the ride.
We are asked to get another leader,as Poirot at least has green blood and not sure about csteel I must take that one.
See it is not Gillard who first warned about climate change, as a matter of known fact she stopped Rudd's little red wagon and took its wheels.
Now a green wagon, and me still pushing it.
However our Kev could not get his plans up at the big betrayal meeting.
And no Australian can take the prize for most of the world being believers and taking action.
Great fun, in time our deniers will look for a rock to hide former opinions under, make it well above high water mark ok?

http://www.braidwoodtimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/sydney-basks-in-record-may-temperature/2552028.aspx
Ah, anyone interested in the link?

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/article3403669.ece
or say this one?
Lots of charges flying around just thought others opinions may be of interests, and supportive of the threads views

Belly: Braidwood Times: 29.1 in Sydney.

I was in Sydney when the Newcastle Earthquake struck. It was 46 that day at Taronga Zoo. Come to think of it, The hottest I've ever seen it in Townsville was 41 one Christmas day. It never normally gets anywhere near that.

Belly: Poirot at least has green blood and not sure about csteel.

cSteel? Green. It's called Phlegm. ;-) Poor child, I do love her.

Jayb says "I see James Lovelock has revoked "some" (my quotes) of his original findings from his book"

Yes Jayb, "some", meaning he took the most pessimistic view of the projections which he now retreats from, such as an 8 degree rise in average temperature of temperate regions. He still believes we're heading in the wrong direction. From the same article :-

[He told BBC Today Programme in 2010 that the idea of trying to save the planet "is a lot of nonsense".

"We can't do it," he said at the time. "If it's going to be saved, it will save itself... The sensible thing to do is to enjoy life while you can."]

Sorry Jayb, you may be happy to live it up while you can, along with Lovelock who doesn't seem to care about future generations (has he got kids?) nor has much time left to care. I, however, am not so fatalistic and want my DNA to last forever (like the organism I am) so I do what I can to head off the probabilities identified by the IPCC.

Austin P., I've said all I care to on politicians and lies at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5110#137659
Dishonest hypocrisy is a tool in every politicians shed. What I emphasize on Abbott is his sickening unstatesman-like, rabid and unbalanced attack-dog style, born of frustration and annoyance at not getting the lolly after the last election. The Mad Monk is an accident waiting to happen, again I might add or has everyone forgotten his larks in governments of yore? For these reasons he's not even loved by your side of politics, and absolutely detested by mine (or at least my current one, I started out as a Democrat I'm ashamed to admit). The guy is a bumbling, stuttering mess without a script, barely able to utter anything that is not a mantra. I can barely believe he could be our next prime-minister

CSteele,

<< [It’s] certainly a leap of faith on my behalf, but we live in hope>>

If all you were doing was testing a CO2 abatement strategy I wouldn't mind. But the side you are cheer squadding for is doing a darn side more than that.

They are in effect kneecapping OZ industry. If you impose a (STARTING rate of ) $23/tonne carbon tax on an OZ factory but zero on its Indonesian competitor, what do you think will be the result?
Hint : look at what happened to much of our manufacturing industry when China offered lower costs.

-“Australian manufacturing has been in retreat for several years, with the cheap labour, manufacturing facilities and tax breaks of other Asian economies enticing companies to move their operations offshore,”
http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/news/demand-for-industrial-property-at-risk-as-manufacturers-consider-offshore/2011071450810

And the joke is, it wont change CO2 output, just reallocate its source.

But wait there is worse to come: your dream team –the one that believes in AGW and wants to implement an OZ carbon taxes, climate reparations, and a world parliament-- are telling anyone who wants to listen that anytime there is a storm, flood, drought or famine it’s all due to AGW. And that AGW was caused by the big bad West.(think I’m exaggerating, read some of the Bob Brown’s comments about the QLD floods or the text of Ban Ki Moons speech recently made at the University of Sydney).

CSteele,

Now to your CO2 conundrum:

There are a couple of points. The tie up between CO2 and climate change is not as clear cut as you have been lead to believe--see here:
"changes in atmospheric CO2 content never precede changes in air temperature, when going from glacial to interglacial conditions”
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php

But for the sake of argument let’s assume that climate change is being driven by CO2 emissions. It does not follow that if we oppose the carbon tax it means we will not develop alternatives to fossil fuels.

You seem to have this fantasy that if we don’t have the carbon tax we will all be stuck in a time loop where we’ll all be driving 1950s style gas guzzlers
(at the behest of “Big Oil”) , and probably all smoking cigars (supplied by “Big Tobacco” ) – it isn’t even half credible.

Opposing the carbon tax (and the AGW bandwagon) does not mean that we lock into a circling pattern over fossil fuels.Technology will develop. And it will probably develop quicker and further WITHOUT the carbon tax.

You may have been too busy reading your leftwing rags to notice but substantial progress has been made towards the development alternative energy sources.The Mark Zuckerberg of the solar power will not be nurtured by the carbon tax on Alcoa or BHP.

For the automobile to replace the horse & buggy didn’t require a hay tax.The automobile triumphed because it offered a better product.

For the automobile to replace the horse & buggy didn’t require a hay tax.The automobile triumphed because it offered a better product.

should read:

For the automobile to replace the horse & buggy didn’t require a MANURE tax.The automobile triumphed because it offered a better product.

I agree climate change is, and will continue happening as it always has been. Change is the only certainty. This being significantly accelerated by human activity I do not believe. If this were the case our government would not be promoting population increase by offering payments for having babies in conjunction with the carbon tax. It seems these two would cancel each other out.
This is evidence government is using this issue to increase revenue while solving the ageing population problem by inflating the cost of living and reducing retirement funds at the same time.

Belly,
Thanks for the links. The first relates to the current warm WEATHER we are experiencing. Reminds me of PM Rudd, just prior to departing for Copenhagen with his 100 strong entourage, claiming a couple of hot days in Adelaide was evidence of global warming. It is called WEATHER. Is not evidence that humans are responsible

I could counter with articles about record snow in UK and earliest snow in midwest USA, or Europe freezes and such but again it is WEATHER. Is not evidence that humans are responsible.

The second link is more to do with population growth in Asia and does not mention that Humans are responsible for climate change.

Phooey,
You are right the carbon tax is only about revenue raising.

The baby bonus was a stupid idea of Peter Costello's and supported now by both major parties. Probably both would like to get rid of it but are not game as it would cost votes. People do not like their freebies withdrawn.

I went to http://www.petitionproject.org/ and downloaded the petition which I've now sent to the Petition Project HQ in California.

I didn't know whether I should pitch myself as a BS (Bachelor Science), MS (Masters) or PhD.(Doctor) Stuff it, I thought, I'm none of 'em so if I'm going to lie I'll tell a big one and tick the PhD. box! Anyway there's now one more name on the list of over 31000.

I rather like the ring of "Doctor Luciferase", Austin P., but you may simply call me "Doc".

Dear SPQR,

Really? Is that it? I sincerely hope you are just clearing your throat my good fellow because what you have just served up to answer my question it hardly worth the effort in responding.

Of course historical CO2 levels lag temperature change. One only has to look at the yearly fluctuations in CO2 levels caused by the different land masses in each hemisphere. They drop through the northern hemisphere summers because there is greater uptake of CO2 by growing plants. They are part of a far greater biomass than present in the southern hemisphere.

As the ice extent retreated from the depths of each ice age it freed up land mass for biomass which in turn produces CO2 therefore the concentrations grew.

Why on earth is that relevant in our case? We are forcing the issue by doubling the CO2 concentrations through artificial means, the physical properties of which have climate implications.

That is what you need to address. I trust there is something much more substantial to come.

Here is a little prompter, try reading up on Milankovitch Cycles.

Cont...

Cont...

In the meantime here is a little story for you.

A farmer decides to drain a lake and a wetland to increase the area of his farm for cropping. He dug the channel, breached the final wall and let her rip. The problem was he didn't tell his downstream neighbours one of whom ended up sitting on top of his ute calling the SES boys to come and give him a hand.

The controller (let's call him SPQR for relevance) on the other end wasn't so obliging. 'Mate' he said, 'You can be sitting in a heap of water because I have all the historical data in front of me and unless it has been raining in the foothills up stream, and I know for sure it hasn't, there is no way you can be sitting in water! Have you been drinking?'

'No you bloody fool, I'm waist deep in water watching my chook shed head off down river now get the lads to come and get me and let the others downstream know what is coming for them.'

'Not a chance!' came the terse reply 'you've either been on the sauce or someone's put you up to this, probably paid you a few quid to have a lend of me, either way I'm not having a bar of it! I would look like a fool!'

'Click'

Knee capping of Australian industry? That should have been put to bed when the head of Alcoa, one of the most energy intensive industries going, said the Carbon Tax has less impact than a 1 cent rise in the currency. Our mining sector is far more responsible for kneecapping industry.

The tax is not ideal, what is preferable is a cap and trade scheme. This would be far more effective in ensuring that we don't 'lock into a circling pattern over fossil fuels' and I hope we will succeed in transitioning to.

Is that something you might support if I can get you over the line on AGW?

Luciferase, is that a joke?

I just checked the website's list of signers by name and you're not on it.

Either you're pulling my chain or you did apply and, once your lack of credentials was made obvious, you were not added to the list. Still, in the spirit of fair-play (which you probably don't get), I'll check again in a few days. I know that there will be no difference.

I note that you have not disputed the credentials of the legitimate petition signers.

For your choice of credentials, you can have BS (bullsh1t), MS ( more sh1t) and PhD (piled high and deep).

Still, you have started off my weekend with a laugh. Keep 'em coming, this OLO site needs comedians.

What's up, doc?

CSteele,

<<Of course historical CO2 levels lag temperature change... Why on earth is that relevant in our case?>>

Because (my dear fellow) the AGW proposition is that CO2 is DRIVING warming.
If CO2 is NOT driving warming (but is a consequence of warming) the whole AGW hypothesis is null and void.

<<The controller (let's call him SPQR for relevance)... there is no way you can be sitting in water! ...>>

Now if there was a character called CSteele in that little narrative, he would have used his wealth of experience gleaned from years of working with leftwing lobby groups to solve the conundrum:
1) He would have seen that it hadn’t been raining –check
2) He would have seen that no dams were due to release water –check
3) And he would have quickly concluded it could only be the result of cicadas urinating in the river upstream.
4) He then would have done a quick calculation and determined that if the water continued to rise at the present rate for the next five years it would cover My Kosciusko.
5) Seeing this, and being civic minded, he would have alerted his mate Wayne Swan who would have promptly i) Appointed a National Cicada Commissioner & ii) Slapped 23% cicada tax on farmers .

SPQR: Now if there was a character called CSteele in that little narrative, he would have used.

He? He's a male. I thought, by the carry on, that he was a she. oops! Now there you go, another mistake. Damm!

Now heres one, I've just been looking through my little Collins Gem "Fact File." I came across "The 4 Temperaments or Humours." They are great little books, I’ve got a whole set of them.

Temperament: Sanguine, Melancholic, Choleric & Lethargic or Phlegm.
Humour: Blood, Black Bile, Yellow Bile & Phlegm.

My stance is still GW IS real. We didn't do all of it. Most of it is natural. Get onto Alternate Energy just to stick it to the big oil Companies for ripping us all off for years. The Carbon Tax is BS & won't be used to advance Alternate Energy.

http://www.acfonline.org.au/be-informed/climate-change/impacts-threats
Banjo I believe this link supports my view both more and less rain/storms/and out of season weather is part of global warming

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/01/climate-change-weather-ipcc
This too more extensively, links to another link I posted.
Hard to ignore its contents.
Even harder, for me at least,to even consider the scientific world has made this up.

Hi Belly,

One 'maximum maximum' today as well, Perth again in 2005. Today and yesterday, that's effectively two 'maximum maximums' out of sixteen city readings in one decade, out of sixteen decades of readings. So yes, there is just the shade of a possibility on that score that some form of warming - at least in cities - is occurring.

Without too much difficulty, we could find that AGW is responsible for less rain, as Tim Flannery said. Or more rain, as you wrote. Or more perturbed weather events like cyclones. Or eerily calm weather too, I suppose. Or some forms of global cooling somewhere, thanks to the shifting of the Gulf Stream etc. Perhaps all that instability causes more volcanic eruptions and earthquakes.

In other words, if we stretch our imagination just a bit, every possible weather event can be attributed to AGW. Isn't it great to be certain of something, in today's uncertain world ?

Cheers,

Joe

Austin P. earnestly asks "Luciferase, is that a joke?"

Let' see, Austin P.. Firstly, do you think I'd be listed as Dr Luciferase? Secondly that my form would have got there yet and I'd be listed already? Thirdly, ANYBODY prepared to call themselves a PhD., or any of the other tick-box options, who wants to sway opinion by joining the petition, can simply send in a form and be accepted as a signatory as there's no vetting procedure!

If that's not a joke, what is? I think I'm in agreement with csteele, you have a gall remaining on this thread!

Dear SPQR,

You wrote; “Because (my dear fellow) the AGW proposition is that CO2 is DRIVING warming.
If CO2 is NOT driving warming (but is a consequence of warming) the whole AGW hypothesis is null and void.”

Because your posts are becoming a notably less charged I'm pleased to be able to respond in kind.

Basically the planet should be or rather is in a Milankovitch Cycle cooling phase. While the science is not definitive there is good evidence the Milankovitch Cycles are responsible for our shifts in and out of ice ages. In purely cyclical terms we are currently coming out of a relatively warm period of recent climatic conditions. In fact throughout most of geological history the global temperature has been on average considerably cooler than it is at the moment. Where CO2, and water vapour freed from ice, have had an impact is they are thought to accelerate the march out of ice ages and slow our descent into them. This is supported by the Vostok ice core sampling.

So up until now CO2 concentrations have been a responder to warming rather than the direct driver although they obviously are responsible for for pushing temperatures higher than they otherwise might have been.

But humans have been a game changer and look like doubling the CO2 concentrations to levels the globe hasn't experienced in many hundred of thousands if not millions of years. We have uncoupled them from the normal cycles and the normal limiting factor of land mass available which is capable of supporting biomass for CO2 production. Not only that we are doing it in a relative blink of an eye allowing little time for species to adapt or shift to survive the predicted resultant temperature change.

Cont...

Cont...

Hell, even I'm selfish enough and care enough about my species to be happy with the temperature where it is and if the use of fossil fuels plus land use changes has meant we are putting off heading into another ice age I can live with that. But we have gone way past a holding pattern here. It is so far into uncharted territory the only thing we really have to tell us about the implications is the physics of the extra CO2 we have added to the atmosphere, and it is not a favourable tale.

I know many of the mitigating factors that have been forwarded as reasons why things will not escalate if we maintain business as usual but none of them have withstood scrutiny. That is why I have been interested in hearing others.

But to completely reject AGW is just idiotic, and to consider there is no threat to human and other species is pretty much the same.

As Lovelock points out we are unfortunately doing this at the wrong end of the cycle.

Dear Luciferase,

You shouldn't ever be ashamed of being a Democrat, they were some really good hearted folk. I joined because they were small business friendly with a good social conscience outlook. Left in the end when they started accepting corporate funds but thoroughly enjoyed my time with them. That was back when they were rightly considered middle of the road, between the Libs and Labour. It seemed without ever changing my politics Labour's shift to the right had me and the party suddenly marooned on the relative left. There was a bit in the latest budget that showed they might be on the road back but they have a long way to go.

Hi Austin.

Its quite obvious you didnt read between the line lines. The insults was To Esteel was from another post...she knows what Iam talking about:) hence the non compliance.

"WikiLeaks has published the Church of Scientology, climate research, the contents of a Sarah Palin,
And you did see "climate research" as one of the sensitive leaked documents?

I also said... "Your right to an extent of which the sky for sure isn't falling, however the planet is under siege" I guess you didnt see that one either:)

The examples I could fill this thread.....well, we don't want to panic the the little people now do we. While the process will stabilize at the currant rate, you and I and our children's children, will be long gone.....thus giving ample time to get the deniers heads out of their bums....of course the planet or mother nature as its called, will decide our fate and the speed that it happens.

Basically the human race is playing russian roulette with the future of mankind, I for one do not gamble, especially when all life on earth depends on what we humans do as the top species.

We have the call to ignore the obvious or take a chance!

What would you do Austin Powers?

And just too finish off, not one of the posters gave an alternative reason to why all those 100 of millions of trees have died and an answer why this has never been seen or recorded before. I also said that the deserts all over the world are growing even faster and there's evidence also to support that as well.

Your next question was "how many more worldwide do not believe the myth of man-made climate change?'

The answer I gave was, The US Government or any institution that has whistle-blowers, don't want to panic the general public, not to mention who employs them.

c

@Plant

<<Basically the human race is playing russian roulette with the future of mankind, I for one do not gamble, especially when all life on earth depends on what we humans do as the top species>>

The only ones I see playing Russian Roulette are the warmists who want to sign us up to one-sided conventions and world parliaments (the Labor Party founding fathers must be rolling in their graves!)

PS Here’s another take on your dying trees:

“Neil Murdoch says there's a natural parasite that keeps the larvae in check.
But the trees are so stressed from the drought that the weevils have exploded in number.”
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2008/s2538128.htm

@Jay,
Not sure about CSteele’s sex. For some strange reason I’ve always thought of him/her as a man
S/he is certainly aggressive & crafty enough to be a man.

The one positive thing that's come to light on the GW subject is that it's exposed how much stupidity is actually out there amongst the educated.

@Csteele,

<<Because your posts are becoming a notably less charged I'm pleased to be able to respond in kind.>>
Now I’m disappointed. I thought I was always charged up –I’ll have to follow Plant’s lead and have some Coco Pops.
(And it confirms my suspicion that you hadn't bothered to read --let alone digest-- most of the points I made in my earlier posts!)

<<Basically the planet should be or rather is in a Milankovitch Cycle cooling phase.>>
I think you are doing a lot of guessing CSteele ,and even many of the warmist f(r)iends wouldn’t follow your line.

There is an old adage: a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
In your case we might edit it to: a infinitesimal amount of knowledge can be a dangerous thing

Here’s a little something I came across in my reading only yesterday and it has great relevance for you and your fellow believers

“ Financial investment firms had developed such complex ways of investing their clients' money that they came to rely on arcane formulas to judge the risks they were taking on.Yet we learned so painfully three years ago, those formulas , OR MODELS, ARE ONLY A PALE REFLECTION OF THE REAL WORLD, and sometimes they can be woefully misleading . The financial world is not alone, of course in depending on mathematic models in many fields—including climate science, coastal erosion and nuclear safety—in which the phenomena they describe are very complex , or information is hard to come by, or, as is the case with financial models , both, but in no area of human activity is so much faith placed in such flimsy science as finance ” [Scientific American, Nov 2011 ,P 59]

The only correction needed is that climate science is far more complex than anything finance has to offer. And its stakes are a lot higher

The really, really, really scary part is people like you are prepared to vote away the future of the country on the basis of such models.

Plant,

Here's another line on trees dying which could hold some answers, or at least clues:

[WARNING: some people who believe in AGW mythology may find this material confronting and offensive]

“A good example of adaptive cycles in comes from the spruce/fir forests that grow across large areas of North America…Among the forests’ many inhabitants is the spruce budworm…EVERY 40 TO 120 YEARS ,POPULATIONS OF SPRUCE BUDWORMS EXPLODE , KILLING UP TO 80 PERCENT OF THE SPRUCE FIRS …In a young forest, leaf/needle density is low, and though budworms are eating leaves and growing in numbers, their predicators (birds and other insects) are easily able to find them and keep them in check. As the forest matures and leaf density increase the budworms are harder to find and the predators’ search efficiency drops until it eventually passes as threshold where the budworm breaks free of predator control and an outbreak occurs…The managers in this system … become locked into using ever-increasing amounts of pesticides because the industry wouldn’t be able to cope with the shock of a massive pest outbreak. The industry had little resilience ,and yet the continued use of chemicals was only making the problems worse…”

From : "Resilience Thinking" by Brian Walker and David Salt [ a CSIRO publication!] pages 79-80.

SPQR,

Finance isn't "true science". It is predicated on human whim.
Climate science "is" complex - and yet denialism is promoted and perpetuated in the main by those who are "not" climate scientists, those who have no real expertise or training in the various fields. More often than not, links put up to debunk AGW by skeptics are to sites run by people who are not adequately trained in scientific disciplines (if they have any training at all).

Your adage of "a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing" is nowhere better demonstrated than in the myriad denialist sites bounced around by skeptics. They are wholly constructed from an incomplete knowledge - and bolstered (and often funded) by those who have an interest in maintaining the status quo, not to mention presenting an attraction to those who are drawn to conspiracy theories....that is the really, really scary part.

Dear SPQR,

Now I’m a little embarrassed for you.

It is pretty obvious that you have nothing. That's okay but to flail about like you have just done is childish.

And don't get me wrong being childish is often a great defensive mechanism when one’s world view is threatened.

I have often seen the response in fundamental Christians when one tries to have an intelligent discussion with them about the Bible.

However I will admit to thinking you were made of slightly sterner stuff.

Oh well, back to the basic a,b,c’s.

Dear SPQR,

Could you please tell me what physical property of CO2 would you like me to dismiss so that I may disregard the warming implications of humankind doubling its concentrations in our atmosphere?

I have repeated variations of this question to all and sundry throughout this thread and the only response I have so far was from yourself, and it was just some mantra about CO2 always following temperature rises. Well it certainly hasn’t this time has it?

I even asked it three times of that blow in, blow out, blowhard Hasbeen and he also tosses up some insult about my intelligence and disappears.

You have followed his script but at least you have stuck around.

Sometimes the adult thing is just to admit you don't know. That's okay because then I will move on to someone else who might.

Oh, if there is even one of the many points I made in my last post that you can challenge intelligently let me hear it, perhaps without the baby’s rattle though.

SPQR: [WARNING: some people who believe in AGW mythology may find this material confronting and offensive]

I wouldn't bother SPQR cSteel would read anything that might disagree with his/her blinkered outlook.

Csteel to Jayb on Sahul time: What you don't get to do after serving up that piece of claptrap is to demand I spend time examining another one of your offerings on this thread.

Oh, Lovelocks Quote is on Page 14 of his book "GAIA."

Pray tell, all you greeny, lefties, are you on a roster? Is a couple of months on blogging duty the cost of that nice comfortable job in academia or the party?

The way a new bunch of totally misinformed, enthusiastic activists keep popping up here, then disappearing, it would appear so.

Do you become disillusioned with the crazy global warming scam, after being given some of the facts, & drop out?

Or is it that maintaining the belief is too hard, when confronted with the facts, & you have to be relieved of your duty, before you become converted.

Tell me, in view of the fact that the scam is now dying, how long can most last, before reason finally gets through, even your deluded perception? At what rate do you find your assigned bloggers converting to the truth & light?

Excuse me Mr Non-scientist (aka Hasbeen),

"...after being given some of the facts..."

Which facts would they be? Layman's facts, denialist's facts...amphibious landing-craft facts. (thank you Basil Fawlty)

If some of us pop off for a while, it's because we get tired on the spiel from La-La Land.

Pray tell, all you greeny, lefties, are you on a roster?
Hasbeen,
I think whenever answers are expected from them they huddle for two months to dream up some reply, ignorant ones mostly.
It's a crying shame to waste all this education on people who lack the mentality to want to be of help rather than hindrance to society.

@CSteele,

<<However I will admit to thinking you were made of slightly sterner stuff.>>
Indeed I am, that’s why your put-downs just “pass by me as the idle wind”

Okay, let’s put it in terms you’re more hardwired to relate to.

Let’s assume that I am a police officer and you’re a civic minded local resident.

One day you come to me and say “Officer SPQR, some young women are trashing the park. You really have to do something about and quickly “

We both go down to park and sure enough there are 100 young women spraying graffiti , turning over bins, and generally acting very badly. So I call in support and go about arresting the whole 100.

Where upon, you step in and say No! NO! I don’t want the 97 in bikinis arrested. I am only concerned with the three in burkas.Leave the other 97 be.

Do you suppose I would see you a credible, objective observer?

That is a parallel of your position with relation to CO2.
You’re telling me you are madly concerned about the bad properties of the molecule CO2.
But only 3-4 % of CO2 is derived from anthropogenic sources. For every 100 molecules in the air only three are anthropogenic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC1l4geSTP8

So fess up now, what came first: your affiliation with the hard left or your belief in AGW?

@Poirot

<< Finance is not a science >>

Neither is AGW --it's more akin to theology

Dear SPQR,

Sigh.

What on earth are we going to do with you laddie?

You head off to these ridiculous denial sites, tout them as the bee’s knees and don't do one iota of checking.

Are you and Jayb related?

So you want me to take seriously an organization whose major benefactor is Gina Rinehart, whose major patron is Alan Jones and whose video you linked to stuffs up basic atmospheric facts in the first 30 seconds. I switched off after that.

Just for your information a couple of centuries ago there were 24 molecules of CO2 for every 85,000 of air. Man has driven a 40% increase so now there are indeed 34 molecules of CO2 and rising but to say only 1 molecule is caused by human activity is wrong, stupidly so one would have thought but knowing who is backing them probably expected. Powerful interests can exert a hell of a lot of pressure. Look how long it took to get smoking legislation up.

How best to explain it to you?

Okay, take your car, it takes very little pigment in proportion to the rest of the can of paint to give it even a dark colour but it has a relatively huge effect on how hot the surface of your car will get in the sun.

The bulk of the paint has very little effect on temperature compared to this little concentration of pigment.

Now the mechanism might not be strictly the same but the general principle is.

Don't you get a little wary of mining interests and in my view corrupt radio announcers getting inside your head?

Go think for yourself and give me an answer to my CO2 question. It can’t be ignored if you want to be taken seriously.

cSteel: We are forcing the issue by doubling the CO2 concentrations through artificial means

We are doubling the CO2 Concentration? Pray, over what time period? From when to when? Each year, 10 years, 20 years or 100 years, past present or future. CO2 is said to make up .03% of the Gasses in the Atmosphere. If it is doubled to .06% some other Gas must decrease. Being the authority that you are, which Gas is decreasing in percentage & how will that effect us.

cSteel: the physical properties of which have climate implications.

Yes of course. Co2 is absorbed by many organisms, it is essential to their life & well being. Trees need it to produce O2. If there is more CO2 for trees to use then they must output more O2. So it can’t be O2 that is decreasing. The CO2 uptake of the Oceans must also increase that would cause an increase on Carbonates, which would be good for the production of shelled organisms. Wouldn't it. Then the increase in rain & storms would encourage tree growth (more O2) Storms produce Nitrogen, which is a natural fertilizer, which in turn encourages tree growth (more O2) Yes, some places will get wetter, some dryer, but if we manage the water correctly then there won't be a problem moving it around with Solar pumps. There are places where it has been too cold to produce food. (e.g. Siberia) These places will be warmer & so produce more food. Those people in dryer climates will either have to move or die off, which is Nature’s way anyway.

You mustn't read my posts at all. I have always maintained that I believe in Global Warming. Just not in a Left Wing, Greenie, PC way. Luv ya.

Jayb...thats an interesting hypnosis "a trance state characterized by extreme suggestibility, relaxation and heightened imagination." woops! I meant hypothesis "an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action.....So, the warm countries shall fail and the once inhospitable one's become flourishing Mecca's.

Enough said:)

cc

Gee that's interesting csteele, where do I find this dark CO2?

Is it anything like the pollution our greenies, & your ABC manage to see, every time they find a photo of the steam rising from a power house cooling tower?

Tell me, do you ever become even a little embarrassed by these fraudulent images used by your mates to try to further the cause, or are you so used to using any untruth that you no longer notice?

Oh in passing, I'm sure you will have noticed the paper from NASA on ten years of satellite measurement of heat escaping the earth to space.

It has to been found to be so much greater than the figures used in all those nice computer models, that all the equations will have to be totally revamped. If they are supposed to find the truth that is. Should we hold our breath waiting?

So you can let those clowns at UEA know they no longer have to spend their time looking for their lost heat. The planet lost it years ago, just as a good little planet should.

Then would you suggest to them, they can now find a real job. We have a shortage of land scape gardeners here. Now that is a job that could use those fertile imaginations, & they won't even need a computer model.

Hasbeen,

Now that you mention images of dastardly power station chimneys emitting steam, don't forget that photograph of a poor polar bear stuck on a lump of ice which obviously was all that remained of the entire Arctic Ocean - it clearly wasn't a photo of a polar bear stuck on some random bit of ice-floe - in fact it represented irrefutable evidence of AGW and the unutterable evils of callous and uncaring capitalism.

Clearly, from that photo, the science is settled. Move your house up the hill ten or twenty metres, get ready for heat-waves even hotter than those of our childhood years, and kiss your @@@@ good-bye.

Cheers,

Joe

http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/The%20Coalitions%20Direct%20Action%20Plan%20Policy%20Web.ashx
Rubbish? yes! but an answer for hasbeen and his like who find ABC and lefty dills drive the issue.
Not so! Conservatives lead by Abbott have the same cut as a target.
Unfortunately we do not have enough land to plant that many trees, but lets not pretend it is only Labor cutting.

Luciferase
as you have allegedly used some unknown name to sign the petition, there is no way of proving your stupid point.
How do you know if there is no vetting procedure? If so, why don't you expose some of the names on the petition as being unqualified? Of course, you don't have to answer these questions as your past form is against replying to direct questions. All you do is spew out your garbage while refusing to reply in a relevant manner.
If anyone has a gall, it is you.
Not just a comedian, but an idiot too.

Plant, you have to forgive me for thinking that you meant me when you mentioned insults. It's just that when you wrote 'Gezzz..where all full of insults today. No Mr powerless', I thought you meant me. Obviously you meant another Mr. Powerless.
To your question, I think we should ignore what is not obvious and carry on into the future, instead of listening to crack-pot cretins like Flannery, especially after they have been proved wrong.
Or you could just go out and destroy our industries while China and India laugh at us as 'stoopit Austlarians'.

Dear Hasbeen,

Sigh again.

You aked “Gee that's interesting csteele, where do I find this dark CO2?”

If you were sitting above the atmosphere wearing a pair of infrared glasses it actually would appear to be darkening the view of the surface. But that may test your imagination. I much prefer to try and explain things rather than dive for external links but I have weakened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw

When you first started posting on this thread I gave you the benefit of the doubt since they appeared to hold the promise of something more substantial to come. But there really isn't anything is there.

Now the posts are just written diarrhoea across the page. I have asked the same question of you numerous times and you have gone missing only to show up when you thought the heat was off.

You are truly the emperor with no clothes aren't you.

Really, if you have nothing concrete to offer other than trotting out unsubstantiated statements why don't you stop smelling up the thread?

Or you could try and answer my question; “What law of physics would you like me to ignore to come to the conclusion that a doubling of CO2 will have zero effect on the climate of this planet.”

Let me remind you this is what you said to one attempt to get you to answer earlier; “Emotive stuff is all well & good when talking about the movies, not science, & csteele your understanding of physics is at about primary school level, if your last post is an example.”

Yet all your posts since have been highly emotive. Just give me your understanding of the physics.

If you are unable to answer fine, just say so, otherwise as they say in the classics... put up or shut up.

Steely baby, you know I would think that papers published by NASA telling us that all those computer models of the IPCC & their fellow travelers are totally wrong, is more than a little substantial.

I would actually think that the fact that all those models are wrong would catch the attention of someone who wanted to know the truth. Says quite a bit that you ignored that bit.

One last thing to prove your legitimacy, or lack there of.

Physics tells us that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere could increase the temperature by about 0.7 C. To gain further warming requires positive feed back from somewhere, assumed water vapor & clouds.

All the recent research tells us that the feed back is negative, not positive, thus reducing some or all of that huge 0.7 C.

The moment we get some warmy talking about 4 C or even 6 C, we know it is a fraudster talking politics, not science. Who do you report to mate?

Plant3.1: that’s an interesting hypnosis "a trance state characterized by extreme suggestibility, relaxation and heightened imagination.

My poor attempt at satire I'm afraid. but you got that.

Sorry Hasbeen, While cSteels attacking you cSteel is leaving me alone. ;-) Damm, I do love her. Then again I am a Masochist. Don't beat me, Don't beat me. Oh well, just a little bit.

Dear Hasbeen,

First things first. You spoke of a paper “published by NASA telling us that all those computer models of the IPCC & their fellow travellers are totally wrong”.

All I could find was something from an ex-NASA climatologist one Roy Spencer. But since this was not published by NASA it couldn't be the one you are referring to. His was published in journal Remote Sensing. Anyway Dr Spencer is an avowed climate change sceptic, writes for the Heartland Institute who gain a large slice of their funding from Exxon-Mobil and other large oil companies, and is an intelligent design believer. Hardly an impartial participant. Not that that should disqualify his results, but since he isn't the one you were referring to you might want to steer me in the right direction.

You said “Physics tells us that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere could increase the temperature by about 0.7 C.”

And I say Hallelujah! Finally got one of you blighters to commit to a figure. Hasbeen I'm proud of you, see that wasn't so hard was it.

To your 0.7 C. Where might you have got that from? Let me guess, it was a bloody CLIMATE MODEL! That's what models do, they make bloody predictions! They can be modified for sure as newer information comes in but in the end it is best guess stuff.

The way you and your ilk have been slandering climate scientists is disgraceful. I would have been hauling them over the coals if they had been quiet on the issue yet it would have been hard to blame them if they had known the crap they were going to face.

Cont...

Cont...

Anyway the physics says that a doubling of CO2 is likely to be responsible for 1.7 to 2.4 C rise in temperature but since I went highball to get the debate going why should I pick on you for going lowball. As I said in my first post to you there are Infra Red band width constrains and certainly in the lower atmosphere they are practically full. Not so for higher up of course but this is why the temperature effect of CO2 is logarithmic rather than linear.

I'm pretty happy with the radiative forcing figure of nearly 4 watts per m2 for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. The physics of CO2 says as the oceans warm they will not be able to absorb as much of the gas. It is possible this is showing up in the recent figures from Manuna Loa where average concentration increases from 1990-2000 were around 1.5 ppm/yr, 2ppm/yr in the last decade and 3ppm/yr in the last year.

People shouldn't be hung out to dry for doing the best they can with the data they have access to as long as it is done competently. As new data becomes available they should be allowed to adjust their positions without cries of incompetence, or scam, or revenue grabbing, or corruption.

I believe the vast majority of climate scientists still believe that the doubling of concentrations remains a very grave concern and deserving of action by our governments. I have yet to find a convincing argument to dismiss this.

CSteele,

<< That's what models do, they make bloody predictions! … in the end it is best guess stuff.>>

Yes. But they are often wrong . The finance industry can afford to hire the best & brightest: the crème de le crème of math’s & science, yet THEY STILL GOT IT WRONG!

“On Wall Street, they were all known as "quants," traders and financial engineers who used brain-twisting math and superpowered computers to pluck billions in fleeting dollars out of the market. Instead of looking at individual companies and their performance, management and competitors, they use math formulas to make bets on which stocks were going up or down. By the early 2000s, such tech-savvy investors had come to dominate Wall Street, helped by theoretical breakthroughs in the application of mathematics to financial markets, advances that had earned their discoverers several shelves of Nobel Prizes.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704509704575019032416477138.html

And we can see –or, at least those of us who are not one eyed can see --that all is not well with the climate models & predictions.

<<In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water".

Check Sydney's dam levels today: 73 per cent. Hmm. Not a good start.

In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."

Check Adelaide's water storage levels today: 77 per cent.

In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".

Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood. Check Brisbane's dam>>

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/it-pays-to-check-out-flannerys-predictions-about-climate-change-says-andrew-bolt/story-e6frfhqf-1226004644818

Gee hope hasbeen and his supporters can inform the EEC!
They believe,and have laws to cut emissions.
Seems likely more than half the world,more than 90% of scientists.
Believe,the lie telling bloke gets around!

CSteele,

I am not one to play the man/woman rather than the ball, but since the warmists have made it something of a fine art –its seems only reasonable to respond in kind.

It is interesting and revealing that you discount anything that Alan Jones and Gina Rhinehardt might be associated with. And to be “funded” by The Heartland Institute is for you a kiss of death.

Yet it seems that being funded by GreenPeace or GetUp or championed by the ABC or The Greens is quite OK.

And looking at your posting history on OLO. It seems you are more than willing to accept testimony from the Taliban and other colorful characters:

<<So was the woman acting unreasonably when she became upset about having to lift her veil? Probably not. Did she loose her 'nanna'? Obviously! >>
http://www.news.com.au/national/muslim-woman-accused-of-making-false-police-statement-avoids-jail-over-identity-doubt/story-e6frfkvr-1226078884650

<<I find “Drones? lets have many more.” distasteful and I accept it as your opinion but don't ask me to respect it nor a right to it, because I most certainly don't.
Lets see - “gutless hidden bombs” compared to missiles from drones piloted remotely from thousands of miles away – tell me the difference in their cowardness quota?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4206#106193

There is certainly some method in your madness –but I don’t think it is related to saving the planet

“gutless hidden bombs” compared to missiles from drones piloted remotely from thousands of miles away – tell me the difference in their cowardness quota?
SPQR,
That comparison is purely idiotic. The drones were designed to fight the insidiousness of the wrong. No moron bombers, no drones. Quite simple.
You lot never see the picture, you only criticise the painter. If people would refrain from heinous activities then there would be no need to produce new weapons to fight these morons.

Dear Dr Emeritus Professor Austin Powerless esq. sir,

My stupid point is, there is NO VETTING procedure! You send in your form with one of the qualifications boxes ticked and your name goes on the petition. Roughly a third of the list claim PhD. status.

Yours in scholarly brotherhood, Sir Dr. Luciferase PhD. OBE OA esq

Hey Individual,

<<SPQR,
That comparison is purely idiotic. The drones were designed to fight the insidiousness of the wrong. No moron bombers, no drones. Quite simple.
You lot never see the picture...>>

You do realize that I was quoting/linking to one of CSTEELE'S EARLIER POSTS-- don't you?

When she is not crusading against "Big Oil", and saving the planet. She's on her other hobby horse defending the Taliban (and their allies) and ridiculing the West.

To add, Dr. Austin P., you'll find this is the supposed vetting procedure to weed out people like me. You can drive an ore truck through it:

"Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered."

Wow! How was it discovered?! It's BS

I define this as NO VETTING PROCEDURE! There is no requirement indicated to provide any evidence, whatsoever, that you hold the qualification claimed before your name is added to the petition.

I'm not alone, for example:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=158

Hi Austin

You said..."I think we should ignore what is not obvious and carry on into the future".....well you have it haft right.

Yes by all means carry on into the future, but cant we clean up after ourselves as the time limits are obviously in place and on the humans side. I believe this is totally do-able, hence our side of things.

It can be done.

cc

Steely, now your turn. Did you see the facts that CO2 can give less than 1 C warming. That's from your con men too.

How much of that published literature demonstrating the lying cheating, & fraudulent practices of the IPCC, & the CRU have you read?

It is known as Climategate 1 & Climategate 2, & is testimony given by the major warmest players, showing what a bunch of misguided, or criminal people they are.

Oh, back to you.

Dear Hasbeen,

You’ve got a bloody hide mate.

You and your lot have come on here and among other things quoted a newspaper from 1922 that had been doctored to suit the deniers case, linked to a site which is found to be little more than a mouth piece for the mining industry hell bent on twisting facts to suit themselves, and raised something as having been published by NASA when it most definitely had not been. I'm not going to dignify these as being just sloppy because that would be too kind.

Then you have the cheek to condemn those who have raised concerns about the risks of doubling CO2 concentrations as conmen and possibly criminals?

Yup, I think I might almost be speechless.

So what evidence have you for a negative forcing of CO2?

Austin Powerless, a whisper in your ear.

You might want to look at some of the letters/comments in the links Mr Luciferase has referred you to ( http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/ )

Now, it might not have been his intention, but the letters provide as much illumination as the article he’s wanting you to read

For example, the letter from SteveB :May 15, 2011 at 10:16 pm.
Tells how the warmists came up with that magic figure that anywhere between 90 and 97% of “scientists” believe in orthodox AGW (this is cited by Belly in his post above).

Or, the letter from Andrew: June 30, 2009 at 7:09 am
Which exposes how the warmists – who though insisting that any of their critics must be “climate scientists” to be believed –are more than willing to compromise and accept lesser credentials just so long as the speaker agrees with the AGW hypothesis.

Being a representative of true science & objectivity, Mr Luciferase will I expect, be exposing the above-mentioned warmist shenanigans in a upcoming post—I also expect to be seeing some flying pigs about the same time.

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

Do ther rest yourself.

Just read the Sceptics site SPQR. My resultant thinking is;

The Climate Scientists agree that there is AGW. They agree on the need for more scientific information.
The Denigher agree that there is NGW.(Natural) They agree on the need for more scientific information.

Result. There is GW. They both agree on the need for more scientific information.

Difference in Arguments;

SC's believe Man has caused all of the GW, hence Anthrapological.
D's believe that GW is a Natural Earth Cycle, hence Natural.

Things I wish to know:

If the CO2 % has doubled. In what year was the reference point taken from.
Have there been changes in % of any of the other Earth Gases.
Are any of the Climate Scientists relying on a Government Grant for their livelihood.
Are any of the Denighers Scientists being paid by heavy polluting Corporations.
Do Any Governments, Corporations, Organizations or Religions stand to gain one way or another from either argument or from the confusion of both.
E.g., Taxes, Higher prices on their products, Creating a feeling of apprehension in the world population for monetary gain. Causing unrest through fear for monetary gain. Causing hatred between groups of peoples for monetary & territorial gain.

SPQR gee thanks! thought I must have lost it!
Saw that quote attributed to you, and fell under the table in the fetal position!
Inquisitive nature got the better of me,and then, lawd I was happy! found your rebuttal.
And yes, at last! I agree, knew you could not have said that.
In this thread I support csteele, but in that matter you, your words have been mine in that matter, however are we claiming some thing new?
Are those wonderful drones, until the enemy gets them, bringing about climate change?
Still I side here with the truth,a day will come when the words of deniers will be read and regarded as hugely funny stuff.
Maybe on a beach,5 meters higher up than today.

Gawd! - the denialists have brought out their big gun in runner.

Okay guys, we know when we're beaten.

runneresque logic - stunning!

Belly,

5 metres ? May you live so long, old fellow :) After all, at 10 cm every fifty years, that gives you another 2,500 years to re-build a little higher up the mountain every 100 years or so.

I'm confident that there is such a thing as global warming, rather than cooling, and that some, if not most, if not all, of it is man-made- it's the nature of capitalism, after all, to externalise such costs. The question is how much, and I don't think that there is anything to be gained by over-egging the pudding, and making ridiculous claims, in sea-level changes for example.

And why assume that governments won't do anything about it all ? Most are doing something, by way of supporting renewable energy development, tree-planting, turning off the odd light. Yes, they could all be doing more, I'm sure, but big things from little things grow :)

Cheers,

Jo

Luciferarse

you proved MY point.
You wrote 'You send in your form with one of the qualifications boxes ticked and your name goes on the petition'- unless it's yours, eh? Yet you still failed to reply to my statement 'I note that you have not disputed the credentials of the legitimate petition signers'. That tells all, doesn't it??!! Even when you tried to discredit Frederick Seitz, you never questioned his credentials.
You quote "Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered." but did not include a source so maybe you made it up. Who knows? Going by your previous posts, it could be pure fantasy as reality doesn't appear to be your strong point.
FFS, you can't even answer direct questions so what's the point of trying to get through to you?

Senatus Popolusque Romanus, that was a good link you gave. If only the blind-faithists would take note, this lunacy could be buried before our industries are reduced to 3rd world status.

AP: If only the blind-faithists would take note, this lunacy could be buried before our industries are reduced to 3rd world status.

I just feel that there is else something going on. Call it Conspiracy Theory if you like. Big Governments, Big Corporations, Big Banks, Religions & other Organizations have lots to gain in keeping the world population in turmoil. That’s Control. It matters little which Party is in power in which country. All parties within all Governments work together to control their populaces’.

This GW is only one of many schemes by world Governments to move money around. There is enough Gold around to make toilet seats out of it. & cheaper than wood or plastic. Everything is kept at an artificial value. Just look at general goods you buy. When they first come out, they are just so expensive. Within a few years they are giving away a better product free with a hamburger. Wars are an internal arrangement between countries to keep prices at an artificial high so some people can control other people. Medicine is controlled by the big Chemical Companies. I you find a cure for almost anything you can just bet it’s put underground. Alternate Energy. There are people who have proved that Energy can be provided cheaply. Suddenly all goes quite or the person disappears & some big Corporation has brought the rights to manufacture. & that never happens. Sharich for one.

I feel that there is just something more than funny going on & we’re all fools in the game. We are all being controlled.

SPQR,
sorry, cringe,embarrassed, feel silly.
cheers

Dear Hasbeen,

You said “Do ther (sic) rest yourself.”

My pleasure, you really are a gift that keeps on giving aren't you.

Let me know if you haven't conceded the paper was not published by NASA as you originally claimed.

But first a point of order, you really need to either place in quotes or give citations when you copy and paste practically verbatim. It is disrespectful and discourteous to the original author and secondly the unsavoury charge of plagiarism may well be levelled at you and we wouldn't want that.

The use of the word 'alarmist' signalled you were not quoting from a proper news story and indeed you weren't. It was an op-ed piece on the Forbes.com site (whose motto is “"Home Page For The World's Business Leaders") in July last year by one James Taylor who is a senior fellow for environmental policy (note policy - not study) at, you guessed it, the friggin Heartland Institute! Their version of our IPA and yes funded by the likes of Exxon-Mobil. These blokes are everywhere.

And who else writes for the Heartland Institute? As stated earlier, your Dr Roy Spencer. That really shouldn't disqualify him but obviously raises questions. So let's find some answers.

A quick whip around Wikipedia reveals some interesting facts about the good doctor. Firstly he is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank based in Washington DC.

“Historian Naomi Oreskes states that the institute has, in order to resist and delay regulation, lobbied politically to create a false public perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion.” Wikipedia

Newsweek called the institute a “"central cog in the denial machine".

Okay, I could still almost live with that one, but the good doctor is also on the board of advisers for the;

Cont...

Cont...

Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation which “is a conservative Christian public policy group that promotes a free-market approach to care for the environment that is critical of much of the current environmental movement. In particular, the Cornwall Alliance rejects claims of man-made harmful climate change.” Wikipedia

In 2000 the institute released the Cornwell Declaration which “sets forth an articulate and Biblically-grounded set of beliefs and aspirations in which God can be glorified through a world in which "human beings care wisely and humbly for all creatures" and "widespread economic freedom…makes sound ecological stewardship available to ever greater numbers."

Nearly lost me but I'm hanging in there so let's try and pretend all this has zero bearing on the good doctor's paper, something quite generous since if the roles were reversed you lot would have strung him up by the gonads already.

Sure others who had access to and studied the same data set came to entirely different conclusions than he did, still even that is acceptable. Ultimately it comes down to competence right? I mean why would his paper get published in a journal such as Remote Sensing if it wasn't impeccable science?

The only problem with that is the then editor-in-chief has since resigned “I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief&#8213;to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.”

I think Dr Spencer just lost me.

If I had known beating up poor, rabid AGW sceptics was so such a hoot I would have indulged earlier. You lot always come out swinging so belligerently but pop in a few well aimed jabs and you just seem to go to water. Jayb, discredited and impotent, SPQR is now in a foetal position last seen trolling through my posting history to try and get something, anything, he might use. You have all been very selfish keeping all this fun to yourselves.

So Hasbeen, who else you got for me big boy?

Just for the record I have nothing against anybody taking a sceptical approach to AGW. It is those who take it upon themselves to be self-appointed attack dogs that get me going. I'm just having a little nip back (and admittedly kinda enjoying it).

P.S. Can someone give individual an Asprin and get him to a have a lie down. I think he is a tad rattled.

csteele,

Here's a rollicking good article by Naomi Klein on Heartlanders and denialism. I've posted it before but don't know if you saw it. I'm sure Hasbeen, SPQR and Jayb will enjoy it as well : )

http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate

Loudmouth quite true.
I however was thinking in terms of 5 feet further up the beach not hight.
I am reminded by those who think the world has been coned of a Tsunami warning just weeks after the tragic one.
Seems hundreds took deck chairs raced down to the beach,picking a good spot to watch it!
Had it come? ten thousand new Darwin awards and ten thousand less anti climate change folk.

Won't the Carbon tax hold back higher sea levels ?
Maybe the more tax we pay the less the seas will rise.

Isn't it interesting that our lefty/greenie allocated correspondents are not interested in facts, or truth, just in the source.

Even more interesting that that old furphy is no longer holding water with the public. They have wised up to the peer-reviewed control of information by the warmest club.

Come on Steely, you question my integrity, but you won't answer the climate-gate story.

If they are not crooks, prove it, or pull your head in. I suppose it's banned reading for you warmest messenger types. Can't have you learning the truth about your gods, now can we?

@Csteele,

<< SPQR is now in a foetal position>>

No so, CSteele. More rampant that foetal.

You have got to hand it to the warmists, they have it down pat.
Hasbeen presents a piece of contrary evidence and the Csteele immediately (instinctively) goes into warmest defense dance.

First she tries discredit Hasbeen with talk of “plagiarism”.
Then, she tries to discredit the article by linking it with “The Heartland Institute”.
And after a hundred lines of waffle and putdowns, fails to address the argument –the Greens would be right proud of her!

Er…CSteele,

I am also waiting on your answer re the false predictions of Tim Flannery , our esteemed Climate Change Commissioner.
You are asking us to believe your models & predictions but it seems your highest authorities cannot get it right.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/it-pays-to-check-out-flannerys-predictions-about-climate-change-says-andrew-bolt/story-e6frfhqf-1226004644818

Now for glimpse of our clean green future a la CSteele:

It was a bright cold day in May, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Citizen Steele, her chin nuzzled into her breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the hessian curtain that served as a divider between the modules of the One Happy World Commune, though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering along with her.

The hallway smelt of boiled cabbage and old rag mats, Belly had to be preparing the communal lunch. At one end of it a colored poster, too large for indoor display, had poster, had been tacked to the wall. It depicted simply an enormous face, more than a metre wide: the face of a man of about six-five, with narrow emaciated features. Steele made for the stairs, she was due at Poirot’s module at 13:05 for the weekly political study session, this week it was the collected works of Commissar Klein.She’d be pushed to make it but she knew there no use trying the lift as it hadn’t worked since they converted the power stations to renewable energy, in accordance with an IPCC directive to cuts CO2 emissions. The flat was seven flights up, and each floor was occupied a ten child family of climate refugees , another IPCC initiative. Steele who was thirty-nine and had a hammer & sickle tattoo above her right ankle, went slowly, resting several times on the way. On each landing, opposite the lift-shaft, the poster with the enormous picture of Bob Brown gazed from the wall. It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BOB IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran.
[with apologies to George Orwell]

SPQR, yeah, that brought back memories of embarrassingly idiotic illusions of my young adulthood.

Belly,

So ...... tsunamis are, what ? caused BY, or actually cause, climate change ? Tsunamis and climate change - you learn something every day.

By the way, in today's paper, there are two 'highest maximums' for the eight capital cities around Australia over the past decade (actually since 2000, so 13 years), and one 'lowest minimum', so a balance of one reading of 'highest maximum' for the decade across eight capital cities.

There is an interesting article today in The Australian about Western Sydney becoming hotter over the past fifty years or so. As an ex-Westie, I do recall plenty of bush around Bass Hill and Penrith in the fifties, and a lot of it in between. But pretty much all of that would be suburbs, roadways and factories nowadays, so it seems reasonable to expect that more heat would be generated and/or trapped in man-made structures, bush would have been cleared and temperatures would have edged up - what they call the heat island effect.

Of course, a lot of us 'feel' that it is hotter now than before, especially those of us moving up the class and air-conditioning ladder. With age, too, I suspect that one feels the heat more (and the cold as well). But I'm still waiting for another 46-degree day here in Adelaide to equal the hottest days of the early eighties. Or similar temperatures during my childhood in NSW when we used to lay under the house to keep cool.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear SPQR,

Oh my good chap, honestly?

You troll through at least two years of my past posts in an effort to find something to discredit me only to flag something completely erroneous like my questioning the use of drones in Pakistan (what that had to do with AGW I'm yet to ascertain), then have the cheek to start blubbering about me raising quite pertinent questions about Dr Roy Spencer's affiliations.

My god man can't you see what you are becoming?

You guys keep wailing whenever I use your tactics back at you. I repeat, its a sure sign of a bully. This is not the normal way I would argue a case but you guys have set the scene and I'm just following the cues.

You really need a change of tactic. I mean when you get pulled up for tossing Gina Rinehart and Alan Jones into the debate you really shouldn't now be adding Andrew Bolt for god's sake. I respect their climate credentials as much as the next man but enough is enough. If that's all you have perhaps it might be time to be quiet.

Dear Hasbeen,

You said; “Come on Steely, you question my integrity, but you won't answer the climate-gate story.”

I certainly question why you would claim something was published by NASA when it clearly wasn't, if you consider that is questioning your integrity that is your call.

As to the so called Climategate, I'm not sure I have much to add to the 9 separate inquiries all of which completely exonerated the climate scientist involved. Do you?

SPQR: am also waiting on your answer re the false predictions of Tim Flannery , our esteemed Climate Change Commissioner.

Steely doesn't do answers if it's against her Steely glance, er, sorry, stance. Haven't you got that yet? She wouldn't answer mine either & banished me to the boondocks. Oh! G;day mate. I see you've been banished too. I wonder whose next. Well... at least it's warm in here.

CSteele,

<<You troll through at least two years of my past posts in an effort to find something to discredit me only to flag something completely erroneous like my questioning the use of drones in Pakistan (what that had to do with AGW) >>

Little to nothing to do with AGW --but given your propensity to disqualify anyone even marginally associated with The Heartland Institute or Alan Jones or Gina Rhinehardt or a hundred other interests -- much to say about your principles.


But hey, look, you seemed to have missed my question --here it is again:

How are we to believe your predictions & models when your highest authorities/representatives cannot get it right?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/it-pays-to-check-out-flannerys-predictions-about-climate-change-says-andrew-bolt/story-e6frfhqf-1226004644818

Jayb,
Its been cold where I am.

I'm starting to hope the warmists are right-- bring on the warm change.
Either that, or I'll have to do a (counter)climate migration and move closer to the equator.

Cheers!

Dear SPQR,

You haven't asked me a complete question, all you have done is put to me “How are we to believe your predictions & models when your highest authorities/representatives cannot get it right?” but then not detailed what those predictions and models are nor where they got them wrong.

I'm hardly going to delve into a link of a person our own legal system has described as “…at worst, dishonest and misleading and at best, grossly careless.” and who has a proven record of verbaling the likes of Mr Flannery.

If you have specific details you can post them here and personally put your name to them. I'm getting a little sick of writing fulsome often double post replies and then have you lot retort with a hundred words or less plus another link.

Stop being lazy.

What I'm not getting sick of is dismantling everything you have thrown up thus far. That has been a riot. So much so I note we have just passed the 200 post mark and I reckon we should shoot for 300. Just keep feeding me the material. I'm sorry for bogging the thread down earlier by trying to talk on the science. Sometimes I can be a little slow at picking up what you lot really want. May the slanging match continue, I aim to please.

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for the link.

“that climate change is a Trojan horse designed to abolish capitalism and replace it with some kind of eco-socialism”

Hell's Bells. Experts at shifting the focus aren't they. I think I'm probably allowing them a little too much leeway here as well but sometimes it is just too much fun in the mud with the rest of them.

Loudmouth! enough! mate no time for snoozing.
I was rudely if you wish, comparing the ability to think, of those dills who went down to the beach.
Set up chairs,right in the target area, to get a Good view of their own death if it came.
With your fellow it is not true us blokes are mugs deniers.
We all know its whales scratching their backs that bring Tsunamis!

Belly, I remember that. Even Don Dunstan, the Sth Aussie Premier, grabed his Long Board, put his board shorts on & went & waited on the beach. Was it Maslins. Oh, being the Premier, I suppose he had to have his shorts on that day, considering the Media attention. ;-)

But, wasn't that some Psycho, er, sorry, Psychic. Well much the same as some of these Climate Scientists & their Green lefty, PC sheep.

Dear SPQR,

Nice meal and rather pleasant red has me in a decidedly convivial mood so I thought I would take the time to answer your question without you having to do the small amount of work I set you.

Am I not merciful.

You asked “How are we to believe your predictions & models when your highest authorities/representatives cannot get it right?”

I thought I would answer by looking at the 'father' of the Global Warming scientists James Hansen who heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a position he has held since 1981.

It was in that year Hansen and others published the paper Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. It should be remembered that global warming had not really revealed itself yet in the temperature record and the models he and the team used were quite rudimentary in comparison to what is available today.

He wrote back then; "The global temperature rose by 0.2°C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's."

Cont...

Cont...

He then modelled a projected global temperature change at a high growth scenario at 4% per year and a low growth one at 2%. The actual growth from 1980 to 2000 was 3% per year.

Here are the curves along with the actual temperature rises. Remember the actual growth rate of 3% lies in between the red and blue lines.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Hansen81ModelvsObs.jpg

Damn he was and is good!

He also gave some predictions; "Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage."

We now know we can check the boxes on all four. Remember these predictions were made over 30 years ago.

His efforts might not match those of Darwin who produced his work without the benefit of any knowledge about DNA but they are spectacular none the less. For Hansen's predictions to have been so accurate with the tools he had at his disposal has been quite remarkable. He is deserving of our respect and admiration not the petty sniping and the labels of 'conman' bandied about by the likes of Hasbeen and yourself, and other discredited fellow travellers on this thread.

So to answer your question you should believe because they did in fact get it right!

Is this where I apologise for bringing some science back into the thread?

Are we really that dumb that after all that we want to see every predicted consequence of AGW in front of our very eyes before we agree there is a problem? Are we really that stupid as a species? It appears some of us may well be.

& you believe that cr4p Steely, god help us.

Dear Hasbeen,

An 8 word response?

Looks like you’re done.

And runner’s done a runner, Jayb is doing time for cooking the books, individual’s gotten so rattled he has been striking out at his own side while SPQR is striking a blow for total irrelevancy and was last seen going though some of my posts from 5 years ago.

Could it be my work here is done?

Pity.

Spoil sports.

Any chance of a few pithy retorts as you exit, just for old times sake?

I’m missing you guys already, we might even meet on another thread about AGW, perhaps we might all have grown up a little too.

Fingers crossed.

@CSteele,

You still haven’t answered my question. You tried to side step it.
It wasn’t about James Hansen—it was about Tim Flannery.
And here are my citations/charges (TAKE YOUR PICK!)

The first citation is from Stewart Franks, Associate Professor School Of Engineering University Of Newcastle.
He doesn’t just out Tim Flannery, he also outs (those other prominent climate change spruikers ) David Karoly and the CSIRO.

" Tim Flannery, now Australia’s Chief Climate Commissioner, declared rather bizarrely in 2007 that hotter soils meant that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems.

Fast forward to 2012 and we see widespread drenching rains, flooded towns and cities, and dams full to the brim and overtopping. Indeed, the rainfall that we had last year not only filled Brisbane City’s Wivenhoe Dam water supply storage, but also all of its flood mitigation capacity. The resultant releases of water required to prevent a truly catastrophic dam failure contributed to the inundation of large parts of metropolitan Brisbane...
However, it turns out that it is not just Flannery that has been making incorrect statements – many supposed experts including prominent commentators from the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO have been making equally incorrect statements...
http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709

“We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change…even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.”
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

“Every NSW town visited by Professor Tim Flannery or his Climate Commission colleagues for community forums where residents were told they were in a "drying trend" has been deluged by rain up to three times the annual average…
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-news/its-a-case-of-tim-foolery-as-flannerys-predictions-of-dry-dams-go-unfulfilled/story-e6freuzi-1226297567261

“In 2007 Professor Flannery said Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane were in urgent need of desalination plants.Four years on, Warragamba Dam is on the verge of overflowing and Brisbane last year endured the worst flooding in almost four decades”
http://www.news.com.au/national/weather-forecasting-is-obviously-not-professor-tim-flannerys-forte/story-e6frfkvr-1226285686347#ixzz1uwdJHrsm

NOW, HOW CAN WE BELIEVE YOUR PREDICTIONS & MODELS WHEN WE CAN'T BELIEVE THOSE OF OUR CLIMATE COMMISSIONER?

Great to return to find csteele still having such a gas.

Re Flannery,

Making decisions based on past data and future projections is done everyday. I lost dosh in the GFC because I called it wrong, farmers grow crops that fail due to unexpected drought or flooding rain. A geothermal power plants is destroyed by flood where it never rains, damns fill against the long-term trend and a desalination plant goes into mothballs until needed. Why doesn't Bolt extend his laughter to everyone who has lost anything through a wrong call, such as a decision to live in a flood-prone part of Queensland?

Standing at the water's edge as the tide comes in you see waves falling well short of you, some drawing level and others almost sweeping you off your feet. There are alarmists, who sheet everything to AGW, claiming the tide is approaching and others who, equally, use anything to justify their denial of it. Those who truly have a handle on the science, who scientifically research climate and argue it out well above the level discussed here, tell us the tide is coming in and man is significantly to blame. For their troubles they are consigned by some, who don't like the implications of what they hear, to be accomplices to breath-takingly absurd conspiracies and simultaneously throw up conjecture as if it is the equal of research.

Once more, for Sir Dr. Prof. Austin Powerless OBE, BO, FI, esq., you send your form in, with box ticked as you like, with no contact details, so no enquiry can come back to you. No documentation supporting your claim to qualifications is required, and THAT's IT, you're on the petition? Do you think they check you off against a list? What list? All they do is check for names appearing twice and somehow, lord knows how, claim to check for false signatures. It's a pile of bull. I do not doubt that there are PhD's MSc's and BSc's who are genuine, but surely you can't expect anybody to take the petition seriously as proof of some massive counter-consensus.

Hi Bully,

Sorry to hear that you'll have to move further up the hill a few metres every 100 years or so, this massive climate warming thing is so inconvenient, isn't it ?

I'm alarmed that in today's paper, there were two 'lowest minimums' and only one 'highest maximum' over the past decade, out of the past sixteen decades, for any of the eight capital cities. But for all that, it seems that 'highest maximums' just tend to outnumber the 'lowest minimums' over a week or a month, suggesting that measured temperatures are indeed increasing, rather than declining. But only just :)

But it's unfortunate that temperatures are not measured at isolated stations, away from any heat island effects, rather than in the cities. Somebody pointed out today on the letters page, the rise has been 0.7 degrees C over the past century, with no real sign of accelerating temperature rise.

The question arises, has this 0.7 degrees been affected in any way by the location factor, that the measuring stations have tended to be conveniently located near or in urban areas ? How powerful IS the urban 'heat island effect' ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear SPQR,

Then the captain of the Geebungs raised him slowly from the ground,
Though his wounds were mostly mortal, yet he fiercely gazed around;
There was no one to oppose him - all the rest were in a trance,
So he scrambled on his pony for his last expiring chance,
For he meant to make an effort to get victory to his side;
So he struck at goal - and missed it - then he tumbled off and died.

All laughing aside it is good to see a spirited comeback and because you have gone to so much effort I'm going to take you up on your offer to take my pick and be greedy and choose two if that is okay.

Actually I'm going to go a step further and say while the actual topic is rather peripheral to the science of AGW you have probably provided the best post of any of your mob on this thread. You've done a bit of research and quoted from mainly neutral sources, though admittedly anything from News Limited is borderline.

But overall I'm going to tip my hat to you and encourage you to keep it up.

Right, on with the analysis.

First you quote; “In 2007 Professor Flannery said Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane were in urgent need of desalination plants.Four years on, Warragamba Dam is on the verge of overflowing and Brisbane last year endured the worst flooding in almost four decades”

What on earth is wrong with Flannery's statement? All three cities were in dire need of supplimental water sources. Would you have advised them just to sit tight because flooding rains were just around the corner? And how much would you have charged for the Tarot readings?

As expressed earlier in this thread I myself was frustrated by Flannery and certainly share the sentiments contained in your link of Dick Whitaker when he said of him making weather predictions. "People ideally suited to that are meteorologists. From what I can see on Tim Flannery, meteorology wasn't one of his specialties,"

Cont...

Cont...

Dick Whitaker is an award winning meteorologist who had put in over 3 decades at the Bureau of Meteorology and now works for the Weather Channel.

His position on AGW? “''When you get the vast majority of reputable climatology scientists saying there's a human footprint on the climate, my attitude is it's probably the most likely outcome.''. Sounds pretty sensible to me. What about you?

My next pick was the piece by Stewart Franks from the School of Engineering at the University of Newcastle. Again a person with good qualifications and someone who acknowledges Flannery is at best an amateur enthusiast climate scientist, rather he is an expert on mammalian evolution. Yet surely Franks goes to far when he says Flannery has got it “spectacularly wrong”.

What Flannery actually said was the “Warragamba Dam is never again going to be full unless there is a freak period of high rainfall unlikely to be sustained”. We certainly don't know whether this is a period of abnormally high rainfall, one suspects it is, the question is what will this weather cycle retreat to. I suspect even Franks doesn't know.

So has Flannery's quite valid concern over the survival of many of the species he studies through his professional career, coupled with his knowledge of what drives species to extinction, served to hype some of his pronouncements on climate predictions? Probably.

Does that mean the whole AGW is a crock? Certainly not. All it means is that we take all pronouncements from non-climate scientists with a grain of salt and for our definitive projections we go to people like James Hansen who has thus far been spectacularly correct.

Anyway congratulations again on a half way decent post. Looking forward to more.

Csteele, you are not just pushing the fraud are you?

You actually believe this stuff, don't you.

For heavens sake, in that case go read some of the mountain of literature showing what a con it is.

Then for heavens read some of the climate gate emails.

Did you fall for the Y2K bug too? How much did that cost you, as distinct from us?

If you have much math, try some of Tallbloke's Talkshop. It can get a bit math heavy sometimes, but it is not just counter/counter stuff.

Dear Hasbeen,

I really do need to get some work done but whenever I see your name in the inbox I just gotta see what you might have for me.

This time you have excelled! I really haven't had that sort of a belly laugh for a while.

This is how it went down.

1. Read your post

2. Google the site you have mentioned 'Tallbloke's Talkshop' hoping at the very least the author might be a climate scientist at the very least.

3. Found it at https://tallbloke.wordpress.com (let me know if this ain't the one), quick look at the owner's credentials, nope no climate scientist.

4. Quick scan of the front page, oh there is something of interest, a menu link to 'Predictions'.

5. Go to page and read the following;

“The real center of circulation (making land fall in Huston today) [it will be back in 109 days ready to talk business] was West of the rain band that they called Bonnie, Because there are no major outer planets having a synod conjunction with the earth until mid August, the precipitation was “missing” from the center of circulation, as the global circuit is still in the ion charge mode, it increases global precipitation rates post conjunctions. (Remember the flash floods in March, April?)”

“The real hurricane season will kick in after the first of three synod conjunctions with Neptune on the 20th of August, then really get crazy just after the combined synod conjunctions with both Jupiter and Uranus on the 21st, and each other on the 24th of September.”

6. Pick myself up off the floor from whence I had collapsed from laughing so hard.

Okay, let me get this straight, you want us to dismiss solid climate science and modelling and then recommend a site predicting weather patterns from the orbit of Neptune?

Oh Hasbeen, bloody priceless mate! My eyes are still watering.

Very, very funny.

I'm getting a sneaking suspicion you have done this on purpose. If so you have made my day. Thank you.

Oh my Lord! Now I'm hurting. Hahahahaha! Oh please mercy! The more I think of it the funnier it gets! Just too good!

'Any chance of rain today my good fellow?'

'Not sure, wait and I'll get the telescope.'

'Oh look the perambulations of Pluto promise pissing precipitation'

'Thank you, I'll be sure to take the brolly.'

ROFL!

That's my post limit but well worth it.

CSteele,

Holy frozen mackerel , CSteele, the gentleman’s title is: Climate Commissioner!
Why appoint him to that position if his is as you say?

And then we have this:
“Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/revealed-antarctic-ice-growing-not-shrinking/

And this:
NEW Australian research rejects forecasts that the Great Barrier Reef will be destroyed within a generation by climate change, and finds that corals are capable of adapting better than previously believed.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/doubt-on-warmings-damage-to-reef/story-fn59niix-1226100103086

In warmist circles, they would be detecting a seriously life threatening trend developing on the basis of the above!

However there is hope, some people are waking up:
"There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090714124956.htm

Dear SPQR,

I'm going to go a little easy on you tonight.

I’m not sure if it is because I have had so much fun with the hapless Hasbeen today, or I am in a merciful mood, or I liked your effort a couple of posts ago, plus I've always had a soft spot for anyone on a hiding to nothing.

Okay a little word of advice, you really need to read the whole article in the link you are putting up to try and support your side of the debate. Get past the attention getting headline or else you are going to end up being a feast for someone who is not as kind as I.

Can I invite you to look at the last link in your post. It was the first one I went to as anything dealing with the science rather than the politics always takes priority.

I think unfortunately you will find it is virtually a wet dream for those prosecuting the dangers of elevated CO2 levels. 

It is basically saying that the physics of the extra 70% of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t explain all of the 7 degrees C the temperature rose back then.

"The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past."

"Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM."

I mean the most generous slant we could put on this is that its a dreadful own goal.

But I'm not going to go the hack on you, I like having you around. However you mustn’t tell the others or else they will claim I'm playing favourites.

CSteele,

<< a little word of advice, you really need to read the whole article in the link you are putting up to try and support your side of the debate. Get past the attention getting headline >>

And here's a little word of advice for you: upgrade your comprehension skills, or else, remove your political blinkers.

Let's go back to that pesky article that is giving you so many comprehension problems:
The first thing we find is the line I quoted was not the “headline” --it was main point of the article.
And it is repeated –throughout the article, in various guises:
Once: "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."
Twice: " a new study suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect”.
Thrice: "that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred”

So once again (IN CASE YOU STILL MISSED IT) the key point of the article was: CLIMATE MODELS ARE INACCURATE
(which might go some of the way towards explaining why your “experts” get it wrong, so often )

And it echoes what I mentioned to you way back in this post :http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/images/icon_link_grey.gif
Though at the time you were too busy waffling-on or side-stepping to take it in.

I love the you guys/gals repretend to speak on behalf of science.
Sorry burst your (hot air) bubble, but you DON’T represent science –you only represent your own narrow political faction.

I also love the way you can discount 75% of criticism ( without even reading it) simply because you don’t like the color of the paper it’s written on.
It can’t be anything to do with high standards, since you have shown you are willing to accept anything the Taliban feeds you (maybe one has to wear a burka to be credible!)

Oh my dear SPQR,

I will happily admit to pulling out all stops to make your lot look foolish on this thread, just mimicking the tactics really, however you really do take much of the fun out of it when you are so determined to do the job yourself.

You have offered a prime and might I say breath-taking example of how terribly blinkered you lot are. Here is an article warning that the historical records show that climate modeling might well be underestimating by half the potential impact of increased CO2 levels on global temperature. It’s saying an important POSITIVE feedback mechanism may well have been missed.

Most of your side would be condemning it as ’alarmist’ and burning it in the back yard so it isn't seen by the masses. You instead wave it around claiming it proves black is white.

Don't you see how stupid this makes you look? Actually I think you do because each time you get cornered you mention a Burqua plus you are obviously quite rattled as you are posting links to tiny gif files.

I think you’re done.

I kind of feel like I'm playing Jack Chan in one of his movies. All the rest of the bad guys are unconscious on the floor and the one weedy type who has been holding back finally decides to make a lunge but knocks himself out. It adds some light relief to the fight scene and the audience has a chuckle.

I thought Hasbeen was up for the role but SPQR has auditioned and I think it could be a close.

Hi Bully,

In the weather section in today's newspaper, there is one 'highest maximum' over the past decade across eight capital cities, and no 'lowest minimum'. That's about average.

What would one expect, across sixteen decades of records if there were no global warming, let alone AGW ? That there would be, on average, one reading (highest high or lowest low) during each decade, across the eight capital cities, each with their own max max and min min, i.e. sixteen readings per day.

So a fairly consistent average of one highest maximum each day, out of the sixteen readings, might be almost significant, and lead an intelligent and knowledgeable person such as myself to conclude that yes, there might be a slight trend towards global warming (or at least national warming).

I would have preferred, say, four readings per day of highest highs - and no lowest lows - so that I could be confident, even complacent and Schadenfreudelich, that AGW was a dire threat (serves them right ! I said they'll be sorry !) to humanity.

As it stands, it seems more like the threat posed by walking barefoot on a beach and risking getting a fish-hook stuck in your toe. Very disappointing. Surely humanity deserved worse than that, from a dark-Green point of view (b@stards!) ?

Cheers,

Joe

Give it up cSteely. We all know what side of the Great Divide you stand. What a pity there's only hot air under your feet. On this post, especially, you have just made a big left wing, Greenie, Touchy feely, Blinkered PC fool of yourself. You lose.
G’nite & thanks for the fish.

csteele,

Please leave the lights dimmed for a little longer.

I've just bought another bumper carton of popcorn, refreshed my drink and made myself comfortable. I've put on my 3D glasses and the guy in the row in front has taken off his cowboy hat...

I think I've already seen this movie - the weedy guy regains consciousness and with one more ill-fated action, he manages to.....

CSteele,

WRONG AGAIN!

This is your take:
<< Here is an article warning that the historical records show that climate modeling might well be underestimating by half the potential impact of increased CO2 levels on global temperature>>

Here's a quote from the article

<< something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models>>

Here it is again in case you missed it.

<< something OTHER THAN carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM>>

Stop fantasizing about Jacky Chan.
You're more like Sgt Schultz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ag4nkSh7Q
"I see nothin" "I see nothin" (other than what my party tells me to believe)

If they ever do a remake of Hogans Heroes try out for the part of Sergent Shultz --you're natural!

Dear Poirot, lol, and here he is right on cue, you've been watching too many of these types of movies.

Ah my dear SPQR, what on earth are we going to do with you?

We had Hasbeen earlier in this thread deride the climate scientists for overestimating the feedback mechanisms in their modelling that have them predicting temperature increases well above what the physical addition of CO2 alone would give us, in fact he even said the feedbacks would be negative. Your article has them doubling the temperature.

Perhaps you should give Hasbeen a visit at the retirement village for washed up fighters and if you can pull him away from his telescope the two of you could have a little confab, and get your story straight.

I have a deepening suspicion you really don't understand even the basics of this climate issue, though I suppose your over reliance on links was a bit of a give-away.

Far be it from me to put Hasbeen up as any kind of expert because he isn't, but between the two of you I think you ought to let him take the lead.

CSteele,

<<We had Hasbeen earlier in this thread deride the climate scientists for overestimating the feedback mechanisms in their modelling that have them predicting temperature increases well above what the physical addition of CO2 alone would give us>>

And as far as the above statement goes he would appear to be right.

<<Your article has them doubling the temperature>>

Yes , but only after other factors –other than CO2- are allowed for.

The point , my dear, which you seemed to have willfully missed (though perhaps not, given the standard of your other attempts at reasoning) is that you were asserting (up till two posts ago) that the article was maintaining it was all to do with CO2. Now, having been caught out, you are trying to wiggle away from that.

I seem to recall that earlier in the thread when *you said* Jayb had been caught misrepresenting things.You got on your high horse and demanded she admit her "mistake":
“And JayB got caught out badly on this occasion, there is no way to spin it otherwise… he needs to take ownership of it and face the consequences.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5123#138179

Well, my dear, we're all waiting on you to take you own medicine, now.

Dear SPQR,

What?

Okay, now I'm starting to feel a little sorry for you. You are getting squeaky and it is rather unbecoming.

Do you not know how this works?

Increased CO2 levels drive other factors which provide a positive feedback through mechanisms some of which are less understood than the CO2 contribution. It might be an decrease in Artic ice leading to less sunlight being reflected thus warming oceans which in turn means less CO2 being absorbed by them. Or it might be Artic methane being released as the Permafrost thaws resulting in large quantities of that very potent gas entering the atmosphere. All have the potential to drive up temperatures if CO2 was the only factor.

Hasbeen disagrees that these and other factors with have an influence. Observations say otherwise. The study you quote indicates that the feedback from one or more of these factors may well have been seriously underestimated. Not for one moment does it discount the role CO2 had played back then, nor importantly does it discount the existence of another driver.

You are like a little hamster on a treadmill, you need to hop off and take a proper look around. or you can keep running and we end up calling you cute.

SPQR and Hasbeen appear to hold that feedback mechanisms are anything other than, and unrelated to, CO2 caused warming.

The melting of Arctic ice has caused less reflectance and hence warming at high latitudes. The wind patterns normally caused by a larger differential between low and high latitudes have altered so that winds blow now more commonly directly southward from deep within the Arctic circle bringing extremely cold weather and causing some to herald a coming ice-age.

Meanwhile, ice limits recede further north each season with the North-West passage opening and methane previously locked in permafrost released to the atmosphere as it thaws, feeding back into warming.

The final refuge of Hasbeen and SPQR is to take the "A" out of AGW to claim nature is simply taking its course, without acknowledging its astoundingly fast pace compared with anything hitherto (and why that should be), and that man will adapt.

Man as a species will adapt but massive upheaval in food security, particularly, will mean that many individuals will be sacrificed in the process. The preservation of all DNA is the best strategy to preserve mine, hence I support taking steps necessary to mitigate warming.

Addendum, "a larger differential" means a "larger temperature differential". Uneven heating of the earth's surface causes wind patterns and Arctic warming that is greater than that at lower latitudes therefore affects normal patterns.

@ CSteele,

<< What?>>
¿qué ?

You remind me of Manuel from Fawty Towers –except, Manuel is a lot cluier. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5035TY5RSpg&feature=relmfu

<<Do you not know how this works?>>

Yes, my dear, but it looks like YOU didn’t know how it worked a short time ago, because you were misreading the lines.

Here’s a refresher to jog your memory:[Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 10:58:39 AM]

“Here is an article warning that the historical records show that climate modeling might well be UNDERESTIMATED BY HALF THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF INCREASED CO2 LEVELS on global temperature.”

And, thinking you’d scored a goal your did your little jig:
“Most of your side would be condemning it as ’alarmist’ and burning it in the back yard so it isn't seen by the masses. You instead wave it around claiming it proves black is white.”

But hold the curtain –so accustomed are you to thinking in clichés – that you read something that wasn’t there

And when it was pointed out to you :[Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 11:25:48 AM]
“Here's a quote from the article
<< something OTHER THAN carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models>>”

Instead of ‘fessing up, you compounded things by trying to gloss over it, and worse, trying to make it appear that it was someone else’s misunderstanding!

Your latest cover is to try the old *don’t you know about how green house gases work caper?*

Yes, my dear, we are cognizant with the Green House Gases theory.
But the issue at stake at the moment is YOUR CREDIBILITY -- And it’s looking like its non-existent!

AND THAT, MY DEAR, IS WHY THE WARMISTS ARE LOOSING THE PUBLIC!

<<now I'm starting to feel a little sorry for you>>

Well, frankly, my dear, I couldn’t give a damn!
......................................................
@ Luciferase,

“Being a representative of true science & objectivity, Mr Luciferase will I expect, be exposing the above-mentioned warmist shenanigans in a upcoming post...”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/index-general.as

Wooooooooooops!

AND THAT, MY DEAR, IS WHY THE WARMISTS ARE LOOSING THE PUBLIC!
S/R
AND THAT, MY DEAR, IS WHY THE WARMISTS ARE LOSING THE PUBLIC!

Loosing is what CSteele does with the facts!

Luciferase: The final refuge of Hasbeen and SPQR is to take the "A" out of AGW to claim nature is simply taking its course, without acknowledging its astoundingly fast pace compared with anything hitherto (and why that should be), and that man will adapt.

No that was me.

SPQR, if you arguee with 1D10Ts you only bring yourself down to their level.

Dear SPQR,

Dang! You have got me. I'm just too slow on the pick up. You have stripped the wool from my eyes and shown me the light my friend and for that I will be most grateful.

You see I was under the misapprehension that it was the Milankovitch Cycles that were responsible for the interglacial periods and that as warming progressed positive feedback mechanisms kicked in, increased levels of CO2 being one of them, and they in turn became drivers for other processes which elevated temperatures until met with negative feedback mechanisms which created some form of equilibrium.

I further thought that because humans, through the industrial age, have pumped billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere the physical properties of which were creating Milankovitch like promptings on our climate, and that there would be other positive feedback mechanisms that would combine to drive the temperatures higher than what we would have seen caused by the presence of CO2 alone.

But the study you have quoted shows me just how wrong I have been.

It says...

Err...

Um...sorry SPQR, I might need a little help here.

Dang I'm so stupid sometimes.

What should I be saying now?

Gosh...it was so clear a moment ago...

Oh please Mr SPQR, if you would be so kind as to fill in the rest I would be eternally in your debt.

Csteele,

Models are great, aren't they ?

But out in the real world, if I can drag you back into that for a moment, let's see if I've got this right: temperatures have risen about 0.7 degrees C in sixty years, and sea-levels have risen two inches or 5 cm in a century.

Was that it ?

Bully,

One 'highest maximum' today out of eight capital cities over the twelve years 2000 to 2011 (i.e. 96 readings).

Cheers,

Joe

Double dang!
That fella in front put his hat back on again - and now I can't tell which one is Larry, Curly, Moe or Shemp.

It's a great skeptic vaudeville act - best movie I've seen in ages.

@ CSteele,

I think I’ll leave it there. It goes against my principles to hit someone when their down. Particularly when they’re showing signs of damage from having smashed themselves on the head with their racket too many times. See you at the next tournament. Thank you linespersons, thank you ballpersons.


@ Poirot ,
You reeeeally have to stop smoking that stuff!

Cheers to Jayb & Loudmouth.

Oh well, all good things must come to an end.

Although I'm a bit disappointed that the pie fight scene didn't reach its potential.

SPQR,

You don't seem to have the hang of pie tossing. It's advisable to fill your pies with with something substantial. That way you obtain a superior splatter effect. Tossing pies filled with whipped spleen scraped from the bottom of denialist sites is never going to do the job.

SPQR,

Between you and me, i wonder if you can ever get a straight answer from an alarmist: 0.7 degrees, and 2 inches, in sixty years - is that it ? Is that what we are supposed to be worried about ?

Two inches ? I do recall a poor Fijian woman at the Copenhagen junket weeping that all of her mountain-strewn islands were about to be flooded. Did anybody reassure her that no dear, only the bottom two inches would be likely to get wet over the next hundred years or so ? Opportunism knows few bounds, I suppose.

So what is the truth ? Another two inches by 2070, or vast stretches of coast-lines swamped ? Another 0.7 degrees C (if nogovernment ever does anything about any of it) by 2070, or will we all be frying by 2050 ? All glaciers melted by 2035, i.e. in 23 years, or another the snow-line retreats by no more than 100 metres up the mountains ?

Meanwhile, of course, the rivers and coasts are getting more polluted, land is becoming more degraded, while we f@rt around worrying about a couple of inches of sea. Are environmentalists barking up the wrong tree, and why-level ?

Cheers,

Joe

That should have read:

"So what is the truth ? Another two inches sea-level rise by 2070, or vast stretches of coast-lines swamped ? Another 0.7 degrees C (if no government ever does anything about any of it) by 2070, or will we all be frying by 2050 ? All glaciers are to be melted by 2035, i.e. in 23 years, or the snow-line retreats by no more than 100 metres up the mountains by 2070 ?

Meanwhile, of course, the rivers and coasts are getting more polluted, land is becoming more degraded, while we f@rt around worrying about a couple of inches of sea-level. Are environmentalists barking up the wrong tree, and why ?"

“Being a representative of true science & objectivity, Mr Luciferase will I expect, be exposing the above-mentioned warmist shenanigans in a upcoming post...”

SPQR, on the basis of what some anonymous bloke asserts, I am seriously required to respond as if it is fact? Do you read anything (serious that is), watch TV or converse on non-paranoid sites? Do you live under a rock? The entire planet knows man is affecting the climate but a few blokes who reckon they know what's REALLY happening (on climate and everything else it seems to me).

You want the "A" out of AGW but I'll stick with peer reviewed scientific research literature, not untested conjecture. Even more incredibly, if you accept rapid GW (hard to be sure if you do or don't) you don't see it as a problem. Our food security is seriously at risk, and all that goes with that, a nano-second's thought leading to more intelligent conclusions than you seem capable of.

To all, please ensure to put rubbish in the usher's plastic bag as you leave the cinema. Poirot, I too feel cheated, as I expected a real pie-fight. The effing fat head in front of me blocked the closing credits when he replaced his hat (I always like to hang back in case they show the bloopers).

Dear Luciferase ,

SPQR and his denialist friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Lucerifase , whether they be men's or women’s , are little. In this great universe of ours humanity is a mere insect, an ant, in its intellect, as compared with the boundless forces of nature , or as measured against the processing power of a CRAY petascale supercomputer.

Yes, Luciferase, there is AGW . It exists as certainly as the Y2K bug or the Mayan End of the World Prophecy exists and you know how much joy and purpose they have given. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no AGW . It would be as dreary as a cartoonists life without Bob Brown or Julia Gillard . There would be no childlike faith then, no potlatches in Copenhagen or Cancun, no fantasy to make tolerable this existence. .

And Alas! how dreary would be the world if there no way to hype AGW as the coming apocalypse. The left would have no cause for self righteous rage … well, at least till the next big thing comes along! The nightly news would be so bland without pictures of Greenies chaining themselves to smoke stacks. We should have no entertainment , except The Voice or The Block, and who would wish that even on their worst enemies.

Not believe in AGW ! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get SPQR and his friends to measure the increase in sea level in over the last century , but even when they tell you there hasn’t been any significant increase , what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor adults can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

No AGW ! By God! It exists, and it always has . A thousand years from now, Luciferase , nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, AGW will be continuing to give lefties something to scream about –though, by that time ALL climate is likely to be controlled by a SPQR petascale supercomputer.

[with apologies to the editor of the New York Sun --http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/]
]

Hi Belly,

Sorry, no 'highest maximums' today across the eight capital cities for the past 12 years: i.e. out of 96 possible readings (8 capitals x 12 years), none were either a 'highest maximum' or a 'lowest minimum'. Of course, you can't go by just one reading, or one day, or even just a few readings.

After all, sea-level has risen a massive 2 inches in sixty years, and even taking into account the heat island effect of ever-larger urban areas, temperatures have risen, we're told, by a phenomenal 0.7 degrees C over that time. And it's all our fault !

At this rate, all of Sydney will be flooded (even allowing for land-rise) in barely 50,000 years. But we would have fried by then, so it may not be much of a real issue.

As long as governments do nothing, we can safely say that AGW is going to cause havoc. If we keep our fingers crossed, AGW might even accelerate - around the world, sea-levels might go up as much as a foot in the next century ! A foot ! Anybody living less than a foot above sea-level will be flooded and perhaps drowned ! And if things turn out right, and nobody does anything, we can be confident that the 45+ days of our childhood will return with a vengeance ! Conversations will be replete with exclamation marks ! We'll all be rooned ! Move to higher ground ! Stock up on cartons of baked beans and store any spare water ! Sterilise your kids ! There's nothing we can do !

That's it, I think I've used up my exclamation-mark quota for 24 hours :(

All great fun :)

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Belly,

Two 'highest maximums' today, and no 'lowest minimums', for the past twelve years, out of the 162 years of readings. So that brings yesterday's reading on no 'highest maximums' back into line with the average of one per day. i.e., one 'maximum' reading out of the eight capital cities over the past twelve years.

Something is weird about Darwin's readings - the hottest and coldest days seem to always have been back in the time between 1880 and 1910. One would have expected that, as Darwin grew from a sleepy town into a mega-metropolis, the heat island effect would kick in, and there would be some 'highest maximums' in more recent years. As industry develops there, and as population (with its A-C demands) grows, we'll have to wait and see.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Loudmouth,

I have been busy so I have only just realised in your conversation with Belly you did address me.

“Csteele, Models are great, aren't they ? But out in the real world, if I can drag you back into that for a moment, let's see if I've got this right: temperatures have risen about 0.7 degrees C in sixty years, and sea-levels have risen two inches or 5 cm in a century.”

Let's say that instead of 5cm in a century it was twice, or even four times that, and the rate was evidently accelerating. I'm wondering at what stage would you get concerned? Does it really have to be 10 times?

What number gets your attention or would you just remain flippant whatever it was?

Dear Poirot,

Sorry about the closing credits coming up so soon. I'm afraid an actor's dispute was the cause, they can be such prima donnas.

Did you have a favourite scene?

Hi csteele,

I've thought long and hard about this - and I'd have to say, poignant as it was, the part where the four frogs jumped into the pot of cold water was the most moving. That they seemed not to have the f[r]oggiest idea that chef Antoine had lit the gas beneath them, was almost heartbreaking.

And they just sat there dreaming of lilly-pads while slowly fricasseeing.

(Just as well humans aren't that dumb)

Hi CSteele,

Yes, there certainly is some sort of global warming, probably caused by excess carbon dioxide and methane and other gases released int othe atmosphere by the industrial proceses of capitalism, and by our consumerist practises. The two questions are:

* by how much ?

and

* what can governments do, what and are governments doing, about it ?

I don't see the sense of exaggerating the one, and denying the possibilities of the other. Yes, there is warming, and sea-level rise, nothing huge or worth worrying about IF governments implement the most appropriate policies to reduce emissions, and encourage renewable-energy production, and implement those policies on a massive scale.

For example, in Australia, the government could levy a tax on emission-production companies - a tax that they could expressly NOT pass on to consumers - and use that revenue SOLELY to carry out research and technological development into the most appropriate means "to reduce emissions, and encourage renewable-energy production, and implement those policies on a massive scale." Not necessarily a large tax, not one which requires some sort of return to consumers and the initiation of yet another huge bureaucracy to police it. It could be as little a 1 % of companies' profits.

The government could invest other funds in massive and century-long tree-planting projects especially in the North, where rainfall is supposed to be increasing, using the unemployed as a sort of Green National Service program - in fact, much of the funding for this could be transferred directly from the unemployment benefits budget.

I'm sure that many of the supporters of the Greens would be happy to volunteer their labour to such a project -a year here, a year there :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Thank you for your reply.

It appears we differ only in the degree of threat we perceive and the methods we consider are needed to address that threat, and even there I would find areas of agreement.

Therefore no case to answer your honour.

Just as an aside, I think you might find the current accepted figure for sea level rise over the last century was 1.5mm/yr which is 15cm. That is three times the value you stated in your question to me.

Over or under hyping is something both sides should be at pains to avoid.

Dear Poirot,

Indeed that was a good one however my favourite was the scene of the Emperor with no Clothes. When will these has been actors realise they need to read the script before they turn up? The day of the shoot is not the time to learn there will be full frontal naked shots. Even if it was an accident I do think the high dudgeon of the actor involved translated very well to the screen. Luckily for him it has been warmed than normal or it may have been even more embarrassing. Perhaps it was written in the stars.

Loudmouth, there no point in talking sense & logic to Steely. I've tried that & it didn't work. We've all tried that & it hasn't worked.

You suggested what should be done with the tax money. So did I on pages 13 & 20.
You suggested that because of the change that trees could be planted in the North. So did I. Pages 21 & 27.
I submitted a list of Questions which went unanswered.
Steelys refusal to investigate alternate views. Pages 19 & 34.

I found a problem with some people who know that they are wrong. They tend to cling closer to their beliefs & ravage those that don't hold their view.

Steely, you had better have a look at this.

http://news.yahoo.com/climate-scientists-solved-riddle-rising-sea-172928909.html

"...we differ only in the degree of threat we perceive..."

Priceless, I'm still laughing, congratulations.

Dear WmTrevor,

Thank you.

More to follow hopefully.

Hi Belly,

One 'lowest minimum' in today's paper, Perth in 2011, but no 'highest maximums' over the last twelve years. Very disappointing :(

Hi C.Steele,

Jayb's referred article explains much of the six-inches sea-level rise over the past century, it's a valuable read.

Okay, six inches in a century. As long as we can persuade governments to do nothing, and taking high-exponential growth into account, we may be on track for general sea-level rise of somewhere between six inches and three feet (sorry, I haven't caught up with metric yet) over the next century.

And presumably, IF governments do do something about it all, then sea-level rise might be anywhere between zero and what ? a foot ?

That's it ?

Since the last big Ice Age, 15,000 years ago, sea-levels have risen by 150 feet, a foot every century on average.

What can we do about sea-level rise, at least in those parts of the world where it is occurring ? Perhaps like the Dutch, wherever sea-level rise is occurring, governments could get stuck into very long-term dike-building ?

Still, as you might suggest, the role of academics and philosophers is not to change the world but to criticise it. But we can only keep doing that if nothing changes, if nobody else does anything. But as Jayb has pointed out, many of us here have made suggestions and many governments are starting to introduce counter-measures.

So we can either carefully monitor what may be working, and adjust and improve our measures, or we can get jobs in academia and sit back sit back and bitch about the evils of the capitalist-consumerist world, and hope that it all goes to Hell. The ball's in our court.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

"...or we can get jobs in academia and sit back and bitch about the evils of the capitalist-consumerist world, and hope it all goes to Hell..."

That's interesting - you are one of the loudest advocates for university education for indigenous people, as if it's the chute of liberation from entrenched ignorance. Now you criticise it as merely a vessel only suitable for those who would bitch and not act.

Btw, are you familiar with the term "tipping point"?

Dear Loudmouth,

So the scope and therefore one would assume the threat of sea level rises is three times your original assessment. Does that fact adjust any of your thinking? If not at what point would it?

I am a little curious as to your propensity to under quote figures. You claim Jayb's article is a “valuable read' but say “we may be on track for general sea-level rise of somewhere between six inches and three feet”.

Yet the article specifically refers to a “study published last year by the Oslo-based Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Project (AMAP) said sea levels would rise, on current melting trends, by 90 cms to 1.6 metres (3.0 to 5.3 feet) by 2100.”

Should we take heart from the fact the under quoting was only a factor of two on this occasion?

Hi Poirot,

Well, not every Indigenous graduate will become an academic, I hope, judging by the record of Indigenous academics so far. The best hope for graduates is to get out into the mainstream economy, preferably the private economy, and stay the hell away from academics.

Actually, the best thing that could happen to Indigenous academics is that they are told to get out and find jobs in the real world, helping their people instead of feathering their own nests, beavering away on meaningless 'Indigenous research' in between meaningless conferences.

Yes, 'tipping point', I think often about a coming tipping point in Indigenous graduate numbers, at which point somebody, even in the deep recesses of policy-making, will take note of the stats and exclaim 'Sh!t! This thing is a goer !' And more importantly, I think about that point where Indigenous graduates of all sorts really do start to make an impact on the Aboriginal community. I fervently hope that it can occur during this decade.

As well, I look for signs that there is a sort of 'tipping point' in Indigenous men's attitude to education, when they say amongst themselves 'Hey, the women are doing pretty well, we'd better get our @rses into gear to try to catch up with them.' Live in hope, I suppose.

Thanks for your concern, Poirot.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi C.Steele,

Three times ? No, not really: I asked about a two-inch rise in sixty years, and the data in Jayb's article seems to indicate a four-inch rise in a century from thermal expansion and ice-shelf melting, plus a two-inch rise from extra loss of fresh-water from rivers to the sea from human extraction and evaporation from crop-lands, etc.

So yes, a two-inch rise in sixty years from actual human-induced global warming. Okay, 2.4 inches.

Instead of models, from some mob in Sweden or somewhere, is there any chance of actually measuring sea-level rise as it is happening, or as it has happened over the last century or so - let's say, from all the measuring stations around Australia ? Taking land-rise into account along the east coast, and subduction of the Australian Plate under the Pacific Plate (and therefore apparent sea-level rise) in the Torres Strait ?

And what can we do about it ? Unless, that is, you are happy to sit back and whinge ? After all, it's not your fault, is it ? So it's not really your problem, it's ours ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Thank you, I'm happier with the correction/qualification, and well done with doing it so timely. There are others on this thread who could use some lessons.

You are right though, modelling can be fraught. You will note the study says;

"Together, unsustainable groundwater use, artificial reservoir water impoundment, climate-driven change in terrestrial water storage and the loss of water from closed basins have contributed a sea-level rise of 0.77mm (0.031 inches) per year between 1961 and 2003, about 42 percent of the observed sea-level rise,"

Yet surly impoundment should have a negative contribution to sea level rises.

“By reconstructing the history of water impoundment in the world's artificial reservoirs, we show that a total of approximately 10,800 cubic kilometers of water has been impounded on land to date, reducing the magnitude of global sea level (GSL) rise by -30.0 millimeters, at an average rate of -0.55 millimeters per year during the past half century.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18339903

Well we could throw all those models away and look at the actual data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

This graph taken from data from “the change in annually averaged sea level at 23 geologically stable tide gauge sites with long-term records as selected by Douglas (1997). The thick dark line is a three-year moving average of the instrumental records. This data indicates a sea level rise of ~18.5 cm from 1900-2000.”

You have yet to give me the level at which you would become uncomfortable.