The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A climate catastrophe or a carbon agenda? > Comments

A climate catastrophe or a carbon agenda? : Comments

By Ian Read, published 1/4/2010

The climate change debate does not follow the principles of scepticism, repeated independent measurement and analysis, or open communication.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Ever since the end of World War II, Western governments have been looking for new ways to keep their increasingly affluent and well-educated populations docile and obedient. The Cold War worked for a while; then the terrorism threat; now global warming is the new stick to wave over our heads. Unfortunately each of these has less and less effect as more and more bright people stand up to show how idiotic it is. The Internet in particular has made it far more difficult to fool large numbers of people for any length of time: no wonder Senator Conroy wants to put a stop to it!

Hopefully one day we will reach the point where governments no longer feel they have to maintain power through fear and can get elected on the basis of rational decision-making. But we have a long, long way to go.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 1 April 2010 12:02:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Scientific method, like good journalism, is founded on scepticism, repeated independent measurement and analysis, and open communication. '

Science and journalism have failed then. Of late science has been founded on idiotic dogma being used to line the pockets of the High Priests. Journalism (especially among our national broadcasters) are so politically slanted that the word truth is very foreign indeed. Not surprising since we have adopted moral relativism on an ever increasing basis.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 1 April 2010 12:37:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IS THIS TRUE about the CPRS 2009 Exposure Bill?

< Little wonder then that Australia’s Climate Change and Water Minister, Penny Wong, included in her CPRS 2009 Exposure Bill the following clauses that cut into the heart of many centuries of law and jurisprudence: for anyone suspected of emitting too much carbon their right to silence is abolished (clause 311-3), their right not to incriminate themselves is abolished (clause 300-1) and the onus of proof is reversed so that a citizen suspected of this crime will also need to prove they are innocent instead of the government proving they are guilty (clause 336-3). These sections of the CPRS bill follow a precedent set by the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority Bill, which removes the right to privacy and that the government may pass on private information about Australian citizens to practically anyone it wants, including foreign governments (clause 48-1(r)), and the United Nations (clause 48-1(s)) . . Ian Read >

There are so many untruths told around this topic, and so many vested interests, the ordinary person does not know what is true and what is not.
We look around us and see so much of what we are doing, that we cannot help but think we are changing the world. But who do we believe about anything else?

So, are Ian Read's statements about this Bill true?
Posted by ozideas, Thursday, 1 April 2010 1:47:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ozideas - this seems to be true, here's a link to a document from the Lavoisier group, saying the same thing and there are many examples on the web of similar to this, I just found this most convenient.

"Further very serious inroads into the rule of law occur in clause 300-1 where the right to silence is abolished, and the right not to incriminate oneself is not allowed. The onus of proof is reversed in clause 336-3 and privacy laws are set aside since The Authority has the right to pass on private information to practically anyone, including the UN and foreign governments (clause 48-1)."

With more detail on other exciting features our future under this new regulatory scheme has for us. http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/backtothe19C.pdf

I sure hope all the AGW believers are happy with the way the ALP government is reducing our rights, the same ones people I'm sure who thought under PM Howard's government we had lost our rights.

If they get this through, why not just abolish these "rights" in all Australian law, clearly they have a "mandate", don't they?

Didn't you all want Kyoto, and further, this would show the rest of the world how Australia will lead in taking away their citizen's rights for a tax system.

We're number one, yay!

This is similar to the stuff the UN tried to get past everyone at Copenhagen, fortunately Lord Monckton blew the whistle on that - say what you like about him, at least he was paying attention.
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 1 April 2010 2:33:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The simple fact is that there is no scientific basis for asserting that human emissions have any significance in global warming.

The presentation of global warming has been disingenuous and corrupt, from the start, when the false “consensus” was proclaimed and viciously pursued.

Just one example was the ridiculous article by Naiomi Oreskes, purporting to be a study of climate change studies, and declaring that the majority of scientists supported anthropogenic global warming.

This was untrue, and Benny Pieser demonstrated it to be untrue. His article was removed from Wikipedia, where Oreskes study appeared. A false statement was posted that Pieser had withdrawn and apologised. Wikipedia management did this, not independent authors. This was an early indication to me of the corrupt approach of those advocating AGW.

I always take the proffering of Wikipedia as an authority to be an indication of support for fraud. The purpose of pushing these lies is to set up carbon markets, to trade in carbon credits, which will do nothing, except enrich those who produce the fraudulent credits.

The proposal is a non solution to a problem which does not exist.

The preponderance of reputable science shows that human emissions are of no significance to global warming. The nonsense emanates from the Hadley miscreants, whose emails demonstrate their fraudulent behaviour quite clearly.

If someone disputes this, then put up the scientific study which shows otherwise. The IPCC cannot, or they would not rely on an unscientific, “very likely”, to support the edifice of lies.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 1 April 2010 5:21:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the author is just peddling more climate science denial. Doubt, denial and delay are what this article is about. The denialists have failed to show the science is wrong but they keep on saying it is. We can't afford the real costs of failing to act on the best knowledge we have. Sure Australian Labor is about as sincere as Abbott - ie not really at all when there's coal and gas to sell. You can always find some stupidity and inconsistency in the policies of Party's that don't really want to be the ones to actually come up with effective action but it's going to hurt us all badly if they and we fail to deal with this with the seriousness it deserves.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Thursday, 1 April 2010 5:26:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You know Amicus, it would be disturbing to genuine 'agnostics' when someone links or parrots right wing think tanks - the Lavoisier Group - or Heartland Institute, or Cato, or Marshall, or Tech Central Station ... or anyone, add your own.

It demonstrates that those that do are only out to spruik right wing propaganda. I was hoping you were above that.

Aside: It’s the same with right wing media shock-jocks; aka Andrew Bolt - or Piers Akerman, or Miranda Devine ... or anyone, add your own.

You should understand that science is above politics (and religion) – but when you do this yourself, well ... it belies an agenda (or rose coloured glasses) - whether you believe it, or whether you don't.

Amicus, the vast majority of scientists are straight shooters - politics (and religion) don’t compromise their science, despite what some people may want to believe. A scientist’s integrity must be beyond reproach, otherwise their whole reason for being is null, it is void - their career would be finished.

I respect genuine 'contrarian' scientists' research - however, some have backed themselves into a corner - Plimer and Carter come readily to mind, particularly after emboldening the 'Lord' Monckton - notwithstanding they are respected longstanding 'ambassadors' of the Lavoisier Group.

So called ‘sceptics’ of AGW may pounce on this, they will be wrong. If there is incontrovertible science that dispels human activity significantly influencing climate, it would have been found, analysed, reviewed and substantiated – it hasn’t.

You talk of AGW believers and the ALP (further demonstrating a belief in an ideological agenda) but I am saddened that you don’t understand that politicians (and countries) all over the world, from whatever persuasion, are having a stoush, not about the science, but ... what, when and how to do something about adapttion and mitigation.

Some people will never acknowledge that we (humanity) can influence the Earth's climate. But we're 7 billion strong (getting bigger) with a ravenous and rapacious desire for increased energy - primarily dependent on fossil fuels. This does not bode well, whatever you may think.
Posted by qanda, Thursday, 1 April 2010 11:03:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your interpretation of the CPRS clauses is entirely incorrect. The CPRS does not abolish the right to avoid incrimination. Like many laws, it doesn't allow you to withhold documents that might incriminate you. A very different reality to the spin you try and give. Similarly, the CPRS does not abolish the right to silence - it requires compliance with an order to produce documents. Not exactly revolutionary. And your claim regarding presumption of innocence seems completely fabricated - section 336 has nothing to do with your claim. Further, your reliance on a bill that never passed as 'precedent' is just silly - as is your interpretation of the clauses that you raise. It's just shoddy work. The irony of course is that you claim the IPCC report is alarmist while your fabrications constitute reason. In over 3000 pages 2 real mistakes have been found in the 2007 IPCC report. You have at least 4 in one paragraph
Posted by next, Thursday, 1 April 2010 11:38:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
qanda, your scolding aside, should I get my political information at left wing think tanks then?

Is your opinion, a right wing think tank, " must be wrong", because its a right wing think tank (I hadn't heard of Lavoisier before, I don't follow these things all that enthusiastically)

In your agnostic or skeptical role, surely you consider all information?

Mentioning Lord Monckton upsets some people, it was in context though.

I have reacted to what appears to be an analysis of a legislative proposal, drawn up by a minister, a lawyer, and other lawyers.

Why?

I know from some other work I have done that the Dept of Climate Change is hiring investigators, lots, that may have slowed, this was July last. Hiring ex-police and other investigators, they told me they will have right of entry into businesses and eventually this will extend into homes, with "extraordinary powers".

Now that has to be backed up by legislation, or they would not be able to do their jobs.

I work in the investigative/intelligence world, lets leave it at that. These people were very casually talking about their expected future role.

So when I saw the references above, it all made sense.

Are you of the opinion these clauses do not exist?

Do you think the references are wrong?

If true, are you happy with these sort of powers being given to a new government department, set up to further regulate the citizens?

These references were probably why the government was in such a hurry to get this bill through last year, Turnbull was given a week or so to get it passed - PM Rudd and Minister Wong were apoplectic at the time and scathing in any comments they made about any questioning or opposition.

As luck would have it, Turnbull got rolled and Tony Abbott got up - we've probably dodged a bullet.

No wonder the ALP applied so much pressure and used science as a political tool, did they not?

So science aside, this is worrying when governments behave like this.

Would you agree?

TBC
Posted by Amicus, Friday, 2 April 2010 3:05:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
qanda II, ok now on the science side.

I do see many people mix the science and politics of AGW readily, the government and their minions CSIRO, BOM, ABC and also IPCC and UN etc do it all the time. Though right now the CSIRO is trying to extricate itself from the cheerleading it has previously been famous for.

That seems to be fine, unless you reference a right wing think tank evidently - that seems less than objective, but let's move on.

"You talk of AGW believers and the ALP (further demonstrating a belief in an ideological agenda)" yes and an environmental activist agenda at that, as it can justify new laws and taxes, so of course it is attractive to the ALP.

"Some people will never acknowledge that we (humanity) can influence the Earth's climate." How unfortunate this is. I don't deny that mankind changes the climate, after all clear felling millions of acres in Australia to "improve" the land has to have some effect surely.

I do have a problem though, as you know, with the whole "CO2 is the culprit" stance though, and the attraction to controlling climate by reducing CO2.

There are so many things we could do to improve our interaction with the planet, but what has big science come up with - CO2.

To most people, the land clearing, river and water use are irrelevant to climate change, because they know from the media, government and scientists that it is CO2.

All we have to do is reduce CO2 and everything is fine. So we'll fine people, even jail them for producing too much CO2, we'll have a CO2 police force.

The problem will be solved, it's CO2, it's evil corporations, it's fossil fuel.

So keep clearing land, doing those other things that we know have some effect, but it will be OK, we know if we control CO2, we control the climate - what temperature would you like?

The message is wrong. Telling people they can offset, thus reducing involvement is wrong. We need a holistic approach, but we won't get it.
Posted by Amicus, Friday, 2 April 2010 3:26:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So many high falutin words in this article when all the author needed to do was state that he was a climate change denier and then put his spin on the facts.He might have got a couple of paragraphs out of that.
Posted by Manorina, Friday, 2 April 2010 8:02:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ken

The climate-science carbon-dioxide alarmism produced by those ‘expert scientists’ and disseminated by the news media is flawed, simply and firstly, because of their deliberate denial of all the real environmental problems from deforestation and the big paddock agribusiness that follows. To simply attach all problems to greenhouse gases while deforestation goes on unabated is absurd. Deforestation is causing drought, higher temperatures and degradation in the soils of the world – so it is impossible then to attribute all blame to carbon dioxide causing AGW. Deforestation and big paddock agribusiness are causing erosion of soil, compaction of soil, depletion of soil structure, depletion of soil fertility and release of greenhouse gases from those soils. In the news media there is scant mention of how soils wash into waterways, lakes, rivers and sea. There is no debate over the lack of media ethics in ignoring salinity, mercury, strontium 90, lead, zinc, toxicity from degrading pesticides and fertilisers becoming oestrogenic mimickers and so causing sterility in all sexually producing vertebrates including humans, no mention of the increase in nuclear reactors since climate change became an issue, no mention of the radioactive waste dumped in the seas by the Italian Mafia and others, no mention of the increasing mechanisation in deforestation and so increasing the rate of deforestation and drought and how most of these problems are now attributed in propaganda to CO2 AGW. There is no mention of all the indigenous people locked out of their forests as these forests are now offset carbon sinks to rich nations and big business, no mention of the news media ethics of denying all these old and long acknowledged environmental degraders. No mention of the new health issues in genetically modified organisms, no mention of the lucrative carbon cap and trade bubble that will serve Goldman and Sachs and other big banks, investors and their directors, and all this will cause another huge economic downturn if not a depression when the bubble bursts.
Posted by davida, Friday, 2 April 2010 3:26:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ian Read is 100% correct.The debate has been anything but open or fair.Sceptics are equated to halucaust deniars and true analyisis by the broard spectrum of scientists and public debate, has been shut down.

The real agenda is another pyramid ponzy scheme of C02 that is both our source of energy and life itself.Tax that and you control the planet.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 3 April 2010 8:26:37 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davida in one sentence:
>> To simply attach all problems to greenhouse gases while deforestation goes on unabated is absurd. <<

Davida in the next sentence:
>> Deforestation and big paddock agribusiness are causing ... release of greenhouse gases from those soils. <<

Is there not some self-contradiction here?
Posted by Rapscallion, Sunday, 4 April 2010 12:38:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This very poor article is tiresome in its predictability, merely regurgitating all the canards of the denialists - Manorina is right.

It starts off sounding almost reasonable but descends inexorably into the usual denialist memes:
>> alarmist findings... politicising the scientific process... will brook no dissension... silencing sceptics... ad hominem attacks... unsubstaniated hypothesis... belief, and adherance to that belief. <<

You know you are reading just another fabulously predictable denialist diatribe when the author starts referring to gates:
>> Climategate... Glaciergate... Amazongate... Disastergate <<
A favourite media tool - when a word is attached glibly to the suffix 'gate' you know there is a 'frame' going on. Here, there is an implicit suggestion of some universal understanding of deception, cover-up, some sort of jiggery pokery on the same scale as the original Watergate; a conjured word that merely has to be repeated in order for the reader to understand all there is to know about some supposedly exposed conspiracy.

The last paragraph tellingly resorts to using the denialists' favourite 'frame' when they want to sound reasonable - the idea that there is a 'debate':
>> The AGW debate does not follow these principles. <<
A pathetically wrong assertion.

It has to be said: the usual rants here by denialists show them to be fools finding confirmation bias in Read's article. I suggest they read The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Weart at:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
There, they'll find that the role of greenhouse gases was already understood in the 1820s (Joseph Fourier) and by 1896 the Swede Arrhenius was able to calculate that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere would raise temperatures by 5 to 6 deg. But all of that real science is beyond the likes of Ian Read and the other conspiracy theorists here.
Posted by Rapscallion, Sunday, 4 April 2010 1:17:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The old "vorld order" hangs on by the skin of its breeches, clinging desperately to the top of the greasy totem pole.

Corporations, big polluters and sycophantic governments took over and corrupted the Environmental Protection Authorities when they were first legislated in the West in the early 70s.

Climate change aside, do we have yet another author who is insidiously recommending we continue contaminating rivers, oceans, air, crops, soil, groundwater, animal and human health with fossil fuel carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic chemicals and which also burn to CO2? Is the author insidiously recommending that the corporate cowboys and big polluters continue wiping out the biosphere where much of it has reached a tipping point? If he’s objecting to the CPRS, what alternative solution does he suggest for cleaning up the planet?

Environmental Protection Act:

“Discharge of waste in circumstances in which it is likely to cause pollution: 1) A person who intentionally or with criminal negligence in any position from which the waste could reasonably be expected to gain access to any portion of the environment and be likely to result in pollution, commits an offence.

“An Act to provide for an Environmental Protection Authority, for the prevention, control and abatement of environmental pollution, for the conservation, preservation, protection, enhancement and management of the environment.”

Environmental denialism is a 40 year old industry and an organized campaign in climate denialism that dates back 20 years, when the fossil fuel industry first formed a lobbying apparatus to stifle action on global warming, hence environmental protection.

The think tanks at the forefront of challenging the science of warming -- such as the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) et al receive a majority of their climate-related funds from a raft of utility, coal, oil and car interests that are all big polluters. What a coincidence and they’ve heaps of blood money.

The recent shenanigans of the denial industry's main target from the get-go, was to discredit the IPCC so they can continue bludging off the environment.

Environmental carnage or environmental protection? Your choice, your destiny.
Posted by Protagoras, Sunday, 4 April 2010 9:43:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent article Ian.

One should address the media element.

Btw: A reduction in bushfires is a great start which from what I have observed in Australia and the States has intensified dramatically over the past 15 years. Common sense dictates that bushfire escalation in the States Canada and here has occurred in the same period/timeframe as I noticed climate change here back in the mid 90's. Along with other fuels emitted into the atmosphere that many environmental scientists know of course contribute to climate change.

My view has always been that if insufficient funding is allocated to the US, Canadian and Australian governments for firefighting equipment, including many more waterbombing planes, strategies and firefighting plans devised and implemented; our global warming for this planet will continue and worsen beyond any hope.

I do not believe it is too late as yet IF tougher laws and penalties are introduced to deal with firebugs arsonists and people throwing cigarettes out windows on highways and countryside areas. People causing fires despite the education and warnings.

A greater population and not nature [ie lightning strikes and weather conditions] causes the majority of bushfires in my opinion here and nothing much done to address these emissions.

Keep sending up the toxins into the atmosphere via bushfires and nothing will remain of the layers! Simplified.

Tell the hobby farmer who welds on a 40 degree day with 70-90kmh hot winds fanning the sparks into the paddocks or kids lighting fires for a laugh on hot windy days not knowing that its their future about to go under.

Bushfire and Town fire emissions are way out of hand and many countries are underestimating the damage done already.
Posted by we are unique, Monday, 5 April 2010 2:04:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
we are unique,
your comment suggests you blame global warming on bush-fires, but not solely. Interestingly, Ian Read didn't use the word 'fire' once in his article.

>> Common sense dictates that bushfire escalation in the States Canada and here has occurred in the same period/timeframe as I noticed climate change here back in the mid 90's. Along with other fuels emitted into the atmosphere that many environmental scientists know of course contribute to climate change. <<

So you noticed some sort of correlation (might you have got the cause-effect round the wrong way?), admit happily that emissions cause climate change, but blithely state that it's an 'Excellent article, Ian'?

Have you missed something here? Such as the substance of the article, ludicrous as it may be?

Uniquely confusing.
Posted by Rapscallion, Monday, 5 April 2010 11:41:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rapscallion - quibble, quibble, quibble – that’s what you climate scientists, real pollution deniers and alarmists have learnt to do in your climate studies and post-modern, qualitative policy making culture - which is simply pathological. This modus operandi (post-normal science) can be traced back to the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia, where in developing policy to justify a global carbon cap and trade finance system, evaluative analysis and critique used in the humanities has been harnessed. The reality however, is that climate modelling is flawed in its simple failing to fully acknowledge the massive and unknown physical effects on climate, temperature, water cycle, and everything, that deforestation is causing. With such unknown variability caused by the physical effects of deforestation, any data collection and modelling of greenhouse gas damage is rendered insignificant. Further, the computer modelling of climate science has not fully acknowledged the role the oceans play in absorbing and belching greenhouse gases as they roll over in immensely complex and variable cycles. This belching in particular is equal to or greater in volume than all of the fossil fuel burning and agriculture greenhouse gases combined in a given time frame. What difference will a carbon dioxide emissions trading reduction scheme make, especially in relatively tiny countries like Australia and the United Kingdom? Science can only make truthful and accurate conclusions when variables are limited and known. The long term effects of deforestation are unknown as it goes on unabated, as it has increasingly for thousands of years.
Posted by davida, Monday, 5 April 2010 2:38:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
davida says:

>> The long term effects of deforestation are unknown as it goes on unabated, as it has increasingly for thousands of years. <<

Who's arguing in favour of deforestation?
The long term effects are surely already being felt if it's been going on for such epochal periods as you say, but in fact it is possible or even likely that deforestation increases the albedo or reflectivity of the earth's surface and thus has a cooling effect. So if we want to cool the earth, let's destroy all the forests? No, but it's wrong to assert that this effect has not been taken into a consideration of radiative forcings. It doesn't explain the recent unprecedented rate of warming. You say, 'Rapscallion - quibble, quibble, quibble', but I don't know what on earth you are quibbling about. Perhaps my reaction to we are unique's comment? He/she didn't mention deforestation, and bushfires hardly equal deforestation. So...?

Your comment contains the usual denialists' assertions about climate science and the things you insist the scientists ignore; but they don't. And this...

>> Further, the computer modelling of climate science has not fully acknowledged the role the oceans play in absorbing and belching greenhouse gases as they roll over in immensely complex and variable cycles. <<

... is incorrect, notwithstanding the intestinal imagery. And you have left out the fact that the 'belching' cycles are immensely long when it comes to the transfer of CO2 to the lower depths of the ocean, in the range of 500 to 1000 years - that's your 'given time frame'. It's the inability of the upper regions of the ocean to absorb the extra CO2 that is one of the main concerns. /cont...
Posted by Rapscallion, Monday, 5 April 2010 7:05:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This, from davida...

>> What difference will a carbon dioxide emissions trading reduction scheme make, especially in relatively tiny countries like Australia and the United Kingdom? <<

... I partially agree with. The ETR scheme is just smoke and mirrors, no doubt about it. But implicit in your statement is an acceptance of AGW. A better system would be something like a straight carbon tax. The point about 'tiny countries' has been dealt with over and over; this argument is pathetically weak (assuming the adoption of a more effective scheme than ETR) - after all, why not include in your list other 'relatively tiny' countries like France, Canada, Iran, South Africa and so on, whose emissions are in range of ours or the UK's? Where do you stop? In terms of absolute levels the UK is 8th and Australia 16th; just where do YOU draw the line between relatively large and tiny? Even among the industrialised countries Australia's total emissions are not far below those of countries like South Korea and Italy. No point in their cutting emissions either?

Your phrase 'real pollution deniers' has an ironic ring, of course, but am I denying pollution of any kind? Put your straw men away. Come on, what you really mean is that CO2 is not 'real pollution'! It's a natural trace element, plants need it and we breathe it out, blah, blah, blah. As I said earlier, read The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Weart at:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
Posted by Rapscallion, Monday, 5 April 2010 7:07:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the quotes from Ian Read's excellent article: "This idea of a furtherance of an agenda is reinforced by Michael Hulme, the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and a co-ordinating lead author for the chapter on “Climate Scenario Development” (3rd IPCC Report), in his book, Why We Disagree About Climate Change, in which he states, “The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.”

My contributing comment to the OLO Forum was: Keep sending up the toxins into the atmosphere via bushfires and nothing will remain of the layers! Simplified.

If I wish to raise some lateral thinking points Rapscallion that in actual fact relate to global warming and the article Ian Read has contributed I will continue to do so regardless of your objections as to whether or not I am not sticking to an author's points.

Enjoy your week
Posted by we are unique, Monday, 5 April 2010 11:08:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Solve our water problem first , when we have the water then we can attack the CO2 problem by simply growing Trees.

We need our Government to encourage our People to be inventive in the area of Desalination of Seawater using Solar Evaporator's and using Condensers powered by forcefully evaporating Water(as a refrigerant) by reducing Atmospheric pressure (Vacuum) thereby chilling the water vapor by Latent Heat of Evaporation to recover the product (water vapor) from the Solar Evaporator.
No one can say this proposal will not work because this is exactly what happens in nature where the "Condensate is called Rain".

Tree's from Adelaide to Perth anyone ?
Posted by ShazBaz001, Tuesday, 6 April 2010 7:34:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi ShazBaz,

The north is supposed to be getting more rain, due to AGW. So why not solve two or three problems in one go, over the next hundred years or so, and pay able-bodied Aboriginal people from remote communities across the entire north, from Cairns and Croydon across to Broome, (a) to plant suitable tree species by the billions, preferably building and furniture timber (NOT for firewood) and (b) to put in the necessary infrastructure - small dams and reservoirs, pipelines, subsidiary piping systems, roads, (and later, saw-mills) and so on. There would be plenty of work for everybody up there and forever more, at that rate.

On drip-irrigation, those trees could be harvestable (and replaceable) in thirty or forty years, which gives the Aboriginal people there time to train up a whole generation of sawmill operators, machinery operators and drivers, managers, cabinet-makers, builders and so on.

With the extra watering sources, communities could also, obviously, be setting up their own vegetable gardens (and chook yards, etc.) to feed their populations with good fresh food, not the fast-food crap that is now dished out in remote Aboriginal communities.

In this way:

* AGW - down;

* Aboriginal unemployment - down;

* Aboriginal health - up.

Win - win - win !

Now, how to lead the horse to water ?

Joe Lane
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 6 April 2010 11:11:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia is coming dead last among the OECD countries for its pathetic performance in CO2 mitigation.

Here's a small sample why:

1. In 2006, the NSW Government presented the operators of a coal-fired power station, Delta Electricity, with a "green globe" award for water recycling at a gala event at Parliament House, hosted by the former energy minister Joe Tripodi.

Well at least the law was enforced when red-faced recipient, Delta had to pay a pollutant fee of $397,000 for releasing 6500 tonnes of salt into the water the following year. Looking good huh and a sure way to gag the "alarmists."

Last year, independent tests on the water discharged by Delta Electricity found high levels of heavy metals.

Yet the company is not required to measure many of the toxic substances identified, and no limits are imposed on many of the metals. Well you know - the economy and all that stuff!

2. The Federal Government's national pollutant inventory names chromium VI as the second most hazardous substance on its list of 400 pollutants. Reports reveal that the Camellia peninsula, located near Rosehill Racecourse in NSW is contaminated with Cr VI and is one of the most polluted places in the state. Five companies are scrambling to clean up toxic waste on their sites. Surprise, surprise!

3. The Swan, Canning and Helena Rivers in WA are contaminated with carcinogenic fossil fuel chemicals including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; total petroleum hydrocarbons; polychlorinated biphenyls; organochlorine pesticides; organophosphorus pesticides, herbicides; anionic surfactants and heavy metals. Corporate polluters continue dumping hazards into the rivers and mass mortalities of fish and river dolphins continue - yay - more bludging off the environment by our "big" Australians!

4. Last year, thousands of two-headed fish larvae turned up in the Noosa River in Queensland. None survived. Investigations allegedly identified the pesticide endosulfan and the fungicide carbendazim as responsible for the mortalities.

Ambient air and the troposphere? Gulp!

Polluters rule so polluters don't pay! All that water and not a drop to drink (if you’re prudent!) A “carbon agenda?” You bet - always was, always will be!
Posted by Protagoras, Tuesday, 6 April 2010 12:06:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Imagine that the Age had a report saying "Australia has around
16,000 cases new of rectil cancer annually with about half being due to red meat consumpshion.". I'm guessing a large group
of people would immediately email/write the paper about the
poor spelling and grammar. They would be outraged about slipping
standards but wouldn't notice the bigger mistakes in the
story. Another group would complain that red meat can't
possibly cause cancer of any kind. They would be really
angry also ... and wrong.

A couple of people would realise that the figure is about 4000
too high, but they probably wouldn't write about it, the same
people would probably also realise that 12000 would
include all bowel cancer not just rectal cancer.

My point is that there are mistakes and MISTAKES and many
errors have little bearing on the substance of a report.

In my view, the IPCC AR4 mistakes have been in the
realm of minor and/or embarrassing
inconsistencies, certainly nothing which throws the slightest
doubt on the reality of seriousness of AGW. Considering
the size of the report(s), the level of accuracy has been
astonishing ... too good to be true in fact, and I'll bet
there are many, many errors remaining to be found.

I'm guessing the reason they haven't been found is that
very few people except experts tend
to read things like AR4. And certainly many experts
will think twice about pointing out any errors other than serious
matters of substance given the dishonest way in which climate change deniers have seized on such problems.
This leaves error spotting to the deniers, which is probably
why so few have been found ...

Compare, for example the errors in Ian Plimer's "Heaven and
Earth", Ian Enting's critique is up
to 54 pages, with many of the errors being
matters of substance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_G._Enting).

Plimer was of course at a disadvantage. The pool of potential
knowledgeable proof readers would have been tiny.
Posted by Geoff Russell, Tuesday, 6 April 2010 1:56:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Back into the fray –

Amicus, Friday, 2 April 2010 3:05:34 a.m.

No, it is not my opinion that right-wing think-tanks “must be wrong”. However and in consideration of much information, these neo-conservative and libertarian groups are diametrically opposed to proactive policies and strategies in tackling the issues of ‘climate change’ (whereas left-wing think-tanks generally don't). Indeed, some think-tanks go so far as to actually ‘deny’ human activity can significantly affect climate and most actively promote and lobby against taking any action in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels - hence the term ‘deny-n-delay brigade’.

I think anybody agrees political ideology (left and right) has muddied the waters; that’s why I prefer to take notice of those bodies not so politically aligned (including CSIRO and BOM btw) ... groups like:

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/links/links.php#

But let’s be clear, there is nothing wrong with either the ‘right’ or the ‘left’ adopting more environmentally sustainable policies. It’s just a pity we can’t get bi-partisanship on this issue. It’s also just a pity that Mr Abbott stated he has adopted the strategy of opposing for the sake of being in opposition.

I would agree that wishy-washy compromises (be they in the form of an ETS or cap-n-trade) are ineffectual – I agree with Rapscallion on this, a carbon tax is more effectual. I also agree that ‘off-sets’ are ludicrous. I would further agree that it is ludicrous to ‘reward’ King Coal with subsidies to R&D a pipe-dream - ‘clean coal’ (CC&S). But that is the power of the ‘deny-n-delay brigade’. Am I confident that we can change things? No, but that shouldn’t stop us from trying.

As to the science, I can only suggest you investigate more. For me, I work in and study the stuff ... I only wish it weren’t true.
Posted by qanda, Wednesday, 7 April 2010 3:33:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no scientific basis for the assertion of Anthropogenic global warming.

kwonder has been asked repeatedly to give a scientific basis for the assertion of AGW, and fails to do so because the whole edifice stands on the assertion, by the IPCC, that it is “very likely”. An unscientific basis, but the best that the IPCC can do.

It has been shown that the warming is all accounted from natural sources. kwonder replied to this by sliming the competent, honest scientist, Robert Carter, who participated in the study, and pointed out that there was now absolutely no basis for the assertion of any place for human emissions as a cause for global warming.

A counter study was rushed through, carried out by the Hadley miscreants. This did not stand for long, but the paper which nullified it was stalled by the same publisher which expedited the Hadley paper.

During that time kwonder crowed that the study which showed that natural sources accounted for all global warming had been discounted. Even if it had, there was still no scientific basis for AGW

If kwonder studies in science, as he says, he would have been able to see that the paper by the discredited miscreants was of no substance, and simply more of the attempt to back the AGW fraud.

Geoff Russell’s meandering nonsense gives us a clue as to his disposition, especially his statement about mistakes in the AR4 being few. It is the IPCC Summary which contains the mistakes, and demonstrates that it is not based on the science. There is no assertion in AR4 that human emissions play any part in global warming.

The assertion that it is “very likely” is in the Summary, where all the other IPCC misrepresentations occur.

To refer us to an entry in Wikipedia for a criticism of Plimer’s scholarly work, is an insult to one’s intelligence, as is the rambling nonsense which comprises Enting’s “criticism” of Plimer, which Wikipedia has the temerity to carry.

Backers of the AGW fraud continually cite Wikipedia, and the politicised CSIRO, BoM, and the Hansen manipulated NASA.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 8 April 2010 12:19:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hummph

Nick ... I (and others) have tried - but it is not possible to communicate with someone who shuts their eyes tight while clasping their ears, chanting the same old same old.

One question - have you actually read any of the papers cited in AR4?
Posted by qanda, Thursday, 8 April 2010 7:12:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
qanda, you do describe your self perfectly, in your above post.

I would not be quite so harsh, myself, but you do deserve it.

When are you lot going to realise the jig's up, & it time to find a new rip off.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 8 April 2010 7:30:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
kwonder, when did you post the reference to scientific proof of AGW?

We know the answer. You did not, because there is none.

When are you going to stop asking stupid questions, and answer one sensible one?

Why do we discuss AGW when there is no proof that it exists, and there is scientific proof that the warming comes from natural sources?

Even your fraudulent mates at East Anglia cannot come up with any basis for asserting anthropological global warming.

Their attempt to counter the proof that all warming is from natural sources lasted an extremely short time, although helped by an editor who expedited publication for the frauds, and stalled publication of the straightforward dismissal of their paper.

The Hadley miscreants did themselves more harm than good with their flimsy attempt to dismiss robust, reputable science, that all warming is accounted for, and human emissions have no significance.

You did not help yourself by relying on it in this forum. You really outed yourself on that one, as a backer of poor "science".

Any more posturing non-answers for us kwonder? You cannot tell the truth, and let down the AGW fraudsters, can you?

At least you did not cite Wikipedia this time. A slight glimmer of sense.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 8 April 2010 7:57:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“To refer us to an entry in Wikipedia for a criticism of Plimer’s scholarly work, is an insult to one’s intelligence, as is the rambling nonsense which comprises Enting’s “criticism” of Plimer, which Wikipedia has the temerity to carry.”

Leo Lane – The reviews by Australia’s reputable scientists (and beyond), on Plimer’s fraudulent 'masterpiece’ were all appalling so I believe that’s called a consensus. Those who were duped into purchasing his book are entitled to a refund.

I think it would be better for you to know nothing than for you to spruik what ain’t so.

http://www.aussmc.org/IanPlimerclimatebook.php

http://scienceblips.dailyradar.com/story/an_astronomer_reviews_ian_plimer_s_book_deltoid/
Posted by Protagoras, Thursday, 8 April 2010 10:14:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lois Lane

Rather than embarrass you with physics and maths again, this is simpler for you to understand:

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/2/w9SGw75pVas

It only requires your limited attention span of about 10 minutes.
Posted by qanda, Friday, 9 April 2010 2:30:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagoras

I have read Ian Plimer’s book and understand why it is a best seller in three countries. It answers questions upon which the fraud mongers have misled the public since Gore and his accomplice the IPCC started the disgraceful scam.

I have also read enough of Enting’s so called “criticism” to see that it is nonsense.

You are obviously not a reader, or you would not believe that clowns like Barry Brook, Ian Lowe or Graeme Pearman are anything but lightweight stooges, in this unfortunate saga of misrepresentation by the warmists.

Ian Lowe, you may not know, was the witness for the greenies in the Xstrata case, who had to admit, in the witness box, that he had exaggerated his evidence by a factor of 15 times. If he was not such a joke, he could have been charged with perjury.

But you put him forward, as a viable critic of a competent scientist like Ian Plimer

As for Tim Lambert, he has not to my knowledge ever been right about anything on climate change. In his favour, he was good enough to stand up and make a fool of himself, so that Monckton had a platform for his presentation.

You know nothing, Protagoras, and still assert what is not so.

Find a scientific basis for AGW, and then come back. There is no scientific basis for assigning any significance to human emissions in global warming.

If there were, kwondass would have posted it, instead of limiting himself to sliming people who know better than him. His pretence that he knows physics and maths is laughable, if you have read his posts over the past many months.

He is merely a pusher of dud science.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 9 April 2010 4:45:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lois

>> Find a scientific basis for AGW, and then come back. There is no scientific basis for assigning any significance to human emissions in global warming. <<

You must have missed it:

http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/wg1-ar4.html

You obviously haven't read any of the papers cited in AR4, but prefer instead to put faith in superman.
Posted by qanda, Friday, 9 April 2010 5:19:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see your entire post is ad hominem Leo Lane – no science at all. Got none?

That’s OK since you’ve dirtied things up you might also be deluding yourself. Xstrata is 40-per-cent controlled by Glencore International, the commodities trader that is one of the world's largest and most secretive private companies. What little is known about Glencore isn't pleasant.

Former Glencore/Xstrata big shot, Marc Rich was a wanted criminal in the U.S. Definitely supports the old saying don't ** in your own nest/Switzerland.

Marc Rich’s major brush with notoriety came in 1983 when he fled the United States, having been indicted in federal court of evading more than $48-million in taxes. He was also charged with 51 counts of tax fraud and with running illegal oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis of the late 1970s but the grim raiders are never fussy about doing dirty business with criminals are they?

Last month, the Queensland government launched legal action against Xstrata for contaminating water including the water on two cattle properties downstream and wasn’t it Xstrata who were fined $1.4 million for the deaths of miners at the Gretley coal mines?

Xstrata was prosecuted for breaching its job security commitments as contained in an agreement at a Hunter Valley Coal Plant which resulted in the Company being fined $22,000.

And I hear tell that five Argentinian provinces have suffered negative consequences from the presence of Xstrata’s Alumbrera mine. There have been many breaches in their pipelines, spilling toxic materials into the waters which provides drinking and irrigation water to a large region.

http://www.theargentimes.com/feature/in-the-shadow-of-a-mine-pollution-corruption-and-crime-/

Much more too…… which well and truly vindicates Ian Lowe’s “exaggerations,” one would have to agree (if they're not deluded!)

You omitted to advise that Plimer is a mining executive too and likes to mine lead. Bludging off the environment is an excellent way to make top bucks but there will always be a few sycophants who want a share in the blood money. These are the cowboys who know nothing about the science and must resort to spruiking what ain’t so.
Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 9 April 2010 8:35:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagoras, thanks for your post.

Without your help, I would not have realised that it is OK for lying greenies to give false evidence in Court. Could I trouble you for a reference to the legal basis for this situation?

I did not expect that you would have read Ian Plimer's excellent book, and now that you have given us a sample of your reading, I understand that you never will. It is beyond you, and for some reason this sparks your mindless animosity towards it.

Another irrelevant reference produced by our diligent, and shifty kwondass, pretending that there is a scientific basis for the assertion of AGW.

His reference is about climate models, and as kwondass well knows, the point of the peer reviewed article to which I referred him, recently, is that there is no justification for ascribing the then (2007) unaccounted warming to human emissions.

What he refers us to, is the now discounted "science" upon which our IPCC based its unscientific "very likely" guess on AGW, in 2007, which is now proven to be untenable. I say unscientific, because allocating unaccounted warming to human activity, with no basis to do so, is not science, but wishful thinking, typical of the warmist approach.

There was an excellent summary comparison done, of scientific method with IPCC method, which showed the methods to be almost exactly opposite.

If you keep going backwards, kwondass, with never a forward step, you know whither you will disappear.

Protagoras has clarified the basis of his deranged posts. He obviously has no perception of the topic, but a great urge to spout nonsense.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 9 April 2010 10:41:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane – only the deluded would believe that a small minority with vested interests, who wilfully misread the science and suffer an inability to recognise observed phenomena, could block the views of a large majority.

The fabricated nonsense of denialists is not held in high regard, therefore, the field of climate science will continue to expand and improve, the ongoing corrections will be published and additional research will mitigate the uncertainties. You see reputable scientists do publish their corrections in all disciplines, not just climate science – pseudo-scientists do not.

Recently Stephan Lewandowsky, a Professor at UWA, elaborated on the process of scientific peer review, explaining how it effectively works to exert quality control and to retrospectively self-correct earlier errors.

‘Lewandowsky also looked at the number of peer-reviewed articles published by scientists at UNSW’s Climate Change Research Centre which have supported arguments against anthropogenic global warming since 2007. The results? Zero to the sceptics — out of 110 peer-reviewed articles on climate change.'

Denialists should cease quoting one J D McLean to advance their nonsense because ‘the Journal of Geophysical Research is publishing a devastating rebuttal of McLean's work, authored by a team of nine of the world's leading climate scientists from Japan, the UK, the US, and New Zealand:'

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2858332.htm

The toast of silly old codgers, the catatonic Toad of Toad Hall, is no doubt furiously brandishing his medieval pear of anquish whilst scheming his next attack against the “Nazi youth and bed-wetting minnies” all the while sucking up to Exxon, a shocking recidivist criminal, according to the myriad of writs and court records.

Plimer's fraudulent grab for cash, extends also to a publication on the web more than a decade ago, which remains, in the hope more people will be duped into assisting with his objective to exterminate those who "lie for Jesus":

"The Prof. I.R. Plimer Fighting Fund"
Broken Hill Community Credit Union Ltd (Bank no. 802377), account no. 56679
Broken Hill, NSW, Australia

Herein lies but a tiny example of a corrupt, senile and now desperate Old "Vorld" Order and their indisputable crimes against humanity.
Posted by Protagoras, Saturday, 10 April 2010 12:51:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagoras, you obviously do not understand that any assertion of anthropogenic global warming requires a scientific justification, and such a justification has not been discovered, despite billions being spent in vain efforts to find it.

The argument of the alarmists, now, is that we should not wait for proof, but institute the non solution to the non problem.

Al Gore, in his latest book, says that we should not concern ourselves with facts. He intends to work through religion in the future. He concedes that 60% of global warming is not caused by humans. He probably considers himself only 40% lying, now, but on any logical basis Gore is still the same 100% liar he always was, from the time he put forward CO2 as the cause of warming, in his film, of 35 lies in 90 minutes fame.

kwonder’s putting forward the 2007 AR4, as proof, is pathetic. That was the basis of the IPCC’s weasel worded “very likely”, now shown to be incorrect.

The article to which you refer us does not in any way negate the science which shows the IPCC’s assertion to be incorrect. It attempts to slime one of the authors, but there were four authors, and one of the reviewers said that the science in it was so well established that he wondered why there was any need to publish. There has already been a paper rushed through to counter it, by the frauds at East Anglia. Their paper was shown to be nonsense, by a study which was stalled for as long as possible

We owe a great debt to Ian Plimer, who had the expertise to expose this despicable fraud. Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic, and the only world leader who tells the truth about the AGW fraud, wrote a book exposing it.

He complimented Ian Plimer on his efforts in giving the true scientific base, as well as exposing the UN, IPCC, and various politicians. Reading it once clears the mind. By reading it many times, one becomes educated, about the greatest attempted fraud in history.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 10 April 2010 6:01:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo, your head is buried in a quagmire of ‘denialist’ spin and clap-trap.
You may have heard the term 'ignorance is bliss' – you are an exemplar of that.

________

Protagoras

Have you noticed that Leo does not claim to have read, let alone understood AR4, or any of the scientific papers referenced in it – yet he insists ‘it’ is “dud science”? He has had almost 3 years to do some research into it himself, but no, he is quite content to sit in his armchair and hammer away at any evidence in support of AGW. Instead, he prefers to rely on interpretations from right-wing and neo-con think tanks, the Lavoisier Group a prime example – their existence set up explicitly to distort and misrepresent the empirical evidence.

Leo comes here hand waving Ian Plimer’s anti-scientific ‘Heaven & Earth’ (I’ve read it) from his reclining armchair on high while at the same time, is too lazy to read the primary literature that he says is ‘dud’ science. Voluminous science that is the basis of his anti-science posture. Leo does not have a clue. If Leo does not understand something, he ignores it ... despite the fact that anyone who could pass Google 101 can read and search out the real science themselves. Leo chooses not to because it threatens his blinkered ideological point of view.

Cont’d
Posted by qanda, Saturday, 10 April 2010 9:04:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont’d

Protagoras

Yes, we do have to separate the science from the rubbish churned out by Leo’s super heroes ... be they the likes of Carter, McLean and Plimer, or astroturf groups and those the likes of ‘Lavoisier’ and Co. While giving the public pretense of being on a mission to counter the science represented in over 3000 pages of technical papers, authored and reviewed by over 2500 individual scientists, and countenanced by scores of scientific institutions and international academies of science ... Leo’s super heroes are just plain and simple lobbyists for vested interests that want to, actually must, maintain their power and control over the status quo. So much so that they have to go on road trips with the modern day messiah in the guise of ‘Lord’ Christopher Monckton, in tow with the inimitable Bob Carter and Ian Plimer, with a load of ‘denialist’ bibles for sale in the boot of his car.

Insofar as the Heaven & Earth denialist 'bible' goes, Plimer had ample opportunity to correct the numerous errors in his opus (errors that were pointed out to him by equally numerous scientific peers as you pointed out, and then some) before he had it published overseas. He chose not to, and to many in the scientific community, this was the action of a charlatan who only seemed intent on growing a ‘nest egg’ for his retirement.
Posted by qanda, Saturday, 10 April 2010 9:11:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane - No, you continue to deny scientific reality based on falsehoods and distorted information obtained from right wing economists, ignorant politicians, miners and sideshow geriatrics - all pimping for corporate polluters.

Saying anthropogenic climate change is a myth implies that it is OK to chop down forests, dump crap into the air, sea, and lands, wipe out species (including humans) and generally use the earth as a whipping boy.

That is the real danger of people like you. Linking to Plimer, Monckton and Klaus should be an indictable offence. People here prefer real science and despite your innuendos, they're exceedingly more literate than you.

“Kwondass?” “Kwonder?” I say Leo Lane, your half a sensory neuron is in a Kwondary. Kan I kwoffer you some kwelp?
Posted by Protagoras, Saturday, 10 April 2010 10:06:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I accept the reality of the science, which is that there is no basis for the assertion of anthropogenic global warming.

The denialists are Al Gore, who says we do not need facts to justify an economically crippling trading sceme to solve a problem which does not exist, and the IPCC which sticks to an unscientific guess of "very likely" shown by genuine science to be untenable.

IPCC and Gore were awarded a Nobel Prize for lying, laughably referred to as a "Peace Prize".

Protagoras and Kwondass have both posted baseless, despicable sliming of real science and of people with the temerity to publish the truth about the fraud of AGW.

The scientific basis for proof of AGW, by this pair?

None, just abuse, lies, and denial of science.

I am a realist, they are deniers.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 11 April 2010 12:47:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane

By now, given the volumes of scientific evidence supporting AGW, we should have moved on well into the policy arena. We haven’t. Therefore, I think that, for the most part, you and your super-hero menagerie do not deserve to be treated with anything other but derision and contempt. Why? Because you lot continually trot out the same old guff that has been systematically and effectively rebutted and rebuffed time and time again. You really do act like your heads are in the sand, and your butts pointed to the troposphere, emitting a very potent greenhouse gas.

The issue of climate change finds scientists on the one side who are doing the research and who are in broad agreement over the issues; on the other side there is a hodge-podge assortment of different characters and nefarious groups pushing reprehensible agendas. Their primary agenda, as I see it, is a political one, based on ‘far right’ or neo-conservative ideology - which loathes the role of government in the economy. Real scientists are naturally sceptical, but they accept the burgeoning evidence behind AGW, whereas the other side (aka your super heroes) distorts, twists and misrepresents the empirical data, all in support of a pre-determined worldview, like yours.

It is my opinion that people like you do not deserve to be treated as intellectual equals. You certainly haven’t shown the capacity to even read the primary source material that the IPCC have reported on. However, this is just an opinion site, and I respect your right to present your opinion. Nevertheless, I will not stand back and just wistfully watch your attempt (in your simple ignorance of the science) to subvert the real science by your anti-intellectual posturing.

(Thanks to Jeff)
Posted by qanda, Sunday, 11 April 2010 1:54:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More bluster, kwonder,because you have no science to back the false assertion of AGW.

Referring back to the IPCC is pathetic. I have given you the material showing that the attempt of the IPCC to back up an unsupported opinion, has failed.

Talking about volumes of science is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Just designate one source of the science backing the basis of AGW, which you continually, without any basis, say exists.

All you are able to produce is purported science based on a false, unproven premise. AR4 is irrelevant. It contains no such science, so you raise it as a diversion, from your utter failure.

It is laughable, in your position, to attempt to talk down to me.

You are either confused or dishonest, or you would put forward honest science, to back your assertion. You have completely failed to do so.

Your Climategate fraudsters' "science", attempting to refute the accounting for all global warming from natural sources, did not last the proverbial five minutes. The standards of the Hadley miscreants, in putting their names to "scientific studies" while the evidence of their fraud is on the internet, for all to see, are abysmal.

Your wholehearted backing of them, for the, albeit, short time that it took to prove their study to be nonsense, is on the same level.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 11 April 2010 3:46:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> Just designate one source of the science backing the basis of AGW <<

Svante Arrhenius
Posted by qanda, Sunday, 11 April 2010 6:53:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Qanda - I am not as generous as you. Free speech does not include the right to deliberately deceive and the right to disagree should not include Leo Lane's motive to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

This peer-reviewed paper shows just how liars and science diddlers can peddle un-scientific claptrap and mis-information with impunity and will still be reported uncritically by conservative ideologues in the media. Clearly these ideologues have nothing but contempt for the Australian public and arrogantly believe they can continue treating the them as retards.

http://www.2009jeaconference.au.com/papers.html
Posted by Protagoras, Sunday, 11 April 2010 8:21:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, I know what you mean Protagoras, but what else are you supposed to do on a site like this?

Thanks for the link, the embedded paper (Elaine McKewon)

http://www.2009jeaconference.au.com/documents/pdfs/Elaine_McKEWON.pdf

puts Leo's mindless and ignorant guff in perspective.

"Significantly, the regional papers of News Corp and Fairfax also covered the book (Plimer's 'bible') more favourably than their metro counterparts. This further demonstrates that regional editors responded to their readers’ political opposition to the ETS, and that the editorial approach to coverage was left to individual editors, not dictated by parent publishing companies.

Meanwhile, the overall continued denialist bias of News Corp papers in Australia also runs counter to Rupert Murdoch’s turnaround on climate change in 2006. Metropolitan newspapers’ coverage of the book revealed ongoing tension between News Corp and Fairfax as they compete to direct the public conversation on climate change. The Australian, an ideologically conservative paper, seems firmly entrenched in the editorial policy of giving voice to denialists.

The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, perceived as ‘leftist’ papers (at least in comparison to The Australian), endorse the scientific consensus on climate change - apart from its conservative opinion columnists.

This study confirms the finding of Carvalho (2007) that ideological cultures play a primary role in the media’s coverage of climate change issues. The ideological culture of a media organisation and its audience is both reflected in and reinforced by the paper’s selection of ‘expert’ sources, the reliability attributed to claims and the quantity of media space dedicated to these experts and their claims. The political goals associated with climate change coverage also have a strong ideological basis."

Summary: MSM, shock-jocks (aka Bolt, Ackerman, Devine, Jones et al) have a lot to answer for the damage they are doing to real science.
Posted by qanda, Sunday, 11 April 2010 9:35:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thought I'd pop my head in for a visit, but see nothing's changed in the asylum. qanda qrap and protagoras gas. Perhaps someone could email me when something interesting gets said at: warmingisgood@protagorasisatwit.com
Posted by whitmus, Thursday, 15 April 2010 10:50:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

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