The Forum > Article Comments > Evidence firms: dangerous global warming continues, and we are the cause > Comments
Evidence firms: dangerous global warming continues, and we are the cause : Comments
By Geoff Davies, published 24/8/2010It's time we moved forward from our perilous indecision and started to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
-
- All
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 9:20:00 AM
| |
But what if AGW scientists are working with faulty data? Would that sway your analysis? The US Government now admits faulty NOAA satellites have been grossly over estimating temperatures for the last decade.
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7491-official-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful Can we get the data right first? Credible data is required before we get to the scientific theory which leads to the economic analysis which determines whether its a carbon tax or a carbon trade or a carbon hoax. Posted by CO2, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 9:52:15 AM
| |
AGW is CDF, but that can't compete against self-interest, ignorance and minimifidianism.
Thanks Chris for the youtube link; the old charmer in the pyjamas puts it so simply you'd think anyone could understand it. Go figure? It's not that the deniers "can't" understand, it's that they "won't". Pig ignorance! Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 10:15:14 AM
| |
Squeers as usual you flim flams are just resorting to abuse. You just do not get it! We had holes in the ozone layer, Y2000k bugs and now this nonsense. If you suggested reducing our consumption that would be a good idea but really you are trying to pick our pockets with another scam.
Hey Squeers would you like to buy the Sydney Harbour Bridge off me? Posted by JBowyer, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 10:21:55 AM
| |
Geoff, you make the same sense as most other I have read in connection with your approach to people who have doubts about whether Carbon Dioxide is the main cause of the changes in climate that have been observable over the past 20 years. Your way of dealing with this is to simply "bucket" them, basically calling them "dills" or "dopes", in effect people who should be shunned.
When you start taking their claims seriously and addressing them as legitimate knowledgeable people, then I might start listening to what else you have to say. Posted by Sniggid, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 10:23:29 AM
| |
When Geoff Davies gets simple facts such as where we are in the El Nino cycle wrong one has to wonder about the rest of his 'guidance' to the uninformed. He says we have been La Nina-influenced for the last two years. Wrong! 2009 and early 2010 was one of the strongest El Nino's on record. We entered La Nina earlier this year and during the last few months the global sea surface temperature anomaly has fallen significantly, and by 3 degrees in the Nino34 area of the east Pacific. (Check NASA's AQUA satellite data released last week)
Posted by malrob, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 11:08:09 AM
| |
Geoff - did you realise another la Nina is developing? The "warmest year" forecast was inspired by the el Nino effect as you point out, although there were problems with it. (In fact, the UK Met Office is notorious for bad seasonal forecasting). But as the Bureau of Meterology site says a la Nina is developing, so no "warmest year". Sorry.
You may also be interested to know that methane concentrations in the atmosphere have not increased for a decade - no-one knows why - and that the CO2 concentrations are well below mid-point of forecasts. (Note, not emissions, which may be ahead of projections for all anyone knows, but concentrations in the atmos which can be shown to be behind.) You may care to take another look at your article in the light of those issues Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 11:57:27 AM
| |
Geoff:
Thank you. In your article you state, quote: "The trend of global warming is clear". In view of your claim, please provide one specific piece of scientifically measured real-world evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest period of modest, cyclic global warming that ended around 1998. Your evidence needs to prove correlation and causation. Seeing your article and claims I feel disappointed because you fail to meet my need for authenticity and validity. My needs will be met by reading of scientific proof in your words to show you understand causation and can prove causation. Posting articles without proof and understanding of causality you fail to meet my need for integrity and my need for respect for humanity. Geoff, please get the facts. Malcolm :) Posted by Malcolm Roberts, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 12:35:09 PM
| |
Geoff:
The UN IPCC's latest report (2007) relies on one single chapter (chapter 9) attributing global warming to human production of CO2. That chapter provides no scientific proof whatsoever yet falsely states human production of CO2 caused global warming. Check for yourself at the UN IPCC's own link to its chapter 9: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html Look beyond the UN IPCC's unvalidated computer models. You'll see no scientific proof. None. Strangely, in a remote UN IPCC chapter (chapter 2) you'll find table 2.11 showing even the UN IPCC admits low to very low levels of understanding for 80% of factors it claims are relevant in computer models. The UN IPCC fails to mention its computer models are not validated. The UN IPCC fails to admit its computer models omit scientifically key known drivers of Earth's climate. The UN IPCC unscientifically downplays, glosses over or avoids key solar climate drivers and ocean-atmospheric oscillations such as El Nino. The UN IPCC repeatedly misleads by implying - falsely - proof of measured causation when it really means unvalidated computer models. It has no scientifically measured real-world evidence/data that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest period of modest, cyclic warming. None. Geoff, provide proof that you understand and know causation and I'll support you. Until then, please show some respect for me, humanity and yourself by withdrawing your unfounded and false claim. Malcolm Roberts :) Posted by Malcolm Roberts, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 12:45:16 PM
| |
"Three separate enquiries in Britain have failed to find any substance in the allegations. The scientific integrity of the scientists and of their scientific results have been affirmed."
And how many panel members were AGW sceptics? How many sceptics were called to testify? Is it not true that Phil Jones was asked to select the evidence used in 'investigating' him? How many panel members had vested interests in AGW-related businesses and bodies receiving government grants? Did they not explicitly exclude 'the science' from the terms of the enquiries? The only thing remotely surprising about the outcome of these 'enquiries' was the confidence that their puppet-masters felt in their ability to depict them as fair and legitimate. Still, they fooled Geoff. Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 12:59:13 PM
| |
Squeers “It's not that the deniers "can't" understand, it's that they "won't". Pig ignorance!”
And the zealots are the worse! But don’t let the lies of collectivists fool you.... The real agenda is to separate everyone form their individual discretion and freedom As Lenin said “Every revolution needs a revolutionary cause” AGW is just today’s “cause-celebre” Tomorrow, when enough of the collectivist the lies have been revealed, they will be off chasing a different windmill. In the meant time real people will be expected to pay for the mess the environmental zealots created and still parent their own children. Life is not fair but we could certainly do without the pointless misdirection of resources by those who seek to politically limit our individual and economic rights and rewards for effort. Geoff Davis “Evidence firms: dangerous global warming continues, and we are the cause” Wrong but nothing new in that Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 1:09:22 PM
| |
Geoff:
If you're interested in climate facts you could start by reading a succinct document I wrote. it's being published on sites including these links to the three brief parts: Part 1: http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Eco-Fraud_1.pdf Part 2: http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Eco-Fraud_2.pdf Part 3: http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Eco-Fraud_3.pdf You'll find facts gleaned from my reading thousands of pages of scientific books, papers, journals and articles that in turn reference thousands more scientific publications. I've had the honour of personally listening to some of the world's climate experts. The UN IPCC report's chapter 9 was written by just 53 people from a close knit cabal of climate modellers with vested interests. The majority came from just four (4) institutions - with the primary institution (CRU) being enmeshed in Climategate. Chapter 9 was endorsed by just five (5) reviewers and there's doubt they were even scientists. And we were told by Kevin Rudd he relied on the claim being supported by 4,000 scientists. False. Completely false. The claim of 4,000 scientists was repeatedly and yet knowingly falsely implied by UN IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri. 4,000 scientists false. Reality, just five (5) with doubt they were scientists. Want factual proof. Read these links providing paper by John McLean who simply presents data on UN IPCC reporting processes with the data obtained directly from the UN IPCC: - http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf - http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_review_updated_analysis.pdf - http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/23573.pdf - http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/McLean_ipcc_review.pdf If you're interested in facts, you may find this link of interest from a man who has studied the UN IPCC's own reports using data provided by the UN IPCC itself: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean_we_have_been_conned.pdf With the facts you'll find life a lot easier and you'll be able to cease spreading unfounded fear and guilt. Instead we will be able to focus and dedicate our attention and energy to real and serious environmental and humanitarian challenges. I invite you, Geoff, to treat humanity and our precious Earth with respect by addressing real issues to demonstrate care. Malcolm Roberts :) Posted by Malcolm Roberts, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 1:11:49 PM
| |
I can’t get enthused about the whole climate change thing. While I believe that AGW is real and very significant, it is patently obvious that we are not going to get anywhere in our efforts to deal with it, for a bunch of reasons:
• Too many people are not convinced or are ardent denialists. • Too many people and powerful lobby groups have short-term vested interests in maintaining the status quo. • Too tiny is the part that Australia can play in this global issue. • Too tiny is the impact that we could have even if we did get our act together globally and addressed this issue with as much effort as we could reasonably apply. The motivation for action just isn’t big enough or clear enough to galvanise us into meaningful action. But, as I’ve said quite a few times on this forum, there is another motivation that should get us hopping. And if we did this, we would be reducing GHG emissions much more effectively than if we addressed climate change directly. This motive is to wean our society off of oil, with great urgency, because we are currently so totally and precariously dependent on it and on its price not going too much higher. If the price of oil jumps markedly, let alone if there are any shortages of supply, the very foundation of our economic system and society could come under threat. Massive unemployment, civil strife and the breakdown of the rule of law, severed supply lines for food and other essentials…. So let’s put the whole climate change issue aside in Australia and start working towards securing a strong society that is not addicted to oil, but is fuelled largely by carbon-neutral organic fuels and other energy sources. Oil is the primary issue. We can address coal with a little less urgency. In so doing, we would be addressing climate change more meaningfully than we could ever hope to do otherwise. Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 1:17:05 PM
| |
Jon J (and Geoff):
Thank you. Perhaps you could invite people to read the Climategate 'Inquiry' References posted at this site: http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/climategate_references.pdf To summarise supposed 'Inquiries' into Climategate: British Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) investigation finds breach of the law by UN IPCC scientists at Climatic Research Centre (CRU). Expiry of Statute of limitations (time limit) prevents prosecution. ICO seeking to amend law to prevent recurrence; British parliamentary Select Committee inquiry abbreviated due to British election. Entrusted investigations to University of East Anglia, UEA (home of CRU); Both of UEA’s ‘inquiries’ (Russell ‘inquiry’ and the Oxburgh Science Appraisal Panel) have been revealed as flouting Britain’s parliament. ‘Investigations’ were conducted secretively by panellists with serious conflicts of interest and avoided main issues of concern. Panels’ funds and operation were controlled by the University. Panels failed to interview experts making claims against CRU. Science Appraisal Panel chair later admits to not investigating the science. Leading Parliamentary committee members have publicly expressed their anger; Pennsylvania State University, where Mann (fabricator of the hockey stick fraud) is now located claims to have conducted its own internal ‘investigation’. It dismissed three charges apparently without investigation and found no fault in the fourth after simply accepting Mann’s word and hearing no alternative views; State of Virginia Attorney General currently pursuing Mann. The University of Virginia, where Mann worked until 2005 refuses to release documents related to global warming research. The university received five grants during Mann’s tenure. Both universities (UEA and Penn State) have received millions of dollars worth of grants through the work of CRU and Mann. Many commentators say the sham ‘inquiries’ raise more questions than they attempted to answer. Geoff, in future, please get the facts and present them accurately. Malcolm :) Posted by Malcolm Roberts, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 1:35:50 PM
| |
"It is time we moved forward from our recent, perilous indecision, and commenced immediate action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions"
Take it to the world mate, and see how many people give a crap .. very few. BTW - ranting at people who disagree rarely gets them onside, but I'm sure you know that but rather enjoy ranting..? Posted by Amicus, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 1:37:13 PM
| |
Geoff, you really should not permit articles such as this to be published on this forum
[Deleted for abuse]. Then we have your utube rubbish Chris Shaw. Where did that muck come from? It could only be a primary school, any of the kids in high school would laugh you out of the room for presenting such simplistic stuff. A few simple fact designed to hide the one bland, totally unsupported claim that the surface can only loose heat by radiation, & we have a CO2 blanket that stops that. If you warmists have to resort to such mistruths to try to catch the kids, please try to hide them from the adults. I suppose some of the green voters from Saturday may fall for this tripe, they probably want to believe. However I don't think even most of them would believe such bare faced spin. From all the rubbish I see coming out of ANU, I can only believe the general population are a bit too bright for you. Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 1:41:27 PM
| |
Climate change - what would scientists know about it?
The proof is all around us that they are off the planet: we have had ten thousand years of the best climate that has ever been - never had it so good. Six thousand eight hundred million people can’t be wrong. Yet those scientists, armed with all the sophistication you could imagine - tens of thousands of terabytes of data from satellites, ocean buoys, and land instruments measuring gravitation, temperature, and gas concentrations; all hooked up to the latest and greatest data processing gadgets - say changes to this ten thousand year climate regime are on the way! What rubbish, when compared to the simple fact of these benign times. Never before have so many people had it so good. Human beings altering the climate into a similar state to that of some millions of years ago when it was utterly unfriendly to mankind? - Unbelievable. Who wants to believe that rubbish? Better to listen to people from the real world we occupy - those who have a proven track record in providing direction to society and politics: There are plenty to choose from, -including in this forum. There could be a wait of 150 years for the availability of the most popular of his time: Berni Madoff and his Advisory Firm. However, that wait would probably have more appeal than taking notice of the scientific mob; and certainly not The Science of Climate Change, Questions and Answers released last week by the Australian Academy of Science. Posted by colinsett, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 2:58:37 PM
| |
Good article Geoff - the usual denier dropkicks responding.I will not waste my time refuting your idiotic arguments.
Posted by Manorina, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 4:08:29 PM
| |
Malcolm Roberts
I agree with you entirely. One doesnt have to try and debate the science with these types because they fall over on the fundamental issue of ethics and managerial competence. Your references to John Mcleans work, and indeed the latest assessment of the IPCC is a stark contrast to the pleas from authority that the AAS and ANU et al types herein try to inflict on us all. As Mclean says on page 3 " The IPCC is a disgrace to science." I note that Mclean hasnt even mentioned the appalling conflicts of interest of the IPCC Chairman Mr Pachauri..and notably all we get from the AAS and ANU types on this issue is SILENCE. Posted by bigmal, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 4:21:34 PM
| |
What many don't realise is that the neo-cons in the USA,Europe and Israel are using climate change as a justification for their New World Order.There are many within the Green movement who see humans as a blight on the planet and this fits snugley into their plan for a single world Govt with no democracy.This is no longer in the realm of theory,both the Bushes,Obama,Clinton, Henry Kissinger all sing its praises.
So when the USA ,Europe,Britian and Israel invade Iran,take it's oil, get their pipleine through Afghanistan,take Saudi Arabia and other energy/mineral rich countries,our enslavement will be complete. Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 9:03:31 PM
| |
Scoreboard: planet versus the rest in the Global Warming stakes
Game so far in the current fixture: Science 5 Undecided 1 Ponzi Schemers 15 Posted by colinsett, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 10:47:33 PM
| |
The jigs up. Now we know. We see right through you climate changers.
Money and politics rule climate change’s disco-science. Now we know. And those who push it are liars using it for political and or financial benefits. Consensus by these alter boy abusers of science, are criminal liars, dogmatically and rhetorically researching and pushing what can’t be proven or disproved. * * “Is climate change real, is no different from “does God exist?” or “does the fairy god mother” exist and history will view this as science’s and mainscream media’s and the political left’s (Harper included), Iraq War of WMD lies. The climate change lie is a page right out of the neocon’s playbook of criminal deception and rightwing fear mongering. Since voters are the ones with the real consensus, the REAL consensus that counts, it's fair to say that unless the voting public actually starts swimming to the polls through a 1970’s-like smog cloud in a Canadian winter, starving from food shortages and dying of thirst, the entire issue of the environment being doomed, cannot be sustained for another 24 years with this needles fear. On behalf of all deniers (who outnumber believers at the voting booth now), let us be absolutely clear: Climate Changers at ALL levels, from lazy teachers and news editors, to the parent denying their child a future, to pandering politicians and to lab coat consultants ARE ALL LIARS? You know it. We know it. If you, in your heart of hearts, are delusional enough to actually believe in this proposed misery, get ahead of the curve and follow the wave of rage from the coming backlash of deniers and a coming generation of real radicals, radicals who don’t take kindly to lies and threats of death by CO2. Posted by mememine69, Wednesday, 25 August 2010 6:53:31 AM
| |
Colinsett writes:
<< Scoreboard: planet versus the rest in the Global Warming stakes Game so far in the current fixture: Science 5 Undecided 1 Ponzi Schemers 15 >> And those that support Ludwig’s assertion that we are going about this in the entirely wrong way and that the existence or absence of serious AGW is by-the-way compared to a much more important motive for action for us here in Oz….. Zero! No knockers either, just no interest…..which is just extraordinary!! This is one of the most important and urgent issues of our time – the critical need to get the bujeezus off our oil addiction! Shouldn’t climate change advocates, skeptics and denialists all be united on this? Isn’t the thing that we need to sort out just how to go about it, rather than squabbling about the veracity of AGW? Can’t we just step past this tired old climate change debate and concentrate on something that it intimately related but of a much greater urgency? So, can I ask; who on this thread thinks that we should be feeling very precariously positioned with our dependency on oil in Australia and that we should be striving to develop alternative energy sources with great fervour, and who thinks that we should just continue on as normal and deal with oil shortages or price hikes when they happen... and hope to goodness that the effect on our society and quality of life is not too drastic? Here is a general discussion that I started on this subject last month: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3836 Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 25 August 2010 8:09:19 AM
| |
Ludwig demanding a recount?
On this blog by Geoff Davies the votes are still coming in, but the troglodytes are way in front. But, if we are voting on the relative importance of issues, I will put my personal vote with Ludwig on the immediacy of peak oil; but against him on the greater importance of climate change/AGW in the longer- term. Then again I am with Ludwig once more when it comes to the tally of human numbers: with 6.8 billion, and continuing to expand at about 1.1 per cent, there is a snowball’s chance in hell that business-as-usual economics (i.e. sanitized Bernie Maddof) can deliver the necessary atmospheric garbage-collection service, and cheap fossil-fuel type benefits, for everyone on any distribution system - let-alone on a non-apartheid basis. But, obviously there are people who are determined to believe otherwise. Posted by colinsett, Wednesday, 25 August 2010 9:15:03 AM
| |
Sorry Squeerzy... your 'Climate Change' plan to take over the world in the name of Socialism won't work.
We are awake...that's the problem.(for you and your ilk) Do you have shares in a Carbon Trading Company ? Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 25 August 2010 11:52:25 AM
| |
Curmudgeon -
Interesting point, that CO2 levels are not out of the range of IPCC projections, though emissions are. Though according to this link http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_co2.html they are close to mid-point (around 290ppm at 2010) rather than "well below". So it's marginally reassuring that the Earth is apparently able to take a little more of our abuse than we thought. But the level is still way above the past 600,000 years (see additional graph at that site) and quite enough to cause havoc. On methane, according to this source http://www.csiro.au/news/GlobalMethaneRising.html it resumed rising in 2008. Anything more recent? Others - Ah yes, the great conspiracy, a cabal of climate scientists, feathering their nests with thousands of dollars of taxpayer money. What about the hundreds of billions of dollars (or is that trillions) the fossil fuel industry has at stake? What about their motives? They're the ones feeding disinformation into the blogosphere, the stuff some of you so avidly recycle. Or is it the great climate-scientist/socialist/corporate/jewish/tree-hugging/communist/callathumpian/... conspiracy to take over the world? Malcolm - I wasn't quoting IPCC, you may have noticed. But of course the Academy of Sciences is made up of scientists, so you won't believe it either. Some of them are very conservative in their political views though, so I'm not sure you ought to so blithely ignore them. Hasbeen - deleted for abuse again I see. And I'm the one accused of "ranting". Posted by Geoff Davies, Wednesday, 25 August 2010 3:00:28 PM
| |
Oh, and then there's being called a liar and a charlatan, which apparently doesn't constitute abuse on this site.
Posted by Geoff Davies, Wednesday, 25 August 2010 4:13:21 PM
| |
Depends which side of the 'debate' you're on around here, Geoff.
This discussion just reinforces how pointless it is trying to discuss climate change at OLO. Thanks for trying anyway. Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 25 August 2010 5:03:33 PM
| |
cj, geoff didn't write that article to have a "discussion", it's clearly to berate anyone who disagrees with him - where did he try to have a discussion?
As usual it's full of hysterical exaggerations and half truths, which is normal for people like geoff who never let the facts get in the way of a rant. There has been no debate in Australia, all the government and educational institutions who have Climate Change fora and conferences never have anyone who is a skeptic - so where has there been any debate, that is evidently so overwhelming. The fact of the matter is people in Australia are skeptical of their own accord without the need for any kind of public debate. Maybe if there actually was debate, the believers might get some sway, but by always having cosy little "believers only" love fests, people are naturally skeptical. What have they got to hide, why don't they engage with skeptical scientists? Why do they say there is a debate when there is none? Show me when there has been public debate on this - where equal numbers of scientists from both sides of the AGW belief have engaged? Again, all we see is hysterics, world is ending, nasty skeptics .. funded by oil companies, what over half of Australia .. come on, do you really believe that? People who write rants the way geoff does, do more damage to their cause than good - which helps the skeptics no end, it shows that some people, geoff, will say anything, exaggerate greatly, use half truths, weather events .. anything, if they think they can spin their case. Doesn't work .. people in Australia are fed up with spin and BS. Look at our political world, much the same. Is geoff a liar, I think he believes what he says, like moonbat, but just wants to let go some anger, which he should do something about. Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 26 August 2010 8:49:23 AM
| |
Geoff:
Thank you for your attempted response. The question stands: please provide one piece of specific scientifically measured real-world evidence that proves human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest, modest cyclic warming that ended around 1998. See if you can obtain it from the academies. I've corresponded (two-way) with CSIRO chief executive and with CSIRO Group Executive - Environment. Neither can provide any specific evidence of causation. None. Did you read The Eco Fraud Part 1 at the link provided? Here it is again: http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Eco-Fraud_1.pdf Please read Parts 2 and 3 to see the consequences of your advice. - http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Eco-Fraud_2.pdf - http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Eco-Fraud_3.pdf Lack of any data (at UN IPCC, academies, CSIRO, your article) showing human causation, plus UN IPCC fraud in making false claims, plus Nature's own signals show your article is without foundation. Please show respect for yourself, Nature, the environment, myself, humanity and science by citing specific scientific evidence - preferably in your own words to show you understand the case your making. If you cannot satisfy yourself with solid data showing causation please stop rattling the empty tin. (I'm assuming you did try to satisfy yourself on the situation before writing, didn't you?) When espousing your views in public, please attempt to meet my needs for integrity, respect and responsibility. And my needs for solid scientific data. Malcolm :) Posted by Malcolm Roberts, Thursday, 26 August 2010 10:14:35 AM
| |
Well it is just as well the ski operators did not listen to the 'science' in Victoria over the last decade. They would of missed out on quite a bonanza.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/travel/holiday-ideas/wet-wild-and-wooly-winter/story-e6frfhg6-1225910130699 Posted by runner, Thursday, 26 August 2010 10:28:09 AM
| |
Malcolm -
"one piece of specific scientifically measured real-world evidence" In my article I provided several. However you want "proof". That is your misconception, because science is not about "proof". It is about the balance of evidence in favour of a hypothesis, and even when that is strong it does not preclude an alternative hypothesis that is even more in accord with evidence. Witness Einstein versus Newton. So you can never "prove" that one hypothesis is the "truth". I am not one who claims global warming is "proven", that the scientific debate is over. The debate clearly continues. Rather I argue we can't wait for more of the minority of sceptics to be persuaded because we know by then it will be too late for effective counter action. It may already be too late. I also argue, in other articles (see for example http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/cut-emissions-and-boost-economy/ ), that action will be much cheaper than is claimed by the fossil fuel industry, and that we should reduce our impact on the Earth anyway, because of the many other environmental crises occurring. If we're smart we can reduce our overall footprint and improve our quality of life, with greenhouse emissions reduced as a by-product of those changes. Few sceptics seem to be interested in these possibilities. If sceptics' interests were for the future of our grandchildren then why don't they find these possibilities worth looking into, instead of just brushing them off. I conclude that many sceptics are not primarily motivated by a dispassionate search for a better future. Rather, they seem to find the need to change the way we live on the planet personally threatening in some way. Posted by Geoff Davies, Thursday, 26 August 2010 11:11:22 AM
| |
goeff "Climate scientists have also predicted for some time that as warming progressed there would be more extreme weather-related events."
now that is what is being described as "Climate Astrology" - as people who read their Astrology predictions for their star sign, then attribute and twist everything in their lives to fir the prediction, so too do the believers and the media now apply this to science. you clearly believe it so all weather events now, good, bad, extreme whatever .. are due to this prediction and you wonder why climate science lacks credibility this has been done by climate scientists, with zero help or assistance from skeptics - indeed skeptics need to do nothing at all when that's the best "climate science" can come up with. people reading that statement, and we see it a lot now as scientists try to justify their BILLIONs of $ of grants and studies, not mere thousands as you suggest, will just immediately scoff at the stupidity of claiming everything shows the prediction is correct now, that does not smack of science, rather .. belief Climate Astrology, even better than Climate Scientology! when science goes into the future prediction zone, it's no longer science,even the dumbest wingbat amongst us would see that, unfortunately some people take is as gospel(deliberate allusion there) and go too far, eh geoff? Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 26 August 2010 11:51:08 AM
| |
Geoff:
Thank you. It's exactly as I thought. You seem to not understand causation, science or logic. You seem to lack understanding of the consequences of your suggested remedies - consequences on the environment and on humanity. You seem to have ignored any due diligence on the core agency that initiated the blatant and clear fraud you - hopefully inadvertently - support. I call that negligence on your part. Negligence that will hurt humanity and our precious natural environment. Again, please refer to facts obtained from reading thousands of pages of science - and documents purporting to be scientific including UN IPCC's chapter 9 that falsely and without foundation attributes modest, cyclic global warming to human production of CO2: - http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Eco-Fraud_1.pdf - http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Eco-Fraud_2.pdf - http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Eco-Fraud_3.pdf - http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/nature-and-humanity.pdf - http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/two_dead_elephants.pdf Fair go Geoff. Please make an effort to understand the science and causation. Malcolm :) Posted by Malcolm Roberts, Thursday, 26 August 2010 1:11:36 PM
| |
Yes Geoff, you got me again.
You know Graham doesn't like us treating these articles with contempt, he considers that abuse. You also know I can't help myself. When I find an article worthy of contempt, full of the old BS that was shot down years ago, I can't help but treat it with the contempt it deserves. Is that why you do it? Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 26 August 2010 4:19:26 PM
| |
My No.1 vote goes to Ludwig’s proposal.
If we had a plan to migrate our energy base to alternate energy --without the accompanying AGW bandwagons contingent liabilities – it would be likely to find widespread support. What undermines consensus is advocates who push an agenda that seeks to exploit good will to further their political agendas. Prior to the 2007 OZ election those on the left were running the line that Howard and Bush were holding-up world action on environmental policy, you might remember we were the “pariah nations” The implication being all the world was just eager to get on with it, if only the US & OZ would sign up to Kyoto. Well, OZ signed-up and Kevin went to at Bali and played to standing ovations. But we quickly learnt that they were only cheering – not making any meaningful commitments . And when we had the affront to ask them for a contribution in Copenhagen, they stopped cheering and started jeering. After all, hadn’t the left told them it was a developed worlds problem, the rest of the world was just there for the free ride. And still, nothing has been said or done about world population reduction! Geoff Davies who prides himself in his ability to spot elephants in the room, has the climate change elephant, in the back of the room, fixed in the cross hairs of his blunderbuss. But he hasn’t spotted the even bigger elephant that has crept in from the front door , has backed up to him, raised its tail, and is preparing to offload and spoil his shot! As The Wiggles would say : “WAKE UP GEOFF!” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el1v3RDgSJw Posted by Horus, Thursday, 26 August 2010 7:59:23 PM
| |
Thankyou Horus and Colinsett…and raspberries to the rest of the crew on this thread !
At least a couple of people can see the enormously important point that I was making in my last post. It begs the question; how on earth can anyone who is remotely interested in climate change and the potential effect on our society and societies around the world not see the potentially bigger effect of the closely related issue of peak oil / rising fuel prices / shortages of supply? And see that THIS is indeed MUCH more urgent! It is also glaringly obvious that if we addressed the peak oil issue in western societies with the urgency that it needs, we’d be doing more towards addressing AGW than we could ever hope to do otherwise. And for those who don’t think AGW is real or significant, it doesn’t matter! Everyone – AGW advocates, skeptics and denialists – should all be united when it comes to LIQUID FUEL SECURITY, as Forrest Gumpp so eloquently put it: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3836#94228 Talk about elephants in the living room…. and people who can walk straight into the room, bump into said elephant repeatedly, and still not see it! ( :>| I can sort of understand why denialists don’t want to acknowledge this. But it is just weird that sceptics and advocates also seem really reluctant! Most people just don’t want to know, so it seems. As Jeff says in the Wiggles youtube; ‘Can you keep that noise down, I’m trying to sleep’ Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 27 August 2010 6:57:27 AM
| |
ludwig, sorry, I didn't realise it was all about you .."raspberries to the rest of the crew on this thread !
At least a couple of people can see the enormously important point that I was making in my last post." the article is by geoff, being hysterical yet again and berating skeptics (and denialists I guess) with a personally rewarding rant, yet again. If you want peak oil addressed, write your own article and stop trying to hijack every other thread on climate change yes, peak oil is an issue, no, AGW believers are not overly interested since there is no way to finger wag and tax the bejesus out of those they believe are overconsuming, and thus redirect THEIR wealth where they think it should go - so there's no point in the AGW believers getting on your bandwagon, especially since there are no peak oil clubs and there are soooo many AGW clubs. It's a community, it's a sense of belonging in AGW, that is not there in peak oil. I'm vaguely interested in peak oil, but don't see it as an issue since there are so many other sources of fuel, when the need and price makes sense. You don't think agro sources of fuel can cope? Why not? we don't need yet more hysterics .. do we? Posted by Amicus, Friday, 27 August 2010 8:13:29 AM
| |
LUDWIG says:
//This is one of the most important and urgent issues of our time – the critical need to get the bujeezus off our oil addiction! Shouldn’t climate change advocates, skeptics and denialists all be united on this?// and..being one who has a strong financial interest in electric cars :) I agree. Ok..just kidding..kinda... But I'd agree even without the slightest self interest other than I hate being reliant on anything or anyone who can, at any time, pull that plug from under my feet..and "oil" seems to be one of those things. Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 27 August 2010 8:45:03 AM
| |
Dear oh dear Amicus.
The all-important point that I’m making is entirely pertinent to this thread and in no way a hijacking of it. Apparently there is nothing in between being ignored and being hysterical! I mention it once and get ignored by all but a couple of posters. I mention it again and I’m being hysterical! Pffff ( :~/ And please rethink your vague interest in peak oil and liquid fuel security. << You don't think agro sources of fuel can cope? Why not? >> They can’t replace oil without a very different economic regime ensuing. It is not just about the potential quantities of biofuels that we could produce, it has everything to do with the price and economics. A large part of the picture would be the enormous conversion of food-producing land into fuel-producing land, and the huge effect that this could have on both domestic food supplies and export income. As so it goes. Enormous disruptions WILL occur if we continue to piffle around the edges of the issue and shirk our responsibilities to properly plan for our future in the face of obvious and ominous threats…..and continue to get sidetracked by the AGW debate!! Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 27 August 2010 8:45:08 AM
| |
Ludwig:
There, there. Some facts would be handy and appreciated. Malcolm :) Posted by Malcolm Roberts, Friday, 27 August 2010 9:00:12 AM
| |
ludwig - so sensitive, I said "we don't need yet more hysterics .. do we?" You are not the only one who occasionally gets anxious about peak oil, can I remind of of EclipseNow's tirades?
It's as relevant as any other aspect of environmentalism, and of course you can draw links to anything if you try hard enough, even statistics. Agro fuel, grassoline, might mean devoting lots of surface area to crops for oil, we have huge country just aching to be used for such a purpose .. this might justify the greening of Australia. Talk about being in the best seat to take advantage of this "renewable". Mind you I don't hear any of our resident eco activists insisting on this as a renewable, they are all focused on electricity, rightly so too is they won't let us burn a natural source like coal, or use nuclear power. They bloody better come up with something if they want us to change! Not to worry, it will never happen. That's a less expensive and much more rewarding future for Australia than p*ssing money in all directions trying to change the climate - at least with this, we'll know when we're done. There is a definite goal and reward, whereas stopping the climate is so abstract, it's a nice chant, catch cry, protest slogan - but the science is not there to support changing the climate. Posted by Amicus, Friday, 27 August 2010 9:13:57 AM
| |
<< But I'd agree even without the slightest self interest other than I hate being reliant on anything or anyone who can, at any time, pull that plug from under my feet..and "oil" seems to be one of those things. >>
That’s it in a nutshell, RICH AL. The plug could be pulled…. or the cost of keeping the bathtub full and the plug in place could very quickly skyrocket to the point where many couldn’t afford to have a bath! What a stinky old world that would be! Who wants a society that is utterly dependent on something like this? Or, to put it in personal terms, who wants a lifestyle and perhaps even a life at all that is utterly dependent on something like this? Let’s refocus our wayward energies that are being put into both sides of the AGW merry-go-round and apply them in a united manner to liquid fuel security. Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 27 August 2010 11:51:34 AM
| |
The author claims that the three reviews that have been undertaken,2 in the UK and one in USA, and they have failed to find anything awry... and that further scientifc intergity has been validated.
What absolute nonsense. All that these reviews have shown is just how skilled the academic climatariat are at covering their back sides, and setting up inquiries that they control. I mean, one of them couldnt even stick to their Terms of Reference. But for one good summary of just what a sham these inquiries where, read this ..and BTW there are others http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/inquiries_response.pdf And whilst we are about it isnt it just a little contrived for the AAS to release its report in the same weeks/months of an election. It is true that the AAS document stayed clear from the policy issues Pity they didnt do the same about the politics....but then that would have been breaking with an ingrained habit...would it not.? Posted by bigmal, Friday, 27 August 2010 1:23:04 PM
| |
bigmal:
Further to your contribution in response to Geoff's comments about three reviews, I read or skimmed much associated material including six reviews: UK Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee, University of East Anglia (UAE) Muir Russell, UAE Oxburgh Science Appraisal Panel, Penn State x2, Information Commissioner’s Office. According to the UAE, its Oxburgh Science Appraisal Panel had the responsibility for investigating the science. Yet the panel's chair later said its terms of reference were entirely verbal and did not include investigating the science - apparently contrary to the UAE's earlier reassurances to parliamentary committee. The UK parliamentary select committee was cut short due to British general elections and handed over to UAE based on UAE's commitment for open investigation. Prominent members of the committee were later public angry about the UAE breaches of its commitments and failure of both UAE reports to address crucial areas promised by UEA. By any assessment, the UAE 'inquiries' are shams. That is self-evident from the construct of the committees to their operation to their lack of interviewing complainants. The Penn State 'inquiries' are similarly shams. What could one expect? Both universities have been exposed by Climategate after receiving money for what now seem dubious work not scientific. Note that the UK Information Commissioner's Office found a crime had been committed against the FoI Act but could not be prosecuted because of expiry of statute of limitations. The Office is now taking steps to prevent recurrence so that future breaches can be prosecuted. You may find these documents of interest: - http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/climategate_references.pdf - http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Eco-Fraud_1.pdf page 4, Inquiries into Climategate The latter provides a summary of the whitewashes ('inquiries'). So much for universities. The 'inquiries' raise more questions than they answer. Malcolm :) Posted by Malcolm Roberts, Saturday, 28 August 2010 6:39:32 PM
| |
Thanks Malcolm R
Perhaps the author of this piece will read more widely and hopefully sundry Professors of Ethics might get an insight into just how unethical and managerially incompetent the UN Framework around their pet subject really is. Perhaps the authors of the AAS piece referred to herein might also read a bit more widely, before they have us all rolling on the floor in yet more laughter. If they cant get the basics even credible and consistent, they are a sure as hell not likely to have the more complex stuff in order. Posted by bigmal, Saturday, 28 August 2010 10:18:01 PM
| |
Is this guy at it again?! Same old hyperbolic nonsense. No-one cares anymore.
He forgot to report that parts of the country had the lowest temperatures for 10-20yrs and that the Northern Hemisphere had record low temperatures in their last Winter. It reached a record -20c at Charlotte's Pass this year. He also forgot to mention.. fogetful little fellow isn't he?..the predicted 'continuous drought' didn't happen as we were inundated by rain this year even in the centre of Australia... oh and the predicted 'snowless' winters leading to closure of the ski resorts didn't happen either. Posted by Atman, Monday, 30 August 2010 9:49:57 PM
|
A little something about climate change for my grandkids. Mind you I had to get thoroughly inebriated in order to find the necessary chutzpah:
http://www.youtube.com/user/feralmet
The basics are simple....
Cheers to all.