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 > The Garnaut Reviews’ errors and material omissions > Comments

The Garnaut Reviews’ errors and material omissions : Comments

By Tim Curtin, published 25/3/2011

If the Garnaut report were governed by corporations law no-one would be prepared to sign it.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Ross Garnaut fits the description of an "Economic Hit man" as portrayed in John Perkin's book,'Confessions of an Economic Hit man'.
Garnaut and his ilk will destroy the economy and fabric of our country with their carbon taxes.He was the chief political advisor to Hawke and Keating to herald in a era of rationalisation.They sold off our most precious assets ie our Govt Banks.We can now never escape from debt to private banks,nor will we ever have enough money for infrastructure or basic services such as medical or education.

Privatise the creation of your money and you are forever in debt.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 25 March 2011 6:18:03 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
Nice one. It's obvious that the AGW alarmists are sticking to their own quarantined (but steadily shrinking) group of 'experts' whom they can rely on to support the Cause. But -- to nitpick -- it should be 'Review's' in the title.
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 25 March 2011 6:23:59 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
Tim Curtin, your blurb says;

Journalist, economist and advisor, living in Canberra where he is an unpaid associate on Asia-Pacific programmes of the Australian National University.

Something just doesn't add up, Tim.

Are you the same "Tim Curtin" who has his own thread here?

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php

If so, methinks you protest too much.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 25 March 2011 7:29:56 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
I am a scientist. I have to try to order my thoughts carefully before jumping in with a comment. It's not easy here. So far as I can tell, the article makes two main points: that the water produced by combustion of fossil fuels has been forgotten by Garnaut et al; and an analysis by 'econometricians' finds that the slope of the trend line for the last 30 years or so of global temperature measurements does not accord with the IPCC projections for temperature rise out to 2100.

On the first, it is of course true that water is produced by the combustion reaction (and nitrogen, as the chemical equation also shows, passes through more or less unchanged, though why on earth this matters is not made clear). Is this trying to tell us that there is a consequent change in atmospheric water concentration (also known as humidity) that will affect climate? In view of all the other sources of water vapour around the place, this has to be nonsense.

On the second, of course a linear extrapolation of the temperature trend line over the last 30 years will not give the IPCC projection out to 2100 because the latter is based on an (undisputed) increasing rate of emissions, increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and hence an increasing slope.

Climate sceptics need to remind themselves that the influence of carbon dioxide on climate is classic school textbook chemistry and physics. The chemistry text (Partington, if you want to know) I used in high school said as far back as 1934 that burning fuels might affect climate; the evidence shows that in all likelihood it does. This article does nothing to challenge that solid basis for concern about greenhouse gas emissions.
Posted by Tombee, Friday, 25 March 2011 7:32:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You shot yourself in the foot by using a reference from Lavoisier which caused me to cease reading the rest of your article.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 25 March 2011 8:08:50 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
Articles that attempt to expose some scientific flaw in the concensus view formed by the IPCC and other scientific bodies are best processed through the accepted scientific process which requires peer review and validation of a paper. Once a scientific body of some repute validates the thinking then I will take notice - until then such articles are incomprehensible to the layman and serve to confuse. This raises an interesting point - how many scientific bodies (as opposed to individual self nominated experts) support the IPCC consensus versus how many do not? I suspect the answer is a lot and none.
A simple common sense take on the overall issue would be based on the following facts:
1. We are putting a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (through burning fossil fuels) that wouldn't otherwise be there.
2. This has resulted in the % of CO2 in the atmosphere steadily increasing year on year.
3. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that this has caused and will continue to cause global average temperatures to rise, weather patterns to change and sea levels to rise.
4. The above effects will be bad for humans and other living creatures and should be avoided.
5. A large part of the solution is to move as quickly as possible away from fossil fuel use to renewable, carbon free sources of energy of which thankfully there are plenty.

It is really that simple, so lets just get on with it eh?
Posted by Rich2, Friday, 25 March 2011 9:35:54 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
I heard Tim Flannery on a radio station this morning, who responded when asked how much the temperature would drop if the whole world reduced its emissions .. he said we would not know for hundreds of years.

He also aid that by 2020 if we reduced our CO2 by 5% on 2000 levels, it would be around 1/1000 of a degree, and not for hundreds of years.

So not even in our childrens or grandchildrens lifetimes will we get any effect out of what activists want us to do now.

You're all so sure of the problem, but seem to have zero idea of what your solution will do, if anything or by when. Or if it is even feasible to do, the whole principle of "we have to do something" has no scientific basis, it is completely emotional.

So that's the Climate Commission front man, paid by the government at huge expense to travel the country to promote the Carbon tax .. and he's not even sure and hemmed and hawed and was very uncomfortable about committing.

So to those who bleat that we're affecting our childrens or grandchildrens futures .. get over it, you've been sold a pup, you've swallowed the spin and hype.

Even if its true, there is nothing we can do about it, so use the money to adapt, not this folly of trying to reverse the climate, you just know it is not going to work, like stopping tectonic plate movement or stopping a volcanic eruption, these things, like climate, are beyond present day science .. just because we "think" we know everything doesn't mean we do, what hubris

me, I'm off to the F1 GP practice session in Melbourne ..
Posted by Amicus, Friday, 25 March 2011 10:23:05 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
Rich 2 I have to assume you have disconnected all utilities and are completely sustainable? If not why not? If you and other supporters did this there would be no problem and no need for carbon tax.
You asked who is for and who is against this nonsense? Happy to emlighten you there. The IPCC and mates are given loads and loads of my money for spinning this threat.
There are billions being spent on this self perpertuating scam. Range all your white coats and degrees you like mate but the ordinary punter wil just vote out labour, The Greens and this tax scam and the sooner the better.
Australia is now entering a wetter 20 year phase so unless the tax is in now, every year it will be more and more obvious this is a con!
Posted by JBowyer, Friday, 25 March 2011 10:43:39 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
Tombee and others - You are quite corect to say that CO2 increases will change temperatures. The effect is well known and set out in a classic paper by a French scientist C Lorius and others (Nature, September 13, 1990 - findable online), which calculates that if CO2 concentrations in the air double from back then, and ignoring all feebacks, the result will be an increase of 1.1 degrees C.

This finding has never been disputed, as far as I know. the argument has always been over feedbacks caused by that temperature increase - specifically over the amount of water vapour in the stmosphere. The climate models assume that water vapour increases will, for various reasons, amplify the fairly small temperature increase from CO2. And they all make the same assumption.

Thus the interest in water vapour, and the author does make an interesting point. Earlier articles one this site have also pointed out that scientists are only now making serious efforts to check the assumption behind the models.

Another point you can take away is that there is no real indication, on current trends and never mind the modelling, that CO2 concentrations will double by the turn of the century. An increase of 50 per cent, perhaps, if trends hold. Look up the Mauna Loa figures http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo
for yourself and graph the year to year increase if you don't believe me. Anyone who has seriously looked at the science behind the CO2 projections will, in any case, realise just how dodgy that stuff is - anything could happen.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 25 March 2011 11:07:51 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
Oh dear another one, ask any Physicist and they'll tell you they regularly get letters from people claiming to have proven relativity is wrong. Biologist get letters telling them their all wrong about Evolutions. Geologist get letter about the age of the earth. Now Climate scientist are getting letters saying they're wrong about climate change.
The methods used by all groups of deniers are the same and all a grounded in the belief that Scientist are evil people just after the money.
Bottom line these deniers are anti-science anti-progress nay Sayers who should not be listened to. Oh and they vote conservative and listen to shock jocks instead of experts.
Bring on the Carbon tax.

Amicus you have deliberately mis-represented what Tim said and you know it
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 25 March 2011 11:16:55 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
Amicus.
Your comment contains elementary logic flaws. Reducing emissions may not have much impact on reducing temperature. However you have missed the obvious point that continuing on our business as usual emissions path will increase temperatures. D'oh. Therefore it is still essential we reduce emissions.
Then you say "Even if its true, there is nothing we can do about it so use the money to adapt". Wrong - there is something we can do so lets do it (ie: switch to carbon free energy sources).
I observe that if you ask a scientist, like Tim Flannery, about something that is 99% certain they won't give definitive answers because they are only 99% certain. Ask a politician or a climate denier about something that is only 1% likely and they will tell you it is 100% certain with no room for doubt. Hence it is a skewed debate.
JBowyer.
You say you are happy to enlighten me but dont name a single scientific body that disagrees with the IPCC view. I believe that the percentage of people believing in climate change will increase over time as will support for a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme. My reasoning is that sadly it will become more and more obvious that the climate is changing to the point where deniers will be regarded the same way that those who believe cigarette smoking doesnt have an impact on physical health, that is with a degree of sadness and an understanding that their views are irrelevant to the real world.
Posted by Rich2, Friday, 25 March 2011 11:28:11 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
Rich I am happy to agree to disagree with you here.
Every year that goes by will prove one of us right and the other a gullible fool.
I have to assume you are connected to the grid too? Of course if all the greens made their own power arrangements we would see a lot of emissions reductions but its all about the money?
P.S. I do not smoke.
Posted by JBowyer, Friday, 25 March 2011 12:03:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny - to suggest that global warming is in the same league as relativity and evolution is plainly ludicrous - its nothing of the sort. Both of those theories have a very considerable track records. There is nothing like that at all for global warming.

I have pointed out before in these posts, and will again, that all forecasts made using the global warming theory, such as it is, are either doubtful - at the most no better than a "status quo" forecasting system - or plainly wrong.

The weight of expert opinion, for or against a particular scientific proposition, as we all know, counts for absolutely nothing. What track record does the theory have?
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 25 March 2011 12:56:43 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
JBowyer.
As you say it is all about the money. That is why putting a price on carbon is the right thing to do. It will make fossil fuel power generation more expensive and as soon as it becomes more expensive than renewable energy then even you and fellow deniers will stop buying it and power companies will provide what is cheapest.

Personal consumption profiles are not the main issue here - even though a few will change habits for the good of humanity or to satisfy their own conscience the majority will not. They need a price signal that only the government can force into being. Hence the importance of being politically active and not letting the nonsense that yourself and others sprout and spew into the air go unchallenged.
Posted by Rich2, Friday, 25 March 2011 2:35:39 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
Rich2 - it is highly unlikely that a price on carbon would make alternative energy competitive, unless its jacked up very high from the start - a point almost entirely overlooked in the debate. There is now, plenty of evidence from overseas sources that energy from wind projects, for example, is three times more expensive than conventional power, and that's just wholesale. There's still the cost of extra transmission lines and of adapting the power network to use wind. $20 a tonne on carbon isn't going to change conventional power prices that much, although it may result in a switch from coal to gas.

What will do what you are hoping for is the existing requirement that 20 per cent of power is to be sourced from green power by 2020 - this has been changed since the legislation was brought in so that 10 per cent has to come from big sources (wind farms, maybe hydro although I'm not clear on that point), and the other 10 per cent from small sources (house solar hot water and PV arrays ect.)

For various reasons the actual savings will not add up to anything like 20 per cent - despite claims by activists - but none the less there will be a lot of nominally green electricity for you..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 25 March 2011 4:17:41 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
Rich I did give you the befit of the doubt but you just don't get it! The carbon tax will change to a bank trade for carbon which will mean we would pay higher energy costs and the banks would get richer on the trades.
Expensive energy will snuff out a lot of our jobs.

My challenge to you is over the coming years let us see what the climate does?

Obviously you are happy to impoverish your fellow Australians but not to the extent of doing what you regard as right and generating your own solar and wind power? All the heavy lifting you want put on to others by the government.
Personal consumption issues show who is honest here and you have shown your true colours!
Posted by JBowyer, Friday, 25 March 2011 9:50:33 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
kenny .. oh dear, "Amicus you have deliberately mis-represented what Tim said and you know it"

No kenny , here's a quote from the transcript

"If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years" Tim Flannery

you are so fixated that you know the "truth" that you are prepared, on no evidence at all except your faith to accuse me of misrepresentation. Well?

So what do you do when the facts change kenny?

This is what skeptics have been saying all along .. a big new tax does bugger all except make believers feel self satisfied, nothing else. Well?

Here, go read the whole transcript, http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today_march_25/

Tim Flannery, finally outs the truth, what's especially delicious is that is was Andrew Bolt, usually a barely controlled personality on radio, who was cool and collected, kept to the plot and Tim was gracious in his dealings as well and they had a reasonable discussion and this was the outcome.

So .. rich 2, I think it's "Your comment contains elementary logic flaws", not mine .. mine is the tax does nothing, reducing CO2, is useless - or if Tim is right, the atmosphere is saturated anyway, hence, no effect?

You guys tie yourselves in knots and then try to weasel out with squirriley words, and you wonder why climate credibility is lacking.

What is logical is we need to adapt .. since it ain't going to change for some time!

BTW - the F1 practice was simply awesome, then the big V8s came out, then another practice session, I just regret missing the GT3 Porsche Cup this morning. Not to worry, it's on again tomorrow.

I love advanced awesome machines, the pinnacle of engine technology!

Oh they had a hybrid race as well, everyone went and found something else to do while that was on.
Posted by Amicus, Friday, 25 March 2011 10:29:56 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
Back in the 1950s & 60s, scientists predicted mass famine, war, and widespread poverty owing to the ‘population explosion’. Their projections were good science, based on research (headcounts) substantially more reliable than anything climate scientists can manage today. They were quite wrong, of course: in part, because research in agriculture greatly expanded food production, in part because increased prosperity worldwide led to unexpected, but very large, reductions in human reproduction. Population experts didn’t anticipate birth control. Even the best science can’t account what’s yet to be discovered.
There’s no downside to reducing CO2 emissions, and we’ve plenty of good reasons to develop power generation technologies to replace coal and oil. Still, stabilising population growth in China, India, Africa and South America will have a huge impact on emissions, and should be much the higher priority. If population ceases to grow, or even begins to shrink, the task of managing our environment becomes much easier. Cheap energy and food are prerequisites, though, and to the extent that CO2 mitigation schemes impact energy and food prices in developing countries, the result could be counterproductive. (Think biofuels, for instance).
Just as in the 1950s, scientists still love to predict the future. There are differences, though. Prior to the millennium, no scientist ever had the hubris to declare any corner of science ‘settled’. No proponents of any hypothesis had the hide to label scientists who disagreed ‘deniers’. Back then, no one would have considered projections of what life would be like in 50 years anything other than rank speculation — they expected their cherished certainties to be overturned, and for the most part honoured those who did the damage. Much more disturbing is the current corruption of peer review by ‘pal’ review. Worse yet is the refusal of some climate scientists to fully publish their data, calculations, and models, a sin which would have been absolutely mortal only decades ago.
Climate science has much to contribute to government policy. In that respect, however, it’s anything but pre-eminent. Doubt is what we use to test truth. If you can’t doubt, it’s not science: it’s religion.
Posted by donkeygod, Friday, 25 March 2011 10:54:45 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
>> Even if its true, there is nothing we can do about it, so use the money to adapt, not this folly of trying to reverse the climate, you just know it is not going to work, like stopping tectonic plate movement or stopping a volcanic eruption, these things, like climate, are beyond present day science .. just because we "think" we know everything doesn't mean we do, what hubris

me, I'm off to the F1 GP practice session in Melbourne .. <<

Amicus,
There is much undisputed literature that concludes that even if all fossil fuel burning is stopped today, tempertures will continue to rise due to the chemical and physical properties of the GHG's.

What the international scientific community is trying to instil, is that efforts must be taken to limit the rise to 2 degrees C.

Higher temperatures pose a much greater threat.

It is true, as you say - we must adapt.

How do you propose we adapt? Going to the F1 GP practice session in Melbourne?

"Use the money" to adapt? Sure, I agree, but where do you think the money will come from?

Let's be clear about this, adaptation will incur huge costs ... and adaptation will take a long time.

Don't you think that adaptation should begin now?

Bolters says we should adapt to a changing climate, he even concedes that alternative energy sources should be pursued. Fine, how does he propose to adapt, and how does he propose it should be funded?

I find his silence and hypocisy astounding in this regard.

So yes, we can do something about it if we are willing. Here in Australia, we are laggards.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 26 March 2011 7:34:31 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
Donkeygod

Please, just name one reputable scientist who has "declared any corner of science settled".

If you can, I would appreciate a link to the full comment.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 26 March 2011 7:39:57 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
Last night I attended the Climate Commission's meeting at the Geelong West Town Hall. Even though I had booked a seat my later arrival meant standing in a crowded doorway for the duration.

I went not because of any doubt over the threat of global warming but because I was interested in trying to gauge the mood of the crowd and how it would reflect the debate raging in the media and among our politicians.

The Geelong West town hall has been the site of some heated political clashes in the past from meetings over logging, water, fluoride, One Nation and many other contentious issues. It is difficult to think of a more one sided crowd. The applause for calls for action from speakers from the audience seemed to be the strongest though those who raised doubts about the science were still listen to on the whole politely.

The sentiment that appeared to prevail was anger that our government wasn't getting on with it and some of that frustration was directed at the panel members.

It will be interesting to see how the rest of the meetings go around Australia but I would have thought Geelong, with its energy intensive industries, might have seen a greater negative response.
Posted by csteele, Saturday, 26 March 2011 9:04:34 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
bonmot "Bolters says we should adapt to a changing climate, he even concedes that alternative energy sources should be pursued. Fine, how does he propose to adapt, and how does he propose it should be funded?

I find his silence and hypocisy astounding in this regard. "

Why does Andy have to supply solutions?

I note none of the journalists reporting on a variety of things, or even opinion writers, are "required" to supply solutions .. that's a strawman argument and you know it.

This is like requiring someone who writes an opinion piece on the tsunamis, to supply solutions. Then you obviously would castigate them and sneer at them for not doing just that! Everyone who wrtites anything, must now supply solutions, or not write cries bonmot!Oh the hypocrisy he wails!

You have no answer to Andy's investigative ability to extract from Tim Flannery some truth, and you switch the argument to Andy's lack of solutions? That's just bias, nothing more, yu can't deal with it, so attack the source .. why not attack Flannery, all Andy dd was report it?

Why not address what Amicus has posted, that Flannery agrees .. there is no reduction in temperature in reducing CO2, and he won't even talk about whether it will stop increasing temperature, beyond saying that the atmosphere is "saturated" with CO2 .. funny, we can all still breath, how odd. Does he know what he's talking about?

Why 2 degrees? Is that another made up number? Is that world average? measured how? I suspect it's a convenient number to fright the stupid masses.

You obviously have no problem joining in the happy chanting of alarmism, regardless of reasoning .. 2 degrees, yes that's the number of DOOOM!

I find your hypocrisy astounding in this regard.
Posted by rpg, Saturday, 26 March 2011 10:11:43 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
WHo the hell are you Tim Curtin? Know anything about anything do you?

The theories of the day on any topic are always accepted by scientisats as just that. A theory until proven otherwise. If it seems logical they act on it and monitor the results. If they didn't it would remain a theory forever, and the only answer.

Or aqree you saying Garnaut forget to mention cholera or the flat earth theory too?

There is only one point to all the science, anti science and theries. That is, if we do nothing we'll know in time the truth. But by then the earth may be unlivable.

If we do use these theories we can monitor the carbon levels and keep going if it works or stop if it doesn't.

Arguing against it has achieved only one thing. A delay of 20 years and bringing us closer to potential doom.

If Garnaut is wrong we'll find out won't we. The thing is we already know Abbott is wrong. I mean, really? Plant more trees?
Posted by RobbyH, Saturday, 26 March 2011 10:47:14 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, bonmot!

I would consider any scientist who declares science 'settled' to be disreputable by definition. You needn't look far to find one, though it's politicians and spruikers (e.g. Garnaut, Gillard, Gore) who generally make most frequent (ab)use of the phrase. String theory may soon undo Einstein, just as Einstein undid Newton. Good! I really don't think people like Michael Mann and Phil Jones will have the last word.

The point I was talking around is that 'climate science' alone can't predict climate with any degree of certainty. A breakthrough in fusion power research is unlikely, but not impossible — if it were to happen ... whacko, a whole new paradigm. If earth's population stabilises at, say, 7 billions by 2050, GHG emission estimates will be very different from what extrapolation of current trends would suggest. Climate theories will need major rework once solar scientists have quantified insolation, something we're likely to see in the next few years. Climate models are still woeful when it comes to account for clouds, and that's a problem physicists and chemists need to solve; climatologists will only use their results. Statisticians have wrought havoc with much climate science methodology, and I find that unforgivably careless — we should reject out of hand any quantitative estimate that doesn't come with a standard deviation.

Let's see how it all plays out. I don't think Garnaut's review, however, gives anything like due weight to the above. His sins of omission are very great. As Einstein once observed, 'Everything should be made a simple as possible, but not simpler.' Garnaut's lack of doubt doesn't convince me — it scares me ... because, in my view, it's profoundly unscientific.
Posted by donkeygod, Saturday, 26 March 2011 11:05:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> Why does Andy have to supply solutions? <<

Bolt (and others here) says we have to adapt - I agree (didn't think that was alarmist at all, but there you go).

It would be helpful if 'Andy' and others (who 'want' a debate) could contribute to the debate.

Rather than just be negative (as some clearly are) ... contribute. How do you propose we adapt, rpg?

Do you want to fund adaptation at all, rpg?

I will say again (you obviously have your thumbs in your ears and your fingers covering your eyes):

It is a well known truth (although 'Andy' seems just to have discovered it) that CO2 has long atmospheric residence times - more warming is still to come and it ain't going away anytime soon.

Solomon (and others) have written some very good literature on this. Do you want the link?

rpg, you claim to be a professional engineer (there are many 'types' of engineer, btw) - your anger belies your 'professionism'.

>> You obviously have no problem joining in the happy chanting of alarmism, regardless of reasoning .. 2 degrees, yes that's the number of DOOOM! <<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11759#201589

"why 2 degrees?"

Because 3,4,5,6 are worse. Don't forget, they are average temperatures. Some places will be more, some less. Corollary, 2 is not "the number of doom", even without your shouted exclamation.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 26 March 2011 11:49:14 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
Oh, I just saw Tim Curtin's alter-ego sock-puppet Tom Tiddler pop up - in "users currently online".

How about it TimTom, join the fray - it's your thread anyway.

Maybe we can invite some replies to your thread here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php

Over to you?
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 26 March 2011 12:01:01 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
What I fail to understand in this whole debate is why it even matters whether carbon increases global temperatures, and what the cuase of the changing climate is. Surely having the knowledge and technology to 'do things better' with less general environmental impact is reason enough to make the changes we need.
Last time I checked it took millions of years and very specific climatic conditions to produce the coal and oil and natural gas that we are currently exploiting at a ridiculous rate. One day (and every calculation differs as to exactly when) there will be none left. Why is it that we have to wait until then to actually do something to reduce our reliance on them. They won't last forever, and that is not a disputed fact by anyone, and so we have to slow down, even stop, using them. Let's start doing that as soon as we can just because it's possible to and it's 'better' in the long term.
Posted by coothdrup, Saturday, 26 March 2011 12:59:26 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
Thanks for the Comments on my piece so far. Here is the first of my responses
Rich2, Friday, 25 March 2011 9:35:54 AM

“1. We are putting a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (through burning fossil fuels) that wouldn't otherwise be there.”

#1. It is also true that only 44% has added to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as 56% has been absorbed by the globe’s biospheres, resulting in more food (cereals and meat etc), fish, and forestry (total area under trees has increased enabling large increases in utilisation of this renewable resource, FAO data). Garnaut as an economist should not studiously refrain from mentioning let alone valuing these huge social benefits.

2. “This has resulted in the % of CO2 in the atmosphere steadily increasing year on year”.

#2. It has grown at only 0.295% p.a. since 1958, and there has been no acceleration in that rate.

3. “The overwhelming scientific consensus is that this has caused and will continue to cause global average temperatures to rise….”

#3. There has been overwhelming consensus in the recent past that cholera and malaria were both caused by bad air (as malaria’s very name still implies), and it took John Snow (854) and Ronald Ross (1895) respectively to prove that cholera is caused by contaminated water and malaria by water-bred mosquitoes. As my full paper shows (at www.lavoisier.com.au), today’s climate consensus has been created by suits who have not ever published econometric analysis (like that inspired by John Snow) demonstrating the claimed correlation between CO2 and temperature, whereas I have done for dozens of places in the USA with no sign of such a correlation, and in all of which (other than deserts) the main explanatory variable for temperature change is “precipitable water” with amazingly strong statistical significance.

Climate scientists rely instead on graphs with curves of CO2 and temperature “anomalies” manipulated to look as though they rising in tandem with each other. Those graphs are not supported by regression analysis and are no more valid than one plotting sales of mobile phones since 1990 along with CO2.
Posted by Tom Tiddler, Saturday, 26 March 2011 3:19:24 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
Amicus,

You didn't hear correctly. Hundreds of years? Why then was last year the hottest on record?

Coothdrup,

Most sensible comment on the thread. You're right. It doesn't matter, we have a chance to fix it so why wouldn't we try instead of arguing against, Abbott style, oppose everything, just because. And he nearly believed in the ice Age, even does. Why would he? Was he there? It's just written in books and he believes that so why not what is actually happening today?

He believes in God and he doesn't exist, so why not climate change and how to fix it?

Tom,

You just exposed your "expertise in your last lines. By using the word "manipulated". Ho hum, another conspiracy theorist, don't sail too close to the edge, you might catch cholera.
Posted by RobbyH, Sunday, 27 March 2011 10:12:20 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
Robby H Last year the hottest on record, really, you reckon? I think you need a Bex and a lie down. I have heard this nonsense over and over. THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD. Says who? Oh yes the Climate Research Institute and the IPPC who both get their funding because of they are terrorising gullible people saying we are all going to die!
Wasn't it Hitler who said use the big lie and if you keep saying it people will start believing it. The Met bureau in Melbourne told me in 1990 that the Melbourne temperatures had been stable for 100 years. That I believe and people who are paid to say otherwise will do just that!
Posted by JBowyer, Sunday, 27 March 2011 11:33:44 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
If you're going to insist on following the scientific 'consensus', you might note that a fundamental consensus, and one of very long standing, is that you don't accept assertions like 'last year was the hottest on record' unless the measured temperature is at least three standard deviations above the previous high. It isn't.

In rhetoric, ad hominem can be effective. In science, it's inadmissible.

Agreed, we should make sensible plans to reduce emissions. If you want to focus on CO2, fine. In that case, you need to consider alternatives to coal for base-load power. PV solar and wind are not alternatives for base-load power. Methane, coal-seam gas, and nuclear are the only alternatives which can deliver base-load power (I'm not sure whether to include 'ckean coal' or not, but my guess would be it's no nearer than geothermal to commercial viability, hence in the too-hard basket for the next few years at least). Methane, coal-seam gas and nuclear technologies won't attract investment to replace coal without explicit government intervention. That intervention is what Abbott calls 'direct action'. Dis it if you like, but unless and until you show how a Carbon Tax will drive replacement of coal-fired base-load power by cleaner technologies, WITHOUT government intervention of any sort, I'd suggest your thinking isn't sufficiently ... scientific.
Posted by donkeygod, Sunday, 27 March 2011 6:00:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just out of curiosity, donkeygod where do you get this information?

"If you're going to insist on following the scientific 'consensus', you might note that a fundamental consensus, and one of very long standing, is that you don't accept assertions like 'last year was the hottest on record' unless the measured temperature is at least three standard deviations above the previous high. It isn't."

Where is this long standing 'consensus'? Where did you get the standard deviation calculations information from?

From my understanding, isn't standard deviation just a test of statistical significance, assuming a Gaussian distribution? I think you can say an average is higher, without it necessarily being statistically different.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 27 March 2011 7:32:37 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
Hi, Bugsy!

The GISS-NASA press release in January 2011 said:

“Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie.”

That’s a roundabout way of saying that the difference is statistically ‘insignificant’. Doesn’t mean the observation is useless: they’re saying 2005 and 2010 temperatures fall within a bracket four standard deviations wide. No, you certainly can’t say one average is ‘higher’ than another without showing statistical significance. If you could, then if I tossed a coin and heads came up three times running, I’d have ‘proven’ it was biased ... even though by tossing it 30 times more I’d ‘prove’ it was NOT biased. You do need to know something about data distribution, but it needn’t be Gaussian to estimate significance.

Estimating global temperature is a horrific problem, and the statistical implications are wicked. NASA’s records run from 1880, but of course 100 yrs ago far fewer measurements were made, the technology was different, and the environment was VERY different, i.e., much smaller urban heat-island effects (UHI). Comparing such different data sets dramatically increases uncertainty. UHI adjustments are particularly contentious — but that’s a whole book in itself. Then there’s the problem of estimating ‘global surface temperature’ based on a very biased system of measurements: urban areas are hugely over-represented, while much larger non-urban areas (Russia, Africa, South America, THE SEA!) are grossly under-represented. Adjustments can be greater than the purported effects. If so, what you have may be suggestive, even useful, but it's not yet science.

It’s a huge subject, and 350 words won’t begin to even list the challenges. But, having worked for some decades as a scientist & engineer, I can promise you that significance testing IS de rigeur. If you don’t have it, and can’t get it, don’t believe it!
Posted by donkeygod, Monday, 28 March 2011 7:15:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, so it was the EQUAL hottest on record.

That's a lot of words protesting the omission of one word.
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 28 March 2011 7:49:59 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
robbyh "Amicus,

You didn't hear correctly. Hundreds of years? Why then was last year the hottest on record?"

What's your point?

Tim Flannery said it not me, like many others you attack the messenger, since you don't like the message .. go ask Tim, I heard it and read the transcript.

This is a natural thing going on, it's not a "problem", it may be contributed to by man's land clearing and other activities, that's progress, but I do not subscribe to the view that taxing CO2 in Australia is the "solution", to a non problem.

The difficulty for you alarmists is that now people feel they need do nothing else about pollution or reducing energy use, after all, the government has told us it will all be solved with a tax .. so I'll pay the tax, then go on consuming as normal.

It's like you think Labor in power will not add to taxes, of course they do, they will find a way.

As to the hottest year syndrome, if this year is not as hot as last year, what will you do?

If it's cooler, we can all go "phew, dodged a bullet there eh" yes? Our tax must be working, yes?

What utter rubbish, you try to exploit convenient events to support your belief, that's all it is .. geologically one year is irrelevant.

I can imagine in the church of AGW though everyone will be praying for another hot year, to "get" those sinners who don't believe .. they will get their comeuppance! Repent ye fools!

I also do not offer a solution, as there is no problem (to those who insist solutions MUST be offered, bonmot, and we all look forward to your predictions and solutions).
Posted by Amicus, Monday, 28 March 2011 8:01:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, bugsy. It's not 'equal' hottest. GISS-NASA have calculated a 0.18 F difference between 2005 and 2010. That's a best case, because they're using more recent, more copious, and more accurate data. Even so, they've clearly stated that their calculations STILL aren't accurate enough to distinguish a change that small from background noise. If calculated global surface temperatures for the last 130 years have, say, an average standard deviation of 0.5 F (and it'd be nowhere near that low for the early data), then there may well be 60+ years in that time period which, by your criteria, are 'equal hottest'. If five of those 'equal hottest' years happened to fall in the 1930s, would you conclude that the world is cooler now than it was then? You wouldn’t, of course, but if you did, you'd be quite wrong.

This is the problem we run into when statistical significance isn’t part of the discussion. You can sometimes find out more if you check out the original sources, but nowhere near often enough. Physicists, drug manufacturers, even economists use scientifically valid statistical analysis to support their data; it’s quite often required by law. Climate scientists, admittedly, face special problems in establishing statistical significance, but that doesn’t excuse pretending that those problems don’t exist. That’s what was so terribly wrong with Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick‘ — he used proxies rather than temperatures, cherrypicked his data, and used methods which were easily shown to be totally lacking in statistical significance. And got away with it, for far too long.

I’m not arguing against AGW here. I’m just pointing out that there are established, demonstrably valid criteria for determining whether some scientific observations have a better-than-even chance of being true. When it’s feasible to use them, scientists are professionally and ethically obliged to do so. If journalists and activists don’t want to bother, that’s their call. But I notice, and form my judgements accordingly.
Posted by donkeygod, Monday, 28 March 2011 9:42:49 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, if the average temperatures were a 'statistical tie' as the hottest, what happened to the 'cooling trend since 1998' we have heard so much about from the sceptics?

That couldn't possibly exist, or have ever existed according to your statistical significance tests, could it?
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 28 March 2011 9:47:47 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
donkeygod (Saturday, 26 March 2011 11:05:38 AM)

You said:

>> Prior to the millennium, no scientist ever had the hubris to declare any corner of science ‘settled’. <<

You imply that after the millenium, some scientists were.

All I asked of you was to just name one reputable scientist who was.

Your reply (minus the smoke):

>> You needn't look far to find one. <<

I have and have not been able to find any.

So, please - just name one. Again, please link to their comment - we should not take it out of context.

Further:

>> you might note that a fundamental consensus, and one of very long standing, is that you don't accept assertions like 'last year was the hottest on record' unless the measured temperature is at least three standard deviations above the previous high. It isn't. <<

It seems you are confusing fluctuations about a trend with Levey-Jennings control charts.

For the onlookers, all data sets are shown here:

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/02/global-temperature-in-2010-hottest-year/
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 28 March 2011 10:05:46 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
Quite so, bugsy. And even if cooling since 1998 were shown to be statistically significant, it wouldn't necessarily disprove the AGW hypothesis. Cooling due to reduced insolation, for instance, might have been much greater but for the warming effect of CO2.

It might be worthwhile to recall the criteria which science uses for judging the utility of a hypothesis. Irving Copi's list is, I think, still preeminent. The standards are:

1) relevance
2) testability
3) compatibility with previously well-established hypotheses
4) predictive or explanatory power
5) simplicity.

I won't try to apply the above to the Great Global Warming Debate in 350 words or less. It's fair to say, though, that relevance is established. And, about AGW in general, I think it's reasonably compatible with other accepted hypotheses. Testability, of course, is a serious problem (and one where questions of statistical significance are absolutely central).

Predictive or explanatory power is a very weak point. We're over-reliant on very dodgy computer models, many of which are not available for scrutiny by scientists at large. The idea that such models can be considered 'proprietary', kept secret, and still used to influence public policy on such important issues, is absolutely diabolical. So also is 'Pal' review, where your paper is vetted by friends in the same field, while experts in related disciplines (statistics being a notable one here) are denied an opportunity to comment, and perhaps to correct obvious errors. Al Gore took the AGW hypothesis right out of the realm of science, and plonked it firmly in the camp of religion: hence the contumely heaped on so-called 'sceptics' and 'deniers'. You can’t claim the authority of science for the AGW hypothesis if your argument includes hyperbole, unwarranted extrapolation, and bad science fiction. It's unfortunate that's colouring debate.

Simplicity is a good criterion for judging between competing hypotheses. If it could be shown that insolation has increased over the last few decades, for instance, a solar cycle explanation might better explain climate data than AGW. Hasn’t happened yet, but it can’t be ruled out. We’ll see, no?
Posted by donkeygod, Monday, 28 March 2011 10:39:54 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
A couple of points;
To all those who argue that CO2 is not 'pollution', I suggest this argument can be resolved quite abruptly. Just try breathing the stuff for ten minutes.
Yes CO2 is beneficial for plants, and if we were actually trying to increase the world's green matter it would be a valid argument. Unfortunately, according to United Nations Earthwatch, “Almost half of the planet’s original forest has been destroyed, mostly during the last three decades. Between 1990 and 1995, the net forest loss equaled 33 football fields per minute (112 600 square kilometers annually)”.
IOW, at the very same time as we are deliberately converting fossil fuels into 21 billion tonnes of atmospheric CO2 every year, we are cutting down and destroying those organisms which would not only gain from this 'abundance', but would happily convert it into something we can breath.
Recently, Freeman Dyson (regarded by many as one of the world's very smartest people, although a noted contrarian) pointed out that our carbon problem could be resolved if we just planted 1 trillion trees. Now I'm not prepared to comment on whether that is a practical solution or not, but surely it must be obvious and inarguable that the more we cut down on carbon pollution, the less trees we have to plant, and vice versa, if we are to retain some equilibrium.
Isn't that the 'conservative' thing to do?
Posted by Grim, Monday, 28 March 2011 11:12:36 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
The other point which never fails to get me cranky, is the business of perpetually ignoring the 'Forgotten Fifty' (percent); that half of our population who make less than $40k a year. If they are remembered, it is only to treat them like children and offer them handouts; like this nonsense of a carbon tax which will only 'affect' the largest companies.
Even children can be made to understand that when the costs to a business rise, the business will respond by increasing prices, which is I suspect why this tax is meeting so much opposition.
For a carbon tax to work, it has to impinge on every voter, and the only way that can work is basically, if it is in the form of something like a 'luxury' tax: manual can opener, no tax; electric can opener, tax. Ceiling fans, no tax; air conditioning, tax.
Other examples might include a container ship tax, where food and goods travelling large distances are taxed, energy inefficient cars and machinery are taxed, electricity 'transported' (by high voltage cables, involving egregious losses) over long distances are taxed, etc, etc.
To increase public awareness of a problem, surely the first step must be to engage the public in the problem? If we are to subsidise the poor to buffer them against tax increases, why not make it in the form of subsidised affordable energy efficient housing, community or municipal power and water supplies?
Perhaps AGW is a contentious issue, but is anyone prepared to argue that pollution is a good thing?
Or that the enormous wastage of resources caused by the 'tyranny of distance' is to be applauded?
Posted by Grim, Monday, 28 March 2011 11:14:24 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
Two quick things here.
Andrew Bolt says the last ten years have been cooling. If you disagree why not take him on? Personally Melbourne was without any doubt whatsoever cooler last year and so was most of England. No arguments here so how come it was the hottest year on record this is bollox as they say in the Classics!
Secondly why don't all you greenies cut off the utilities and do it all yourself? You say you are the majority so it would be fixed surely? No you want to steal my money. Well good luck boys and girls watch what happens to Juliar. Oh ask Windsor and Oakshott how they reckon they are going to go on the next election after their little independant mates got chucked out in the NSW elections.
Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 28 March 2011 5:22:34 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
JBowyer: I have taken him (AB) on, I can't get past his 'censors' now. That is why I consider OLO a much better forum.

I gave a link above, which part needs explaining?

As to Melbourne and England - most people understand they don't constitute the World, not even considered regions. The contiguous USA only represents 2% of the planet's surface area, and it was cold in parts there too.

Can't comment on your 2nd thing - I'm not a greenie, sorry.
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 28 March 2011 6:15:48 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. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

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