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 > Price carbon or face a bleak future > Comments

Price carbon or face a bleak future : Comments

By Mike Pope, published 26/5/2011

Pricing carbon will lead to substitution not destitution.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All
"Fantasy"? Yep, you sure know which side your bread is buttered alright. You ask to point to where you have "attacked the science" and then proceed to do just that by misrepresenting the entirely of observation and testing of hypotheses by trying to dismiss it all as just unsupported modelling and correlations. The phrase "unchallenged proof" displays an engineering bias that comes mostly from mathemathics as far as I can tell. There are plenty of policy decisions that are mad on far less evidence of working, let alone "proof", the penal code for instance.

We agree with what a scientific process does, and that theories are challenged. Yes, I would say that has happened and the alternative theories are currently losing or have lost. You don't believe that the challenge t theory has been done 'properly'. Well, that is an unsupported personal opinion at this point isn't it?

The rest of your post involves mixing up political viewpoints and justifying value judgements etc. You may try and represent me as "most opposition", however you will find that I am not. I am not making (and do not make) policy statements about what we should do. That is for politicians. However do not make the mistake that if the policy for action is considered 'wrong', that somehow the science must be also.

The only fantasy around here is what you think I am.
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 28 May 2011 1:09:31 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
Bugsy when the mathematics don't work, & they don't with AGW, then you don't have science at all. All you have left then is a religion, & your new AGW one has a fair way to go to challenge half a dozen of fully established old ones.

After all, they have been fine tuning their mythology for centuries, not just a few years like yours.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 28 May 2011 1:41:02 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
Bugsy
we've hit more total misunderstandings. You're talking about solar IRRADIANCE. Yes, a lot has been published on that. I'm talking about solar MAGNETISM. Its a completely different effect. Although I hate to sound like a broken record here the key paper where the global warmers admitted the effect is 'Recently opposite directed trends in climate forcings and the global mean surface temperature (Proceedings of the Royal Society A, July 13, 2007)'. Its available online. Also note the mass of evidence it the paper cites.

Agnostic of Mittigong - the paper I cite above is an excellent place to start if you want to get to grips with all the problems with greenhouse. Again, as I have stated, its up to the global warmers to establish a track record. Then they can be taken seriously.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Saturday, 28 May 2011 3:58:39 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
Conclusions to the paper you cite:

... Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, WHICHEVER of the (solar) mechanisms (including MAGNETISM Mark) is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lockwood2007_Recent_oppositely_directed_trends.pdf

Mark, you keep your thumbs in your ears and your fingers covering your eyes and still repeat like a broken record the same old-same old.

Please, don't link me to Monckton's think-tank refutation either.

You say >> Problem is that there is simply no research funds for anything other than greenhouse theory, so the science hasn't moved very much. <<

Wrong.

Mark, some of the most powerful and cashed up oil, coal and gas consortiums in the world are stumbling over each other to find a fatal flaw in AGW (they have more to lose than you can poke a stick at).

Guess what? They can't do it.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 28 May 2011 4:41:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One small country with a carbon tax doesn't make sense compared to India and China. But never mind the Oz companies will go off shore and import the goods back to us. The carbon tax may be needed to pay the unemployed.
Posted by Speaker, Saturday, 28 May 2011 6:09:17 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
No Mark, there's no 'total misunderstandings' here. I know you were talking about solar "magnetism" (whichever part you might like to pick, sunspots, GCRs etc), it's not like you haven't trumpeted on about it before.

And trotted out that reference to try and support your idea that it might just be the answers to a curmudgeons prayer.

Except that it isn't and the effects of the sun (yes including 'magnetism') have been reviewed even more recently and found wanting.

The comment on funding is classic conspiracy theory though. I love it, I'd like to see more of it from you.

I love the strategy though, pick an obscure hypothesis that might just exlain everything you want because noone will understand it properly, except the people who actually work in the field (or so you think).
Then you can say, 'it's the missing link, more needs to be done, but the activists have the funding' etc etc ad nauseum.

I love it, I'm sure it works well on Bolt's pages.
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 28 May 2011 10:26:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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