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 > Don’t listen to shock jocks on carbon > Comments

Don’t listen to shock jocks on carbon : Comments

By Bob Carter, published 1/6/2011

Climate change is like motherhood: of course it’s real, and whoever would doubt it?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
May I suggest to any of you who still believe in the worst crisis ever, that being climate change, to act like you believe it is real. Shouldn't you be screaming as scientists are silent when Obama fails to mention the crisis in his state of the union speech? Shouldn't you AND the scientists be screaming after all American IPCC research funding was pulled? Shouldn’t you as a climate crisis believer be the least bit concerned you can no longer expect voters to vote yes to taxing the air to make the weather colder? The new denier is someone who doesn’t know that the majority vote now is “former believer”. Not planet haters, just responsible former believers who want responsible stewardship of the planet, not threatening our children with climate death threats. We are above is fear mongering. Leave the fear mongering and lying to the neocons.
You can condemn your own kids to a CO2 death but how spineless is that compared to acting like it's a real danger to all of us and march in the streets with your SAVE THE PLANET sign like a real planet lover.
Posted by mememine69, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 8:04:09 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
Thanks Bob, when are we going to see you in a public debate with the Climate Change Committee? Please.

I keep seeing the reference to announcements by Cameron in the UK (also mentioned in Bob’s article) and his raising the stakes in the race for emissions cuts. Other than The Australian this week, no other reports seem to mention the most important part of this policy announcement. Cameron’s policy has a “sunset clause” through a review in 2014. In the event that the EU members have failed to match the UK’s emissions cuts, Cameron will pull down the EU’s house of carbon.

This satisfies Clegg’s support base on the one hand, leaves Cameron with his exit plan from both the CO2 debacle and possibly from EU sovereignty. It also puts the real “acid” on the EU in general and Germany in particular. All Merkel has to do now is replace 22% of her energy from nuclear with clean base load energy and top that all up to Cameron’s target by 2014. Best of luck.

I think Merkel has just put the finishing touches to Cameron’s exit plan and potentially ended Germany’s supremacy as an industrial giant. What was it we speculated, emissions taxes are taxes on democracy and capitalism?

And Australia is trying to jump in when the rest are jumping out. I guess someone can make sense of this but I can’t.

Keep up the good work Bob.
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 9:45:19 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
When will we see the paid flacks of the big polluters, holding up a piece of paper and saying” Peace in our time”?
The rest of us are supposed to ignore the fact that you cannot appease Global warming and hope it will go away.
Posted by sarnian, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 10:19:47 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
Bob Carter throws plenty of attractive bait for the sceptical reader. His doubts about job creation via ‘green’ energy, about the general economic impact of carbon pricing, about the timing of Australian entry into carbon taxing, about the reliability of peer review; his criticisms of loose or smart marketing language (carbon dioxide dubbed a ‘pollutant’, ‘carbon’ as shorthand for carbon dioxide); even his opinion that we are just seeing the normal ebb and flow of climate over geological time. These each might have merit as debating points. I know they help Bob in his own certainty that carbon dioxide is not going to create climate problems. I wish he was right. I am far from convinced.

Bob makes some bad blunders. Primarily he ignores the starting point for any scientific scepticism, which is the unequivocal knowledge that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and its concentration is increasing. My high school chemistry textbook (Partington’s Inorganic Chemistry if you must know) warned me about this 60 years ago. Carbon dioxide is rising; the temperature is rising; if it quacks like a duck.…. Bob doesn’t even bother to try to dissociate the absolutely certain rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion, as some shock jocks seem to be doing.

Of course carbon dioxide is essential to life. Of course we breathe it out as a product of our biological energy processes. Of course it’s the building block of all plant life. These facts are irrelevant to the issue of whether its increasing concentration could affect climate.

As for the apparent flattening in rate of global temperature increase since 1998, isn’t this exactly what someone who understands what a randomly fluctuating parameter superimposed on a steady change would expect to see? And if that’s not what Bob would expect then he falls short as a scientist.

I repeat, I wish Bob was right, because cutting carbon dioxide emissions is not going to be as easy and cheap as most Australians seem to believe. But he’ll need a lot better arguments to convince me
Posted by Tombee, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 10:32:22 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
"carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Rather, it is an environmentally beneficial trace gas that underpins plant photosynthesis, and therefore most planetary food chains"

This author is presumably unable to accept that two things could possibly both be true, ie
(1) CO2 underpins plant photosynthesis etc, as he says
(2) it has a "greenhouse" effect, and thus warms the earth, and too much of it warms the earth too much

Is his brain too small to fit both of these concepts side-by-side?

Or does he have a different idea of the meaning of "pollutant" from the rest of us? (In which case, he should say so).
Posted by jeremy, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 11:16:24 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 - come now, surely you've been in the debate long enough to repeat this sort of stuff.

"Primarily he ignores the starting point for any scientific scepticism, which is the unequivocal knowledge that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and its concentration is increasing."

Yes, that's completely right, but as you should know by now its mostly irrelevent. The actual warming CO2 causes in the atmosphere is well known. If concentrations double then its a tad over 1 degree - if the atmosphere is treated a pile of air. I've repeated the reference in the journal Nature until I'm tired of it. The argument has always been over the FEEDBACKS caused by that initial warming.

So you understand, CO2 warming + feedbacks = forecast warming. There have been strong suggestions that the feedback is negative, rather than strongly positive as the IPCC suggests. However, there is, in fact, very little direct evidence on the feedback one way or another.

You also face the problem that the point at which CO2 concentrations were originally forecast to double, 2100, may well be out by many decades..

Time to update.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 11:28:06 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
Can we expand the topic by saying "don't listen to the shock jocks on anything"

But specifically on this subject, seeing Media Watch on Monday was something of an eye-opener. There was Alan Jones, the loudmouth of the airwaves again pontificating on a subject, climate change, about which he has been proven to know nothing while at the same time trying to show a Professor how smart an intelligent he was. Well, he failed, miserably as was expected which he does on most subjects that require a level of intelligence far in excess of the poor man's capabilities.

He just doesn't know when to shut up. Egomania is like that.

With his history one has to assume that someone, somewhere is paying him to pontificate on this subject. He is for sale for anything at any time and if it also doesn't require him to use whatever grey matter he has, limited I would think, he may remain a star in his own studio.

Why do we give such attention to the likes of Jones. He wouldn't know 'carbon' from clay.
Posted by rexw, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 11:47:18 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
Thanks Bob, great to read a sensible article .

We had best put a large chalk mark on the wall, that's 2 academics that have bucked the trend this week.

Come on the rest of you, grow a backbone. Your kids are going to have to live in the world we are creating, & with the present level of rubbish, it's going to be a tough one for us, when China rules. They aren't known for their generosity to each other, let alone to others.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 11:47:49 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
I love to hear a healthy debate on carbon tax but at the moment all we seem to be getting is the negative side of things. When there's mention of the mighty "dollar" all schemes seem to fall apart. Ultimately we will need to find ways to reduce carbon emission and the big pollution emitters will have to correct their ways and spend some of their profits to do so. We the consumer will pay for it anyway, as we usually do when they pass on their costs to us. And again money is drawn into the conversation.
As for carbon dioxide emissions - doesn't life work on a delicate balance? Too much of one and not enough of another! I think some people get so wrapped up in the technical and monetary side of things they tend to lose sight of what we need to achieve.
I am so fed up with negitivity overpowering debates. How often do we see politicians say about the other party - "Hey that's a good idea, and this is the way we would like to achieve that." But no no it's always "Bag that idea it's dumb, wont work." With no effectual solution to offer.
So don't give me that "carbon tax" wont work. Give me a solution.
Posted by Ely, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 11:55:45 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
Fine words from the warmertariat. Just to demonstrate how right you are, why don’t you get a panel of your favorite scientists, throw in the entire Climate Change Committee along with Greg, Penny and Juliar and have a public debate?

I’ll nominate just one to take them on, Bob Carter. You know what? He would accept in a flash, the others would not.

Would the warmertariat support this and if not, would they care to explain why not?
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 11:57:36 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
Thanks for the helpful prompt Mark, and for at least trying to fill in what Bob Carter left out, i.e. addressing the starting point for scientific scepticism that I mentioned. That was my point – Bob didn’t bother.

But I’m not sure, apart from your concern that I’ve been around too long, why you address me about actual warming, feedback uncertainties and time for doubling of carbon dioxide, because I don’t mention them. I like to think that I am a good enough physical chemist to leave those important models and calculations to the climate scientists. However, I am certainly aware that feedbacks and their uncertainties are really important in this whole business because the real climate scientists talk about them and are duly cautious in their projections. I wish I could say the same about the amateurs.
Posted by Tombee, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 12:20:39 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
The alarmists really hate it when a scientist gives a rational explanation of why it is not manmade CO2 causing the warming trends.

What really gets my goat is those blaming manmade CO2 are quick to point out the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past year while completely ignoring the contribution from the massive volcanos that went off over the past 12 months.

Any reduction Australia makes is a total joke especially when the USA, India, China and Russia come out and say they aren't making any changes in the near future. Australia has not created the supposed problem and its not our responsibility to fix the world.

Finally, who in their right mind would trust this Government to actually spend the money they collect from a carbon tax wisely.
Posted by sbr108, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 1:02:14 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
Bob has a good argument with regard to only taxing the heavy carbon polluters but to say that we, the human race, are not contributing to elevate carbon/carbon dioxide emissions situation is questionable. The natural occurrance of volcanos has not increased though the continuous burning off of our bushland is certainly adding to the problem. Human interference again. Did we burn off quite so much land 50 years ago? This argument could go on forever without anything being done.
Yes, I would love to watch a panel of our esteemed scientists debate about global warming. Even bring in people who have an on the ground knowledge of what is or is not happening around us. Show me proof. But would anything change? Or would it all end in a stalemate?
Perhaps we should all not worry about anything. I mean to say we wont be around for it to be a problem to us anyway. Palm it off to the kids to worry about. There will be a quite a few more people with maybe a few more brains than us by then, given evolution and change.
Posted by Ely, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 1:32:22 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
Hey rexw

for a moment then I thought you were describing Ross but realised you weren't when you omitted the description dottery old fool...
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 1:37:06 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
Tombee
very well, fair enough. You most certainly have an arguable case that the feedbacks and such should be left to the climate modellers and such. The trouble is that by almost all indications available to those outside that closed group is that they have collectively stuffed it up. They are all working from the same, guess-work assumptions, using models that have no track record of any kind, and which are far too complicated to make any useful forecasts

The study of forecasting is a business subject - its in marketing - its not in science at all, but its also partly a religion in that it has gods. Those gods are related to murphy of murphy's law (anything that can go wrong..)and are vindictive.

The keepers of the climate models have broken all the rules of forecasting on complex systems - the simplier the model and the shorter the time frame the better, among others. Another rule, directly related to the religious part, is never declare yourself certain about a forecast, even one with wide parameters.

The gods of forecasting will have their revenge. We can only hope to pluck a few bodies out of the debris.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 1:40:04 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
As Bob Carter points out, promoters of the carbon tax use convenient untruths ( or to be more frank, straight-out deceit) , e.g.:
. use of the emotive term, 'carbon pollution', whereas they mean carbon dioxide which is a non-polluting colourless gas that is necessary for plant life and hence all life;
. use of the general term 'climate change' for the more specific term 'global warming';
. TV pictures portraying power stations emitting 'pollution' when it is in fact steam rising from the plant;
. the power station shown in the Cate Blanchett scene is an ex-London station closed down some 28 years ago;
. the science is settled;
. AGW is real, else why would learned societies promote it;

. they omit to state:
. . that the carbon tax is intended to drive the replacement of efficient coal-fired power generation with unreliable inefficient renewable energy sources such as wind power which is three times as expensive as , and solar power which is at least ten times as costly, as coal power;
. . that power prices will rise significantly and cause economy-wide price rises;
. . that the resulting reductions in carbon dioxide emissions will have no impact on stemming global warming (or climate change).

For more informative detail of the science and the politics of climate change, reference should be made to Professor Robert Carter's book, "Climate: The Counter Consensus", published in 2010 by Stacey International -- a very good read.
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 3:32:07 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
Raycom,
I totally agree!
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 3:40:54 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
Further to Raycom's comments (with which I also agree):

If I was an AGW proponent, I would be unhappy with the proposed carbon tax, just as the Greens voted against the CPRS. It is an exercise in circulating money - by taxing the CO2 "polluters" and using the majority of the funds to compensate households for the necessary price rise in goods and services, how does this encourage lower emissions?

The rest of the money will evaporate in the process (eg. RG's three levels of overview) or get diverted to general revenue rather than being used to fund and promote alternative energy development.

Because fossil fuel will become more scarce and therefore more expensive, I honestly believe we must invest heaviliy in developing alternative energy systems (both stationary & mobile) for the very reasons stated by Raycom - the current technology is clunky & inefficient. But we need not engage in self-flagellation over our use of carbon-based fuels in the meantime.

The concept of "stopping climate change" belongs with the story of King Canute in the annuls of human arrogance. As stated in the article, we would be better off directing our efforts into dealing with the effects of the changing climate. However, this needs to be assessed in a more rational way than some of the hysterical predictions of Biblical plagues found in the IPCC publications.
Posted by Peter Mac, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 4:32:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don’t listen to shock jocks?

Why not?

They are less motivated by venal vested interest than the environazi movement which promotes, for interests of their own watermelon ideology, stupidities like Carbon Taxes.

Julia Gillard, despite promising there would be no carbon tax before she was elected,

has readily admitted

it is not only about people forced to sacrifice their standard of living by the wholesale transfer of more economic activity to places like India and China – stupidly in the name of “save the planet”

but

to progress the immoral socialist objective of economic eveling where the poor and the useless (traditional labor voters) end up better off under a carbon tax and those who can support themselves are regressively taxed more and more regardless.

Under those circumstances, “Shock Jocks” cannot be shocking enough

I wholy support the disclosure by Shock Jocks and anyone else of the lies, deceptions, double-talk and corruption of climate-change zealots and their political cronies of the left.

Climate change is a speculation. It is as real as you choose to believe.

I choose not to believe, on the balance of the lies and deceptions practiced, nothing the environazi zealots declare to support a carbon tax. I do not believe a carbon tax will produce the outcomes they promise, any more than Mr Ponzi’s clients found any benefit in the promises if his schemes.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 4:34:14 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
Australians stop kidding yourselves with this nonsense, we're too small small of population & manufacture to impact on the whole planet.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 6:31:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The worm is turning and the elites in the Corporate sphere who began all this BS are now getting very anxious.Carbon taxes and the ETS is all about moving more money and power to the few.The masses are finally realising that AGW is a hoax.

Thanks Bob Carter for your courage and honesty.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 6:44:27 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
Incentives should be given to produce sustainable energy. Taxes only hurt the people; as assistance paid to the poor is just a money balancing act. It does nothing to change behaviours, just drives energy prices up.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 9:44:21 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
Now this is very interesting. What are the shock-jocks saying?

Now look! Iam not a very smart person, and all I do is look around the world I live in.

Thats all I do:)

LEAP
Posted by Quantumleap, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 11:00:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the shock jocks are very moderate compared with the alarmist such as Flannery and Gore. The only shock the alarmist stupid unscientific alarmist predictions.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 11:20:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> That such warming is occurring is a hypothesis which can be tested against the last ten years of data, which are: carbon dioxide increase – +5%; temperature decrease – -0.05O C. <<

That’s where I lost interest.

It was not so long ago that the inimitable Professor championed the 'global warming stopped in 1998' meme.

Then it was 2005, then 2009, then ... you get the drift (sorry, I mean trend).

Carter's not stupid - he's got quals in marine stratigraphy after all - and is an adjunct professor to boot. He even trots out his opinions in a book he totes around the country-side, also in a boot.

Reminds me of Ian Plimer (another geologist with mining interests) doing the Australian road show - with the Lord himself, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Brenchley – pin-up boy of the Science & Public Policy Institute, right-wing think-tank extraordinaire.

Margaret Thatcher (rip) must be cringing in her grave, given her strong stance on addressing global warming – but that’s another story, as the current UK government is well aware of.

Whether Carter understands time series trend analysis (or not) is really not at issue. What is at issue is that Carter prefers to trot out deliberate distortions to an unknowing public based on his own vested interests.

What else can a pin-up boy of the Lavoisier Group and the Heartland Institute do – except maybe getting published in Quadrant, writing articles for the conservative press, or appearing for that radio shock-jock, Alan Jones?

Hang-a-mo … wasn’t Bob Carter saying “don’t listen to the shock jocks on carbon”?

I don't think Carter said that at all (more like an OLO editorial missive).

Perhaps instead, Carter really does want the unknowing public to get their 'education' from shock-jocks and the so called 'denial-o-blog'.
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 2 June 2011 2:42:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see Bob Hawke has come out in support of Gillards blatant lying....

Well, what would you expect from an arrogant, adulterous narcissist and drunk

Next Keating will be out, defending Gillards orchestrated slow down (= crash and stall) of the national economy (see current reports on slowdown) as just another "Recession we had to have"

Of course, Socialism will lie and steal from your pocket to justify their abominable policies of stupid equalization (lets face it their cousin, communism does the same and adds mass murder to the list of disgusting non-values).

Why would anyone vote for any new, pointless tax, designed to remove the incentive of reward for personal action?

If, Like the despicable Bob Hawke, they claim it is to "make a better world for your children" - then that is just another lie.....

because, at the rate the socialists are going.....

You will not be able to afford to have children
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 2 June 2011 4:18:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Right Col, got it ... it's all a communist plot by:

blatant lying, arrogant, adulterous, narcissist, drunk, stealing, abominable, stupid, mass murderering, disgusting, pointless and despicable child haters.

Umm, Col, seek help. Seriously, your paranoia has gone a tad too far.
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 2 June 2011 5:15:58 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
yes bonmot, so unlike the chicken little tax that the world will end if we don't pay tax now (for no discernable effect.)

I see that all the alarmists are now locked in the war against the great plot and conspiracy by Murdock media .. now there's a conspiracy for you .. oh, you're part of it, sorry, carry on with your war against the right, the shock jocks, Murdock, blog sites that disagree, bloggers who have their own TV show now and doing famously.

And if we do pay the tax, what do you reckon will happen? Very shortly it will be a mess with the wrong people being compensated, a huge government department to manage it, then the tax will have to go up to cover the increasing cost of managing the system .. still no discernible good being done but lots of activity.

Who gets the money? I imagine some of it will end up in general revenue, like it's not meant to.

The government want a win, and look at all the stops being pulled out for this, all the useful idiots lining up for their parts, do you think the BS detectors are not going off in people's minds? Or are you one of the people who think opinion is only influenced by "shock jocks"? How sad if you do .. Australians are not that stupid and are clearly rejecting this tax and the principles it is laid on .. otherwise, why bother with a media campaign, and all the hate troops on the internet marshalled for the attack on fellow citizens.

You also run the huge risk that paying this tax, will be the end of anyone caring about the environment, why should they .. they are paying a tax to the government to care for them.

Win a battle, lose the war. Your call.

But please go on attacking anyone who disagrees, it seems obvious you enjoy that now more than the possible beneficial effects.

Anger is quite a motivator, isn't it bonmot?
Posted by rpg, Thursday, 2 June 2011 5:39:33 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
bonmot "Umm, Col, seek help. Seriously, your paranoia has gone a tad too far."

Hardly, Please identify what part of my statement is wrong

Bob Hawke was notorious for his adulterous philandering and drinking...

indeed some reports suggest from the time he came to power until Keating relieved him, Hawke never experienced a hangover because he was PERPETUALLY DRUNK!

and the way he cheated on Hazel is just more of the public record.

Again Keating gave Australia "The Recession it had to have" and according to the national statistics, Australia has just had the worst economic contraction (forewarning of recession), for any quarter in 30 years

Likewise... increasing the family budget by $1,000 per year, er Pro Climate Theorists - which means several time that amount is probably closer - will make affording to support children less possible

as for my reference to communists - again FACT -

Communists and Socialists are "fellow travellers of the Left" and communists are noted for their mass murders... Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mugabe... the filth who run North Korea, Mao Tse Tung and the communists behind the Tienaman Square Massacre - to say nothing of the Russian Tanks rolling into Hungary and Czechoslovakia

So Tell me -

Which part of my comment suggests Paranoia?

and what part of your comment does not suggest a complete denial of historic facts?
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 2 June 2011 6:31:28 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
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 2 June 2011 7:01:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't understand the title of this submission. The author is speaking as if he was a shock-jock himself.

How could anybody believe that shock-jocks present factual arguments about anything, let alone AGW?

The bottom line is they need to appear controversial in order to win listener market share and their job is simply to sell stuff on behalf of their advertisers.

They deliberately antagonise to heighten listener emotions because angry people are easier to sell things to.

The book "Emperors of the Airwaves" exposes their strategies and the ultimate phoniness they build their reputations upon.

Like everything else they pump up out of proportion, this is just another thing to project the fear and anger of ill-informed listeners to - as one insider once admitted, talkback is "radio for the unemployed and the unemployable".

If you believe everything you read in the tabloid press and get all your opinions from these "commentators" then you really can't know what's happening.

This article too is another typical rant - opinionated and littered with unsubstantiated statements.

Is the notion of AGW the real problem or is it simply the financial aspect?
Posted by wobbles, Thursday, 2 June 2011 11:38:31 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
What a depressing series of comments.

It would be nice if Carter were to prove correct, but not very probable. Carter's climate science is unconvincing, to say the least. If Carter were scientifically credible, he would be published in the scientific literature, rather than OLO or (!)Quadrant.

There's also the political angle. If Carter were an avowed Marxist (for example), intent on changing the nature of society, we would quite reasonably be suspicious of his statements about climate change.

Carter is not a communist - but he certainly is avowedly political. He is associated with the IPA and the Lavoisier Group in Australia, and the Heartland Institute in the USA. These are overtly political organisations which have openly political goals.

This doesn't make them (or Carter) right or wrong, but it is a strong indicator that we should treat their statements with caution.
Posted by nicco, Friday, 3 June 2011 9:14:22 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
Bob Carter is either a very poor scientist or a charlatan.

This is obvious from his opening claim of no warming in the past decade, which is based on blatant cherry picking. For a long time he and others used 1998 from the Hadley data (the most favourable to their case) to argue there was global cooling since then. But if you take 1997 or 1999 as your starting year you get rapid warming - 4 degrees per century. Neither claim is statistically valid.

What is obvious when you look at the whole record is that for the past three or four decades is that there is a warming trend of about 2 degrees per century. There is no clearly discernible departure from that trend, because the recent fluctuations about the trend are not significantly larger than in previous decades.
See http://betternature.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/2010-equal-hottest-ever/

Any undergraduate, and any lay person with a bit of common sense, can see through Carter's flimsy claim if they are given the whole data set rather than his cherry-picked version.
Posted by Geoff Davies, Friday, 3 June 2011 9:50:16 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 think many are missing the point of this whole AGW argument.

Anyone with an IQ over 100 and some experience in data analysis knows that you can generally fashion data to support your own argument. Hence, one man's hero is another man's charlatan, and visa versa. This is why there will be no resolution to this discussion.

The IPCC was set up to prove man caused global warming and got a Nobel Prize. The Heartland Institute and others work to prove that man didn't cause global warming and are vilified (by many) as being in the pay of greedy Big Business who are only concerned with profits at the expense of our children's future.

It's a funny old world, isn't it?
Posted by Peter Mac, Friday, 3 June 2011 1:38:44 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
Peter Mac,
You seem to another one of those who believe the concept of global warming was somehow discovered by Al Gore. I suppose David Attenborough discovered all those animals he presents on his wildlife documentaries too.

The IPCC was set up in 1988, about 19 years before Gore's documentary, because they knew about the concept and finally established formalised guidelines to assess how it could be measured.

The idea has been around since the the sixties and even right wing conservatives like George Bush Snr acknowledged it and Ronald Reagan took legislative steps to minimise its possible effects.

The theory about carbon trapping atmospheric heat has been around since 1850 and the idea of it affecting the climate was proposed in 1900. All that's happened is the reporting of the result of decades of monitoring.

The negative response (as it was for acid rain, DDT, ozone hole and tobacco) has been funded and coordinated by certain corporate interest groups who feel threatened by government regulation and restrictions on the free market.

Do you really believe this is some sort of international global conspiracy that has been decades in the making?

Do you think that politicians are willing to threaten their own elected positions by imposing unneccessary social and financial restrictions on voters for no reason?
Posted by rache, Friday, 3 June 2011 4:22:43 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
Geoff Davies,"Bob Carter is either a poor scientist or a charlatan." More ad hominem from people who consider sceptics a being holocaust deniers.Who pays your salary Geoff?

I would rather listen to retired scientists like Prof Tim Ball from Canada who have no axe to grind in terms of power or monetary gain.Why was the Sun excluded from the IPCC's investigation on climate change? Why have the stats been doctored,excluding the heat island effect of our cities today as apposed to the lesser effects of this 50 yrs ago?

Sorry Geoff Davies,the scam of AGW is being revealled.We don't believe it anymore.How would you,"Hide the decline?"
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 3 June 2011 7:28:04 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
Arjay, what does "hide the decline" mean?
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 3 June 2011 10:28:37 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
why don't you tell us bonmot since you're always demanding everyone provide explanations which you then deride, and we do notice, you never provide anything .. just vague allusions to having done so.

But no one remembers you doing so .. please enlighten us with your vast knowledge, and spare us the bile for a change

I don't need to provide evidence of why I'm skeptical, I'm not claiming we need to change anything,you are.

I am also skeptical of water divining, but do not have to provide a means of actually finding water underground to prove my skepticism surely?

Thus yours and many of the alarmists claims that anyone who is skeptical must provide an alternative to what is causing AGW is undone.

You claim the world is going to hell, prove it .. without the smarmy attacks or dodging , just for once, stick to the questions.

Why should you answer, because you constantly demand it of others, not to answer would be hypocritical surely, or is that acceptable in the "faith".
Posted by rpg, Saturday, 4 June 2011 7:02:59 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
Peter Mac "Anyone with an IQ over 100 and some experience in data analysis knows that you can generally fashion data to support your own argument. Hence, one man's hero is another man's charlatan, and visa versa. This is why there will be no resolution to this discussion."

I do so agree.

In this instance we unfortunately live in a democracy and

and IQ of 100 is the average of that democracy....

It is not the electorate with +100 IQ and the ability to see through the argument

it is the voting trends of the electorate with an IQ of less than 100 (the other half) who concern me
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 4 June 2011 10:17:32 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
It's a familiar and silly argument, that denialists don't have to prove anything; that it's up to the scientists to prove their point. It demonstrates a rather poor understanding of the scientififc process.

It also ignores the fact that climate scientists have delivered a theory which is accepted by most researchers, which is based on observation and measurement, and which is continually being improved. This complex theory has been extensively published in the scientific literature, and has been refined but not refuted.

rpg says: "I don't need to provide evidence of why I'm skeptical, I'm not claiming we need to change anything,you are." This is of course true, insofar as rpg isn't obliged to provide evidence about his own thought processes. But if rpg refuses to provide evidence (about the science, not about his own thinking), he can hardly be expected to be taken seriously.

And (for the umpteenth time) if you want to know about climate science, go to the climate science literature. That is where climate scientists publish their work, for all to criticise or praise, refute or reinforce.
Posted by nicco, Saturday, 4 June 2011 10:21:24 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
nicco "And (for the umpteenth time) if you want to know about climate science, go to the climate science literature. That is where climate scientists publish their work, for all to criticise or praise, refute or reinforce."

Many people who can "reason", "analyse" and "consider" are looking at the forecasts and prophecies of "Climate Science" and finding fault with them

All the theory of Climate Science is focused on what will happen several decades out.

Today it is Warming, back in the 1970s it was Nuclear Winter and freezing.

Skeptics are skeptics because they, like me remember the false prophets of the past and how thier predictions failed to eventuate.

The point with all this is now

the speculative prophecies of climate science are about to be used to shift economic resources, through taxation and subsidy, on a massive scale.

That choice, by this Australian government, goes beyond the test-lab into my and every one elses living room.

I do not give a rats that some scientific theorist thinks global warming means the end of mand kind as we know it. I am apllowed to disagree and ignore him

I am big enough to allow such scientific fantasists to coexist on this planet with me

What I do not accept is a government has a devine right to thrust climate science fantasies down my throat and out of my pocket, especially when I see the hand of the socialist "levellers" behind all this climate change rubbish.

So, I am big enough to live and let live..... I expect climate scientists to respect my right to dissent with their view and to stop trying to hamstring me to their theory without the right of skeptical counter analysis to the "J" curves and other twaddle and down right lies they have so far presented as "undeniable fact" .....
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 4 June 2011 10:40:34 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
Oh come on nicco, & the rest of you authority merchants.

How long ago was it known that stress caused stomach ulcers.

When you have a bunch of dills, spouting that which they were taught by a bunch of even bigger dills, you get orthodoxy. Sometimes called climate science

Now add in some smarties using the dills, & you get a rip off, & that's definitely called climate science.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 4 June 2011 11:35:36 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
Col Rouge wrote "it is the voting trends of the electorate with an IQ of less than 100 (the other half) who concern me"

You have hit the nail right on the head Col!
Posted by Peter Mac, Saturday, 4 June 2011 12:13:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge, your own post betrays your failure to understand how science operates. You say "All the theory of Climate Science is focused on what will happen several decades out." This is simply wrong. The satellites, balloons, buoys and all the other instruments are measuring what is happening now, today. From this they are able to deduce trends for the future, which vary according to which path we as a nation, and as a global population, follow.

If you can as you say find fault with the theory of climate change, please let the rest of us know. It will be good news (if your views are backed by observation and evidence).

Your views on taxation are not at issue.

And Hasbeen, you seem to have missed the point about stomach ulcers. The "stress" theory was overturned, by the Helicobacter pylori theory, through the normal process of scientific research (and one brave researcher). It was an unusually dramatic case, but it was not about bunches of dills. It was about good science.
Posted by nicco, Saturday, 4 June 2011 2:11:26 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
Nicco “The satellites, balloons, buoys and all the other instruments are measuring what is happening now,”

Yes, so you would claim and the speculatively error prone readings are then projected to imply dire consequences for the future

As for my post

It supports (and does not betray) my sovereign right to hold an opinion.

As several people have already pointed out, it is not up to me to “prove” scientists wrong about their predictions… that is impossible

It is up to scientists to justify their predictions , which they have repeastedly failed to do.

I recall the nuclear winter of the 1970s and the hiockey stick graphs and several other dire predictions which have either been disproven or exposed as fraudulent.

Doubtless, my ancestors heard all about Malthus’s predictions and rolled their eyes in despair too

I recall different groups of people from Jim Jones, the Millerites, Nostradamus and Heavens Gate - full of people predicting the end of the earth… there is currently one bunch of loons running around telling us all it is all over in December 2012….

Guess what, I don’t listen to them any more than I listen to Al Gore or any of the other global warming conspirators.

And being an accountant, with some knowledge of economics and tax, I certainly defend my right to express my opinion on the dire consequences of pushing Australia into a pointless economic depression for the sake of a greenies demand that we all turn back the clock and return to 17th century peasant lifestyle, which is what the real agenda is behind the excuse of Global warming

Remember Lenin said “A revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation”

With Collectivists having failed in their attempts to impose collectivism over the free west, culminating in the collapse of the USSR, Global Warming has become merely another “revolutionary situation” for the insidious forces of the left to rally around and garner the support of the gullible or, as Lenin called them, "useful idiots
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 4 June 2011 3:20:43 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
Nicco regarding "It was an unusually dramatic case, but it was not about bunches of dills. It was about good science."

that would be the same "good science" which also brought us

leaded petrol - introduced to stop engine knock

Thalydomide - to help pregnant women overcome morning sickness

DDT - used to kill off deadly mosquitoes

as well as CO2 elimination the big baddy in the atmosphere - the elimination of which will supposedly "Save the Planet" from mankind

I feel, the credentials and credibilities of science and "scientific experts" are best left in the laboratory and at the grant applications board table, well away from national and international politics

and I do advise you

- the scope and breadth of the demands of "warmists" are not limited to "science" but are intended to subjegate every aspect of everyone elses lives under a reign of oppressive and pointless taxation and regressive economic levelling
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 4 June 2011 3:33:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rpg asks “Anger is quite a motivator, isn't it bonmot?”

Yes, it is!

http://tinyurl.com/ANGER-rpg

The reason why anonymity is safer.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 4 June 2011 3:49:20 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
rpg

I asked Arjay what "hide the decline" means. It seems he has answered before:

>> They had to hide the decline in rising temps since 1995 even with expodential increases in CO2 <<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10060#162281

Follow that thread rpg, it will give you the answers you don’t want to hear.

Despite being shown wrong, Arjay still trots out the same old twisted and distorted memes - much like other OLO conspiracy theorists.

As for verballing:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11150#187274

Please show me where I claimed “the world is going to hell”.
Or is this another distortion of the truth?
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 4 June 2011 3:57:31 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
Col Rouge

Apparently I ‘flamed’ you in my deleted comment. Sorry.

I agree, there should be much debate about the carbon tax, and as an accountant your input would be of value.

However, your assertions on ‘climate science’ are just that, assertions.

Sure, have an opinion and express it – here or anywhere else. You could even write a book like Bob Carter.

But just because you/he/me have an opinion and express it, doesn’t mean they are right.

In a previous post, it appears you think it's all a communist plot by the:

blatant lying, arrogant, adulterous, narcissist, drunk, stealing, abominable, stupid, mass murderering, disgusting, pointless and despicable child haters.

It's not for me to say you are 'flaming' - suffice to say I think you are wrong, in my humble opinion.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 4 June 2011 4:11:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems that Red Neck seriously believes that global climate science is a conspiracy. He says: "- the scope and breadth of the demands of 'warmists' are not limited to 'science' but are intended to subjegate every aspect of everyone elses lives under a reign of oppressive and pointless taxation and regressive economic levelling"

This is really an extrordinary claim, which he then seems to extend to all science, inclusive. I hope he never gets sick, or flies in an aeroplane, or even eats a meal ...

As he says, it's not up to him to prove the scientists wrong. But if he is going to make such serious accusations against the research community, then he should at the very least provide some evidence to back his assertions. Otherwise, we are justified in simply dismissing his opinions as ill-informed rant. (He should perhaps also provide some evidence that he is in fact familiar with the science. Sounding off about Nostradamus, Jim Jones or Al Gore is not very convincing.)
Posted by nicco, Saturday, 4 June 2011 4:57:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bonmot .. "Anger is quite a motivator, isn't it bonmot?"

This is a very suspicious event, the university says it has had death threats, won't release them or tell the AFP .. why not?

They have a duty to protect, to go to the AFP immediately.

I suspect the death threats are like the one to the independent Windsor, not a death threat at all, except in his mind.

This could be the work of agent provocateurs, after the all, the left is well known for its threats and violence.

Scientists are becoming the new drama queens aren't they ..

so finally, yes bonmot, your anger seems to send you off on tangents, and this supposed death threat seems not to be such, and who knows, it may not even be related to climate at all .. that's just the usual alarmist hysteria in "normal" mode.
Posted by rpg, Saturday, 4 June 2011 5:48:54 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
bonmot, as usual does not answer, avoids and conflates, when not attacking, has no substance.

Bonmot, I'm sure believes water divining with a forked stick, or two wires, since skepticism of such would be .. denial?

Bonmot, you flamed me too .. so where's my apology? (still angry huh?)
Posted by rpg, Saturday, 4 June 2011 5:51:40 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
So anybody who accepts the official version of the truth is to now be collectively called a "warmist".

Well here's a field guide to the alternatives -

Flat-out deniers: Argue that the world is no warmer today than it was during the Medieval Warm Period of 950 to 1250; some accuse scientists of conspiring to put their instruments in hotter areas to skew the readings.

Global-cooling believers: Claim that the planet is actually getting colder —and point to increasing winter snow as evidence.

Mathletes: Live to find faulty math in climate change studies.

Sunspotters: Believe the planet is getting hotter, but blame natural phenomena like water vapor, volcanoes, solar flares, clouds, and cosmic rays—not people. Proposed solution? Install A/C or find a nice shade tree.

Lukewarmers: Acknowledge that the Earth is getting hotter, but it's not a big deal. Others argue that it might even be a good thing.

The Rapture-ready: Contend that the planet cannot be warming because it was not foretold in the Bible—and even if it were warming, good news! The end times are upon us.

Pick one and get in line.

It's one thing to be challenged but at least the denialists should get their own stories straight.

If it matters to all you conspiratorialists and for the record, it was actually the denialists who changed the term from "Global Warming" into "Climate Change", just as the same lobbyists behind them changed "Second-hand Smoke" into "Passive Smoking".
Posted by wobbles, Sunday, 5 June 2011 2:21:37 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
Talking of the sanctity of IPCC encyclicals and the irrationality of anyone who might question them. Here’s a little something I came across while looking for a book. The merits of the book are irrelevant. Consider the experiences of the reviewer —sound familiar?

"By
Jerald Tennant
This review is from: The Biology Of Belief: Unleashing The Power Of Consciousness, Matter And Miracles (Hardcover)
I am a physician who turns 65 this week. My career was and is punctuated by the harassment one receives when one is challenging medical dogma. When I began doing outpatient surgery, I was called before the Executive Committee of my hospital to explain the "circus" I was involving myself in. When I began to put intraocualar lenses in eyes after cataract surgery, I was fired from my position as Chief of Ophthalmic Plastic Surgery because "Anyone so stupid as to put lenses in eyes has no business teaching residents". When I did the research for the laser used in Lasik, I was told it was unbelievable that anyone could be so stupid as to make incisions across the visual axis of a good eye. Now it is almost malpractice not to do those things!How time changes things.

There are those who are constantly willing to re-examine what they think they know. There are others who cannot deal with the idea that what they were taught might be wrong. One can clearly see that in the reviews above.

Dr. Lipton has clearly challenged what we thought we knew and opened Pandora's box. Scientists have long stated, "If you can't prove it, it doesn't exist." That means that we relegate our belief system to the quality of our measuring devices. Since we couldn't measure things at biological speeds until we got Pentium class computers, we haven't been able to measure biological electronic function for very many years. Lipton has helped refocus us away from the false belief that the body is Newtonian and reductionistic to the reality that the body works at the atomic level where Newton's laws fail and electromagnetic energy rules."

http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Belief-Unleashing-Consciousness-Miracles/dp/0975991477
Posted by SPQR, Sunday, 5 June 2011 7:50:37 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
SPQR, I think you may need to take irony supplements.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 5 June 2011 8:55:41 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
Thanks for that SPQR, it does highlight just how often a consensus has proved to be wrong.

This is not surprising when you consider that most consensus are a hiding place for those who can not do the thinking or evaluation for them selves. The fact that a gravy train may run through it helps as well.

Nicco, I don't think there was a conspiracy started by climate scientists. I don't think many of them would be smart enough to start, or run a school tuck shop, let alone a conspiracy. No the conspiracy was started by a few cunning very left politicians, who saw a chance to use some poor science to further their objectives.

Most of the others have just climbed on board for the cash.

Have you heard the latest joke? It goes like this..

"Why do climate scientists demand to be buried only six inches down when they die? They decided it would be too hard to hold your hand out for grant money from six foot down".

You must be held in pretty high regard to have everyone talking about you like that.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 5 June 2011 10:55:58 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 “It's not for me to say you are 'flaming' - suffice to say I think you are wrong, in my humble opinion.”

The point, bonmot, is those comments were not directed at you but at the subject in question at the time.

Your comments were directed at me personally, which the moderator and deem as “flaming”

I will say this once and only once and if you flame again I will simply register with the moderator my response again

I have posted here for many years (albeit with a gap in recent times) and for most of those years I have disagreed with people, people like Pelican and Ludwig, who I hold great respect for and do not flame me. We express our views and differences to opinion and understand the views of each and our own by being challenged.

I have grown bored of responding to those whose comprehensive skills seem somewhat limited and who choose to flame me.

Now, I find it more convenient to simply refer them to the moderator to deal with as they see fit.

Flame me again and I will refer you again to the moderator.

Nicco – from your rambling comments, I take it you have nothing of substance to use to challenge my opinion…. In which case, I graciously accept your submission to my view

However, I would point out, it is not up to you to dismiss my opinions. I hold and express my views publically and trust me, they carry some weight and have gained support across a broad range of groups.

rpg… death threat on Windsor – imho since he decided to turn-coat and sided with the socialists, Windsor – and Upshott have marked themselves as “Dead-Men-Walking” in the political context… neither has a hope in hell of ever getting elected again and they know it
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 5 June 2011 12:09:47 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
Hasbeen "Thanks for that SPQR, it does highlight just how often a consensus has proved to be wrong."

hasbeen and our dearest Margaret (Thatcher) said of "consensus"

"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects."

That puts Global Warming / IPCC / Carbon Taxes in their proper context....

I believe those who hold up against a blind concensus demanded by collectivists authorities are

akin to the lemmings who decided to go on a picnic instead of over the top of the cliff
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 5 June 2011 12:15:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, I appologised publicly - I didn't have to.

Rather than accepting the apology and moving on, you prefer to chastise with further admonition. That is a very telling character trait, Col.

Tell me Col, it seems you have a penchant for switching any article under discussion into bizarre ideological dogma. So, if I say your arguments are specious, or that you use sophisms to make your points ... is that flaming?

Why do I ask? Because while I think your comments might appeal to the prejudices and emotions of some, they are logical fallacies.

For example, it appears you think it's all a communist plot by blatant lying, arrogant, adulterous, narcissist, drunk, stealing, abominable, stupid, mass murderering, disgusting, pointless and despicable child haters.

As I said, there should be much debate about the carbon tax, and as an accountant your input would be of value. However, your assertions on ‘climate science’ are just that, assertions. And your specious argument about political dogma is just the musing of a sophist.
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 5 June 2011 2:07:47 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
Bonmot what do you think of these quotes then?

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

"We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 5 June 2011 2:18:55 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
A few more for you.

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable." - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world." -Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

"... the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion." - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 5 June 2011 2:24:33 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
Hasbeen,
Who decides which person lives and which person dies? This is as radical as Hitler. This deserves a war against those proposing such human annihilation.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 5 June 2011 5:28:07 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
Philo except that from the limited scan I did not all the quotes appear to be legitimate.

All the ones I checked are widely quoted, a couple were claimed to be outright fabrications that were just on quoted. Others were badly out of context (the one from Stephen Schneider was about the media not his approach). Paul Watson was reportedly kicked out of Greenpeace for being too extreme.

I didn't go through them all, a couple appeared to be legitimate but most of what I checked were either clearly false or doubtful.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 5 June 2011 5:52:05 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
Hasbeen,

Care to back up your allegation of scientists getting hand-outs and grants on the basis of providing evidence for climate change with some examples?

From what I can see, the science of Climatology has been around for decades and much of the remaining data has come from other existing and established scientific areas. Except for the IPCC (which was set up many years ago) it seems to be pretty much business-as-usual in the scientific world as far as I can see.

However I can show that industries that will be most affected are pumping lots of their money into the argument against it.

For example, Gina Reinhart is (once again) bankrolling another visit by "Lord" Monkton and has used her influence to get Andrew Bolt and others to parrot her concerns through the media. She even got Bolt his own TV show.

Koch Industries in the US kicked in around $25 million (2005-2008) and $48milltion (1997-2008) to set up bogus "think tanks" whose role is to provide false and misleading information and junk science results to media groups.

Many of the (unsupported) views in these forums have originated from those groups.
Posted by rache, Monday, 6 June 2011 2:34:14 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
Hasbeen,

Thank you for the quotes. Viewed from a positive perspective I detect wisdom in some of these. I'm not sure how you meant them to be taken, however, I wish to make some comments, to identify why I think the following are worthy of serious consideration.

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable." - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

If we extend the scenario depicted to application to all 10 Billion of humanity, surely the statement is accurate - given the carbon footprint resulting, and the finite capacity of resources and the natural world to withstand such a level of abuse.

"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

The first point may be illogical, but the second point is a caution regarding potential facilitation of exponential growth in population and consumption, with obvious threats to food security and super-extension of finite non-renewable resources.

"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

Fukishima and Angela Merkel offer some confirmation, and my immediate above comment would also apply.

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

See my previous response on a similarly directed quote.

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

There are very many commentators who would agree.

My own submission is that greater focus should be directed to water security, for I see this as a far greater challenge here in Oz, irrespective of any possible (real or imagined) impacts of GW. Govt attention is currently ill-focused.
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 6 June 2011 5:21:52 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 Has been that’s a nice bunch of what was called “motherhood” statements when I was working for Vic DSE (an 18 month ring side seat into watching taxes being pee’d up against the wall and if the DSE could have coordinated the peeing better, they might have avoided “state controlled burns” turning into the worst bush fires for many years).

Anyway.. I agree with Philo

We have the “market” and "natural selection" to regulate consumption…. We do not need some public appointed oligarch to declare how much meat we are allowed to eat and how far we are allowed to drive our Mercedes.

Nor do we need some NGO (which is an “N” short of a “nong”) administrator making fast and loose with national economic policy

For every quote you have there I can think of several to counter them or offer alternate quote which show why your list is flawed

and I will start Lenin

“Liberty is so precious, it must be rationed”

Which counters most of yours one way or another

Now dearest Margaret

"The larger the slice taken by government, the smaller the cake available for everyone."

Which tells you what we think of “Carbon Tax”

And another from Margaret

"To be free is better than to be unfree - always. Any politician who suggests the opposite should be treated as suspect."

Most of those quote of yours require regulation and limitation of one sort or another to be imposed of otherwise free people – again something to be rejected

Just as the majority of the voting population reject a carbon tax




And as I have some free space I will address another issue from elsewhere

Bonmot “Rather than accepting the apology and moving on, you prefer to chastise with further admonition.”

You added comment to your unrequited apology… and I responded to your comment, as I am free to do

If you do not like the response you should have not added the comment in the first place…. Now I suggest you leave it alone

like I said, I find these sorts of exchanges boring.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 6 June 2011 8:27:35 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
Col, I was actually pointing out to Bonmot that I thought there was more than a little evidence of a conspiracy among our academic elites.

I do find it strange that they did not agree with Howard, with his work choices. I saw that as the first step in reducing the ridiculous amount of money we pay ourselves today. It is not possible for Oz to survive, long term, with our income structure.

In this way, to some degree, I agree with those who want to reduce our consumption, & I believe Howard was taking a first step in this direction, but perhaps only to avoid a major shock, when the stuff hits the fan for us, which it inevitable will. I did not like his trying to do it sideways

However my hackles rise when our not too bright academics try to to be cunning, & con us. They fail to realise that those in universities stopped growing when they entered those hallowed halls. The rest of us, those who bother at least, kept on growing. We now find much greater savvy out in the street, than in universities.

If they keep up this rubbish the Oz public, slow to anger will extract their vengeance. Mao's cultural revolution will be rather mild to what will happen when the public stop despising & start hating these con artists.

It is now time for them to come clean, & share their true worries with us. If they did so, & had sound reasons, they would be amazed at how well the public would respond
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 6 June 2011 1:29:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, by jeez you were quick to reply with 'that list' - musta been in your arsenal eh?

Yes, I thought I had seen 'that list' before so I did a google search on the initial few names - bingo!

It seems 'that list' surfaced in 2009 from anti-global warming vested interests and lobby groups and has been doing the rounds with shock-jocks, blogs and forums ever since.

I don't know where RObert stands on AGW but clearly, he acts as a true sceptic would - he checks the primary source. You on the other hand, don't even want to act like a real sceptic. You just believe what you want to believe - apparently with the same ideological fervour as our esteemed resident sophist.

For example, the very first "quote" from Professor Stephen Schneider (sadly died last year) RObert correctly says was/is taken out of context.

Moreover, the "quote" is deliberately taken out of context (or cherry-picked) to give a complete different meaning to what was intended. Bob Carter and Ian Plimer do this constantly to push their own agenda.

Don't believe me? Just fact-check their footnotes and citations in their books. My guess, you won't - even though it would bring this whole article's commentary back on topic.

To answer your question:

Schneider's "quote" is being quote-mined by sophists to give weight to their specious arguments.

For example, if you had provided the whole quote, or even the last sentence - then everyone would have a clearer understanding of what the professor was trying to convey.

Cont'd
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 6 June 2011 1:45:44 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
Ergo:

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.

On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.

To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

End quote

See page 5 in the following link for more context.

http://www.americanphysicalsociety.com/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf

Let me help if you won't go to the primary source:

"Vested interests have repeatedly claimed I advocate exaggerating threats.

Their "evidence" comes from partially quoting my Discover interview, omitting the last line and phrase "double ethical blind" (do you know what that is, Hasbeen?)

They also omit my solution ..."
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 6 June 2011 1:58:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
now we're reduced to the usual alarmist Google wars .. I can Google more than you and up-Google you. So clever.

yes, we know some people have too much spare time and no substance already and is reduced to merely sniping at anyone else who posts.

hi bonmot

whether the quotes are recycled or not, makes no difference.
Posted by rpg, Monday, 6 June 2011 5:34:26 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
"The usual alarmist Google wars" says rpg, implying that all references are equal (but some are more equal than others.)

This is standard polemical stuff, designed to cast dust in the eye of the enquirer. Google is a wonderful resource, but undiscriminating. If rpg considers that all references have equal credibility, it only reflects on rpg's failure to understand the nature of science, and the nature of probability.

Anyone can assemble a vast list of blog references to support their cause. It takes some critical intelligence, and a freedom from preconceptions, to assess the credibility of these references. As rpg must be aware, there is a system in place, called peer-review, which attempts to impose some measure of quality control on scientific publication, but which has little relation to blogs or journalism. It's not infallible, but it offers a degree of confidence in research results, and it also offers the opportunity for anyone to refute the science in question - if they have the evidence.

And the quotes? Not just re-cycled, ad nauseam, but selectively edited and taken out of context. In fact, many of them, looked at objectively, make perfectly good sense on their own. It's the compilation and editing which turn them into a blunt instrument. As, of course, rpg is aware.
Posted by nicco, Monday, 6 June 2011 6:35:46 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
Nicco, some people just can't understand Hasbeen's "quotes".

They read into the recycled "quotes" what they want to believe - rpg is typical in this regard.

Hey "engineer" (civil, mechanical, structural, whatever?) - why can't you show me (everyone) where I claimed “the world is going to hell”.

Answer? You cannot admit to telling porkies.
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 6 June 2011 6:45:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Hasbeen … I did take the wrong “spin” form your list… apologies

I have found the difference between the left and the right of politics is:

The right is prepared to allow business (ie individuals), to run with the ebb and flow of demand and supply to determine the market, be it for pumpkins or people and jobs. This I feel is the superior approach for government.

Whereas the left, prefer to operate as a government which pretends it has a solution, through intervention in different markets, to “preserve” what cannot be preserved by its own efforts (aka saving the inevitably “unsustainable”).

the Lefts approach is inferior and one which, in the long run, as we have seen repeatedly in the past, does no one any good. - unless you believe in "the recession we had to have"

Thus, Howard was OK with the idea that Australia, in following the free-market, non-protectionist position, initiated by Hawke, would end up where it deserved to be, wherever that might be.

Now we have the opposite, Gillard and the swill, wasting money on pointless school halls by mortgaging our childrens future with public debt (previously paid off by Howard) and pretending what they are doing is in the name of the future…. The usual socialist double-talk, designed to engender the sympathy vote at the expense of common sense.

As for growing – agree – academia is not the sole source of either achievement, human knowledge or ability and it should never assume for itself to be an elitist pinnacle for decision making -

Especially when we remember, those who can “Do” and those who cannot “Teach”
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 7 June 2011 1:44:19 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
bonmot "I don't know where RObert stands on AGW"

I'd say a sceptic. Enough weight of opinion from scientists for me to take AGW seriously but also enough spin, lies, tricks and people clearly trying to use it for other purposes to be seriously concerned.

I suspect that it's getting more vocal support in some quarters than it otherwise would because of those who see it as a vehicle to push other barrows. At the same time the hypocracy of some of the key public voices undermines the message, the preference so many of the public voices have for private jet's and international travel rather than economy seats and teleconferencing has done no end of damage to their credibility. I don't tend to take people who need a private jet to travel all that seriously when they tell me I need to be in a slow overcrowded train for the good of the planet.

I think that much of the support for the Carbon tax is about doing something rather than a genuine expectation that the carbon tax will actually help, I also think that it's seen as a handy tool to do some wealth redistribution. I suspect that in the short term the middle class wage earners will wear the cost of it and be joined by lower income people when the money run's out. Millionares will for the most part avoid any real personal pain.

At the same time a lot of the opposition is built on the same type of lies and spin. Religious denial of change regardless of the science, vested interests, standing along party lines etc.

I do think that putting the AGW debate aside that there are good reasons to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels, to find lower energy way's of doing much of what we do now. Trying to mask one behind the other hinders both. A more honest debate on nuclear energy would help, it's risks compared to the alternatives, it's cost and it's waste are all issues that are all to often hidden behind spin by both sides.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 7 June 2011 2:17:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert, thanks for the reasoned and rational reply.

Anyone who really wants to understand ‘climate science’ should put aside their ideological blinkers – this is what Schneider was trying to convey. Unfortunately, this is harder to do for those that haven’t got the time, resources, ability or the inclination. Short swift sound-bites seem to be the order of our society today.

Any sceptic (in the scientific sense) investigates and evaluates all angles. As a lay-sceptic you appear to have done some homework insofar as going to some primary sources. I can only encourage everyone to do the same.
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 8 June 2011 3:08:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The calulated CO2 given off in Iceland in recent volcanic emmissions in 5 days was equal to the total emmissions given by the human population in the last 5 years. Has anyone calculated the amount of Carbon Dioxide released by the Volcanoes in the last 12 months latest in Nicaragua at.

http://www.reuters.com/video/2011/05/19/nicaraguan-volcanos-dramatic-eruption?videoId=210940221&feedType=VideoRSS&feedName=JPTopNews&videoChannel=200

How much nitric oxide has been released by all the grass mown in built up areas?
How will a tax reduce those emmissions? How can that be reduced?
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 8 June 2011 7:09:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo, rather than just assert stuff, would you please provide a primary source for those “calculations”?

I don’t think that video clip of your South American volcano gives them.

Perhaps you can ask Professor Alan Robock, he knows all about that kind of stuff:

http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock/

He said of that unpronounceable volcano last year:

“There was more reduction in CO2 from airplanes not flying all week than in the amount that came from the Icelandic volcano”

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/20/the-ash-cloud-s-silver-lining.html

Your last questions? Please, enlighten us.
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 8 June 2011 7:39:43 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
Philo do you have a source for that claim, a few links below which while not dealing specifically with the recent Iceland event would seem to make the claim look plain wrong.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/21/iceland-volcano-climate-sceptics

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html

bonmot, thanks for the response.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 8 June 2011 7:40:06 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
Robert the pictures in the first link both the volcano and the power station were emitting steam vapor as clearly demonstrated by the pictures.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 8 June 2011 9:51:33 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
Can anyone please tell me either exactly or near as....What is the minimum ammout of CO2 output that a single person should be emitting and at what level of exsistance that would be at.....be honest we live in a very fast paced eco system with high technology and a drive for further industrial developments e.g. Solar powered hot water , wind turbines these we only have as a secondary base usage lately, do we stop moving forward to reduce our pollution! No matter what we reduce our output too as long as our population grows the output grows!
The only thing the tax will do is make the government look good because it can say.....Look at how much we are giving you back
Posted by MickC, Wednesday, 8 June 2011 10:48:47 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
Philo you made a quite specific claim "The calulated CO2 given off in Iceland in recent volcanic emmissions in 5 days was equal to the total emmissions given by the human population in the last 5 years."

I've provided links which make it clear that claim is very unlikely. Do you have a credible resource to back up the claim you made about the calculated CO2 given off by that volcanic eruption?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 9 June 2011 6:05:39 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
Robert,
Observeable atmospheric pollution.

The claim that the grounded aircraft because of the Islandic volcanic emmissions produced less CO2 proves by such conclusions that planes cannot fly in the Northern Hemisphere because of the pollution they create. Nonsense!
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 9 June 2011 6:37:58 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
Philo, you made a very specific claim about calculated rates of CO2 emissions which appears to be blatently false. An observed impression from a video clip does not equate to the specific claim you made.

Planes get grounded because of the volcanic ash in the air, not because of CO2 in the atmosphere. Volcanic ash and jet engines make a nasty mix, one explaination at http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=21544.php which is consistant with what I've read elsewhere.

Do you have a credible basis for the specific claim you made about CO2 emissions from the volcano compared to 5 years of human CO2 emissions or did you just make it up?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 9 June 2011 7:06:56 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
MickC "What is the minimum ammout of CO2 output that a single person should be emitting and at what level of exsistance that would be at"

that is one of those "who cares" questions....

simply because, when you have found out, what are you going to do with the answer

kill off or tax to death any one who dares output more?
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 10 June 2011 11:00:50 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

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