Hi Don, I guess the lack of investigative/critical thinking from our MSM has left Australians without the information we need to assess the truth.

There are hundreds of media articles available from Europe about the collapse of the CAGW alarmism. Very rarely do we see them break cover from under our MSM censorship.

This relating to green jobs is enough to make your eyes bleed. In the UK 2,298 permanent jobs created, whoopee! At only $11.45 million per job, what a bargain?

“Without much fanfare, the Department of Energy (DOE) recently updated the list of loan guarantee projects on its website. Unlike in 2008, when Barack Obama pledged to create 5 million jobs over 10 years by directing taxpayer funds toward renewable energy projects, there were no press conferences or stump speeches. But the data are nonetheless revealing: for the over $26 billion spent since 2009, DOE Section 1703 and 1705 loan guarantees have created only 2,298 permanent jobs for a cost of over $11.45 million per job. --Institute for Energy Research, 8 May 2013”

'climate change ' actually got the heave ho when Ms Gillard advised Rudd to drop the idea of the carbon tax because the polls were slipping. Then after she knived him she needed to reintroduce the importance because of the Greens so she broke her clear election promise. Oh the billions that have been wasted by the deceitful and gullible.

It’s a pity that Don’s thesis is tainted by his climate change scepticism because one could easily support most of his comments about the budget and climate change politics and still be concerned that rising carbon dioxide levels are problematic. After all, the basic chemistry (I’m a chemist, Don is not) warns us that the changing composition of the atmosphere will likely have a real effect on climate

The ‘green jobs’ stuff was always nonsense. Replacing cheap energy with more expensive energy MUST damage economic growth because energy inputs pervade economic activity and prosperity. Policy makers and their advisors probably understand this quite well – apart perhaps from the Greens. The climate change programs that Don happily notes have now been abandoned were based on the hope (that’s all it is) that ‘investing’ in alternative energy sources, efficiency and the like guarantees that these will eventually work or become cheaper. The energy cost problem would then just go away. After all, scientists are wonderful folk and they can solve every problem, can’t they? Well, no, we can’t, which doesn’t stop us from hoping, even promising.

Climate change sceptics can cheer at the failure of so-called green policies. But the prudent position to take is that rising carbon dioxide levels will become a global problem in all sorts of ways (as the IPCC keeps saying), that higher energy costs, or currently unpalatable (in Australia at least) nuclear energy, will be unavoidable in the effort to reduce emissions, and that we have to face the inevitable social and political problems that will follow.

Alternatively, or in addition, we can hope that the climate scientists are wrong. Don et al should stay alert on that one, but in my view it would be unwise to rely entirely on that prospect

There seems to be no question that Australia has closed her cheque-book on climate change mitigation, and maybe rightly so.
However, it's interesting to note that in a story in today's Fairfax news, out of 12,000 scientific papers published on the issue of climate change between 1991 and 2011, 97.1% of the authors who stated a position on the evidence for global warming endorsed the view that humans are to blame.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/not-much-climate-change-doubt-science-says-20130515-2jmup.html
Blind Freddy can see the global climate is changing. What that will mean, and whether or not we can or will do anything about it, remain unanswered questions. But to think that it will be business as usual for all 7 billion of us (and counting) is head-in-the-sand denial.

Halduel' Blind Freddy would have excellent credentials to be a climate observer or practicioner.Impared reasoning would be an added advantage

What could one expect?
The climate change debate here in this country, has been poisoned by patently partisan politics; and, by some very poor choices by tin ear Labour.
Who arguably put their own political prospects and power, ahead of simply achieving pragmatic outcomes!?
I agree with those who say, simply choosing more expensive options is a real turnoff, particularly, by the 40+%, living below or just above the poverty line.
And all this asinine absurdity, in the face of carbon free options, that will literally walk out the door!
Like say, cheaper than coal, thorium power!
Or very localised and much more reliable, piped NG> ceramic cell> electricity.
Compare coal-fired power, with a energy coefficient of around 20%; and the 72% energy coefficient of the NG (methane) powered ceramic cell.
More than three times more electricity, for the same fuel consumption, equates to prices three times or more lower!
And vastly more reliable power, minus the interruptions provided by summer storms, or power poles falling over due to tempest, termites or forest fires!
Which in turn result in food spoilage, or silent pumps, needed to supply the very water, required to fight said fires.
Or, oil rich algae, which promises emission free coal-fired power, and additional profits, for those wise enough to invest in, closed cycle companion production!
If coal-fired power produces half our total emission? Then converting that same carbon emission to hydrocarbons/fuel, could quite literally supply our total transport requirements, all while quite literally, halving our current emission!
Consider, transport is currently producing the other half of our total carbon emission.
I've read estimates, that would see these endlessly sustainable, vastly less polluting algae sourced fuel options, being able to be retailed at a handsome profit, for just 45 cents a litre!
Now, if we were really serious about addressing climate change, rather than simply dismantling industry and forestalling essential development?
The end result of backing the green's preferred energy suite?
We would back the above, or similar options, which literally walk out the door and remain viable and affordable, for the world's poorest!
Rhrosty.

Great article Don, it really is about time that the world came to it's senses.

We have seen the seen the people deceived by the greenies, & the compliant media far too long. Time now for a bit of intelligence to surface.

Yes halduell blind Freddy can see the climate changing, that is until he opens his eyes. That moment of illumination will show him his mistake. He might even make out in the far distance the more intelligent of those climate scientists running for cover.

Those in too deep will try to keep the scam running, but it is over. All we need now is for those true believers among the trusting public to get that illumination, & realize they've been had.

Tombee your chemistry & mine must be a little different. I don't talk about "likely" outcomes. I want facts. How would you like to give us some.

Chemistry is interesting, but it is the physics & math that tell the real story. Thank god the scam is dead. Sure there will still be a bit of dead dog tail waging. That will continue until every scrap of tax payer funds has been vacuumed up, but these will be one lot of death throes it will be a pleasure to watch.

Hasbeen
Hear hear.

Hasbeen, our chemistries are probably quite similar, but I am happy to admit that you're absolutely right about the importance of physics and maths in climate science. Indeed, the American Institute of Physics 'Discovery of Global Warming' is a great place to understand the basic science. I’m sure you know it backwards but if not, just Google that title and the AIP site comes up. It has more facts than you will ever need. You can go argue with them about the ones you don’t like.

Anyway, there you will see that the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius was the first (around 1898 – it’s pretty old science) to wonder whether burning fossil fuels might have enough impact on atmospheric chemistry to influence the 'greenhouse effect' that physicists Fourier and Tyndall, amongst others, had earlier invoked to explain the anomalously high temperature of Earth's surface. Those explanations were in place by around 1860.

Arrhenius was originally a physicist but in my own field of electrochemical kinetics I depended on his famous Arrhenius equation and his work on electrolytic dissociation and conductivity pretty much every day. So I used to think of him as a fellow chemist. In fact Arrhenius is said to be the founder of physical chemistry so I think I can be excused.

If current climate science turns out to be less predictive than the present orthodoxy accepts then it won’t be because there’s a conspiracy afoot or because carbon dioxide cannot affect climate (as Hasbeen seems to be implying) but because there were other factors not properly understood and/or quantified. As I said, one can only hope, but in the mean time we need to be sensible and prepare.

Rhrosty,

You say << The climate change debate here in this country, has been poisoned by patently partisan politics; and, by some very poor choices by tin ear Labor >>.

You may well be right but I have just one follow up question, so who poisoned the climate change debate across the rest of the planet? Or are we to blame for that also?

Here’s a tip Rhrosty, ssshhh, quit whilst you’re ahead and no one notices you.

No, Hasbeen, when Blind Freddy opens his eyes he will see, as could you if you looked, countries like China angling for a seat on the Arctic Council so they will have access to a trade route across the top of our planet when the summer sea-ice fully melts in the not so distant future.
There are also the billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas that the melting ice has, or soon will, make accessible. The scramble is already on for those rights.
Humans will adapt, or so I hope and believe, because that is what we do. But to pretend nothing is happening with global climate conditions and the resulting weather is simply foolish.

spindoc,

I'm sure you'll be pleased to see this (pass it on to cohenite):

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/obama-gives-aussie-researcher-31541507-reasons-to-celebrate-20130517-2jqrh.html

Here's a tip, spindoc, ssshhh...don't tell anyone, but I think Obama's in on the conspiracy too!

Tombee the physics I'm seeing is the fact that CO2 is displacing water vapor in the upper atmosphere. As water is a much stronger GHG than CO2 this will lead to cooling of the upper atmosphere.

All the models expect the CO2 to be in addition to the existing water vapor, not the either or that has now been found.

With this new information, obviously CO2 is more likely to have a cooling effect, rather than the IPCC much desired warming.

With the cycle being about 40 years between ice age & global warming scares, I wonder if the next scam will be a new ice age scare, about 2040?

Still unlike warmists, I'm happy to accept that we know so little about the whole climate deal, that everything is merely conjecture. I just want the waste of money to stop, until we have a more realistic ideas of any problems, if there actually are any.

for the life of me, i cant understand how people can downplay environmental problems and the possibility that human action is causing them, as much more evident since the Industrial Revolution.

Given the need to adapt alone from change, this is going to cost all countries much resources.

Not much to add here except to let Halduell know that the UQ 'study' he links to was utterly discredited as to methodology before it was even completed:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/14/fuzzy-math-in-a-new-soon-to-be-published-paper-john-cook-claims-consensus-on-32-6-of-scientific-papers-that-endorse-agw/

Basically a group of cronies got together to give ticks or black marks to self-selected papers, and -- surprise! -- they came up with the result that they had intended to. Nothing to see here, move along.

Well, ho, ho, ho, Hasbeen...the guy with the "math" reckons more C02 in the atmosphere will have a "cooling effect".

Jon J,

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/97-or-32-6-consensus-watts-failing-to-grasp-elementary-methodology-of-cook-paper-intellectually-dishonest/

Can you drop by and give Mr Watts a bit of advice on the methodology - or on intellectual honesty?

Who know what causes climate change?
The Sahara used to be Rome's granary. Now it is mostly desert, where very little survives.
Could it have anything to do with the clear felling of forests?
Rain forests are so called, because they literally attract rain, and have their own micro climate.
Clear fell such forest, and you do what the Mayan did. Turn your homeland into a barren wasteland.
Now I don't care what or who caused climate change. I seems that we are all arguing at cross purposes.
If climate change is real and caused in part by human activity? Then, all we need do, is adopt cheaper carbon free options for creating power.
Choosing a cheaper option will likely mean, universal acceptance and very early roll outs.
Now, I can pay 10,000+ for enough solar panels to power my home, and a solar hot water system.
I will need a backup for cloudy or overcast days!
Alternatively, economies of scale, would allow me to spend 5,000 on a ceramic fuel cell, powered by our copious NG.
Given a world's best energy coefficient of 72%, my power from that source, could be three times cheaper than wholesale, coal fired power. I'd get free hot water as a bonus.
This power would be available 24/7, and given the gas is piped, not interrupted by miners strikes, forest fires, poles knocked down by the odd traffic accident, or a lightening strike, a tree limb, or occasional summer storm or flood event!
Thorium power and or pebble reactors are still undergoing some development or improvement, whereas, the Aussie invented ceramic cell is already very safely and silently powering some premises.
Power is produced through a chemical reaction, rather than combustion; meaning, the exhaust is mostly water vapour!
I think it's worth rolling out, if for no other reason than dramatically lower power prices and currently missing, genuine free market competition.
If in so doing we also quite dramatically lower our total carbon output, that can hardly be a bad thing?
Rhrosty.

@Jon J
Better let Obama know he's Tweeting on a dodgy study. See Poirot's comment just above.

Hasbeen says:

"Tombee the physics I'm seeing is the fact that CO2 is displacing water vapor in the upper atmosphere. As water is a much stronger GHG than CO2 this will lead to cooling of the upper atmosphere."

That's exactly right; water levels are falling, something that Miskolzi predicted back in 2004 and confirmed in 2010:

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/16193427/157753127/name/miskolczi.PDF

Note specifically Figures 9 and 10.

Miskolzi is confirmed by the absence of a THS, an essential prediction of AGW, and in turn confirms the operation of Maximum Entropy production in the Earth's atmosphere.

As for Arrhenius; Arrhenius made many mistakes:

1 Arrhenius believed that glass enclosures trapped infrared radiation, thus raising the temperature inside. We now know that the absence of convection is the mechanism of greenhouse heating.

2 Arrhenius also believed that CO2 had the same property as glass. But glass and CO2 ABSORB and EMIT infrared, they do not repel it.

3 Arrhenius used measurements of radiation limited to 9.7u and was not measuring the heating effect of CO2 which absorbs primarily at 14.77u; he was in fact measuring water vapour’s heating effect.

4 Arrhenius used as the source for his thermal radiation a source that was at 100C; the radiative spectrum from this source includes the 4.2u wavelength of CO2 that is not part of the Earth’s radiative spectrum, outside the lip of a few volcanoes.

Still Arrhenius was a good scientist and measured the log decline of the heating effect of incremental increases of CO2, something AGW disavows.

"out of 12,000 scientific papers published on the issue of climate change between 1991 and 2011, 97.1% of the authors who stated a position on the evidence for global warming endorsed the view that humans are to blame."

And what precentage were employed by government?

The anti-human AGW cultists have lost this argument over and over and over again in here. Once we put aside their techniques of:
- assuming it from the start,
- posting links in substitution of argument,
- defining science by what the authorities are saying rather than what the data are saying
- concluding values from factual propositions
- assuming any human impact is negative
- ignoring the blatant charlatanry of the self-interested technocrats and their neat tricks like REVERSING THE SIGNS of their data(!) (what ole Intellectual Honesty Poirot calls "science")
- assuming a Gods-eye view of the planet and their fellow human beings
- assuming the state represents the best interests of society
- assuming the State's superiority at economising scarce resources - BWAHAHAHAHAHA
- assuming they know what the temperature of the planet should be
- assuming they know what the distribution and abundance of species should be
- assuming they can fine-tune the weather in 5,000 years time through taxes
- when challenged to justify their assumptions, merely repeating them
- etc. etc. etc:
after we put aside all these techniques THERE'S NOTHING LEFT.

A truly disgusting display of vanity, arrogance and hysteria well worthy of a chapter in "Popular Delusions and Madness of Crowds" which is unfortunately all we'll have to show for wasting trillions of dollars on criminally stupid boondoggles.

It's worse than we thought! -- the Cook paper, that is:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/

It seems that even the crony system couldn't manage to find a clear majority of papers spruiking AGW over the alternatives.

Rhrosty is right.

Regardless of the debate over who is rong or right with data, does not humanity have a duty to develop less polluting industries just in case.

We know that plastics flow around the world and end up in certain places, as evident in one island of Hawaii, so why not encourage biodegradable plastics. It is the same with fuels, what would we have to lose.

I mean this argument of cost is a bit silly. Would you guys also have mocked the development of sport in the later 19th century. You guys may have argued then that it is not productive or an efficient use of resources to promote recreation and public holiday, but now look at the value of sport. Look at the way sport has also broken down barriers betwen peoples and cultures. I would like to think that a better economic-environmental balance would be a great achievement by humanity.

Come on guys, it is always better to support or discuss new ideas that may build bridges on a whole lot of issues. Just bagging the messenger on both sides is hardly going to be the end of the debate, so we should encourage any new idea that is plausible and diminishes risk.

JKJ - aka PeterBWAHAHHAHA,

I'm afraid your last post was wall-to-wall hysterical bunkum.

"....neat tricks and REVERSING THE SIGNS of their data...."

Yeah, Peter - that's all part of the nasty whopping conspiracy undertaken by around 11,000 climate scientists.

One day their little guide book will be revealed, and then you and all the other "skeptic" chappies on OLO can throw a tea party.

I'm supposing the "skeptics" around here won't read Readfearn's article, but I'll post it anyway.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/planet-oz/2013/may/17/zombie-climate-sceptic-theories-newspapers-tv

"In other words the alternative arguments about the causes of global warming were already dead or dying 20 years ago.

Yet since, then climate contrarians/deniers/skeptics have continually applied the defibrillator paddles to these failing theories in an attempt to bring them back to life."

"To this day, those dead theories hang around like slack-jawed zombies in the graveyards of global media outlets."

No expertise, no scientific foundation, hysterical denial.......

Thanks, JKJ

Dear Chris,

Your posts offer much balance and less vexation than many in this debate.

I am concerned however that you attempt tie in softer environmental issues with the hard core alarmism associated with the CAGW debate.

I doubt any of us would question the human propensity for fouling our nests or that something should be done about that. We do dump much unsightly and pollution waste, plastics and many other byproducts can be included. But to try to bury the “political conservation” movement within the general pollution waste issue is a bit too obvious for me.

You wisely avoid the question of which scientists may be right but you follow this with the precautionary principle.

I think you have realised that the “warmer science” in this debate is invalid. It can no longer even sustain its own global infrastructure which has now spectacularly collapsed.

Kyoto is gone, the financial emissions trading markets have either closed or collapsed and the renewable energy industry has shrunk by 90%.

Even if we could get enough support to breathe life into this particular dead cat, there is no longer any global infrastructure to do anything about it.

So what do you suggest

Spindoc,

Good question.

I, for one, have noted that Labor's stance of promoting a carbon tax merely passes on burden to others (China) while making our own industries less competitive. Not a good idea given democratic naitons are more likely to have better eco-env balance. China is improving (it needs to gven the filth of its cities), but it is light years away from Western standards and expecations.

But, given i have been asked the question, i currently support the Coalition's approach to also adopt measures that will lower our emmissions but not penalise Aust industry.

I know many will note that Coaliiton policy is not perfect or good enough, but i dont see how the carbon tax is working given the context of the day. Price is falling and global co2 levels continue to rise. The only real good idea to me is if humanity can address rising emissions at the global level, assuming that this is causing global warming or cooling or whatever side effects, given current change will have a huge financial cost.

The ultimate question is how a nation can achieve better outcomes, and i am sure Abbott will also be interested given he also supports the need to do something, as most Coalition supporters do (if my recall of polls is right).

Problem is we rely incresingly on dirty exports, so whether we can go that step further is difficult to know.

But if Aust could become a world leader in alternatives, as Rhrosty suggests, it will indeed become an achiever rather than just a mere player declaring it is simply too hard.

I know little about energy, but I believe that some recogntion of the problem and a need for debate about plausible ideas is indeed an aspect that all sensible political elites would consider. I think most Austs are wise enough to know that a carbon tax in Australia does not mean a win-win situation for the world.

I hope this post sounds reasonable, but for me it is one of those very hard questions facing humanity and Western socities.

spindoc and Chris Lewis,

You both appear to be overlooking Mr Abbott's plans to ramp up action on a global climate change deal.

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/how-tony-abbott-killed-the-australian-climate-sceptic-movement-and-schooled-them-in-realpolitik/

What do you make of that?

Or do you think he's just spinning us a lie?

Poirot, but i have indicated the Coaliton wil do something to try and lower emissions; I dont rule out some scheme with support from the US and others, as Hunt suggests.

But national action is also better than nothing, while maintaining naitonal competitiveness.

Poirot, you try to establish some credibility in these debates and then you resort to someone like Readfearn.

Readfearn is a petty little weasel.

AGW is a dead science; renewables don't work and I would have to see more info about Rhosty's ceramic microbes before I pass judgement; there have been too many other scams and 1/2 baked ideas presented to save mankind from the only energies which so far work, the fossils and nuclear; eg see:

http://landshape.org/enm/niweek-2012-cold-fusion-lenr-ecat-anomalous-heat-effect-demonstrated/

Thought bubbles are fine when the power is on; when it's not, fine ideals disappear as fast as the memory of last night's dinner.

Chris Lewis I have a real problem with some of your reasoning.

You obviously understand that carbon dioxide has a very marginal effect, if any, on the ambient temperature. However you won't let go of the idea that CO2 emissions should be reduced.

Understanding it is not effecting temperature in any real sense, why do you continue with the desire to reduce it. It is simply illogical.

You mention China's pollution problem, which is probably no worse than that experienced, on a smaller scale, where people are still cooking on dung. Surely these real problems should be tackled long before the now understood non problem of a harmless plant food gas.

Yes the rat bag greenie wants power generation stopped for some totally irrational reason, but why do some, who have now recognized the fallacy of global warming, still want CO2 emissions diminished?

"Denial" - so that assumes you've already proved it right? And where? Oh, that's right, more links in substitution of argument, more groupthink, more assuming what you haven't proved? Ho-hum, situation normal, Poirot.

Still using depletable resources I see Poirot? Tut-tut, naughty. Destroying the planet. Halo has slipped. Why don't you settle the debate, as concerns yourself, and stop using the internet, electricity and petrol, and any food produced using them? At least show willing to do your bit.

Poirot do you ever read anything but propaganda?

Do you ever think about a subject?

Your posts are becoming more & more like what one would expect from a computer programed to spit out green/lefty propaganda, regardless of it's pertinence to the subject.

cohenite,

"Readfearn is a petty little weasel."

Is he?

It's pretty difficult to argue against such an insightful and comprehensive critique...but taking into account your penchant to call people names whenever someone pulls the cord in your back, I'd say, on the whole, I prefer the Woody doll from Toy Story....he's got a snake in his boot!

Hasbeen,

"China's pollution problem, which is probably no worse than that experienced, on a smaller scale, where people are still cooking on dung..."

http://www.care2.com/causes/chinas-smog-so-bad-a-huge-fire-burns-unnoticed-for-3-hours.html

I'm sure the dung cookers would notice a fire in their vicinity.

Very witty Poirot; I have some personal experience with Readfearn so I'm probably in a better psoition than you to judge; his articles are empty snide and condescending rubbish; he got his comeuppance when he confronted Monckton some time ago:

http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/mediaplayer/main/index.html?id=1418

He subsequently skulks around the backlots making insulting little comments; anything other then saying he was wrong.

I see you raise the issue of dung; apart from being relevant to Readfearn you may be interested to know that the main renewable in the world is:

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21575771-environmental-lunacy-europe-fuel-future

cohenite,

When you say his articles are snide and condescending.....are you intimating that Watts and Nova - or Monckton - et al are all sweetness and light when referring to climate scientists or their findings?

It seems to me that scientists and their messengers have resorted to such tactics because of the vicious and unprecedented attacks on them by laymen.

I don't see this happening to scientists with expertise in other areas.

hey listen, you guys .....

do you hear that?

It's the fat lady singing.

lol and her name is ... Julia.

Hi Chris, thanks for your effort.

I guess my question was specifically about the global infrastructure and not Australia’s. Just to clear any confusion may I again raise the issues and my question.

<< Kyoto is gone, the financial emissions trading markets have either closed or collapsed and the renewable energy industry has shrunk by 90%.

Even if we could get enough support to breathe life into this particular dead cat, there is no longer any global infrastructure to do anything about it.

So what do you suggest?>>

It matters not what Australia does for a number of reasons so I’d like to take them out of global play for the following reasons.

Australia is about to cancel our contribution to any response to CAGW because there is no longer any global mechanism. All things CO2 will be gone very soon

Australia cannot make a contribution through increased renewables because we cannot afford it. If the might of the entire EU and UN mechanisms have failed in spite of 27 nations trying to make it happen, what is the point in crippling our economy through an already failed model?

Abbott will do whatever it takes to capture any soft green votes, those that are not rusted to Greens ideology but concerned about conservation. He has already stated that he will “invite submissions” for his direct action investments. Anyone who really believes that Abbott will produce any meaningful contribution to global action is invited to vote for him.

Back to the question. Given that there is no global mechanism left because the science could no longer sustain it it, what do you suggest as a “global” solution not an Australian solution?

Chris, the community of interest that supports global action on CAGW tells us it is more intelligent, better informed, has superior science and asks us to support it.

Yet when the question is asked “what do you suggest to fix it?” There has not been one single suggestion from this entire community as to how to fix the failed response to your global problem.

Any takers?

Hasbeen,

to clarify my opinion, i acknowledge there is a lot of conflicting evidence, but generally agree with thrust of global warming debate and a need to curtail emissions. That is my lay person opinion, and I think most Aust's share this position.

However, i dont see any solution yet, and believe that any solution should not merely disadvantage developed nations (such as Australia) with ongoing growth of emmissions fuelled by less accountable nations.

I also think that alternative energy sources, assuming they become affordable and deliver a net benefit to a naiton (and perhaps all nations), should always be explored.

Chris Lewis,

The key word you used was "evidence".

There "isn't" a "lot" of conflicting evidence.

(There is only more and better information being synthesised)

"A lot of conflicting evidence" is what deniers want the general public to believe.

And if you call them out on it - first they abuse you, and then they lay it all at the feet of some grand and all encompassing conspiracy by over 11,000 climate scientists.

Poirot, there is always a lot of problems collating all available evidence in regard to any trend proposition.

What i meant to say is that, despite two sides to debate and some problems in the way evidence is presented, i favour the majority view. My opinion is that we should do something aout rising emissions, as proposed by the Coalition too

Hi Chris.
We make ceramic fuel cells here.
And it shows just how uninformed the uninformed really are, given one poster described them as>ceramic microbes<!
This really does smack of moribund denialism; or, a vested interest in the status quo.
If I had my druthers, every high rise, town ,village or suburb, would treat their biological waste in a smell free, two tank closed cycle system, (Aussie innovation) that produces endlessly available methane.
After scrubbing, bladder stored methane, can be used to power solid state ceramic fuel cells, and provide 24/7 power.
And water cooled fuel cells provide endlessly available free hot water. (More Aussie innovation)
The addition of food scraps/wastage creates a saleable surplus!
The by products include pristine water, collected from the water vapour, which is the main exhaust product of the fuel cells!
Plus, reusable nutrient loaded water, eminently suitable for some endlessly sustainable companion oil rich algae production. [Doesn't fuel at 45 cents a litre, sound inviting?]
And carbon rich, soil improving, sanitised organic fertilizer, rich in both phosphate and nitrates.
We currently spend a fortune and expend energy pumping this stuff out to sea, where it does nothing but harm.
Plastic bags can be packed into bales and used in lieu of coal in steel making.
Better that and less total carbon pollution, than having plastic, finding its way into endangered or threatened marine life!
CNG powered fuel cells, would make an electric car, more than a match for the current raft of conventional vehicles.
We have lots of natural gas, but import around 85% of our conventional fuel requirements.
Forget the probable environmental harm!
This massive importation is doing economic harm, and places us in a position of quite massive dependency, on an increasingly volatile Middle East!
Yes sure, those with a vested interest in the status quo, will obfuscate and prevaricate, at the thought of competition, they have absolutely no chance of ever matching!
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Chris, the industrial revolution started in Northern England.
Two factors brought it into existence.
Comparatively costly labour and very cheap energy!
That revolution gave Britain its wealth and an empire.
America became an economic powerhouse, by the application of cheap energy into steel making and mass production.
Great Britain is no longer great, with most of its foreign possessions returned to their rightful owners.
The American Midwest, once the industrial heartland of the USA, is now a rust belt, with economic conditions every bit as bad as the Great Depression.
However, innovation and high tech seem to be providing some economic resuscitation?
NG has dropped to just one third of its former price and many American firms are returning!
The most energy dependant industries high tech; and the next industrial revolution, will be a high tech one.
We could with practical pragmatism, become the centre of the next industrial revolution, by providing the world's cheapest energy.
Thorium, cheaper than coal, could be one option, as does placing our future industrial parks, right alongside these future publicly owned power plants.
We have enough thorium to power the world for 600 years!
Publicly owned examples seem to be able to quite massively undercut the fully privatised model, by as much as 400%?
And eliminating the need to push power down hundreds of miles of wire, halves it yet again.
This latter solution, would quite literally halve the cost of energy, given around 50% losses occur in the great white elephant of a national grid/multi-billion dollar transmission lines.
Leaders don't prevaricate or obfuscate, or wait for somebody else to show the way!
They just Lead!
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Rhrosty, good stuff.

I agree with you. There are many examples, some here and many around the world, where waste is collected and recyled. The Swedes do it with animal waste. Given we have a significant agricultural sector, why cant the two fields go together here as well.

Why cant we take up new ideas. Here in Wodonga, they have an excellent waste collection set up. There may be an inital cost, but the benefits must also be significant.

The other ideas you mention do indeed deserve attention.

The subject on energy is very interesting. I need to learn a lot more about it. Please send me anything i may find useful to
c11lewis@yahoo.com.au

Cheers,

Chris Lewis

Thanks for your answer Chris. It helps to know where others are coming from.

I would suggest you look very carefully at all these ideas for alternate power generation as they come along.

So far we have ethanol in petrol. Not only is it ridiculously more expensive than petrol, it generates more CO2 than petrol.

Wind power is killing people as it is so expensive they could not afford to heat their homes in these very cold, [must be global warming] winters in Europe.

Solar likewise. Even the Germans have realize it is destroying their economy with alternate energy subsidies.

We tried biomass here in Qld, using sugar cane residue. Worked almost OK in the crushing season, but cost millions to run on other fuels in winter. The plant was auctioned off at a loss of a hundred million to tax payers.

As with all biomass tried, the cost of transporting the fuel to the powerhouse was only exceeded by the amount of increased cO2 generation.

We had a saying in the navy "bull sh1t baffles brains", & that has proven very true when it comes to all forms of alternate energy tried so far. I'm sure we will come up with new practical alternate energy generation eventually, but I am equally sure it will not come out of government funded research, particularly that conducted in universities.

Hasbeen, i agree good ideas come from anywhere.

One can remember how the govt institutions bagged one farmer for his eco sustainbale practices, yet now they embrace his methods. I used to cack myself at the arrogance trying to dismiss someone who proved them all wrong, because it was obvious he was right. One could see his property prospering while those around him looked like deserts in comparative terms.

I, for one, am not interestd in what the status quo says just because they maybe the dominant institution. A good idea, that both works and is cost realistic and viable, is what we all should be interested in.

"We make ceramic fuel cells here.
And it shows just how uninformed the uninformed really are, given one poster described them as>ceramic microbes<!
This really does smack of moribund denialism; or, a vested interest in the status quo."

What is the Kwh cost of electricity produced by Ceramic Fuel Cells Ltd?

What is their source of rare metals such as lanthanum strontium manganite which are typically used in the cathode?

What is the prospect of scaled up CFCs supplying grid power?

The only thing I have a vested interest in is being against stupidity and pie in the sky thought bubbles; if the only advantage of BlueGen is to cut CO2 emissions then it is stupid; if it can replace coal, gas and nuclear at an equivalent price than good and well.

Poirot, I see Trenberth has a recent paper where he summises deep OHC is increasing but not upper level OHC due to increased global winds:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

But global winds are falling:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSR-E-ocean-surface-wind-anomalies.png

How do you explain that?

Dunno, cohenite,

Why don't you ask Lord Monckton?

He's full of it on this otherwise informative video.

http://takvera.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/arctic-sea-ice-death-spiral-lord.html

(That's if you don't mind listening to actual climate scientists talking about the Arctic melt)

Well cohenite, there you have it, the sum total of the warmertariat solution is zero, unless of course you count the hysterical rehashing of all the things that have already failed.

It’s curious that all these well informed advocates can offer is more of the same, more of their scientific links, more green solutions, more alarmism and more abuse.

It is this very mantra that has been put to the test and failed globally, no Kyoto, no emissions trading and no green energy industries, they have all collapsed and yet they continue to spout the stuff that failed them in the first place.

When asked what they think should be done to revive the collapsed global infrastructure they have absolutely no response, just endless repetition of the mantra that the world has already rejected.

Once upon a time they had a global infrastructure driven by their mantra, now they just have the mantra and the world has rejected them.

Their response? More mantra, more mantra.

Do they realize they need to put their case to those who have abandoned them and not us? We can’t do anything for them.

spindoc,

"Do they realise they need to put their case to those who have abandoned them and not us? We can't do anything for them?"

Well that's a hoot, spindoc.

You spend the first half of your post ridiculing people for not plastering solutions on this little old common garden variety inexpert forum - and then you say it's no use telling you anyway.

Here's a tip - the people who do understand the science "aren't here". They have got better things to do than waste their time arguing with deniers on general forums.

People like me enjoy a bit of stoush and offer up inks to people with expertise...nothing more, nothing less.

This forum is not a place to argue the technicalities of the actual science.

It's an opinion forum inhabited in the main by laymen.

No Poirot, you know full well that the solution to which I was referring was specifically how to restore the CAGW infrastructure, without which there can be no global response to your global warming.

You try to mix this up with all the renewable energy thought bubbles, alarmism and pseudo-science links as a diversion. The point I’m making is that all this stuff has already failed to convince the global infrastructure needed to fix your global problem because it has all gone.

I say again, what do you offer as a solution to the problem of losing the CAGW global response mechanisms, without which there can be NO global response to the GLOBAL problem?

The endless proselytizing links and rehashing of local renewable thought bubbles has nothing to do with it.

Poirot, I predicted last year that warmers had a number of choices, they could jump ship now, have an exit plan, have a bob each way or cling on saying and please God let me be right.

Do I detect some of these elements in your last post?

<<People like me enjoy a bit of stouch and offer up inks to people with expertise...nothing more, nothing less. This forum is not a place to argue the technicalities of the actual science. It's an opinion forum inhabited in the main by laymen>>.

Oh dear Poirot, what ever happened to your passion and conviction, just a game now is it? Or perhaps you really don’t have any understanding as to why this whole thing has collapsed or any solution?

Are we seeing a bit of “a bob each way bet” emerging with just a touch an “exit plan”.

spindoc,

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that the purposeful dissemination of dud science by those defending the big business/oil status quo, and the subsequent inaction by governments (of which Canada would be a good example) equates to "AGW has been disproven".

The relative "inaction" is not related to the veracity of the science - It is related to deliberate misinformation and political and economic prerogatives.

Frogs in a pot.

That’s more like it Poirot, back to your old self again.

Sadly it’s too late you’ve already blown it, you can never go back.

Remember you told us << the people who do understand the science "aren't here”. We agree.

Remember you told us you << enjoy a bit of stouch and offer up inks to people with expertise...nothing more, nothing less >> Yep, agree that too.

Remember you told us << This forum is not a place to argue the technicalities of the actual science >> Yep, agree that one in spades.

Remember you told us << It's an opinion forum inhabited in the main by laymen >> OK, if you insist, agreed.

Just remember the next time you post on this topic, you have failed multiple times to address the question because “it’s just a bit of fun, it’s only opinions, no experts here, just laymen and this is not the place for science”.

I think the “exit plan” would have been less embarrassing for you. Ooops!

Hi Rhostry, I am interested in your statement,

"Posted by Rhrosty, Sunday, 19 May 2013 10:24:33 AM

Find out more about this user
Hi Chris.
We make ceramic fuel cells here."

Could you please email me privately at geoffreykelley@bigpond.com and send me some details of your systems?

Regards,

Geoffrey Kelley

Not embarrassing at all, spindoc.

Just reality.

The deniers on this forum are not scientists....and if they link, it's usually to minority contrarian data or "skeptic" blogs run by people who aren't scientists.

And then we have the likes of you, whose whole argument isn't based on science, but instead on the tardiness of self-absorbed carbon burning nations to recognise the problem and do something about it.

The only reason you don't have an "exit" plan is because you never really broached the "entry" in any pertinent way. Wafting around on the sidelines with no science, just playing spoiler......Watts and Nova would be proud of you.

Dear Parrot,

<< The only reason you don't have an "exit" plan is because you never really broached the "entry" in any pertinent way >>.

Correct, you are so smart and so perceptive. I never bought it in the first place under any circumstances so I don’t need one, Doh!

But you did sweetie.

<< Wafting around on the sidelines with no science, just playing spoiler …>>

Hang on Poirot, no science? I’ve always said I was not a scientist but you said just this morning that;

<< the people who do understand the science "aren't here, This forum is not a place to argue the technicalities of the actual science >>, and that << It's an opinion forum inhabited in the main by laymen>>.

Ah I get it, you want your science and your credibility back again, sorry, no deal.

You said it, you live with it Parrot. You are looking sillier and sillier but I like that in a warmer.

P.S where are all your friends? I suspect you may have blown their credibility as well?

Tish, Tish, can’t wait to hear from them, they must be seething with you but you could always switch to peak food, peak oil, peak population or something like that, but on the other hand you may blow that as well.

(by "entry" I was referring to the door labelled cogent argument to counter scientific consensus. You're right, though. You never went near it)

But that aside. There you have it folks!

spindoc gets himself in a lather when his baiting of Poirot is met with a measured reply.

The apex of his argument - the absolute zenith of his capabilities - is to call Poirot "Parrot".

Nuff said.......