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 > Abbott's way > Comments

Abbott's way : Comments

By Mike Pope, published 23/4/2014

The Australian prime minister Tony Abbott is renowned for calling climate science 'absolute crap'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 20
  7. 21
  8. 22
  9. All
You do have a tendency to misinform, Mike, even in small matters like Abbot’s description of climate science as absolute crap. He called it crap, and you added “absolute”. That, of course, might just demonstrate that you are careless.

However, “The incidence and severity of floods, droughts, heat waves and bushfires in Australia will increase causing a rise in premature deaths, loss of property, crops and livestock. By mid-century this is likely to be increasingly evident and problematic, “, shows that you are a blatant emitter of misinformation.

There is no basis for assertion that global warming will have any detrimental effect. Past episodes of warming have had a positive effect on humans, and your assertion of effects has no scientific basis.

You talk glibly about emissions but there is no science which demonstrates any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.If you are aware of any such science, please let us know. Otherwise, there is no basis for any requirement to reduce human emissions, and it is fraudulent to pretend that there is.

Abbot does not go far enough in his opposition to the AGW fraud. We need a Royal Commission to enquire into how this fraud gained the support that it did, culminating in the imposition of the scurrilous carbon tax.

You should be ashamed of yourself, Mike, for producing misinformation like this
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 12:08:33 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
Its time we sued the climate activists and 'experts' for the consequent costs of their bad advice. Billions have been wasted, completely.

There is no global warming, no climate change for 17 years and even the dishonest, activist-infested IPCC has acknowledged it.

The so-called 'clean energy' is just 'expensive waste'. We are paying a fortune for rubbishy, intermittent power. Decisions at high levels damage the ability to make cost-effective reinvestment decisions in generation and grid.

Desalination plants and alternative energy schemes cost billions because Green, activist advisers thought their speculation was gold plated; now the plants lie idle, still costing money every day. Poor people pay more for power because of these dishonest advisers and their dishonest journalist henchpersons.

Professional liability suits are the answer - take their super, their waterfront houses, their expensive retirement travel plans and return the money to the people they deceived and exploited.

Flannery, Hamilton, Lewindowsky, Gore, Mann and hundreds of others - in collusion with dishonest journalists - represented themselves as experts and their advice as valuable, while discrediting those who told the truth.

Sue them.
Posted by ChrisPer, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 12:29:15 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
‘morning Mike,

Many thanks for pointing out the process and list of achievements Abbott had promised. All we need now is for the Senate to recognize the will of the voters and we can all get on with life beyond the great alarmist scam.

Too late for the Europeans who have had 800bn Euros ripped our of their collective economies and now face years of austerity. At the same time the EU is backing out of what is left of the collapse of the Green energy revolution.

It’s even more tragic to be reminded that in spite of the EU’s enormous sacrifice to the great green Gaia for nothing, they are now returning to fossil fuels. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned and that we should consider prosecuting our own green fraudsters.

Royal Commission anyone?
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 12:50:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow i can't believe you guys are still in denial, The rich greedy bankers stuffed the EU not greens, I guess we just wait and see according to you guys every thing is sweet and dandy what happens when it's not? Who will you blame then as your kids are dying. I don't consider myself a Greenie but i am certainly not interested in the opinions of people who are to self centered to care about more then how much money they can fill their pockets with now at the expense of the future generations, Let say on the 1 in a trillion you are right what is wrong with cleaning up the planet Really is this how you keep your own backyard
Posted by Aussieboy, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 1:05:43 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
Aussieboy, you want to clean up the earth, you pay for it.
I voted to do awsy with the climate warmist crsp. Abbott was closest to what I want just as kevvy's nonsense was closest to what you wanted.

Abbott won and his policy is now the Australian government policy.
End of story.
If you oppose the government policy to change it you need to convince the Australian voters. Calling them names like 'deniers' won't work. Nor will repeating all the scare monger arguments that current observations have discredited. That only says you think the voters are incapable of reading and making their own assessments.

It's time you caught up and abandoned the old greenie terrorist play book.

You only turn off now much more aware voters.

Even Clive is going to vote against repealing the carbon tax. That he is now siding with all the climate warming terrorist frausters should tell you something.
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 1:40:55 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
So you like living in filth feel free, I personally don't and I don't want my children doing it, Do you believe it's not our problem ?
Let's just leave it to the polluters , Next generations problem Is this really how you people think, As for Tony the way his going he doesn't have a chance at next election, And speaking of Clive he will say any thing to get votes same as rest but At-least he is more up front about it and a lot of dissatisfied voters are going to vote for him as an alternative. So is looking like very bad governments for awhile but that still doesn't mean we shouldn't make moves to cleanup our Planet.
Posted by Aussieboy, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 2:10:14 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
We are not deniers, Aussieboy, we are Realists. Our opinions are fact and science based. In case you haven’t noticed, fraud-backers have no science to deny. The assertion of AGW is without scientific basis, so your position is adopted through ignorance or dishonesty.

To assist us, please let us know whether you were aware, when writing your post, that there is no science to back what you say. If not. Then your statement is ignorant. If you were aware, then you are dishonest. Please clarify your situation.

Of course, if you are aware of any science which demonstrates any measurable effect on climate by human emissions, let us have the reference.

What do you think “cleaning up the planet “ means? CO2 is a colourless odourless trace gas, essential t all life on earth. If the fraud-backers were able to have it reduced in volume to 180 ppm your kids would certainly die- from starvation- because crops would fail.

Seek an education, Aussieboy, and stop talking nonsense.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 2:15:38 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
Yea it's called Google why don't you try it, Every leading scientific body in the world has a listing on climate change 95% true %5 like yourself are deniers
And again i will ask why do you want to live in filth ?
Posted by Aussieboy, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 2:22:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clean up their own filth and mess? Humans? No way! There's money to be made!

Dig it up, consume it, faster now, how big is our profit, how much will the shareholders get, and the executives, these are life's big questions?

And when we've trashed our planet completely, we'll move somewhere else and repeat the exercise.

Yeah, 'Use and Abuse, no Excuse' is our motto. We're known for it!
Posted by David G, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 2:46:05 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
I have never been able to understand why it is that economists are the easiest people on the planet to fool with a good fraud job.

Perhaps I'm wrong, & they are not taken in, but just see lots of money flowing all over the place, & reckon that means lots of very profitable consultancies will be available. Come on Mike, tell us, are you easily conned, or just good at smelling out a buck.

One of the things that worried me about Abbott for a while is that he is a trained economist. Fortunately he then stated global warming was "crap", & we knew he had not fallen for the fraud like the rest of them.

Then Mikes backer, Aussieboy. We don't have to wonder about him. He is so dumb he thinks the "rich greedy bankers" as he puts it, are anti the global warming con job. They are right in it boy. Any time fools are throwing around, large chunks of money, there are huge profits for the bankers.

Hey boyo would you please show me some of this filthy CO2. Perhaps no one has told you yet, CO2 is a colourless, odorless, invisible plant food. Without it all life on the planet dies.

When we had a lot more of it, it was so good for life that life grew rather large. Those dinosaurs could not have existed with out the prolific plant life a much higher percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere supported. I reckon it is about time you started thinking for yourself. Those global warming academic conmen, & the so easily conned economists will take you down, quick time, if you listen to them.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 3:10:22 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
Dear Aussie Boy and David G.,

An overwhelming reason to stop (or at least reduce) burning fossil fuels is clear and simple: it was slowly accumulated in the ground for billions of years, deposited as the bodies of myriads of micro-organisms fell to the ground (or the bottom of the sea which was often raised later) - and now within just 100-200 years we waste it all, at a rate of about 1000 years per hour, leaving nothing for the next intelligent species that will inherit the earth once humans are gone!

That is obviously wrong - why then do you need any other excuse?!

Why instead do you hang on to that ridiculous fantasy that was invented by Margaret Thatcher (whom I suppose is not your favourite lady...) in her desire to crush the coal-mining unions by replacing coal with nuclear electricity?

By adopting this nonsense, you distract people from the real problem and one thing is certain - you are not helping this planet!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 3:26:08 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
Sussieboy
There is no need to cast nasty aspersions the way you did.

What makes you think I live in filth.

I live on a yacht have a far smaller carbon or trash footprint than you. I also sail oceans. They are far cleaner than any of the cities I know.
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 3:45:14 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
Because of your argument I see Pollution and filth everyday in our waterways pumping into our skies but yet you don't think it matters
Well a whole lot of people do that's why i asked if you like living in filth and you keep denying it is happening carbon is only one part of pollution, If you sail the sea's as you say you would be well aware of the affect of heavy metal's and plastics are having on the ocean and fish as well,And I guess major Oil spill's are no real problem either,So keep denying we have a problem are you people really that dense.
Posted by Aussieboy, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 4:00:57 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
Dear Aussieboy,

Yes, there is pollution and the reason is the excessive number of humans on this earth.

Do ideologically-conscientious people, such as greenies, pollute less?
Do they bring less children to the world?
Do they not fly over across the globe to attend "climate-change" conferences?

Anyone who could produce pollution and filth out of mere intellectual arguments, should be considered the greatest magician/wizard of our times.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 4:16:52 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
I wish all the fetishist Greens would go find some real religion, leave the Workers alone and thereby help people. Green poses are merely a form of Status Competition with the focus on what they can get for themselves. Overwhelmingly of the Parasite Class, I sincerely hope they achieve their Rapture which is nothing but a knife at the poor, just leave and stand not upon the order of your going.
Posted by McCackie, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 4:27:27 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
Aussie boy

Oil is broken down fairly quickly out on the oceans. I've in the past 7 years only ever encountered a spill in a marina. Even then it quickly dissipated. They simply don't last.
Rubbish on the ocean... mate they are so vast and have very powerful currents an
D any rubbish mostly eventually finds it's way to where it originated ... land where you live.

Mate I ride a bike as my secondary transport. I don't use petrol. How about you? Sail boat is my primary. What are yours?
I generate all my power from solar and wind. I store it in a bank of batteries. How about you? I cook with gas. What about you? I eat only seafood and vegetables. How about you? I sanitise my waste before disposing it. How about you?I desalinate and produce my own water. How about you?
I don't own a widescreen tv, dishwasher or microwave and run only a laptop, mobile, sat phone and radios. How about you?

Now tell me who lives in the filth they are producing?

If you are honest you'll know who. And you should apologise for your meally mouth and hypocritical attitudes.

I actually live my beliefs. You simply mouth yours and try to shunt your guilt onto others.
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 4:33:23 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
Leo Lane,

"You do have a tendency to misinform, Mike, even in small matters like Abbot’s description of climate science as absolute crap. He called it crap, and you added “absolute”. You do have a tendency to misinform, Mike, even in small matters like Abbot’s description of climate science as absolute crap. He called it crap, and you added “absolute”. That, of course, might just demonstrate that you are careless.

This is what Abbott said - verbatim:

"The climate change argument is absolute crap, however the politics are tough for us because 80 per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger".

That, of course, might just demonstrate that you are careless.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 4:59:11 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 imajulianutter, I agree with you, it's a fairly clean way of living. I've done a few miles myself. About 53000 nautical miles in my own boat, at last count, plus a few elsewhere. I gather that you, like me when I was cruising, don't like motoring. I once sailed from Honiara to Sydney, via Cairns & the reef without starting the motor, but I did run the Honda generator a few times to help charge the batteries.

You do wax a bit too lyrical though I'm afraid. Those nice white things you pull up to catch the wind, they are oil you know, as is the rope you control them with, & the paint you use to preserve the thing.

Depending on it's construction, there is a fair bit of energy in steel, oil in fiberglass, & again energy in all the metal fastenings, & oil again in the glue & calking materials, holding things together & the ocean out in the old wooden things.

Still we certainly used less than those green inner city chattering class. You know the ones, they have to ride an elevator to get home, rather than row the dingy.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 5:02:54 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
Abbott's view of climate matters is dangerous. He has no regard for anything what so ever. And now he is trying to slow down the onslaught os solar. Not much hope of that people can see the benefits, loud and clear.
Now batteries are coming down to a much more manageable cost. The coal fired generators have been in Abbott's ear and no doubt filled his pockets.
The talk now is to move the market based wholesale electricity to a fixed price wholesale price. Which means the generators will determine the price. That will be goodbye Off peak power.
With less and less demand for electricity from generators, and people that have not invested in solar have rocks in place of brains. Just like Abbott.
Posted by 579, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 5:16:13 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
Thanks, Poirot, it was careless of me not to check and to just assume that it was more misinformation from our delinquent author.

It is absolute crap, and I am delighted that Abbot said so.

It is great to have him in charge

Aussieboy, Google will not educate you. It supplies knowledge, but you lack the means to process it, so will continue to spout nonsense.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 5:39:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mike Pope,

You seem to be confused. You seem to think CO2 is climate. You don't seem to understand that pricing carbon will not have the slightest impact on the climate but will damage our economy and, therefore, human well-being. After over 20 years of ideologically driven nonsense it seems many still don't understand the basics.

The most important things we don’t know about human-induced climate change are:

1. Will increasing CO2 concentrations bring forward or delay the next rapid climate change event? What are the probabilities?

2. Will increasing CO2 concentrations make the next rapid climate change event more or less damaging? What are the probabilities?

3. Will the advocated GHG mitigation policies make beneficial changes to the climate? What are the probabilities?

4. If so, what is the expected magnitude of the benefit? What are the probabilities?

5. What is the probability the advocated mitigation policies would succeed given the realities of international politics, economics, conflict, etc?

6. What is the probability the advocated policies would deliver the expected benefits (i.e. climate damages avoided)?

These are what I believe are the most important things we don’t know about climate change and the climate policies commonly proposed. Until I believe I have satisfactory answers to these questions, I would not support mitigation policies that will damage economic growth.
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 5:40:15 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
Climate change is real, climate science is crap !
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 10:18:37 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
Look CO2 emissions have gone up and up and up, while global average temperatures have remained level for the last 17 years.

This means that ALL the scientific models, and therefore the so-called "science", are, and always were, FLATLY INCORRECT. And on that basis, they declare themselves "95%" confident that they're right!

Warmists, just do a favour to the non-evil-moron part of the population: understand this. It doesn't matter how much "consensus" there is in something that's wrong, it's still wrong you morons! Wake up! And grow up! Stop killing millions of people in the third world with your deluded religious nonsense!

Those still plugging the belief that "the planet" isn't going to be safe for "our grandchildren", despite their inability to prove it by TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS, and instead referring to what "Google" or the ABC or some unspecified "science" says, are either dishonest or stupid, there is no other logical explanation, and it's as simple as that.

The carbon tax and direct action should be abolished, all climate change policies and departments should be abolished, all those who have profited from this scam should be punished with imprisonment, and all those who supported or voted for it should have all their property sold off and be bankrupted as the smallest restitution for their part in this, the biggest and most offensive anti-human fraud in the history of the world
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 11:20:55 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
Past mass hysteria.

1 The world would end in AD 1000
2 The world would end in AD 2000
3 The millennium bug.
4 The world is running out of food.
5 The world is running out of oil
6 The world is heading for a catastrophic Ice Age.
7 The world is not heading for a new Ice Age, it is the other way around.

The real issue is this strange facet of human behaviour which insists that catastrophe is just around the corner. Psychologists call it the "Chicken Little" effect. When I see a US Air Force general walking around with a "The End is Near" sign, I will only then start to get worried.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 24 April 2014 4:16:26 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 submitting this article for publication, I suggested that … “it will probably “stimulate” those who think climate science and AGW are “crap” into making their own carefully considered, science based comments!

Is this the best they can do? If so, it is hardly worth commenting on. I suppose it was to be expected - the usual diatribes.
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Thursday, 24 April 2014 9:54:45 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
Agnostic of Mittagong,

The article is just an anti-Abbot rant. It is pure politics. It has nothing to do with science. It's an example of the worst of CAGW alarmism, Left wing politics, and those who do all they can to block genuine progress.

This is what's important

Greens' carbon restraint policies would cost $27 billion p.a. and deliver effectively zero benefit.

Labor-Greens ETS total cost to 2050 = $1,345 billion. Benefit near $0

That is $58,000 for every person living in Australia now (assuming 23 million population). This is what it will cost if we pay at current prices in installments over the 37 years to 2050. However, the discounted cost; i.e., for those who choose to pay a lump sum up front and 'no more to pay' (assuming no more changes to the rules) – is $17,000 per person. In return for this up front payment you hope to get $5,400 per person of benefits, as climate damages avoided, over the period to 2050.

How many rational people would be prepared to pay $17,000 per person as a lump sum now, or prepared to pay $58,000 over 37 years, in the hope of gaining an intangible benefit of $5,400 in 'reduced climate damages' over the next 37 years?

It is likely atmospheric CO2 concentration will be in the range 500 to 800 ppmv in 2100. The higher concentrations would be more likely to occur if those who like to call themselves ‘Progressives’ continue to be successful at retarding progress (e.g. blocking nuclear power); the lower concentrations, if the ‘Progressives’ could be persuaded to become progressive and facilitate genuine progress instead of continually blocking it.
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 24 April 2014 10:06:15 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
NASA says climate change is real, where is there real evidence that it is not the case
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
sea level rise
global temperature increase
warming oceans
shrinking ice sheets
declining Arctic sea ice
glacial retreat
ocean acidification
extreme events

Countries such as Bolivia, Chile,Peru, Ethiopia, Israel, and USA acknowledge climate change.
Issues in the South American countries evolve around crop failure which are beginning to happen, epidemiological issues, water supply, and impacts on the poor.
Posted by ant, Thursday, 24 April 2014 10:08:02 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 for crying out loud. Yes climate change is real. It's the science about it that's crap.
What can the science do to stop it, tell us. If they can't then stop making the waffle about it another industry.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 24 April 2014 10:13:15 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
the gw 'scientist 'must be relieved they are not old testament prophets. They would of been stoned long ago. Amazing how shameless they are after so much fraud, deceit and false predictions. No differene I suppose to those who tried to scare the school kids in the 1970's into believing we were in for an ice age and that oil would all be gone by 2000. Oh well the gullible will want to keep believing while the high priests line their pockets. True science reputation is left trashed.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 24 April 2014 11:28:39 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
Newman stated on Lateline that there has been no warming in the past 17 years.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/wmo-temperature-decades-590x389.png

Just out of interest this is a comment about March 2014..."But looking at the entire globe — as scientists do when they track things like global warming — 2014's month of March was the fourth-hottest one on record." From ClimateProgress
Now theres a bit of a problem as a number of records have been exceeded since 2000.
Posted by ant, Thursday, 24 April 2014 12:11:04 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
Extremes are evident, Unless you recognise that there will be no solutions ever. Co2 deniers have all their eggs in the same chook shed.
It's the most noticeable impact on earth to date. To just say that can not be the cause, is dumbing down any discussion at all.
Posted by 579, Thursday, 24 April 2014 5:58:28 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
Dear ant.

People would be a lot more inclined to believe the climate scientists if their prognostications and scary statements matched self evident reality.

What have we got so far?

A statement from Australia's own Climate Commissioner (who purchased a waterfront property) that "the dams will never fill again". Tell that to the residents of Brisbane. Then there are the rusting, white elephant desalination plants in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane.

Then there was the very first IPCC gabfest in Brussels which occurred during one of the worst snowstorms ever recorded in Europe. 300 million Americans are now sceptics after digging themselves out of 2 meter snowdrifts in New York.

Then there was the "ship of fools" who went to Antarctica to prove that the Antarctic was melting away, who got stuck in sea ice that did not even exist 100 years ago. Toss in Climategate, and the outright chicanery about "the Himalayan glaciers are disappearing", and you wonder why people are growing sceptical?

As I understand it, the science is in dispute. On one hand are the climate scientists with their ever more discredited computer models, and on the other, the geologists who have physical evidence that earth's atmosphere contained much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the past, yet was much colder than it is now.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 25 April 2014 5:05:52 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
I wonder what a real, competent scientist would have to say about all this. Probably has better things to do with his time then argue with fools.
Posted by individual, Friday, 25 April 2014 8:58:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lego, in relation to Antarctica; I believe you will find that the sea ice has originated from the breakdown of glaciers. Winds are very strong and can quickly move ice bergs into an ice sheet. The ship was 2 ks from ice prior to being caught. Vessels are constantly being rescued in the Arctic area due to changing ice conditions.

http://www.dw.de/antarctic-glaciers-retreat-unstoppable/a-17363380

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-17/global-warming-melts-greenland-ice-sheet/5324848

Climate change is happening in the Polar areas where temperatures are higher than average. Glaciers and ice sheets are retreating.

The CO2 in the atmosphere can be identified Lego. Yes, there have been higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere millions of years ago; but, in the past there has not been CO2 which is identifiable to the burning of fossil fuels.

At present, there is concern about glacier retreat in a number of South American countries as ice melt waters are their source of water supplies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXlLk4vyxRc (copy and paste)
Posted by ant, Friday, 25 April 2014 10:47:26 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 ant!

Anzac day is a sad day for me.

It is nice of you to provide a little laugh to brighten it up a bit.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 25 April 2014 11:58:47 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
Aussieboy – Good try but no matter how many facts you put before them, you can never get deniers such as Leo Lane, ChrisPer majulianutter or Peter Lang to change their views. Those views are little more than expressions of bigotry. You have probably noted that they fail to produce a shred of broadly accepted science, a single published, peer reviewed scientific paper in support of their views.

None of them will have read, let alone tried to understand the IPCC 5th Assessment Report, even though much of it, particularly Parts II and III are easily understood by non-scientists. None of them can produce evidence or even cogent argument showing the science is wrong. It is of course always possible that their opinions are correct and the findings of thousands of scientists are wrong – do you think?

Clearly, you recognize that continuing with business as usual will, apart from causing dangerous pollution, result in greater and eventually dangerous global warming. Australia should get a taste of this later this year with development of an El Nino event – except, because of global warming which has already occurred, the coming El Nino is likely to be a Super El Nino, producing the hottest summer on record.

Such things will not in any way change the views of deniers. They may sweat profusely in oppressive heat, watch TV footage of drought and bushfires, listen to reports of increasing losses caused. Will that change their views on global warming? Nope! However, the vast majority of the population will recognize these events for what they are – global warming – and demand governments everywhere take appropriate action.

There is always hope! Some people (named) clearly do not accept the science, even though the Abbott Government claims that it certainly does!
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Friday, 25 April 2014 12:53:20 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
Agnostic (what a laugh that name is),

Good try but no matter how many facts you put before them, you can never get deniers such as Agnostic and his/her comrades to change their views.
Posted by Peter Lang, Friday, 25 April 2014 2:16:26 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
you are so right individual. the following link shows your truth.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php(7)

It contains some data supported evidence in the following statements. I cannot argue with data supported evidence and nor can you.

'It is often said that the temperature ‘leads’ the CO2 during the warming out of a glacial period. On the most recent records, there is a hint that the temperature started to rise slightly (at most a few tenths of a degree) before the CO2, as expected if changes in Earth’s orbit cause an initial small warming. But for most of the 6,000-year long ‘transition’, Antarctic temperature and CO2 rose together, consistent with the role of CO2 as an important amplifier of climate change (see Fig. 4). In our modern era, of course, it is human emissions of CO2 that are expected to kick-start the sequence of events. We see no examples in the ice core record of a major increase in CO2 that was not accompanied by an increase in temperature.'

Ask ant for clarification if you have difficulty comprehending the consequences of this link.
Posted by imajulianutter, Friday, 25 April 2014 3:36:03 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
Agnog

'You have probably noted that they fail to produce a shred of broadly accepted science, a single published, peer reviewed scientific paper in support of their views.'

There is one that supports my view that matches your requirements and what is more it was presented to a warmist magazine and written by warmist scientists.

I believe in climate change but I don't believe it has been caused by human co2 emissions.

Here is that link, with recorded data, that supports my position. It was first supplied by ant.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php(7)

If you don't understand the consequences of it's data and it's assertions, check with ant.
He has had it explained to him ... more than once.
Posted by imajulianutter, Friday, 25 April 2014 3:48:43 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
What “science” is it that we do not accept, Agnostic? You do not have any.

When I asked you for the science to demonstrate that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, you disappeared. Now you resurface with the same baseless nonsense. Did you learn nothing from the realization that you have no science to back your position on the AGW fraud?

• “"Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels
• Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions
• 96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made
• Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions”

• That is from Murry Salby, Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/climate-scientist-dr-murry-salby.html

Why do you not accept the science , Agnostic? We are Realists, who accept Climate science,while you, of course, are a denier.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 25 April 2014 4:13:15 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
Page Not Found
Home » About this Site » Redirect » Page Not Found »

The page you requested:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php(7

...cannot be found.
We suggest you try one of the following options:
Seach page - A search of www.antarctica.ac.uk powered by Google
Site Map - A listing of all our pages by section.
A to Z - A listing of all our pages by title.

Imajulianutter,
Is that from one of the GW proponents, because how on earth are they doing research when they spell like this 'Seach page-
:-)
Posted by individual, Friday, 25 April 2014 7:29:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are funny Leo, after all the comments you have made about fraud of climate scientists

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-sacked-australian-university--banned-national-science-foundation

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Murry_Salby.htm

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/08/06/bag-of-hammers-ii/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jul/19/climate-change-contrarian-wretched-week
Posted by ant, Friday, 25 April 2014 8:10:42 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 Ant – Thanks for your post. Saves me the job of pointing out how fraudulent Salby is.

Leo Lane should try reading the 5th Assessment Report – something which is most unlikely to happen, even though it is a report accepted by every Science Academy in the world and all but a very few of the worlds climate scientists.
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Saturday, 26 April 2014 9:20:48 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
Agnostic,

The problem with you and your ilk is that you don't understand what is important and relevant for policy analysis and advice. It is not "the science". It is the answers to these questions:

The most important things we don’t know about human induced climate change are:

1. Will increasing CO2 concentrations bring forward or delay the next rapid climate change event? What are the probabilities?

2. Will increasing CO2 concentrations make the next rapid climate change event more or less damaging? What are the probabilities?

3. Will the advocated GHG mitigation policies make beneficial changes to the climate? What are the probabilities?

4. If so, what is the expected magnitude of the benefit attributable to the policies? What are the probabilities?

5. What is the probability the advocated mitigation policies would succeed given the realities of international politics, economics, conflict, etc?

6. What is the probability the advocated policies would deliver the expected benefits (i.e. climate damages avoided)?

These are some of questions we need answers to. Climate scientists and CAGW believers continually avoid tackling them.

You keep repeating your beliefs, like a mantra. You read reports like the AR5 to learn talking points to repeat. It's like a religious zealot learning text from the bible and believing it is the gospel truth. You don't think critically. So the issues is you keep repeating the mantra that the people who would like to be called 'Progressives" have been repeating for decades. They've been exaggerating, scaremongering and telling doomsday stories but continually avoiding the key questions that need to be addressed for policy.

Until you stop repeating your boring mantra of your irrelevant beliefs, you and your ilk will continue to retard real progress.
Posted by Peter Lang, Saturday, 26 April 2014 9:34:00 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
Many of the folks like Agnostic who keep repeating their mantra and about "the science" do not realise that climate change doesn't behave anything like the IPCC's projections. The climate is wild. It changes suddenly and quickly. However, we do not have sufficient resolution to detect the sudden changes over the distant past. But the resolution is improving bit by bit. The fact that climate changes suddenly and quickly is important to understand. Then you might take the questions above more seriously, and realise why we need to attempt to answer them based on evidence.

Here is an example:
Coxon and McCarron (2009), ‘<i>Cenozoic: Tertiary and Quaternary
(until 11,700 years before 2000)</i>’
http://eprints.nuim.ie/1983/1/McCarron.pdf

"Figure 15.21 The stable isotope record (&#8706;18O) from the GRIP ice core (histogram) compared to the record of N.pachyderma a planktonic foraminiferan whose presence indicates cold sea temperatures) from ocean sediments (dotted line). High concentrations of IRD from the Troll 8903 core are marked with arrows. After Haflidason et al. (1995). The transition times for critical lengths of the core were calculated from the sediment accumulation rates by the authors and these gave the following results: Transition A: 9 years; Transition B: 25 years; and Transition C: 7 years. Such rapid transitions have been corroborated from the recent NGRIP ice core data."

This and other figures suggest:

1. Very rapid warmings occurred in the past before human GHG emissions; in fact, the climate as recorded in paleo data in Ireland, Greenland and Iceland, warmed from near glacial temperatures to near current temperatures in two events in 7 years and 9 years at 14,500 and 11,500 years ago respectively.

2. Life thrived during the warming events (Life loved warming and warmer conditions).

3. There is a periodicity of about 500 to 1000 years represented by minimums at about (eyeballed from the chart):

years before present:
16,000
15,500
14,500
13,800
13,000
12,600
11,600
11,200
11,000
10,600
10,200
9,500
9,200
Posted by Peter Lang, Saturday, 26 April 2014 9:58:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, ant,talking of fraud-bckers, Tamino (Grant Foster) is a great example. He demonstrated what he was in 2009 when he was head authot of Foster et al purporting to counter McLean et al which demonstrated that the warming to that time was due to climate cycles which left no room for the assertion of warming caused by human emissions. The unethical behaviour of the climategate miscreants in this matter was exposed by the Climategate emails posted shortly thereafter in 2009.

Salby’s science is correct. “ Salby's findings corroborate the works of Humlum et al, Frölicher et al, Cho et al, Calder et al, Francey et al, Ahlbeck, Pettersson, andothers demonstrating that man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or global temperatures”.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/climate-scientist-dr-murry-salby.html

So the usual procedure of the fraud backers, where they have no scientific answer is to launch personal attacks and scurrilous vilification, in which the fraud backers show an expertise which balances their lack of science.

It would take a Royal Commission into the AGW fraud to sort out how and by whom Macquarie was induced to act as it did towards Salby, and effectively terminate his tenure, but we know why. He published some correct science.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 26 April 2014 10:36:15 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
Even the Chinese are involved in your so called "fraud" Leo.
http://shichang-kang.itpcas.ac.cn/index.html

This particular scientist has stated Mt Everest is shrinking due to climate change.
"On Thursday, Chinese scientist Kang Shichang told the country’s official Xinhua news agency that Mount Everest’s glaciers have melted by 10 percent over the past 40 years, and that the shrinkage is due to climate change."
Posted by ant, Saturday, 26 April 2014 1:54:00 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
The liberal government does not at least in theory deny climate change. Their policy is to reduce CO2 emissions by 5% by 2020 as is the Labour parties.

The proposed mechanism by which the liberals wish to achieve this goal is by a policy called direct action. The details of which are somewhat sketchy at this stage but basically the idea is to pay large polluters to reduce emissions. On the other hand the current system as put in place by Labour requires the largest CO2 emitters to pay a fee for each ton of CO2 produced.

Now the Labour system raises revenue by charging polluters a fee on the other hand the liberal system requires the tax payer to foot the bill for reducing CO2 emissions to the tune of some 3 billion dollars. Is it just me who thinks that is both crazy and unfair to expect the tax payer to subsidised large companies to clean up their act, particularly as Tony Abbott has sent a strong message to businesses not to expect handouts from his government
Posted by warmair, Saturday, 26 April 2014 3:25:09 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
Right, ant, when you have no science to offer, to support your baseless assertions, you try to change the subject.
Nationality is irrelevant, as is most of the material you raise. He is a fraud supporter if by “climate change” he means as defined by the scurrilous IPCC fraud-backing definition.

You cannot be as stupid as you pretend to be, ant.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 26 April 2014 3:35:32 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
Warmair,

>"Is it just me who thinks that is both crazy and unfair to expect the tax payer to subsidised large companies to clean up their act ...?"

Many people share your view. But I don't think they've thought it through. When you say "the polluters pay" with the ETS but the tax payers pay with the direct action plan, I disagree. Australian consumers and tax-payers pay in both cases. Either way is damaging the economy and we all pay.

However, there are big differences. First, the ETS cannot succeed. It would not deliver the claimed benefits. But it would do great damage to the economy. See my earlier comment on this thread where I laid out some of the costs per individual of Labor's scheme. The total cost of Labor's carbon restraint policies is $20 billion per year. The Direct Action plan is $2.55 bn over 4 years plus the $5 bn per year for renewables if they keep it (and I hope they wont). That's a huge difference.

Secondly, Direct Action policy is very flexible. It can be quickly and easily changed to fit with whatever the world decides to do going forward. We are not locked in. However, the ETS is very difficult to change. We are locked in to a very bad policy. The longer it goes the more difficult and costly it will be to get out of it. And it would be far worse if we became tied to the EU carbon market.

Thirdly, the Direct Action plan could encourage innovation far more than the carbon tax/ETS.

I don't want either ETS or direct action, but I'd much prefer to waste $2.55 bn over 4 years than $20 bn per year that Labor has committed us to ($13 bn on ETS, $5 bn on renewables and $4 bn on other direct action budget measures).
Posted by Peter Lang, Saturday, 26 April 2014 5:27:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
They believe climate change is real in Greenland as they are experiencing it, Leo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgnvbMwRaf8
Copy and paste
Posted by ant, Saturday, 26 April 2014 7:26:58 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
Peter Lang, your figures for carbon pricing are absurd, but you go on spouting them.

Wage earners and pensioners were compensated, and will remain so unnecessarily when carbon pricing is axed, we are told, so how will the treasury's pound of flesh be extracted?

Exporters were given carbon credits to remain internationally competitive and domestic businesses worked within their normal domestically competitive price-raising constraints, while ensuring the "carbon tax" was held full responsible for any of them failing. Rubbish, of course.

What was not compensated, and so did effect business, were the great power price rises to renovate and maintain the grid, which is soon to be sold for a pittance, starting in NSW.

How is consumer behaviour encouraged towards decarbonizing by Direct Action, and how will the tiny spend make any more than the slightest dent in the issue? I expect we'll hear soon enough about farmers being paid to plant trees, in a ground-breaking but useless environmental initiative.

Leo Lane, you're a whack-a-mole which keeps presenting against the most powerful hits. You've demonstrated no capacity to weigh or discuss evidence sensibly, so stop boringly demanding more.
Posted by Luciferase, Saturday, 26 April 2014 9:41:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Could you clarify what you mean by “more” Lucferase?

I asked for science which showed any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. No one has ever supplied this. I never asked for the irrelevant crap produced by ant, and I have certainly not asked for more of it, so it is unclear what you mean to convey by your comment.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 26 April 2014 11:47:15 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
Lucerface,

You clearly have not a clue what you are talking about. The Labor-Green carbon restraint policies reduce Australia's GDP growth rate. The total reduction in GDP to 2050 is $1,345 billion according toe Treasury estimates. That means people are worse off (i.e overall standard of living would be lower) by $1,345 billion divided by the average population over that time. You can also discount it using Garnaut's and Treasury's discount rates, as I did in my comment above - that tells you the amount you'd need to pay now as an up front payment to earn the discount (like paying your rates bill in advance). I realise this is probably over your head so I am trying to explain it very simply for you.

The important thing to realise is that the policies will deliver no benefits. They push energy intensive industries out of Australia taking their jobs, income and emissions to other countries. But they will make no difference what so ever.

If you've understood this so far and you want to expand your understanding, you could go to the original sources from this link (See Submision No.2, read it and read the references cited if you want to): http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Clean_Energy_Legislation/Submissions
Posted by Peter Lang, Sunday, 27 April 2014 9:53:50 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
Peter Lang

Re Your submission to the Senate you state, initially

• Carbon pricing cannot succeed unless it is global;

• Global carbon pricing is unlikely to be achieved;

• The Australian carbon pricing scheme, if continued, would be high cost and provide little if any benefit.

I agree with your first point. The second, I cannot assume to be correct because my descendants' survival depends upon it being incorrect. At full/near full global participation your third point is moot, as your Figure 1 indicates, and Australia can lead in this, not just follow.

Your basic conclusion is we should simply adapt to whatever temperature we reach. I live in a hot dry place and to adapt to it becoming hotter and dryer has its already near limitations. Compare this with a Siberian who can see local upside in climate change to date.

We have only projections of what an average global temperature increase of something like 4-5 degrees will bring and what tipping points will be reached. We do know what a 4-5 degree decrease brings, an ice-age reducing us to hunter-gatherers.

You're seeing it purely as an economic issue, I'm not. I'm thinking we should do something, you don't, as a free market will determine who the global winners and losers. Survival of the fittest communities, Darwinian, yet I see it as more as survival of the fittest civilization.

The global cost of mitigating climate change is a cost we have to bear, whatever that is.
Posted by Luciferase, Sunday, 27 April 2014 11:11:04 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
Lucerface,

Thanks you for reading the submission. I am impressed that you did. However, you have misinterpreted or misunderstood some and have attributed conclusions to me that I most definitely did not draw and do not agree with. See responses below:

>”The second, I cannot assume to be correct because my descendants' survival depends upon it being incorrect. “
That is flawed login on many levels. First it assumes that a policy that cannot not deliver the claimed benefits – i.e. of climate damages avoided – will in fact deliver the benefits because you believe it must. Second, your assumption that ‘dependent’s survival depends on the policy succeeding is not fact. It’s belief.

>”At full/near full global participation your third point is moot, as your Figure 1 indicates, and Australia can lead in this, not just follow.

“The Australia can lead” is ignorance. That’s what Rudd thought when he took his 114 followers to the Copenhagen Conference. We cannot lead. We can be part of the solution. But wasting money on useless policies that cannot succeed won’t lead. Your arguments are based on ideological belief, not rational analysis.

>”Your basic conclusion is we should simply adapt to whatever temperature we reach.”

I never said any such thing. You made that up. The fact that you would do that is a pretty strong indication of intellectual dishonesty.

I argue for the solutions on this thread. Join in and debate it there if you want to: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/4/20/science-environment/ipccs-terrible-three

The rest of your comment shows you are susceptible to believing doomsday stories. It’s just religious-like belief, not from rational analysis.
Posted by Peter Lang, Sunday, 27 April 2014 2:05:14 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
Luciferase, the only sensible solution is to acknowledge that AGW is a fraud, and the proposed mitigation of human emissions has no science to justify it.

We need immediate dismantling of the IPCC and inquiries into how the fraud originated, and how it was able to develop to the point where our parliament was so misled as to impose the baseless and scientifically unjustifiable carbon tax..

This should have been done immediately the Climategate emails made it clear that IPCC stood for “International Panel of Climate Crooks”

As stated by Professor Bob Carter:
“, with the formation of the IPCC, and a parallel huge expansion of research and consultancy money into climate studies, energy studies and climate policy, an intensive effort has been made to identify and measure the human signature in the global temperature record at a cost that probably exceeds $100 billion. And, as Kevin Rudd might put it, “You know what? No such signature has been able to be isolated and measured
That, of course, doesn’t mean that humans have no effect on global temperature, because we know that carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas, and we can also measure the local temperature effects of human activity, which are both warming (from the urban heat island effect) and cooling (due to other land-use change, including irrigation). Sum these effects all over the world and obviously there must be a global signal; that we can’t identify and measure it indicates that the signal is so small that it is lost in the noise of natural climate variation.”
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/tag/professor-bob-carter/
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 27 April 2014 5:08:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Professor Richard Tol says:
http://richardtol.blogspot.nl/2014/04/ipcc-again.html

“In September 2013, I stepped down from the team that prepared the draft of the Summary for Policy Makers to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This attracted worldwide media attention in April 2014.

As a Convening Lead Author of one of the chapters, I was automatically on the team to draft the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). AR5 is a literature review of 2,600 pages long. It assesses a large body of scholarly publication. In some places, the chapters are so condensed that there are a few words per article in the learned literature. The SPM then distills the key messages into 44 pages – but everyone knows that policy and media will only pick up a few sentences. This leads to a contest between chapters – my impact is worst, so I will get the headlines.

In the earlier drafts of the SPM, there was a key message that was new, snappy and relevant: Many of the more worrying impacts of climate change really are symptoms of mismanagement and underdevelopment.

This message does not support the political agenda for greenhouse gas emission reduction. Later drafts put more and more emphasis on the reasons for concern about climate change, a concept I had helped to develop for AR3. Raising the alarm about climate change has been tried before, many times in fact, but it has not had an appreciable effect on greenhouse gas emissions.

The international climate negotiations of 2013 in Warsaw concluded that poor countries might be entitled to compensation for the impacts of climate change. It stands to reason that the IPCC would be asked to assess the size of those impacts and hence the compensation package. This led to an undignified bidding war among delegations – my country is more vulnerable than yours – that descended into farce when landlocked countries vigorously protested that they too would suffer from sea level rise.

cont ...
Posted by Peter Lang, Sunday, 27 April 2014 5:22:59 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
Richard Tol says cont ...

The SPM omits that better cultivars and improved irrigation increase crop yields. It shows the impact of sea level rise on the most vulnerable country, but does not mention the average. It emphasize the impacts of increased heat stress but downplays reduced cold stress. It warns about poverty traps, violent conflict and mass migration without much support in the literature. The media, of course, exaggerated further.

Alarmism feeds polarization. Climate zealots want to burn heretics of global warming on a stick. Others only see incompetence and conspiracy in climate research, and nepotism in climate policy. A polarized debate is not conducive to enlightened policy in an area as complex as climate change . The IPCC missed an opportunity to restore itself as a sober authority, accepted (perhaps only grudgingly) by most.

The IPCC does not guard itself against selection bias and group think. Academics who worry about climate change are more likely to publish about it, and more likely to get into the IPCC. Groups of like-minded people reinforce their beliefs. The environment agencies that comment on the draft IPCC report will not argue that their department is obsolete. The IPCC should therefore be taken out of the hands of the climate bureaucracy and transferred to the academic authorities.”
Posted by Peter Lang, Sunday, 27 April 2014 5:29:28 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
When are we the tax payer going to start insisting on Means Testing politicians rip off pensions and retirement perks ?? In line with the private sector.
Posted by Olesarge, Sunday, 27 April 2014 9:02:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PL,

"First it assumes that a policy that cannot not deliver the claimed benefits – i.e. of climate damages avoided – will in fact deliver the benefits because you believe it must." The Nordhaus document cited in your Senate submission, has a chapter entitled "The Many Advantages of Carbon Taxes", page 148. Huh?

"Second, your assumption that ‘dependent’s survival depends on the policy succeeding is not fact. It’s belief." ....as is your belief that she'll be right mate, it'll never happen, trust me. On what evidence do you base your belief, the unprecedented rate of temperature rise in the last century, the link between temperature and CO2 concentration over the last million years, what?

"“The Australia can lead” is ignorance." So, let's stop trying and just make ourselves as comfortable as we can, eh? That's your prerogative based on your belief. (Ever read "The Power of One"?)

Re ”Your basic conclusion is we should simply adapt to whatever temperature we reach.” and your, "I never said any such thing. You made that up." OK, you got me, I should have put it in context by adding, "...because she'll be right mate, it'll never happen, trust me." What's your conclusion if not that? Your cost-benefit approach has not addressed the IPCC's worst case scenario. Why not, because you don't believe it? IMO, it's ridiculous to go down your do nothing path with the notion it will never be too late to apply the brakes(have you ever skied?). Here's a lttle on that and more http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/heep/papers/HEEP%20Discussion%2011.pdf

Regarding the art of cost-benefit analysis of AGW mitigation, you'd be aware Tol has his critics. , https://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/4/9/policy-politics/richard-tols-flawed-claims-about-stern-review
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/4/9/science-environment/richard-tols-ipcc-errors&sa=U&ei=SdlcU6kIw8KQBaC8gOgG&ved=0CAYQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHWvau7b2lNoqwoMo1aUZcJzsarqA

Regarding your doomsday economics and carbon pricing http://theconversation.com/the-carbon-tax-insurance-against-climate-change-824: "Modelling by the Australian Treasury supported by the Centre of Policy Studies (CoPS), shows that to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 80% below 2000 levels in 2050, the Australian economy would be 2.8% smaller than it otherwise would have been."

Where we do agree is on nuclear and not wasting money on green alternatives that will never meet base-load needs.
Posted by Luciferase, Sunday, 27 April 2014 9:44:39 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
Sorry, that last link was http://theconversation.com/the-carbon-tax-insurance-against-climate-change-8244

PS The pound of flesh was revealed today by the government's keeping-secrets unit, it's going to be a "debt" levy. How cunningly brilliant!
Posted by Luciferase, Sunday, 27 April 2014 9:59:00 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
Who is going to tell NASA they are wrong, when they write (22 January 2014)

"...And our planet is changing. Through the gradual build-up of more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, Earth is warming. As Earth warms, ocean waters expand and ice melts to make sea levels rise. The cycle of rainfall and evaporation accelerates, leading to more severe droughts and more severe bouts of rainfall. Heat waves become more frequent and more intense...."

The Congo has the second largest tropical rainforest on the planet and it is under stress at present due to drought.

""It's important to understand these changes because most climate models predict tropical forests may be under stress due to increasing severe water shortages in a warmer and drier 21st century climate," Zhou said." Report released on 23 April 2014.

They even have satellites committing fraud now, Leo.

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/april/nasa-satellites-show-drought-may-take-toll-on-congo-rainforest/#.U118mvmSw1I

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#co2
Posted by ant, Monday, 28 April 2014 8:19:24 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
Hey ant; have you found that graph in FAR showing claims by alarmists the Arctic sea ice is at low levels is absolute crap yet?
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 28 April 2014 8:31:50 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
Luci says: "OK, you got me, I should have put it in context by adding";

Put in context!? Peter means one thing and you add the context to completely change the meaning!

Ha ha ha; AGW summed up; well done luci.

And agnostic says:

"Hi Ant – Thanks for your post. Saves me the job of pointing out how fraudulent Salby is."

For a true explanation of how Salby was disgracefully fired and slandered see:

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/murry-salby-responds-to-the-attacks-on-his-record/

What a wreck AGW and its supporters are; all of them chicken littles and doomsday merchants and spivs. How amazing that the world has been held to ransom by these liars, frauds, conmen and ideological ratbags
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 28 April 2014 9:14:02 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 knew NASA was bad, ant, because of the liar Hansen, one of their top scientists, but am reminded how bad by you locating absolute nonsense like this and posting it. They are as disingenuous as the UN.
Some years ago, a group of NASA scientists complained by letter about his nonsense on global warming, but to no avail. He is apparently most effective in securing funding.

“The letter’s co-signatories “respectfully request” that both NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) – the latter run by the high priest of climate alarmism James Hansen – refrain from making “unproven remarks in public releases and websites”. Claims that man-made CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are “not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.”

http://www.energytribune.com/10610/climate-dissent-launches-at-nasa

NASA has been publishing false data for years.

http://gwswindle.blogspot.com.au/2008/11/science-vs-science-nasa-rewriting.html

AGW is a fraud, ant. Come up with science that says otherwise, or stop posting garbage.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 28 April 2014 12:02:21 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
cohenite, yes I did find the FAR graph that goes back 24 years, I did acknowledge it in another post and apologized for suggesting it wasn't there. In another post I wrote "...Goddard did obtain a graph from IPCC FAR 1990, my apologies."

However, the trend line shows that ice coverage has been decreasing for decades. What happens between one season and another is meaningless, changes need to be seen happening over decades. In the 1960s there did appear to be a decline though nothing approaching the period when satellites began to measure ice levels.

Data from satellites and scientists in situ indicate that major glaciers in Greenland and Antarctic are retreating. These trends have been evident for some time.
Glaciers are retreating elsewhere as well except for some exceptions.

The big question is why is there glacier retreat? The vast majority of scientists say that it is a reflection of anthropogenic climate change.
It is normal practice to rely on information provided by experts.
Posted by ant, Monday, 28 April 2014 1:09:18 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
Leo stated "AGW is a fraud, ant. Come up with science that says otherwise, or stop posting garbage."
I'm glad you have taken data that shows that major glaciers are not in retreat, Leo. NASA tells us from the data procured from satellites that glaciers are retreating; Leo please provide NASA with your data to set them right.
Posted by ant, Monday, 28 April 2014 2:54:46 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
http://www.unep.org/dewa/Portals/67/pdf/Black_Carbon.pdf

The IPCC concedes that black soot reduced glaciers in the 1800s but increased soot now is not considered as a possible cause for SOME glacier reduction.

Scientists have uncovered strong evidence that soot, or black carbon, sent into the air by a rapidly industrializing Europe, likely caused the abrupt retreat of mountain glaciers in the European Alps.

The research, published Sept. 2 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, may help resolve a longstanding scientific debate about why the Alps glaciers retreated beginning in the 1860s, decades before global temperatures started rising again.

Thomas Painter, a snow and ice scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., is lead author of the study, and co-authors include Waleed Abdalati, Director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 28 April 2014 3:39:43 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
cohenite, so you agree that anthropogenic climate change has caused glaciers to retreat in Europe. Quote, "...or black carbon, sent into the air by a rapidly industrializing Europe". You did say "SOME" glacial retreat. Soot does not explain what has been causing glaciers to retreat in South American countries, New Zealand, or the Himalayas. There is a suggestion that a part of the reason glaciers are retreating in Greenland is also soot; but warm temperatures, warm water undermining ice from above and below are seen to be the main factors. There is glacial retreat in Antarctica as well where no soot is present.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgnvbMwRaf8
copy and paste
Posted by ant, Monday, 28 April 2014 5:50:20 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
Leo, you continually say that fraud is committed by climate scientists; are the Inuit living at Kivalina also committing fraud when they say that they are experiencing climate change? Their lifestyle is changing; the size of their island is diminishing through erosion, the ice that once protected their island is no longer there. They are no longer able to hunt for seal as successfully due to lack of large ice structures.
The military have built retaining walls; but they say that it is a stop gap project. The inhabitants of Kivalina will ultimately need to leave their island which will also happen to a number of other Inuit communities as well in Alaska.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr3favCFMbk
copy and paste
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 9:13:56 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
http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/alaskan-polar-bears-threatened-too-much-spring-ice-0

Why are many glaciers, including in the Himalayas and Kilimanjaro increasing? Note also sheet ice in the Antarctica is increasing.

You're flogging a dead horse ant.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 12:37:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite, the huge amounts of ice being calved off Greenland and Antarctica need to go somewhere. The ice calved off doesn't melt straight away, it is at the mercy of currents and wind; that was stated in the article you provided. Its another proof that calving is happening. The Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland is 16 ks wide and stands around 800 ms where it calves, it is not the biggest glacier in Greenland.
You mentioned before about the Himalayas, I believe there is a glacier in Sikkim that is increasing. I have mentioned that there are exceptions, but overall glaciers are in retreat.
In one of the references you provided before it stated that as temperatures go up more snowfall can be a result, I'm not going to hunt for it, but from memory it was your wikipedia reference.
A reference I gave previously showed how the glacier on Kilimanjaro was retreating, but if it is increasing again that's great.

AS stated a few times Antarctica and Greenland hold most of the world's land locked ice. An iceberg 660 square ks has calved off the Pine Island glacier, it is up to 500 meters thick.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/huge-iceberg-breaks-off-antarctic-glacier-20140424-zqyjn.html

How do you explain cohenite that the Alaskan Inuits are in trouble in some of the areas that they live where ice once protected their shores; erosion is now a huge problem. Watch the film clip referenced above.
I'm not the one flogging a dead horse, cohenite.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 2:29:39 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
ant, Antarctic sheet ice is INCREASING; the WAP is distinct from the rest of the Antarctic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AntarcticaRockSurface.jpg ] and has some calving but this is due to ice expansion! In any event nothing unusual is happening in the WAP.

History of WAP:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL057782/abstract

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052559.shtml#content

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL032529/abstract

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120822131212.htm
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 3:42:58 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
http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/

Basically the sea level is rising, and this indicates that the global temperatures are on balance increasing despite any minor differences over periods of several years.

It really is time that those who do not accept that greenhouse gases are not the cause of the 150 year long period of global warming at least accept that the climate has warmed and is continuing to do so.
Posted by warmair, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 5:43:12 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
warmy is there no end to your support of AGW? Well, yes there appears to be. Almost:

"It really is time that those who do not accept that greenhouse gases are not the cause of the 150 year long period of global warming at least accept that the climate has warmed"

"and is continuing to do so."

Mmmm.

Sea level rise is decelerating:

http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/24/slowing-sea-level-rise/

See also the Watson paper and Houston and Dean's various papers.

Global Temperature has stopped rising for at least the last half of the satellite record.

The world has warmed since about 1850 due to natural variability and increased TSI.

AGW is a disproved theory. The end.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 6:04:21 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
Warmair,

You miss what is relevant or you avoid it. You need to get your head around what is important for policy, not keep arguing about 'the science'. Quite honestly, I don't think you have much of a clue about any of it.

Things I question about climate science and policy:

1. What is the value of ECS and TCR?

2. Is ECS and TCR relevant given that climate changes suddenly, not as portrayed by IPCC’s smooth projections?

3. What effect will increasing atmospheric CO2-e concentration have on the climate – will it make the next sudden change happen sooner or later? Will it make the next sudden cooling happen sooner or later? Or will it cause a sudden warming event? What are the probabilities?

4. Will it make the next sudden climate change less or more severe? (e.g. delay the onset of the next cooling and/or reduce its severity OR make the next sudden warming happen sooner and make it more severe)? What are the probabilities?

5. What would be the consequences of warming? What would be the consequences of cooling?

6. What is the probability that the advocated mitigation policies would succeed in delivering the claimed benefits (climate damages avoided), given real world issues with implementing and maintaining such policies (e.g. carbon pricing)?

a. To answer this question we need to understand the short and medium economic impact of the proposed policies for nation state, and consider how each will respond so as to maximise its advantage (i.e. game theory) through all situations that could occur over the next century or so.

7. What is the probability that alternative polices are more likely to succeed (such as removing the political and regulatory impediments that are preventing the world from having low cost nuclear energy and allowing lightly regulated markets to deliver the benefits at least cost)?
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 6:11:21 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
cohenite, thanks for your reference in relation to http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120822131212.htm which recognizes climate warming. Quote " And if this rapid warming that we are now seeing continues, we can expect that ice shelves further south along the Peninsula that have been stable for thousands of years will also become vulnerable."
Ice shelves melting will not have any impact on water levels.

The Antarctic area is quite interesting as to what's happening, but from everything I have seen the loss of ice is far greater than any accumulation.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 7:38:44 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
Nice cherry pick ant; you ignore the main point of the research which is it was warmer in the past in the WAP. And this:

"The Antarctic area is quite interesting as to what's happening, but from everything I have seen the loss of ice is far greater than any accumulation."

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 8:55:55 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
The concluding sentence of the abstract at cohenite's link http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495 : "A slow increase in snowfall with climate warming, consistent with model predictions, may be offsetting increased dynamic losses."

The reason for the extra snowfall is not global cooling. The deglaciation rate has increased. Why?

That's right, it's the sun!
Posted by Luciferase, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 9:57:57 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
Luciferase, in a previous reference cohenite provided it stated the same in relation to more snow falling as temperatures go up. When a huge section of ice breaks off from the Pine Island shelf having an area of 660 square ks
( http://www.smh.com.au/world/huge-iceberg-breaks-off-antarctic-glacier-20140424-zqyjn.html )
then you do wonder about the logic of what cohenite is suggesting. cohenite's latest reference does not take into account what's happened in 2014.

Leo, you might be interested in how mosquitoes are committing fraud, they are appearing in all sorts of places where they should not be due to warmth and moisture. Chikungunya fever has been found in the Caribbean previously apart from being carried there by travellers. Dengue fever is an issue around the globe at present.


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/05/3332271/state-health-climate-change/
http://www.nrdc.org/health/climate/disease.asp
http://www.healthmap.org/dengue/en/

Previously, I have written about Inuits being impacted by pathogens; and encephalitis being a matter of concern in Sweden through warming temperatures and moisture.

A further interesting matter to investigate might be the sociological impact of climate change on the Inuit.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 30 April 2014 7:06:59 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
How gullible ant and luci are! The sheet ice [and sea ice] in Antarctica is increasing because of AGW! The models say so! That’s all they got from the Zwally paper. The Zwally paper like all papers which have anti-AGW findings tips its hat towards AGW as a conclusion. Such is the censorious nature of AGW ‘science’.

But have AGW models predicted ice gains in the Antarctica due to AGW? Not according to the Copenhagen Diagnosis:

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/

This says:

“Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (Figure 2) range from losing 100 Gt/year to over 300 Gt/year. Because 360 Gt/year represents an annual sea level rise of 1 mm/year, recent estimates indicate a contribution of between 0.27 mm/year and 0.83 mm/year coming from Antarctica. There is of course uncertainty in the estimations methods but multiple different types of measurement techniques (explained here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.”

The here is to our old friends SKS:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Part-2-How-do-we-measure-Antarctic-ice-changes.html

And then there are Schmidt and Shindell, those bastions of AGW ‘science’ who predicted the Antarctic would be warming:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL020724/abstract

But the Antarctic has NOT been warming either in the atmosphere or the sea for many years:

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/image84.png

http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/02-monthly-nino3-4.png

So how can AGW be responsible for the increased Antarctic ice sheet [and sea ice] when temperatures are falling!?

The problem with you ant and luci and warmy, is you all go to these alarmists sites and suck up their junk and just regurgitate it without thinking at all.

Here’s a more up to date paper detailing the increase in sheet ice at the Antarctic:

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/303/2013/tc-7-303-2013.html

See if you can find wiggle room there boys. And while you’re at it explain why sea level rate of rise is declining if the Antarctic is losing ice;

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/sea-level-rise-has-slowed-it-must-be-time-to-correct-that-data/

Speaking of declines rate of glacier decline is declining;

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/659/2014/tc-8-659-2014.html

AGW is ideology nothing more.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 30 April 2014 3:49:49 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
Breaking News:

Greens Party of Canada changes policy to support nuclear.
https://www.greenparty.ca/new-members/topic/288970

Is this the beginning?

When will the anti-nuke dinosaurs stop their denial of nuclear power?

Likewise, when will ACF, Greenpeace, WWF, Labor and Greens stop resisting to progress?

When will all those who would like to be called 'Progressives' stop blocking progress?
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 30 April 2014 4:04:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Retreating glaciers are not proof of global warming, ant, any more than global warming is disproved by advancing ice in the Antarctic. There are many reasons for retreat of glaciers of which global warming may or may not be one, in any particular instance. You cannot be as stupid as you pretend to be ant, in putting this rubbish in your post.

You are not even coherent. What do you mean by “I'm glad you have taken data that shows that major glaciers are not in retreat, Leo. “. What are you talking about? No wonder you believe in the AGW fraud.

Look at this: “Leo, you might be interested in how mosquitoes are committing fraud, “ Only someone deranged would write that.
How about a rational acknowledgement that you are aware of no science which shows any measurable effect by human emissions on climate? Something sensible instead of your pointless and irrelevant nonsense sbout ice and inuits.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 30 April 2014 10:13:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo, you constantly say that fraud is going on. I raised the view of mosquitos on the basis of just how ridiculous your view on fraud is. You are too concrete in your thinking to understand what I had written.
The Inuit understand exactly what's going on, they are living the experience.
Epidemiological matters are being recognised as being caused through climate change.
Posted by ant, Thursday, 1 May 2014 10:33:12 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
What I constantly point out, ant, is that there is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate. I consider the assertion of AGW in the absence of any such science to be fraudulent. If you are able to refer us to any science which demonstrates a basis for assertion of AGW, please do so, instead of making stupid remarks about mosquitoes, and referring us to other baseless assertions about AGW, by other fraud backers.

No one denies that human activity affects climate, but the effect is trivial, and of no consequence.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 2 May 2014 10:19:13 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
Leo, you wrote "No one denies that human activity affects climate", though did indicate that humans impact only in a minor way. How minor or major?
The Inuits certainly believe in climate change so do many others in Alaska. Land is being eroded due to permafrost melting, and ice is not packed up against shorelines which means when there are storms coastlines are taken out.
If you go to references I have provided you would realize that climate change is a very serious matter in Alaska as several communities need to be moved.
Previously mentioned using other references, qoute, "Inuit health is also being affected by the increased physical danger of injury or death while traveling on the land. The changing climate means Inuit find themselves facing new and unpredictable conditions while traveling on the land or sea for hunting.

There are also emotional and mental health issues associated with climate change.

Traditional land skills are intimately connected with culture and identity. But the changing climate limits time and security out on the land. This can negatively affect self-worth."

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140430/effects-climate-change-human-health-north

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140430/report-human-effect-climate-raises-big-questions-about-arctics-future

http://www.climatechangenunavut.ca/en/understanding-climate-change/climate-change-impact

As far as the Inuit are concerned Leo, climate change has a huge impact on their lives. Certainly its what the inhabitants at Kivalina are experiencing and many other communities as shown in the film clip above.
What happens at the Poles inevitably has an impact on us.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 4 May 2014 10:49:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant, you are quite right.

Population sensitivity to climate change is an area which is now receiving increased attention, particularly in areas such as health and socio-economic impact. It is increasingly clear that the ability of humans to adapt to relatively rapid climate change is limited. Evidence is to be seen in the rising death rate, especially among very young and the aged populations as a result of extreme heat events.

Arctic amplification results in temperature increases 2 to 3 times greater than average global temperature. In the high Arctic summer temperatures which are normally expected to rarely rise above 0°C are now recorded at +10 to 15°C in some parts. Areas which were once ice covered, enabling travel by sled are now open water or land covered in surface water or mud.

This adversely affects the ability of Inuit to hunt because distances which could until recently be covered by sled can no longer be travelled and the game sought by Inuit hunters can no longer be pursued - or it has moved further north. Traditional Inuit hunting and self-sufficiency have been significantly disrupted.

Coastal areas where Inuit villages are located are threatened by rising Arctic temperatures which melt permafrost and sea ice, both of which have protected the coastline. The loss of both exposes the coastline to rapid erosion by wave action resulting in the loss of land, by as much as 30 metres/annum. In some places this has forced re-location of entire Inuit villages.

Among non-Inuit living in the Arctic similar problems have been caused by unprecedented temperature rise. Ice roads become impassable to motor traffic, pipelines and buildings collapse as the permafrost foundations on which they are built melt and wave action eats away at the land on which houses and other facilities are built.
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Sunday, 4 May 2014 1:18:47 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
Quote  Leo Lane
“What I constantly point out, ant, is that there is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.”

The above statement is totally false literally hundreds of studies have been done which show a clear relationship between human greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

I suggest as a starting point you study the you study the link below.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

Or you could try a google scholar search on “Detection and Attribution of Climate Change” I only got 51,000 hits

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=Detection+and+Attribution+of+Climate+Change&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=QuRlU5ziMcXjkgW1xYC4Bg&ved=0CCgQgQMwAA
Posted by warmair, Sunday, 4 May 2014 5:03:55 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
(Not-)Agnostic (the denier of relevant facts),

>"It is increasingly clear that the ability of humans to adapt to relatively rapid climate change is limited. Evidence is to be seen in the rising death rate, especially among very young and the aged populations as a result of extreme heat events."

That is wrong. You have it backwards. Warm is better for health. The reduction in deaths due to severe cold weather events greatly exceeds the increase in deaths due to severe warm weather events.

Furthermore, increasing warmth and CO2 concentrations are beneficial for food production.
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165188913000092?np=y Figure 1,

Rising sea levels at the rates projected are a negligible cost. The estimated cost to the world, over 90 years to 2100, for a 0.5 m sea level rise is $200 billion and for a 1 m rise is $1,000 billion. Such costs are trivial compared with the projected total world GDP of $30,000 trillion over the period.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11027-010-9220-7
Posted by Peter Lang, Sunday, 4 May 2014 5:56:42 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
You are dead wrong, ant, as is Agronomist.
Agronomist, Tim Ball wrote an article on the nonsense of AGW, and the lies of its supporter, James Hansen. Some relevant extracts:
“Hansen told the hearing that he was "99 percent sure . . the [human caused] greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now." No scientist would make such a claim. It even contradicts what the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in 1995. They asserted,"…no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes." Hansen's 1988 predictions have turned out to be150 percent wrong.
Undeterred, Hansen now writes that he underestimated how bad things would actually get and makes even more of the sort of mistakes that have been typical throughout his career. In his July 2012 article, The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change, he and his co-authors cite the 2007 IPCC Report which said "...observed global warming is now attributed with high confidence to increasing greenhouse gases (IPCC 2007a)."
Yet, real observations show the opposite-temperature has declined as carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas of most concern to the IPCC, increased.
and political views to perpetuate false science to the detriment of society.
Consider the comment by German physicist and meteorologist and Klaus-Eckard Puls
Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it. The CO2-climate hysteria in Germany is propagated by people who are in it for lots of money, attention and power.”
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13963&page=0

Mann, the Climategate miscreant, had the temerity to sue Tim Ball for saying he should be locked up for his climate “science” on AGW.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 4 May 2014 7:45:09 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
Warmair, your comprehension is of a low order. I read the document at the first link to where it says “very likely”. That is not science. It is a guess based on a lack of scirntific proof. A better guess would be that it is 100% certain that the effect of human emissions on climate is trivial and of no scientific significance. That is what is shown by the available science. Was your assertion based on ignorance or dishonesty, hotair?
If there were any such science as you baselessly assert, the IPCCriminals would know of it, and would not have to make their current stupid untenable statements.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 4 May 2014 8:21:25 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
Leo, you are telling me I'm wrong when I write about how permafrost is melting in Alaska and Northern Polar areas generally, and how shorelines formerly protected by ice sheets is now significantly being eroded by storms. Alaskan newspapers are stating such erosion is happening, there are papers in relation to sociological impacts, and papers about epidemiological matters created through climate change.

Foothill communities living under the South American Andes are very worried about not being able to access meltwater from glaciers as glaciers are retreating. That is being investigated at present, a real matter of concern created through a real situation.

Heatwaves are a feature of climate change and after the heat waves experienced in Victoria earlier this year, a significant number of elderly/infirm died. It is not possible to say a couple of heat wave events are associated with climate change; but, extreme heat wave conditions are expected with climate change.
Already huge anomalies in temperature have been experienced in Northern areas of the Northern Hemisphere; that is true for Alaska, Greenland, Norway and Sweden.
Posted by ant, Monday, 5 May 2014 10:05:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo
You obviously don not understand that terms such as "very likely" have a precise statistical meaning when used by the IPPC.

IPPC definitions

Virtually certain_________________ > 99% probability
Extremely likely_________________ > 95% probability
Very likely_____________________ > 90% probability
Likely >_______________________ >66% probability
More likely than not______________ > 50% probability
About as likely as not____________ 33 to 66% probability
Unlikely______________________ < 33% probability
Very unlikely___________________ < 10% probability
Extremely unlikely_______________ < 5% probability
Exceptionally unlikely____________ < 1% probability

So if your doctor told you that a particular medicine was very likely (90%+ chance) to cure you, would you refuse to take it unless it was virtually certain (99%+chance) that it would cure you ?
Posted by warmair, Monday, 5 May 2014 12:28:25 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
Nature has a huge carbon cycle, ant, and 97% of the CO2 is natural while 3% is from human emissions. There is a 10% natural variation in volume. The effect of the human component has not been shown to have significance enough to be scientifically noticed. The effect is so trivial that it has no measurable effect. You are wrong in your constant references to climate change, which you intend to be understood as defined by the IPCC which fraudulently imputes an effect on climate by human activity. As I have said previously, I am not interested in your irrelevant observations on melting ice and inuits.

Warmair,the nonsense of the definitions added to the nonsense of the paper makes no difference to my view, and your clumsy attempt to make a comparison to a doctor’s prescription is inappropriate. The comparitive situation is where I am 99% certain that the prescription would not work,
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 6 May 2014 5:37:49 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
Each year missions from land and vegetation (444bn tonnes) are more than off-set by the level of CO2 absorbed (450bn tonnes). The same is true for the oceans which emit 332bn tones but absorb 338bn tonnes. In other words: the natural environment is more than in balance since it absorbs more CO2 than it emits.

However, human activity involves burning fossil fuels which add over 23bn tones to the atmosphere which is about 11bn tonnes CO2 more than can be absorbed by the natural environment. As a result, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. This increase produces a greenhouse effect causing global warming.

The rate of human activity – burning fossil fuels – is increasing resulting in higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, an increasing greenhouse effect and rising average global surface temperature. An easy to understand article explaining this is to be found at: http://skepticalscience.com/Palmer-United-Party-go-back-to-school-carbon-facts.htm
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Wednesday, 7 May 2014 9:25:24 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
Leo, for hundreds of thousands of years the level of CO2 have been between around 280 to 300 parts per million, it is now up to 405 parts per million. The origin of carbon dioxide can be measured through its isotopes.
If you disagree Leo, tell NOAA.

By your reasoning Leo, if somebody gets bitten by a deadly snake, there is no problem really, the volume of poison is so small when compared to a persons body. In the sameway bacterial infections are of no concern as the volume of bacteria in a persons body is so incredibly small.
You might write to Alaskan newspapers Leo to tell them that their roads are not really subsiding due to permafrost melt in some areas; and the foundations of homes are becoming unstable for the same reason in some places.

You might also set Americans right in relation to a Report involving 300 scientists and experts that has been released yesterday.
Quote: "Devastating droughts in the Southwest, ruinous floods in New York City, killer wildfires in Colorado, intense heat waves in the Plains: These are the some of the disasters today that are being exacerbated by global warming, and will continue to worsen in the decades to come, according to a massive federal climate report released today at the White House in Washington."
It has been stated that there have already been billions of dollars in costs created through climate change.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/05/06/national-climate-assessment/8736743/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/06/3434333/climate-report-authors/
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 7 May 2014 9:46:13 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
The problem Leo is that the scientists are telling us that they are better than 95% certain that the climate is sick due to excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that we should not allow it to increase much more, or the consequences will be dire. For what ever reason you are choosing to ignore that advice.

If we are not prepared to accept scientific advice, we may as well give up on education and knowledge right now, and just employ soothsayers and witch doctors.
Posted by warmair, Wednesday, 7 May 2014 10:08:28 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
Warmy says the scientists are saying they're 95% certain. Ha ha ha.

Read the 2010 IAC report which said the IPCC's use of certainties was misleading and just plain wrong:

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Climate%20Change%20Assessments,%20Review%20of%20the%20Processes%20&%20Procedures%20of%20the%20IPCC.pdf

The IPCC was told to revise its use of certainties and has not done so. What a joke. Warmy and his discredited certainties and ant is living with the Inuit.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 7 May 2014 9:27:19 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
Warmair,

I suggest it is you that doesn't understand. It seems you don't understand what information is relevant to rational decision making. Climate science is just one input to rational decisions analysis. You need to understand all of it. The people who are being skeptical and cautious want the policy relevant information, not the irrelevant information that the CAGW ideologues continually preach. To me, most of what they preach is irrelevant and I just switch off. We've been hearing the same mantra for over 20 years. But we can't get the answers to the key relevant questions. Would you like to make an attempt to answer them
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 7 May 2014 10:53:06 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
cohenite, I do write about the Inuit as they are experiencing the impact of climate change. A 829 page document has been released earlier this week in relation to climate change in all regions of the USA. Much of the information is about what has already occurred due to climate change.
In relation to Alaska, key matters are :
Quote: “1. Arctic summer sea ice is receding faster than previously projected and is expected to virtually
disappear before mid-century. This is altering marine ecosystems and leading to greater ship
access, offshore development opportunity, and increased community vulnerability to
coastal erosion.
2. Most glaciers in Alaska and British Columbia are shrinking substantially. This trend is expected
to continue and has implications for hydropower production, ocean circulation patterns,
fisheries, and global sea level rise.
3. Permafrost temperatures in Alaska are rising, a thawing trend that is expected to continue,
causing multiple vulnerabilities through drier landscapes, more wildfire, altered wildlife habitat,
increased cost of maintaining infrastructure, and the release of heat-trapping gases that increase
climate warming.
4. Current and projected increases in Alaska’s ocean temperatures and changes in ocean chemistry
are expected to alter the distribution and productivity of Alaska’s marine fisheries, which lead
the U.S. in commercial value.
5. The cumulative effects of climate change in Alaska strongly affect Native communities, which are
highly vulnerable to these rapid changes but have a deep cultural history of adapting to change.”
The Report expands on the key matters identified.
The Report titled: Climate Change Impacts in the United States, …it uses literally hundreds of references, in relation to Alaska there are 136 references alone.
continued
Posted by ant, Thursday, 8 May 2014 8:40:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These are points made in the overview:

Quote
"1. Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.

2. Some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades,
and new and stronger evidence confirms that some of these increases are related
to human activities.

3. Human-induced climate change is projected to continue, and it will accelerate significantly if global emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to increase.

4. Impacts related to climate change are already evident in many sectors and are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond.

5. Climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways, including through more extreme weather events and wildfire, decreased air quality, and diseases transmitted by insects, food, and water.

6. Infrastructure is being damaged by sea level rise, heavy downpours, and extreme heat; damages are projected to increase with continued climate change.

7. Water quality and water supply reliability are jeopardized by climate change in a variety of ways that affect ecosystems and livelihoods.

8. Climate disruptions to agriculture have been increasing and are projected to become more severe over this century.

9. Climate change poses particular threats to Indigenous Peoples’ health, well-being, and ways of life.

10. Ecosystems and the benefits they provide to society are being affected by climate change. The capacity of ecosystems to buffer the impacts of extreme events like fires, floods, and severe storms is being overwhelmed.

11. Ocean waters are becoming warmer and more acidic, broadly affecting ocean circulation, chemistry, ecosystems, and marine life."

continued
Posted by ant, Thursday, 8 May 2014 8:49:40 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
continued
12. Planning for adaptation (to address and prepare for impacts) and mitigation
(to reduce future climate change, for example by cutting emissions) is becoming
more widespread, but current implementation efforts are insufficient to avoid
increasingly negative social, environmental, and economic consequences."
Unquote
Posted by ant, Thursday, 8 May 2014 8:50:52 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
Peter
What is there not to understand ? increasing levels of GHGs particularly Co2 will and have raised global temperatures, and if the amount of CO2 in the air exceeds 520 PPM we will all be in deep poo.

The solution is obvious burn less fossil carbon.

It is up to the policy makers and economists to work out the best way to do this.

What is not acceptable is too just ignore the problem and rush headlong into a crisis which we have both the knowledge and ability to avoid.
Posted by warmair, Thursday, 8 May 2014 9:48:49 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
Warmair,

>”What is there not to understand ? increasing levels of GHGs particularly Co2 will and have raised global temperatures, and if the amount of CO2 in the air exceeds 520 PPM we will all be in deep poo.”

No one has answered the key questions and provided the relevant information to make a persuasive case “we will all be in deep poo”. These questions need to be answered, not continually avoided. Simply repeating the mantra of irrelevant arguments is the opposite of persuasive. Can you (or anyone else) provide considered answers to the questions I posed in comment at 29 April 2014 6:11:21 PM?

>”The solution is obvious burn less fossil carbon. “

That is not the main priority for energy policy. It can only be achieved if consumer requirements can be achieved as well.

>” It is up to the policy makers and economists to work out the best way to do this.”

Progress is blocked by the ‘Progressives’ who want/demand irrational policies that suit their ideological agendas.

>” What is not acceptable is to just ignore the problem and rush headlong into a crisis which we have both the knowledge and ability to avoid.”

Same response. Progress is blocked by the ‘Progressives’. Rational policies that could deliver all the requirements and reduce emissions are blocked by the ‘Progressives’.

Requirements are:

1. Energy security (over the long term and especially through periods of economic or military disruptions).

2. Reliability of supply (over periods of minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years)

3. Low cost energy - energy is a fundamental input to everything we have; if we increase the cost of energy we reduce the rate of improvement of human well-being.

Policies must deliver the above three essential requirements.

Second order requirements are:

4. Health and safety - nuclear is the safest of all electricity generation technologies and would avoid about 2-3 million fatalities per year by 2050 if it replaced coal world wide, so it should be a no-brainer to strongly support nuclear for this reason.

5. Nuclear is relatively environmentally benign compared with other alternatives.
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 8 May 2014 10:27:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This CSIRO calculator shows that, even in Australia where we have cheap, high quality coal near the main population centres and where nuclear power is strongly opposed, nuclear would be by far the cheapest way to reduce emissions: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/MyPower.aspx

Compare options with different proportions of electricity generation technologies (move the sliders to change the proportions of each technology). The below results show the change in 2050 compared with now for real electricity prices and CO2 emissions.

1. 80% coal, 10%gas, 10% renewables: electricity bills increase = 15% and emissions increase = 21%

2. 0% coal, 50%gas, 50% renewables: electricity bills increase = 19% and emissions decrease = 62%.

3. 0% coal, 30%gas, 10% renewables, 60% nuclear: electricity bills increase = 15% and emissions decrease = 77%.

4. 0% coal, 20%gas, 10% renewables, 70% nuclear: electricity bills increase = 17% and emissions decrease = 84%.

5. 0% coal, 10%gas, 10% renewables, 80% nuclear: electricity bills increase = 20% and emissions decrease = 91%.

Conclusion: nuclear is the least cost way to make significant reductions in the emissions intensity of electricity.

But nuclear power is strongly opposed by those who would like to be called ‘Progressives’.
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 8 May 2014 10:45:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant, the NCA report which you quote from so uncritically and so faithfully is just rubbish. I'm not going to point by point this rubbish; I and the world are sick of the lies, exaggerations and fabrications of AGW scientists. Roy Spencer has done a good critique, as has Judith Curry and here is another one:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/the-national-climate-assessment.html

Your poor Inuit may or may not be suffering due to climate change but one thing is certain that climate change is not AGW.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 8 May 2014 6:59:22 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
Agronomist., I acknowledge the science

You and ant fail to do so, and support the AGW fraud.

Professor Bob Carter gives a brilliant overview:

.. the key question concerns the magnitude of warming caused by the rather small 7 billion tonnes of industrial carbon dioxide that enter the atmosphere each year, compared with the natural flows from land and sea of over 200 billion tonnes.
Despite well over twenty years of study by thousands of scientists, and the expenditure of more than $100 billion in research money, an accurate quantitative answer to this question remains unknown.
Scientists who advise the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) worry that a doubling of carbon dioxide over pre-industrial levels will cause warming of between 3 and 6 deg. Celsius, whereas independent scientists calculate that the warming for a doubling will be much less - somewhere between about 0.3 and 1.2 deg. Celsius.
Meanwhile, the scientific evidence now overwhelmingly indicates that any human warming effect is deeply submerged within planet Earth's natural variations of temperature.
Importantly, no global warming has now occurred since 1997, despite an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide of 8%, which in turn represents 34% of all the extra human-related carbon dioxide contributed since the industrial revolution.
Few of these facts are new, yet until recently the public have been relentlessly misinformed that human-caused global warming was causing polar bears to die out, more and more intense storms, droughts and floods to occur, the monsoons to fail, sea-level rise to accelerate, ice to melt at unnatural rates, that late 20th century temperature was warmer than ever before and that speculative computer models could predict the temperature accurately one hundred years into the future.
It now turns out that not one of these assertions is true."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/report-gives-the-truth-about-climate-at-last/story-fni0cwl5-1226720428390
It is wonderful to have an honest scientist , who tells the truth.
AGW is a fraud
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 9 May 2014 12:01:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
First, there is what Bob Carter says --- then there is what science says.
http://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Bob_Carter.htm
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Friday, 9 May 2014 7:26:18 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
cohenite says --- "one thing is certain that climate change is not AGW" Quite right!

However, AGW causes climate change
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Friday, 9 May 2014 7:31:56 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
cohenite, you provide a reference that is a political one as an answer against climate change.
You know better than the people of the USA as to how climate change is progressing. The NSA Report is 829 pages and referenced by over 3,000 papers. Many of the papers referenced have a number of professionals involved with each paper; yet, you know better about Water Resources in the USA, Forestry, Agriculture, Human Health, Indigenous People; along with what is occurring in various regions of the USA etc.
Your comment "... Inuit may or may not be suffering due to climate change" is at best insensitive in the extreme. A problem you have is to try and argue against events that are already happening in the US in relation to climate change.
cohenite, could you please go through the 3,000 + references and indicate where they are wrong.
Posted by ant, Friday, 9 May 2014 7:56:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter
"No one has answered the key questions and provided the relevant information to make a persuasive case “we will all be in deep poo”. These questions need to be answered, not continually avoided. Simply repeating the mantra of irrelevant arguments is the opposite of persuasive."

Yes they have in considerable detail.

Study of the last thermal maximum 50 million years ago gives some idea of the chaos that will ensue.

Here is a start

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/warming_world_final.pdf

But if you don't want read the link a roughly

If temperatures exceed a certain level the feed backs become a major issue.

The high latitudes become much warmer due to lack of reflecting ice.

A dramatic increase in natural emissions of methane will occur further enhancing temperatures.

The global average temperature stabilises at some figure north of 6 Deg C warmer.

The situation becomes irreversible and eventually all the ice caps melt and sea levels increases by some 60 meters.

Total disruption occurs to water supplies and agriculture.

95% + of the population has to relocate to higher ground

War and conflict become inevitable.

On that happy note that's it from me for a while I have other commitments to deal with
Posted by warmair, Friday, 9 May 2014 10:13:49 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
Warmair,

You say all that is true. You say "WILL" throughout. That discredits all you say to the point of me seeing it as simply religious like belief. Clearly you do not understand risk analysis, Nor do you understand the relevance or time scales.

There are many studies by the best brains around on the consequences of warming. Here is one example. Look at Figure 3. http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf

Note that AGW would be net beneficial for most of this century. It would be net beneficial for much longer than that if we allow ourselves to have low cost energy. That's a good reason for not pushing for policies like ETS and renewable energy which will make no difference to the climate but have a detrimental impact on human wellbeing.
Posted by Peter Lang, Friday, 9 May 2014 12:01:16 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
What a pathetic joke, Agronomist, giving Skeptical Science as a scientific reference.

The fraud backers have yet to show that global warming is detrimental. Past periods of warming have shown that it is beneficial.

You must have read the Climategate emails, which demonstrate the sheer dishonesty of the fraud –backers, but you give credence to the baseless assertions of Skeptical Science contradicting a competent, reputable scientist like Bob Carter.

A sample from that site:
“Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant “
This inept attempt to counter science, Agronomist, is what you call “science”. CO2 is an odourless, colourless gas essential to all life on earth, and these frauds want to call it “pollution”?
And they persist with this ridiculous lie:” 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming”

.Why do you support the AGW fraud, Agronomist? There is no science to justify your position.There is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 9 May 2014 1:40:38 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
Warmair, the opening words of the document to which you supplied the link are:

“Emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels have ushered
in a new epoch during which human activities will largely determine the
evolution of the Earth’s climate.”

This is a baseless statement. There is no science which demonstrates any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.

Please desist from inflicting fraudulent rubbish like this on us.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 9 May 2014 2:06:50 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
ant, if the NCA is based on false temp records, which is plain, because the adjustments create the trend then any conclusion about AGW flowing from that is equally false.
Posted by cohenite, Saturday, 10 May 2014 10:36:49 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
Another fraud-backing document was noted by ant this week, the NCA release. She mistakes it for a scientific document.
“The National Climate Assessment is a political call to action document meant for the president’s left-leaning constituency. What pretense of scientific support that decorates it quickly falls away under a close and critical inspection.”
Obama lied about the science when he launched his initiative on “climate change” last year. This document backs him with its falsehoods. The letter submitting the report to Congress “concludes, “When President Obama launched his Climate Action Plan last year, he made clear that the essential information contained in this report would be used by the Executive Branch to underpin future policies and decisions to better understand and manage the risks of climate change.”

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/national-climate-assessment-report-raises-false-alarm

On 31 March there was a press release from the IPCC in relation to its release of a report on “climate change”. As expected, it is a fraudulent assertion of climate lies. It identifies eight “areas of concern”.
These have been reviewed by independent scientists and are shown to be nonsense,
For example:
IPCC: “Risk of loss of marine ecosystems and the services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.”
Independent Science: “Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life. Many aquatic species have shown considerable tolerance to temperatures and CO2 values predicted for the next few centuries, and many have demonstrated a likelihood of positive responses in empirical studies. Any projected adverse impacts of rising temperatures or declining seawater and freshwater pH levels (“acidification”) will be largely mitigated through phenotypic adaptation or evolution during the many decades to centuries it is expected to take for pH levels to fall.”

http://usnewsghost.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/ipcc-falsifying-climate-change-science-fraud-reports-exposed-co2-global-warming-recent/

I am confident that if ant can discover anything about the actions of the fraud-backers which she thinks is not fraudulent, she will draw it to our attention.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 10 May 2014 3:40:13 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
On the endless topic of AGW fraud, Hansen, the Climate liar, and top NASA scientist said this in 1999:

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/im-100-sure-that-the-ipcc-is-lying/

Harmless enough, but true, so NASA(or Hansen) have had the presence of mind to remove it from their website
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 10 May 2014 6:36:58 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
cohenite, what an inane comment..."ant, if the NCA is based on false temp records, which is plain, because the adjustments create the trend then any conclusion about AGW flowing from that is equally false."

It is very easy to claim the NSA is false in relation to temperature, but to debunk the Report you need to undermine the 3,000 plus references that support it.
To say it is false is meaningless without absolute evidence. You need to be able to debunk the subject areas of Forestry, Agriculture etc I have mentioned in another post. The NSA says that climate change has already impacted on the US

I'm aware that Watt's has suggested that temperature has been fraudulently processed. However, Watts's allegations have been investigated and found to be fallacious.

Climate change is happening in Alaska, the tundra is melting, the coastlines are not protected by ice and are eroding. Roads are slumping as are some foundations of houses also. For tundra and ice to melt I believe warmth is needed. cohenite, you clearly have another view on how melting can happen without the temperature increasing, can you please explain. It has been a trend for a number of decades.

The recent NSA Report also discusses glacier retreat in the USA, what might cause glacier retreat other than temperature going up. There are a few exceptions, once again can you indicate how most glaciers in the USA are retreating if temperature is not a factor.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 11 May 2014 8:56:56 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
cohenite, acidification has been identified as already happening, nothing academic about that.

Quote "...Kathleen Nisbet-Moncy, plant manager for Goose Point Oyster Co. in Willapa Bay, Washington, told ThinkProgress that ocean waters in the bay have become so acidic that the company can’t grow oyster larvae off the coast of Washington anymore. The problems started happening in 2006, she said, when winds that cause upwelling off the West Coast didn’t subside as much as they usually do."

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/09/3436080/national-climate-assessment-northwest/
Posted by ant, Sunday, 11 May 2014 1:20:15 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
"However, Watts's allegations have been investigated and found to be fallacious."

Who by ant? Do you know what the graph at WUWT shows ant? A comparison between the raw data and the adjusted data. You can't fake that, you can't make it up; the early temps were adjusted down and the latest temps adjusted up. Check it yourself, the data is provided

"acidification has been identified as already happening, nothing academic about that."

Yes there is ant; acidity is measured by PH values; what are they? Do you know at what PH liquid becomes acidic? Again it all boils down to numbers; what are they?

You are a fanatic ant, driven by belief. Nothing will convince you that AGW is BS because you believe in it.
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 11 May 2014 8:42:21 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
“ NSA Report is 829 pages and referenced by over 3,000 papers. “ This is ant’s comment on the NCA report, the fraudulent document mentioned in my post above which is meant to back up the lies told by Obama in his launch of his climate change initiative. During the questioning of experts by the Senate, Obama’s mendacity was demonstrated. For example” Ranking Member Senator David Vitter (R-LA) asked: “Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama’s statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?” After an awkward (to say the least) silence, Cullen tried to change the subject”
(Cullen was a Democrat nominated expert on the panel)
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2013/07/21/why-is-obama-lying-on-climate-change-n1645569/page/full
Although taken to task by the Senate for his lying, he is now backed up by the NCA report, which ant has mistaken for a scientific document.
Scientists who critiqued the document labelled it “pseudoscience.
“Michaels’ and Knappenberger’s 75-page critique of the NCA points out the many weak points and flaws present in the government’s analysis of the impact of global warming. For example, the NCA relies on not only peer-reviewed scientific literature, but also non-peer reviewed work from environmental activist groups — which the government did not disclose.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/06/dissenting-scientists-label-white-house-climate-report-as-pseudoscience/#ixzz31SS2WaKH

ant does not explain how 3000papers backing up the fraudulent nonsense in the report is relevant in any way except to show that the papers are nonsense.In any event, it appears that many of them are not scientific papers.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 12 May 2014 11:14:21 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
Ant has again raised the “ocean acidification” fraud , despite knowing that it is baseless.
The following extract deals with this issue:
“As a matter of fact, seawater is alkaline and basic. Dissolving the carbon dioxide from all the world’s known fossil fuel reserves would never make the sea acidic. The climate alarmists coined the phrase “ocean acidification” to make it sound alarming, whereas the process is actually what is known as neutralization. The term ‘acidification’ of course sounds more scary than talking about the oceans becoming slightly less basic or a little more neutral.
….. There is not the slightest possibility that the oceans could approach the neutral pH of pure water even if all the fossil fuel reserves in the world were burned, so all talk of ‘acid’ oceans is utter nonsense. “
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/toxic-seawater-fraud/

ant’s hobby is finding further frauds to support, and boring us with endless irrelevancy on melting ice and inuits.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 12 May 2014 11:17:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antarctic ice was melting, according to ant, owing to the mythical AGW. There has been a record expansion of Antarctic ice, so it appears,ant, that AGW has stopped
“ANTARCTIC sea ice has expanded to record levels for April, increasing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometres.
The National Snow and Ice Data Centre said the rapid expansion had continued into May and the seasonal cover was now bigger than the record “by a significant margin’’.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levels/story-e6frg8y6-1226913708208#
I am sure ant will find some melting ice somewhere, about which she will continue to post nonsense.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 12 May 2014 3:18:21 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
A Swedish scientist has verified Murry Salby’s work, strengthening another barrier against the baseless AGW fraud

Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom has recently replicated the work of Dr. Murry Salby, finding that temperature, not man-made CO2, drives CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Dr. Björnbom confirms Salby's hypothesis that the rate of change in carbon dioxide concentration in the air follows an equation that only depends on temperature change, detailed in his report Reconstruction of Murry Salby's theory that carbon dioxide increase is temperature driven

Dr. Björnbom discusses his findings in this post from The Stockholm Initiative[Google translation + light editing]:

Murry Salby, climate science innovator who challenges established views

Murry Salby is a highly qualified and well-respected professor, academic teacher, and climate scientist. He has a series of innovative talks challenging the leading circles representing the IPCC sanctioned culture of consensus in climate science. He presents startling research that fundamentally questions the established views of the IPCC consensus. An important hypothesis times. This result was I able to reproduce, in a report given here.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html that he advances is that the atmospheric CO2 rate of change is a function of only the global temperature changes and that this may explain the increase in carbon dioxide from pre-industrial level
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 12 May 2014 3:44:37 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
Whatever Watts writes is meaningless in relation to what is actually happening, the fact remains that climate change is happening in Alaska.
Major glaciers are retreating in Greenland. Most glaciers are retreating in the US as well.
Newspapers in Alaska do confirm that there are actual changes happening.
Once again how do you explain the slumping that is going on?
How do you explain the coastlines that actually are eroding?
How do you explain the acidification that is occurring?
How do you explain the coastal erosion that is causing Inuits to have to relocate.
How do you explain the epidemiological issues that are being identified?
Posted by ant, Monday, 12 May 2014 8:28:33 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
Clip discussing damage through permafrost melt to roads and houses in Alaska.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/08/alaska-sinks--climate-change-thaws-permafrost/2794255/
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 13 May 2014 12:38:07 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 20
  7. 21
  8. 22
  9. All

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