Another "call to action on climate change"! Or really, another call from a public servant to spend other people's money for nothing.

Hot and dry in Perth! How unusual for this time of the year! A bit like my own Adelaide, where the climate has been hot and dry for all my 73 years; except for winter,when it's cool to cold, and wet. Some people have the memories of goldfish. Ordinary, ever day experience- free of alarmism and hysteria drummed up by computer - indicates that little,if anything, has changed about the climate in any practical, meaningful way. Life goes on.

Dr. Peter Schraeder has been sleeping away in PUBLIC health, unaware that we have heard it all before, don't believe it, and are thoroughly browned off by it. There are many remote country areas in WA where he could make himself useful as a much needed GP, doing what be is actually trained to do. The climate does not need doctors poncing around politicising it. People need doctors. 'Doctors for the Environment' are as much use as the proverbial tits on a bull.

No doubt someone will point out that Australia is a minor emitter on the world stage with half a billion tonnes out of thirty billion. However we can't expect the US and China to take drastic action when we don't ourselves. It should be clear by now that giving subsidies and guaranteed market share to wind and commercial solar does not do enough to reduce emissions. For the LRET in 2017 that could be 26 TWh X $86/Mwh = $2.2 bn on power bills. After years of this sort of thing our emissions are essentially the same as in 2005.

I think the correct approach is to drop the RET and Direct Action and have tough emissions targets. Tough means not riddled with giveaways. Remove the prohibition on nuclear power and use ACT style reverse auctions for wind and commercial solar. Gas could be the short term winner except that the raw fuel cost keeps escalating. With say 15 GW of nuclear baseload Australia could reduce emissions 30% or so, thereby fulfilling Turnbull's pledge at the Paris conference.

I agree with the intention of this article, however at least one statement is not technically correct. There is good reason to believe that the characteristics of wind farms did, along with other factors, would have resulted in a blackout,regardless of whether some pylons of parts of the high voltage transmission lines collapsed - which of course made things worse.

South Australia's recent blackout was primarily due to a storm and other factors. It was, at the very least, possibly initiated by shutdowns of wind turbines before the towers collapsed and was made deeper and longer due to some features of the wind turbines, so it is not reasonable to say that the blackout had nothing to do with the renewables.

Two specifics:
Large numbers of turbines shut down immediately before the towers collapsed. This was, at least in part, due to the very fine protection settings for individual turbines and groups, which should ideally have been able to ride through the faults which preceded actual tower collapses.

The second is that growth of wind capacity in the SA system ate away at the essential capacity for what is known in the industry as inertia, which is the ability to respond instantly to faults. The current current system, due to large wind capacity, lacked inertia and relied on being able to start gas turbines very quickly to re-establish power after the event... but they failed to start as contracted.

The story to date has been published in two reports issued by AEMO, with a third one due in March. https://www.aemo.com.au/Media-Centre/Update-to-report-into-SA-state-wide-power-outage

The role of inertia is explained in Wiki and elsewhere.

While it is incorrect to claim that wind played no part in the blackout - the root cause was, IMHO, a failure by "those in charge" to manage the transition away from carbon-emitting electricity thoroughly and professionally, thus leaving the system exposed, from a technical perspective, to situations where a bad situation became very much worse.

Silent! I have been anything but silent! But lined up against mannon and the forces of darkness it supports/pays for? Whose listening?

The, you can go visit the nearest taxidermist, I'm alright Jack, crowd, who think everyone is just as money faced/willfully blind, as they so clearly are?

I'd understand if the required changes could ever harm/cripple us economically!

But intelligent change, based on cheaper than coal, cleaner than coal safer than coal, carbon free, thorium, coupled to new deionization dialysis desalination and other income earning infrastructure! Rolled out as publicly owned and operated amenity, would conversely, turbocharge our faltering economy!

Then supercharge it as well!

And place our nation/economic sovereignty, in a far less subservient parlous position and indeed, allow us to more than compete with the emerging economies for quite massive market share!

I don't usually blow my own trumpet, but I'm not the intellectual lightweight my fossil fueled antagonists, would have you believe?

In fact as a young medic,sitting beside around a baker's dozen already qualified medicos, I passed my final medical exams with an average passing mark of 98%, which as it so happens, broke a previously unassailable 70 year old army medical school record.

I also have other tertiary qualifications and work related practical experience. And verifiable as part of the public record!

All I ask is that folk/the decision makers get on U tube/google tech talks and check out the verifiable facts! Then get proactive with a plan or plan based on verifiable facts!

How hard can that really be? I'll even demonstrate how it can be funded in a veritable plethora of win/win outcomes!

I'm already in my seventies and can't want this for me!

Look, every decade of delay literally doubles the cost!

We're saving absolutely nothing with the endless prevarications by diabolically dithering decision makers!

Must we wait until we're all daisy pushers and manifestly, far too late!
Alan B.

must be part of the ama. They are full of socialist dogma. I once thought you needed a few brains to be a doctor. The author shows you certainly don't need to think rationally.

Runner, you are right when you say you need brain to be a doctor!

But no visible evidence of any to be a climate change denialist!

Please be sure to engage brain before putting mouth into gear! And please try not to get too disturbed by that strange burning smell? It always happens, when a previously unused cerebral cortex over revs?
Take care, Alan B.

I tend to agree with ttbn on this.

So much of what passes, for the scientifically illiterate, as 'scientific fact', is no such thing.

Al Gore and so many others have climbed on board the band wagon, to champion a cause which they don't understand and don't want to.

Whether it's main stream media beat up and reportng of, IPCC, NOAA, NASA, Climate Council, Australia Bureau of Meterology....All these agencies have a lot to gain, nothing to lose and All adjust the raw data.

The raw data, shows time and time again that there are seasonal cycles, there are fluctuations but that the hottest years for Australia, for instance, where in the 1800s.

What begins with fear, often ends as folly.

AGW is a hoax, and it's perpetrated by a lot of people, with much to gain.
The public has no idea about energy. Nor do folk understand, energy use reduction, which imo is always a good thing.
Free energy from nature is just another catch cry for the wholesale abuse of energy use, followed by some of the ugliest excesses done to poor ol nature.

Nuff said

Ho hum.

Having lost, and lost, and lost, and lost the argument over and over and over and over again, the global warming hysterics want to re-enter the forum having made no attempt to bother to understand and engage in the real issues.

Fail.

The same circular reasoning, the same appeal to authority, the same misrepresentation, the same non sequitur, the same ad hominem. Pathetic.

Mere malevolent abuse of people who not only disagree with you, but have completely thrashed you intellectually and morally, is all you've got.

If you want the issues to be resolved in your favour, you need to ADDRESS THE ISSUES you fool. Simple anecdotes about how your lawn is dry in summer at too stupid to be countenanced.

Regurgitated Greens' propaganda.

Just the source is "new"

The author makes this statement:” Lowering greenhouse gas emissions is imperative to reducing the risks of temperature-related deaths, water insecurity and drought”
This alerts us to the fact that he is a climate fraud supporter, asserting that human emissions have a measurable effect on climate, when there is no science to show that this is so.
Humbugs, like Peter Schraeder, who write this baseless nonsense should be ignored.
Alan B, you use the baseless, scurrilous term “denialist”.
The fraud promoters have no science to deny. Refer us, if you can, to any science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. Or desist from your ill-mannered nonsense.

I note that Dr Peter Schrader has carefully left out several problem with his ideas, including the succession of bitter winters afflicting the Northern Hemisphere. The current one is not as cold as the truly arctic winters that hit North America a couple of years back, but it is still very cold. What about the drought that has now broken in California? There was no indication that it was exceptional in historical terms (there has been some coverage of this recently)and now its gone. South East Australia? The so called millennial drought broke some years ago (the subsequent flooding was blamed on global warming). These are all climate cycles rather than climate change. WA is a big place, but it still counts as just one part of the world.

J.K.J. What's wrong with you? If more deaths due to heatwaves than that of earthquakes cyclones, bush-fires and flood put together, is not an issue? I'd like to know what is?

The cost of running a towering legal practice perhaps?

Not mentioned as an issue is the exodus of manufacturing and the jobs they used to provide! Or the fact the energy costs now exceed labour hire costs?

It's all too easy for an over priced silk to sit in his air condition plush office, or his air conditioned Bentley, or air conditioned penthouse and tell those who essentially paid for all of it? You're dreaming low life numskulls?

And all while energy as low as a dollar a year per household is possible?

Who gives a rat's what you believe, or can cleverly postulate? When what you know is all that really counts or of issue relevant interest!

I'm betting only one of us has worked inside the energy industry in a science based position and I'm betting it's not you!?

Disbelieve all you want, but remember the better off the affected low life are, the more affordable over priced, arrogance personified, silks and equality before the law become!

I'd invite you to check the facts and Marshall the verifiable case for nuclear energy in general and molten salt thorium based nuclear energy in particular. And the quite massive economic upside that'd go with it!

But that'd be a complete waste of time, and completely squandered pearls, when it would seem, you are so deep in some fossil fuel robber baron's pocket? you can't get that arrogant head high enough to look at the facts?

How do you manage to sit in your office when there's not enough room for both you and that oh so obvious ginormous super maxi ego?

What have you got left, more elder abuse?

Go your hardest pal, as that just opens the door to an effective fact reliant rebuttal and more folk wondering what the L denalists are so afraid of? The truth? U Tube, google tech talks, Kirk Soresen!
Alan B.

Tell me Alan B,

As a doctor (?) are/were you in habit of prescribing medication that didn't exist...the way you prescribe thorium reactors as a fix when they don't exist?

Dr Alan to patient.."Take 10mg of ground unicorn horn and call me in the morning".

mhaze; I know that there were once reusable space shuttles and no I can't point to so much as one single operating example!

I guess and using your impeccable logic, that means there never ever was any such animal, and anyone who remembers even just one, is consuming unicorn horn?

What I can do however, is invite you and all those you're trying to, not too cleverly scam? To get on U tube, google tech talks. And thorium.

Then pull up the article that shows as a video, with a voice over chapter and verse explanation; a blow by blow videoed documentary, the assembly of an inherently walk away safe, molten salt, thorium reactor, which according to the still living scientists, who operated it! (FIRST HAND EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE!)

Could also be used as a completely safe, slow breeder reactor to burn and burn again, nuclear waste, creating considerable free energy in the process!

Thank you once again, for inviting me to invite other, curiouser and curiouser folks to check the verifiable facts for themselves!

And the laid out for all with eyes to see, factual evidence you just can't summarily dismiss with your troll's unicorn horn, fantasy land, disparagement!

But keep trying, it's just making more and more folks curious enough to do some fact checking of their own, and exactly the opposite outcome you are trying, so spectacularly unsuccessfully, to engineer!?
Alan B.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the case for reducing CO2 emissions has been established. It hasn't, but let's assume for a moment that the deleterious effects the author mentions are indeed caused by CO2 emissions. What would be the effect on temperatures if Australia indeed reduced emissions as promised. The correct answer is that the presumed reduction in temperatures would be so small as to unmeasurable.

So the advocates revert to the claim that we have to reduce emissions so as to encourage others to do so. Again, the claim is untested and untestable, dubious at best, but let's assume its real.

So, for the sake of argument, we want to reduce emissions. The issue becomes how to do so. Surely one way would be to see and emulate what others who have reduced emissions have/are doing.

The nation most successful in reducing emissions over the past decade is the USA - yes the great satan. Over the past decade the US has reduced total CO2e emissions by 10% and per capita emissions by 16%.

There are several factors leading to that decline but the major reason (according to the US EPA et al) is the replacement of coal with natural gas which has become cheap and ubiquitous due to fracking revolution. Yep, fracking leads to emission reductions.

So, if we were truly terrified of the future and really really wanted to reduce emissions we would be cheering for and supporting all fracking proposals. Hands up all those who think that'll happen.

That we oppose fracking amply demonstrates just how unconcerned about Australian emissions we really are.

Thank you Peter, for a sensible, accurate and well referenced article.

To add to your points - WA could remove 3 t per head of CO2 (6 million tonnes per year) and the asthma-causing particulates and heavy metal pollutants that go with it by phasing out coal generation.

I have been involved in modelling by SEN (Sustainable Energy Now) http://www.sen.asn.au/modelling_findings

Four of the six coal-fuelled generators in WA reach their end-of-design life by 2019 – a transition is timely.
Muja ABCD and Collie power stations can be retired by 2021, saving 50% of CO2 emissions.
• This involves 2300 MW of new wind and 900 MW of new solar PV (increasing total RE to 4200 MW)

• The newer Bluewater plants can be replaced later

Under the current Federal 20% Renewable Energy Target (RET), all coal generated electricity can be replaced by renewables at a cost of less than 1c per kWh (10%) more than keeping the old coal stations running even without major refurbishments
• New coal power stations to replace the existing old ones will cost significantly more than the renewables option.

Phasing out of coal in WA and replacement with new wind and PV is technically and economically feasible - clean secure generation with no fuel costs.

It would also provide:
• 27,000 job-years in construction and 22,000 job-years in manufacturing over 5 years plus 1800 permanent Operations and Maintenance jobs.
• $7.1 billion of private investment in wind and PV plus $1 billion in new transmission lines.

We are waiting to see which political parties will commit to this in the lead up to the State election in March.

PS You will have noticed by now that this website has a nest of climate deniers and nuclear enthusiasts . Actually they have been worse in the past - I am wondering where some of the usual trolls are - maybe they have given up?

Ho hum, more of the jumble of logical fallacies and circular superstitious reverence of the global warming hysterics, situation normal.

Got those answers to my prior questions there yet, fellers?

Or just pretending the issues don't exist as usual.

There is no such scientific term as "denialist". You only prove, by this modern version of 'heretic', that you are using the religious not scientific intellectual methodology.

You either answer my explicit challenges, or by any other response you concede the entire general issue as to climate policy.

You are frauds and either witting or unwitting parasites, that is all.

Peter I have no idea if you are a good doctor, a lousy doctor, or a paper shuffling doctor, but no matter how poor, it is obvious you are a better doctor than climate scientist.

I suggest you go try fixing people's health, as it is obvious you have no idea of what CO2 can & can't do.

Good luck.

Yes Alan B we can find stuff on YouTube about thorium. We can also find stuff on YouTube about how to get a current from a potato but I don't expect to see a spud led energy boom any time soon.

The Chinese are at the forefront of thorium research and they say that the earliest they'll have a demonstration plant will be 2024 with a commercial plant a decade after that. They also say there are still significant unresolved problems that may not be resolvable.

That you blithely choose to ignore the views of the clear leaders in this field is the victory of childish hope over sober evaluation.

Hasbeen, please tell us YOUR climate credentials, and maybe all the other climate scientists here can do the same.

<<"Ho hum."
Ho hum indeed JKJ.

"Having lost, and lost, and lost, and lost the argument over and over and over and over again,"

When?
Explain all the emission reduction schemes, renewable energy projects and research into same?
If we lost then why can I see so many wind turbines around?
Fail.

"the global warming hysterics want to re-enter the forum having made no attempt to bother to understand and engage in the real issues.

Fail."

Completely fail JKJ. No argument just a fallacious statement, no actually just a straight up lie. It is you and your ilk who refuse to even look at the science and facts. It is you deniers who dont bother to understand and engage.
Fail 2

"The same circular reasoning, the same appeal to authority, the same misrepresentation, the same non sequitur, the same ad hominem. Pathetic."

The same insulting non argument you always come up with. The same refusal to debate and just throw bile and lies at people.
Pathetic.
Fail 3

"Mere malevolent abuse of people who not only disagree with you, but have completely thrashed you intellectually and morally, is all you've got."

Couldnt have put it better myself. Cant believe your hypocrisy given the insults and abuse you already posted.
Fail 4

"If you want the issues to be resolved in your favour, you need to ADDRESS THE ISSUES you fool. Simple anecdotes about how your lawn is dry in summer at too stupid to be countenanced."

The same goes for you fools and your "but its snowing in the US" crap.
You rant on about ADDRESS THE ISSUES but where oh where JKJ is your ADDRESS OF THE ISSUES? Hey. Come on. Where? Show me?
Your post is just rudeness and insults and idiocy from a typical rightard hypocrite. Not a single mention of any science to back your position, not a single shred of evidence put forward. Nothing. Just insults.
TOTAL FAILURE.

How about you addressing some issues mikk?
I have asked constantly for a reference to science to support the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.
Climate fraud supporters, like yourself, have not responded, because there is no such science, so there are no issues to address.
“Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.”
http://climatedepot.com/a/2117/PeerReviewed-Study-Rocks-Climate-Debate-Nature-not-man-responsible-for-recent-global-warminglittle-or-none-of-late-20th-century-warming-and-cooling-can-be-attributed-to-humans

Author states -Dr Peter Schrader - is member of Doctors of Environment of Australia

I ask a simple question - what is his degrees that designates he be awarded the role of Dr?

I ask also (please excuse my ignorance on subject) - who make up the "alleged" members of the Doctors of the Environment of Australia?

mikk

I have repeatedly AND COMPLETELY disproved the global warming hysterics' case, or rather assumptions, for ANY climate policy in here by asking three questions.

I have posted them in here over and over and over and over and over again.

And each time, the warmists do not answer, just go quiet, slink off, and then later pop up somewhere else re-running the same belief system that they can't defend.

Just as you're doing now. Acting AS IF all those prior discussions never took place.

If you want to maintain that we face catastrophic man-made global warming that policy can improve at a worthwhile cost.

Merely assuming it, and assuming everyone must agree with you as a precondition of entering the discusion, and abusing anyone who disproves you, only shows you don't understand the first thing about science.

There is no such thing as science which must be taken on blind faith, and no such scientific term as "denialist" you stupid fool.

If you're serious, look up my questions that warmists have repeatedly and dishonestly evaded, and answer them. After all, according to you,
the fate of the planet turns on it.

But if you won't, why should I be bothered wasting time with your completely demolished, fallacious fraudulent abusive hysteria?

Answer my questions, turd.

There will be no answers from mikk.
He is a lying troll. His technique is to post baseless fraud supporting nonsense in an aggressive package, then disappear when asked relevant questions.
The only attention he deserves when he pokes his empty head up again, is a good spray of pesticide.

Peter Schrader

Do you understand that:
1. a proposition that is irrational is not and cannot be scientific, and
2. to expect everyone to agree with you, as a precondition of entering into the discussion, without the need for you to prove reason or evidence, is the fallacy of begging the question, and therefore irrational.

Do you understand that, or not?

You are wasting your efforts, JKJ.
Peter Schrader is a climate fraud promoter, so he avoids science, as there is no science to support his position, as I pointed out in an earlier post.
His assertions are based on dishonesty and lies. That is all that he understands.
There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.

Leo Lane the climate scientist!

Why don't you post your credentials Leo, or are you still quoting a dead geologist with no climate science credentials who was fired from JCU for the crap he was trying to indoctrinate students with?

Tell us how it is Leo, that 2014, 2015 and 2016 were the hottest on record, and yet there has been cooling since 1998?

Tell us how human CO2 in the atmosphere is 3% but can't be measured?

Show us your science, and not your usual quote from a fellow crank.

So many climate scientists on here, I'm surprised they have time to post, they should be out there showing every country in the world, and tens of thousands of climate scientists, why they are wrong.

I read Trump administration has completely removed all of Obama's Climate Change policies from whitehouse.gov already.
Officially archived into the past.

Back again, donkey, still with no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, just some more stupid questions to remind us what a donkey he is.
Perhaps the donkey claims to be a climate scientist.
What are your credentials, donkey?
My guess is billyd(for donkey) the troll with no science.

Still no science Leo? Where's your proof that humans have had no effect on temperature rise? And not another ridiculous diatribe from another dead, disgraced geologist.

Show us the science behind your immeasurable 3% claim.

You're a sheep, just like the others of your ilk on here, a pretend expert, who claims to know better than real climate scientists, spruiking crap on here you garnish from fossil fuel sponsored quacks.

So come on, man up, show us the SCIENCE, and not another quote.

I posted the proof, donkey. Surely you remember your failed attempt to rebut it. I note that, unsurprisingly, considering your ignorance, your science credentials, which I requested, are none
You had, as usual, no science, to support your pathetic rebuttal attempt. Your attack was by way of scurrilous, baseless lies about the scientist who demonstrated that the human caused global warming hypothesis fails.
it is worth remembering the science in his comment on the failed CO2 hypothesis of the mendacious IPCC, which you seem, in another demonstration of your ignorance, to have mistaken for science. The quote, from then proffessor Robert Carter is:
“our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547979/A-dangerous-climate.html

So donkey, you rely on a failed hypothesis. You have no comprehension of science, and persist in displaying your ignorance, as in your request:” show us the SCIENCE, and not another quote.
.I often quote the scientist who is the source of the science to which I refer. Unlike the ignoramus who shows that he has confused CO2, and global warming, and is unable to make a coherent statement.Human contribution of CO2 is 3%. The donkey thinks human contribution to global warming is 3%. His ignorance is pathetic.

Hahaha! Once again you rely on a quote, with absolutely no scientific proof backing it up, from a GEOLOGIST, not a climate scientist in any way, shape or form, and a DISGRACED one at that, who was kicked out of his university post for being BONKERS!!

Then you post a link from the same bonkers GEOLOGIST!

You couldn't make this up!

"Human contribution of CO2 is 3%." PROVE IT!

Where is your science? There isn't any, your GEOLOGIST told you and you keep repeating it ..... 'Pretty Polly!''Who's a pretty boy then?'

Here's a quote for anyone unfamiliar with the Nutty Professor ...

"Naturally, I would turn to geologists for advice on brain surgery, dentistry, accounting or religion, but in the field of climate science I lean towards meteorologists."

And another ....

"It is true that the Hadley Climate Centre in the UK isolated the calendar year 1998 as the hottest on record for aggregate atmospheric temperature. On the other hand, the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) at NASA asserts that 2005 was even warmer, with an average global surface temperature of 14.77 degrees C, with the 1998 figure being 14.71 degrees C. A tropical El Niño contributed 0.2 degrees in 1998, but 2005 had no Niño effect.

However, the fourteen year period 1995-2008 included thirteen of the hottest years on record, the exception being 1996. The fundamental question is, 'Which factor is more significant? A spike on a chart representing a single year, or a longer trend line over a decade or more?"

Peter, Billyd

Do you understand that a proposition that is irrational is not and cannot be scientific?

More ignorant remarks from the donkey, who has no grasp of science, but continues to make a fool of himself with his stupid remarks,
Robert Carter was the author of more than 100 papers in refereed scientific journals. He contributed regular letters, opinion pieces and interviews to newspapers, nationalmagazines and other media, and regularly engaged in public speaking on matters
related to his research knowledge.

He had 35 years training and experience as a palaeontologist, stratigrapher,
marine geologist and environmental scientist, and held degrees from the
University of Otago (New Zealand; BSc Hons) and the University of
Cambridge (England; PhD). He held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999..

He gave evidence before a US Senate committee on global warming, and gave expert evidence in the case involving Gore’s video, pointing out 19 lies in “An Inconvenient Truth”.
He kept up current research amongst other things, on climate change, and sea-level change.
His science is impeccable, and has not been refuted, despite the efforts of the fraud promoters, whose case Carter has completely demolished.The climategate emails showed their concern, and their unethical attempts to counteract Carter in 2009, when he was co-author of a paper which showed that warming asserted by the fraud promoyers to be human caused, was, in fact, natural.

Do you have any basis for your ludicrous, false comments, donkey, other than the customary climate fraud supporter’s lies and dishonesty?
You really are a waste of space, donkey

Billyd,

Are you aware that the quotes you posted were not BY Carter but where ABOUT Carter in a traditional hit piece in (y)our ABC written by a politician who, though highly credentialed, has no climate change background.

So either you were incapable of understanding the article or you tried to slip things under the table by insinuating they were Carter quotes. I suspect the later since you didn't post a link which is always a give-away that something underhanded is being done. Although its not beyond the realms of possibility that the article was just too complex for you.

This is the article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-12-09/27606

Hilariously you complain that " Once again you rely on a quote, with absolutely no scientific proof backing it up, from a GEOLOGIST, not a climate scientist in any way,"

while relying on a quote from a politician. Oh dear!

Yes, I am fully aware, here's the whole link ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-12-09/27606

.... and here's his Wiki bio, which PROVES he has no scientific climate qualifications ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter

The man was a shonk, had NO credibility at all, and was kicked out of his Uni job.

Quote: "In 2012, documents acquired from The Heartland Institute revealed that Carter was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 (USD) "as part of a program to pay 'high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message'."[35] While Carter did not deny that the payments took place, he declined to discuss the payments."

Dishonest too, just like Leo, fanboy of the cranks.

As to Barry Jones, did he post anything scientific? Or are you saying only climate scientists can comment?

If so, where are YOUR credentials?

Come on Leo, I'm still waiting for your scientific data, you do have some, don't you??

Of course not, Carter made it up, for money, and fools like you take it all in.

Like his 1998 nonsense. 1998 was a hot year, the few years following were cooler, so carter claimed, in 2008, that the world was cooling. How dishonest must you be to compare a spike year in isolation and claim a period of cooling?

Here's a graft of the true warming, note the 1998 spike, and the continuing upward trend after. And that's not counting the five hottest years ever, since that graph was made.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-09-30/metoffice_globaltemp.jpg/39306

The man was a FRAUD, and his bio proves he had NO climate credentials whatsoever ...

"He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons) in geology from the University of Otago in 1963 and returned to England to complete a Ph.D. in paleontology"

You are a FOOL Leo, for being fooled by this charlatan.

Peter, you see this is the repeating pattern.

We get a warmist starting a new thread with a patronising lecture about science.

There's only one problem. The standard method is to assume that everyone must assume the warmists'premises as a precondition of the discussion.

Then when challenged as to evidence or reason, the warmists either
1. slink off, or
2. simply *repeat* the standard approach of personal abuse, assuming what is in issue, appeal to authority, misrepresentation, non sequitur, and in short, every fallacy in the book.

It should not be necessary to take the discussion back to the primary level of *requiring* you to affirm that your propositions must comply with the principles of logic.

But it is, because the next step is checkmate, and you know it, which is why you evade either by not answering (you), or by ignoring the question while renewing the presumptuous insulating abuse (billyd).

That's it. That's all you've got.

So in the end, as in the beginning, you have nothing.

All you have is a complaint that other people don't share your belief system, while you refuse to engage.

But when asked for reason or evidence ... zip, nada, nothing, pfffft. A complete fail.

Just watch.

He Billyd
1. Do you understand that a proposition that is irrational is not and cannot be scientific?
2. Do you understand that the proof of a scientific proposition cannot take the form of assuming that everyone must agree as a precondition of entering into the discussion?

Do you understand that, or not?

Far from "scientific", what you're saying is not even rational. You can't prove your case or disprove mine, and I have proved mine and disproved yours.

Go ahead. Answer my numbered questions.

Get a life Jardine, you make no sense at all, and refusing to acknowledge your gobbledegook does not confer any sort on victory on you.

You are another climate scientist without credentials, just like the rest of the denying sheep on here.

[Deleted for abuse]

On my side:
1. 97% OF THE OPINIONS THAT MATTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

Every National Academy of Science and credible private scientific institution on the planet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

2. THE DEMONSTRABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS OF CO2, see:-
* Mythbusters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
* The candle demonstration at 90 seconds in. Candle demonstration goes for a minute only.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

3. THE RADIATIVE FORCING EQUATION which measures how much incoming radiation not only warms the planet, but is trapped from exiting back out to space, which is an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

4. THE WORLD’S TOP 4 TEMPERATURE DATABASES
NASA
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/

WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
“Geneva, 21 July 2016 (WMO) _ Global temperatures for the first six months of this year shattered yet more records, and mean that 2016 is on track to be the world’s hottest year on record.”
http://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-breaks-new-records-january-june-2016

THE MET OFFICE
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

5. DRY LANDS GETTING DRYER, WET AREAS GETTING WETTER
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120521104631.htm
https://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php/en/climate-science-highlights/463-wet-regions-getting-wetter-dry-regions-drier-as-planet-warms

6. THE OCEANS GETTING WARMER, SHRINKING ICE SHEETS, GLACIERS RETREATING, ACIDIC OCEANS, DECREASED SNOW COVER, AND SEA LEVEL RISE.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

On the denialist's side is Peter Bolt and other anti-science loonies.

Billyd,

As expected, no apologies, not even a nod of acknowledgement of your 'error'. Just more of the same.

The bottom line is that you misused quotes because:

1) we too thick to understand the original article
2) are happy to behave entirely unethically to try to win a point.

Either way, someone who can and should be ignored as unworthy of polite consideration.

Max.

When you are able to understand, and correctly represent, the issues, then you will be in a position to squark your circular illogic.

As it is, you have completely failed to understand the issues of climate policy, and are only begging the question.

You can't use a thermometer to read off what the tax rate should be, you fool. You're literally not understanding what you're talking about.

Answer my questions.

"When you are able to understand, and correctly represent, the issues, then you will be in a position to squark your circular illogic."
Please demonstrate where I have shown circular logic. Do you deny the very laws of physics around greenhouse gases?

"As it is, you have completely failed to understand the issues of climate policy, and are only begging the question."
As it is, you have completely failed to understand the issues of fossil fuel's finiteness, and that not only will it run out one day, but that our whole civilisation depends on the cheap energy we have become accustomed to. It's time to develop alternatives, especially as peak coal looms later this century!

"You can't use a thermometer to read off what the tax rate should be, you fool. You're literally not understanding what you're talking about."
When you call people a FOOL in here, you break the forum rules. I was so disgusted by your immature behaviour in the previous post (and it wasn't even to me!), that I reported your last post and it was deleted. When you can behave like an adult, I might answer some questions - if I can. I don't pretend to be a climate scientist. But at least I've got the common sense to respect them!

But as to policy: I don't care if we use a carbon trading scheme, a carbon tax, or just downright NATIONALISE the energy sector and get the government rolling cheap factory produced breeder reactors off the production line. The policy actually bores me! I just want to see the job getting done.

Here we go again;
I wish they would make up their mind.
The recent report of ideal farming conditions, plenty of rain, high
crop yields and a promise of climate change providing plenty of good rain seasons.
The farmers are saying about globabl warming; more more more !

Anyway the whole argument is redundant, it doesn't matter whether it is
true or not, there is not enough affordable coal, gas & oil to cause
global warming if it is true.

Bazz,
Do the math buddy!

Limit = 2 degrees: IPCC says we can’t go above 2 degrees or we get into feedbacks
565 gigatons tons CO2 allowance before we get to 2 degrees
Therefore the 2,795 gigatons fossil fuel reserves are 5 times more than we should burn
That means 80% of the fossil fuels on the books of companies today should never be mined!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuCGVwJIRd0

Max said;
That means 80% of the fossil fuels on the books of companies today should never be mined!

I think Max you are confusing reserves with economically accessible reserves.
I suggest you read The Upsalla Uni's Global Energy Group's paper on
that very problem and their IPCCs plot of a fourth projection.
It is below the IPCC's three other projections.
I am sure they can give you better and later info than I am able.

Do the math! We're 'allowed' to burn 565 gigatons (2 degrees), but...

"It was highlighted last summer by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a team of London financial analysts and environmentalists who published a report in an effort to educate investors about the possible risks that climate change poses to their stock portfolios. The number describes the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries (think Venezuela or Kuwait) that act like fossil-fuel companies. In short, it's the fossil fuel we're currently planning to burn. And the key point is that this new number – 2,795 – is higher than 565. Five times higher.
The Carbon Tracker Initiative – led by James Leaton, an environmentalist who served as an adviser at the accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers – combed through proprietary databases to figure out how much oil, gas and coal the world's major energy companies hold in reserve. The numbers aren't perfect – they don't fully reflect the recent surge in unconventional energy sources like shale gas, and they don't accurately reflect coal reserves, which are subject to less stringent reporting requirements than oil and gas.But for the biggest companies, the figures are quite exact: If you burned everything in the inventories of Russia's Lukoil and America's ExxonMobil, for instance, which lead the list of oil and gas companies, each would release more than 40 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Which is exactly why this new number, 2,795 gigatons, is such a big deal. Think of two degrees Celsius as the legal drinking limit – equivalent to the 0.08 blood-alcohol level below which you might get away with driving home. The 565 gigatons is how many drinks you could have and still stay below that limit – the six beers, say, you might consume in an evening. And the 2,795 gigatons? That's the three 12-packs the fossil-fuel industry has on the table, already opened and ready to pour."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

You know, I think this clown Max Green actually believes the garbage he is spruiking here.

Usually the people who push this rubbish know very well what rubbish it is, but use it to try to achieve a result. This bloke appears dumb enough to actually believe his crap.

Hasbeen, on your side: tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists and nut jobs.

On my side:
1. 97% OF THE OPINIONS THAT MATTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

Every National Academy of Science and credible private scientific institution on the planet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

2. THE DEMONSTRABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS OF CO2, see:-
* Mythbusters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
* The candle demonstration at 90 seconds in. Candle demonstration goes for a minute only.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

3. THE RADIATIVE FORCING EQUATION which measures how much incoming radiation not only warms the planet, but is trapped from exiting back out to space, which is an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

4. THE WORLD’S TOP 4 TEMPERATURE DATABASES

NASA
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/

WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
“Geneva, 21 July 2016 (WMO) _ Global temperatures for the first six months of this year shattered yet more records, and mean that 2016 is on track to be the world’s hottest year on record.”
http://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-breaks-new-records-january-june-2016

THE MET OFFICE
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

5. DRY LANDS GETTING DRYER, WET AREAS GETTING WETTER
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120521104631.htm
https://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php/en/climate-science-highlights/463-wet-regions-getting-wetter-dry-regions-drier-as-planet-warms

6. THE OCEANS GETTING WARMER, SHRINKING ICE SHEETS, GLACIERS RETREATING, ACIDIC OCEANS, DECREASED SNOW COVER, AND SEA LEVEL RISE.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Max, you even got that 97% of opinions wrong.

Bazz,
You didn't do the math, did you? Stop trying to change the topic and deal with the data.

"It was highlighted last summer by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a team of London financial analysts and environmentalists who published a report in an effort to educate investors about the possible risks that climate change poses to their stock portfolios. The number describes the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries (think Venezuela or Kuwait) that act like fossil-fuel companies. In short, it's the fossil fuel we're currently planning to burn. And the key point is that this new number – 2,795 – is higher than 565. Five times higher.
The Carbon Tracker Initiative – led by James Leaton, an environmentalist who served as an adviser at the accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers – combed through proprietary databases to figure out how much oil, gas and coal the world's major energy companies hold in reserve. The numbers aren't perfect – they don't fully reflect the recent surge in unconventional energy sources like shale gas, and they don't accurately reflect coal reserves, which are subject to less stringent reporting requirements than oil and gas.But for the biggest companies, the figures are quite exact: If you burned everything in the inventories of Russia's Lukoil and America's ExxonMobil, for instance, which lead the list of oil and gas companies, each would release more than 40 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Which is exactly why this new number, 2,795 gigatons, is such a big deal. Think of two degrees Celsius as the legal drinking limit – equivalent to the 0.08 blood-alcohol level below which you might get away with driving home. The 565 gigatons is how many drinks you could have and still stay below that limit – the six beers, say, you might consume in an evening. And the 2,795 gigatons? That's the three 12-packs the fossil-fuel industry has on the table, already opened and ready to pour."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

Maximum,

This notion that you can simply plug a few numbers into a spreadsheet and hey-presto get the answer as to how much CO2 we can emit over the next century or so, is bonkers. Only those who truly want to be deceived could buy it. 565gt is the answer. 564gt and everything is hunky-dory. 566gt and w're all gunna die. Oh dear!. The sorites paradox on steroids.

Let's go back to first principles. For such a calculation to be valid, we need to know that components of the sum are individually valid. 2 apples + 2 apples makes 4 apples only if we know that one of them isn't an orange or a plastic apple replica.

So let's look at the components:

*2 degrees as the upper limit. But that's a made up number. Its a political figure not a scientific one. There's no science to say 2 is the magic number. I've walked you through this before but, since it suits your prejudices to believe it, mere facts won't make a difference, so I won't regurgitate that lesson.

* the assumption that we know exactly how much warming each gt of CO2 will create. We don't know that. Anyone even passingly familiar with the TCR/ECS debate would know that. Even the IPCC offers (wide) ranges for them. A doubling of CO2 levels might mean a warming of anywhere between 1.5 to 4.5 degrees if all else remains unchanged. If one of the inputs is a range, definitionally th answer has to be a range. See if this works - 50 to 100 apples + 50 to 100 apples equals exactly 155 apples. See the logic failure there?

/TBC

/continued

* the assumption that we know exactly how much CO2 is added for each gt of coal etc is burnt. We don't. It depends on many factors. And even if we did know that number now, we don't know into the future what technologies might change that. But so much of this alarmism is based on unstated assumptions that there'll be no technological advances - that our descendents are all gunna be morons who don't innovate.

To make this easier for you, take the alcohol blood metaphor used. A limit is set which claims to be valid (but is different in different places!!) but has iffy science behind it. But we don't know how many drinks get us to that limit. It depends on too many factors to be of value - age, gender, body mass, last meal, 'time of the month', and myriad other factors.

But Max, I guess none of this matters since you just want it to be true and and wanting trumps knowing.

Just one other point to your claim that "Limit = 2 degrees: IPCC says we can’t go above 2 degrees or we get into feedbacks". What? We get into feedbacks at 2 degrees? No, we've always been into feedbacks. The whole scare is about feedbacks. Without feedbacks there is no AGW scare. Feedbacks always occur. The first time some amoeba emitted CO2 there were feedbacks. The first time some proto-human stoked a fire they created feedbacks. I wish I had some words to describe how utterly wrong your claim is but your ignorance trumps my lexicon. Kudos.

You're absolutely right, the 2 degree limit IS political.

The science is starting to show that NO warming is acceptable, as Bill McKibben (the author of that Rolling Stones piece) would say only 350ppm is safe.

Oh, and 350ppm is pretty much - in summary - what the science says. That science you disagree with every time you run off to a denialist website to try and disprove it.

The main points that deniers try to push are that CO2 has little impact on global warming, there has been a hiatus in temperature increase, sea level rise is not happening, and there are no matters of concern in relation to Antarctica.

Nine criteria/principles pull apart the matter of CO2 having no impact. A number of physical and computer experiments have taken place. To give any credence to what deniers say they need to be able to provide object comments in relation to the nine criteria points.

https://extranewsfeed.com/what-climate-skeptics-taught-me-about-global-warming-5c408dc51d32#.joydizarj

Last year Ocean temperature was a real feature to what has been happening. The Oceans happen to make up around 70% of Earth's surface. Satellite data shows how the Oceans have been picking up temperature, and sea level rise has been measured.

https://youtu.be/aDB7QBjxoW8

So where deniers bring up their comments about CO2, a hiatus, and lack of sea level rise etc they are pushing "alternative facts". "Alternative facts" are bull dust at best; and lies at worst.

After the minimum sea ice level had been measured in September 2016 there had been a large increase in sea ice for a few days afterwards; since then, the situation changed and sea ice extent remained at record low levels ever since. Sea ice volume, ice thickness and sea ice extent have been changing downward for decades.

Up welling of warm waters during storm periods has been found to attack sea ice from underneath; previously postulated, and found to be true by the N-ICE2015 Norwegian research team which overwintered the Arctic in 2015.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1611.0;attach=40816;image

The Larson C ice sheet in Antarctica is about to void an area 2,000 square miles in size. The concern being that grounding lines will be undermined.

SO TRUE! Word, Geroge Monbiot. Word.

"I first encountered the machine when writing about climate change. The fury and loathing directed at climate scientists and campaigners seemed incomprehensible until I realised they were fake: the hatred had been paid for. The bloggers and institutes whipping up this anger were funded by oil and coal companies."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-george-monbiot-misinformation?CMP=share_btn_fb

Author states -Dr Peter Schrader - is member of Doctors of Environment of Australia

I ask a simple question - what is his degrees that designates he be awarded the role of Dr?

I ask also (please excuse my ignorance on subject) - who make up the "alleged" members of the Doctors of the Environment of Australia?
Posted by SAINTS, Thursday, 19 January 2017 5:25:11 PM

Still no response to question?

Hi Saints,

"Dr Peter Schrader is a general practitioner and a member of Doctors for the Environment Australia. Australian climate change policy isn't working"
Environment - 18/01/2017 - 61 comments
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=7753

GP. Is that fair enough? GP's are allowed to form associations like "Doctors for the Environment" and care about the real, peer-reviewed threat posed by the environment. Sure he's not writing with the expertise of a climatologist, but his sources are there for all to see. Can I ask why you want to know, and what you hope to prove by asking?

Again, the sources are there. The IPCC papers are all there. Plenty of verified scientific sources are there, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. For those who don't, and want to run off to tinfoil-hat land, well, that's their business. I just hope they don't ask us to take their opinion seriously!

Hi Max

Your response to my email says it all…

So Aussies are therefore expected to “believe” all these so called “experts” and continue to pay taxpayers funds into what and for what result?

Any one could be called a "Dr" - please provide some emphirical evidence as to claims - which we can all equate to.

Hi Max

Those that disagree with you seem to fall into the "tin-foil hat land" says it all to me as to any other point of view?

Some of us are "over" the allegations without proof, however I can go back to my ancestors and weather variations since the 1800's?

And don't declare to be a Dr of any level or have any scientific degree.

Hi Max

Your link to above is no longer assessable ......so where does honesty and integrity play in your life?

BAZZ, you never explained why you rejectt the report that shows we have enough fossil fuels to cook us five times over? Where are you BAZZ? Just going to drop a bombshell assertion to cast doubt in the minds of the weak, and then not be a man and stick around to justify your assertion?

SAINTS, poor little diddums! Don’t get emotional on us. Do you need some tissues? If you’re going to get upset over ‘tinfoil hat’ when you deny one of the most studied and peer-reviewed scientific disciplines ever, then maybe you’re not up to the discussion here? On your side: global conspiracy theories, nutters, tinfoil hatters, “It’s all a conspiracy of the Guv-ern-ment!”

On my side: 
1. 97% OF THE OPINIONS THAT MATTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Every National Academy of Science and credible private scientific institution on the planet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

2. THE DEMONSTRABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS OF CO2, see:-
* Mythbusters https://www.youtube.com/watch?
* The candle demonstration at 90 seconds in. Candle demonstration goes for a minute only.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/

3. THE RADIATIVE FORCING EQUATION which measures how much incoming radiation not only warms the planet, but is trapped from exiting back out to space, which is an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

4. THE WORLD’S TOP 4 TEMPERATURE DATABASES

NASA
http://www.slate.com/blogs/

http://climate.nasa.gov/

WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
“Geneva, 21 July 2016 (WMO) _ Global temperatures for the first six months of this year shattered yet more records, and mean that 2016 is on track to be the world’s hottest year on record.”
http://public.wmo.int/en/

THE MET OFFICE
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/

NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

5. DRY LANDS GETTING DRYER, WET AREAS GETTING WETTER
https://www.sciencedaily.com/
https://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.

6. THE OCEANS GETTING WARMER, SHRINKING ICE SHEETS, GLACIERS RETREATING, ACIDIC OCEANS, DECREASED SNOW COVER, AND SEA LEVEL RISE.
http://climate.nasa.gov/

"You're absolutely right, the 2 degree limit IS political."

So after writing who knows how many posts admonishing others to "do the math" and ridiculing those who don't 'know' that we can only burn 565gt (not 564 or 566 mind you), as soon as someone points out the complete lack of rigour in your numbers you cave. Admit it? No. Instead move on to some other equally fatuous assertions.

Its impossible to hold custard in your fingers because it has no substance.

Max

If a group of 16th century Puritans, having a discussion about the Holy Spirit, convince themselves that they are talking “science”, that doesn’t mean it’s science, does it?

Same with you. Whether or not you are talking science is not determined by how fervently or how often you say the word “science” itself.

1.
It depends on the thought process, which must *at the very least* comply with the principles of rationality. If it doesn’t, your consideration of the “evidence” is liable to the risk of error from irrationality.

2.
Scientific proof of a proposition cannot take the form of assuming that everyone must agree with it as a precondition of entering into the discussion.

3.
Once your subject matter begins to include human preferences or values, then the relevant science has to deal scientifically with those subjective values. This includes the question how to assess human subjective evaluation of benefits and detriments, how to evaluate costs or detriments which people choose to externalize onto other non-consenting people; and human evaluations further and further into the future.

“Please demonstrate where I have shown circular logic.”

Sure:
“I don't care if we use a carbon trading scheme, a carbon tax, or just downright NATIONALISE the energy sector and get the government rolling cheap factory produced breeder reactors off the production line. The policy actually bores me! I just want to see the job getting done.”

You’re assuming that
1. we face a problem of catastrophic global warming caused by human CO2 emissions that policy can solve or improve at a worthwhile cost
2. the proof of these proposition is in appeal to authority
3. policy can do, what you want it to do, better than no-policy, and considering all the relevant risks and costs, upsides and downsides.

Correct?

Not misrepresenting you there in those 3 points, am I?

By asking me to demonstrate logical error, you implicitly admit that, if I can, it invalidates your political opinion on climate policy. Yes? Please confirm you agree with that statement?

Saints
I was going to respond to you earlier, but thought somebody else would, Max very patiently showed you how your comprehension of very basic points was very poor. When you do not comprehend very basic points shown by the article, how can you be taken seriously when writing about science. Dr Peter Schrader is a General Practitioner, very clearly shown.

I have responded now, on the basis of your scathing comments of Doctors it is no different than Max's comments about wearing tin foil hats. Except, when Max writes he refers to science, it is frustrating when ignorant comments come floating back. Your comment: "Any one could be called a "Dr" - please provide some emphirical evidence as to claims - which we can all equate to." says it all. One thing that is abundantly clear; Saints, and that is you are definitely not a Doctor!

Science is backed by replicable data; Saints, you make some statements without backing them up. As a result, you statements are nothing but nonsense. To have any credibility you statements need to be shown to be true through using the 9 criteria used by Seth Miller at:

http://extranewsfeed.com/what-climate-skeptics-taught-me-about-global-warming-5c408dc51d32#.joydizarj

Dr Schrader in his article uses several hyperlinks to display how he has arrived at what he says.
Deniers of anthropogenic climate change use sophistry; and, when they do provide references (a rare occasion) the references lack credibility.

* JARDINE * It’s not an “appeal to authority” if the overwhelming weight of the scientific EVIDENCE backs those authorities, and all those authorities do is articulate that evidence. BTW, want to add some hot air to your long winded post? You certainly like the sound of your own voice.

* MHAZE *, it’s called context. Bazz asserted that global warming would was impossible because there are not enough fossil fuels. So I supplied the Bill McKibben “Do the math” article where the 3rd number is the most pertinent - 565 Gigatons! That’s how much is on the books, and it takes us 5 times past the POLITICAL figure of 2 degrees they agreed at Copenhagen.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

Here is Bill presenting 3 minutes of “The Math” where he says...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KtGg-Lvxso

“In political terms, it’s the only thing that anybody has agreed to. Some of you may remember that climate summit in Copenhagen. There was only ONE number in the final 2 page voluntary accord that people signed... 2 degrees. …. the most conservative, RECALCITRANT countries on earth, EVEN the United States – IF THE WORLD OFFICIALLY believes anything about climate change, it’s that 2 degrees is too much.”

Did you hear his disdain for the political process?

The next number flows from that political agreement on 2 degrees, and that’s the 565 gigatons.

But the science says we are already way too high at over 400ppm, and Bill McKibben founded 350.org, based on what the SCIENCE says. Even Paris agreed the new limit should be 1.5 degrees – even though national commitments from all the participates still condemns us to 4 degrees. I’ll let you figure out the rest.

Max

Don't think your evasion combined with personal abuse, went unnoticed. That's your idea of "behaving like an adult", is it?

Let's cut to the chase.

Isn't it true that you assume or assert THAT:

1. we face a problem of catastrophic global warming caused by human CO2 emissions that policy can solve or improve at a worthwhile cost?

Yes? No?

2. you assert that you prove that in this forum by posting links to authorities, without yourself providing any reason or evidence in this forum, but your entire argument consists only of assuming and insisting that I must accept your opinion about the authorities’ opinion? Yes? That’s correct, isn’t it? If not, why not?

(It's no use talking about "the evidence" while:
a) you refuse to accept that your argument must comply with the principles of rationality and logic in the first place, and
b) the evidence is to be proved by mere circular repetition of the same process of appeal to authority, which only begs the question. (You asked me to demonstrate where you have shown circular logic. Consider it demonstrated. All you're doing is going round and round in circles, insisting that you must be right.)

3. policy can do, what you want it to do, better than no-policy, and considering all the relevant risks and costs, upsides and downsides. Yes? You assume that, don't you?

4. By asking me to demonstrate logical error, you implicitly admit that, if I can demonstrate fundamental logical error on your part, it invalidates your political opinion on climate policy. Yes? Please confirm you agree with that statement?

MHAZE & BAZZ.

Apologies for the typo. The 3rd number is of course 2,795 gigatons, which is about 5 times more than the politically agreed on ‘budget’ of 565 gigatons, or 2 degrees. But recent sensitivity studies indicate there may be no safe level of warming from here on, and that 400ppm is way too much already.

JARDINE.
Seriously? Long-winded, much?

Dude, YOU decided to reject the science - and while I understand it’s a free country - don’t come whining to me that you want to be respected for rejecting science, or acting like you’ve got some moral high ground. All the evidence any rational person could require is there. Grow up and accept the consequences of your *choice* to ignore the science. I have absolutely no interest in being lectured to about rational discourse by someone of your ilk. What, all those scientists are ‘in error’, and only you know better? They got the laws of physics wrong, the demonstrable math of the Radiative Forcing Equation, the measurable data like temperatures and seasons changing and ice thinning? They don’t know what they’re doing, and only your Royal Highness does? They’re all in error? Or is it all just the largest conspiracy in the history of the human race? The bottom line - I'm not jumping through any of your long-winded hoops, especially after having to report one of your posts for being personally abusive to another forum member. Until you actually say something worth addressing, buzz off.

Max

Thank you for proving my point. You have nothing but circular credulity, and malevolent personal abuse.

"What, all those scientists are ‘in error’, and only you know better?"

You just told me you are *not* relying on appeal to authority, remember?

Well?

What do you think that is?

Your entire argument is just nothing but unquestioning blind faith in authority.

Peter
You see, what Max, Billyd, and you are all demonstrating, is an irrational belief system, not a scientific belief system.

When people have to be dragged kicking and screaming to admit that their claims must be rational, and openly refuse, that means it's not scientific.

When they enter the debate assuming that everyone must agree with them as a precondition of any discussion, that's irrational and religious, not scientific.

When they stake their entire debate on *belief* ("heretic"/"denialist"), that's not science.

When they meet all challenges of evidence and reason by circularly insisting on authority, that's not science. That's the *OPPOSITE* of science.

When they personally abuse anyone who dares to disagree with them, that's not science.

The reason both Max and Billyd refuse to explicitly admit that their argument must comply with the principles of rationality, is because they know perfectly well that the next step will be checkmate for them.

So they choose evasion, and intellectual dishonesty, not knowing, or not caring, that this proves nothing about climate but their own illogic.

All
Thus we have just established in here - AGAIN! - that belief in climate policy is rationally indefensible.

The warmists make no attempt to even begin to identify the specific alleged problem, issues of reason or evidence, a successful outcome, or a successful process, or how they would know.

All we ever get is this endless patronising lecture, personal abuse, and double standards.

You warmists can add this fail to your pile:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16680&page=0
and here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16726&page=0
and here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16753&page=0
and here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16757&page=0

You have lost the intellectual and ethical debate for obvious reasons.

And your elitist anti-human corrupt parasitic superstition is soon coming to an end.

Okay? Got that?

"And your elitist anti-human corrupt parasitic superstition is soon coming to an end."
I hope you're right, despite the fact that even the Mythbusters were able to prove the laws of physics around CO2! It's not that hard, really. It's established. It's something one looks up in an OLD physics textbook.

Mythbusters: 3 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

But still, I hope you're right, and that there's some magical, as-yet-unknown climate dampener that will stop runaway warming. I hope to wake up one day with the peer-reviewed science finally figuring something like that out, so that we can all take a deep breath and then get back to business. Because the last umpteen years have been the hottest on record, and each year seems to break the previous year's records! (And yet you just assert there's no evidence. Just click your ruby slippers together like Dorothy and repeat, "There's no global warming, there's NO global warming, THERE'S NO GLOBAL WARMING!")

2016 CLIMATE TREND CONTINUES...
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records/

Oh yeah, that's right, all those NASA guys are just wrong. There's no evidence. This random Jardine dude I met on a forum said so! ;-) (You people crack me up!)

Jardine , you are very loose with the references you provided, past online opinion articles do not represent anything near what would be expected in a prestige science journal. Show how these articles fit the 9 criteria that Seth Miller has described, previously referenced twice. Online opinion articles written by contrarians offer nothing other than themes continually regurgitated andthemes have previously been debunked.

We need greenhouse gases in the right proportions to survive.
Coal fired electricity plants create greenhouse gases.
Internal combustion engines create CO2 and other gases.

The question is, where in historical times preceding the Industrial Revolution were there coal fired electricity plants and internal combustion engines?

How the LarsonC ice sheet break down fits in with your commentary, I'm not sure!
Also, a British base in Antarctica has had to be moved through the ice sheet it was perched upon was breaking down.
Ocean have taken in much warmth over the last twenty plus years, the so called hiatus did not happen; unless you believe Oceans are not part of Earth.

To have any viability your conspiracy theory needs to go back to the 1820s( Fourier), then to 1850s ( Foote), a bit later to Tyndall etc etc. In other words, your conspiracy theory doesn't get past the criteria set by Seth Miller (already referenced).

http://youtu.be/aDB7QBjxoW8

So Maximum,

As with the 97% number, the 565 number is another of those things that are just too good to be abandoned. So you have no interest in determining if the number has any validity, just a robotic adherence to what you've been told to believe. When I make a series of points that show why the number has no validity, you simply ignore the issues and continue to believe the number. Any wonder some call this a religion.

Its garbage derived from garbage and blind adherence to it reveals all that needs revealing. You claim to support the science but that's not science. What you do is cravenly support the side.

Mhaze,
so you don't like science? You're following denialist dogma (faith / religion) because the Radiative Forcing just doesn't work for you? Sorry, what POINTS do you think you scored against the raw physics of what we are talking about?

I don't blindly follow the politicians in saying we have 565 to go. We don't. Oh that we could click our fingers and convert every coal fired power station to a nuke overnight! But it's going to take time to build out the clean energy system, and you banging on about your political conspiracy theories just doesn't sit well in this emergency.

"565 gigatons tons CO2 allowance before we get to 2 degrees"

"Do the math! We're 'allowed' to burn 565 gigatons "

"Do the math” article where the 3rd number is the most pertinent - 565 Gigatons!"

"the politically agreed on ‘budget’ of 565 gigatons"

All quotes from Maximum. All in posts asserting that the numbers are firm and calculated ("Do the maths" he says, all the while not actually understanding the maths at all). All the while saying people who don't accept his assertions are ignoring this data of 565gt.

And then when pressed to defend the number, defend the calculation we get...

"I don't blindly follow the politicians in saying we have 565 to go. We don't.."

He believed it before he didn't. He believed it yesterday and he'll believe it tomorrow but today, since he's asked to justify it, he doesn't believe it.

Even I'm embarrassed for him.

Why bother? Henceforth I won't.

"Why bother? Henceforth I won't."

Good, because your comprehension is too low to process all this in context. I invite others to read it in context.

Honestly, you warmists are like a self-humiliating satire of religious fanatics.

You have proved nothing.

All you've done is
- enter the discussion having assumed what you have the onus of proving
- pretended to do this by appeal to authority (while admitting that circular logic disproves you LOL)
- when challenged, asserted that the "evidence" vindicates you, but
a) the evidence you refer to is entirely that selected, treated, presented, and interpreted by the AUTHORITIES YOU APPEAL TO you fools.
b) without rationality, evidence is no better than "evidence" of the Biblical creation or the Holy Spirit.

But the crowning piece of your foolery is your idea that "the laws of physics" provide the terms of policy BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!

(Wipes tear of mirth from eye, aaaaaaaah) Guys, that is way beyond ignorant - you're displaying a COMPLETE FAILURE to understand what you're talking about.

Your entire complaint is only, why don't other people believe what you believe? Pathetic credulity.

Now.

1. Got that calculation there yet fellers, showing how you worked out the benefits versus detriments of alleged catastrophic global warming, in terms of the subjective values of all relevant human beings, in the status quo versus your preferred policy counterfactual, in units of a lowest common denominator? SHOW YOUR WORKINGS.

2. Did you use a discount for futurity? If not, why not? If so, what is it, and justify it. SHOW YOU WORKINGS.

Bleating and squaring the word "science" doesn't turn your anti-human superstitious gibberish into something other than anti-human superstitious gibberish.

You subsist not on reason or evidence - which you actively and dishonestly evade - but on corrupt political parasitism, which is coming to an end soon so ... SUCK EGGS GUYS!

Your failure to answer my specific questions concedes the entire issue in my favour.

Jardine waffles and sidetracks, all the while ignoring the Stern Report, the Garnaut Report, and the World Bank report.

Poor guy. With all the credible evidence and credible costings he just ignores, he's not only embarrassing himself, but causing us to question just how well he can read? But he certainly likes the sound of his own voice!

Again, long-winded much?

Google those reports I mentioned so you don't embarrass yourself as much. Off you go. There's a good chap!

Max Green squirms and wriggles, all the while ignoring the Stern Report, the Garnaut Report, and the World Bank report.

There's only two things he lacks:
1. evidence, and
2. reason.

Now. Try to put aside your commitment to dishonest evasion for once, and just answer.

1. Got that calculation there yet, showing how you worked out the benefits versus detriments of alleged catastrophic global warming, in terms of the subjective values of all relevant human beings, in the status quo versus your preferred policy counterfactual, in units of a lowest common denominator? SHOW YOUR WORKINGS.

2. Did you use a discount for futurity? If not, why not? If so, what is it, and justify it. SHOW YOU WORKINGS.

Your failure to answer concedes the general issue in my favour. You have failed to prove what you need to prove, end of story.

Peter Schrader
Are you paying attention?

Notice how AT NO STAGE, has any warmist in this thread even tried to identify what they think the problem is, what the solution is, and how they would know? They are operating in a logic-free zone. It's not a rational discourse. It's a religious hysteria.

All they've done is enter the discussion with a foregone conclusion, NEVER been open to consider that they might be wrong, put forward an illogical circularity as proof, insulted and patronised anyone who dares to challenge them, and then gone round and round and round and round and round, throwing out ad hominems and non sequiturs in equal measure.

That's it.

That's what you've got, and that's ALL you've got.

All you need to know about your precious authorities, is that THEY'RE USING THE SAME INTELLECTUAL METHODOLOGY YOU ARE.

They're not engaged in an attempt to find out WHETHER we face catastrophic global warming that policy can improve. They're PAID to find demonstrations THAT government intervention is warranted.

If you warmists decide not to prove, fine.

Have it your way.

That's a fail, and any failures in climate policy are your fault.

No mate, here's how science works. Empirical evidence overturns older, less perfect models. Newton had a great model, but it didn't explain Mercury's transit. Along came Einstein and his theory of relativity, and the curvature of space-time, and his math and theory had a better explanation. It might not be the 100% correct, but it's the best we've got so far.

In his day, Newton and his laws were the 'expert', the 'authority'. Just sitting around sneering at Newton or his models isn't science. Anyone can sit in an armchair, stroke their narcissism, and sneer. Easy. But to actually CRITIQUE the existing theory, one cannot just SNEER. One has to have a better model, a better mind, a better breakthrough and have that breakthrough idea tested against the real world. You have none of these things. You're just an armchair critic, internet troll, and denialist. You and I are not climate scientists. I advise a little humility, until a REAL, peer-reviewed paper overturns climate science in such a compelling way that the IPCC admits there is a new model and we can all stop being concerned.

"Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. Crucially, as we note in our paper:

Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support.

That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.” Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%."
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

Max

You're *ASSUMING* that the theory in issue, is logical in the first place.

But that's precisely what you've
a) failed, and
b) refused
to prove, remember?

Let's get one thing straight.

You're the side asserting that we face a problem of global warming, need climate policy, and that current climate policy is not good enough. Okay? Fair enough?

*You* have the onus of proof.

If you refuse to engage as to reason or evidence, fine. Have it your way.

That's a complete fail.

You lose.

If you want to know why climate policy fails you - look in the mirror.

As for Newton etc. you are failing to understand the most basic concept of science.

*If* your process of reasoning is *irrational*, you don't even get to "evidence" (- think Puritans). You get knocked out before first base. Okay? Understand?

I have shown why you're reasoning fails to comply with the principles of rationality.

It is *not* a requirement of the discourse that I must accept your assumptions, premises, reasoning, and conclusions as a precondition of entering into the discussion.

That's just a straight-out logical fallacy.

Fail.

End of story.

I can point out dozens of fatal non sequiturs in your reasoning, but two will suffice for here.
1. Temperature data, of themselves, do not give the terms of policy. That's just a straight-out glaring logical fallacy, absurd in its stupid simplicity.

2. The fallacy of your appeal to authority is not fixed by
a) puffing yourself up with windy indignation, nor
b) referring to the "evidence", which is to be proved by requiring me to agree with all your selection, treatment, presentation and conclusions of evidence as a precondition of the discussion.

You have not only failed to EVEN BEGIN to discharge your burden of proof, you have demonstrated a failure to understand the requirements of a chain of logical thought, let alone science.

The absolute *reliance* of your argument on patronising insult, and repeatedly squarking the word "science" as some kind of talisman, don't help you.

You've proved my case, not yours.

Answer my questions.

Hello Jardine,
I don't have to prove a thing. I can just say "IPCC" and watch the tinfoil hat magically appear on your head. You can *try* to make the ABUNDANT, FREE **EVIDENCE** just disappear, but anyone with half a brain and half an ounce of honesty knows where to download the IPCC reports, read the material, ask their questions, and get the peer-reviewed answers. From scientists who demonstrate and prove, with the laws of physics and mathematics, just how stuffed we really are.

You know all this, yet you put up this silly song and dance. Asking me to prove climate change when the IPCC is there, ready to be downloaded, is as retarded as asking me to prove that the internet connection you used to write your post really works!

The REAL question is why you DON'T accept it. Smarter than all those scientists? Seriously Jardine, — I honestly don't owe you a thing. You're just an another dime a dozen internet troll. "Appeal to authority"? Dude, you've got tickets on yourself! Go download the IPCC reports and get yourself some evidence. And grow up a bit!

"The absolute *reliance* of your argument on patronising insult, and repeatedly squarking the word "science" as some kind of talisman, don't help you."
Repetition, much?

"You've proved my case, not yours."
Your repeated, long-winded trolling has proved my case. You've exposed what you really are.

"Answer my questions."
No. I don't owe you a thing, let alone parroting evidence I didn't assemble or write, as if I were somehow a climatologist. I'm not. Neither are you. But the one thing I do know is that every time some denialist has trotted out one of their myths, it turns out to be only a half-truth or lie. Every single time. They rotate through them a dime a dozen, not really responding to the evidence put before them that denies their previous myth. This is why I say "Denialist's don't debate, they rotate". Myth 1 shot down in ashes? Fire 2! Don't mourn your argument lying in ashes on the floor! Don't even reply! Just Fire 2, and 3, and 4, and all the way through to 20, and then when everyone's left from boredom and there's a new audience, just Fire 1 again!

Boring. If you want evidence, do some 'adulting' and go and download the IPCC reports. Grow up, and get it yourself.

So your argument is only this:
- "I know because other people told me so"
- "we face a problem as proved by the fact that Jardine K. Jardine, an anonymous poster on the internet, is a bad person"
- "I am right, because I am right, because I am right"

That's it.

All I have to do, to disprove your argument according to your own standard and your own methodology, is say "IPCC", and according to you, this is a total and stand-alone proof.

It's no wonder climate change policy isn't working for you, you clown.

Why don't you sit down and have a cry because the IPCC diagnosed the problem, and then Stern...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

...and Garnaut...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnaut_Climate_Change_Review

... costed it and proposed various policies. Oh boo hoo! It obviously doesn't fit with your oh-so-precious worldview.

1. Do you agree that CO2 can refract heat back around our atmosphere and slow that heat leaving for space?

2. Do you agree that climatologists have demonstrated that, as well as the human race can understand something like this, that are are 95% certain we're causing climate change?

3. Do you agree that the IPCC has given credible grounds to accept that climate change will have vastly more losers than winners? If not, why not?

4. Do you think the climate books are cooked? Why?

5. Do you not see that this leaves you prone to tinfoil hat thinking?

6. DO YOU NOT THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER TO LEAVE FOSSIL FUELS BEFORE THEY LEAVE US? Or, do you believe that the fairies will go and refill all your precious oil-wells and coal-mines? ;-)

7. Now refuse to answer any of these questions, and put on a big show. Say 'rationally' and 'Puritan' enough times, and you might *just* convince yourself that you're behaving like an adult.

The IPCC is not a *scientific* body charged with determining *whether* we face catastrophic man-made global warming, it’s a *political* body charged with propagating the view *that* we do.

All you need to know is, THEY'RE DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

They assume it in their premises, otherwise they wouldn't have a job. Like you, they are not interested in finding out WHETHER it's happening, they are only trying to get others to believe THAT it's happening. This is not the scientific method, it's the religious method, and the outgoing IPPC boss said it's a religion to him. What does that tell you?

Furthermore, to demonstrate how easy it is to defeat your flimsy jumble of credulous illogic, I'll make it easy for you.

Let's assume - very much in your favour - that all issues of climatology are conceded in your favour.

Okay?

What could be fairer than that?

Answer?

Now.

1. Prove, by reference to the subjective values of all relevant human beings now and indefinitely into the future, how you worked out the detriments versus benefits of global warming. What was your data set? Show your workings, in units of a lowest common denominator.

2. Prove how you know that the benefits of your preferred climate policy outweigh the detriments. Show your workings, in units of a lowest common denominator.

3. Are you using a discount for futurity? If so, what is it? If not, why not?

4. Who’s this “we” you’re talking about?

If you want me to answer your questions, you need to answer my prior questions first, and ask yours without
a) larding everything with sneering personal insult
b) assuming what is in issue.

Go ahead. Prove your case without assuming it.

You need to lay open your mental processes to falsification, because if - and since - you don’t, what you’ve got is religion, not science. You’re only demonstrating that you don’t understand what you’re talking about.

Jardine

At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution CO2 was about 270 ppm, currently CO2 is being recorded at just over 400 ppm.

Which gets back to earlier comments and question:

We need greenhouse gases in the right proportions to survive.
Coal fired electricity plants create greenhouse gases.
Internal combustion engines create CO2 and other gases.
The use of lawn mowers creates greenhouse gases.

The question is, where in historical times preceding the Industrial Revolution were there coal fired electricity plants and internal combustion engines?

The reference previously given in relation to Seth Miller provides 9 criteria by which science can be assessed. He illustrates his point by using CO2 as an example. Computer experimentation, meaning back tracking with known data shows how the changing climate can only be explained by the addition of CO2. Max refers to experiments conducted by Myth Busters, the first experimentation was discussed at a Symposium in 1856 in relation to experiments conducted by Eunice Foote.

https://extranewsfeed.com/what-climate-skeptics-taught-me-about-global-warming-5c408dc51d32#.7i37ct3qg

A further question;
More water vapour has been created over the normal processes of evaporation and transpiration. Why?

ant

Answer my prior questions first; then I'll answer yours.

Jardine, I won't be answering your questions. I'm not going to waste my time on your alternative facts.
To use Seth Miller's first criterion of strength; the arguments deniers use are all over the place with no consistency. Arguments put out by nay sayers just try to create uncertainty, there are very few research projects which have been produced by skeptical scientists. Blog sites such as WUWT continually get things wrong. Deniers are not able to write anything sensible in relation to meta Reports such on Oceans or the state of the Arctic.

http://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf

http://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/ArcticResilienceReport-2016.pdf

Jardine,
here's your first problem. "The IPCC is not a *scientific* body charged with determining *whether* we face catastrophic man-made global warming, it’s a *political* body charged with propagating the view *that* we do."

Um, no. As you're always saying, if your starting premise / presupposition / paradigm is wrong, then it's going to throw everything else out. If the starting plum line is skew-if, the whole argument you are building on will be wrong.

The IPCC simply summarises the science from the peer-reviewed magazines, those bastions of thought and evidence you appear to just sneer at, apparently just because they're inconvenient to your politics? ;-)

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization for the purpose of assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data. It bases its assessment mainly on published and peer reviewed scientific technical literature.” [1] The goal of these assessments is to inform international policy and negotiations on climate-related issues."
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html#.WI_SkrZ9670

G'day Max
It had been scientists and economists etc that had put together the IPCC reports, not UN personnel.
Richard Lindzen and Richard Toll had been involved along with many others; both are anthropogenic climate change contrarians.

As you say, begin with a false premise and what follows is garbage.

Sadly, we are living in a period where prejudice (false facts) rule over the rationally orientated scientific method.

ant, Max

The very fact that you two have to be dragged kicking and screaming to admit your argument must comply with the principles of rationality - and even then you flat-out refuse - just proves you're a troupe of clowns.

The fact that you refuse to open yourself to the possibility of falsification, just proves you don't understand what science is.

Have it your way.

You have the onus of proof, and refuse to prove. You lose.

You refuse to answer questions which will EITHER falsify your claims, or mine. You lose. You proved my views correct, and yours false.

You assume everything that is in issue, and when challenged you *repeat* your mere assumption - over and over and over and over and over and over again. You lose.

You can't even bring yourself to state what the problem is, what the solution is, why, and how you know by any rational means. (Crawling up the arse of power-based authorities is not proof you fools.) You lose.

All you've proved is that climate policy cannot be rationally defended and should be abolished.

Great work guys.

The miserable lamentations of totalitarian national socialist fascists are music to my ears, so by all means feel free to regale us with how you FEEL about America dumping your mediaeval Sale of Indulgences to the God-State.

The difference between my insults of you, and yours of me, is that mine are the CONCLUSION of my argument logically established by independent reasoning. I have logically destroyed your argument, and proved mine.

Your insults of me, by contract, are the very FOUNDATION OF YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT.

That's it.

All you're saying is "I believe, I *believe*, and it must be so because JKJ is a bad person." That's it.

Laughable clowns.

Anyway, suck eggs. You lost the intellectual and moral arguments, and now you're losing the policy argument.

HA HAA. Tough luck. Climate policy is going to be abolished because the non-parasitic hypocrite world has seen through your transparent credulity and dishonesty. Suck eggs, and writhe with impotent anti-human hate.

sophistry
&#712;s&#594;f&#618;stri/
noun
"the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving."

Jardine, you're so in love with the sound of your own voice you bore me.

If ANYONE ELSE is confused by Jardine's long-winded rants, they can investigate the following links.

Jardine, if you want to continue this conversation, please explain WHY YOU DON'T accept the evidence that the rest of us accept, and that I shouldn't even have to quote.

On our side:
1. 97% OF THE OPINIONS THAT MATTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

Every National Academy of Science and credible private scientific institution on the planet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

2. THE DEMONSTRABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS OF CO2, see:-
* Mythbusters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
* The candle demonstration at 90 seconds in. Candle demonstration goes for a minute only.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

3. THE RADIATIVE FORCING EQUATION which measures how much incoming radiation not only warms the planet, but is trapped from exiting back out to space, which is an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

4. THE WORLD’S TOP 4 TEMPERATURE DATABASES

NASA
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/

WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
“Geneva, 21 July 2016 (WMO) _ Global temperatures for the first six months of this year shattered yet more records, and mean that 2016 is on track to be the world’s hottest year on record.”
http://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-breaks-new-records-january-june-2016

THE MET OFFICE
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

5. DRY LANDS GETTING DRYER, WET AREAS GETTING WETTER
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120521104631.htm
https://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php/en/climate-science-highlights/463-wet-regions-getting-wetter-dry-regions-drier-as-planet-warms

6. THE OCEANS GETTING WARMER, SHRINKING ICE SHEETS, GLACIERS RETREATING, ACIDIC OCEANS, DECREASED SNOW COVER, AND SEA LEVEL RISE.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Jardine

You say: "All you're saying is "I believe, I *believe*, ...."

Jardine you produce much nay saying without the slightest amount of evidence to support what you say; to use your word it is hardly "intellectual" on your part.

Max and I, do provide references to support what we state.
You clearly do not support the scientific method. Sophistry is the tool of the denier.

You see, children, with *real* science, you try to falsify your hypothesis. What you're doing is the *opposite*.

What you're doing is blocking your ears, going "La-la-la-la I CAN'T HEAR YOU!", licking the arses of your priestly class, and calling it "science".

If you can't answer my questions, you lose the argument, simple as that.

My questions show why you are wrong, and you refuse, and can't show why you are right. So you lose. End of matter.

Neither of you have understood that unless you can CONNECT the physical data to the normative data, you haven't got anything.

Your mere malevolent hysterics in response prove my case, not yours.

Now answer my questions you fools:
1. Prove, by reference to the subjective values of all relevant human beings now and indefinitely into the future, how you worked out the detriments versus benefits of global warming. What was your data set? Show your workings, in units of a lowest common denominator.

2. Prove how you know that the benefits of your preferred climate policy outweigh the detriments. Show your workings, in units of a lowest common denominator.

3. Are you using a discount for futurity? If so, what is it? If not, why not?

4. Who’s this “we” you’re talking about?

Max

I've already explained to you, and you *haven't understood*.

Okay?

Now get out of your circular loop, and TRY TO UNDERSTAND.

I *told* you. EVEN IF ALL THE CLIMATOLOGY WERE CONCEDED - (which it's not) - YOU STILL WOULDN'T HAVE GOT TO SQUARE ONE IN ESTABLISHING A CLIMATE POLICY.

Now don't go any further.

Stop.

Go back.

*Read* it.

And don't take another step until you have understood.

It means that, for purposes of argument, we could assume that EVERYTHING you are saying were conceded. Okay? Got that? Read it again. That's the same thing as saying, we could assume you had won every point you are arguing for. (You haven't, but let's just assume it.) Okay? Got that? Understood?

AND YOU STILL WOULD HAVE NOTHING.

*AFTER* you have understood what I'm saying, *THEN* you will be in a position to attempt to join issue.

As it is now, you simply don't understand that you don't understand.

More squarking, more insults, and more posting links cannot save your hopeless bewilderment.

*Learn* to *understand* what you're talking about, you fool.

You are stuck in a preliminary whirligig, and have not managed to find your way onto the course.

(Slaps hand to forehead).

Yeah, it's real hard Jardine, real hard.

The science is saying too much CO2 is a really bad, bad thing.

What do YOU think the policy should be? Something about reducing CO2 maybe?

(Slaps hand to forehead again. Denialist's just ain't what they used to be).

More sophistry, Jardine.

The Washington Post has just published an article in relation to the Arctic, the author states very clearly that while there is natural variability being displayed it hangs off man created change.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/02/01/beyond-the-extreme-scientists-marvel-at-increasingly-non-natural-arctic-warmth/?sdfsdfsdfsdfsd&utm_term=.fdb0b0d1ff3d

A number of scientists are interviewed.

Remember Jardine, we need greenhouse gases to survive and CO2 has increased from about 270 ppm prior to Industrial revolution to over 400 ppm currently. I write "about" as there is a small degree of seasonal variation.

Mark Serreze, a climate scientist writes:

"One could argue that these events are just expressions of natural variability in Arctic climate superimposed upon the overall pattern of warming and sea-ice loss. But changes in extreme weather and climatic events in recent years have been well documented around the world. Heat waves have tended to be hotter, and a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor, raising prospects for excessive precipitation. Random extreme events have always been a part of the climate system, but by loading the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, we’ve also loaded the dice. Are the recent events in the Arctic examples of what we’ll be seeing more of in the near future? Time will tell. But after studying the Arctic and its climate for three and a half decades, I have concluded that what has happened over the last year goes beyond even the extreme."

from:

http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/comment-crazy-times-arctic

Your sophistry means nothing when put up against what scientists are saying. The scientists have data to back their case, you do not.

Honestly, it's like talking to a creation scientist, a jihadi, or an undergraduate Marxist.

Max even admits that he's begging the question, and STILL doesn't understand that he doesn't understand.

Do you think it's not obvious why you are evading answering my questions? Because you know perfectly well that they prove you wrong. Otherwise you would have answered them, wouldn't you?

Anticipating your predictable snivelling little backbite, the same doesn't apply to my not-answering your questions, since EVEN IF I CONCEDED THEM ENTIRELY - which I don't - you still would be three logical fallacies away from EVEN BEGINNING get to square one to make your case.

In any event, what does it matter to you whether I share your irrational opinions?

And why are you communicating with me using fossil fuels and metals?

Sardine's silly insinuations and insults sidetrack from his sophistry.

He wants to change the subject to ANYTHING but his own refusal to accept science. Now he thinks he has the right to interrogate me about my preferred policy? But I already stated several pages ago that I don't really care *how* the job gets done, as long as it gets done.

The science says we need less CO2 in the atmosphere, so let's create an ETS, or Carbon Tax, or just outright NATIONALISE energy systems till the job gets done. I could care less!

In the meantime... Sardine's true colours are revealled.

"I *told* you. EVEN IF ALL THE CLIMATOLOGY WERE CONCEDED - (which it's not) - YOU STILL WOULDN'T HAVE GOT TO SQUARE ONE IN ESTABLISHING A CLIMATE POLICY. "

Oh, it's not, hey? ;-) What, all those climate scientists are in on a conspiracy?

Tinfoil hat, much? (Back to square one).

Have you ever argued with a Christian fundamentalist about evolution?

They:
1. assume all issues in their own favour before starting
2. at no stage seek to falsify their own beliefs
3. don’t try to, and don't understand the case they need to answer
4. openly shun and flee logic
5. refer all questions to their authoritative texts, around and around in a circle
6. believe in a magical moral and pragmatic superbeing that will make everything good if we only have enough unquestioning faith – no need for reason and evidence - and
7. their entire concern is why other people don’t *believe* what they believe.

That’s all you’re doing.

Your religion is actually worse because they do *real* works of charity. Yours is fake and consists only of using force and threats – the law - to force people to obey and submit to violations of their freedom and property.

Fake.

You are not climatologists and therefore, according to you, you are disqualified from any opinion on climate policy. That’s the standard you’re using, so you either accept it, in which case you lose for lack of authority, or you don’t, in which case you lose for equivocation. End of story.

Science doesn’t supply value judgments, and policy requires them. Science doesn’t tell us what temperature the planet should be. All the science tells us, at most, is that temperatures are increasing. It doesn’t, of itself, justify any action. Plus you need to account for the human values you’re proposing to violate. Go ahead. You haven’t started yet. You haven’t proved that we’ll be better rather than worse off, as a result of your proposed policy. You’re only showing that you have understood neither the science nor the policy.

You are the one who complained about the lack of adult standards of argument, and now you make your entire argument, when challenged rest on nothing but sarcasm, personal insult and schoolyard name-calling.

Fail.

You still evade my questions, you still flee disproof.

Fail.

Thank you for proving that climate policy is rationally indefensible and should be abolished.

Because I'm not a climatologist, all I can tell you Jardine is that every single time I've followed a denialist myth through to the peer-reviewed science, I have found the denialist myth to be lying or telling very clever half truths.

The irony here is I refer you to the IPCC or to the world's temperature databases or to projections of what climate change *means* for us, and you stamp your foot and sneer at all that as not proof, as an 'appeal to authority'. The irony is you have far more in common with Creationists than I do. I at least respect the science. You're the one sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "Not good enough, don't believe it, NOT GOOD ENOUGH!"

In my next post I'll put up my summary of what the science is saying. If you want to disagree, you'll need to find peer-reviewed science to back up a credible argument against it, because this is what I have found on the effects of climate change FROM peer-reviewed science. Now, if you want to stick your fingers in your ears and say THAT'S NOT EVIDENCE then you're reverting to your Creationist model of thought again, and demonstrating the irony of this whole situation. Like a Creationist, you're just refusing to READ more, aren't you? You WANT to be protected from some inconvenient truths by hiding behind a layer of stubborn ignorance. You WANT to just shout "NO EVIDENCE!" until someone has copied and pasted the entire IPCC report in here, and all the evidence the various Met offices and NASA have accumulated. Why? Because it's easy. It's trite. It's annoying, and you're an internet troll in love with the attention that a little climate-stirring gives you. Advice? If you don't like climate change, don't read about it. Go outside, breathe some fresh air, meet some people, and have a laugh. You'll live longer!

FAMINE is a potential disaster, with global grain output predicted to crash 20-25% by 2050. That’s in my kid’s lifetimes. Think of Syria. It was a political and ethnic powder keg, ready to blow. A climate-induced drought kicked a million farmers off the land and into the cities, sparking the war. Now imagine a world of 8 billion people with a quarter less food than today!

OCEANS rise as warmer water expands, and as land ice melts and pours into the sea. The current projections for 2100 are between 50cm to 1.5 meters, pressuring many coastal cities. This excludes ‘rapid dynamic’ shifts in ice sheets: in other words, they just don’t know if Greenland’s ice sheet will slip off. If it does, the oceans could rise over 6 meters, drowning most coastal cities. But at just 2 degrees of warming, millions will have to move due to rising sea levels.

EXTINCTIONS rise: at just 2 degrees of warming an estimated 30% of global species could be snuffed out. With warmer and more acidic oceans, coral bleaching will be widespread. But at 4 degrees — as early as 2070 if we continue burning fossil fuels — we lose 40% to 70% of species on earth! Now we’re talking about broader ecosystem collapse and a much more fragile biosphere.

STORMS — by which I really mean all extreme weather events, even sudden heatwaves that spark wildfires — will rise, with 1-in-500-year storms hitting more frequently. The atmosphere can carry another 5% moisture every degree it warms. It carries more water away faster, increasing both famines and floods. NASA has already named 2015 the hottest year on record by far, and all that extra energy is pushing weather to the extremes. Bushfires evolve into ‘mega-fires’, and insurance agencies wonder if they will continue to cover rural communities. The Arctic jet-stream is ‘drunk’ on the extra heat, and wobbles Arctic blizzards over North America in the middle of Spring! Heatwaves are becoming more severe, and with ‘wet bulb’ humidity will kill anyone in the equatorial regions without air-conditioning.

Jardine, you wrote "Have you ever argued with a Christian fundamentalist about evolution?"

A few days ago I had arguments with creationists ... they do not believe in evolution or science.

You do not appear to believe in scientific method; you use sophistry and insult.

But:

To survive, we need greenhouse gases, they have maintained temperature and an environment within which humans can survive. I believe that to be an apriori comment, true under all circumstances.

Since the Industrial Revolution greenhouse gases have increased.

“Before the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, global average CO2 was about 280 ppm. During the last 800,000 years, CO2 fluctuated between about 180 ppm during ice ages and 280 ppm during interglacial warm periods. Today’s rate of increase is more than 100 times faster than the increase that occurred when the last ice age ended.”

From

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/news/7074.html

Currently, CO2 is being measured at about 405 ppm (280 ppm in comparison to 405 ppm).

The question is what is causing an increase of greenhouse gases 100 times faster than when the last ice age ended:
Coal fired power plants
Deforestation
Set fires…Indonesia to create palm oil plantations, Amazon Basin
Internal combustion motors
Aircraft
Gas appliances
Soil ... Crowther et al

All of the above have been created and/or used by man and produce greenhouse gases, another apriori situation, true at all times.

A con of the 21 Century is to come up with the prospect of “clean coal” (an oxymoron), huge amounts of CO2 are still voided, and don’t look too closely at the costs.

To sum up, man has control over the amount of greenhouse gases exhausted into the atmosphere.

The US Department of Defence certainly believes climate change is happening and has just released documentation.

Quote:

"An updated US military strategy for the Arctic says “diminishing ice levels” due to warming temperatures pose a series of security risks to the country.

Released this week at the request of Alaska senator Dan Sullivan, a Republican, the 16-page document says the US must boost investment in its military assets around the North Pole.

“Diminishing sea ice will give rise to new economic opportunities in the region while simultaneously increasing concerns about human safety and protection of a unique ecosystem that many indigenous communities rely on for subsistence,” reads the Arctic Strategy."

From:

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/02/02/pentagon-arctic-melt-requires-updated-us-strategy/?utm_content=buffer7cd0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The Report:

http://www.sullivan.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2016_ArcticStrategy-Unclass.pdf

You are not climatologists, and this disqualifies you from any opinion on climate policy, according to you, end of story.

Jardine

David Rose, Delingpole, James Taylor, Joana Nova, Watts, Monckton, Whitehouse et al are not climatologists; yet, they write about how climatologists are wrong. They do not provide data to hold up their opinions.

We provide citations to science; when are you going to provide references to science?

Jardine,
sulking much?

Unfalsifiable beliefs = not science.

Appeal to authority = not science.

Bodging up results to arrive at foregone political conclusions = not science.

Unreplicatable results, hiding data and algorithms = not science.

Consensus science = not science. According to your theory of science, phlogiston was science.

Computer models as evidence, failed predictions = not science.

Jumble of illogic defended by patronising insult = not science.

You’re only making complete fools of yourself.

Only useful idiots or fraudulent parasites believe that sh!t, and even the latter don’t believe it.

Jardine:

In YOUR world:

In your world glaciers are not regressing.
The Arctic sea ice volume is the same as it was in 1979.
Rain bombs are not happening.
There is no such thing as blue sky day floods.
Oceans have not been warming.
Greenhouse gases have not been increasing.
Organisms have not been moving habitats.
Deforestation is not happening.
Wildfire seasons are not increasing.
Antarctic ice sheets are not being undermined through warm waters.
Melt pools/lakes have not been forming on Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets.
Disease vectors are not changing.
Coral bleaching has not been happening.
Greenhouse gases have little or no impact on climate.

In the world of science all of those matters have been found to be happening. Satellites provides data, instrumentation provides data, and observation provides evidence. In YOUR world scientific method is not used. Replicable experimentation does happen, first occurring in the 1850s; more sophisticated experimentation has happened; Max, has made many references to it.

In a world of alternative facts (often lies) climate science is mistaken; in the real world many science disciplines show consilience. Consilience means ... "agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, especially science and the humanities. "

Nature does not tell lies:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-04/mon-repos-turtles-hurting-in-heatwave-qld/8230036

You misuse the term appeal to authority, we produce references to science, you do not.

"An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert."

Examples of sites of non experts are Heartlands, Cato Institute, WUWT, IPA, Rose, Delingpole, Joanna Nova et al.

Examples of scientific Agencies are CSIRO, NASA, NOAA, JAXA et al; these Agencies provide data from the real world.

ant

I have shown why your beliefs are illogical, you have not answered my points, you lose, you fail, end of story.

Endlessly repeating your beliefs does not make them true, and neither does calling your illogic "science".

Your religious frenzy has no basis in reality.

I have shown that your belief system suffers from three fundamental flaws:

1. The *data* do not support your *assumptions*.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-04/mon-repos-turtles-hurting-in-heatwave-qld/8230036
http://www.sullivan.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2016_ArcticStrategy-Unclass.pdf
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/02/02/pentagon-arctic-melt-requires-updated-us-strategy/?utm_content=buffer7cd0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/news/7074.html
http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/comment-crazy-times-arctic
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/02/01/beyond-the-extreme-scientists-marvel-at-increasingly-non-natural-arctic-warmth/?sdfsdfsdfsdfsd&utm_term=.fdb0b0d1ff3d
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html#.WI_SkrZ9670
http://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf
http://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/ArcticResilienceReport-2016.pdf
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/
http://youtu.be/aDB7QBjxoW8
http://www.slate.com/blogs/
http://climate.nasa.gov/http://extranewsfeed.com/what-climate-skeptics-taught-me-about-global-warming-5c408dc51d32#.joydizarj
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/

By your own methodology, to your own standards, this constitutes a complete refutation of your argument.

Besides, you aren't a climatologist so by your argument, you are not qualified to have an opinion on the matter.

2. You have not shown any rational basis for your *assumption* that the detriments outweigh the benefits.

3. You have not shown any rational basis for your *assumption* that the benefits of policy outweigh the detriments.

The very when I offer you the means to falsify my argument and prove your beliefs correct, and you run away, and evade, and dodge, and wriggle, and squirm - do you think people can't notice this?

Your pretended concern for all mankind is fake. You support corrupt parasitism, braying hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, and fake ostentatious neo-Puritanism, that is all.

Fake, fake, fake.

Enjoy climate policy while it lasts.

Ah, Jardine hits us with a link bomb. Which particular paragraphs of which particular links do you think disprove something about climate change?

Dear JKJ,

Lol mate.

Haven't you dropped the 'logical fallacies shtick yet? I do remember having great fun going through the fallacies list with you when you seemed intend on displaying each one of the suckers. That was nearly 3 years ago.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14784#255862

And you never did answer my question about what it would take for you to ever accept AGW. Still no idea I assume?

Quite funny aren't you JKJ.
Some of the links won't open, others suggest climate change.
Some dishonesty.... or alternative facts?

JKJ

This is what is happening in the real world.

http://thinkprogress.org/disintegrating-polar-ice-sets-the-stage-for-societal-collapse-e9da953f6aed#.vsxwqeodg

Breakdown of Arctic sea ice has been happening over decades.