The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > So now Kyoto is a reality, will it get cooler? > Comments

So now Kyoto is a reality, will it get cooler? : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 16/2/2005

Jennifer Marohasy argues climate change is an ongoing process, regardless of carbon dioxide emissions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Snowman - we have had our "debate" on another forum so I am not going to reprise that entire debacle, except to say the following. I was directly challenged as to my right to join in that debate on global warming, and responded in good faith that I have a Bachelors degree with honours in science followed by a Masters degree.

These are my basic qualifications in science, which include working for a number of years as a scientist and publishing in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. They are not my complete academic qualifications. I subsequently moved on into another career path, but I retain what Martin Callinan has described in his posting as "experience" in the field to the extent that I can understand the methods and terminologies and follow the scientific debates these days without too much difficulty.

But essentially this should not matter here, as many others, including yourself, joined in the previous global warming debate without stating their qualifications and without being challenged on their right to have a say. I note for example, that when I asked my interrogator in that forum for his credentials in return, this was met with silence. That same interrogator, and others, cast serious aspersions on the scientific expertise of the author of that article, who happens works for Greenpeace, without even knowing what his formal qualifications were. I note also that the OLO editor did not intervene on that occasion to scold the many contributors who queried that author's credentials and motivations (see also the recent Caspar Conde forum).

Snowman, you have repeatedly glossed over or ignored my arguments put to you about the nature of scientific inquiry and consensus, the necessity for global modelling in place of experimental proof, the logical expectation that there will be anomolous observations over large time frames and within complex systems, and the relevance of cybernetics in steady-state systems and the mathematics of chaos theory. I say again, take your raw data up to the current experts in the field and argue them out in a proper scientific forum, otherwise I must conclude that you are afraid of being proved wrong by those experts - the first principle for any real scientist.

My doubts about your approach to sceptical inquiry are reinforced by your contribution to a recent forum where the constitutional structures of the USA and Australia were raised in relation to exporting democracy to Afghanistan. You demonstrated there an incomplete understanding of the separation of powers principle. Yet you felt confident enough to state your muddled case without any subsequent concession that you might be misinformed.

I suggest you try to address the questions that have been put by Martin Callinan to Jennifer, and provide us with some answers about yourself, since you have decided that my credentials are "second-rate" and not worthy of any further attention. I am also interested in Jennifer's responses to Martin, which go to the heart of my original comments about the motivations of her employer, the Institute of Public Affairs, in joining the public debate on global warming from a point of view that happens to support the economic interests of those who fund that organisation.
Posted by grace pettigrew, Thursday, 17 February 2005 9:22:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sayeret the sun has a quite fixed solar cycle of 11 years we had a peak in the solar cycle a few years ago. The output from the sun is less then 0.5 within this cycle. Because the global warming issue has been come very political Grace is correct in reminding people to look at who saying and not just what they are saying. Jennifer has joined a list of pressure groups who have interest in not cutting emission that is a fact. These pressure groups tend to wok in the space of trying to discredit, trivialize others work. This is always much easier then doing the research themselves. This is much the same tacit used by creation scientist against evolution. A continuing success of groups like this is the creation of a pressure group to try and stop a drink container deposit scheme Australia wide. The only state where a deposit scheme is in place is SA and roughly three times as many drink containers are returned there then any other state.The figure for pickaxe glass is over 90 %. So why would a pressure group be arguing against this?

Jennifer should come up with a climate model and demonstrate how it’s better.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 17 February 2005 9:32:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny,

A good clear, well thought out response. So why are the Martian Ice Caps melting? You never answered my question.
Posted by Sayeret, Thursday, 17 February 2005 9:36:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just to end my contribution to this thread, have a look at the following:
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=379

It reads in part:
“A petition circulated to scientists urging lawmakers to reject the Kyoto Protocol has been signed by over 17,000 individuals including over 2,000 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers and environmental scientists. An additional 4,400, according to the petition’s sponsors, are qualified to assess the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth’s plant and animal life and most of the remaining signers have technical training suitable to understanding climate change issues.
Posted by robertomelbourne1@bigpond.com, Thursday, 17 February 2005 10:48:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin, Kenny,

Let me say upfront that I believe something should be done about carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. There has been a steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels apparently from the burning of fossil fuels and this constitutes a form of pollution.

Kyoto, however, will not effectively address this issue with the more optimistic predictions suggesting a 1 per cent reduction in emissions (including the US and Australia in the deal) and at most a 0.15C reduction in temperatures.

Putting this to one side.

Can we agree:
1. There has never been a period in the earth's history when climate was constant?
2. Global temperature is influenced by more than atmospheric carbon dioxide levels?
3. Data from ice-cores and sediment cores indicated that the earth goes through cooling and warming cycles. The warm cycles - also known as interglacial warm periods - tend to last about 10,000 years?

(If there is credible data/information/evidence available that disproves the above I would be keen to see it.)

Accepting points 1-3:
1. The idea that we can stop climate change by signing Kyoto is nonsense.
2. It would be useful to put effort into planning for the next ice age as well as working out what to do about reducing emissions from the burning of fossil fuels - and the two are not mutually exclusive.

This is essentially my thesis, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being from the right or left of politics.

Cheers, Jennifer
Posted by Jennifer, Thursday, 17 February 2005 11:00:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nobody has suggested that signing Kyoto would stop climate change. That is a furphy not a thesis.

The proposition is that signing Kyoto would be a first step in addressing a mounting global problem through international cooperation. This is as much a political issue as a scientific one, and reflects on our position as a responsible global citizen. Everyone agrees that there is much more work to be done, including more scientific research, and further negotiations on national responsibilities. We should be there at the table.

Australia is now locked out of this discussion on future directions, along with the USA, Leichtenstein and Monaco. By standing virtually alone as an international pariah, we stand to lose out on the benefits that flow from international agreements, including the economic benefits of joining the global carbon trading market, and the potential for innovation in developing technologies and the business investment that follows
Posted by grace pettigrew, Thursday, 17 February 2005 12:27:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

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