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 > Copenhagen: things fall apart and an uncertain future looms > Comments

Copenhagen: things fall apart and an uncertain future looms : Comments

By Bill McKibben, published 24/12/2009

The Copenhagen summit turned out to be little more than a charade.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
The first sentence is correct "It’s possible that human beings will simply never be able to figure out how to bring global warming under control" I do realise my context is different to the authors, but on face value ....

After that you realise this poor person is delusional, like many others, in thinking reducing the level of one gas is going to affect the climate, to the exact point required. Or that COP15 was about science, it was always about money, e.g. G77.

Whether man is contributing to a warmer climate or not aside, it seems somewhat couragous to believe man can control the climate.

Climate is clearly extremely complex, much more so than the scientists who inhabit that space will admit, indeed they would have you think they can actually predict what is going to happen.

When the climate disagrees with their predictions, they then doctor the data so it agrees, regardless of reality. The lure of fame and fortune is clearly large in academia.

To expect results from the UN is further evidence of a lack of reality. Blaming China fits the mold though, it has to be someone's fault, someone else. I expect there will be burning of effigies now, or is that only reserved for conservative Presidents? Believers shuold all go to China and DEMAND that they comply, that should be fun.

Mind you I guess as a skeptic I have to be pleased that someone else has the blame for the lack of "success" of COP15. I see it as success that they got no result, so even if the author is unhappy, many of us are ecstatic.
Posted by odo, Thursday, 24 December 2009 10:33:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course, Copenhagen was always going to be a flop, with a collection of the globe’s leading confidence tricksters and show ponies arguing, blaming one another, and generally making prats of themselves.

Just like this bloke, with his 350.org nonsense. Once they try to make a reputation (and money) for themselves, they can't stop; they keep on spinning the wheel, like problem gamblers, hoping that the their number will come up
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 24 December 2009 10:44:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's almost a case of words failing me.
Puny little man thinks that he can control the climate?
How gullible is the human being that, after a few thousand years he presumes that he can take control of the weather.
The gullible will never learn.
Posted by phoenix94, Thursday, 24 December 2009 10:46:01 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
So, let's see. We have an IPCC process that is now incontrovertibly corrupted, relying almost solely on data that is, at best, dodgy, at worst invalid. This is the same IPCC which has for about 20 years point blank refused to validate the surface temperature record. We now know why.

Most significantly, the entire theory is not working: carbon dioxide emissions continue to increase, temperatures decline rather than rise, so the one thing we can not say is that global warming is driven by carbon dioxide. The Climategate email by Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, acknowledged that reality contradicts the hysterics' claims about global warming:

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t."

And the cost of doing what was being proposed by our own prime minister and others would be economically catastrophic. Climate economist Professor Richard Tol has estimated that the Copenhagen deal would have cost global GDP $40 trillion (US) a year by 2100.

A large chunk of that was to be handed over to murderous third world dictatorships in the pathetic belief that it would be used to help "stop climate change". Doesn't anybody remember the corruption associated with the UN's Food for Oil program?

Copenhagen went ahead despite the Climategate scandal and failed. Good. We dodged the bullet.

Yet people like McKibben still want to pontificate about global warming as though it's really happening. Who's a denier now?
Posted by KenH, Thursday, 24 December 2009 11:12:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another nail was placed in the AGW coffin recently when the Wikipedia 'gatekeeper' for the AGW cabal was outed: William Connolley, who has single-handedly written or edited over 4,500 articles relating to global warming, usually to minimise or exclude sceptical viewpoints:

http://tinyurl.com/yby6aqr

Is this kind of systemic bias consistent with a group that really believes 'the science is settled', and 'the data speak for themselves'?

I think Rudd is smart enough to recognise that Copenhagen was really a win; it has bought him a few more years to wait while AGW alarmism loses its grip on the public. Meanwhile he has fine scapegoats in the shape of the Chinese and the small developing nations whose bluff was called. Somehow AGW hysteria loses its appeal when it ceases to be an abstract menace and actually starts costing us money.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 24 December 2009 11:46:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These words spoken 10 years ago by my favourite Spiritual "philosopher".

"There have always been insane human beings,but,in earlier times,they were not as powerful as they have become in this "late-time". It is only in this "late-time" that human beings have become capable of producing effects that can change even global weather patterns, and global ecological patterns of all kinds. ..... But now, in its motion into the twenty-first century, the insanity of humankind is influencing even the larger picture of the human natural circumstance. And THIS MUST BE CHANGED---or there is going to be a terrible, horrific calamity on Earth! Such a calamity is not yet inevitable, but it WILL occur if there is not a fundamental transformation of mankind---in its heart and mind, and in its endeavors. A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTENING of the world-process must occur, because mankind is now having a PROFOUNDLY NEGATIVE effect on the human world-process, and even on the larger natural domain of the world."

But then again we Westerners in particular dont seem to even begin to be capable of understanding the significance of the appearance of The Avataric Divine Incarnation in our midst.

Why for instance was He born in that fateful year of 1939?
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 24 December 2009 12:25:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps the most damning thing about the Copenhagen flop is that it didn't flop because of the blatant fraud involved in the climatology, nor because of the indubitable moral and intellectual bankruptcy of totalitarian government, both of which should have been sufficient to scotch the proceedings.

It failed merely because the various assembled states couldn't figure out how to scam all their subject populations simultaneously, to the mutual satisfaction of all states.
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 24 December 2009 12:45:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Hume, love your work. You put your finger exactly on it.
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 24 December 2009 12:54:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr McKibben almost had me under his spell until I was jolted awake by his reference to the "sense of history that often mark(s Obama's) words".
This made me immediately suspicious of everything else he had to say.
If he can't see that Obama's sense of history is ahistorical then how can we trust McKibbens science?
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson121909.html

Ho Hum,
Seeing as I was talking about being under someone's spell-
I like your quote but I find this one gives greater insight into his character:
"I am what this room looks like.
I see the room as it really is.
I know what everything is."
You can't beat that for self-effacing spirituality.
http://www.adidam.org/audio-video/video/radical-truth-1.aspx
Posted by HermanYutic, Thursday, 24 December 2009 1:54:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“It’s possible that human beings will simply never be able to figure out how to bring global warming under control…”

Of course it can be brought under control. First, unfettered consumerism must be brought under control. Secondly, Corporate America must be wiped off the face of this earth. Corporate America has set the agenda to globalise the world so that they can bring all the powerful organisations and the world governments under their control. They promote consumerism which is the main reason behind the big increase in carbon emission. Thirdly, avoid buying consumer goods made in China.

When the financial crisis hit the world in 2007, the price of crude oil dropped by from about $150 to $50. Industrial production was almost at a standstill and people were more careful how they spend their money, buying only the essential things.

Obama and Hilary Clinton have been bought over by Corporate America.

Obama had to bail out the crooks responsible for the economic meltdown because they funded his campaign. He sent more troops to Afghanistan and Iraq to ensure the oil and opium fields are under the control of Corporate America.

Obama is the Uncle Tom of Corporate America and the Saudi “royal” family.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6TzcoCS2wk&NR=1 (Who is the enemy?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuaXcnFfn74&feature=PlayList&p=BA96E6470699A442&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1 (British and Saudis promote terrorism)
Posted by Philip Tang, Thursday, 24 December 2009 2:07:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
odo, Leigh, phoenix94, KenH, Jon J, Ho Hum, google "Global Dimming", or GD, "the shade cloth effect". This scientifically explains perfectly, why co2 emissions, could rise, without raising temperatures. The green/red/labour coalition propagandists continue to avoid debating or even acknowledging its existence, despite the hard data.

Peter Hume & Amicus, Oh yes, "the truth will out". They never cared about AGW, just another excuse to tax everybody, except the rich, create more bureaucracy & green/red/left NGOs.

Happy crass mess everybody, keep on blogging, maybe one day the politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, femanists & academics will stop trying to lie to us everyday.
Posted by Formersnag, Thursday, 24 December 2009 3:44:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“the most important nations chose not to go the route of truth-telling”

This should read “all nations…”, meaning all nations at the hot air fest.

The only nation, which has chosen the route of telling the truth, was not at the Copenhagen gathering.

The Czech Republic is the only nation which tells the truth about the global warming scam. Its citizens know, because their President has told them, that global warming scare mongering is based on lies, and has no validity.

He went to the trouble of writing a book, "Blue Planet, Green Shackles", which gives a comprehensive explanation. There is only 11% of the population, there, believes in AGW. The other 89% believes the truth.

The President, Vaclav Klaus, has approached many world leaders for their support, in exposing the global warming fraud, and has been uniformly rebuffed.

There is no scientific basis for asserting that human emissions cause global warming.

The IPCC Summary, devious and misleading as it is, does not go so far as to say that emissions from human activity cause global warming. It says that it is “very likely”.

A statement by me that it is “very unlikely”, has the same scientific validity. None.

The IPCC assert that this statement, worthless as it is from a scientific point of view, is supported by “thousands of scientists”. It was, in fact, reviewed by 700 odd scientists, of which seven, of the unconflicted scientists, agreed with it.

These are the considerations ignored, in order to cater to the requirements of the morally bereft UN, to have a baseless gabfest, aimed at defrauding the civilized world.

This article completely sidesteps the fact that Copenhagen should never have been convened.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 24 December 2009 4:37:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<Puny little man thinks that he can control the climate?
How gullible is the human being that, after a few thousand years he presumes that he can take control of the weather.>>

Not one "man"..... 5 billion of them.

The ignorant will never learn.
Posted by mikk, Friday, 25 December 2009 8:38:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As stated by US Senator John Kerry

“There isn’t a nation on the planet where the evidence of the impacts of climate change isn’t mounting. Frankly, those who look for any excuse to continue challenging the science have a fundamental responsibility which they have never fulfilled: Prove us wrong or stand down. Prove that the pollution we put in the atmosphere is not having the harmful effect we know it is. Tell us where the gases go and what they do. Pony up one single, cogent, legitimate, scholarly analysis. Prove that the ocean isn’t actually rising; prove that the ice caps aren’t melting, that deserts aren’t expanding. And prove that human beings have nothing to do with any of it. And by the way — good luck!”
Posted by Andy1, Friday, 25 December 2009 11:23:54 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
"Kumi Naidoo, the wonderful head of Greenpeace International..." self-appointed collectors of money from the gullible on the basis of scares. Just as Chaucer's Pardoner collected money from ignorant peasants by waving around a piece of animal bone masquerading as a holy relic.

"James Hansen, the great climate scientist who started the global warming era..." and who was also a global cooling freak before that but who is now more famous for "adjusting" the GISS temperature data, without explanation and always in the direction of warming (just like the guys at the CRU East Anglia University) and for wanting anybody who disagrees with him sent to a Nuremburg-style trial and presumably executed. Nice gang, those warmers.

By judging the "wonderful" and "great", McKibben expects to be regarded himself as wonderful and great. No, buddy, you're just gushing.

As for that other political genius, John Kerry...Like you, Andy1, apparently he's never understood that you can't prove a negative. He and presumably you are making the proposition that the world is warming. The onus is on him or you to produce evidence to support that, not on others to disprove the crap.

But since you're quoting Kerry as an authority, I guess that won't be happening.

That's the odd thing about warmers, they say the evidence for warming is overwhelming, but they never actually produce any evidence. Except "adjusted" data and computer models which have never been validated against observed reality. And, of course, Mann's fatuous "hockey stick" graph. You don't have to be a climate scientist to recognise a scam.
Posted by KenH, Friday, 25 December 2009 1:07:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to Professor Will Steffen, Director of the the ANU Climate Change Institute and advisor of the Department of Climate Change:

1. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

2. At continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous long term changes in climate have been observed. These include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heatwaves and the intensity of tropical cyclones.

3. Palaeoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years. The last time polar regions were significantly warmer than at present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 m of sea level rise.

4. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid 20th century is very likely1 due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.

5. Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century."

According to Professor Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impacts and advisor of the German Government: “We’re simply talking about the very life support system of this planet.”
Posted by Andy1, Friday, 25 December 2009 1:36:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regarding the world's three great religions:

Christianity,
Islam,
Global Warming,

- I don't subscribe to any of them.

Christianity I find the least offensive because I'm not a pregnant woman seeking to dispose of her child and I'm not a homosexual seeking public endorsement of my sexual behaviour.

Islam seeks to impose a global caliphate where Islamophobes like me would be offered the opportunity to recant or be beheaded.
Being a coward, I would obviously recant but I wouldn't fancy staring into the arses of the Meccaligners in front of me at the local mosque five times a day.
I would rather stare at the arses of their womenfolk but this would be denied me.
I would have to seek solace in drink...
which small pleasure would also be denied me.
Maybe beheading would be less painful in the long run.

Global Warmists also seek to impose a global regime where their High Priests jet around the world proselytising, punishing and taxing ordinary folk who just want to enjoy themselves before they die.
I have a dream where all the global-warmists and their over-population counterparts simply remove themselves from the equation, never again to contribute to global warming or overpopulation.
Problem solved.

Many millions before them have made the utimate sacrifice based on their belief in God and country.
Here's the opportunity to do it for the entire planet!

And then the rest of us non-believers could live in peace.
Posted by HermanYutic, Friday, 25 December 2009 2:34:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal..."

IF you believe their claims.

"2. At continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous long term changes in climate have been observed...including droughts, heavy precipitation, heatwaves and the intensity of tropical cyclones."

The incidence of extreme weather events has actually declined over the last ten years -- which suggests why you shouldn't believe their data.

"3. Palaeoclimate information supports the interpretation..."

So studies of 300,000 years of dodgy and approximate climate records are somehow sensitive enough to indicate when a period of 50 years is 'unusual'? Oh, come now! And speaking of the last 1,300 years, what happened in the 'unusual' Medieval Warm Period, which Michael Mann and his cohorts have done their best -- but failed -- to hide?

"4. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations..."

Go on to Google Earth with an old atlas at your side and see for yourself how much -- or how little -- sea levels have risen in the last 50 years or so. Even if you extrapolate that out for a couple of hundred years it still doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

"5. Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century."

IF you believe their data. But why should you?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/global-warming-skepticism-101/
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/warmest_ever_or_getting_cooler.html

"According to Professor Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impacts and advisor of the German Government: “We’re simply talking about the very life support system of this planet.”"

What proportion of the $US79 billion spent on climate change research does Prof Schellnhuber obtain in grants from various government bodies?

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/

How much would he be gathering if he announced that global warming was a non-problem? Let's have some opinions from people who don't stand to benefit financially and professionally from spreading alarm and hysteria.
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 25 December 2009 2:36:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see that Herman couldn't go for a single day without spreading the hate.

How very sad.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 25 December 2009 3:00:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon.J - "Let's have some opinions from people who don't stand to benefit financially and professionally from spreading alarm and hysteria."

Absolutely, it's been noted before that any skeptical opinion articles are attacked immediately by the usual suspects if the author is not a climate scientist - so where are they when rubbish is sprouted by AGW believers who are not climate scientists?

What a bunch of hypocrites and they wonder why skepticism is on the rise, here's a hint, the believer side of the so called debate is riddled with obvious self interest and deliberate obfuscation.

Clear all the trickery and let's see what's left, except it's so muddled and convoluted, no one would believe it now even if it was discombobulated.

The climate scientists have done this to themselves in their haste to make financial and professional benefit.
Posted by rpg, Friday, 25 December 2009 4:50:01 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
Andy1,

You're a great one for quoting "authorities".

Steffen is just another academic on the gravy train. Those global average air and ocean temperatures he talks about are the "adjusted" data from the University of East Anglia CRU and GISS in the US - the same folks who won't release the unadjusted data or explain why and how they have adjusted them. Not worth a pinch until they do that.

Steffen and his ilk have had billions to play with for at least three decades and they haven't moved one inch towards"proving" anything. Best they can do is make empty statements like those you quote from Kerry, Steffen and Schellnhuber. Note how wildly generalised they are.

By the way, do you actually know anything about this stuff, or are you just going to continue quoting the self-serving opinions of others?
Posted by KenH, Friday, 25 December 2009 5:09:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The argument is over because there never was an argument, only lies. There is NO Global Warming, CO2 is NOT a factor in climate change, the seas levels are NOT rising. There is no climate calamity coming.

We now know what the lies are, who lied and how they corrupted the data. But now we also know WHY its was done.

The UN has deliberately nurtured a small (40) group corrupt climate scientists for years through selective financing of research who have gradually closed off avenues for alternative opinions, all for the UN's own devious long term goals.

There is a real possibility of a VERY serious calamity if the West signs legally binding treaties. The UN has attempted to pull off one of the biggest scams of all time and may yet succeed.

You see the Treaty, and I have read it, says the developing world is to be financed by Western developed countries forever and without end. There is no 'out' clause. This is in reparation for our supposed 'carbon debt' for which the developing countries, including China are held to be completely innocent. The Treaty also includes automatic UN ownership of all technology patents and subsequent transfer of these to the developing world.

We will have to fund the developing world forever through Carbon Debts, because as our current development progresses,we incur more and more "debt" for which we will have to pay them more and more money. You see its the perfect scam. The more we progress the more we owe them. We can never pay our debt off.

Taxes will be gradually increased to pay this debt. Look out for the Henry Report and for Rudd's new taxation system which will no doubt increase Taxes.

It has been suggested that if a country is unable to pay their debt it may be required for them to cede their lands to the UN under various Heritage or Wildlife protection funds instead thus losing sovreignty of the land as they are bound by an enforceable Legal Agreement.

We are millimetres away from the abyss.
Posted by Atman, Saturday, 26 December 2009 12:25:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hermanyutic--a further quote re how Adi Da perceives everything.

"Through the bodily eyes, I can look into the room, but I am literally seeing everywhere. It is an extraordinary process beyond ordinary human comprehension.

My Consciousness is not local, not bound by "point of view". My sensitivity is a Spiritual sensitivity, and it is universalized, I am extended literally everywhere. Reality Itself is not a "point of view".

Also http://www.dabase.org/embrace.htm

He is not an ordinary religious or Spiritual Teacher but The Avataric Divine Incarnation. And as such He is Consciously alive as all beings and things. That is, quite literally everything, including all of space and time, past, present and future.

That is why he can warn us with complete certainty that unless we change our ways altogether we will destroy ourselves and all of Earthkind too. And that we are already doing so.

That is why He wrote this book. http://www.dabase.org/not2.htm

I gather your name is a play on the word hermeneutics.

That is exactly what Adi Da did. That is, beginning with his philosophy 101 class at Columbia University, he engaged the most complete and thorough examination of ALL of the philosophical and cultural propositions of Humankind that has ever been done.
Posted by Ho Hum, Saturday, 26 December 2009 8:21:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ho Hum,
It appears to be part of the human condition that searchers will be drawn to those who claim to have found.
If the resulting symbiotic relationship does not impact negatively on anyone else, what's the harm?
Apart, perhaps, from whiling away one's life in a delusional state.
Having said that, I do detect a minor stumbling block in Adi Da's Global Cooperative Order (or is that Forum?).
It "requires a profound transformation of human consciousness and human activity."
http://www.dabase.org/p2anthro.htm
Lotsa luck and I hope your Mum's not too worried about you.
Posted by HermanYutic, Saturday, 26 December 2009 1:06:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At a guess, I'd say this Adi Da character probably needs treatment for schizophrenia or at least to get back on his medication.

If he actually has a following, they'll probably all end up drinking Kool Aid in some jungle camp.

The world has had a long history of mystics who claimed universal knowledge and wisdom. Fortunately, we've managed to get along without them.
Posted by KenH, Saturday, 26 December 2009 1:26:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's a good chance we will fail to deal with climate change. The mess we'll end up in won't be because climate scientists have decieved us, it'll be because so many people are so willing to believe that. Despite the fact that the best arguments deniers have are that a hot spike in a solid long term warming trend shows the world is cooling - utter nonsense - and that scientists are engaged in some kind of grand conspiracy - more nonsense. It's clear that they need to make up for lack of scientific substance with accusations and noise. As governments edge closer to taking real action the noise will only get louder.

I'll take my climate science off the institutions that study climate - as do most of the world's governments - even when their actual policies are more about doing the least they can do whilst not upsetting the entrenched status-quo and vested interests that have cash flows that make all the world's scientific funding look like pocket change.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Saturday, 26 December 2009 3:29:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Climate change since the 18th century is represented by a rise of the mean global temperature by about 0.8oC, with an additional 0.5oC currently masked by emitted sulphur aerosols, which increases the albedo of the atmosphere in the short term.

Mean temperature rises in the Arctic and Antarctic polar regions, about 3 to 4 times higher than the global average, result in high rates of ice melt, which threatens the sources of cold ocean currents and cold air vortices which cool and introduce precipitation to mid-latitude regions, including Australia.

The rise of CO2 from 280 parts per million, the normal level of the interglacial period, to 388 ppm, and of total CO2 and methane to a CO2-equivalent of 460 ppm, is tracking toward the upper stability limit of the Antarctic ice sheet, defined at about 500 ppm

The current rise of CO2 at a rate 2 ppm per year is unprecedented since 55 million years ago, a time when large scale release of methane resulted in a major greenhouse event and mass extinction of species.

Climate change is a direct result of the emission of more than 320 billion tons of carbon (BtC) as CO2 since the 18th century, more than half the previous concentration of the gas in the atmosphere in pre-industrial times. About 200 BtC stay in the atmosphere.

A major danger is represented by the potential large scale release of methane, hundreds of BtC of which locked in permafrost and sediments in the Arctic circle and surrounds may be destabilized as the polar regions warm.

Major consequences of climate change include migration of climate zones toward the poles, with attendant long-term droughts, extreme weather events and ocean acidification which, combined with warming oceans, threaten the marine food chain and reefs, including the Great Barrier Reef.
Posted by Andy1, Saturday, 26 December 2009 3:45:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lost all too often in the climate debate is an appreciation of the delicate balance between the physical and chemical state of the atmosphere-ocean-land system and natural habitats, which controls the emergence, survival and demise of species, including humans.

Human agriculture could only develop in river valleys from about 7000 years ago, when the climate stabilized and a balance was achieved between mountain glaciers and the monsoons, allowing near-constant river flow and thereby irrigation. A rise in mean global temperature results in melting of the mountain glaciers, such as in the Himalaya, disrupting the great rivers of south and southeast Asia and the cultivation on which the lives of hundreds of millions of people depends.

While decade-long climate trends manifest global warming, superposition by the El Nino – La-Nina cycle and the 11 years-long sunspot cycle results in a zigzag upward trend. As the globe warms and the energy levels of the atmosphere and the increase, the amplitude of climate variability is increasing. Following steep mean global warming by about 0.45oC from 1975 to 1997, a major El-Nino peak in 1998 drove mean global temperature upward by another 0.2oC. Following this peak temperature continued to rise by about 0.2oC between 1999 and 2005, followed during 2007-2008 by a strong La-Nina phase which brought temperatures down by about 0.4-0.5oC. Currently temperatures are rising, heralding a new El-Nino phase.

As distinct from changes in the weather, which can vary sharply by tens of degrees over short periods, a medium to long term upward trend of mean global temperatures by several degrees Celsius results in progressive shift in climate zones toward the poles. This ensues in drying of the mid-latitudes, such as southeast and southwest Australia, sea level rise, ocean acidification and intensification of extreme weather events, including floods and fires.
Posted by Andy1, Saturday, 26 December 2009 3:51:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andy has recycled his dreary post from 5 December.

Andy, given Climategate, there's no point in defending the anthropogenic-CO2-causes-global-warming bag, because the bag is empty and that cat has left.

Global cooling is real, Andy. Since about 2001, anyway.

The only chip the warmers have got to play is whether the CRU and GISS gang will come clean and explain how and why the raw data was adjusted. Oh, and hand over the raw data for real scientists to check.

The UEA CRU and NASA GISS guys are in an interesting position: continue to refuse to hand over the raw data and their explanation of how and why data were adjusted and they have no credibility; hand it over and they may have no jobs.

Apart from adjusted data, Andy, what have you got? Theories? Computer models? Hide the decline?

Snap out of it, Andy. You'll just have to go look for a new area of interest before you write your next grant application. Best be quick and avoid the rush.
Posted by KenH, Saturday, 26 December 2009 6:59:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Climatologists say human activity is warming the planet" and ignores the Sun and the regular elliptical orbit of Earth that has for the past many years been bringing Earth closer to the heat and for the next many years further away. The NASA Earth satellite currently orbiting the poles has detected huge snow deposition in the Arctiv which might well be so if the current weather in the North is an indication. However,rising affluence of the poorer nations, and demands on the World resources from the extra 2.8 billion souls in the next 40 years ( U.N. figures), an increase of one third, will have a much greater impact,the potential of which has yet to be imagined. As an engineering thinker and amateur plantsman, increasing the CO2 in a closed environment rapidly increases plant growth. What difference is this mini environment to the atmospheric mantle protecting the Earth? If scientists and climatologists have shown that atmospheric CO2 has reached such alarming levels (but have they?) then my tomatoes should be size of footballs. More so when Mt. Mayon is spewing its pyroclastics and gases into the mantle for weeks and the bushfires adding a great deal more. So where does that leave the science?
Posted by Hei Yu, Monday, 28 December 2009 3:52:05 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
Studying the carbon footprints of countries is fraught with the danger of ignorance.
Firstly, do we have the current data?
Is it valid?
What methods are used to evaluate the output?
And finally is it credible?
What I can’t find is exactly that!
The figures I quote am wiki figures, which are open to dispute and alteration. They go as far back as 2006.Nature has this funny habit of exponentiation, I doubt whether there is any relationship between now and then, except that they’re worse.
Unfortunately that’s where the problems start.
Do we take the output totals as a valid comparison or do we use per capita?
If we use per capita then on the 20006 figures Australia is number 1 at (18.74) followed by the USA (18.67), yet I don’t see any of you holier than though types criticizing Australia for its woeful comparison...
Yet you’re all prepared to jump on the bandwagon when it’s time to knock the USA.
I bet you all ranted and raved about how finally the USA had elected a black president and how No Drama Obama was going to b the savior of the world. Duh reality checks time huh.
So tell me how Australia comes up with the worst pollution figures and at the same time does the least to even sign up to any carbon emission scheme.
The emphasis of course is on SCHEME.
What joke?
Posted by thomasfromtacoma, Monday, 28 December 2009 4:10:07 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
Rapid climate change is happening in the present time, as manifested by polar ice melt,sea level rise, extensive droughts in Australia, China, Argentina and the US, extreme weather events, and acidification of the oceans. Climate scientists have projected the current trends since the 1980s, including authorities such as Professor James Hansen and his group (NASA), Professor Wally Broecker (Columbia University), Dr Barrie Pittock, Dr Graeme Pearman and Dr Ian Enting (CSIRO). The atmospheric energy rise exerted by the well-mixed greenhouse gases, mainly CO2 and methane, is consistent with the basic laws of physics and chemistry and with calculations and observations in nature and the laboratory. Measurements of solar radiation and cosmic rays rule out these factors as drivers of climate change since the mid-20th century.

The fast rise in carbon emissions (41% since 1990) is driving global temperature, ice melt rates and sea levels. The zigzag nature of temperature rise since the mid-1970s results from the combination of the warming trend with (A) the natural El-Nino – La-Nina cycle (ENSO – El Nino Southern Oscillation) driven by ocean current pulsations, and (B) the 11 years-long sun spot cycle. This results in an overall rising zigzag pattern of temperature change.

As temperature increase, reflecting the level of energy in the atmosphere-ocean-land system, the amplitude of climate variability and the likelihood of extreme weather events increase. While decade-long climate trends manifest global warming, superposition by the El Nino – La-Nina cycle and the 11 years-long sunspot cycle results in a zigzag upward trend. As the globe warms and the energy levels of the atmosphere and the increase, the amplitude of climate variability is increasing. Following steep mean global warming by about 0.45oC from 1975 to 1997, a major El-Nino peak in 1998 drove mean global temperature upward by another 0.2oC. Following this peak temperature continued to rise by about 0.2oC between 1999 and 2005, followed during 2007-2008 by a strong La-Nina phase which brought temperatures down by about 0.4-0.5oC. Currently temperatures are rising, heralding a new El-Nino phase
Posted by Andy1, Monday, 28 December 2009 6:36:23 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
Too much Passion and not enough "Science of Integrity" in the end Truth prevailed and the whole show smoked into the dustbin where it belonged leaving Rudd and Wong "frantically dancing" like Banshee's with their underpants on fire , in ever diminishing circles frantically screaming "Bovine Poo Baffles Brains Every Time" , and no doubt in cool times of reflection since are pondering the Cranial
Integrity of the average man .
Posted by ShazBaz001, Monday, 28 December 2009 2:13:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 24 December 2009 12:25:09 PM : Your favorite Philosopher ; would that be Dolly Parton or Billy Graham ?
Posted by ShazBaz001, Monday, 28 December 2009 2:38:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andy,

You're quoting HANSEN as an authority? The guy who keeps adjusting data (ever upwards) but won't say why or how? The guy who won't release his data either?

Andy, I thought we had an agreement about your continuing appeals to authority? Mind you, I'd have to concede that Hansen's status as an authority figure is shakey, though McKibben thinks he's "the great James Hansen", for what that's worth.

Andy, did you notice that at Copenhagen they agreed to "keep warming below two degrees Celsius" - dropped the "climate change" spin? You're an expert, Andy, so tell us, how are they going to do that? No, really.

Seriously, Andy, the global warming scam is over. All that remains is to punish those responsible. Perhaps somebody will take up Hansen's suggestion of Nuremburg-style trials, followed by executions, because that's what happened in the original Nuremburg trials. Since you're not an historian, perhaps you didn't appreciate that.

I did some post-grad work in history, Andy. Back in those days, of course, we didn't have the benefit of computer models. We were obliged to produce stuff called "evidence" and put it together in a logical way to support a thesis. Yes, I know, times have changed. I blame post-modernism.

You don't know how lucky you are being a "climate scientist". Nils-Axel Morner - now there's an authority - says sea level rise is inconsequential and he's got hard data to prove it. As a climate scientist, you're free to ignore him and just say we'll drown.

They give you a nice office on a quiet, leafy campus. They give you money to attend international conferences - yes, I know, to hell with carbon emissions. And you get to work with people who agree with everything you say, because somebody got rid of those other guys.

And when the academics union goes on strike, you don't have to come in on Thursdays either.
Posted by KenH, Monday, 28 December 2009 4:40:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well haven't the denialists created the ideal situation; one where nothing, ever is able to change their mind. The science? Part of a vast conspiracy to benefit themselves and others in their nefarious scheme. Peer review? Corrupted by the conspiracy. Direct experience? Not real. It isn't happening. Or if it's happening it's just the natural variations in climate. Too easy. If everything that supports the concept of AGW is dismissed, how easy it is to walk in the door with half-baked science, bizarre and absurd conspiracies and denialism that is every bit as deep and disturbed as that shown during the holocaust. What would satisfy you that AGW exists?
Posted by next, Monday, 28 December 2009 9:06:01 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
Whilst I hate to disparage a good article.
I would like to know:
1 How the author differentiates the burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields with the co2 emissions from the planet.
2 How the constant spewing of what the traditionalist Christian moron might say is the “fire and brimstone, constantly, (that’s continuously for all you quantum physicists out there that think you can measure nature), being introduced to the atmosphere?
3 how do you compare that to the puny man made mechanisms so EASILY monitored and changed with technology?
If one thing the scientist has taught us its skepticism.
Remember the ozone issues and the panic that caused not the least about the amount of sun burn cream it sold.
How tragically that died and none too soon either.
Now we have global warming. Ho hums more trivia from the so called sconces brigade.
Posted by thomasfromtacoma, Tuesday, 29 December 2009 5:46:57 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
Next - I have to agree. What's more dismaying to me than the absolute disbelief of so many commenters who dismiss the vast body of scientific knowledge in favour of the flimsiest of arguments and weakest of accusations is governments that give lip service to the reality of climate change whilst actively supporting massive expansion of fossil fuel mining and export.
It's not so much that voices such as we get around here have any great influence, it's that no voices, including those from the world's leading scientific institutions, count for anything where industries like coal and gas are concerned.

Thus Qld government is allocating $74M to climate change and renewables and $1,758M to coal subsidies and export infrastructure expansion. The projected financial returns on the latter won't take into consideration the climatic - and geopolitical - costs and consequences of locking in ever greater global reliance on fossil fuels.

I can only presume the strident voices insisting AGW is fake will simply claim it's all natural when warming continues and takes us into the realms of irreversibly damaging climate change.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Tuesday, 29 December 2009 6:17:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ken no-hope
I guess you think that the Kuwaiti oilfields was just a wiener roast or the ozone layer wasn’t a dreamt up science myth.
When someone actually quantifies the risk to the planet in a credible manner then you deserve the criticism you so desperately need.
Have you not heard of the Gaia principal?
Unfortunately you just pontificate with suggestion and innuendo,
Name dropping and stating the irrefutable without backup.
Instead of scientific based facts.
I dare you to quote one reputable scientist apart from (David Suzuki, the guru who btw wants the death penalty for transgressors), to come forward and put his /her reputation on the line and
State: “the global warming issue that isn’t a cyclic condition.”
So as long s you understand the GW issue isn’t any more than a political scheme to deprive us of more hard earned cash via taxation.
How much has been wasted on political representation on an issue that can’t and won’t be solved until it is economically viable.
Do you honestly think that Rudd and Obama et al go to the holiday resorts to talk about these issues? Well Bali beach conference 1, 2 and 3 worked so why not 4, 5 and 6. Rudd is still attempting to get over his image of an airline abuser after his dummy spitting.
Until you realize the motivation for this issue it will always be known as a Global Wxxxxkers issue
Posted by thomasfromtacoma, Tuesday, 29 December 2009 9:29:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Next",

I agree with your statements "Well haven't the denialists created the ideal situation; one where nothing, ever is able to change their mind. The science? Part of a vast conspiracy to benefit themselves and others in their nefarious scheme. Peer review? Corrupted by the conspiracy. Direct experience? Not real. It isn't happening. Or if it's happening it's just the natural variations in climate. Too easy. If everything that supports the concept of AGW is dismissed, how easy it is to walk in the door with half-baked science, bizarre and absurd conspiracies and denialism that is every bit as deep and disturbed as that shown during the holocaust. What would satisfy you that AGW exists?".

No amount of direct observations and measurements will convince those whose objection to science is ideological, rather than reality check, direct evidence and calculations. With climate one does not even need to look at the science, just travel around the world, look at the devasation inflicted by melting mountain glaciers, droughts, depletion of water resources, intensifying hurricanes and fires. Ask the local farmers about changes in the climate and environment over the last 20-30 years.

Parallels include earlier debates regarding ozone depletion, or the link between tobacco smoking and cancer, i.e. wherever such issues affect vested interests. Those who deny realities will avoid debating the science, instead focussing on ad-hominem attacks on environmentalists and scientists, even criticism of the scientific method itself. An echo of medieval times?
Posted by Andy1, Tuesday, 29 December 2009 10:07:10 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
Next and Andy1,

As a conditional believer (there's another category of devil-worshipper to put in your Crucible), I want to believe in AGW, and as a leftie, I should want to believe in inevitable doom, but correct me if I'm wrong:

* temperatures have risen around the world by an average of two degrees since the nineteenth century; and

* sea-levels have risen about two inches in the last century.

Clearly, glaciers are retreating, snow-lines are moving up slopes, growing seasons seem to be longer and customary freezing of waterways is later than a century ago. Cities are rapidly growing in population and often income levels as well, suggesting very rapid increases in the generation and use of energy and therefore in increasing urban heat-island effects. Deforestation is clearly out of hand as the world consumes ever more big Macs and timber for housing. God knows what chemicals are being pumped into the atmosphere, and into the seas, and removal of water for human use from rivers seems to be reaching unsustainable levels.

So why the almost exclusive focus on CO2 ? Even being a geriatric bear of little brain, I still can suspect that what is happening in the atmosphere and in the seas is vastly more complex and represent the effects of vastly more than one cause. And just as there is no one cause, there is no one panacea. Many causes, many remedies - in fact, probably many remedies per cause in many cases.

So: regardless of what is happening, why not switch as much energy generation as possible (and financially feasible) to renewables, and for example, electrify Third World countries, particularly those in Africa, via renewables (wind, solar, hydro), in order initially to power irrigation schemes, and pay Third World countries (even Brazil) - payment by results - to plant, or re-plant, billions of trees as part of those schemes, to soak up the CO2 and provide employment to millions ? Of course, payment by results, after some initial seed money.

So please drop the stand-over talk about denialists.

Joe Lane
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 29 December 2009 10:55:25 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
Joe Lane,

I agree with much of what you write, in particular the plethora of inherently intertwined environmental issues.

It would be hardly possible to resolve these issues unless somehow global warming is mitigated, as explained in the recent comprehensive account regarding climate change by Professor Will Steffen, Director ANU Climate Change Institute:
"Climate Change 2009: Faster Change & More Serious Risks"
Downloadable from:
http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/climate-change-faster-change-and-more-serious-risks-final.pdf
Posted by Andy1, Tuesday, 29 December 2009 11:16:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andy1
You make some interesting points:

1)”Parallels include earlier debates regarding ozone depletion”
So, are you saying that the behaviour of the hole was wholly consistent with the modelling that NASA & others developed i.e. has the modelling developed been able to predict the size and frequency of the holes expansion and contractions?

2) You talk of “ global average temperatures” increasing –which has to mean some areas have warmed and some have cooled, but on balance there has been an overall warming. Can you relate this (patchy) warming directly to the plight of sub Saharan Africans & Ethiopians who claim climate change as the root cause of their poverty , a claim seemingly uncritically endorsed by most AGW believers .
How are you so sure it's due to AGW and not to land management practises or regional factors ala :
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17723871.800-the-mayas-arid-end.html

I also note this little comment:--which seems to shot a hole in AGW: post-industrialisation warming!
“Such thinking marks a sea change for both archaeologists and climatologists. Until just a few years ago, they assumed that climate has been stable since the ice age ended more than 10 000 years ago. But recent studies revealed strong climate fluctuations starting about 6000 to 3000 years ago as early civilisations emerged from the Stone Age.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221874.500-born-in-a-storm.html

PS: caught Hansen on The Letterman Show the other night. Was far from impressed, showed too much of a willingness to play to the audience .
More the style –at least in that performance – of a travelling showman than a scientist.
Posted by Horus, Wednesday, 30 December 2009 8:57:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
thomasfromtacoma, I'm not sure what your points actually were or even if they were specifically aimed at me. For my part the debate over the scientific credibility of AGW sounds like a dispute between every scientific institution that studies climate, using multiple measures and conducting multiple lines of research versus arguments like a hot spike in a warming trend proves it's cooling and there's a grand conspiracy for no purpose but to impose control. No question which I find more credible. Or which should underly future policy.

I don't see that wanting to face the reality of problems climate change, sustainability and environmental destruction with eyes open and head on is evidence of hidden agendas or anything but honest acknowledgement of the constraints of the world we live in and the impacts we are making. We may fail to deal with these problems - it really looks to be shaping up that way - but it's the people who insist AGW lacks scientific credibility that will end up looking like they've been running on intellectual empty with eyes shut.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Wednesday, 30 December 2009 7:34:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many of the comments reflect a misunderstanding as to how science works, incorrectly assuming that either:
(1) Scientists need to be able to predict the future with accuracy, which is impossible, since this "experiment" which Homo sapiens is conducting with the atmosphere/ocean system, spewing over 320 billion tons of carbon into the air, has not been done before. Or
(2) That scientists are involved in some huge conspiracy in order to obtain research funds.

Had such a view been applied, for example, to medical science, or aviation engineering, or food processing - people would never go to their doctors, or board planes, or even eat ... Recall the lessons of the tobacco "debate", involving vilification of medical scientists by vested interests and their hired mouthpieces.

Much of the debate bears a close anaogy to the type of questions creationists raise regarding Darwinian evolution. Since their starting point is not to accept evolution, the "debate" is meaningless.

Could there be a connection between the massive disinformation campaign financed by vested interests on friendly media platforms and what appears to be a resurgent anti-science campaign?

For those who are "not convinced", if you are sincere, why don't you try and read recent comprehensive scientific reports, such as Steffen's report to the Department of Climate Change (http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/climate-change-faster-change-and-more-serious-risks-final.pdf), or even just basic text books in climate science.

Then there may be those content with continuing to use the atmosphere as an open sewer for carbon gases, though by the time they find out what are the consequences it may be too late.
Posted by Andy1, Wednesday, 30 December 2009 8:22:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KenH

In this age of information overload, you may have suggested at least one area for Andy1 to "look for a new interest". Sun spot cycles have been mentioned, so why not check out-

www.holoscience.com.au

Not everybody at ANU agrees with global warming.

shmuel
Posted by shmuel, Wednesday, 30 December 2009 8:58:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While all the debate continues to heat up, the Mt. Mayon volcano and the bushfires are spewing thousands of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and I have yet to read or see that these emissions are part of the scientific consensus. Do these leave the ETS as a credible means of reducing carbon emissions or just a selective tax?

The Government proponents appear to be struggling to find credible justification for it having already announced the amounts of money that will be handed out to half of the 3.6 million middle income recipients and the pensioners to compensate for the increase costs which the Government has not disclosed.

It is quite astonishing,that Government would continue to bury its credibility in an ETS with the bushfires in our face such a stark reality. If Penny Wong needed support to sustain the announcement that these hundreds of millions "will come from industries FORCED to pay" - (it's on the public record) - then Peter Garrett wading in will not help. I believe that money is where the reality is embedded and the crushing inability to admit a mistake must be very stressful on the Ministers.
Posted by Hei Yu, Thursday, 31 December 2009 5:09:18 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
Thanks to Mr. Yu for his PERCEPTIVENESS in seeing through my rant on GW.
Thanks also to Mr. Shmuel who also points out that, due to the unpredictable forces of nature that all at The ANU don’t support the AGW situation.
So all to you media fed buffoons and google-ized morons that accept the first thing you read as gospel the first question I would ask is
- Why?
Unfortunately you are committed to defending your pathetically structured arguments you don’t have the ethical fortitude to admit you’re wrong.
What I am trying to do, with obvious success, is point out that there are other issues apart from the so called knowledge base that you google-izers feign understanding.
That’s what makes the outright blind faith acceptance of this issue n absoluter farce. To accept without knowledge is ignorance to accept without understanding is downright Neanderthal.
Andy1
Your statement that scientists aren’t capable of predicting the future is about as accurate as your argument goes. The first law in political defense is to place your main arguments up front in order to disqualify comment. So the next point after the one those scientists can’t predict anything, that you neatly qualified by the spewing of an actual figure amount, puts firmly into know -it-all but retard bracket.
Followed by the conspiracy theory the second line of defense the GW official will use as a discrediting statement.
How about showing the world your not a retard and wring something intelligent for change instead f quoting hear say figures and blind faith point of view/
As I continue to state the issue here is a government warning issue , is beware of you ask for, you might just get it
Posted by thomasfromtacoma, Thursday, 31 December 2009 6:42:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andy plays the game : Do as I say, not as I do.

This is Andy1 quoting Senator John Kerry (I have capitalised key words ):
“ Frankly, those who look for any excuse to continue challenging the science have a fundamental responsibility … PROVE US WRONG or stand down. PROVE that the pollution we put in the atmosphere is not having the harmful effect we know it is. TELL US WHERE the gases go and what they do. Pony up one single, cogent, legitimate, scholarly analysis. PROVE that the ocean isn’t actually rising; prove that the ice caps aren’t melting, that deserts aren’t expanding. And PROVE that human beings have nothing to do with any of it. ”

This is Andy1 quoting Professor Will Steffen, "Warming of the climate system is UNEQUIVOCAL.”[ No room for doubt there!]

This is Andy being his certain self [confirming it's all man-made]: “Climate change is a direct result of the emission of more than 320 billion tons of carbon (BtC) as CO2 since the 18th century”

But this is Andy1 when John Kerry’s challenge is reversed:
“Many of the comments reflect a misunderstanding as to how science works, incorrectly assuming that … Scientists NEED TO BE ABLE TO PREDICT THE FUTURE WITH ACCURACY , WHICH IS IMPOSSOBLE , since this ‘experiment’ which Homo sapiens is conducting with the atmosphere/ocean system… has not been done before”

No Andy, no one is suggesting that “scientists” must be perfect. But one does expect those ‘scientists” who believe in AGW ( & , as others have pointed out to you, they do not represent ALL scientists) be able to answer inconsistencies in their theory.

This is especially so when they are asking us to fund programs based on their theory to the tune of trillions of dollar—and it seems necessary to remind you Andy1 that there are “vested interests” on both sides of the debate!

I would have thought that real “ misunderstanding as to how science works” is exhibited more by those who think they can make prognostications–in the name of science-- and be above questioning.
Posted by Horus, Thursday, 31 December 2009 6:55:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andy1; you are guilty of the same as you accuse others.
There are numerous papers that throw doubt on global warming.
I can't be bothered do ing the search again, but if you care so much
you will prove that you are not one eyed by searching your self.
There is a Swedish scientist who has done a study for multiple decades
on sea levels. He says that the IPCC recognised studies resolved
discrepancies by selecting Hong Kong harbour as standard and adjusting
all other tide gauges to suit.
He maintains that the Islands are not sinking but have raised the
water table by drawing off more than they should have and the sea has
come up under the land. They are coral atolls and thats what happens with coral atolls.
According to him, the sea level has only risen a small amount nothing
like is being claimed.

So go and find his writings, I doubt if you will find his papers
at the IPCC, probably been screened out like the other non-believers.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 31 December 2009 8:35:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,

Morner et al.'s claims of some 30 cm decline in sea level around the Maldives over the last 50 years have been refuted by all other oceanographers, as below:

Church et al. 2006, state: “We find no evidence for the fall in sea level at the Maldives as postulated by Mörner et al. (2004). Our best estimate of relative sea-level rise at Funafuti, Tuvalu is 2 +/- 1 mm/year over the period 1950 to 2001. The analysis clearly indicates that sea-level in this region is rising“

Nerem et al. 2006 state: “We feel compelled to respond to the recent article by Mörner (2004) because he makes several major errors in his analysis, and as a result completely misinterprets the record of sea level change from the TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) satellite altimeter mission. One major criticism we have with the paper is that Mörner does not include a single reference to any altimeter study, all of which refute his claim that there is no apparent change in global mean sea level (GMSL) [see Cazenave and Nerem, (2004) for a summary].”

A rise of sea level is documented in several papers, including 1. Church et al 2006, indicating a rise of about 40 mm between 1992-2001; Rahmstorf et al. 2009, indicating a rise of about 20 cm and the rate rising from about 0.7 to 3.7 mm/year between 1880-2008 (Oxford Conference “Beyond 4 degrees C”, September, 2009)
Posted by Andy1, Thursday, 31 December 2009 8:46:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe Lane & Andy1;
Joe said> So why the almost exclusive focus on CO2 ?

Well it is simple, it is the only parameter they can control.
As someone said it is like being in a runaway car and you only have
the gear lever to control the car, no steering, no brakes etc.

Bit of a waste of time really.

Andy1; You have it wrong, as you are promoting that a change is
happening, the AGW proponents have to prove their case.
My understanding is that they have not yet actually proved that humans
are causing global warming and they should also put a figure on how
much of the warming is cause by human CO2 emissions.

It would be nice if it could be proved that humans are not causing
warming, but that is proving a negative, not always easy.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 31 December 2009 9:01:54 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
Horus is correct to raise ehe credibility issue of both sides, and it is an issue the seeds of which are well sown in the email exchanges that preceded Copenhagen made public, the existence of which has never been denied. But if Andy1 is anywhere near the mark,it is impossibe to measure in the same sense that much of the scientific consensus is impossible to measure. So the debate from concerned scientific citizens goes around, and around in the ether. Perhaps it can be brought to earth with the knowledge that another 2.9 billion souls will add to the consumption of what resources remain in the next 40 years ( U.N.figures.)

Give some credit to the vegetation, the forests, to balance the CO2. If Andy1's huge tonnages had not been balanced by the natural order of things ,we would be extinct, as would every other creature needing oxygen to exist. It does not need a scientific consensus to explain that if one takes a deep breath and thinks about it for a moment, we might give the millions to the coal mine shareholders to curb the mining of coal while a better use is found for it instead of to corrupt despot regimes in the Third World to buy up more yachts in Monaco or estates in Europe.

At the same time, we might start the nuclear power system to compensate for the coal emissions and then it makes sense to produce the fuel in Australia while slowing down the export of uranium ores to produce the fuel somewhere else - What difference would it make? It is fatuous to think that we are isolated from the rest of the World to such an extent that we can hide behind an ETS
Posted by Hei Yu, Thursday, 31 December 2009 9:04:37 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
Thanks, shmuel,

I agree. Solar activity is the only explanation of global climate variation that is required. It's good to know there are still dissidents at the ANU.

In another place, dear old Andy argues that the earth and its atmosphere are directly analagous to human lungs. Really. No mention of the function of human physiology, though, so muscular forcing is conveniently ignored in his earth/atmosphere model.

Still, you have to admire his determination to speak ex cathedra.
Posted by KenH, Saturday, 2 January 2010 10:21:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From John Rennie (SciAm):
"The IPCC notes that between 1750 and 2005, the radiative forcing from the sun increased by 0.12 watt/square-meter—less than a tenth of the net forcings from human activities (1.6 W/m2). The largest uncertainty in that comparison comes from the estimated effects of aerosols in the atmosphere, which can variously shade Earth or warm it. Even granting the maximum uncertainties to these estimates, however, the increase in human influence on climate exceeds that of any solar variation." "The most recent contrarian fad is based largely on work by Henrik Svensmark of the Technical University of Denmark, who argues that the sun's influence on cosmic rays needs to be considered. Cosmic rays entering the atmosphere help to seed the formation of aerosols and clouds that reflect sunlight. In Svensmark's theory, the high solar magnetic activity over the past 50 years has shielded Earth from cosmic rays and allowed exceptional heating; but now that the sun is more magnetically quiet again, global warming will reverse. Svensmark claims that, in his model, temperature changes correlate better with cosmic ray levels and solar magnetic activity than with other greenhouse factors. Svensmark's theory has so far not persuaded most climatologists, however, because of weaknesses in its evidence. In particular, there do not seem to be clear long-term trends in the cosmic ray influxes or in the clouds that they are suppose to form, and his model does not explain (as greenhouse explanations do) some of the observed patterns in how the world is getting warmer (such as that more of the warming occurs at night). For now, at least, cosmic rays remain a less plausible culprit in climate change.' "And the apparent warming seen on Mars? It is based on a very small base of measurements, so it may not represent a true trend. Too little is yet known about what governs the Martian climate to be sure, but a period of heavy dust storms on the planet that made its surface relatively dark might have increased the amount of absorbed sunlight and raised temperatures."
Posted by Andy1, Saturday, 2 January 2010 10:45:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course andy1 will be only to glad to pay the exorbitant increase in power costs attributed to the ETS sham, big sars.
He will be the first to bitch and complain that the Rudd government is using the figures in Copenhagen, Kyoto 1 & 2 to justify price increases and you know that they’re gunna be doozies, even though never being signatories.
Get real with your solar figures this and mars figures that you’re just a Looney and he more you search for figures to justify yourself the loonier you get.
Posted by thomasfromtacoma, Saturday, 2 January 2010 11:58:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andy1, commenting on his own article, "Copenhagen: the price of climate change", quotes Will Steffen's report for the Department of Climate Change as a source of authority.

The report's title is pure propaganda: Climate Change 2009: Faster Change & More Serious Risks.

This is what the report itself says:

"The Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting for the Commonwealth preparing this report accept no liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material contained in this publication, or for any action as a result of any person's or group's interpretations, deductions, conclusions, or actions in relying on this material."

On one hand, Steffen's quoted as an authority; on the other, neither he nor the people who paid good [taxpayers'] money for his alleged "expertise" are prepared to take responsibility for anything he has written. The report is useless and has no credibility. They blew our dough.

Has there ever been a more vacuous scam than AGW?
Posted by KenH, Sunday, 3 January 2010 5:03:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andy1(55)
..."magnetic"..."Mars"...
Now we are getting to the nitty gritty!

KenH(35) suggested we pry a little bit into history.

1.Any electrical engineer will advise you magnetic phenomena can"not"(Baz 52) be dissociated from electric currents. For lay people, a little bit confused, check out Kristian Birkeland, Irving Langmuir, Nobel Peace prize winner Hannes Alfven, Anthony Peratt. But to save the hassle, why leave out our own fair dinkum Aussie Wal Thornhill who's leading the
charge to the new 21st century paradigm, the electric universe?

2. ..."Mars"...Andy, why did you omit Venus? The "great" James Hansen wrote his doctoral thesis on the climate of Venus...which brings us fairly and squarely to the most disgusting episode in the 20th century which continues to this day. Carl Sagan was a prime originator
of the greenhouse theory as an ad hoc response to the failure of orthodox science to predict
the hot Venus.

It should not be forgotten, we humble human beings have a right to choose.

shmuel

P.S. May I suggest in the interests of honesty, sincerity and efficiency, that the OLO powers that be number Forum comments (55, etc. as above), in order of posting to facilitate dialogue
and debate.
s.w.(shmuel wilkonski)
Posted by shmuel, Monday, 4 January 2010 6:29:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
shmuel,

I'd been thinking exactly that over the weekend - the comments would be much easier to track and retrieve over time if they were numbered. OLO editors, please note.
Posted by KenH, Monday, 4 January 2010 11:23:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

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