I know we've been around this mulberry bush about a zillion times but, being a glutton for punishment, I bring to OLOers attention this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/09/warmest-half-year-on-record-united-states-noaa-climate_n_1659837.html
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Dear Anthonyve,

I saw this article today.

Besides Huffington Post I am also a fan of TYT who did a piece on this in March talking about the cost to the Texan economy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpxxPJv6vQs

Heat records for March out stripped cold records 35 to 1. March heat records even beat those of April in Canada.

So what does this mean for Australia or more particularly for Julia Gillard? We all know how much Australia's drought focussed the attention on Climate Change but it quickly slid when it broke.

My feeling is we are going to see a lot more of these stories coming out of the US particularly through the Presidential campaign especially if records keep getting broken. As the US has traditionally been probably the biggest recalcitrant on the issue of CO2 emissions it could be a big definer for the Obama camp if he went strong on action to combat them and it could really turn the global debate around. Our PM might then be seen as taking action when many faltered.

It is going to be an interesting 5 months.

Yes been here before but well worth it every time Anthony.
Remember as the battle warms up that not all have a sound understanding of the subject.
A bloke I respect will take to me over what I am about to say.
But every day, yes every day, some part of the world is getting extreme weather.
Record breaking weather.
England turned extraordinary unheard of drought, to that in rain and flooding this year.
I can not help feeling humanity is being used, to hide the truth, climate change yes has always happened.
But from 1975 till now our population has gone up from less than one billion to seven billion!
Humanity ALWAYS impacts on the environment.
Some of our detractors seem a good bloke, but on this issue best resembles a man who just refuses to even consider they are wrong, others too are content to put all their chips on the wheel and the future of the earth with it.
Spin the wheel but know it only has one result.

lets not forget the reason purpose of the HAarp*
and our so called over the horison array

lol
and yet the boats come
and the usa base[is that anywhere nearby]

haarp;

Dear Anthonyve,

Thanks for the link.

The United States has some of the world's most
stringent anti-pollution laws, but these are
clearly insufficient to prevent potential grave
damage to the atmosphere.

Further control of pollution is politically
difficult as we know, for the economic interests
behind "smokestack" industries are a powerful
political lobby that is reluctant to commit the
necessary resources to the task.

Hopefully if President Obama can lead the way in the
right direction - our Prime Minister just may gain
the credibility that she deserves with the reforms
that are being implemented by her government.
Good reforms do endure. Criticisms tend to be forgotten.

I saw a cartoon sometime ago in Los Angeles where a
company CEO of ACME Manufacturing looks out of his office
window and says to his secretary, "The sky is certainly
a beautiful blue today, isn't it, Miss Simkins?
Check with production and see is something's wrong."

Sorry Lexi.
Selling man made climate change is hard.
Quite true quite a threat but hard.
Selling Gillard?
Not a chance but we need not bother she even knows the end is near.

Dear Belly,

I don't agree.

The voters of Australia will eventually realise
what Mr Abbott is selling is a sham. Take a look
at what's happening under the Liberals in Victoria.
All the PM needs is to hold Mr Abbott and Co. to
account - especially as far as policies and costings
are concerned. The Prime Minister is getting on
with reforms and governing. I cannot for the life of
me understand what you have against her. Or is it
because she's a female and you would prefer a male
leader?

The thing that really astonishes me is that, if the polls are right, then it seems that 60% of Australians hate the idea of big polluters paying, users being compensated with the option for any of us to reduce our usage but keep the compensation,(Labor plan) but they like the idea of the tax payers paying the big polluters and asking them nicely to do something.
(Coalition plan).
I just don't get that.
But on the bright side, it does seems as if the Americans are finally realizing the threat.
And once they see sense, then we're in business.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Lexi time will prove one of us wrong.
You have an opinion I have another.
Remember the polls.
Take in to consideration the post above mine.
Anthony points out a truth we can not hide from.
Abbott has convinced/conned voters to support fear tactics not facts.
Gillard,once thought to be a feisty fighter is unable to match him?
You must remember, it is voters who have the last say, they need not be informed or fair.
You touch on sex, well if you must,but my dislike for Latham and Crean is no less heated.
However in my world, men long ago, dumped Julie and will not return to her.
Behind her installation was many things, dislike of Rudd, personal ambitions of some, and a belief above all, she had Abbott's measure.
She had it briefly once.
Not now not ever.
She let her self down, with that womanly why should I say sorry,why explain my actions stance men hate, in all women.
But above all she is not going to survive.
NUMBERS keep her there, one MP says he will leave the house.
One more will cross the floor.
But in truth after Slipper, this month, is free to return Gillard goes.
DO NOT wait for Abbott to fall, far too many dislike him but will take him before Gillard.

Dear Belly,

Thanks for being so open and honest and
answering my question regarding the Prime Minister.
You know more about the politics of Labor than I do
and you've given me much to think about. It is
appreciated as I value and respect your opinion.

Behind all the media spin about the "Greens running the country" and the constantly imminent leadership spills I keep coming back to the same conclusion.

If the Carbon Tax is just a political suicide note and if dumping it could move the polls and thus also shore up Gillard's internal support then why don't they just get rid of it and wear any political flak?

Maybe it's because they genuinely believe it is the right thing to do for the future of the country and maybe any hysterical opposition is happening only as a means for the Libs gain power for themselves.

If it was a hard and politically costly decision to introduce then it's an even harder one to keep it in place.

Well said, wobbles.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

I have more to say on this subject.
First without reserve I believe in man made climate change.
And I support the tax that is to become a trading scheme to the extent I would have rather it started now not the tax.
I shake my head in wounder, that some say our moving on the issue will do no good.
Or that a seeming cloud of gas over our country may dissipate but not the worlds.
Yet on Anthoinyve,s arrival here I warned him, on this subject he would not win.
In my post and Anthoinyve,s the extraordinary FACT 60% now think so very differently than us.
Kevin Rudd rightly, told us this was an issue of importance bar nothing.
Gillard thought of electoral victory, not hers Labors,and talked him out of it!
We midst a drought that frightened us all,had support in the mid 70%.s to act.
Yet that has turned around?
One vote Gave Abbott leadership of the Liberal Party.
He was known before that as the mad monk he also was seen as anti woman.
Tony has informed us he lies some times.
He is in my memory the first opposition leader to openly defies a neighboring country, Indonesia.
Tony reminds us daily, rightly so, Labors softer approach to boat refugees ,while warm and compy, failed, he wants what we want, off shore processing.
I FIRMLY HONESTLY think Malaysia will work, no one will be whipped or harmed as per the agreement.
And I think too, that is the single reason Mr Abbott, his Tea Party faction of Liberal party is against it
continued

So like Lexi, my opinion of Abbott is at least! as bad as hers, unfit to be in the house to clean it!
Wobbles, been watching your posts for a very long time.
I like every thing you do,but disagree often.
I think, with every bone in my body Nationals/Liberals/Conservatives have at least as many maggots in their ranks as us.
Too that such are filth in any camp, the above hide theirs better, do you see headlines about those currently under investigation?
Greens, any one wish to tell me they are in any way of any use to non conservative Australia?
They could have flogged Abbott.
Should have.
A dangerous group with many heads, but these two women now place both feet on an oily slope the greens are going to die in this country.
We will be better for it.
Sounds from my words Labor is on the up?
No not under Gillard, with all his wrongs open lies negativity Abbott has Gillards measure.
IF we wish to save the ALP, not be governed by this ugly inside little man,it is now not polling day, we need to fight back.
Only my words? my voice? watch the polling!
Rejoice in the fact many are demanding better from a till now deaf dumb and blind ALP.
And are soon to get it, first foot on the hard climb back.

don't worry guys the man who knows that most of the hysteria around mm gw is c_ap should soon be PM. The debate will be sent to the backbench where it belongs. A new scare will need to be found.

runner,

I think the fact that Mr Abbott believes it's crap (whenever the wind blows that way) shows his limited grasp of the issue and his political stratagem more than anything.

Interestingly, the Catholic Church tries to take the science into account:

http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=18215

Perhaps Tony should read more widely.

To go back to the initial question... Have a look at this week's (7 July) New Scientist - Is Global Warming Driving Our Weather Wild? Increased variability means that not only do we get a higher probability of extreme heat, but also a higher probability of episodes of extreme cold.

Poirot runner is unlikely to absorb any truth other than his own.
Abbott believe me lied again this morning.
OH what a lie, if only you and a few could have seen work choices in action.
It lived and breathed a raw unstoppable wish to convert us to a low wages for some country.
Our under 20,s suffered as did those who had no choice.
Abbott is intent on his task yet calls himself the workers Friend?
We never see,in his Liberal mates factory walk thoughts that general warnings are given to workers to be silent, or even have part of the day off if they feel they may insult him.
Yet I must, yes in the service of this government, every non conservative say yet again.
Thousands of former Labor voters rush to turn off the TV/RADIO when Gillard appears.
She is no longer being heard.
Is not able to confront this country most false politician ever.
With in reach of a post Gillard ALP opposed by such a man, still is victory.
We only need the Courage to look for it.

Actually Cossomby we are having less wild weather than average, & this has applied for at least 60 years. Less cyclones, less tornadoes, & less floods & droughts. There has been plenty of peer reviewed publications proving this.

This in fact is the only thing that gives me a reason to think that global warming is true. True, but not necessarily man made that is.
A number of recent studies have found evidence for the theory that a warmer glob will have calmer weather.

The theory is that a warmer world will have less temperature difference between the tropics & the polls. It is the potential generated by this energy difference that causes large storms.

So sorry mate, if you do see more stormy weather, it's global cooling that probably caused it.

Climate change has really been evident the past couple of years with the shifting of tides and worsening conditions that we are currently experiencing. Though it would be great to be able to experience how they really are, it is a little worrying that things could get a lot worse if there is no stop to the deterioration of the planet that we hold dear to.

Er, Hasbeen, would you care to cite some of these peer revued publications to which you refer?
No?
I didn't think so.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anty if you ever read anything other that from those shonks at the IPCC you would be able to keep up for yourself. Do try.

In other words, Hasbeen, you made up the bit about peer revued articles.
Anything else you've made up that you'd like to get off your chest?
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthony peer reviewed?
He may be talking about Mad Lord M., a peer and, as is often the case, a dill too.
Hasbeen is prepared to voice his failure to understand at every chance.

I can see the manner in which CO2 increases temperature but I have been
suspicious of the way so much weight is given to computer models.

My suspicions were confirmed when the Upsalla Unis Global Energy
Systems Group published its paper on the amount of fossil fuels
available and stated that the real quantities are less that what the
IPCC puts into its computer model.

The Upsalla group suggests that the temperature rise will be much lower.
From memory they suggest less than 1 deg C by 2100.
Not sure if that was using the IPCC's computer model.

There is another factor I have not seen taken into account.
Will we be able to afford to be able to burn so much fossil fuels ?
I suspect not as much will be too poor in ERoEI and will cost too
much to extract. We are already seeing this with shale oil and tar sands.

Whether you agree with AGW or not or if you think an ETS is the right way to go or not, once the next election is long past we will still be living in a changing world.

If we are penalised economically by our trading partners for refusing to comply with international standards via tariffs and have to implement even more savage cuts just to catch up with this missed opportunity I wonder how many will recall these arguments?

I don't really believe my house will burn down but I still pay my Fire Insurance policy because it's a less drastic option.

I also feel uncomfortable taking advice on the phoney health effects of smoking from paid representatives of Philip Morris because that's the equivalent of what's really been behind this debate all along.

Poirot

'Interestingly, the Catholic Church tries to take the science into account:'

Since when have you started to treat the Catholic church seriously? After growing jup in it I don't.

I'm interested in all sorts of human paradigms, runner. I once drew a portrait of John Paul II for some Catholic friends which is now hanging in the cathedral precinct. I'm not a Catholic, but that picture made a few people happy, so it's all good. Perhaps my tastes are catholic in the truest sense, in that I have a broad interest in humanity.

What I don't enjoy is judgmental and derogatory commentary cloaked in religious self-righteousness.

LNP , this mornings news, is targeting education teaching our kids *wrong things* climate change?
Few of us find reason to question science on other issues.
Even less look down their nose at cures for illness science bought us.
Every day evidence of weather taking the very path we first received warnings about.
Some even tell us their is no climate change.
Some say there is but man plays no roll in it.
Some say so what? it will be good for more than it harms.
In this single debate, if you truly look,is evidence we one day.
Will be ruled by a world dictator ship, not what we want, but our inability to even manage our world with so many talking heads.
A possible victor in a war, or a combined dictator ship will remove our ability to have choices.

Belly,

"Few of us find reason to question science on other issues."

What a pertinent observation so succinctly put. There you have the absurdity of the skeptic's stance potted in one sentence.

I've often questioned skeptics as to why they aren't also raging against all the other science and technology abounding in modern life. Why is it that they consider only those scientists working and finding consensus in the area of climate to be dodgy and part of a conspiracy to take control?

I once sat next to an acquaintance on a flight from Sydney to Brisbane, during which he launched a tirade against "corrupt, incomptent scientists" in a discussion about global warming.
All this while we were having a cup of coffee, doing several hundred miles an hour at thirty thousand feet.
The irony was clearly lost on him, although I had a wry smile.
Belly's point reminded me of the episode.
How right he is to question the highly selective suspicion of science.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoin.com.au

'Few of us find reason to question science on other issues.' Exactly right. Science was suppose to be about questioning, reasoning and testing. gw fails miserably on all three and that is exactly why so many swallowed it in the first place. Thankfully a few authenic scientist started to question the dogmas.

"...gw fails miserably on all three..."

What a load of bilge...this coming from the intellectual giant who rejects the "reason","rationality" and "science" behind the theory of evolution.

Sheeeesh!

Of course you can question particular aspects of science !
It is ridiculous to suggest that you cannot accept one part of
science and reject another.
Didn't Galileo do just that ?
He accepted the science of optics but rejected the current cosmology.

My skepticism is due to the GIGO that seems to be employed in the
computer models.
It has already been shown by the Upsalla group that the IPCC is using
duff data in their model.
They don't dispute it, they ignore it. Thats a worry !

Bazz,

Of course questioning science is acceptable - it's the only way we progress....but....there is a concerted movement to denigrate and demonise scientists and scientific agreement in connection with climate. This seeks to paint them as frauds and charlatans out for monetary gain or in cahoots with various organisations for control.

The science, as we know, is never settled. However, when a majority chorus of scientifically literate people consistently reach consensus and are constantly lambasted as a collective entity, we should be asking ourselves "WHY?"

Belly: "Few of us find reason to question science on other issues."
Poirot; “What a pertinent observation so succinctly put …yada yada yada

Let me try to solve the apparent paradox for you.

Firstly, you are both ABSOLUTELY correct (for once).

But, it is not really a paradox it only appears so because the definitions are blurred.

As birds of a feather flock together, the “us” referred to is the people Belly & Poirot cleave to.
So it is true that all the “us’s” that they meet question nothing.

Like Belly & Poirot & AnthonyV they :
Believe in AGW the apocalypse almighty,
Despoiler of heaven and earth:
And in the IPCC our only salvation
Who was conceived by the UN ,
Born of the scientific consensus ,
Suffered at the hands of the skeptics …
Who desire to crucify it

and anything else their party and preferred sources are in-Klined to tell them

However all the us’s on this side of the house question & weigh everything at least twice a day

“Don't think there are no crocodiles because the water is calm” :Japanese Proverb
Or, a modern version:
Don't think there are no Greenies around because there are no agitators.

pure/quote..""we progress....but....there is a concerted movement
to denigrate and demonise scientists and scientific agreement in connection with climate.""

to be fair..that athiestwarnmingst peer
with the funny eyes..[has any coped what has has?

comeon dear you used to be faiminded
but the ridicule heaped upon the DENEYERS*
thats a huge card mate

"" This seeks to paint them as frauds and charlatans
out for monetary gain or in cahoots with various organisations for control""

egsactly
and more of us have had media ridicule than you lot

wanting warming[then wanting climate..lo.l..change]
then wanting market mechano-isms..then geting a new tax

ionly paid by the worst 500
now 400 as they too get too big to fail

free polution credits
heck farmers are getting gren credits
but not me who has added an inch of carbon into my soil

yet farmers are the biggest poluters
[poluting not only carbon[from the soon to be taxed fuel]..not mentioned by either side

to the very fertilisers the put onto their crops
[its a greenhouse gas called laughing gas..[nitrouse oxide]
100 times worse than carbon [from the nitrogen you use to get ya flowers

HALF of that turns into nitous oxide

grow up
the truth dont need so much spin*

only 500 will pay the tax..yea right
but states have doubled the price of our power..while we been getting conned

CONNED*
the federal hand alp..holds us in a spin
the states alp..set up the state monopolies power providers
to empty your purse..by reaping in extra servives costs..for lol infastructure..[that will self destruct]*..

[cause just their state debt..is worse than greece]

Actually Poirot, when I hear academics, pronouncing on a subject with which I have experience, particularly when on our ABC, I find they are talking garbage at least 40%, & likely 60%, of the time.

Surely if you have deep knowledge of any subject you would have found the same.

Anty mate, perhaps you did not know it, but let me assure you that, fortunately it is us engineers, not scientists that design aircraft.

These engineers are far enough away from the professors who gave them some grounding in science, to have learned to put the wings in the right place. They have served very long apprenticeships in aircraft design, for many years after leaving those hollowed halls you so revere.

Let me put a little global perspective around this supposedly highly intellectual challenging of global warming science.
I recently returned from a couple of months travelling in Europe, USA and several Asian countries.
I discovered during my travel - from reading newspapers, talking to folk, reading letters to editors, etc, - that in Europe and Asia, the reality of AGW is fully accepted and the discussion is all about how much time we have to get things done and what should indeed be done.
Only in the USA and Australia is there this huge debate about whether scientists are being deceitful or stupid or whatever the current theory to explain away the facts is being used by the denialists.
And, - interesting parallel, it's only in the USA and Australia that right wing political parties have seen a short term potential political gain by stirring up a debate.
Most other countries have a bipartisan approach to acknowledging the need for action and any debate is over what is the best action, and in some cases, who pays.
So, two countries where there is a debate over whether the science is real and the same two countries where right wing political parties have made a political issue of it.
Coincidence?
I don't think so.
Anthony
http://www.osbervationpoint.com.au

When the Government chooses a man whose predictions have failed miserably time and time again to be a spokesman on climate change you know the evidence is paper thin.

Poirot

'intellectual giant who rejects the "reason","rationality" and "science" behind the theory of evolution.'

settle down. I would not expect such sarcasm from someone who betrays themselves as a wealth of knowledge. It is however in line with many warmist who have no logic to their arguements.

btw there are a lot more scientist than you would be willing to admit that share my view on evolution. Try asking a few questions instead of swallowing the dogmas that suit your world view. That would be a novel idea for you.

SPQR,

"However all the us's on this side of the house question & weigh everything at least twice a day."

It's great to know that OLO abounds with atmospheric physicists and palaeo-oceanographers, etc...

Hasbeen - you don't have deep knowledge on "this subject." - and I note climate scientists don't often pontificate on the subject of aircraft design.

It's okay, Poirot, I think Hasbeen got your comment confused with my reminiscence re aircraft, etc.
Which occurrence explains quite a bit, when one thinks about it.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

@Poirot,

Interesting to see you Joan of Arc like carrying the standard for scientific consensus.

I seem to recall you lampooning the green revolution which *scientific consensus* holds as a well motivated attempt to improve the plight of the underdeveloped world – though now much undercut by continued population growth – as a dastardly conspiracy on the part of capitalist robber barons to exploit the poor.

It seems you only treat *scientific consensus* as a friend of convenience.

SPQR,

When man takes a science-based initiative and runs with it underlining profit as his primary motive - at the same time ignoring the fundamental fragility of soil and groundwater systems, when he exhausts these systems because he has no truck with sustainable progress - then he makes a mockery of his scientific prowess.

"That" has always been my argument concerning the "Green Revolution".

Poirot said;
frauds and charlatans out for monetary gain or in cahoots with various organisations for control.

That is exactly what has been said of skeptics, just a few posts back
where someone made a crack about tobacco companies.

However everyone is going on about the warming but the IPCC has still
not corrected their computer model.
Until they do, the whole discussion is redundant and we should be
worrying about a much more serious problem.

Bazz,

I don't quite get the parallel you are drawing.

There was a concerted effort by vested interests to delegitimise the medical and scientific community's conclusions regarding the harmful effects of smoking....somewhat akin to what is now taking place in regard to conclusions about climate by climate scientists.

In both instances, those with a economic interest in the status quo are the ones funding and pushing the "skepticism".

Poirot, the same sort of things that were said about scientists
complying with their funder's policies was said about the skeptics.
There are hundreds of scientists who do not agree with the IPCC's
findings and policies.
It is no good the likes of you and me pretending that it is not like that.
All we can do is ask awkward questions like mine about the amount of
fossil fuel input to the computer models when someone like Upsalla's
Global Energy Systems Group challenges the IPCC's computer model.

Until the IPCC says they don't know what they are talking about and
shows where the Upsalla data is wrong then I will have my doubts.
Other people have other doubts but this particular one is very
significant because governments are spending $trillions on the computer output.
GIGO !

Dear Bazz,

You keep banging on about the University of Uppsalla's (note the two 'p's') Global Energy Systems Group arguing that the gloomy IPCC predictions of climate change are exaggerated simply because the world’s oil resources will reach its peak within the next 20 years or so.

Firstly it should be noted that the group was formally called the Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group and just like any group they have their own barrow to push which is fine.

But am I going to dismiss solid climate modelling on the basis of a 'peak oil' scenario? Not when decade long contracts are being signed for our northern coal and gas reserves which will ultimately quadruple our energy exports over the years to come.

People still cast doubt over computer modelling but the so called father of global warming Hansen's predictions have been right on the money. These models have been refined dramatically since then.

Professor Higg's modelling from 50 years ago predicted the Higgs Boson. Seems he got that one right too.

Global warming is far too important to dismiss on a whim which is what you seem to want to do.

You missed the point csteele.
BTW it is either one p & 2 l or the other way about.

It was not just because oil has peaked.
They just did not survey oil, it was the whole range of oil, coal & gas.
No one as far as I can ascertain has challenged their data.
It does not matter how much the model has been refined,
Garbage in, garbage out.

It does not matter just what coal orders have been signed here, they
are just part of the total.

The doubt will not go away until problems such as this are sorted.

Bazz,
You're laboring endlessly on about a peripheral issue.
It's tantamount to saying you won't eat ice cream because you don't like the chocolate sauce.
Chocolate or caramel, the ice cream underneath is still ice cream.
At either end of the spectrum you are obsessing about, the picture remians one of disaster.
The world gets that, except for a few nutcases, people with a vested interest, political opportunists, overnight scientists or those sucked in by one of the above.
What you cannot escape is that every recognized specialist in this field foresees a disaster, while you are trying to second guess them.
Every time I listen to one of you folk what I hear is someone who is just desperate to be seen as clever - more clever than the best scientific brains in the world.
Dude, it ain't going to happen.
You've clearly got a good mind and a decent education. Put it to some positive use, for goodness sake, and maybe, just maybe you and all the others who think they're some latter day Galileos might leave the world a better place than you found it.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Dear Bazz,

You say “Until the IPCC says they don't know what they are talking about and shows where the Upsalla data is wrong then I will have my doubts.”

Jeez mate, no need to go to the IPCC for that, you could have asked me.

When Kjell Aleklett presented for Uppsala's Global Energy Systems Group in 2009 and claimed the IPCC predictions were exaggerated he did indeed speak about peak oil. He made a very definite prediction,

“The world oil depletion curve, above, is based on all available information on oil reserves and estimates of the amounts yet-to-find, and indicates that world oil production will reach a peak (87 million barrels per day) around 2010 and decline thereafter.”
http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Aleklett/20090611%20Sydney4.pdf

He was right that 87 million barrels a day was reached in mid 2010 but the problem is it hasn't looked back since. The latest figures from the International Energy Agency for 2012 were “Global oil supply rose by 0.2 mb/d to 91.1 mb/d in May” http://omrpublic.iea.org/currentissues/full.pdf

Reality can be a bitch sometimes.

So does this mean your doubts will now dissipate or is there something else you will go and hang them on?

You both seem to think that the only valid science is that presented by
those scientists who affirm that global warming is as bad as they say.

You do not seem to be able to accept that some equally valid science
is presented by others that contradicts global warming.

That is a very rigid view. I must go back and read the paper again as
I think it showed that the real available fossil fuel would result in
about 1 deg rise by 2100. Thats from memory, so I must check.

I don't think it is going to be of any value to discuss it further
when such rigid positions are held.

Frankly from my own point of view and knowledge I do not know whether
global warming is real or not, but when fundamental questions such as
this come up and are ignored you just have to wonder why.

Dear all,

Some good news & some bad news.

First the bad news, I have a couple of extracurricular projects I need to finalize so –-as I have been promising myself for weeks --I will need to take a break from OLO, at least for a short time.

Now the good news (for some), on account of this, I will not be able to unpack and rubbish a couple of comments on this thread that thoroughly need binning -–so I’ll have to make do with just putting them on notice.

The first is this bit of fantasizing from AnthonyV:

<<I recently returned from a couple of months travelling in Europe, USA and several Asian countries.
I discovered during my travel - from reading newspapers, talking to folk, reading letters to editors, etc, - that in Europe and Asia, the reality of AGW is fully accepted and the discussion is all about how much time we have to get things done and what should indeed be done>>

Total and utter make-believe!

Sitting around a bar in Patpong with a few inebriated cronies does count as a polling of national intentions!

And even a cursory viewing of the great Copenhagen, Cancun & Durban potlatches should have wised-up --all but the most one-eyed political hack masquerading as a devotee of science -- that most attendees where only there for what they could get, not what they could give.

And the second, is this bit of fluff from CSteele (which she no doubt thought she got away with!).
<<People still cast doubt over computer modelling but the so called father of global warming Hansen's predictions have been right on the money. These models have been refined dramatically since then>>

Yeah right!

And to make it topical, & sound scientific!, she adds this:

<<Professor Higg's modelling from 50 years ago predicted the Higgs Boson. Seems he got that one right too>>

LOL

I will catch-up with both offenders later re those comments.

Cheers, for now.

its more than a fixed position bazz

quote..""a peripheral issue.""

ie thus clearly not earth shattering

""It's tantamount to saying you won't eat ice cream
because you don't like the chocolate sauce.""

no its like saying the chocolate icing
[is as much ice cream as you get]

""
Chocolate or caramel,
the ice cream underneath is still ice cream.""

except when its bull merde


""At either end of the spectrum
you are obsessing about, the picture remians one of disaster.""

from the spelling expert

""The world gets that, except for a few nutcases,""

yeah 99%..right
[but mate thats refuted]..that was the % of the respondants
not all ascience/let alone 99% of scientists

ITS THE LIES MATE!
only 500 [1000]..will pay
yet we bailout pensioners and polititions with huge pay rises
that carries over into ex polititions pensions[hell juliar gets double obama gets

think about the margin issues
lies upon lies..if its the right thing to do
YOU DO IT[you tax yourself..but no YOUR NOT PAYING[only 500]
who will pass the tax on to the muggins[not lol paying it

""people with a vested interest,""

ie self gain[free carbon credits?]
or farmers wantin g cash for nuthing
or lobby wanting to sell wind/solar/tide..etc power

""political opportunists,
overnight scientists or those sucked in by one of the above""

or took the bribes to accumulate the data[via trees]
till the trees didnt match the 'hockey stick'..so get other data[that does]

hell either trees does it
or someone is fact shoping!

and yes they did
sooo many lies..so many liars

yet they think its icecream..as athe scames reap in their cake

yep just like smokes[scientists selling lies]
creating fears..to raise nice govt subsidy
set up the antismoking brigade
add stink to the smoke

yep same same
next we go for sugar[diabetus out spends any other non cure]
by far..booze id linked to the top 3 causes of death

you die from a specific disease
not from..'smoking/drinking/eating'
fraud science delivers the needed fear to get the next cash cow

next booze?

topics moving over heare kiddies
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5257&page=0

many more as the scamers c.laims simply refuse to happen

BUT WHATS THE COST OF THE ALTERNATIVE SO FAR

how much we spent..today..to pay tommorows pensions
despite the FACT...not only we are paying todays pension..but tomorrows as well!

so the guilty suck up the lie
collect the free govt 'top up'
the more you steal from your taxable ammount
the more govt gives you for free..yes one govt vash cow[built on lies to the next]

carbon tax..built solar cells[with a life of max 30 years
get rid of cheap coal..we been using [at a third the cost]..for hundreds of years

call it all 'infastructure..though its a cash cow quango
build fre gas pipelines for private businbess..build private rail to steal our coal[its all infastructure
BOUGHT ON BY LIE..so german and chinese can sell off the crappy first generation for global govt subsidies

YES THE LOBBY HAS SERVED THE THEFT well

bah
you took the sweets
now take the lolly

no one is expecting you to repay it..
if the lie is exposed lie..so oprove it or get ogff the govt teat

if your geting free power[fine
just dont be expecting me to pay you tripple on top

your so greedy
you abuse the truelly needy
or just plane ignorant..[you swallowed the scam..causwe you took their cheeze]

now guilt should click in
but no..better to attack the deneyers
paying the tax

a hell of a lot more than 500
but lies sooth the savage..guilt

ignorance pays
as long as you get govt caash handouts..
free solar cells..free powewr/top up super..FIRST*

OUG,

The science is the science.

What governing bodies choose to do in response to findings is a separate issue.

Denial of the science by "amateurs' because they "sense" a conspiracy has nothing to do with scientific methodology or the conclusions reached by "real" scientists.

your correct of course pure-oh
the science is only the science
known or knowable knowns

that then
after having expose sciences feet of clay
global warming/became climate change..after we got cooling not warming warning

we forget the ozone hole[that was doing the actual 'heating'

but now its cololing
so we need more c02 not less

hence big industry kicking up/firing up the new solution
get industry going AGAIN..building yet more stuff

but the consumer dont want it
so the govt gives a subsidy for it

then we find that solaris goes bust[after getting 15 billion from obama]..and much more..like most wind drains power when nthere aint wind[in fact gearing and over size transformers energy loss is huge

govt dont mind promising you lot today..44 cents a power unit
cause all of us wil be then paying 60 cents[your 44 wont give you what you had last year

but such is the karma for those LOVING THE FREE LUNCH*
the sky is falling[think..outside the atmosphere is a freezer

way below sub sero
if we burned every bit of energy
that enerfgy affect wouldnt even be noticed on the moon

your listening to girlly girls cleaning up big time on fear based consuming..[make work for the sake of getting govts credit]

what happend to working 3 days a week
the paperless office..its all consumerism[to keep industry poluting]..on their free credit[the big bite comes when its on your fuel..in 3 years..

govts must be called to explain
like that bird flue medicin we were FORCED to buy whenever the un declares it a pandemic[well it did..

now we got wharehouses of toxin past its use by date
cause the un declared pandemic...the birdflue lobby got its govt cash cow

ya just gotta kill lobbiests
any lobby is there to tax you

oug,

"but now it's cooling
we need more co2 not less"

"Long term trend" - (which is what climate scientists study)

It's not cooling.

It's not cooling.
Poirot,
So what ? It doesn't matter a single iota if the climate is cooling or warming or changing or not changing. The point is that we can not do anything about it unless we we start culling humans, the greedy i.e. stupid & useless ones first.
It is my belief that nature will sort out this nonsense anyway. It's blatantly obvious that humans will not take heed of the countless warnings Mother Nature throws at us. The majority of humans are blinded by money & those who aren't are treated as village idiots.
let's see who laughs last.

Culling humans Individual?
And do you see yourself as a culler or a cullee?
The former, I suspect.
Or were you merely being facetious?
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Dear Bazz,

No need for the high dudgeon mate. You floated a position which was fine. I looked at it, found it lacking as a reason to disregard the IPCC forecasts since the data set being used has since been invalidated by real world figures, I invited you to find another position, you refused, yet you have decided we are the ones holding rigid views?

Not a chance.

Of course available hydrocarbons for humans to burn will be a limiting factor on the extent of global warming. 

And of course over the long term the planet itself is not threatened by GW, and life will go on existing on this planet for millions of years plus there will more than likely be species that will thrive under the new conditions. But the modeling and recent data indicate much of the human species is likely to be in a measurably less hospitable and rapidly changing environment in the future due to our increasing emissions of CO2.

In other words we are quite determinately sh#ting in our own nest. 

It is a far more comfortable to be in the skeptics and deniers corner but at some stage you do have to accept the increasing rigidity of much of the science on this.

Dear SPQR,

You land in here, flap your gums a bit, then say 'I will see you after school'. Why did you bother? If you have something just spit it out.

Or were you merely being facetious?
Anthony,
I'm actually a kind of cullee as I have chosen to limit as to how many more humans are to live on this planet by only having one child by choice. I wouldn't have minded two but definitely not more. Being a stepfather as well makes up for that.
I'm not advocating we cull actual humans, I'm advocating restraint in the numbers we produce. The benefits for all life would very quickly become obvious once the numbers start to recede.
The better off should direct their compassion to those who are willing to take steps to help themselves by voluntary child birth reduction. Baby bonuses should be paid for no more than two children. I for one find it ludicrous that all the aid that is given is used to produce even more children that require being kept alive by others who show self restraint.
Climat change will not stop by fewer humans but it certainly will make for a better & cleaner planet for all to exist on. That idiotic tax will only compound the problem.

Fair enough, Individual.
I'm probably not a million miles from your position, but there are days...
There are a couple of clowns I see on the train quite often, that I could cheerfully cull.
Although my motivation would be considerably less honorable than yours.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.a

Csteel said;
data set being used has since been invalidated by real world figures,

Incorrect, it has NOT been invalidated.
I suspect that you are quoting different data.
I suspect you were quoting oil production which has had an all liquids
increase by about 2 mbd.
However crude is steady around 73 mbd. (last I looked).
In any case, peak coal is expected about 2025 by most but some say it
will peak this year or in the next two or three,
Before you go jumping up and down, I am referring to world peak, which
is what really counts.

All hydrocarbons will peak about the time oil depletion sets in.
This because oil is such a significant portion of the whole.
The upshot of it all is that we are a few years, one way or the other,
to a depletion that will outweigh any campaigns on co2 reduction.

This is so fundamental that I cannot see why it is being ignored.
It means that all these "green" campaigns are pointless.
By 2050 oil will be of such price that we will not be burning it
anyway, but keeping it for plastics, fertiliser and the like.

So there is no need for panic on AGW.

Bazz,
I don't pretend to know or understand the data as well as you, but doesn't your argument ignore coal?
And isn't coal burning a bigger contributer than oil to CO2 emmissions?
Also, if cars change to electric and we still use coal fired power stations as a primary source of electricity, and given the vast coal global reserves, won't we simply be replacing oil sourced emmissions with coal sourced emmissions?
I'm not arguing for any of these implications, just asking.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

No Anthony, if coal fired reasonably efficient power stations are
the source, as far as I have been able to dig out, then the co2
emissions are 60 to 75 percent of emissions from an equivalent IC car.
The more alternative power that is used that percentage falls.
As most charging will take place at say 10pm to 5am then it may
improve the efficiency of the power stations and that would help.
Very complicated isn't it.

Yeah, it sure is.
I'm interested that you mention about the efficient use of off peak for car battery Recharging.
I just recently read a presentation from Abetterplace.org about how their charging management software does exactly that.
It sounded impressive and extremely well thought out.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthony, csteel et al,
I cannot find the original paper by Alklett & Hooke but here is a later
paper by Mikael Hooke at Uppsala (got the spelling right).

http://tinyurl.com/7cnlv7s

The original url had 256 characters !

He does not give an opinion on what the rise in temperature would be.
Looking at the tables of coal reserves Aus is well down the list.
We do not have big reserves. Except in our own eyes.

Dear Bazz,

No I wasn't using different figures. Alklett was talking about total oil production not just crude and unless you can find me a more reputable source than the IEA then I will let the numbers stand.

Be that as it may I thank you for the link.

This is a more nuanced effort than Aklett's original work and certainly deserving of attention. But that is to be expected after a couple of years to refine the message.

Yet as the paper says "Several scenarios already agree poorly with reality over the recent years and some can even be ruled out.". While I'm not ruling out the proposition I think you would agree Alkett's original effort agreed 'poorly with reality'.

Your latest paper From Hooke argues "that many SRES scenarios need to be revised, generally downward, regarding production expectations from coal. "

They certainly should be revised since the original scenarios were done in 2000, but downward? Still not convinced.

For instance over that dozen years we have had an explosion of Coal Seam Gas projects not only in Australia but around the world. 12 years ago this was still a fairly embryonic and even now it has a long way to go before it can be regarded as mature.

Technology and the market has opened up a previously untapped and for the most part untappable source.

Another such resource is the artic circle where companies are seeking exploration leases to take advantage of a much diminished ice pack due to rising temperatures.

Will price and technology continue to open up previously unviable sources to cater for demand? Of course. Do the scenarios need to be constantly revised to fit what is learned real world data? Again of course.

Just as those who can never see an end to rising house or stock prices we may well be caught out when an energy peak is reached.

But should the uncertainty of when that might happen be used to justify inaction on Climate Change? Most definitely not.

Anthonyve,
That's the kind of culling we need to consider.

http://www.hans-hass.de/Englisch/index_english.htm

if people think that's not right then can they please exclude those of us who agree with curbing population growth from any further aid contribution to those who don't want to stop breeding to no end.

There have been a lot of subsequent posts to my note on the New Scientist article on 12 July.

I have a question: did anyone who continued the debate ever bother to go and read it? Especially Hasbeen, who challenged me exactly 14 minutes later, which wouldn't have given him much time.

In fact, has anyone who posted on this topic ever read the scientific papers on Global Warming, both pro and con - all those peer reviewed publications? Or are you all just working with secondhand, thirdhand, nthhand commentary?

I get a bit tired of discussions on The Forum where everyone just eternally repeats their opinion without updating. My post was intended to draw attention to new information. Apparently a waste of time.