First three things
Is climate change real, will it be good or bad for the planet.
And can we do anything about it.
I think the three questions work well together.
Some will say no to them all.
In my opinion lessening any views they have.
My answers? yes, second both good and bad with very in front of both.
Third, for me at least answers the un asked one, yes we can do something about it.
The unasked? has humanity played a roll in it, yes in my view.
Close observation will see more coming to believe we need to act.
British Prime Minister and now, post election Obama seem to want to cut our emissions.
For me the eventual move to clean energy is worth the effort even if it could be proved man plays no roll in Climate change.

The Greens are the only political party in Australia with a comprehensive policy on climate change and energy.
Our well thought out 54 point policy can be viewed at:

http://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy/climate-change-and-energy

I would post Labors and the Coalitions policy but I can't find them.

Yes Belly, climate change is real and it is coming to the environment near you! Yet to find anyone who believes climate change is good for us.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/obama-keen-to-tackle-climate-20121111-296c1.html
Paul1405 thanks, for nothing bloke!
What a fine way to sink a thread,no humor mate fact bis greens support is a death blow.
The link however, and the fact we have a tax, soon trading scheme, saves me.
In fact the hurdle is the right who seem unable to answer any of my questions, unless crap is an answer.
And the lost nature of Australia,s greens.
Still many country,s are getting on board Obama,I saw him say it, is too.
Coastal homes sinking in to the sea, rising seas, may or may not be due to mans activity's.
But in a world like ours, Catholic Church calling in its debt to stop being accountable for its actions.
High profile ex politicians about to buy their way out of trouble.
Gifts to media Barons of $120 million.
It is more than possible the whole anti climate change thing is funded by self interest.

Hi Belly, no need to thank me. Read your SMH link. Post election in the mist of ecstasy following victory Obama makes vague reference to wanting to tackle climate change, all very good. Its time for action from the 'big polluter' not just some feel good post victory rhetoric.
Combet's reaction was also rather light on with:
"I think the White House will be looking, over the course of the next four years, to be in a position to try to advance action on climate change in the US,"
Now is an opportune time for Australia not only to be seen as a world leader on the climate change issue, but also push our allies and trading partners to take substantive action.
As for the Coalition, what can I say, as usual if its going to impact on profits in the short term as tackling climate change invariably does, they don't want to know anything about it

Dear Belly,

You recognise that there is a problem, but then you condemn the Greens, the only party which sees that problem as the main issue.

Odd!

The Greens climate change policy is right on but for the one thing it leaves out;
Overpopulation.
There would be no climate change problem if it was not for the massive increase in population and the avid push for growth by big business, backed by most of the pollies.
It can not go on indefinitely and will be the cause of a lot of grief.
To stop climate change bring in huge amounts of aid for education and contraception for woman.

Dear Robert LePage,

I agree that the Greens should not overlook the effect of overpopulation. In fact I have been trying to make the point in the party that they should emphasise that factor.

However, stabilising or even decreasing the population would not end the problem. Our profligate life style in regard to energy usage is simply not viable. Cars and cattle along with many other factors contribute enormously. Our agriculture which uses oil and land to make food contributes. Australia per capita pollutes many times what India and China pollute per capita.

Abbott doesn't want anything to do with climate change, except for band-aid measures. Climate change will effect big business, so we can't expect anything from him.
It would be best for Abbott not to get the chance, at govt;
The longer this goes on the more urgent it is becoming.
Nasa says the increased co2 in the upper atmosphere is delaying the reentry of space junk, and an increased risk junk collision.
We must continue to advance climate change initiatives, and clean up our polluting ways.

Paul,

"The Greens are the only political party in Australia with a comprehensive policy on climate change and energy."

You must be kidding! It is a combination of a wish list and motherhood/feel good statements. This is why the greens cannot be taken seriously. Simply stating an unrealistic goal does not mean that it can be done

Dear Shadow Minister,

You have implicitly defined dealing with climate change as an unrealistic goal. With the negativity that Abbott and you share it is an unrealistic goal. However, other Australians may not be so negative in dealing with the problem. If they are, you are right. I fear you are, and the result will be disastrous. We can only keep trying.

climate change has been here since the beginning of time. It's a natural phenomenon. Sometimes it's good (end of the ice age), sometimes it's bad (droughts, famines etc).
There's nothing we can do about it as our miniscule emmissions are not the driving force (unless you think that the dinosaurs became extinct for using dirty fuel).

Paul, your green policies include gay marriage and opening the floodgates to illegal immigrants. You never mentioned how these policies will combat climate change (or global warming as it used to be called until that was disproved).

Davidf,

With all due respect, your last post was pure spin and BS.

I have not implicitly defined dealing with climate change as an unrealistic goal, just the green's goals. I could similarly state a goal that there would be no greenhouse gas emissions by 2013, and then claim you are being negative for claiming that it was unrealistic.

I doubt anyone in the greens would know one end of a turbine from another. Their biggest advantage is that they are unlikely to ever have the chance to implement these lunatic ideas and face the millions of unemployed it would create.

In the meanwhile they can continue peddling their snake oil to the 10% of those technically illiterate enough to swallow it.

Look, I don't *know* that climate change is real or not.
However there are a number of things that make me skeptical.

The British Met Office recently published a report that there has been
no global warming for 15 years. The BMO is closely connected to the IPCC.

Another report from the NOAA says the Argo buoys have not reported an
ocean temperature rise since they were launched.

Another report says we are starting to see early signs of the next ice age.
If so we should burn all the coal we can lay hands on !

To top it off there is a very cogent argument that it will be very
much cheaper to not try and beat it, but to spend money mitigating
the effects as they occur.

So, it is no wonder that there is confusion.

bazz: this was trotted out recently and was exposed as the usual rubbish.
A newspaper in the UK misinterpreted the information and used this as a headline. The British met office put out a release the next day to say that it was rubbish and that they had not said that.

All the rest of your argumant is very high on the BS meter and should be ignored.
Sorry but you are not in the right ball park.
I could give you all the relevent links..... again but just cannot be bothered anwering i full again.

Interesting Robert, I will go looking tomorrow at BMO and NOAA.
Trouble is the BS meter goes off the scale when some of our own
experts predict the dams will never be full again.

Well let me start again, but first Bazz you have been told the truth it was wrong.
No easy way around this, my thoughts and words about the greens hurt greens.
But are the true feelings of better than 80% of this country,s people.
You should not avoid that truth.
WHY, well policy,s, end to coal use, almost emediately.
End to forest timber harvesting, gay marriage like it or not is not universally popular.
Migration and refugee policy's, Drug policy's, the new leadership, gee what more do you want?
Greens are dieing.
And any party seen as in harness with them is being damaged.
However far from just a green thing climate change is real, much more real the the morris dancing greens.
And increasingly the world is responding.
Abbott will not rescind the carbon tax.
Any more than he will admit his great big new tax is a lie.
Hate my words about the greens, but know they are shared by about nine to every one of the greens who see me wrongly as the only enemy they have.
Both government and opposition best serve Australian voters by dissolving both houses for a double dissolution election, and preference each other.
No party with 11% should have so much wasted power.

SM, I expect no less from you. As an arch conservative you must oppose everything that is good and progressive. I sus that Old Grandpa SM was most likely opposed to the building of the Sydney Harbor Bridge as it "will never be needed" or widows pensions "will send the country broke." The only thing conservatives are gung-ho about is war.
Belly as the Labor Party is falling apart around you, you cling to the notion that the end of the Greens is just around the corner. You call for a DD of federal parliament, bring it on give us the opportunity here in NSW to add the fantastic talents of a friend of mine Cate Faehrmann to those of Lee Rhiannon in the Senate, no matter Cate will get elected next year anyway.

Paul after launching in to Gentle man Poster SM, well done too.
You try VALIANTLY to take his CROWN.
Dead heat,wait for the camera on this one.
JOY! true I get joy from the subject, we are told the UN many of its branches China a host of country's are wrong!
And as we near the point even Abbott will stick to one view, and not kill the tax.
I see very few who are other than anti every thing telling us it is not true.
Now if only we can convince the greens not to give us the kiss of death, best thing they can do?
Tell us climate change is crap!
Then thousands would come over.
See no one answered.
1 is it real.
2 is man playing a roll.
3 can we do any thing about it.
4 is it good or bad?

Robert, yes you are right, the Brit Met Office did deny the Daily Mail
report. Tracking through it all led me to a number of articles and
this one pointed out that the Met office itself cherry picked its denial.

http://www.thegwpf.org/the-mail-on-sunday-and-the-met-office/

I also found much else about the current temperature trends.
I have seen, at other times indications that CO2 being exponential at
its current level even doubling it will have no further warming effect.
The only graph I have seen on this point showed that it had rolled
over so far that it had flat lined and needed 10,000s of ppm to cause
1 deg C rise.

Additionally Prof Aleklett has shown that the computer models that the
IPCC use are using incorrect data for the amount of fossil fuels that
are available to be burnt.

I am still to go and look for the Argos data.
I had a quick look but all I found was that Brit met Office used
figures for the Artic which showed a rise but did not use the
antartic data which showed a fall.

I think that shows what a mess is the whole thing.

Hi Robert,

Correct me if I'm wrong please, but isn't Australia's natural fertility rate below replacement rate ? That without immigration, our population would either be static or falling ?

I hope somebody knows :)

Joe

Yes, loudmouth I have seen that reported also.
It has risen to about 1.8 babies per woman.
That figure is for all here at that time so includes recent immigrants.
The previous figure I think was about 1.6.
Ludwig probably has better figures, but the stats dept should have it.

Belly asked whether climate change is good or bad for the planet. The planet will continue to exist regardless of climate change. It may be boiling hot or a lifeless world, but it will continue to exist. Climate change affects humans, but our existence is not necessary for the continued existence of the planet. Belly, what do you mean by the question? How do you define what is good or bad for the planet?

Belly,
I saw your questions in your first post but did not bother to reply because, for the believers, it is a religion and no amount of reason or common sence will change religous conviction.

"Is it real" yes of course climate has been changing since earth was first formed.

"Is man playing a role" Best question! No proof yet despite millions spent on research. Read that no warming for 18 years despite record amounts of CO2 being released. This throws doubt on CO2 being responsible for warming.

"Can we do anything about it" Nah, Mother nature will do as she pleases, all in her own time. One must accept there are many things we humans do not have an influence on, tides and earthquakes are a couple of examples.

"Is it good or bad" Depends, an Ice age would certainly be bad, so would and extreme heat period, but a slight warming may open up more farmland in northern hemisphere. History shows previous warm periods enabled crops to be grown in Greenland, for example.

None of the predictions from warmists have come to pass. Massive sea levels rising, contiueing droughts, Uk being devoid of snow. Then the evidence that scientists have been fiddling the data.

I notice tha both you and the Greens have altered your previous stand as you both now simply refer to climate change and no longer call it human induced or AGW. Possibly preparing for a way out and backing away from earlier views?

The more time that expires the more doubt is revealed about the global warming theory. We have been taken for a ride. Bet somewhere there will be record snows or cold soon and does that mean we are entering a new ice age, I doubt it.

Paul,

As a green you don't disappoint. As an arch anti rationalist, you believe that because it can be done, it should be done, and bugger the consequences. Your sense of righteousness is such that only your objectives count, and the rest of the country must be prepared to sacrifice what is important to them for what you deem to be the common good.

I do believe in infrastructure, and am not one of the greens intent on blocking any new development. I do believe in addressing climate change, but the most rational approach (nuclear) power seems to set the greens howling.

As a power systems engineer, the technical reasons for the failings of the renewable power supplies are glaringly apparent, but the greens claim that this is purely negative and that (substitute unproven technology here) will rescue the world.

The reality is that Hot rocks does not work yet, and probably never will in Australia.
CCS is the same,
Solar can be made partially successful but at several times the cost of nuclear.
Wind, the most successful yet, is still notoriously unreliable, and still more expensive than nuclear.

So will the greens support zero emission nuclear or will you continue simply being negative?

Belly, drop into "Tallbloke's Talkshop".

Do a bit of reading of some of the real science.

If you can't understand it, try studding up on your math.

When I first started to doubt the cr4p the UN were feeding everyone, I had to spend 4 months getting my math back up to scratch. Took even longer to be able to do it again, with out getting a headache.

If you don't do this, & follow some of the better stuff on WUWT, & some other sites all warmists avoid, you are simply parroting what is fed to us in the media, by the Greens & the UN.

You don't believe the cr4p the media feed you on other stuff, why do you believe the AGW stuff?

Ask for a discussion again, after you've put in the work. It is only then, that you can see through the veil of half truth, & cunning bull we are being fed by the Greens, & others who would enslave us.

"Nasa says the increased co2 in the upper atmosphere is delaying the reentry of space junk,
and an increased risk junk collision."

An this is a bad thing ? Lets delay this enty and HOPE that all this junk smashes itself to little itty-bitty pieces and thus burn up harmlessly on re-entry. Or would you rather have a Volkswagon size piece fail to burn up because it remained in tact, and demolish a high rise somewhere ?. Because of the percentage of area occupied by people on this planet [ oceans occupying 3/5ths of the surface area alone ]; the chances of catastrophy happening through falling INTACT
space junk is minimal. Having said that - YES! let this crap smash away in space and there will be NO chance of any damage to population area's. Another valid reason to increase CO2 levels.

" I could similarly state a goal that there would be no greenhouse gas emissions by 2013, "

Since water vapour is the greatest green house gas, do you prepose we stop clouds, evaporation ?
This IS pure BS.CO2 is less than 2% of all other greenhouse gasses combined

I am quite comfortable with the position I find myself in here.
Most see me as a victim of a con, others ,thanks hasbeen tell me what to do if I do not under stand
Davidf at least tells me he does not understand part of my questions.
So Dave here it is, climate change for parts of the world will be good, warmer climate more rain, growing more food.
Bad for coastal towns and city,s under higher tides.
I chose willingly, to believe man plays a roll, not just in using dirty fuels but clearing land and forests.
Dumping poisons in to the sea and water ways.
And am quite confident, most of the world will follow us in reducing our foot print.

Dear Belly,

You have clarified. You questioned whether climate change is good or bad for the planet. Actually you seemed to really be asking whether it is good or bad for humans. That is an entirely different question.

Belly that is a cheap shot & not worthy of you.

You know I was not doing that.

Well for fun here is my take on global warming;

1. The world has been warming since the end of the Maunder Minimum in the 1700s.
2. The effect of CO2 on temperature is not linear but exponential.
3. Doubling of CO2 will have very small or nil effect.
4. CO2 will be increasing for next 20 years at least.
5. IPPC computer models use dud data in their projections.
6. Is it more effective to mitigate any climate effects ?
7. There is no scientific consensus.

First Hasbeen I consider you a mate.
Cut me some slack re read your post, put your self in my place.
See it as me addressing you.
Now do you see why I reacted that way?
David, you miss read a QUESTION from me not a statement.
Here however are my views all truly held.
Climate change is real.
Man plays a roll.
Actions we take can make a difference.
Self interest and power is campaigning to convince some it is crap.
However, again in truth, the Greens have done more to hurt the campaign than help.
DLP/Democrats used their power base to negotiate, Greens try to impose on the 80 to 90%
You may dislike it as much as you wish, but Australia agrees.
Greens brand is the kiss of death.

I am well aware this subject raises hackles, on both sides.
And that, on both sides lies are currency.
It seems my truth has stalled the thread.
I can find no way to avoid the simple truth.
Most of us do not follow the greens thought processes.
That a party formed after a Labor gift, Hawkes saving the Franklin River.
Well yes Brown drove the fight, but Bob gifted him, and this country the river.
Has become much more than a conservation movement, a radicals home.
In truth, if we, both sides leave our biases in the bucket at the door, not our brains.
And read the very latest, news, Governments all over the world, and yes weather reports .
It seems, true or not, more are concerned than not.
See is nature playing politics thread.
Wriggle room, a way of saying how do I get out of here if it is proved I am wrong?
Some left no room to Wriggle.
IF climate change is not man made, how could we prove it/
If it is we can not.
But most know we need a cleaner planet, fuels, power,rivers forests.
So I want no wriggle room I am content to be judged by my words.

Dear Belly,

I agree. Most Australians do not care for the Greens. However, unpopularity does not mean one is wrong. Right or wrong is not decided on the basis of popularity.

At one time the White Australia policy was very popular in Australia, and people were against those who opposed that policy.

Being unpopular does not mean one is right either.

However, that seems to be your main argument against the Greens. Others don't like them, and you are going to go along with what others think. Maybe you can't do better than that.

I & neither can anyone else say with certainty do not know if there is or isn't a climate change. The weather patterns we are accustomed to are certainly out of synch. However, is this a climate change or merely a small natural adjustment ? If it is man-influenced climate change it's taken some 300 years to create & will take longer to reverse it if indeed it can be reversed.
Those who cause it have shown already that they're unwilling to curb their practices. A tax paid by some 6 million silly mutts isn't doing anything when there are 3 billion or more who aspire to be as silly as the six million. Stop frivolous industry, warfare, excessive air travel etc. & we may, just may have the tiniest of hope of doing something positive towards making our climate worse. Turn off your air cons, stop motor racing, only drive small cars would be be a start. All other rhetoric or taxes are simply pointless nonsense.

David, I see the reasons the conservative section (right) of the ALP vehemently oppose The Greens is two fold. Yes we have eroded their political base, I use the word 'their' in broad terms as conservative Labor voters are closer to One Nation than they are to The Greens and a shift in their vote would be to the right and very unlikely to flow to a progressive party such as The Greens. This does have a marked effect where non preferential voting applies such as in state elections, where the ALP loose marginal seats with exhausted Green votes. Significantly, regardless of the preferential system in place Greens gain upper house seats and sometimes the balance of power. In this way we can drive our progressive political agenda, an agenda which does not sit well with the conservative Labor right.

First Indy, well done you tried and it came out better.
But far more than 6 million are paying for it.
I get great joy out of the view it is a Gillard con trick, the Lady, if you insist on calling her that, I will not, did not want the tax.
The world today has around a fifth of its population living under one form or another of carbon reduction schemes, it will increase after up coming meetings on the subject well done Indy.
Paul Dave, grant me a hearing please.
I once had high hopes for your party.
But my views are mine and not in fear of the real damage your party inflicts every day on mine.
Is it asking too much?
To give my words the same respect you give your own?
I have never used terms like those Paul heaves around to play down your side or you both.
Is there any room, to think my thoughts come about AFTER UNDERSTANDING your policy's.
In the dark alleys of Industrial Relations, I have seen true enemy's of my pride and joy, UNIONISM! the CFMEU a hairy grub's trail of users, Pay for Greens campaigns.
Users and destroyers who harm their own members with lies and wasteful Strikes over nothing, supporters maybe more each day controllers of your once CONSERVATIONIST party.
Are you sure 80% of us are wrong? will fall to our knees and beg you to stop us using coal/timber/so very much but start using drugs?
I wish a leader, one with middle of the road credentials, could be found for your party.
See if you went, as all other party's have, to the voters not your dreams, you could indeed at the least force ALP power brokers to get away from the drivers seat.
IF you had the potential you wrongly think you have then you would not be short of members.
However now and forever your actions ensure the ALP is the only party of choice warts and all for those opposing your COALITION PARTNERS THE LIBERALS.

Dear Belly,

Australia has a preferential ballot. That means if one prefers the Greens over Labor and one prefers Labor over the Libs one can mark the ballot accordingly. I don't see that the Greens take any votes away from Labor because Australia has a preferential ballot.

My chief concerns are the environment, militarism and uncontrolled population growth. Those are not the chief concerns of either Labor or the Libs. As far as the environment goes Labor is better then the Libs. As far as militarism goes Labor is worse than the Libs. As far as jobs for the boys Labor is slightly worse.As far as controlling population growth neither party is worth anything. As far as seeking control and concern with winning elections there's not much difference.

I really don't care for or have any abiding loyalty for any political party. They are just devices by which I can express my views. At this time the Greens are closer to my views than any other party. I wish the Greens would be more concerned with population growth, but no party is. The Greens are somewhat concerned with militarism.

You have not given a single real worthwhile argument against the Greens or for Labor as far as I can see.

Labor is bankrupt as far as any abiding principles I care for. So are the Libs. They are both machines which promise goodies to get elected. Sometimes it's tweedledum. Sometimes tweedledee. I prefer Gillard to Abbott and don't like my local Lib rep so will preference Labor over the Libs. However, if I had a better Lib rep and Turnbull headed the Libs I would preference the Libs over labor.

Dave you have every right to your views
As I have mine.
Federal Labor, apart from too many of the worse kind of union members, only about a third of ex unionists are worthless.
And the infection of Sussex Street passed on the power brokers from the right GILLARD! TOO.
Are doing ok Sussex Street is crippling us still with maggots they kept in place being ,RIGHTLY uncovered for yesterdays crimes, is doing the damage.
A clean slate is coming .
That National COMIC BOOK Murdock,s Australian news paper is on the job serving Abbott.
It may even one day highlight CURRENT issues in QLD and Victoria, even NSW Liberal ranks.
A tip, cut in quarters and hung in the smallest room in the house it finds a real purpose, and saves money.

Paul,

You exude confidence, but at all the latest elections (i.e. the polls that count), the greens have been given a hiding.

I for once agree with Belly that climate change is real, and that rational action needs to be taken. The fantasy the greens dole out is that renewable energy is the answer to all our needs. The reality that renewables are both hugely expensive and unreliable seems to elude them.

Come on folks, we all know climate changes. There are 2 questions, as Belly says.

1/ Would climate change be good or bad for life on earth. If I were anything but a polar bear, living in Siberia, my answer would have to be good. As Siberia is the largest land mass, that must be good for land animals.

2/ Does CO2 have much to do with it. The answer is not much.

First of all CO2 has increased somewhat in the last 15 years, but temperatures have not.

Even the models used by IPCC only claim about 0.7C increase from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even that is refuted by much evidence that CO2 displaces water vapor, a much stronger green house gas, according to the theory. To get any serious increase in temperature the models all require positive feed back.

EG. any increase in temperature increases evaporation, leading to more cloud. The models are programed to show more cloud increases the temperature.

At least 5 papers recently have proved that more cloud is a negative feed back. IE. Even in the event that CO2 increases the temperature, the increased cloud created will cause it to cool again. More cloud cooler.

Please do go to the sites that actually publish the latest peer reviewed literature on the subject. Our current government, the greens & the media are all promoting a fallacy, of any mild warming being disastrous. The truth is out there, if you look

How about just simply accepting climate change as part of our planet's evolution ? After all, people continue to change also. Many get smarter, way more get sillier. Anyone for a tax there ?

Hasbeen said;
Even the models used by IPCC only claim about 0.7C increase from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So another doubling will only give another 0.7c.
And another doubling will only give another 0.7c.
and so on.

And I agree with Shadow Minister, in fact increasingly the world does.,
There will be good out comes.
And bad, maybe the bad out ways the good.
But we an no longer hide behind our sides views.
Time well past we should look without our biases at what is good for the most.
Currently, now no I have not gone Green, NSW Forrest's has sold more timber than it can supply.
And foolishly[under NSW Labor] signed a contract, allowing fines, on Forrest,s! to an American firm, of millions!
If it can not supply.
Clear felling is taking place, even in areas said to be protected, so Forrest,s will not be fined,by its CUSTOMER!
Both side, rightly so, call for growing more trees, as carbon sink and renewable timber.
The stark clear felled nature of NSW North coast forrest,s is proof ample ground will be available to plant in.

Dear Belly,

A forest is not only trees. It is an ecological system where many different species of plants and animals live together. If one clearfells in an area not only trees are cut down but species may become extinct because of loss of habitat. Replanting the area with trees will not bring back those species. Different species of trees live together, and each forest has a different mix. Replanting will not even restore the previous mix of trees.

Clearfelling should not done. Trees to be logged should be marked out. If they cannot be moved out without minimal damage to the forest they should not be logged. All trees of one species should not be logged in an area. Some creatures live in a symbiotic nature with a particular species of tree. If that species of tree is eliminated then all associated species are eliminated. The profit from clearfelling is temporary, but the damage is permanent.

Replanting cannot completely restore what was before.

I was going to stay out of this one, but can't help myself today.
As usual, the greens will not be happy until we cease all human activity on the earth; indeed may-be even cease to exist (at least at this level of population).
Well I nominate greens to be the first not to continue to populate the earth.

The very term 'Climate Change' leaves it wide open for the band wagon supporters (who may or may not be proven wrong later) to make no commitments to whether:
- It is human induced
-How the climate is changing
-Whether it is a good or bad thing

In principle, it is not a bad thing to encourage people to use resources more wisely. We all have an inbuilt instinct to make the resources we have last. This is not limited to energy production. It also includes things like fish stocks, land degradation, water supply and minerals. The easiest way to act in these cases is always is to tax. The problem with this is that it provides yet another disincentive to get out of bed in the morning and go and do something, further eroding productivity. We should rather be investing in ways to get the cost of alternatives down. Why give alternative energy sources an artificial subsidy?

SM,
When ever the PM see's fit to call an election I expect us Greens to double our Senate representation in NSW from 1 to 2, hardly going backwards. I will be doing my little bit to help get the outstanding talent, and a lovely human being, Cate Faehrmann to join the equally talented and wonderful Lee Rhiannon in Canberra. Unlike Liberal and Labor Party candidates, who are imposed by the party power brokers, Kate was endorsed by a popular vote of the membership, like all other Green political candidates.
SM you said: "The fantasy the greens dole out is that renewable energy is the answer to all our needs. The reality that renewables are both hugely expensive and unreliable seems to elude them."
As a conservative if we listen to you we will do nothing. I'm sure it was Grandpa SM who opposed the automobile and the flying machine as being "both hugely expensive and unreliable"
Why is it history seems to always show, on everything. the conservatives getting it wrong?
SM a very hard question for you. Can you point to one innovation or reform in Australia over the past 100 years which you conservatives opposed and was implemented and later proved to be the wrong thing to do? There are many to choose from as conservatives tend to oppose all progressive innovations. here are a few to start with, widows pensions, child endowment, The Snowy Mountain Scheme, The Sydney Harbor Bridge its a long list. Here are a few the conservatives did support, WWI, Vietnam War, mining of asbestos. I await your response, it wont come

Bazz I really do find it amazing that someone who talks so loudly, knows so little about the subject.

Even if we accept the IPCC doctored findings on the subject, we find they tell us that the effect of CO2 is Logarithmic. In short hand that means that the effect reduces, as it grows.

In the case any effect of CO2, diminishes as the percentage of the stuff increases. The 0.7C is the maximum it could increase temperature, effectively regardless of how much you put up there, in any practical sense.

This is why I suggest people need enough math to understand the scam. If you don't have the math, you can't see through the red herrings.

You end up being as misinformed as the silly little girl Greenpeace activist, or the bright eyed young lady reported on the ABC. Anything you say is meaningless.

"...Anything you say is meaningless."

While I admire your arrogant assumption that you understand climate science, Hasbeen, it's fairly obvious that on a forum such as this, blokes who trumpet that they "understand the maths" while having next to no training in many disciplines that constitute climate science, it is pretty well meaningless - your narratives included.

We had one climate scientist on this forum who has since left in despair at our ignorance...I suppose the denialists see that as some sort of victory for amateur climate commentary - because, for the most part, that's all that's available around here.

Today if you wish, you can make a quick buck by writting a book.
Just about the silly things that have been said in this forum, about climate change.
Hasbeen will have a whole chapter.
But too remarks that it is a Gillard plot, no way I protect her but truth will.
Here in this thread, proof, some think it is only in Australia,you do the research its your book.
I pose those questions Man of The Land, and got only more questions.
In truth no one can prove only man changes the climate, this time, it has changed many times.
PURE DISLIKE drives some to shelve without thought, the increase in population from the start of the Industrial revolution.
PURE DISLIKE again drives a refusal to include the effects of fossil fuel use in those same years.
Every farmer has seen the results of over stocked paddocks.
Of trying to grow wrong crops in wrong paddocks, yet we stick to a blinded by personal biases slant.
PURE DISLIKE is popular now, we wear it like fashionable dark sunglasses.
It lets us pretend we do not understand.
The reason, and effects, of switching to renewable cleaner energy.
And too, lets us enforce a natural, yes right word, dislike of the morris dancing GREENS 80% plus of us have.
It too allows us to say the whole thing is a greens plot and feel warm and comfortable at ignoring the reality's, any action we take may not be enough to stop some real pain.

Paul,

The conservatives have always pushed technology. I guess it would have been grandpa Paul insisting that cars have someone on foot walking ahead with a red flag. P.S. The liberals are mostly pre selected by the party members unlike labor or the greens.

As for self delusion we have "the equally talented and wonderful Lee Rhiannon" What a joke. We have a hard left / communist hard-liner that is quite happy to stab her compatriots in the back.

Good luck with your expectations to double your senate representation in NSW given your present polling. Did you expect to lose 3 of 4 MPs in the ACT?

No Belly, global warming is not a Gillard plot.
She is a victim of it as much as we are, if indeed it is a plot.
I suspect it is not a plot but maybe a mistaken belief that has run
away with a number of scientists. I don't know that that is the case
but it has become almost a religion with some AGW enthusiasts.

The above illustrates the problem the likes of myself have with the
whole AGW scene. AGW seems like well based science supported by
numerous crackpot supporters.

Then what seems like well based science against the idea of AGW supported
by numerous conspiracy theorists and genuine skeptics.

Belly, I suggest before you post anything you read it out loud to yourself.

Bazz not going to do that, but thanks any way.
I gladly differ with you on this.
Remember that Spanish bloke who tilted at wind mills? his lance while charging that is.
I am not going to be him either.
BUT just for fun, consider this, is it quite possible your stated views re my side of the fence being miss lead.
Any chance, at all, it is your side, fast becoming the minority, who are wrong?
You betcha.

Hi Belly, I watched this program last night and it would be good if all climate change skeptics watched it, to understand what stage we are at in our country. How climate change is actually effecting us now.

It provides a picture of the last hundred years and is delivered in GEN Y style. After watching it I thought there may be still a glimmer of hope for my grandchildren, if only deniers could be stopped from preventing progress and understanding. And above all excepting responsibility as the dominant species for the animal and plant kingdom, instead of waiting for the judgement day.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3633447.htm

Could you just watch it please one and all.

Dear Belly,

With the declaration of extensive marine natural parks the Gillard government has taken a tremendous step to preserve the fish stocks and other marine life in the ocean.

Belly, the last line of my last post was not about the post but a
suggestion re the problem you had mentioned elsewhere.

Thinker 2; I saw that catalyst program.
Interesting, but does not answer the crux question;
How can CO2 from its present level ever be effective in producing
significant temperature rise ?
It would have to reach 10s of thousands times the present level.
Remember 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, etc etc

I am afraid Bazz if it reaches hundreds of thousands of times its current levels we will not be here to know about it.
This complex subject needs answers to my posed questions.
IF man plays no part will it be bad, how bad and why?
If it overall will be good how good and why.
If either will it reverse or continue to grow.
Is there any benefit in new clearner fuels or do we look for more oil.
Should we try to stop pollution or not.

Belly,
As you are finding, you will not find answers to the questions you pose in this thread. The entire global scientific community cannot reach consensus, so I don't imagine we will.
Thinker - yes I saw that program also. Yes it does confirm that the climate is indeed changing, but still does not answer Belly's questions. May-be we should all be celebrating the fact that we have successfully averted another ice age.
That is why I try to look at the question more widely and think about what actions we should take as a society.
- Should we be striving to use the earth's resources more efficiently and sustainably? Don't think we will be finding much argument there.
- Does this mean a progression away from burning fossil fuels? Most probably. The only argument is over what period of time. Immediately? 20 years? 100 years? When the resources run out?
-What is the best way to do that? Now there is a good question.

And by the way, YES, every farmer has seen the effects of over-stocking, and poor crop selection and rotation. That is precisely why farmers like that do not survive. We are one of the few industries that is truly connected to the environment around us. Day after day, year after year. We observe subtle changes in the landscape, changes in the quality of our water, soil health, erosion etc....
We have sustainability at the forefront of our minds every day. Otherwise we do not survive. The margins in our industry are too fine for it to be any other way. And these changes happen in smaller periods of time than you might think.

SM,
I am glad to see you bring up the absurd law where by a man with a red flag or a red lantern by night was required to proceed in front of a motor vehicle as a safety measure. Now lad a bit of history for you. Number one, that was a British law and since the first Labour PM of Britain, Ramsey MacDonald, did not take office until 1924 and since all previous British governments had been either conservative or liberal and since that law had long passed away by 1924, therefore we can safely say it was A CONSERVATIVE INNOVATION! Is that it, the great achievement of conservatism 'the man with the red fag' did you think because the flag was red it must have been a communist invention?
Then when a conservative wants to apply the insult of insults they brand you a communist. Lee Rhiannon a "communist hard-liner".
Another bit of rubbish you posted "The liberals are mostly pre selected by the party members unlike labor or the greens." I can speak for The Greens, every candidate, that's every candidate has to be endorsed by a democratic vote of the membership. I don't know about Labor these days, most likely still appointed by the 'back room boys' as for the Liberals most likely you can't run unless you are anointed by Archy Pell. That's how the Mad Monk go the job is it not. If the conservatives win office will Archy Pell be calling the tune, of course he will. A quote from your fearless leader Pope Ratbag "Stop it, you will all go bind." You should push to have that made Liberal policy.

The global scientific has reached consensus on global warning and the cause of it being primarily human activity. Some of those who do not accept it maintain there is not consensus. However, they confuse lack of unanimity with lack of consensus. Consensus and unanimity are not the same thing.

Belly said;
I am afraid Bazz if it reaches hundreds of thousands of times its current levels we will not be here to know about it.

Sorry, Belly, you missed the point of what I said.
There is no way it will reach 10s of thousands ppm.
and that is the point. Therefore, CO2 is now not in a position to push
up temperature significantly.
Now the above is my interpretation of the fact that co2 is exponential
in its effect on temperature.
This is based on the one and only graph that I have seen showing that
the exponential curve of co2 v temperature has rolled over to almost
horizontal.
The x axis was co2 concentration and the y xasis was temperature.
If the temperature is still rising it MUST be something other than CO2.

That would of course David, be the same type of consensus that agreed that stomach ulcers were caused by worry/stress wouldn't it?

Apart from the fact that 9000 scientists, including over 1000 PhD signed a petition stating they did not agree with global warming theory, have you ever seen a consensus that had a clue?

Hasbeen,

It seems that in arguing against a consensus, you are citing here your own "mini" consensus against AGW.

Except the consensus in favour of AGW is far more comprehensive, and less likely to be tied to fossil fuel/corporate interests.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/23/climate-change-believe-in-it

(btw, the science is never settled.....discoveries in medical science, like science in general, are ongoing - as is exemplified by your reference to stomach ulcers)

and less likely to be tied to fossil fuel/corporate interests.

And that is the most cowardly argument yet.

Poirot it is simple really. For some years I believed what I was told. Then I saw some holes too big to ignore.

If you don't have the math to follow the formula for yourself, you can only take someones word for what the thing says. It took me about 3 months of a couple of hours a day of hard study, before I could follow the equations enough to see what was going on.

Even now I am only up to understanding what the smart ones have found wrong with the warmists efforts. The more I see, & the better I get, the more I become convinced the mistakes are no accident, but mathematical slight of hand trickery. If it is not, these climatologists are really dumb people. Hell they are still trying to resurrect the hockey stick tomfoolery.

Now I don't know how much contact you have had with academia, or in which area. Some areas may have a clue, medical research does appear to from a great distance, but I have had some contact since my B Sc, with science & engineering people.
When ever I have talked to "professors" about a subject I had real knowledge of, I have often found them wanting, but very resistant to admitting their lack of expertise. This adds to my annoyance at having been silly enough to have believed the rubbish originally.

So sorry Poirot, but if you don't have the math, you're just accepting the authority of those with a very large financial axe to grind. If you are not prepared to put the effort in, to understand what you are reading, that's your problem, & nothing to do with me.

I have found some graphs that explain the relationship of co2 to
temperature very clearly.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

Now before you rush out and say "Oh that is just a denier website"
pause and don't make yourself look foolish.
This is the arithmetic undenierability of co2 and temperature.
This does not say that the world is heating up, it just shows that it
cannot be co2. All the heating due to co2 has already been done.

Bazz,

"That is the most cowardly argument yet."

Okay, so Exxon doesn't fund much climate skepticism or organizations set up to promote "skepticism"?...or the Koch Brothers likewise. Bit of a giggle when they funded Muller in the BEST study - and he came out in support if AGW. See Dick Run. See Fluff chase the ball. See the "skeptics" dump Muller faster than a skeptic arguing that "he has the maths".

Hasbeen,

So you're not an oceanographer - or an atmospheric physicist - or anything like that. You have a science degree and an uncanny ability to see through the knowledge of professors.

....okay : )

The book, the best seller one of you will write.
Lets name it, the silly things people said about the planets future.
Sorry Man of The Land, you will not get a mention, make far too much sense with your comments.
Hasbeen however is in it the full chapter.
We can do things better, any and every thing, plant more trees, use dead land no good for farming pump treated sewage to it recycle, and grow usable timber.
One thing I am certain of, if we are not in part responsible we will be, if we let population growth continue.

Bazz,

since you linked to the "skeptics" fav blog, here's an example of my earlier point...go the skeptic blog sites!

Before Muller's BEST findings:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/06/briggs-on-berkeleys-best-plus-my-thoughts-from-my-visit-there/

After Muller's BEST findings:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/muller-the-pretend-skeptic-makes-three-claims-hes-half-right-on-one/

Change in temperature approximates sensitivity times the forcing.

If you change [CO2] by 10%, the temperature change is about 0.3 degrees C.

Therefore, sensitivity = 0.3/(5.35 x log(1.1))

If you double [CO2], the temperature change is: 0.3/(5.35 x log(1.1)) * 5.35 x log(2)

That is: 0.3 x log(2)/log(1.1) = 2.2 deg C.

It is clear that some people don’t understand the maths, or the physics.

A product of a dumbed-down society.

Bazz?
The Earth's atmosphere is not saturated with CO2, your interpretation and understanding of planetary climate is off the planet.

No Quanda, I did not mean that the atmosphere was saturated with CO2
or otherwise we would all be dead.
I meant that the co2 effect on temperature had saturated.
A significant difference I think you will agree.
I have been looking at your calculation, where is the figure 5.35 derived ?

Poriot, I think you might have missed my point.
I was not discussing the temperature measurements.
The articles to which you linked were about temperature measurements.
What I was discussing was the effect of co2 changes which the NOAA
says is about two parts per million per year.

So we can apply to Qanda's calculation a 2 in 390 parts per million.
The percent increase per year is 0.512% of co2.
Now where did I put my calculator.

A bit of a hissy fit Paul?

The 1865 red flag act was while the liberals were in power, but is typical of the anti progress / industrial action of the greens, and so the analogy with you is 100%

As LR was a member of the communist party, and took several decades before acknowledging that Stalin's killing of 20m of his own people was not a good thing.

As for your pre selection process is this what you were talking about?

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/05/30/life-after-bob-greens-cleavage-exposed-by-nsw-preselections/

Any Greens candidate needs to be endorsed by one of the Aliens Bob Brown has been chatting to.

P.S. you never commented on the hiding you got in the ACT.

Saturday mornings, those who like a bet and a day at the races will know about that feeling.
Trilby on the head, dyed straw usually,form in hand, just a few extra dollars from the cunning kick punters have.
And off to the races, a sure bet.
That empty feeling as you leave the rails,just after your horse has thundered in,last.
Well on again next week!
But not this gamble, if we get it wrong.
So much Certainty ,from both sides, and no foundation at all for SOME VIEWS.
A middle path, moving toward new cleaner fuels,at the cheapest costs,taxing clearly in appropriate users.
Imposing limits on car size and speeds.
Who knows what we could do if we concentrated on the things we agree with not the differences.
Monday Q a A both ex, should be again leaders, a must see.

Bazz, if you can understand the concept of ‘radiative forcing’ you wouldn’t be asking “where is the figure 5.35 derived?”

For what it’s worth, any increase (or decrease) in CO2 (for example) impacts on the top of atmosphere energy balance. Any change to energy coming in and energy going out is a very good indicator of the subsequent change in temperature, even at the surface. A bench-mark study was conducted by Myhre et al (1998) deriving the equation. This may help:

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm#635

Bazz, the nuance is largely misunderstood, distorted or misrepresented by those claiming to know math.

You say: “No Quanda, I did not mean that the atmosphere was saturated with CO2 or otherwise we would all be dead. I meant that the co2 effect on temperature had saturated.”

No it hasn’t Bazz but even if it were, there is reason to limit the increase:

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/43/18354.full

May I suggest “Principles of Planetary Climate”, R.T. Pierrehumbert, Cambridge University Press, 2010. It is an excellent reference text used by universities to teach undergraduate atmospheric science.

Hasbeen & Bazz,
Maths?? Logic?? Who's got the time or inclination for that. It is far easier to gulp down whats fed to you in small palatable snippets of dogsh^%T.
Isn't it easier to shoot one liners from the hip? It will get you just as far with the entrenched sheep.

I am interested though; lets suppose that humans do infact not play a role in the current changing climate. Does that mean it's a green light to carry on as we are?
Should we be taking steps to reduce our burning of fossil fuels anyway?
Should we be continuing to persue alternative technologies? Or give them away as an expensive bad joke?

ManOfTheLand says:

"Maths?? Logic?? Who's got the time or inclination for that."

Real scientists.

"It is far easier to gulp down whats fed to you in small palatable snippets of dogsh^%T."

Yep, a dumbed-down society.

"Isn't it easier to shoot one liners from the hip? It will get you just as far with the entrenched sheep."

Sad but true, a 'dumbed-down' society.

I would love to understand and know as much as QandA does, too late in life for that.
Man of The Land will do however most answers come from the middle.
We are better for than.

Thanks for the links Qanda, I will read them.
Would you like to have a look at the graphs on this link and comment on them please.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

Thanks

Don't be silly Bazz. Warmists don't read What's up with that, too much chance of finding a whole host of real science, that knocks their destructive concocted theory into a cocked hat.

He also has a habit of exposing the flaws in warmist papers, after peer review by the hockey team found nothing wrong, & forcing their withdrawal. Not a good look for those who want to use the theory/con to send us back to the caves. Not the sort of thing that endears him & the blog to the converted.

qanda, precisely my point. Although I don't imagine that our society is any more dumbed down than at any other time.
Although, to be fair you cannot expect that only worthy climate scientists will want to have an opinion on the subject. Even those who do not necessarily represent the 'dumbed down'.

It is for this reason that I throw it out there to perhaps change the question. May-be then, it will not be so important to convince the beleivers (or sceptics for that matter) of the role of C02 or even other complex mechanisms involved.

I have no claim on understanding the maths or science involved. And yet, I too wish to contribute to the debate. I think that to encourage changes in human behaviour in this area cannot be a bad thing regardless of the scientific outcomes.

Gday Hasbeen me old mate warmist Belly here, had 25mm today!
Tanks not full but garden is grinning.
Ah may I point out what we read has an impact?
I read at least as much as you do but understand no more than Man of The Land.
My instincts say it is probably true man has an effect on climate change.
I think the anti stuff is a bit American Tea Party like,and headed for the same fate.
One of us is quite wrong, but you grow good flowers!

Thats what I say to illogical religious nutters MotL, "I have no claim on understanding the maths or science involved" you might not have any claim to understanding, but science does, and has reached consensus . Yes it is categorically and provably true that humankind alone has control over it's own fate, despite the unhelpful and misleading bleatings of redneck wolf deniers in sheep's clothing.

Yes and it also true that there is absolutely no evidence of a greater power.

Belly old mate, good on you. We only got 20mm, pour Brisbane CBD got more than they wanted, but we're happy with what we got.

Mate as a horse lover, & breeder in a minor way, [no not valuable race horses], I would actually love to see us go back to farming & transport with them. Just think of all the jobs for public servants, shoveling up the horse poo from the delivery wagons in shopping centers.

As an old sailor I would love to be able to make a living with a small, [say 50 meters] sailing cargo ship, replacing a few semi trailers on the Sydney Cairns route. I spent some time trying to come up with a way I could earn a living from such a small ship years ago.

Yes I would love to see it, but I wont, as there is no reason to, except than perhaps to supply work for the useless hordes.

In todays world, only about 10% actually do anything useful, the rest are at make work, only affordable by the immense productivity of one man, with a big machine.

In those lovely old days, it took 4 men all day to harvest an acre of wheat. Today one man harvests 50 acres a day, & delivers it to the rail head.

In those old days, one man could produce food for a dozen or so, today he feeds thousands.

Continued

You'll be out of a job too old mate. Bullock wagons don't go fast enough to require good roads, no job constructing roads, when the wagon can just move the track ten feet to one side. It is us hoons in our cars that want roads.

So I have no problems going back a hundred or two years, as long as the elites come with us. If the truck driver/farmer must use a horse, so too must the professor. However it is not a good idea for most of us, used as we are to an easier life, & why should they.

There is as yet not one single item of proof that any of this is happening, & if it ever does, every degree will open up thousands of square miles of Siberia for useful production. A win win if ever there was one.

So folks, give me a reason, & I'll be on your band wagon quick time, but I'm damned if I'll ride the gravy train of our green/left elites, who simply reckon the peasants have it too good.

Hasbeen, there is an organisation in the Vancouver Seattle area doing
goods delivery by sail. They started out small but I think they have
developed past that point.
I have forgotten its name but it had sail in the name.

SM,
That Crikey link, what a beat up, full of unnamed sources. The Greens in NSW are a united group with an outstanding senator in Lee, who will shortly be joined by Kate. Our MLC's. are the best in the chamber by a mile. Jamie Parker has the full support of the membership. There is no internal war that I am aware of, and most of the people named by Crikey I speak to quite regularly, no back stabbing there. I am a strong supporter of Lee and I placed her 1st on the DD vote. On the normal vote I voted 1 Mehreen 2 Kate as I believe most of the so called Lee Rhiannon faction did. I am total committed to helping Kate get elected to the Senate next year. I hope Mahreen gets the opportunity to fill Kate's seat in the LC, not too sure if she wants to. Mehreen is by far our best talent, male or female outside of parliament we have here in NSW.
Happy to see a Labor Green coalition in the ACT. despite the Mad Monk calling for a Liberal Green deal.
How about a genuine answer to this question I posed to you:
"SM a very hard question for you. Can you point to one innovation or reform in Australia over the past 100 years which you conservatives opposed and was implemented and later proved to be the wrong thing to do? There are many to choose from as conservatives tend to oppose all progressive innovations. here are a few to start with, widows pensions, child endowment, The Snowy Mountain Scheme." As I confidently predicted you would not have an answer. The only time we get whole heartened support from the conservatives is when a war is in the offing, your backers see war as a way to make big bucks, and bugger the dead. Can you name one post WWII conservative PM who was not a 'warmonger'? Here's the list. Menzies, Holt, McEwen, Gorton, McMahon, Fraser and Howard. I'll take it no answer means you agree all were 'warmongers'.

Belly,

Thanks – we all have our skills and abilities. What I find distasteful is when people who don’t know what they are talking about try and make out that they do - you know, someone who says "it's cr*p".

I used to frequent OLO, not now. A colleague of mine only last week said he “tried it too” but has since given up. I've popped in and see nothing has changed - much like WUWT (see response to Bazz following).

--

ManOfTheLand,

If you mean it would be prudent to tread carefully – I agree.

Bazz

David Archibald opens with this:

“The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15° C, it is 15° C. Carbon dioxide contributes 10% of the effect so that is 3° C.”

Bazz, it is apparent that Mr Archibald and you (by extension) have not understood or taken into account (all of) radiative ‘forcing’. This misunderstanding (I use the term loosely) culminates in an error in the value of ‘climate sensitivity’ Mr Archibald uses in his equations.

For example; Mr Archibald thinks he understands the logarithmic function of CO2 concentration and its impact on TOA temperatures. However, he surmises (wrongly) that warming from our next 40 ppm of [CO2] will only be 0.04 degrees C.

As you seem to acknowledge, we are not talking about a CO2 saturated atmosphere. At the concentrations we are experiencing, any doubling from 200 yrs ago (280 ppm) to 560 ppm gives roughly the same ‘forcing’ as 380 ppm (today) to 760 ppm - roughly linear 'forcing', Bazz.

However, tripling the concentration gives about 60% more warming than if you doubled it. Needless to say, at those concentrations, the average global temperature would be at such high levels that life on planet Earth will look nothing like it does today.

Bazz, scroll down to the comments of John Finn:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/#comment-338723

He is someone you should be listening to Bazz, and he is a ‘sceptic’.

According to Mr Archibald’s own bio; he is a ‘scientist’ operating in the fields of cancer research, oil exploration, and climate science. Now he is involved in the financial industry as a stock analyst. Mr Archibald has been CEO of multiple oil and mineral exploration companies operating in Australia. He is a director of the Lavoisier Group.

Do you know who they are, Bazz?

Mr Archibald is also a member of the Australian Climate Science Coalition, a politically and ideologically motivated think-tank opposed to policies that impinge on the power and control the fossil fuel and mining industries wield.

Bazz
Seriously, Anthony Watts' blog site is just that - a blog.
Ok, it scores brownie points by people who just don't know, or who are looking for confirmation in their belief.
However, in the real scientific world - Anthony Watts just doesn't cut it.
If you really want to be a 'sceptic', follow the comments of someone like this guy (again):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/#comment-338879
A bit of advice though: look at the 'opposing view web-sites' as well as WUWT (that's what real 'internet sceptics' do).
A good place to start for the layman:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
Best wishes

Woodburn, on the north coast of NSW know it well.
Once packed my 4x4 fishing gear and off, every Friday night.
Fishing at Evans head with my best mate.
Nice old homes is it Dutch? in any case the roof on most showed European influences.
Ten are rubble now,after that storm, no one can remember one being destroyed before, or such a storm.
South coast, see the water spout? big wasn't it.
It, if true will not rush us over night, symptoms as we are told will come by degrees.
So why not take action? just in case?
QandA OK went close to leaving as an influx of newbys seemed to want to tear the walls down.
But staying has seen it get better, we must understand SOME will never be balanced contributors.
Not kidding about the book, authors note,humor sells .
First try reviewing CARBON TAX posts.
We out did Abbott here, blame useless Lil [Gillard] if it helps,
But the sky is falling due to this tax killed Abbott.
And to think, here some inflated the THING even more.
Re read and laugh,
PS my work is my garden,hard to take that from me.
My joy? had the Australian Workers dream exit
Told an extremely rude self inflated bad boss just what to do with his job, no detail left out in middle of a work day.
Joy, fun, HONESTY!

Paul,

Crikey is a left / Green supporting blog, and are not the only ones talking of the frictions in the Greens. Lee Rhiannon is the deep red centre of the Green watermelon and is tilting at windmills that have long since ceased to exist. She also peddles conspiracy theories that should get her a tin foil hat nut job award.

The answer to your question is the Carbon tax.

Also none of Menzies, Holt, McEwen, Gorton, McMahon, Fraser and Howard were war mongers. I don't recall any one of them starting a war. By your definition Juliar is a warmonger.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/degrees-of-devastation-major-report-warns-of-drastically-hotter-planet-20121119-29l3c.html
You should humor Paul SM he is a mirror image of your self, not much interested in the truth.
The link,from a warning from the world bank, that a 4 degrees rise in temperature this century is probable.
Interests me, my memory's of past contributions seems to have the world bank as part of a criminal conspiracy, in relation to climate change.
See? that book has potential.
But what if they are right?
Tell you what lets toss for it,heads 4 degrees tails two OK?
Heads!
ah toss again cannt be right.

Belly,

A little rich coming from you, the arch pontificator and ad hominem dispenser, your posts are not known for accuracy. I would have put you a lot closer to Paul in the truth stakes. I note that you have almost never tried to challenge me on what I post, which means that you tacitly acknowledge its veracity.

This is the same world bank that was so worried about Y2K?

SM, actually Y2K was a real problem.
Thousands and thousands of programmers were involved in modifying and
checking existing programs. Even I got involved in a very small way.
I had to write a program to convert a file to suit my BBSs new date
recognition.

So it was real, but fortunately the precautions that were taken saved
quite a bit of panic that would have occurred if nothing had been done.

>>Also none of Menzies, Holt, McEwen, Gorton, McMahon, Fraser and Howard were war mongers. I don't recall any one of them starting a war. By your definition Juliar is a warmonger.<<

I don't recall Gillard starting a war either. The only one I know we're fighting in is the Afghanistan War and Gillard din't start that: Muslim terrorists flying into buildings did.

Cheers,

Tony

SM,

Even the World Bank is sitting up and taking notice...I believe the IMF was also talking about this issue "seriously" earlier this year. These two organisations have been at the forefront of promoting relatively unfettered industrial progress over recent decades. If they're signalling we need a rethink, then I believe the message might be making it to the places it needs to go.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2012/08/120820-extreme-weather-heat-waves-science-environment-global-warming/

Cmon Belly, don't foil the entertainment. SM & Paul bring some much needed insight to the forum.
I am poised and waiting to see who converts who....

Man of The Land OK fair cop.
I have mud wrested both Paul is a first round victory .
Shadow Minister?
Even after a loss he tells me he won!
See I lie.
Never get it right.
Get conned.
Silly me.
And here I am, fool that I am, thinking some resemblance to reality was the best path.
I am concerned most, about the debate.
about what actions we can take at little cost and why we insure our homes and cars, life and health, but baulk at insuring the Planet.

SM,
Sorry, wrong answer they were all warmongers by my definition.You can throw in Gillard if you like. However you have won a consultation prize, you get to take a pop gun to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. The carbon Tax, that's it, opposition to the carbon tax is the greatest achievement of the conservatives in Australia in the past 100 years.SM if that's it your definitely off to Affganistan.
ManOfTheland, the only reason I'm dirty on the conserves is they wouldn't let me join the Melbourne Club cause I wasn't wearing the right tie, in fact I wasn't wearing no tie at all, they thought I was a bolshevik. Also once, I got ejected from a Lady McMahon garden party by a couple of Liberal heavies, I thing it was Alexander Downer and Bronwyn Bishop. No matter, besides the cucumber sambo's were crap and she served domestic champers, some people have no class.
Tony,Tony,Tony, are you Tony Abbott, how can you equate Muslim terrorists = flying into buildings = killing kid in Afghanistan. For all we know, they could have been Jehovah Witness's on a mission for the CIA, or George Bush or God or anyone you like to name. None of it is a reason to kill kids in Afghanistan or anywhere else for that matter including Sydney Australia.

"they wouldn't let me join the Melbourne Club cause I wasn't wearing the right tie, in fact I wasn't wearing no tie at all"

That is most unfortunate. So it was mostly about the tie? Did they not have a problem with the bare feet, thongs, green peace t-shirt and the fact you were smoking a joint?

Never mind, I got knocked back because I had too much mud on my blundstones.

>>For all we know, they could have been Jehovah Witness's on a mission for the CIA, or George Bush or God or anyone you like to name. None of it is a reason to kill kids in Afghanistan or anywhere else for that matter including Sydney Australia.<<

They could have been - except for George Bush because he'd have been killed in the incident and he wasn't - but they weren't: they were Saudi Arabian Muslims. That doesn't justify the invasion of Afghanistan (Saudi Arabia perhaps). Nevertheless it was what precipitated the invasion of Afghanistan: had it never occurred I am quite confident that Afghanistan would not have been invaded.

Take off your al-foil hat and stop listening to paranoids. The 9/11 conspiracy theories are BS: we know who was piloting those planes and it wasn't the CIA or the NWO. As I said earlier it was some Saudi Arabian Muslims.

Your ham-fisted historical revisionism is hilarious: claiming that 'For all we know, they could have been Jehovah Witness's on a mission for the CIA, or George Bush' when we know exactly who they were is like claiming that 'for all we know, King James VI of Scotland and I of England was also King James V of Sweden' or 'for all we know it was the South who were the abolitionists and the North the slavers in the American Civil War' or 'for all we know Elvis is still alive'. We know James never held the Swedish throne, we know the North were the abolitionists in the American Civil War, we know Elvis is dead - they did an autopsy on him so if he wasn't dead before he certainly was afterwards - and we know it was Saudi Arabian Muslims and not anybody else who flew planes into buildings on 9/11.

What do you hope to achieve by pretending it was somebody else?

Cheers,

Tony

Paul,

Fortunately your definition and opinion is not worth the paper it's printed on.

Dictionaries define warmonger - a politician who tries to start a war, or a person who encourages or advocates aggression or warfare towards other nations or groups. None of which applies to the politicians you mentioned.

As for you being ejected, I guess that it had less to do with your lack of tie, more like the lack of a bath for a month, or atrocious behaviour.

Climate change? must have around the Melbourne club I knew.
Paul it would have been only too happy to lend you a neck tie, tie it for you and select a tree.
Afghanistan? we westerners have much to be ashamed of, sending girls back to school, letting the sounds of music not guns fill the streets.
And the worst?
Returning the sporting fields to sport!
How dare we stop the mass murders as public entertainment!
PAUL, MATE, stirring is not debate, only the letter T separates a Wit from a Twit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-northrop/reality-trumps-magical-th_b_2156712.html
I thought a well written report, from America about this issue would be worth while.
A bit stunned by the opposing views I find it hard to believe some think this is just a few of us.
Within this long but worth while read are some figures, 75% of Americans think it is time to act on climate change.
Too, so little has yet been done, much of the link wants to plan future actions AFTER disasters bought about by climate change.

Thanks Fellas, but the adulation will have to stop. I am not the Messiah, but merely a disciple of the true Messiah, Bob Brown.
SM thanks for digging out the correct definition of Pig Iron Bob and his flunkies and lackeys, warmonger "a person who encourages or advocates aggression or warfare towards other nations or groups." Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Fits them to a tee.
Tony, Tony, Tony, you were winning me over until you said "Elvis is dead" we all know Elvis is alive and well and running a Berger King store in Dapto!
ManOfTheLand: I'll have you know,The Melbourne Club is an egalitarian organization for gentlemen of refinement such as myself. The club welcomes all comers regardless of race, sex, religion. There are exceptions though, too numerous to list here, especially no riffraff, and certainly no women.
Belly, I can see from your posts, you have finally taken the plunge and come over to the other side. Welcome comrade.

Paul,
I vehemently opose almost every viewpoint you have. In fact often the first sentence of your post makes me groan in disbelief.
And yet appreciate that it takes people of all veiwpoints to contribute. After-all, what fun would it be if every one just saw sence? Appreciate also your ability to joke about yourself.
Shame SM can't seem to do the same.
Good momentary truce.

Paul a final bit of advice.
Humor used in the right way can be fun.
But in my view you are not serving the Morris Dancers ah, Greens well.
Out side a Labor country conference one Sunday morning,it may have been you.
A silly beggar lay down on the Cooma footpath, as half the flocK went for the Catholic Church, I went for black coffee.
The gentle man in the Kola bear suit just lay there.
He became a figure to laugh at.
Too in Sydney some years after Greens set up out side our conference
Smoke billowing from an old fire box fed wood chips by three men who had slept,by the looks of them, inside the rusty firebox.
About 30 police watched on.
I think trying to stop the crowd giving them a bath.
I am considering adding your recent posts to those memory's.
Do not cut down any trees to grow the pot OK?

ManOfTheLand: you said "I vehemently opose almost every viewpoint you have. In fact often the first sentence of your post makes me groan in disbelief." Do I detect a softening of attitude towards me views, are you ready for conversion. Welcome comrade.
Seriously. I do not take this forum seriously, I'm not here to change hearts and minds. Just a bit of relaxation, post some fun, stir the pot. I don't know anyone on here but I don't hate, such a strong word, anyone for what they post. I kind a like people like SM and Belly, they seem genuine types, got their views. Don't tell them I said that as they might think I'd want to move in with 'em, 3 of us in a one room bed sit in Darlo might be a bit crowded.

Belly said "Out side a Labor country conference one Sunday morning" Who was Labor's inspirational speaker at that conference? EDDIE OBEID, did you have a video link to Long Bay so Milton and the mob could add their 2 cents worth!
"About 30 police watched on." Police brutality, Sunday morning at double time.
"The gentle man in the Kola bear suit just lay there" Firstly there are no bears in kola's. Secondly it was your bloke Pete Garrett who was in the Wilderness mod who dress up in kola suits, so it could have been Pete, p/s Pete will be in the wildness after the next election. Since you mentioned kolas, Fatty O'Barrell, is about to do a deal with the Shooters and Hooters Party to allow six year old's into national parks with their AK47's to blast away at those pesky bear like things, all in return for allowing Fatty to build a plutonium plant in Pitt Street.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/world-greenhouse-gas-levels-hit-fresh-records-20121121-29ot4.html

Cheeky of me, to post a link about climate change in Paul's chuckle page.
Still, world bank in a link above and now another world organization has its say.
They have their act together these conspiracy warmists, getting more and more to lie for them.
Or are they/we, interesting question.

Thanks for that, Belly.

I wonder how loud the planet will "squeal" before we begin to see the consequences - or fathom exactly what the consequences will be.

Nice to see qanda making a return with his expertise - be nice if he pops in occasionally - and his colleague also.

We can always do some real professional climate expertise around here.

: )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvF97cf6x6c
A laugh and bit of fun.
But I just could not stop.
During the film putting names to it, some from here and Abbott mostly.
As I see them some future time after the truth gets out.

Paul,

I wish that you had simply admitted up front, when I asked you, that you were just making things up, then we could happily have ignored you.

Now we know that you are a BS artist for whom truth is optional (like most greens), we can.

Best return Paul.
If you are having that effect on SM.
You are doing some thing right.

http://afr.com/p/opinion/climate_change_should_send_chill_78Dg4mC0g1EM6ggKRDJIkL
Yet another link, again pointing to the possibility man made climate change is real.
We must confront, sooner or later, both sides of the question.
And ask these questions, what is in it for warmist,s?
What is in it for deniers?
Now the sky is falling Carbon tax has been proved to be? well lets be kind, say wrong!
What are the costs of taking action/being careful?
Worth noting the source of the link is hardly a leftist troll site.

Hi Belly,

You may also be interested in one of the links mentioned at the end of your last link..."Secrets in the ice".

Sort of a musing on the subject of global warming, scientists - and the psychology of man and how he deals with potential realities that he doesn't wish to acknowledge.

http://afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/Secrets_in_the_ice_lvSqHpdQda2itC5NYTEE4I

Precisely Poirot!

Belly, my view on climate change, and should anything be done. I believe that man is responsible to some degree for climate change. There are strong arguments from 'science' both ways. There is also vested interests, big coal, big oil, those who oppose big business etc. What is at stake? The future of human race no less. Assume for a moment there is only a 10% chance or less that the proponents are correct and man is responsible to some degree for climate change. Do we take action, or do we not? I think the consequences for future generation are so dire that we would be totally irresponsible not to take action. It is a win win situation, If the proponents are wrong and climate change does not come about, all we do is invest in new renewable energy technology, which sooner or later we are going to have to do anyway, that's a win. If the proponents are right then the results of affirmative action are obvious, another win.

Hey qanda - thanks for that.

(...glad you're still around : )

Belly

"If you are having that effect on SM.
You are doing some thing right."

Funny how lies and fabrications irritate me.

Paul,

Scenario 3, We cripple our economy to reduce emissions, and the rest of the world does nothing.

Scenario 4 - nobody does anything and we all go to hell in a handbasket.

Good-o

Poirot

Scenario 4 = scenario 3 but at a higher cost.

Shadow Minister it is true over the last month Paul has changed his posting style, in my view for the worse.
While I often clash with him, I have, until his recent posts, never had reason to think he did not believe what he was saying.
You Sir without doubt, are too free with saying folk are lieing/BS,ing.
You will not be surprised to know I place little value on your fixed and blind position.
I however, wounded by your unfounded charges against me,did with intent, have a shot at you.
That post did not need to be put, but I doubt you would understand, or with draw in my position.
I with draw.

Holy doppelgangers!

Is it just a coincidence that (all lowercase) bonmot logs off, and five seconds later (all lowercase) qanta -- who hasn’t graced us with his presence for over a year-- logs on

A pleasure Poirot, I think. To summarise:

“… confronted with a truth too awful to contemplate, many people seek diversion, distraction, denial ...

There are so many coping mechanisms (as we can see here) – the anxious might deny; the sad might avoid; the hopeless become resigned; the frustrated, cynical; the depressed, sceptical (not in the scientific sense); the angry, just fed up.

Pearman (published) … papers on the issue urging social, behavioural and organisational scientists to enter the fray, arguing that they had an essential role to play in shaping the attitudinal changes required to respond to the warming being forecast by physical scientists.”

Sadly, there is only so much real ‘climate scientists’ can do, all having an otherwise normal life to lead. Thanks again, a great article by Jo Chandler to be sure.

Yes, people (Belly, Bazz, Shadow Minister, etc.) in general can (and should) debate policy. However, it is shear folly to debate the rationale with the irrational. In my experience and from my perspective, that is what I have found anyway.

Nevertheless, good luck - you have the tenacity and capacity to make so much sense out of it :)

Hello SPQR?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5468#149605

Good bye SPQR

SPQR,

Oh there you are.....still attempting to be oh-so-clever.

You know, after your abysmally failed attempt to hang me out to dry on the "Boycotting Jews, yet again" thread, I thought you'd given your smarty pants to the Salvos.

Just to jog your memory:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14348&page=0#247742

And my two posts in response:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14348&page=0#247745

We all get it wrong sometimes, and a mark of good faith is to admit it, apologise and move on. I really expected you to get back to me on that one.....obviously an overestimation on my part.

qanda,

Thanks again.

I just wanted to add that people like me who are scientifically non-expert actually need the real scientists to take part occasionally. I take my cues from the people with the real knowledge and it is from them that I build my case - which might be useful for getting the message across on opinion sites like this where ordinary people talk these things over.

While I understand that it must be frustrating and seem futile when those ignorant of the science argue in bare-faced denial, often in an insulting manner, I too think that those with the knowledge need to "enter the fray".

(Besides, these days I eat denialists for breakfast....so we shouldn't be too reticent in engaging them : )

Cheers

Somehow I don't think my day would be complete if I neglected this link:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-now-freely-available-download.html

: )

Again I get joy out of such deniers as SPQR.
It is fun thinking about the future as evidence grows and action too, to prove we need to act.
I see SPQR hopping around both feet in mouth trying to retract years of being wrong.

Poirot

<<You know, after your abysmally failed attempt to hang me out to dry on the "Boycotting Jews, yet again" thread,>>

Aaah, Poirot, that thread!

I was going to return and put you right on that. But on further consideration I thought,naaaah, let poor Poirot enjoy the feeling that she has scored one (she doesn’t often get the chance to score anything!) let her simmer a little longer in her “I’ve been wronged” and "I've got proof" indignation.

But since you’ve brought it up again. It is not at all as you portray it.

It makes little difference that my first link (and I noted you only squawked about the first, you were reticent to examine the second) related to a side issue.

The key point was that whenever there is criticism to be leveled at Islamistists you are likely to be found tut tutting in the corner calling it hysteria, hate or something else way below you. However, should the chance come to criticize Israel (or the US,or practically anything from the West) you are more than likely to be found at the front of the mob brandishing the rope. And that is as the real Poirot –the one who investigates all cases of abuse without fear of favor – would say is INDISPUUUUUTABLE!

Now back to the point of my initial post –after that fine example of a broken wing display from Poirot. Have we, here on this very thread, seen another of those famous warmist “hide the decline” acts (not withstanding this time by a very much B grade cast) ?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5468#149851

Ah Belly,
<<Again I get joy out of such deniers as SPQR.
It is fun thinking about the future as evidence grows and action too, to prove we need to act>>

But we have “acted”.

Didn’t (saint) Kevin and Julia (of Arc) save the world by signing onto Kyoto and introducing the carbon tax?

Ever since those events I’ve been sleeping soundly in the full and certain knowledge that the apocalypse has been averted.

In all honesty Belly, if there were more like you in the Labor party –of if you were the leader – they would get my vote every time.

SPQR,

Well thanks for confirming my opinion of your style.

Whichever way you look at it, you screwed up big time with your assertion in your post on that thread. It's just as I maintained, that you helicoptered into the Islamic Riot thread and plucked out my comment before dumping it into the other thread devoid of context - and you did it to score a few points. The fact that the comment in its original context was several million miles removed from your assertion apparently, even in hindsight, means nothing to you....fair enough, that's obviously how you operate.

And what did you expect from a thread like that? It was merely a chance for all the diatribe to be unloaded. Of course, the rioters were acting in a totally unacceptable and reprehensible manner - but a 600 post thread mainly filled with hate dialogue goes to show that not many OLOer's care a jot about about how we're going to manage the differences that are inevitably going to arise in a changing world...or do you think we can somehow insulate ourselves in little old Aus from Islamic migration?

Btw, I would have taken your assertion on the chin, if it had been factual, if I'd made that statement as you portrayed. The fact that it related to something else in a particularly specific way and that you still fail to acknowledge your skewing is my case in point.

SPQR I am flattered, but broken too.
My daily trip to markets in my area 2 today, keeps me broken.
Fellow travelers ALP members and voters, all feeling as I write here.
Some blinded by anti Abbottism, and fear of his incoming government, call for my head.
If one thing is true about politics it is this.
We, from both sides, MUST demand a clean out, and that we never again see such as Abbott and Gillard have served up.
First thing, IF WE CARE, *NEVER EVER VOTE GREEN*
Today they more than anything are responsible for our dysfunctional Parliament.
Further, not a new thought, for 5 years I have warned of NSW ALP filth,so lets build a prison just for the scum, and make it a harsh one.
I stand by my view we must act now on climate change or suffer for it.

First thing, IF WE CARE, *NEVER EVER VOTE GREEN* Belly you and I have clashed over these attacks countless times. Your paranoia, like so many in the ALP that the Greens are responsible for all the ills that beset the Party are wrong, dead wrong. The Labor Party is beset with a cancer from within and will achieve nothing by blaming us from without.
"for 5 years I (Belly) have warned of NSW ALP filth" for 5 years, only 5 years, the maggots were feeding on the party 30 years ago when I was a member and it wasn't Obeid, Macdonald etc then. The names have changed but its business as usually with the Sussex Street Mob. If the people of Australia were ever to known the full extent of Labor corruption at all levels of the party, and within the union movement, places where corruption is endemic, if they were to know the full history of that corruption your party would be lucky to win one seat on a local council. 5 years indeed, and I haven't even mentioned factionalism, a whole other story.
If you have a cancer, the way to treat it is not to shoot the bloke next door!

Oh! Belly there was me having a drink in the local pub last Thursday with a couple of other Greens and a couple of Liberal Party members. The Liberals are running a strong campaign to win the local Federal seat from Labor, they have a good chance. I might shock SM but I for one am not totally adverse to 'helping them out' with a no preference Labor deal, but must see what they have to offer at a local level first. One thing I learned from the Labor Party, noting for nothing. Why they would talk to me, I'm no big shot in The Greens but they know I will listen, unlike some, and they know my past history.

Morning Paul, first congrats on being able to find two more greens.
And drinking with the Libs?
You both drink in strange company.
No doubt you promised the world.
Doing that knowing you can not deliver is your party,s single policy.
Talk about climate change, being proud of drinking with the Torys.
Got it! they shouted did they not?
Paul if you wish both Wran and Sir Robin Askin stole more each, that the maggots you refer to.
I will be more impressed the day you look within the Circus tent known as the greens to be a critic.
Le Rianon, the extremist Marxist ,would be a start.
Mean while enjoy your needling, I am.
See you mob are dead why vote for a do nothing lost tribe of nude Morris dancers

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/abbott-less-liked-than-carbon-tax-in-polls/story-fn3dxiwe-1226524360913
Sorry, I thought the thread had run its course.
Grinned at indys view I am just anti Abbott.
He best not read the link
Apoplexy can be harmful to your health.
But due consideration MUST be given to its content.
I smell a change in the air, Abbott is not a sure bet.
You would think he will not be leader come election day.
But if he is?
Believe it or not Labor may beat him.

Belly, Thanks to your mob O'Farrell is well and truly calling the shots here in NSW, your boys are to busy trying to keep out of jail to be an effective opposition, it been left to The Greens to carry on the fight. Forced amalgamations of local councils is about to be put on the table, that's another fight, CSG open go looks the norm, another fight, development at all cost is Liberal philosophy, another fight, education, health, job all fight. Given 3 years of Abbottism (if he were to last that long) would be good for us Greens, the voters need to see Abbott in all his glory, that will be an real eye opener.

Dream on my friend, once sang that song at party's.
Love it still my voice no longer does dream dream dream,when ever I want you all I have to do is dream, hang on.
Just roping my feet down hard to type when your feet want to dance.
Now post the Federal election, IF Greens have not lost at least one percent point in that event.
I will sing that song out side O ffarell,s door in parliament house.

Paul,

"the voters need to see Abbott in all his glory,"

Like Howard, they will keep him around for a decade.

I rejoice in your words SM.
But warn if they insist on keeping him around that long, after he is replaced soon.
He may need air freshener.

Belly,

We already need air freshener for the stench of corruption that hangs around the labor party.

Wow, a Tony Abbott-shaped Magic Tree.....

Well for one thing, it would have about the same level of policy initiative as the Tony Abbott shaped politician.

Shadow Minister as you know I agree.
But let me highlight your sugar plum fairy idea no such thing ever haunted your party.
I know you have never had the Jam Tart to address even one thing your team did wrong.
However am content to be my party,s Devils advocate, see NSW, is suffering from a cess pit named Sussex Street.
Your miserable attempts to hunt my enemy for life Gillard, is quite fun.
And you go close the slander with Thomson, he has not been charged yet,
In fact some of your mud has no chance of sticking.
You do have my sympathy.
Truly, you are in a place I never want to be, a dark and dismal place.
One that has you chanting anti Labor junk while considering your self above the norm.
However you are of use, voters in reading your thoughts can see why they should vote Labor forever.

Belly,

I have challenged you and others who say that there are the same corruption issues in the coalition to actually name them. You have all failed spectacularly. While I see DP, poirot, etc making sweeping and baseless comments about Abbott and the coalition, there is more material against Juliar than any coalition MP (except perhaps Slipper) in a decade.

I have not heard one word from DP or Poirot about the $100s of millions corruptly obtained by NSW Labor, and nothing from you on their one eyed commentary. So your claim to balance is regarded by no one but yourself.

The more one thinks they are infallible.
The more likely it becomes they are in fact a fool.

Belly you are always giving me "advice". Some advice from me to you,my old salt. I would not take on SM on this one, the ALP copse is so putrid it is crawling with maggots, they are everywhere. The other bunch (The Mad Monk and his mob) have Gillard on the hook but they just can't land her....Yet. I must say there are a few maggots in the Liberal National Party as well, if there are more, they haven't all crawled out yet, you will have to give them time, the cadaver just needs a bit more of a prod.
SM That wonderful woman of virtue, Lee Rhiannon. from that lively party of goodness and decency, The Greens, sends her regards. Greetings Comrade!

Paul read post above yours.

Belly, its that time of the year again, no not Xmas! It once again time for the Rex Jackson Award for Honesty and Integrity! Again its a capacity field of Labor luminaries and a few assorted odd bods, there are old faces and a few new one's, Craig(I don't sleep with pros) Thompson, Michael Williamson, Joe Tripodi, Ian Macdonald, the 100 million dollar man himself Fast Eddie Obeid, Slippery Pete Slipper and a late entry from the bimbo Julia Gillard. The award will be made at the Long Bay Central Industrial Prison by his excellency Nifty Nev. A couple of past winner in Milton Orkopoulos and Karyn Paluzzano will be there to show guests around the slammer.
Between you and me the smart monies on Fast Eddie don't you think, but he has got some stiff competition.
ps Anyone who don;t like the result will be getting a visit from good old Tom Domican.

Well almost every one on your list finds me agreeing with you!
You try it on putting slipper in, he would put more than the slipper in if given the opportunity for that, he is LIBERAL.
Yes trash almost every one of them, baffled however.
How could your recruitment office have missed them?
Your mob usually end up with our trash.
Fast Eddy, pig like! bet he gets out of prison term, buying his way out!
As it is that time of year may I wish you all the best, may santa give you hope as you will need it in 12months.
And the 40 tonn,s of cow manure I am sending to improve your posting next year.
Have a good one.

Belly, the Liberals have their own award The Robin (brown paper bag) Askin Award for being very Liberal with everything from the truth to taxpayers money, Black tie of course. Fatty O'barrell recently misplaced $1,000,000,000 of NSW taxpayers money, and this mob claim to be the gurus of money management. If you should come across a brown paper bag blowing down Macquarie Street please look inside it might contain Fatty's missing billion. The money is desperately needed to provide for some Liberal Upper Class Welfare.
p/s Is that metric or imperial tons? If you have a few tons spare for SM can they be imperil tons as he is very much into imperialism. LOL

It makes no sense to continue.
We are far from the intended track of this thread.
I notice Paul no thread in the satire theme, have we ever had one?
I end as I started.
While this is a world wide problem, if this Parliament runs its full term watch out!
Gillard, baggage and all, will be hard to beat, IF ABBOTT opposes her.
Time is on Labors side, every passing day highlights the lies about carbon tax, we get closer to a Liberal government converting the tax to a trading scheme, Labors target.
So shame we can not continue,but in truth some thread are best ended this is one.

Paul,

Back to Bluster and BS again I see. I am intrigued that I am an imperialist, where did that come from? I guess you just made it up like the rest of your posts.

Considering that the $1bn error (leaving the libs in surplus) was from the public service set up by labor, compared with the $260bn debt that is Whine Swan's legacy to Australia, which all of us wish could be an accounting error rather than rampant incompetence.

Came back to read SMs post.
He really does not like you Paul, got this bad side on display.
Every day from this threads birth, news about the present and future implications of climate change got worse.

Belly I think your right, SM is off my Xmas list.
SM I don't think you are an imperialist. No sense of humor. And to think I was going to invite you around to celebrate Old Joe's birthday in a couple of weeks time. I'm going to throw a hissy fit, you can stay home now.....rrrrrrrr just send over the gift you were going to bring. LOL SM.

Belly back to the topic since you started this big news on melting permafrost. This is starling could accelerate global warming no end.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/27/15483823-melting-permafrost-being-ignored-at-climate-talks-experts-warn?lite

Paul 1405 may I bring to your attention humor has many faces.
The one best used Laughs with folk.
I FEAR and believe we humans are coming to understand global warming too late.
As Ludwig, and I share views about growth the world idolizes it.
Depending on it.
Chinas increase this year of 80% of the worlds new carbon, is bought about not just by them.
We rush to buy their goods then target the factory's that made them.

Belly, What is often forgotten is Australia is the worlds number one big polluter per capita. Our emissions are about 4 times greater than China's. We cannot take the moral high ground on climate change.
Here's a couple of links for some light reading on the subject.

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/news/co2-emissions-3-2011-australia-worst-capita-basis

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/nation-in-top-three-for-carbon-emissions/story-e6frg6nf-1226528695247

As for SM, just got to get yourself a thick hide when you come onto a political forum like this. How would you have gone in the days of Jack Lang as a 'Shadow Minister' in the bear pit. The Big Fella would chew you up and spit you out.

Paul,

This is the second time that you posted rubbish and bluster and I have called you out on it. You then try and pretend that it was a joke. Really! This is a tactic that seldom survives junior school.

People that make up and post inflammatory rubbish and label people Nazis and imperialists with no justification are not called jokers, they are called trolls and liars.

If you are representative of the greens, then no wonder most people think the greens are a Joke.

Paul may I?
You know I am never going to be a fan of SM.
But to some extent you bought that on your self, my humor is often biting,sometimes rude.
But no doubt it is humor exists.
Your more recent, and only that, efforts looked like you had lost the plot.
It never came to my thought you had been trying to be funny.
I am aware of what you say,BASED ON POPULATION.
You must however never discount the impacts on this issue if we cut and others grow out puts.

Hi Belly,

Thanks for starting this thread.

The story so far:

* sea-levels around the world have risen by an avarage of two inches - from all manner of causes - in the last century.

* world temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees C - from all manner of causes - in the last century.

* average world temperature has not risen in the last fifteen years. Have I got that right ?

* CO2 emissions have been rising by 3 % p.a. since the early nineties, and well before.

Perhaps we are in the middle of a down-turn in some long-term cycle or other - that might explain that last point, the dis-connect between CO2 and temperature rise.

Was that it ? Is that all there is ?

Cheers,

Joe

"*average world temperature has not risen in the last fifteen years. Have I got that right?"

No.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

(A "real" skeptic does more than place his spiel on the turntable ad infinitem. You've been shown this graph before, you've had scientists on this forum take time to explain things to you....and yet, every time you pull out the same tired old spiel)

Yes, Poirot, world temperatures rose between 1973 and 1998 or so, but not much, or at all, since then. Even on your nifty little graph, the rate of change seems to be slowing up to the late nineties.

It would be nice to see a graph showing ever-rising levels of CO2 AND ever-rising temperatures. But nobody does :( The two don't seem to be going up together.

Damn.

:)

Loudmouth, JOE, dislike calling you loudmouth.
I have a great deal of respect for you, no pocket stuff involved.
But I disagree with you on this subject.
Yes both sides have pushed the boundary's on this one.
And I am well aware our climate has changed many times.
Not just the extinction of the Dinosaurs.
Many ice ages, some bought about by meteorites some by supper volcanoes.
1750, lets not flip past, what was our population?
May be wrong not researching trusting memory, 2 billion?
How much coal and oil did we use before that time.
Industrial revolution.
It changed us and the planet.
Heard about the dumping of poison substances? in the ocean, rivers streams?
What about what we never hear of.
Why are both polls ,melting, why is the sea rising, why are fish facing extinction.
I hold my ground climate change is real man contributes to it, while we fail to act, we condemn our children and their kids to have far less than us.

What a strange post : )

Hint: follow the red line under "How Realists View Global Warming".

Hint Number 2 - it goes "up".

Poirot,

Yes, at a decreasing rate, that's the puzzle. I'm not trying to be funny or score some cheap point, I'm just pointing out that IF world temperatures have not risen in fifteen years, AND production of CO2 has gone up 50 % in fifteen years, that there may be EITHER a slight disconnect between the two, OR there may be other factors, ozone, methane, sun-spots, short-term and longer-terms cycles or whatever.

Cheers,

Joe

Scientists separate the signal from the noise quite well. Political ideologues don't.

qanda welcome back, take over will ya mate? no way I can hold my endup as well as you do it.
Loved the signal to noise? ham by any chance?
That foot burning heat out side is cycling, maybe, hopefully, ah take over mate.

Ah, thank you, qanda - take note of the signal, not the noise. Thank you.

But .... which is which ? What is the disconnect a 'signal' of ?

As a socialist, I'm always suspicious that capitalists are out to make a buck out of anything, especially a major switch-over in technology, from water-power to coal in Marx's time, coal to oil over the past century in shipping and rail, and now from coal and oil to renewables in power generation. Cute.

Or maybe General Electric has been a secret partner of progressives all this time ?

Sorry, that's just my paranoia kicking in.

I always said we needed a "paranoia" category on OLO, along with the "News and Current Affairs" and "General Discussion" sections.

Would keep us all highly entertained.....

Poirot,

Neo-liberals such as yourself might think this is just a big joke, but to some of us socialists, we have been raised to suspect the motives of capitalists all our lives. Mock all you like, but that's how we are.

Joe :)

"Neo-liberals such as yourself...."

Oooh, I see Loudmouth has hit upon a brilliant new tactic - good luck with that.

Anyhooo...since it's the season, I thought I'd give you an early Chrissie present (not that you need it, but I can't resist)

I came across this recently and couldn't think of anyone who deserves it more..."...can be installed onto any pc running Windows 7, XP or Vista..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6995354/Sarcasm-punctuation-mark-aims-to-put-an-end-to-email-confusion.html

I know how much you enjoy the odd sarcastic rejoinder.

Poirot, I try not to take any notice of anything coming from the Daily Telegraph, but if it floats your boat.......

>>"...can be installed onto any pc running Windows 7, XP or Vista..."<<

I thought was the most brilliant idea ever until I got to the bottom and discovered they want to charge me for it. I just had a Wonko the Sane moment: there is something deeply disturbing about a world where you have to pay for punctuation.

Cheers,

Tony

Poirot I am shocked!
You read the Telegraph?
No it just can not be so!

Morning Belly,
Not a ham but yes, there are similarities. In context, the ‘signal’ is the human induced component of global warming. The ‘noise’ is the natural components (sun, volcanoes, cosmic rays, etc.). Loudmouth appreciates the differences but seems confused over “which is which”. There are many many scientists who study these components of global warming, and there are many many reports published on their findings.
Some people might like to think an ever rising increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 should give an immediate and ever rising increase in (global average) temperatures. However, this is extremely simplistic and demonstrates a failure to understand or appreciate the complexities of the science. Poirot’s graph explains the overall temperature trend quite well though.
Belly, this is an opinion site only. There are much better sites to visit if one really wants to understand the processes of ‘attribution’. For example:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html
There is no point in “taking over” in an increasingly divided world when dialogue is challenged in every nook and cranny with such ideological claims and counter-claims. Paranoia is a powerful force.

Confused not so much over which is which, qanda, but the effects of signal vs the effects of noise - which is which ?

My point was that - IF it is true that world temperatures have not really risen in fifteen years - I stress the IF - then have rising CO2 levels over the past fifteen years or more made any difference ?

An idiot can ask question that geniuses can't easily answer ;)

Joe

You obviously did not read (or understand) http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html

Loudmouth,

"An idiot can ask question that geniuses can easily answer..."

There you go again, Joe - faux self-deprecation and sarcasm (roll on the "free" Sarcmark, I reckon :)

The problem as I see it is that you repeatedly ask the same questions - as if you've found some major stumbling block that all the scientists have somehow failed to take into account. You are repeatedly given answers on this forum or directed to peer reviewed papers by scientists to answer your questions - and for some reason you won't or can't digest the content.

...and then some little way down the track you come back with your "brilliant" foils (I was being sarcastic with "brilliant" - roll on the free Sarcmark)

Belly,

The Telegraph just happened to be the first link I saw on Sarcmark.

Hiya qanda : )

Hi Poiro,

Well, maybe I'm not as smart as you think. But as you intimate, I can't get past this assertion that world temperatures have not risen at all in fifteen years - is that true or not ? If it's complete rubbish, I'll retire to my dog-box.

But if it's fairly accurate, then I'll keep asking the same dumb questions. I hope that's all right with you. No bugger it, even if it's NOT all right with you.

Down with gate-keepers, up with free speech. Even for idiots.

Cheers,

Joe

Just joking P not getting in to the leg pulling thing, gets too serious.
But not moving from my conviction we are causing carbon rises/climate change.

Ah, but, Joe, the point is that you are not an idiot...an idiot who bothered to inhabit a forum like this would probably attempt to imbibe some of the information that he was given.

On the contrary, it's fairly obvious that your habit of referring to yourself in the inferior vernacular - as an "idiot" is your way of expressing just how clever you think you are. You're a non-scientist who can't be bothered (no matter how many disingenuous questions you throw out there) to take any direction from those with knowledge who reply to you.

Mostly your inquiries reek of insincerity...you're not really inquiring about the so-called 15 years of whatever....what you're doing is stating your concrete opinion, before going on to ignore any additional information you are provided.

Here's a little more for you to ignore:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/short-term-trends-another-proxy-fight/

Thanks Poirot,

I looked at that graph you URLd, and for all the hype about temperature rise since 1975, there didn't seem to be much rise between about 2000 and the present. Zilch. Your pretty little lilac line was flat - am I right or not ?

So has there been world temperature rise since about 1997-2000 or not ? Yes ? No ?

If not, even though CO2 emissions have risen in that time by around 40 % - and have doubled since mid-C20, temperatures have not risen over the past 15 or so years. True ? False ? They should be rising at increasing rates by now - true ? false ?

Capitalism has always been pretty good at manufacturing crises, Poirot. Is this another one of those, from which capitalist firms of all sorts are eager to make big bucks from gullible governments and more gullible environmentalists and assorted Armageddonists.

Tell me it isn't so ! But please, no more snide non-rebuttals.

Cheers,

Joe

:

Loudmouth,

"But please, no more snide rebuttals."

I think you can drop the delicate flower persona...coming from the king of sarcasm and disingenuous cherry-picked repetitive inquiry - it's all a bit rich.

Did you read this bit? (It's above the first set of "pretty lines :)

"The ten years to August 2012 were warmer than the previous ten years by 0.15C, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17c, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17c, and which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17c..."

But don't let me interrupt your conspiracy theory....loads of fun, I'm sure.

'Non-rebuttal', Poirot. Nice try.

So you're saying that average world temperatures rose by 0.525 degrees C in the last fifteen years ? Is that so ? Or is it that the model predicted that they would rise by about that much and therefore, on average, over the past fifty years, they 'did' ?

So whoever claims that temperatures haven't risen in the last fifteen years (as your pretty little lilac line shows) is a liar ?

This attempt to boost neo-capitalism is wearing a bit thin. See you later.

Cheers,

Joe

:)

Loudmouth,
Which part of http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html do you not understand?
Your retort, back to political ideology speaks volumes.
No seeing you later.

:)

Actually it is a "rebuttal" : )

Here you go, Loudmouth.

I revisited John Cook's article on The Conversation titled "How do people reject climate science?"

His first point, I found to be oddly reminiscent of your favourite tactic.

As in:

"The most common manifestation of confirmation bias is cherry picking, where one carefully selects a small piece of data that paints a friendly picture and overlooks any inconvenient evidence.

How do we spot cherry picking? It's important to remember that there is no "their evidence" versus "our evidence". There is only the full body of evidence.

If someone arrives at a conclusion from carefully selected evidence that contradicts the conclusion drawn from the full body of evidence, that's cherry picking.

Cherry pickers ignore the fact that our planet is currently building up heat at the stunning rate of around 3 Hiroshima bombs per second. Instead they focus on short periods of the surface temperature record. This record bounces up and down from year to year as the ocean exchanges heat with the atmosphere, meaning that it's possible to find any short period during the long-term warming trend where temperatures fall briefly."

http://theconversation.edu.au/how-do-people-reject-climate-science-9065

(One could think he wrote this piece specifically in response to your participation on this thread - uncanny, I say :)

Here's another peek at the escalator:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Very succinct Poirot, thanks for your efforts.

Poirot, qanda,

So ..... you are suggesting that it is true that there hasn't been any significant rise in world temperatures in fifteen years, due to some unknown factor ? But that there could be massive temperature rise in the next few decades, as a sort of catch-up ?

Or - forgive my ignorance - we are going through a period of coinciding long- and short-cycles in which - for a short time - world temperatures don't APPEAR to be rising ? But will soon, with a vengeance ?

Gosh, might there be factors other than CO2 to worry about ? The world is such a scary place, isn't it ? Obviously, we need a world government, under the control of Greens, to get us through this dreadful crisis.

When it actually starts to kick in, that is. In a decade or two.

Cheers,

Joe

:)

Loudmouth,

"So.....you are suggesting that it is true that there hasn't been any significant rise in world temperatures in fifteen years, due to some unknown factor ? But there could be massive temperature rise in the next few decades, as a sort of catch up ?"

No, dear....and now you're sounding like a bit of a thicky.

"....world temperatures don't APPEAR to be rising ? But will soon with a vengeance ?" (strawman inquiry !!)

What is it about the term "long-term trend" that escapes you?

John Cook pointed out: "...Instead they focus on short periods of the surface temperature record..."

You know, I'm beginning to understand why scientists back off from general opinion sites. I think they can do with all the help they can get from those of us who don't have a problem with following their more simplified expositions.

...but you do take the cake, Joe. You habitually employ all of the tactics that Cook referred to in his article.

Congrats on that : )

Poirot, excellent material and a fine argument on the subject. I am not an expert on climate change, far from it, but from reading as much material as I can on the subject, I can come to no other conclusion that man induced climate change is real, and without being too melodramatic, as disastrous in the long term for our planet as a thermonuclear war would be. Action on climate change is needed, and needed now!

Poirot,

So no answers then ? Just deprecation ? I suppose it's easier when you don't have any answers, more fun too.

Question: have average world temperatures NOT risen over the past fifteen years, OR have they risen on average by 0.525 degrees ? (Or was that 0.0525 degrees, a twentieth of a degree in fifteen years. Wow.)

Has global warming taken place over the last fifteen years , or not ?

Yes ? No ?

Hey Joe,

I once had a record get stuck on the words "round and round" - (true story), 1977 and I think it was the Steve Miller Band...anyway, taking with you takes me back to that moment :)

...so (to reiterate) What is it about the term "long-term trend" that escapes you?

Hi Paul.

Thanks for that.

According to Loudmouth, it's all very simple and not at all complex. Qanda's link has a wealth of information, and if Joe wished to digest or even challenge his bias a little, he could. He doesn't want to because he thinks he's got it pegged. In the simplified world of the non-climate scientist "skeptic", it's all so cut and dried...no complexity at all, and definitely no such thing as a "long-term trend".

Gawd!, one wouldn't dream that the myriad thousands of scientists who study the earth's climate and associated subjects, could be so consistently maligned by ignorance and bluster.

Okay - just as an aside...

I'm thinking of the flat I shared with my brother in 1977 - in Claremont, just up the road from the pool. He who played his Led Zeppelin records too loud and who got up in the morning about three minutes before he had to leave for uni....(he ended up being a science teacher)...and the record that got stuck on those words.

That Steve Miller Band song was "Abracadabra".

The key words:

"I heat up I can't cool down.
My situation goes round and round"

How apt, don't you think?

Arabia looking to put 110 billion into solar. That should do something and probably create some new ideas as well.

579,

Yes, and probably cap some of their wells too, they're not stupid: make the stuff last a few hundred years, not just a few decades.

Poirot,

I'm a patient sort of bloke, I can wait until you actually answer yes or no, instead of just gillarding me.

Cheers,

Joe

:)

qanda I was not having a shot at you.
It is clear to me you know far more than me.
Not claiming I am stupid,research constantly but you and others know.
Been battered in a newer thread, the anti warmist,s are on the loose again.
That thread makes mountains out of carbon tax and flogs believers for it.
But after all how much has petrol risen by in say 10 or 20years?
Mini cyclone that ripped in to Auckland and such is asking for answers.

>>and without being too melodramatic, as disastrous in the long term for our planet as a thermonuclear war would be.<<

A thermonuclear war. I want whatever Paul's smoking.

You're right about one thing Paul: it isn't melodrama it's bullsh!t.

>>Hi Paul.

Thanks for that.<<

I love the way you correct sceptics on their unscientific bullsh!t and thank Paul for his. Maybe if you guys spent more time reigning in the wackier doomsayers on your own side instead of trying to persuade rusted on deniers your message would be more persuasive to the great unwashed.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony Lavis,

I'm sure you feel triumphant whenever you helicopter into threads to unload your dollops of wisdom...we all have to get our jollies somehow.

I'm not fussed either way about his comparison with a thermonuclear war.....and if I wish to acknowledge another poster who happens to agree with my take on climate change - then I bloody well will.

Loudmouth,

Still focusing on short periods of the surface temperature record?

Perhaps you should start your own "skeptic" blog....I'm sure you'll be able to tell all those climate scientists where they're going wrong and how dumb it is for them to bother charting "long-term trends".

: )

I have a question.
Now first I believe in man made climate change.
And I understand the climate is always changing.
I am guilty, I can not stop myself, knowing humanity is both great and not so great.
Knowing we show little regard for the environment, if it gets in the way of profit.
Knowing the population of this world has grown near three times from 1750 till now.
I believe we have impacted more in that time than any living or now dead animal ever did.
What is in it for me, and half this worlds population?
Why have we got it wrong been conned tricked, why are my detractors right and I wrong?

Hi Poirot,

Jeez, ride your push-bike up the street and all the dogs bark at you. Including Poirot's Staffie.

I'm not trying to tell anybody anything, I'm simply trying to ask questions and get some sort of straight answer.

Has global warming slowed to a stop in the last fifteen years, or not ?

Yes ?

No ?

If it has, then what has that to do with CO2 production which has risen by 50 % in that time ?

Of course it's all complicated, and certainly beyond me, but if something is happening which was predicted not to happen, then even an idiot has the right, if not the obligation, to ask questions.

Yes, you're right, in a suitably Utopian society, I would be put up against a wall for disturbing general community well-being. Thankfully, we will never have such a society, but keep dreaming of the day, Poirot :)

Cheers,

Joe

No

If you're standing on the escalator, you don't feel like you're walking up an incline because you are standing perfectly flat...but you're going up!

Now I realise that you keep saying that you are innocently asking questions - in fact, you keep asking the same question even though you have repeatedly been given the answer. If you can't read a graph or digest the information provided in links, it's hardly the fault of the people who have provided them for you, Loudmouth.

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming

"The period 2001-2010...was 0.20c warmer than the 1991-2000 decade.... The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.55c above the 1961-90 mean. After 1998, the next nine warmest years in the series are all in the decade 2001-2010. During this decade, only 2008 is not in the ten warmest years. Even though 2008 was the coldest year of the 21st century, it was still the 13th warmest year of the whole record."

(again)..."...After 1998, the next nine warmest years in the series are all in the decade 2001-2010..."

That doesn't sound to me as if warming has "slowed to a stop".

Hi Poirot,

It's late on a Friday night, but from the data you produced eventually, it appears that 2008 was the coldest year since 1998 - is that right ? That since 1998, average world temperatures have not risen, is that right ?

Notice that I do not resort to personal insults or slurs, simply that I am asking what to a thickie like me seems to be a simple question.

Have average world temperatures risen since 1998, or not ?

A simple 'yes' would do.

And I apologise for the analogy between you and a Staffie - on reflection, perhaps I should have talked about chihuahuas. What do you reckon ?

Now back to the red wine ....... mmmmmmmmmmm

Cheers,

Joe,

:)

Now for something a little different....

Lord Monckton is providing the light entertainment tonight...apparently the good Lord has been debadged and escorted out of the Doha conference for impersonating a delegate in a plenary session.

"The UN now confirms that Lord Monckton ha been permanently barred from the UNFCCC process."

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/12/06/monckton-banned-un-climate-process-offensive-stunt

(Don't miss Monckton in full costume in the linked video - titled "The Serious Business of Climate Denial" starring 'Lord" Monckton:)

Guffaaww!

Loudmouth,

So even though 1998 was the warmest year of the series, and the next nine warmest years are all in the decade 2001-2010, you appear to consider that that indicates that warming has "slowed to a stop"...and "long-term trend" still means nothing to you?

Okay.....: )

So we're back at square one..."If someone arrives at a conclusion from carefully selected evidence that contradicts the conclusion drawn from the full body of evidence, that's cherry picking."

Yep, that's cherry picking - and you're a cherry picker (although I'm sure you're the cleverest "skeptic" cherry picker around)

It's a waste of time attempting to debate climate with a cherry picker.

Btw, don't bother apologising for the Staffie reference - it's not as if I take notice of your blathering analogies...after all, you tell us that [you] do not resort to personal insults or slurs. (I've been debating you long enough, Joe, to realise that the sentiments underlying most of your posts to me are anything but sincere - and usually couched in snide undertones)

I'll leave you with this interactive doohickey from NASA.

http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate_time_machine

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-whiteline-fever-20121207-2b11i.html
I am far from being a dreamer.
I know, and it hurts, that Labor has very little chance in the up comeing election.
But the Carbon tax fear campaign, and its inventive inventor, Tony Abbott.
Along with changing world views, gives us just a glimpse of a way around Gillards gang of 4.

Looks neat time to wrap it up.
We have visited this theme in many threads.
And we will do it again, and again.
My honestly held view is each time we do the climate, not earths but surrounding this subject has changed.
More and more are coming to think we need to act.
Even more, yet that number too will get bigger,see the Abbott mountain, returning to its true very small pimple.
Yet Doha again seems to prove, if we act this slowly we will suffer much more for it.
SOME who deny are doing so with out truly understanding the subject.
Others refuse to understand it.
And yes some truly believe we warmists as they call us are wrong.
At the end of the debate, when words need no other proof and the change is here.
One side or the other will have to admit they got it wrong.
Want to bet?
Even then some refuse to even think they could be wrong.

Hi Belly,

Thanks for this thread. There was a news report on the pedal wireless this morning, pointing out that global temperatures have risen over the past fifteen (or twenty?) years, precisely in line with what climate scientists predicted. If this is so, then I'll join you warmist fellas.

Poirot will be rapt.

Cheers,

Joe

I believe this was the story:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-10/climate-change-conforming-to-un-predictions/4417644

Hi Poirot,

Okay, " .... emissions now sitting at 58 per cent above 1990 levels", but how much have temperatures risen since then ? The article seems to skip over that aspect, focussing on increases in emissions.

Joe

I'll make you a deal, Loudmouth.

You book yourself into Cherry Pickers Anonymous - and I'll end this post with a smiley face.

: )

Hey Loudmouth

I love it how whenever you trap Poirot in the corner she jumps out of the boxing ring and runs off to the dressing room hee hee heee

Yeah, SPQR...

I'm quaking in my boots at Loudmouth's grasp of climate science.

(I might add that your ability to disappear into the changing rooms at top speed the last time we clashed was pretty impressive :)

Hi Poirot,

I'm not sure what you are on about but all I'm suggesting is that it would be nice if that article, and others along the same lines, give some details about actual increases in temperatures - increases in CO2, yes, 58 % or whatever since 1990, fine, but what has been the increase in temperature since then ? 0.1 degrees ? 0.5 degrees ? A proportionate fraction of the 0.8 degrees per century, over the past century ? What are we actually talking about ?

I keep asking dumb questions, not being a climate scientist. That's my right. if anybody wants to change my views, then they provide evidence. Or else bugger off, they are free to go and climb back into their tree.

Cheers,

Joe

:)

"I keep asking dumb questions..."

Well you keep asking the same questions....and when you are directed to answers, you appear to decline to inform yourself.

What does one say to that type of behaviour?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html

>>Well you keep asking the same questions....and when you are directed to answers, you appear to decline to inform yourself.

What does one say to that type of behaviour?<<

I think Joe sounds remarkably like a lot of the teachers I've had over the years: he just wants a nice short answer in your own words. Copying-and-pasting or linking to a website does not count as a proper answer.

I can understand his desire for a plain-english answer in 350 words or less. If he were to ask me about Newtonian mechanics would I be better off directing him to the source material:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28233/28233-h/28233-h.htm

So that he can get as full and accurate an understanding as possible - and save myself the bother of thinking of an answer - or just answering the question?

For whatever reason Joe doesn't appear inclined to read the report you linked to. I'm in the same boat: it's colossal and I can't justify the time - life's too short to be reading climate change reports when there are other things to do. If you've read and understood it all you should have no problem summarizing it for Joe :)

Cheers,

Tony

I see that the Doha conference has left Australia out by itself as the only country with an economy wide carbon tax.

Thank you, Poirot - at last !

I 'cherry-picked' this sentence:

"The global mean temperature averaged over land and ocean surfaces warmed by 0.76°C ± 0.19°C between the first 50 years of the instrumental record (1850–1899) and the last 5 years (2001–2005) (Chapter 3; with a linear warming trend of 0.74°C ± 0.18°C over the last 100 years (1906–2005)."

So ...... global warming has been at a steady constant rate since 1850 ? About 0.74-0.76 degrees (plus or minus) per century, since 1850 ? An exponential of one, more or less ? No increasing rate ?

And after taking all other factors onto account, short and long cycles, sun-spot, volcanoes, etc., etc., the urban heat island effect on measuring stations, the simmple fact that all economies are producing far more heat/energy than a century ago anyway (and it's got to go somewhere), what component of that 0.74 degrees/century rise is due to greenhouse gases, including CO2 ? 99 % ? 90 % ? 50 % ?

It's all so complicated :(

But keep smiling :)

Cheers,

Joe

Tony Lavis,

(It's great that Loudmouth has a helper)

Loudmouth doesn't wish to understand because he isn't a skeptic - he's a denialist.

(Not to mention his conspiracy theory)

When he says "It's so complicated", he's being sarcastic.

Joe thinks it's simple.

There have been numerous occasions on this site where climate scientists have broken it down for him - explained in layman's terms the state of play...and, Loudmouth, replied to them in the same way he does to me.

That's why the scientists don't take part anymore. It's a waste of their day - and they're right

Tush, tush , how unreasonable of you guys to expect Poirot to be able to provide you with an executive summary of the case for AGW – or, even short answers to your queries.

Heck, granny told her when she was but knee high that the West was responsible for all the woes of the world and AGW has been the most spruikable bit of evidence in support of that she’s seen –well, leastways, since the great Green Revolution Conspiracy!

SPQR,

Nice of you to drop in again - (it must be getting crowded in the change rooms)

I'm a bit disappointed though....Loudmouth and Tony Lavis have perfected the art of inserting a sarcastic and disingenuous "Cheers" as a parting shot at the conclusion of their posts.

I'm sure such a mechanism would also assist you in attaining their heights of blog-artistry....something to think about for the future perhaps?

Poirot,
<<I'm a bit disappointed though....Loudmouth and Tony Lavis have perfected the art of inserting a sarcastic and disingenuous "Cheers" as a parting shot at the conclusion of their posts.>>

From the skewed thinking evident in some of your posts I judged you had already had more than your recommended daily allowance of cheers. Far be it for me to encourage you to over indulge.

SPQR,

I've just been out to pick up my new reading glasses...and for good measure I cleaned the computer screen.

But your ramblings are still underwhelming...oh well...

Poirot,

Why do you insist I'm trying to be sarcastic, and that I really think that AGW is simple ? I'm a reasonably intelligent person, intelligent enough to realise how incredibly complicated it all must be, beyond me, and I suspect, beyond you too, with respect. All I am trying to fathom out is whether global warming and sea-level rise are actually taking place (I don't perceive it, but even so, it may well be going on) and if capitalist economic activity is responsible, or if it's all just another capitalist con-job, using all of this complexity to bullsh!t unsophisticated people like me.

More to the point, what can we do about it, and what ARE we doing about it, and in the near future, what new technologies will be developed - in that capitalist spirit of chasing whatever innovations make a buck - in order to reduce it and control it in the future, for our grandchildren ?

I suspect that capitalism, in all its genius, as Marx would have noted en passant, will find ways in the near future to conclusively combat global warming, perhaps by moving right away from non-renewable energy generation, so that it is confined to smaller and smaller sections of the economy.

Meanwhile, I have to say that in fifty years, I haven't noticed any rise at all in our local sea-level - maybe elsewhere, it is rising as fast as buggery, swamping Fiji's mountains and Pacific atolls willy-nilly, to sort of balance it all out. I guess one shouldn't judge from just one's own experiences.

Cheers,

Joe

:

Loudmouth,

Your questions often seem to have a sarcastic undertone - as do your replies.

If I'm judging you too harshly, then I apologise.

When all is said and done, if you really want to understand what most climate scientists believe is happening, then you're probably making your inquiries on the wrong forum. You'd be better off checking out Skeptical Science or Real Climate or some such site.

Just wanted to mention the weird weather in the South West this year.

In June we experienced a huge "once in a decade" storm. Last month we had a typical "winter" pattern go through which gave us two days of cyclonic and near cyclonic winds.

Starting last night we've had continuous rain, lightning and thunder. I mean for the last twenty four hours, approximately every three minutes (and I'm not exaggerating) - there is a rumble of thunder. That's nearly twenty four hours of thunder - every few minutes. I can't remember experiencing such constant thunder before for such a prolonged period. There's no wind, so I'm surmising the trough is sitting over the region and not in a hurry to move on.

Anyway our area has had up to 100mm rain in a 24 hour period...all very unusual for this time of year ,flooding, once in a 100 year event.

Bloody "weather" - it's fascinating : )

Hi Poirot,

If I was in WA, I wouldn't be complaining, all that lovely rain - bring it on !

But when you think about it, when has there ever been a "typical" summer, or winter for that matter? We're a land of droughts and flooding rains, as most of us learnt in school. Here in SA, we seem to get years of droughts and then a couple of years of good weather, and then those droughts again. God sure has a warped sense of humour, at least in SA. Probably getting back at those bloody Lutherans.

Apart from that, nothing unusual to report.

My remedy for it all ? More cheap red wine ! It hasn't done me any harm so far !

Cheers, sweetie, sleep well,

Joe

:)

On the other hand, Poirot:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/

Happy Christmas reading.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Poirot,

Here's another pin for your balloon:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/another-ipcc-ar5-reviewer-speaks-out-no-trend-in-global-water-vapor/

If there's a sort of continuum from

rock-solid believer,
to comfortable-believer,
to mild-believer,
to someone with misgivings,
to doubter,
to agnostic,
to sceptic,
to cynic,
to denier,

put me down across the doubter/agnostic part of spectrum - until this current controversy is sorted out.

Wouldn't it be great to know absolutely 100 % that there was a god, or gods - no more doubts, ever ! To be able to go cocksure through life. Alas, it's not to be, ever.

But happy reading, Poirot.

Merry Christmas and lots of love,

Joe

Joe grab the nearest news paper, you can do it on line steer clear of Murdock,s trash.
See the report both parts the part international power wants us to read, saying it is a fraud.
Then the truth, MAN IS PLAYING A ROLE FOR SURE.
Then every one of us, can tell ours selF man would not do that.
Why would humanity defecate in its own nest.
After all we have done nothing to harm, ah,hang on , thinking, thinking.
MMMM

Okay Loudmouth...(happily I won't ever fall for your smarm again :)

Fancy linking to WUWT - a "skeptic" "blog" run by a weatherman

Here's a pin for your balloon.

Forrest Mims - "I am an expert reviewer.."

Here's a little something on so-called "expert reviewers"...Lord Monckton signed up for that lark, and the goon who leaked the IPCC draft did the same.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/12/13/major-ipcc-report-draft-leaked-then-cherry-picked-climate-sceptics

"...practically anyone can register for these positions using an online form. Nobody appoints 'expert reviewers'...."

http://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-draft-leak-global-warming-not-solar.html

OK, thanks Poirot, I'll just wait for the UK Met Office to confirm or deny that graph, one way or the other.

Joe

Go for it, Loudmouth....you'll be in cherry-picking good company.

"The IPCC considers its draft reports, prior to acceptance, to be pre-decisional, provided in confidence to reviewers, and not for public distribution, quotation or citation."

I note all the denailists had apoplexy when Peter Gleick leaked info from Heartland - they condemned him outright. Strange how they're all singing along and doing the cherry-picker's waltz with this lot.

Poirot,

Surely you're not suggesting that anything fraudulent should ever be covered up ?

'Cherry-picking' usually refers to identifying relatively inconsequential and minor flaws in reports or statements, and using them improperly to damn the whole report/statement - in this case, what is at issue is precisely central to the whole AGW debate: has warming continued since the late nineties, or not ?

Just in case it may come up, I would be bit wary of using the 'fifteen years isn't long enough' argument - down the track, if global warming picks up again, its doubters can use the same argument to advise AGAINST acting 'until global warming has been continuing unabated for fifteen years': what's sauce for the goose ......

I'm content to wait for the UK Met Office to clarify.

Joe

"Surely you're not suggesting that anything fraudulent should be covered up?"

What's fraudulent? AR5 is due for release in September 2013

We've been through the cherry picking thing before. Cherry picking is drawing a contradicting conclusion from carefully selected evidence, while ignoring the "full body" of evidence.

In the case of the leaked report that has denialists citing a game changer. It's a classic cherry pick in lifting a sentence from a paragraph while ignoring the rest of the paragraph.

Anthony Watts is fair wetting himself from all the excitement over at WUWT, judging from this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com

8 updates!!

Here's update number 9:

http://climatecrocks.com

Loudmouth,

Since you're an enthusiastic proponent of the "earth hasn't warmed for 15 years" brigade, I thought I'd send you and early Christmas present:

[sweetie]

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-lesson-for-monckton-and-co.html

Hi Poirot,

No, I'm not an enthusiastic supporter of the no-warming brigade, I'm simply a searcher of truth, whatever it may be, one way or the other, something that we have to deal with and not just rely on our ideological dogmas/dogmata. Truth trumps dogma, Poirot.

Have world temeratures risen over the past decade or so, or not ?

I can wait until September 2013, sweetie :)

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

Have world temperatures risen over the past decade or not ?"

Risen in comparison to what?

To 1998?

1998 was the warmest year on record.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

"The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880....The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000."

A snapshot of 2012 in the US - warmest on record.
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/video/2012/the-making-of-the-hottest-year-on-record-usa-temperature-update

You saying that your just a searcher of truth is like someone asking the whereabouts of the TV remote - having it handed to them - and then asking again "Where's the TV remote?"

No matter how many times you're presented with that which you seek, you simply ask the question again....that's what denialists do.

Hi Poirot,

In comparison to the long-term trend, since 1850.

That video was very persuasive, although its prediction of a warmer-than-average winter might ha e been a bit premature - it seems that the contiguous USA has been experiencing an early winter, like Europe.

That's extreme weather for you, and all because of AGW, you might say.

My point - why I'm a little sceptical - is that capitalism needs change, in order to keep growing - check out Vance Packard's work on 'planned obsolezcence'. Capitalist firms will make money from whatever they can, and a major switch in technology may be one way to do it, on a massive scale.

Cheers,

Joe

Oops, I'm sorry, Poirot - that last paragraph - about capitalist exploitation of opportunities - is really quite irrelevant to the facts of the matter of AGW or not-AGW - are world temperatures, and sea-levels, rising, due to man-made causes, or not ?

Empirical data is what we should work with, not suspected motives, otherwise we are back in the dark ages as far as 'research' and 'evidence' are concerned, putting motive before evidence.

So I guess we will have to wait until September next year, when the IPCC releases its paper ? They can't speed it all up a bit ? There are urgent issues at stake, after all.

Cheers,

joe