Who would you turn ‘warmist’ for?

Tron says:

06:46am | 15/06/11

Once again the voice of reason ‘Erick’ has spoken, well said

persephone says:

06:48am | 15/06/11

Well, Erick, you’ve got bucketloads of that.

Your list of ‘concerns’ simply shows your lack of understanding of the scientific process and of what’s required for publication.

No one in the scientific community, for example, is going to admit that ‘climategate’ was a fraud, because it wasn’t.

You trust information gained through illegal means and then selectively interpreted to suit the agenda of those criminals over information in the public domain, backed by evidence which meets the standard scientific criteria.

That demonstrates either your inherent bias or your unwillingness to confront the truth.

And I’m sorry, if you’re not going to accept evidence from scientists because they work for universities, I’m not exactly sure where you think the evidence you need is going to come from, given that they’re the only people collecting it.

There is free and open debate. It’s happening now. It happened in the scientific community over a decade ago, and climate science won - not because of any manipulation of the evidence, concealment of the facts, scientific fraud, or dirty tricks, but because the case for AGW was so overwhelming that scientists had to accept it.

That’s why the only scientists left in the denail brigade tend to be out of date has beens, (and none of them are climate scientists)  - the rest have moved on.

Besides, a public debate is fairly irrelevant now. Governments have enough evidence that climate change is happening that they have an imiperative to act, regardless of polling or public opinion.

To let populist rhetoric stop them doing this would be against the country’s - and the world’s - best interests, and incredibly irresponsible.

We’re not supposed to elect governments to do what we want them to do, but what we need them to do.

To say you want evidence, Erick, and then give impossible criteria for this evidence - basically, it shouldn’t come from scientists - demonstrates that you don’t want to be convinced, full stop.

I’d have a lot more respect for you if you stopped pretending to be sceptical, and admitted that you simply don’t WANT to believe that AGW is real.

BobC says:

07:18am | 15/06/11

I attended the public forum of the Climate Commission, held at the Playford Civic Centre, Elizabeth in South Australia, a suitably remote and questionable location at 25 kms north of the Adelaide CBD (to possibly discourage a large attendance) on June 8th. Apparently the meeting was organised to encourage debate on the subject. In reality, anyone questioning the official line was told to “sit down!”. The frustration at not being heard was evident.  Although promoted as an independent body, the forum was a typical Government talkfest,

iansand says:

07:20am | 15/06/11

Erick - Read all the “climategate” emails, or even a sample, and make up your own mind.  Do not rely on highly selective extracts.

Your debate has happened.  It has been happening in the scientific community for 30 years.  It is over.

If you want the credibility of scientists restored you should be attacking Bolt, Alan Jones and their ilk who have been spreading misinformation.

The bad news for you is that the dirty tricks are coming from your side.

Septimus says:

07:35am | 15/06/11

Persephone says:

” I know when I was completing my ‘Climate Change’ Degree just the other day it put me in touch with the top two hundred climate change scientist across the world (I have their phone numbers!) and I had them over Sunday for a bbq at my place and they told me that my position is right.  You can’t argue with that expertise!”

TimB says:

07:38am | 15/06/11

Persephone, deliberately manipulating data to show a desired result as they did in Climategate IS fraud. I don’t paticularly care if they admit it or not.

Erick’s call for transparent evidence is pefectly valid. For you to claim that such a standard is “impossible” is the height of utter arrogance.

I don’t know whether you’re just ignorant enough to truly believe the BS you’re spouting, or are knowingly spreading misinformation, but either way it doesn’t reflect well on you.

Jim says:

07:48am | 15/06/11

A typically smug and condescending reply from persephone…full of lies and lefty spin to boot.

Firstly - there is no such thing as ‘free and open debate’ on this. It has been hijacked by multinationals and greedy governments. Anyone with evidence that contradicts the paid-for findings get shouted down with typically emotive words like ‘denier’.

Secondly - there is more than just speculation that the climate ‘science’ is being pushed as a front for massive wealth redistribution. Hundreds of scientists that were formerly sponsored by people wanting to get an AGW result have come out of the woodwork saying how fraudulant the science is.

Thirdly - the models used are constantly altered to achieve the desired result. This is well known and commented on by scientists around the world.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of science can see several holes in the AGW theory. I know you only have one eye, and it’s red, but to insult someone simply because they can see through the rhetoric and spin that you and others spew out each and every day is just plain arrogant.

Theraptured says:

08:04am | 15/06/11

This changes my mind Erick!

“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order”!

Mikhail Gorbachev quoted in, “A special report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its war on Mankind” by Marion Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review, 1996, p.5).

acotrel says:

08:05am | 15/06/11

@ Persephone
‘Your list of ‘concerns’ simply shows your lack of understanding of the scientific process and of what’s required for publication.’

Nobody nees to have a formal education in science to make an ‘informed decision’ on climate change?  All they need to do is read shitloads of blogs from other idiots.

Joan says:

08:12am | 15/06/11

Climate science is an inexact science and can be manipulated and used to confound, particularly politicians.  Islands are more likely to disappear result of earthquake, volcanic eruptions , earthplate movement than CO2 in the air. The Himalayas were formed by the Indian tectonic plate travelling north and banging into the Eurasian continent, about 40-50 million years ago.. Earth as we know it today will will not be as is today and millions of years history show it is continually evolving   The current earthquakes, volcanic eruptions , weather, winds, show Earths volatile nature… its is alive and kicking. The solar flares last week affect the Earth too. The powers of nature, Universe are more immdiate and greater than the sum of man and any dire predictions based on Climate scientist generated computer models.

Michael says:

08:22am | 15/06/11

persephone, scientists would be just that, not dodgy economists a la Garnaut.
Not scientists like Dr. Cate Blanchett or the eminent Dr. Michael Catton
hmm….

Public debate is not open, it’s filled with people like yourself, trying to shut down debate by raging against people that wont do what you tell them to do or think what you want them to think.

Anyone that doesn’t believe what persephone believes is a “denier” or “ignorant” needs “big crayons”. This is not a thinking person’s debate.

persephone, real debate is where both sides ie. all of the scientists in the field are welcome to participate not just the ones that will tow the government line or the “economists” that didn’t foresee GFC1 but somehow can see what is happening to the Earth 100’s of years before it happens.

I would suggest that whilst there are pro warmers using your technique persephone there will be “deniers” standing against you all the way.

non-warmist says:

08:31am | 15/06/11

As usual, persephone uses twice the number of words, and still fails to convince -  well said, @Erick

Brian Taylor says:

08:32am | 15/06/11

@persephone, only scientists left in the denail brigade tend to be out of date has beens
the only has beens will be Julia Gillard and Co.
now more than half of Aust people no longer believe climate change.
what does that say to you Pers

Sony B Goode says:

08:35am | 15/06/11

The only urgency about climate change is pushing through cast new taxes and moving towards a international socialisms goal of world government.

Even if it exist it’s a problem that can be solved over the next 100 years or so.

see http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2511875/nathan_myhrvolds_anti_global_warming_pg2.html?cat=15

for cheap solutions and intelligent response to the debate. This however precludes wild taxation and redistribution and does nothing towards one world government. Can you imagine the excitement that socialist feel about one world government? Universal taxation, not tax havens, no dissenters. Global redistribution, something Combet has already signed us up for.

Socialists are dishonest yesterday’s men railing against the facts of inequality being a natural outcome of freedom. Socialism is antithetical to freedom. Material equality can only be achieved by violating our rights to freedom.

The only urgency about climate change is the next election looming and the strong likelihood of liberals winding back the taxes.

kdkd says:

08:42am | 15/06/11

You realise that the “appeal to authority” fallacy is actually a deniers misrepresntation of the “appeal to *inappropriate* authority”?  No thought not.  Possibly you take your financial advice from your plumber?

Blind Freddy says:

08:46am | 15/06/11

@Eric

“And it would involve a free and open debate between warming believers and skeptics, without political dirty tricks being used to shut down voices from either side.

Do as I say not as I do?

Que says:

08:47am | 15/06/11

As a scientist with a PhD, I’ve noticed that most people that are appalled by the AGW argument are also scientists with PhDs and publish peer reviewed papers and review them. They are appalled by the abuse of the scientific process.

Those that are in favour of the AGW argument generally have no scientific training and simply trust those attached to the IPCC and wonder why the debate is continuing.

persephone notes that “if you’re not going to accept evidence from scientists because they work for universities, I’m not exactly sure where you think the evidence you need is going to come from, given that they’re the only people collecting it.” - I think this reveals a naivety on behalf of persephone about the research process and the inherent pressures/biases of the peer review system and the need to publish or perish. Universities are not churches persephone, they are hard nosed businesses.

Sony B Goode says:

08:48am | 15/06/11

we can see “open” climate science at work:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases

“The IPCC and its worshipful supporters did their best to promote the hockey-stick temperature curve. But as John Adams remarked, “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” The hockey-stick curve caught the attention of two Canadians, Steve McIntyre, a mining consultant, and an academic statistician, Ross McKitrick. As they began to look more carefully at the original data—much of it from tree rings—and at the analysis that led to the hockey stick, they became more and more puzzled. By hard, remarkably detailed, and persistent work over many years, consistently frustrated in their efforts to obtain original data and data-analysis methods, they showed that the hockey stick was not supported by observational data. An excellent, recent history of this episode is A. W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion.”

You can tell persephone has a hidden agenda because she challenges contrary claims and evidence, whereas real scientific method must include and clearly account for counterfactuals. Her underlying agenda is driving her actions not a search for the truth.

persephone says:

08:49am | 15/06/11

TimB

Which they didn’t do. As multiple enquiries have found.

Of course, if you only go by what’s said by teh Bolta et al, you won’t know this.

Joan

no more ‘inexact’ than any other field of science, most of which you accept unquestioningly in your everyday life.

Michael

I wouldn’t recognise any of those people you list as scientists, and haven’t suggested they are.

If that’s all you[ve got - that concern about the impacts of climate change extend outside of the scientific community - then you may as well admit defeat.

Public debate is open. It’s what you’re doing now. No one is shutting you down, and I’m not doing anything which prevents you arguing with me.

Don’t be so precious. You’re not being persecuted.

What I’m saying is that public debate over the science is pretty pointless. You could convince everyone here - by cherry picking data, smearing the experts, trotting out false information, etc - that gravity doesn’t work, but you’d still find yourself stuck to the ground as soon as you got off your chair to walk anywhere.

Similarly, the science on climate change is so compelling and well supported (there is better evidence that the AGW theory is correct than there is that our theory of gravity is) that, even if the vast majority of people thought it was ‘crap’, governments would still have to act.

Yes, I debate people who think. I have nothing but scorn - and I don’t mind showing that - for people who engage in the issue whilst demonstrating that they have no understanding of even the basic issues, or raise as new questions ones which have been answered for them several times before.

As I said, the debate in scientific circles happened over a decade ago. At that tiime, scientists who believed in climate change were being treated as crackpots, even by their peers. It was well known in the scientific community at the time that to mention ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’ in a grant application meant it would be rejected.

The scientific community turned around its thinking because the evidence for AGW was so compelling.

There are very very few scientists in the world, and (to my knowledge) no scientist who studies the climate, who are not convinced that AGW is real.

So you guys here can pose all the silly questions you like, and ignore the answers, as you have been doing all along, because you have no intention of accepting reality - but that doesn’t mean that climate change isn’t happening, and it won’t stop governments of all stripes taking action.

acotrel says:

09:02am | 15/06/11

@Joan You are showing your ignorance.  All science is ‘inexact’!  All science has uncertainties.  And scientists are trained to handle them using statistical error analysis.  If the majority of scientists tell you climate change is happening, they just might be right?

Michael says:

09:04am | 15/06/11

You know it’s not all i’ve got persephone, i have been challenging you on many points over the last two and a half months, typically you think each day starts anew and the day before is gone without trace.

You will be true to yourself and play it dismissively, ignoring questions, failing to acknowledge other points of view etc etc etc and so on.

You will dismiss the evidence of actual experts in the field and suggest that an economist is the worlds foremost authority on climate change, and you will deny the fraud that has and si still being uncovered.

What you are paid to do is shut down dissent on this site, your wish is no doubt for everyone to tire of the “debate” so yours is the only opinion offered.

Joan says:

09:05am | 15/06/11

Peresphone;  Climate science is an inexact science…. you can’t change that. no matter how much you would want it to be otherwise. You only display your ignorance by the statement you make. Obvuiously you have never studied mathematics, chemistry or physics

acotrel says:

09:05am | 15/06/11

@Tory
’ But sit down, people – climate change is also threatening our wine industry!’

It’s a global disaster, but a least a few less of us will die of cancer.  Burns from bushfires are mercifully quicker.  So it’s not all bad news?

Dash says:

09:08am | 15/06/11

@Persephone - You still don’t get it! This debate is not a question of if climate change is real. It’s about the policy that is being inflicted upon the Australian people without their consent. It’s about the lies and deceit. It’s about using tax payers money to fund propaganda and pay “experts” to deliver a message of the ALPs making. It’s about ignoring the will of the people.

The climate is changing. Man is responsible for some of it. But the ALP is using it as an excuse for social reeingineering and wealth redistribution. It deceived the Australian people. And the polls reflect the fact that the Australian people are not supid enough to believe the ALPs lies.

The ALP has zero credibility left. They cannot expect people to trust them over something they have lied about!

acotrel says:

09:10am | 15/06/11

@persephone
‘And I’m sorry, if you’re not going to accept evidence from scientists because they work for universities, I’m not exactly sure where you think the evidence you need is going to come from, given that they’re the only people collecting it.’

Those overpaid government and university scientists cannot be trusted.  They just want to get onto the gravy train! We should ask the ones who work in BHP Central Research Laboratories.

Blind Freddy says:

09:15am | 15/06/11

@Que

“As a scientist with a PhD, I’ve noticed that most people that are appalled by the AGW argument are also scientists with PhDs and publish peer reviewed papers and review them. They are appalled by the abuse of the scientific process.

Those that are in favour of the AGW argument generally have no scientific training and simply trust those attached to the IPCC and wonder why the debate is continuing.”

I didn’t know that you could get a PhD for fuzzy logic. I doubt very much you have a PhD or you would not have made the above ridiculously unscientific (and in the face of the overwhelming scientific concensus) claim.

persephone says:

09:16am | 15/06/11

non warmist

it’s quicker to throw dirt than it is to clean up the mess afterwards!

Brian Taylor

that 50% of people don’t understand the science?

Sony

Yes, and solving the problem over the next hundred years or so is exactly what we’re trying to do.

You have to make a start somewhere, and most people recognise that the longer you leave a problem the harder it gets to solve.

Que

Oh, so this blog is inhabited by scientists with PhDs? Good to know that Erick et al are ivory tower academics, but that’s news to me.

Likewise, the inhabitants of Bolter’s blog will be shocked to learn that they’re part of the elite they so constantly scorn.

I have several friends who are involved in scientific research, who also have PhDs. Their experience is directly counter to yours.

In fact, common sense is.

The majority of scientists - with PhDs - when surveyed (and there’s been a fair few of these done) support AGW.

Michael says:

09:18am | 15/06/11

persephone, i can’t be persecuted or victimised.

When a debate is ongoing and people from a particular side of the debate are name calling and suggesting ” you may as well give up now” that is attempting to shut down the debate, much the same as “either way we will have a carbon tax” this may be true for a time after today but for right now that is your attempt to shut the debate down.

hermes says:

09:18am | 15/06/11

@Que, touche. It is ludicrous that now, any attempt to engage in critical debate, in accordance with the very fundamentals of the scientific method; epistemology and scientific rationalism; is treated with contempt, and veiled in religious overtones, using terminology previously used against those who disputed the Holocaust (aka deniers). Further, those who argue for the primacy of universities, have obviously never set foot in one, or taken much notice of how they actually work. Universities are, as you say, big business, mostly in the business of selling overpriced and understandard degrees to foreign students. And as for statistics; to quote my PhD supervisor when my results were not going to plan, “just justify it”. Anyway, it is dead easy to bodge any statistical analysis to show virtually any result desired…and do it in a way quite acceptable to journal editors…
@Pers, I recall you said you were a teacher? I don’t recall that teachers are climate experts either. And correct me if I am wrong, but I thought State Government employees were supposed to be objective and not permitted to proselytise on behalf of political parties?

Bob Stewart says:

09:20am | 15/06/11

Evidence. Not the pseudoscience of computer modeling that is not able to predict the weather next week let alone in 50 years time, Or the volcano and its pyroclastic cloud that is a “global warming” blanket to effect a “climate change” as it spreads carrying sulfurous “greenhouse gas” with it.

Evidence, Not the “may” or the “likely” or “could” in 50 years time if we do not apply the tax now. Indeed, it “may”,“could”,“would”, “yet” prove a long term political disaster for applying a tax to a theory about the future.

Al says:

09:21am | 15/06/11

Que, stop making things up.
If you have a PhD, it must have been a sad and poor university.

acotrel says:

09:21am | 15/06/11

@iansand
‘If you want the credibility of scientists restored you should be attacking Bolt, Alan Jones and their ilk who have been spreading misinformation.’

How can you attack them, if they sincerely believe their own bullshit? Of course there is no agenda in denying climate change? But they seem to believe that climate change is a leftie plot to disrupt capitalism.

Matt says:

09:21am | 15/06/11

@Pers,
I Pick up my pen and let it go, it falls to the floor, theory of gravity proven.
Its an unusually warm day today, Global Warming exists, proven (NOT)

Anubis says:

09:22am | 15/06/11

@ Persephone

You said “As I said, the debate in scientific circles happened over a decade ago. At that tiime, scientists who believed in climate change were being treated as crackpots, even by their peers. It was well known in the scientific community at the time that to mention ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’ in a grant application meant it would be rejected”

That is utter garbage. I was working in the Research Grants “Industry” (NH&MRC; and ARC) at the time and ever since the start of the Global Cooling/impending ice age era of the late 70’s the mere mention of Climate Change/Global Cooling/Global Warming was almost a certain guarantee of receiving your grant. The only thing that slowed that down was the Aids “emergency” where significant amounts of funds were re diverted to research in to Aids/HIV. The Gravy Train has been in motion for at least thirty years and there are any scientists who have made a career from receiving grants for this particular fad science. Persephone, before you start typing get your facts right.

persephone says:

09:23am | 15/06/11

Michael

I’m sorry if I’ve let you down;  I do the best I can to engage with those who question me, and to find answers to the questions they ask.

However, I don’t have all day to spend here - I have a life - and sometimes there’s so many questions being asked I run out of time (look at how long this thread is already!)

So that makes it all the more frustrating when people act like yesterday didn’t happen and ask the same questions I answered then.

Joan

and to what level did you study those subjects?

Dash

not on this thread. Have a read of the article, and of the post by Erick which I’m responding to, neither of which are about carbon pricing.

Discussions about whether or not climate change is real should have nothing to do with politics but be about the science.

Bob Stewart says:

09:33am | 15/06/11

Evidence, absolutely and measurable evidence.
Computer models at Stanford University have just “told” us that man-made global warming has already sapped some of the yield potential from our food crops. They say wheat yields would have been 5.5 percent higher since 1980 without the earthly warming; corn yields would have been 3.8 percent higher.

Stanford’s computers apparently didn’t tell their programmers that U.S. corn yields have actually risen by more than 60 percent since 1980—during a period when they were supposedly hampered by too much heat. Wheat yields rose 14 percent, aided by higher levels of CO2, which act like fertilizer for plants.

In fact, if you’re worried about global food production with the World population to increase by one third over the next 40-50 years (UN), don’t pay much attention to this study. Recall that our recent temperatures have recently been about the same as in 1980 and 1981. Net warming since 1940 is only about 0.2 degrees C. Those are not numbers that would frighten a plant breeder, who understands that all of the wild species have proven they can handle climate changes of at least 4 degrees C with little problem. 

Computer models only work if they have been programmed with adequate information. The computerized climate models, for example, claim that the earth’s recent warming is “unprecedented.” However, nobody told the computers about the Medieval Warming (950–1200 AD) and the Roman Warming (200 BC– 600 AD), both warmer than today.

Moreover, our corn, wheat, and rice are all originally tropical crops:

WayneT says:

09:44am | 15/06/11

Why is the argument always whether Climate change is happening - of course it is.  The Government and others have been very clever in manipulating the terminology to fight their case, which shows how weak that case really is.  We started out with Anthropogenic Global Warming (they found that hard to convince people) then moved to Global Warming (same problem – no smoking gun) and now we have that Holy Grail of terms for warmist’s - Climate Change (hard to argue against).  Then we get into the whole Carbon and Carbon Dioxide war of words, especially since Carbon in itself has no effect on climate, except when combined with two Oxygen atoms.  The big problem for the warmist’s is that the real world data doesn’t support either AGW or GW, in fact there isn’t a peer reviewed scientific paper that anyone has put their name to that shows a direct link (I’ll repeat that – DIRECT LINK) between human emissions and its contribution to temperature variations.  If there was such evidence it would have been produced to shut down the sceptical scientific community.  There are however, to date 900 peer reviewed papers by both climate scientists and associated scientific organisations that place doubt in the theory of AGW (let’s call it what is here). http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

John Smythe says:

09:45am | 15/06/11

Oh Dear…Classic Forum Troll when they run out of “arguments”

>>>Pers…..
I’m sorry if I’ve let you down;  I do the best I can to engage with those who question me, and to find answers to the questions they ask.

However, I don’t have all day to spend here - I have a life - and sometimes there’s so many questions being asked I run out of time (look at how long this thread is already!)

So that makes it all the more frustrating when people act like yesterday didn’t happen and ask the same questions I answered then.

Michael says:

09:51am | 15/06/11

Thank you persephone for helping me realise my prediction at 9.04 this a.m.

If nothing else you can be relied upon to be true to who you are

As always the pleasure is mine.

Dann.C says:

09:54am | 15/06/11

Erick,you are quite correct and these Gullible gillard believers like persophone should do a Google search on RICHARD S. LINDZEN articles and read and Absorb the damn TRUTH.  Prof,Lindzen is an American ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICIST . One sensible article is"The Climate Science Isn’t Settled, Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted” You have this desperate dictator gillard once again attempting to Force her beliefs ,actually, bob brown’sbeliefs down our throats.Gillard has these people eg Flannery.(who has been proved wrong before),Garnaut who is No climate expert etc etc. They are only biased theoriesin favour of gillard -she should ask Professor Lindzen but of course she doesn’t want hear or you hear the truth. Wake up fellow australians climate change has been happening for millions of centuries and we do Not require another tax as that is how labor solves any of their problems ..

Joan says:

10:03am | 15/06/11

Peresphone:  High school level is all that is needed to understand what an inexact science is.  . Whilst not specialising in chemistry , physics, mathematics at uni level , all these were utilised to gain my health area qualification at uni.

Bev says:

10:05am | 15/06/11

Que says:08:47am | 15/06/11
Well said
Apart from anything else I see a lot of financial shysters slavering at the opportunity to trade carbon shares, futures, derivitives or what ever they can dream up to line their pockets at everybodies expense. Carbon bubble anybody?

Jim says:

10:34am | 15/06/11

@persephone - “Yes, I debate people who think. I have nothing but scorn - and I don’t mind showing that - for people who engage in the issue whilst demonstrating that they have no understanding of even the basic issues, or raise as new questions ones which have been answered for them several times before.”

Sorry to pop your ego balloon there my dear, but you only engage in debate when you think you’re up against someone who you think you can fool. Any time there are facts thrown at you you run and hide. And I’m sure you get a thrill of self satisfaction to see all the @persephone posts….

As for your comment the other day about you not responding to me cause I’m nasty and that it does my head in - I laughed at that. You do not respond to me because I point out your lies and your agenda. And doing my head in?? Please, you are waaaaay down on my list of things to worry about. What a narcissistic thing to say…are you SURE you’re not KRudd in disguise?

Jim says:

10:40am | 15/06/11

@Hermes - “And correct me if I am wrong, but I thought State Government employees were supposed to be objective and not permitted to proselytise on behalf of political parties? “

That, my friend, is an excellent question!

However, dear old persephone has a habit of lying and spinning, so maybe the teacher story is a lie as well?

non-warmist says:

10:42am | 15/06/11

persephone, was my comment ‘throwing dirt’?  No, not at all - you do go on and on and on

No 1 Rosie says:

11:13am | 15/06/11

Yes Tron I agree once again ‘Erick’ the voice of reason has spoken.

Dear Persetelephone,

Again I admire your tenacity in keeping a firm hold to your beliefs. While Gillard is there we can debate this until the cows come home and will not conclude with a sustainable sensible outcome.

The ‘carbon tax’ was based on a ‘lie’ and the people have spoken. It doesn’t matter how hard and long the Gillard Govt try and sell this ‘carbon tax’ it is doomed. Australians don’t like being lied to, topped with the controversial way Julia Gillard took over from their elected PM Rudd.

I think Paul Keating said something along these lines to Hewson then leader of the Opposition; “I want to do you slowly, I want to see you squirm etc etc” I believe it is not Tony Abbott that is doing Gillard slowly it is the Australian people. Tony Abbott is being used by the Labor Party, their die hard supporters and the Independents because they know Gillard is politically dead and cannot be revived.

Right from the beginning I was disappointed and sad in how Gillard allowed herself to listen to the factional thugs. As a female I would’ve have been so proud of the historic moment when she became I first female PM without controversy.

Erick is correct in saying; “All this would take a long time, but governments, scientists and the media have destroyed their own credibility and must rebuild it from scratch.”

Anyway, good luck and best wishes in your fight for what you believe in, you will always have my respect.

Kassandra says:

11:25am | 15/06/11

@ persephone:

<...there is better evidence that the AGW theory is correct than there is that our theory of gravity is>

I’m sorry but this is just arrant bullshit. I don’t think you have any idea what “our” theory of gravity is nor what evidence exists to support it. I also doubt that you know what “the AGW theory” is either, nor what existing evidence supports or does not support it. Simply asserting that something is true does not make it so.

I offer a few points to consider:
The theory that carbon dioxide is the MAIN cause of recent global warming is based on a hypothesis that was discredited by empirical evidence more than a decade ago, but you won’t hear about this from supporters of the theory. The central issue is not IF CO2 causes greeenhouse warming of the planet but HOW MUCH warming it causes. Almost all scientists agree on how much warming a given amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause - there is no disagreement about this. But this is only 1/3 of the warming effect that all AGW theories and models rely on. The other 2/3 is based on the theory that the CO2 effect is AMPLIFIED by water vapor (from increased ocean evaporation) which is supposed to produce an increased amount of warm moist air about 10km up over the tropics which provides the extra warming needed by the AGW models. Satellite data says this doesn’t happen. So the theory is wrong. All AGW models overpredict warming because of this by a factor of about three. Also inconvenient for the AGW theory is the fact that despite increasing CO2 in the atmosphere satellite data for global temperatures, the most reliable form, does not record any warming over the past decade. Oops. Never let facts get in the way of a good theory though, eh?

philbe2 says:

12:04pm | 15/06/11

Fact #0:Atmospheric CO2 is increasing. There is no rational argument against this fact.

See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

It is also unarguable that it is increasing due to mankind’s activity. (Said activities including both mining and burning fossil fuels, and clearing forests, releasing the CO2 stored in them)

Fact #1: CO2 has strong absorption bands in the mid-infrared, of particular relevance are absorption bands near 10 microns ... the approximate peak of the outgoing radiation from the earth. (Space is a vacuum, all energy transfer to and from the earth must be by radiation.)

Fact #2: While it is complex, we can calculate the radiation transfer through an atmosphere. We can also measure it with high spectral resolution and confirm the predicted behaviour. We have satellites looking down at the earth taking these measurements. We have groundbased instruments looking up. We can see the signature of CO2 in these spectra, see the radiative transfer behaviour theory predicts.

Fact #3: when you do those radiative calculations (with an assumption of equilibrium, and holding everything else constant) you end up with a global climate sensitivity of about 1 °C/CO2 doubling, depending slightly on assumptions. These are not trivial calculations, they require rather large databases of absorption spectra and lot of computer time for integrating over the spectral domain and the vertical column(s) ... but they are routinely done independently, and lots of different groups measure the spectra of the absorbing gases, etc.

Fact #4: The Clausius Claperon equation (and of course measured data) for the vapour pressure of water vs temperature are well known. The water vapour pressure (over a free surface ,e.g. the oceans) goes up with temperature.

Water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas.

H2O is most important as a greenhouse gas in the upper troposphere, indeed the tropopause height is set by the convection/radiation stability processes in the atmosphere that give us a tropopause (given N2, O2, and O3 absorption of UV in the stratosphere of course). A simple parcel updraft model does a reasonable job of getting the upper troposphere water vapour right, and predicts H2O amplification of CO2-driven warming.

Fact #5: as the earth warms the areas covered by ice and snow retreat, and the ground albedo goes down. This is a strong positive feedback too, almost certainly the one which allows the Milankovitch cycles to produce the beautifully periodic ice-ages in the Quaternary. CO2 is obviously not the trigger for these (too periodic for that to make sense) but good evidence demonstrates that it amplifies the interglacials .

Fact #6: in the longer geochemical record of earth there are many very warm epochs ... epochs when dinosaurs and palm trees really did live near the north pole ... and they ALL had very high CO2 partial pressures, much higher than today.

When you take all these facts together, it’s really tough to come up with any sane argument that “CO2 doesn’t warm the earth significantly or that mankind’s rapid release of CO2 to the atmosphere won’t matter”.

Note that in this list I never mentioned “climate model” (as in complex hydrodynamical model) nor did I mention anything about “the hockey stick” or Mann or anything else.

Now the reality is that our ability to precisely estimate the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” of the earth isn’t all that great for some really fundamental reasons. It is very hard to get an exact estimate of the climate sensitivity and it is impossible to completely rule out really extreme sensitivities ... due to the fundamental nature of the system having rather large positive feedbacks.

But the bottom-line fact here is that there’s pretty good reason (including geochemical history and the results of the climate modelling, and a rather extensive error/uncertainty analysis) to think that this sensitivity must be something like 2.5 °C/CO2 doubling…

AND

It can’t possibly be lower than 1°C/doubling UNLESS there is a MAJOR negative feedback mechanism we don’t know about. And a LOT of people have been looking hard ... and none have been found.

Hypotheses like Lindzen’s “IRIS” hypothesis are the ONLY way that mankind would get a “free pass” on this one (even that wouldn’t be “free” ... we’d still deal with Ocean acidification and effects on things like the monsoons etc.)

The IRIS hypothesis was shot down quickly after it was proposed, Lindzen no longer supports it.

So the real bottom line about AGW is that in order to believe it ISN’T a pretty damn serious problem, you need to believe that there is some physics science hasn’t found yet that will save us.

That’s like believing in unicorns. That’s what AGW “skeptics” are really doing.

persephone says:

12:07pm | 15/06/11

non warmist

and I did not accuse you of doing so.

It’s called an ‘analogy’ - I suggest you look up what the word means and then you might get it.

Kassandra

see my replies in posts below regarding gravity.

If empirical evidence has disproved global warmng, I’m sure you can provide the links to this evidence, or at least to peer reviewed articles discussing it.

Hell, just provide a link. Or a source. Or something.

It appears to have escaped the notice of all scientist in a number of different scientific fields, who are using AGW to explain a variety of observed phenomena, from increased ocean acidification to changes in the behaviour of species.

If there is empirical evidence out there which disproves global warming, it’s very important that this is brought to the attention of the scientific community.

Erick says:

12:35pm | 15/06/11

persephone and iansand personify the warmist problem.

Their inability to acknowledge the existence of contrary evidence, such as Climategate, means they cannot argue effectively against that evidence.

Consequently, they abandon the field of debate to their opponents, who, not surprisingly, prevail.

D Bonson says:

12:53pm | 15/06/11

Well said Erick. Transparency is the first step to credible science. Those in the IPCC and their yolk are have proven to be anything but scientific.

To all the believers, I was just like you. Then I was challenged to examine the evidence and I was appalled with what I discovered. I am now a sceptic because I was presented with evidence and admitted to myself that my previous views supporting the man made global warming dogma was wrong.

Blind Freddy says:

12:58pm | 15/06/11

@Jim
I won’t insult you despite you attempting to do the same to me.

I have a job and can’t spend all day debating the science with you- I’ll leave that to the scientists. The answers are out there and I’m sure you have already encountered them but choose to ignore them. All of your points have been dealt with elsewhere, by others (and without resorting to name calling and label application), and it would be pointless me reiterating it here because you are obviously ideologically driven.

Nafe says:

01:06pm | 15/06/11

I hate to agree with Perse but arguing about the science is a waste of time and very pointless. Also for the climate change skeptics like myself, its detracting from the propper debate we should be having and also helping give the warmists a defence.

No science is a proven fact and I for one disagree that climate change is man made but we need to clean up our act anyway.

Its time us skeptics all got on the same page to fight the fight we should be fighting, and thats against the carbon tax.

We need to humour the warmists and make them answer real questions about this tax rather than focussing on somethng that can be easilly modelled.

We need to stand up and ask how much is the tax going to cost us p/w, how much change WILL thic tax cause to the environment, needing specifics on temprature and year we see the temprature reduce.

These results are also out there and the tax for Australians is many billions, and most climate scientists have noted the change may even be too late now, if not will be at lease 100 years before we see a fraction of a degree difference.

Pressure needs to be put on the government that the cost is far to great and we need to invest this money on adapting to the natural climate change rather than a big tax.

iansand says:

01:14pm | 15/06/11

Erick - Have you read the hacked emails beyond the highly selective and tiny sample fed to you by your mad bloggers?  If not, why have you failed to treat their claims with any scepticism?

AAAdam says:

01:25pm | 15/06/11

I agree Erick. I’ve asked myself what would change my mind many times (just to be sure I wasn’t being overly stubborn or post rationalising my position). It has always yielded the same answer - empirical evidence that manmade CO2 emissions are causing climate change. So far, no-one has done this and if they had, they’d have claimed the prize for doing so.

Personally, I won’t be supporting a carbon tax until I do see some empirical evidence that is robust enough to claim this prize. The money is real, the bet is real, but is the purported climate change evidence real enough to claim the prize? After all, if I freely handed over money every time some scammer said “trust me” and provided some dubious science to back up their flavour of the month doomsday cause, I’d be broke! The govt is no different in this case.

luke says:

01:44pm | 15/06/11

persephone, most agree climate scientists have proven climate change is happening but most agree a carbon tax is not going to alter climate change. I doubt all climate scientists would realistically think a carbon tax will alter climate change considering natural greenhouse gas emissions cannot be controlled or influence by humans and are having as much if not more affect to climate change.

The climate change debate has really come down to two groups, the realists and the believers.

The realists accept the scientific findings but realistically know there is nothing that can be done to stop the direction the climate is heading towards, especially when population growth worldwide is going to continue the demands for energy.

The believers fail to think logically. They think a tax is going to fix everything and we will all live happily ever after. They honestly believe that introducing a tax is going to change peoples need for energy.

At the moment we have three viable baseload energy sources, coal, gas and the big taboo nuclear. It is obvious fossil fuels won’t last forever but we don’t need a tax to find a suitable source for the future.

Morgan says:

01:49pm | 15/06/11

Independantly researched, publically available, HONEST evidence.

Non government or government based, no celebrity endorsements and no big business involvement.

Funded equally by a group of select governments and businesses who would have no further input after coughing up the money.

Ando says:

02:18pm | 15/06/11

Luke,
I agree with your summary but it is the “scientific” debate that dominates any discussion about the tax. It has resulted in a situation where you either agree with the tax or don’t believe the scientists. Also those who dont believe the science see the anti tax sentiment (or Gillards backflip) as proof the public are doubting the evidence.

Kassandra says:

02:48pm | 15/06/11

@ philbe2:

You’ve posted this before pretty much word for word - a fair attempt to bamboozle the opposition by resorting to esoteric jargon but you still have a major hole in your “facts”:
the hypothesised increase in warm atmospheric water vapor that should be found about 10km up over the tropics from increased ocean evaporation isn’t there. Your whole theory depends on this to provide the water vapor amplification of the otherwise rather modest CO2-driven warming that your whole argument rests on. It isn’t there. What’s the explanation? Don’t know for sure but increased precipitation seems a rather obvious candidate. Whatever it is your theory is wrong and should be revised accordingly because it doesn’t fit the observed data.

@ persephone:

No I won’t fall for that one. Do your own homework.

persephone says:

03:21pm | 15/06/11

Erick

‘Climategate’ isn’t evidence. If you think it is, then it’s no wonder you don’t understand the issues.

“Climategate’ is some emails taken out of context. Even if they were 100% true, they’re not ‘proof’ that AGW is incorrect - they would simply be proof that one or two scientists were.

Given that AGW is supported by thousands of scientists around the world, one or two being wrong would make no difference.

Kassandra

As a teacher, I recognise the signs - someone who’s out of their depth and so uses a lot of complicated language in an effort to sound intelligent.

Do you have any evidence that there has been increased precipitation? Or is this just another thing you’re making up to suit your argument?

As for your ‘do your own work’  -
how can I find something that doesn’t exist?

What a wimp you are - unable to defend your argument using facts, so you leave it to others to disprove it.

You made the statement, you back it up.

Credibility FAIL.

PS Wrote a lovely long post on gravitational theory which seems to have not passed the moderator (apologies, moderator, if it is elsewhere and I’ve missed it!) 

Don’t have time to rewrite it now, dammit, but may try later.

Freeman says:

03:26pm | 15/06/11

Persephone,

Bullshit, if the science were compelling then warmists wouldn’t have to rely on arguments such as “oh, a handpicked bunch of scientists beleive in it and so do some actors, so there” They could rely on the scientific argument put forward just like was the case with the elimination of CFCs. The science was sound and the world accepted it

Que says:

03:42pm | 15/06/11

@Blind Freddy “I didn’t know that you could get a PhD for fuzzy logic”
Wow, it’s now unscientific to convey what my scientific colleagues are saying. Talk about gagging debate.

John Smythe says:

03:48pm | 15/06/11

Pers…Bullshit. Plain and simple.

None of us here disagree humans have an impact on the the ever-changing world. What you have been told numerous times, is what we DO NOT ACCEPT is the govt lying to us and making believe that a TAX will solve everything.

When you stop equating climate change to Carbon Tax….maybe you will actually see our side of the argument.

Until then you and ian will just keep spouting the same shit over and over and over again. We’re all talking apples, but you keep insisting it’s cakes.

Double-Standards says:

03:49pm | 15/06/11

Erick’s skepticism about the “climate change alarmists” would be fair and just if he were consistent with his skepticism. But unfortunately Erick, your bias has a double standard. One can only agree that the “admission of the significance of Climategate and other scientific frauds” would be a step in the right direction if “climate change alarmists” ALSO admitted the significance of their own scientific frauds, of which there have been many. It doesn’t make any sense to claim to be a skeptic if you aren’t equally skeptical of all arguments.

philbe2 says:

04:00pm | 15/06/11

@Kassandra

So, you agree that we calculate at least 1°C temperature rise per CO2 doubling?

I would love to discuss atmospheric water vapour with you.

I’ll start: an analysis of long-term measurements of upper tropospheric water vapor shows a positive water vapor feedback in 22 years of satellite data: (Soden et al 2005)
http://www.dca.iag.usp.br/www/material/akemi/radiacao-I/Soden_2005_Science.pdf

I think you are wrong. There is evidence of atmospheric water from increased ocean evaporation.

Erick says:

04:28pm | 15/06/11

@persephone - ““Climategate’ is some emails taken out of context.”

No, it is not. The fact that even at this late stage you persist in that lie is proof of your dishonesty.

There is no point in communicating with you when you refuse to argue in good faith.

@iansand - I have pointed out the significance of Climategate to you many times. Yet you still pretend to be ignorant. I do not believe you are being honest, and therefore I will not waste any more time dealing with your nonsense.

@Both - This is why you are losing the debate. More and more people are rejecting the warmists, because the warmists simply refuse to acknowledge criticisms. And so, the warmists cannot defend their position against the criticisms they ignore.

Moreover, the very denial of those criticisms exposes the dishonesty of the warmists, further wrecking their credibility.

Carry on as much as you like, but you’re on a losing strategy. As long as you ignore these points, you’ll just keep on losing.

persephone says:

04:35pm | 15/06/11

John Smythe

Oh, and I call bullshit back.

Read back over the posts above - those disagreeing with me (and others) on this issue are not arguing about the tax, they’re arguing about the science.

Because Tory’s article is about the science - not the tax - I have kept my comments to discussion of the science, not the tax.

Erick’s original post is on the science, not the tax.

So to pretend that people are no longer silly enough to argue the science but are merely concerned about the methods we’re using to combat the identified threat climate change poses, is disingeneous of you.

I’m glad that you agree with me, however, that the science is proven and that what we need to be sorting out is the response.

But tell that to Erick and co, not me.

John Smythe says:

04:35pm | 15/06/11

philbe, I’ll play that game, now show me where it stipulates human generated CO2 vs naturally occurring event driven CO2 levels. Kindly show how human involvement is so excessively high, that it demand a carbon tax now.

I won’t be scared into thinking all doom and gloom because humans suck with their treatment of the environment. I may agree we suck at it, but won’t be treated like an idiot for the purpose of knee-jerk tax grabs.

There are ways around improving the situation. Action is what is required, not focus groups, tax funded research reports, and more lies.

persephone says:

04:41pm | 15/06/11

Erick

you have not demonstrated in any way how the emails disprove the theory.

How can we warmists take denialists like you seriously when you can’t defend your arguments, but instead take your bat and ball and go home as soon as you’re asked to do so?

Of course, that’s all you can do - because you don’t have any arguments of your own at all, but are simply regurgitating what others have told you.

As soon as someone goes off script you’re lost.

iansand says:

04:43pm | 15/06/11

Erick - And I have asked you, many times, whether you have read more than the 4 0r 5 (out of thousands) selected emails, taken in isolation, that are regurgitated on every nutcase blog.  Have you?  I have and I can assure you that “climategate” is bullshit.

If you were a true sceptic you would be agitating for the Heartland Institute to release all is internal emails.  That really would be worth a read.  They could disclose who funds them, as well.

John Smythe says:

05:06pm | 15/06/11

Pers…I don’t agree with you at all. I don’t agree with your “science” either.

Nor am I a skeptic nor a denier simply because I don’t believe in reports presented with an agenda in mind as opposed to actually being reports.

Your previous arguments outside this particular post by tory have been pro-tax….and if you are anti-tax you are a denier. I say nay….and the reason I say nay is in my response to philbe.

As such..I still call bullshit. The earth is ever-changing. The series of events over the last few months around the world are evidence of it. But I can’t see how you would try to tie that in to being solely the response of human intervention on this earth.

You can try and flip and change your sentiment, but you continue to moan the same thing over and over.

luke says:

05:12pm | 15/06/11

Erick you are right about the Gillard government and their supporters to one extent, they are now losing the argument for the introduction of a carbon tax from within their own government.
First there was Martin Ferguson calling for our coal miners to expand their operations to supply Asia to protect jobs and now many ALP MP’s calling for compensation for steel workers Australia wide. Which will mean carbon emissions will continue to be emitted at highest levels.

The carbon tax is an unecessary burden on Australians. It has nothing to do with stopping climate change that the Gillard government continues to preach.

The fact that Gillard government MP’s are demanding compensation for steel and coal workers is pure hypocrisy at its best. On one hand they say the carbon tax will not cost jobs and increase financial pressure on everyday Australians and then on the other hand they want to compensate big business and all others who will be affected.

The government has lost all credibility and many Australians are no longer interested in listening to their biased rantings.

AAAdam says:

08:38pm | 15/06/11

For me, the most concerning thing about the whole AGW debate is how these scientists pull exact numbers out of models that are based on huge uncertainties and using data riddled with uncontrolled variables. Anyone with even a tiny amount of knowledge of scientific theory or data analysis can see they should be using confidence intervals. However, I suppose using a 99% confidence interval would widen the predicted temperature ranges enough to demonstrate we are well within the range of natural variation for global temperature changes (i.e. nothing statistically significant is happening as a result of human CO2 emissions, we are just within the normal range of natural variation). In fact, even the most dire predictions of AGW fall flat on their face when a 99% confidence interval is applied to the results.

To me, it seems odd that the government holds the pharmaceutical companies to very rigorous confidence intervals before they can sell their products (particularly when they may have side effects that can include suicide or destroy someone’s capacity to work). Yet, on the other hand, they are giving every Australian a bitter pill to swallow in the form a carbon tax, yet they are applying none of the same statistical rigor or confidence intervals to the predictions of AGW, let alone the outcomes they are predicting from their carbon tax, despite the obvious potential side effects of this toxic tax (i.e. job losses and associated suicides, huge costs to individuals, etc).

iansand says:

08:55pm | 15/06/11

Aaaadam = What exact numbers?  I see ranges.

DaveinPerth says:

09:08pm | 15/06/11

Erick is also unconvinced about smoking, asbestos, seat belts, crash helmets, fatty foods, high salt, and bareback sex with ‘scarlet women’.

“Still waiting for the jury to come in on them”. So to speak.

Kozeyekan says:

09:08pm | 15/06/11

Well, I for one am sick of journos claiming that there is some sort of disagreement. Show me a currently employed scientist who does not believe that climate change isn’t man made. Just one.
On the other side, we have scientists who DO believe that the greenhouse effect is the effect of human involvement. On that side is the CSIRO, CERN, every climate scientist and Stephen Hawking, a person who understands more about physics than any person, ever.
Hawking trumps Bolt.

AAAdam says:

11:01pm | 15/06/11

@ Ian - Feel free to point me towards some empirical evidence that uses 99% confidence intervals and does not cover the natural variation range. I’m actually fairly open minded; I’m currently just waiting for some empirical evidence that has so far failed to materialise (even with my google alerts set and everything!).

@ Kozeyekan - “Show me a currently employed scientist who does not believe that climate change isn’t man made. Just one”

How about 30,000+. See below link. I’m sure that at least a few are employed scientists (though more likely the majority of such qualified people are employed):

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Also, feel free to peruse some peer reviewed articles critical of the whole thing. The majority are written by scientists employed in their relevant fields:

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

AAAdam says:

11:09pm | 15/06/11

P.S. Hawkings is most certainly not considered “a person who understands more about physics than any person” within the physics community. Far from it. I think he is just considered great by those who have little to do with physics, too much sympathy for the disabled and watch way too much tv.

DaveinPerth says:

11:55pm | 15/06/11

@AAAdam - Brilliant! Love you use of the petitionproject. It was BS in 1997. It’s BS now. But great way to muddy the waters. Which is all the deniers need to do. Just sow the seeds of doubt and let the unwashed masses do the rest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition 
Click here for an instant check of AAAdams IQ.

AAAdam says:

02:43pm | 16/06/11

@ DaveinPerth - I’ve read through the link you provided and nowhere in it does it allege that not one single scientist who signed the petition is employed (which is the question I was responding to from Kozeyekan). Far from it actually. The link just goes on to say the 30,000+ scientists are from very diverse fields of science and have very diverse qualifications. So, instead of believers trying to make out like all sceptics are fringe dwelling uneducated fools, it actually shows there are a large number of sceptics who are highly educated, highly qualified people. Sure, there is some conjecture about the exact number of people who signed the petition, but even if it was halved, that is still 15,000 highly educated individuals who say man made climate change is a load of rubbish.

As for muddy waters, they’ve always been muddy. There has always been debate on the subject. The believers who refuse to even acknowledge there is conflicting evidence, a clear lack of empirical proof, some dubious modelling and huge amounts of political bias in the reports support the AGW hypothesis often do their cause more harm than good. Perhaps if they acknowledged they didn’t know how things work yet and that the science was not yet settled people might be a more tolerant. Personally, I think they should go back to drawing boards for another decade, do more research and come up with some empirical evidence. A decade isn’t long all things considered. Plus, why would believers have a problem with people rigorously going over their work for another decade? If what they say is true (and the predictions they’ve made are accurate) then surely more research would validate their findings and prove them right? Or are they scared more research will expose just how little they know and what a huge scam this is? I’m happy to wait and find out. And I don’t see the need to rush into a new tax just yet, especially without empirical evidence even backing up the cause of climate change, let alone if the treatement they are proposing (a carbon tax) will even achieve anything other than making Aussies poorer and reducing future improvements in the standard of living.

Kassandra says:

03:37pm | 16/06/11

@ philbe2:

nope, if you go back and read it again you’ll see it has to be WARM water vapor in the upper troposphere to support the AGW models, if it’s not warming the troposphere around 10km it’s irrelevant. Also, you have to look at data during a warming period. There has been no warming since 2001 so we have to use data from before then. You can find this in the 2006 CCSP report (US Climate Change Science Program) in section 5.5 page 116 (Figure 5.7 part E) which shows data from 1979-1999 covering most of the recent warming period. There is no warming recorded in the troposphere between 8km-12km over this period. (There you go persephone dear a reference for you). The models predicting 3-4.5 degrees warming per CO2 doubling instead of 1 degree or less (negative feedback is also possible) are therefore not supported. Doomsday from CO2 induced BBQ is off. No need to tax the air we breathe. Homeostasis is a wonderful thing.

DaveinPerth says:

08:01pm | 16/06/11

@AAAdam - “So, instead of believers trying to make out like all sceptics are fringe dwelling uneducated fools,...... ” No need. By proffering the petition project, you do it yourself.

I’m thinking you’d be a BIG fan of ‘Joe the Plumber’. Just a hard working plumber, trying to run a small business and not get disadvantaged by the tax system because he earns $280K per annum. Great message.

No wait. He’s not really self-employed. He works for someone else. But he’d LIKE to be self employed one day. Still a great message.

No wait. He’s not really earning $280K a year. More like 40K.  But he’d LIKE to earn $280K! And it’s still a great message.

No wait. He’s not really a PLUMBER.  He works for a plumber. But he’d LIKE to be a plumber. Still a great message.

No wait. He’s not really called JOE. But he’d LIKE to be called JOE.  One day. Let just try focus on the message.

The REALLY funny thing about ‘Joe’ the ‘Plumber’, is that after all the facts come out, and every last little bit of his story is shown to be utter fabrication, the McCain campaign kept using him. They kept introducing him as “Joe the Plumber”. 

In that election, intelligent, well read people had already made up their minds. They weren’t voting for McCain in a million years. The Republicans just needed some noise, to make it look like there was some sort of debate for the uniformed idiots.
Likewise, there is no debate left about Climate Change. Drivel like the petitionproject is there as NOISE. It’s not meant to be defensible. The only thing it proves is the capacity for some kook to make up 30,000 names.

It’s just about producing some noise. Teach the ‘Controversy”. (When the message is obviously rubbish.)

JCS says:

05:17am | 21/06/11

The mere suggestion that aa Scientist must accept a hypothesis is true actually contradicts science itself!!!

No hypothesis can be proven true, everything should be questioned and then questioned again, ultimately this is what science is.  Climate change is real, it is why we have had ice ages and warm periods through all of history.  However, there is no empirical evidence that demonstrates a direct correlation between the volumes of CO2, Methane, NOS etc and air temperature/weather conditions.  Until that evidence is presented, and I mean empirical measured data, not computer modeling where is you carry the dot you can heavily influence the results to present what you want so you will get your next grant, then I remain a scientist and as my profession requires me, i’ll continue to question the “evidence” and consider the hypothesis that AGW is occuring as exactly that, a hypothesis. 

Many people here state that the debate is still occuring, and it is, so why do you then purport that scientists must accept the hypothesis???

Dash says:

07:26am | 15/06/11

The problem is, the lies and deciet is at the core of the ALP! Its not just Gillard. Look at the ALP in NSW and what they did to that state. And the power brokers there put Gillard into power and have moved to Canberra. The party is rotten to the core.

The ALP has serious credibility issues! No one believes them anymore. Faulkner and Tanner, two of their respected mambers have left the perty in disgust. The coalition with the greens and their marginalisation of the party to the left, has brought them undone. They have neglected their heartland and sold the soul of their perty out for power.

There is now a primary vote gap of 16 points between the parties. Gillards dissapproval rating is way higher than Rudds was.

They are not listening to the people, they are out of touch, they are untrustworthy and they are trying to burden the economy with a cost that will hurt families. And to make matters worse, they are playing games with wealth redistribution. Feathering their own nest at the expense of hard working families.

In Sydney, power prices are set to rise 17 percent from July 1. They are expected to rise a further 10 in the following year. And that’s before a carbon tax!

The government has taken 2billion away from families, yet is able to find millions for glossy propaganda pamphlets! They have a stacked committee set up as the wisdom font, and they use taxpayers money to commission reports that send the ALP message.

Time the ALP stopped talking and listened to the people!

PTom says:

10:32am | 15/06/11

@Dash
“In Sydney, power prices are set to rise 17 percent from July 1. They are expected to rise a further 10 in the following year. And that’s before a carbon tax!”

Not stopped by the LIBERAL state government,  guess they are not listen either.

Dash says:

11:16am | 15/06/11

PTom, the LNP has been in power for half an hour you numpty! What did the ALP do for electricity infrustructure with 100% of GST revenue over the last 16 years! Hilarious!

PTom says:

12:34pm | 15/06/11

@Dash.
Good arguments, you sound like Barn yard Joyce.
LNP have been in since March what now that not long enough to change things yet according to the LNP and theirs supports it is long enough to blame ALP.

Since when has the GST been in for 16 years and don’t you mean the 100% of GST recieved from Federal which replace other Commonwealth and State Revenue which is not a new income stream as you implied.

Dash says:

01:42pm | 15/06/11

PTom, so the power issues in Sydney are due to the LNP which has been in for a few months vs the ALP which was in for 16 years??? Yeah sure thing man. You would be the only person I know prepared to back the ALP in NSW!

iansand says:

07:25am | 15/06/11

Why would you turn away from the people who have spent a lifetime studying something?

Bennymac says:

08:44am | 15/06/11

I don’t trust climate scientists, their ability to take home a wage every week relies on climate change being a reality.
I do however believe in the more traditional sciences, you know, the ones whose work is based around scientific laws rather than politicised theory.
It turns out there are 31487 scientists in the states, 9029 with PhD’s, who believe that the alarmists have got it wrong aswell, the 9029 with PhD’s alone account for more than 15 times the number of scientists seriously involved in the IPCC process.
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
So my question is
Why wont the warmists listen to the scientists?

Al says:

08:59am | 15/06/11

Agreed Ian. Sadly the sceptics don’t have anyone of any credibility to put forward a good argument as to why AGW is not occurring.
They could read scientific papers - many are available online - but they don’t believe scientists. They don’t believe NASA, bureaus of meteorology, in fact anybody who studies climate seriously and openly reports on it through scientific papers which actually outline data sets and the processes.
Sceptics consciously choose to be ignorant. They conciously choose to listen to conservative opinion makers. In short they choose to take the lazy route rather than go to the source papers.
They are a sad, unedifying bunch who have yet to put forward any quality science on their own behalf.

Al says:

09:25am | 15/06/11

I’ve seen that list Bennymac. It looks made up, just names, a statement that many are PhDs, but no links to universities, no way to track down who they are and verify.
I would transparency on a list like that, not the disguised agenda of sceptics. If that list was genuine it woudl be open to scrutiny.

acotrel says:

09:31am | 15/06/11

@bennymac
‘I don’t trust climate scientists, their ability to take home a wage every week relies on climate change being a reality.
I do however believe in the more traditional sciences, you know, the ones whose work is based around scientific laws rather than politicised theory.’

I jost love your post!  I worked as a scientist for 40 years.  Your perception of science is slightly different to mine.  Pardon my mirth.  Your medical doctor is a scientist.  Don’t you trust him?  He might be treating you based on ‘politicised theory’?

Gregg says:

09:52am | 15/06/11

@Bennymac,
It is good that it seems many scientists are now not so reticent on being heard and wanting real facts to be disclosed.
It is unfortunate that if there was something like a royal commission or in the states a joint party investigation into the politics of global warming, no doubt there would be more clouding with fluff from careerists.
But with luck on the side of people questioning the beliefs of warmists and any fallacies being exposed, the planet and Australia may remain a better place to live.
@ Al,
And so do papers explain just how temperatures are being measured now and have been for millions of years, like in just how many ice cores are there.
Do those same ice cores not also indicate warming and cooling cycles well before any human influence and there is even some scientific results from ice coresthat CO2 increases and temperature rises are not only centuries apart but that CO2 rises may even occur before temperatures rise.

If Juliar came out with some real fact sheets so that the conclusions can be scientifically debated, then she would be looking less like one of the Stooges incorporated.

Like, the earth is a reasonable size planet that has been around for an awful long time, orbiting and spinning on a tilted axis all the time and so just how many temperature measuring points do you reckon ought to be needed to know if the planet is heating or cooling at any given time.
If you really think about it, you might be hard pressed to come to a realistic conclusion

Does science claim to be able to predict that a little warming, say as much as might even be attributable to humans and industrialisation might not prevent the next ice age from being as severe.

Leopard says:

10:39am | 15/06/11

@alcotrel   Not all medical doctors can be trusted.  Many are simply pill-pushers -  and what’s the term for a doctor who “sends for a test”?  Tests, tests.  Go and get yours
Many medical doctors make errors.

PTom says:

11:00am | 15/06/11

Bennymac,
Good to see Aeroplane Engineer are now trusted climate scientists.
So now we can have Car Mechanics design planes.
When was this listed created?

Al says:

11:10am | 15/06/11

Um..yes Gregg they do. The ice ages are caused by variations in orbit.
Those cores show CO2 kicks off “after” the warming starts again. This is because metling begins and then vegetation decays releasing methane into the atmosphere. The carbon from this acts as an amplifier and the earth heats up faster again. CO2 is an amplifying agent.
As for ice-ages being slowed by additional carbon - there is some evidence for a minor effect but eventually it will be overwhelmed by our distance from the sun as we wobble away.

Matthew says:

12:19pm | 15/06/11

acotrel, my medical doctor is exactly that, a medical doctor that may not actually have a PhD (and therefore isn’t actually a doctor at all) and is trained in medicine, not the climate.

Also, the doctor doesn’t lose his job if climate change stops happening since he’ll always have sick patients, there’s no denying that disease happens.

PTom says:

12:22pm | 15/06/11

Gregg,

I see Al answered most of your questions.

But here is a interesting thing CO2 is now higher then it has been record in the last 800,000 years.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jun/10/3

Would you care to explain your theory why in the last 150 years that CO2 has been going up?

Joan says:

02:42pm | 15/06/11

And why would you believe anything Juliar says, as anything Juliar implements shows nothing but disaster. . Her performance in parliament Question time today shows a Juliar unable to comprehend a simple question put to her that related to her as she gabbled on about Abbott in reply.  A devious reply which not even a person with half a brain would take as an acceptable answer, That we should be so silly as to believe that she capable implementing her   Carbon Tax is a joke, the ruin of Australia more likely outcome and end up with the same debacle as her asylum seeker mess-up.  The No Carbon Tax liar Juliar in QT now says `I believe ` at least ten times. .... truth Juliar…. the polls say the people don’t believe a word that you say.

Jay says:

07:28am | 15/06/11

Agree, however never underestimate the greed of people.If comrade Gillard and her political commisars offer ridiculous tax compensation, then the masses may decide to accept it.Abbott will be stuck with telling everyone that he will scrap it. Just remember how much love there was when KEVAN was giving out the $900.00 plasma cheques.Once you give out tax cuts and other freebees then very hard to claw them back. Either way inflation, interest rates and unemployment will go through the roof. Property speculators will be waiting in the wings as cheap properties come onto the market.

Nigel says:

07:53am | 15/06/11

Good post.  Despite the bleatings of Persephone and the other Labor apparatchiks on this site, my opinion is that climate change is happening, there is credible evidence that humankind is contributing to the rate of that change and therefore we should change our ways. I’m not a ‘denier’, however, taxing fugitive emissions from coal mines while continuing to export coal at escalating rates is not one of the ways we should be dealing with this.
Fudging statistics from China where Combet/Gillard et al refere to China’s comitment to decreasing CO2 output per unit of GDP is disingenuous at best and adds no credibility to the ALP’s argument - wake up! China’s output will increase, just at not quite a steep trajectory as their GDP.
Frankly the crap that is coming out of the mouths of the warmist cheerleaders is astonishingly banal. A tax on Australian industry will have no effect on global climate change, none, nada, nothing and for trying to convince us that it will, this pathetic government should be condemned.

Dash says:

08:34am | 15/06/11

I agree with you Liam and Nigel. This debate is not a question of if climate change is real. It’s about the policy that is being inflicted upon the Australian people without their consent. It’s about the lies and deceit. It’s about using tax payers money to fund propaganda and pay “experts” to deliver a message of the ALPs making. It’s about ignoring the will of the people.

sludger says:

08:36am | 15/06/11

Nicely put Liam.  I don’t know what we have done - if anything - to contribute to climate change.  I also have no problems seeking means to change our impact on the planet.  However, there are so many lies being told it is very hard for somebody not formally educated in this area to discern the truth.  Also, I find it very hard to take the word of a PM who has so blatantly lied and twisted the truth.  Not that the Opposition have too many brownie points either. But my greatest concern is that the ALP are simply playing on people’s concern and confusion in order to impose a tax that has no clear guidelines regarding amount and where it will be spent.  I see this as manipulative and is made more repugnant when anyone who voices a concern at this is vehemently attacked as being a ‘denier’ etc.  I am not denying, I am stating I don’t know for sure.  But I absolutely object to the imposition of a tax policy made on the run that - in my opinion - seeks only to redistribute wealth from the affluent to the less affluent.  Once again, work hard and get punished and don’t dare object or you will be vilified.  This is the sort of vitriol that cost the ALP NSW and it looks like Federal refused to learn.  (Cue Persephone for her mealy mouthed spin.)  However, as Jay has noted, sadly greed will step in as people grasp for their pathetic hand outs and we will once again take another step backwards in our standard of living.

Al says:

09:30am | 15/06/11

Okay, the world of stupid continues to blaze. Do you really think a government would put out such an unpopular policy which could see them voted out in a landslide if they didn’t genuinely believe something was happening?
No politician in their right mind would pursue an unpopular carbon policy with such intensity to gain power. The whole proposal of a carbon policy bringing power and cash to the ALP is a lame as all the other sceptic’s arguments.
You deniers live in a fantasy land. Go write a novel where facts and common sense don’t matter.

Mike says:

10:41am | 15/06/11

@Al,
“Do you really think a government would put out such an unpopular policy which could see them voted out in a landslide if they didn’t genuinely believe something was happening?” - Al

How about the former governments Workchoices???
It was an unpopular policy that they genuinely believed in!

The ALP has always been against big business, and all this is is an excuse to have a redistribution of wealth because they cant do a communist Russia style ‘walk in a confiscate industries’. And while they will hand alot of this tax to the lower class, they will pocket a bucket load as well

Dash says:

10:42am | 15/06/11

@Al, you must be one of the true believers. The compensation scheme will descriminate against families on the basis of income, not on the basis of pollution. It is nothing more than an exercise in wealth redistribution! It’s a socialist tax! And yes I do believe the ALP would do that because it’s in line with everything they have done on the tax front so far.

Flood levy - punish the rich, Mining tax - punish the rich, Removal of Superannuation tax consessions - punish the rich, Means testing of the private health tax rebate - punish middle and high income earners, Freezing of family benefits - punish middle and high income earners, Carbon tax compensation - make the middle and high income earners pay!

This is the most socialist government in our history. They are punishing the people creating the nations wealth and paying the most tax, and they are rewarding the people destroying the nations wealth and already claiming benefits. It’s complete madness.

Then again what should we expect from a PM who was a paid up member of the Socialist Forum right up until 2002?

What about “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”? Does that fact matter? Or are you another ALP liar denier?

Al says:

11:15am | 15/06/11

@Dash -oh puh-lease!
Lets see a socialist government that tries to bring in a market solution with the ETS but is stopped by a conservative opposition that proposes regulation and incentives. I think you are a bit back to front there.
Wasn’t it Howard who started middle class welfare?

Dash says:

11:39am | 15/06/11

@Al, You are joking right??? When you have a compensation scheme that descriminates against families on the basis of income not pollution, guess what pal, you no longer have a market mechinism! The middle and high income earners of this country will pay the price. If you think this policy of wealth redistribution is a free market mechinism, you have zero idea about economics and politics!!! And you’ve swallowed hook line and sinker the ALPs bullshit!

Get rid of the compensation scheme and provide some realistic alternatives, then I’ll listen too you about market mechinisms. The fact is, the ALP and the greens will determine who pays, not the market. If you can’t see that, you are bliind.

Anne71 says:

12:47pm | 15/06/11

Nigel, very well said. While I’m of the opinion that human activity is contributing to climate change, I fail to see how a carbon tax is going to solve the problem. It reminds me of the Church selling indulgences back in the Middle Ages - a person could pretty much go forth and sin as much as they wanted, as long as they paid for the privilege. It didn’t stop the sinning but it certainly was a good way to raise money
And before Liam or anyone else accuses me of being gullible or wanting to be “cool”, I’d just like to point out that I first read about climate change in 1986, in a science magazine.  It’s not at all a new or “trendy” theory to me.

Carl Palmer says:

12:39pm | 16/06/11

@ Liam says: 06:26am | 15/06/11

The most refreshing and sensible comment thus far which goes to the real nub of the matter.
Well said.

iansand says:

07:26am | 15/06/11

What evidence do you have that temperatures have not risen?

Jim says:

07:58am | 15/06/11

iansand - only a handful of ground based temperature monitors show increasing temperatures. And every single one of those has been shown to be corrupted by changing conditions in the immediate vicinity of the monitor. For example, one that was installed in the 50’s now has 4 airconditioner exhausts pointing at it from less than three metres way. Another one has had a 4 lane road built around it, copping not only the heat from the vehicles, but the radiant heat from the road. Concrete walls and pavements have been put in around several of them, again lifting the recorded temperature.

In 2000 some geostationary satellites were sent up to monitor ground and ocean temperatures. These are free of bias and in the last 10 years has shown no trend in the mean temperatures at all.

It’s another example of the selective data used by warmists to push their barrow.

Oh, and the ‘alarming’ rise in sea levels off the South Australian coast that pops up every couple of news stories only happened at one monitor and was found to be ground subsidence under the monitor! Warmist conveniently ignore that fact, and the basic physics of water holding a level (the two other monitors within 10km showed no change).

Joan says:

08:19am | 15/06/11

Climate science is an inexact science.  No one disputes this .That is why Climate scientists can’t explain why the world has cooled over past 10 years while CO2 has increased.

Que says:

08:32am | 15/06/11

@iansand. Temperatures have risen since the little ice age before industrialisation ( and thus increased human CO2 output). The rise and fall of CO2 with global temperatures has been occurring for millennia. The earth was almost certainly hotter in the medieval period and during Roman times - all part of a natural cycle. Remember the story of grapevines in England/Iceland during Roman times??

Read again what I initially posted. The IPCC models predicted a much higher increase of global temperatures based on their modelling. They provided high and low boundaries for their predictions. Reality shows the warming was much lower than those predictions. I.e. models are incorrect and therefore likely the hypothesis.

Also remember that correlation is not causation. In fact CO2 could be a trailing, not a leading indicator of temperature. I.e temperature may drive CO2 levels (rotting vegetation, release from oceans etc).

Here is a link to that information (first on of many on a quick google search): http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/cryosphere/7a.html

And yes, this data is peer reviewed etc etc etc.

iansand says:

08:54am | 15/06/11

Joan - What evidence do you have that temperatures have cooled over the last 10 years?

Jim - What evidence do you have that only a few ground based monitors show a temperature rise?  And how do you deal with the satellite data?  That does show a rise, you know.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ (By the way - Spencer is a “sceptic”)

Blind Freddy says:

08:59am | 15/06/11

@Jim

So are the satellites being affected by local warming as well.

More CO2 = more warmth. You can do the experiment in your loungeroom if you have the equipment. C02 levels in the atmosphere are increasing.

The oceans are becoming more acidic because of CO2 absorbtion which has dire consequences for the marine ecology- explain that, That is a direct measurement not a model.

Science can prove nothing - it can only (at best in all fields) describe probabilities.

Next time you use any technology (like flying in a plane that was designed with modelling,, or benefit from scientific research, just remember that the same scientific paradigm created that as well.

iansand says:

09:03am | 15/06/11

Here’s some more graphs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiosonde_Satellite_Surface_Temperature.svg

Que - Humans have affected their environment over many millennia.  Whre are the cedars od Lebanon?  Where are the oak forests of Britain?  Where is the Teutoberger Wald in which Varus lost 3 legions?  Where is the North Africa that was the grain basket for Rome?

persephone says:

09:05am | 15/06/11

Que

get over the models, already.

The models are to do with future impacts and developments. They’re not the sum total of all the science involved.

There’s enough evidence for climate change even if the models are totally ignored. There’s the raft of evidence, for example, to demonstrate that the global temperature is rising and that the only explanation which fits the data is AGW.

Like evolution, AGW can be demonstrated over a range of scientific disciplines. It explains the increased acidification of the oceans, the increased incidence of serious weather events, changes in the ranges of species, and shifts in climatic conditions (to list a few of the observed phenomena).

No other theory does that.

Joan

which, of course, it hasn’t.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html

http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/images/reports/makingupyourmind_top10_web.pdf

‘The three main scientific centres that track global surface temperatures all say that the decade from 2000 to 2009 was the warmest on record’

‘Each of these centres separately analyse
temperature data supplied from thousands of
weather stations on land14 and from thousands
of measurements taken from sea surface
temperatures. Each has reached the same conclusion: the globe is
still warming. In fact, all the years from 2000 to 2009 have been in
the top 15 warmest years on record.’

hermes says:

09:23am | 15/06/11

As the early computer programmers used to succinctly put it - “Garbage In, Garbage Out”.

Que says:

09:25am | 15/06/11

@iansand “Que - Humans have affected their environment over many millennia.  Whre are the cedars od Lebanon?  Where are the oak forests of Britain?  Where is the Teutoberger Wald in which Varus lost 3 legions?  Where is the North Africa that was the grain basket for Rome?”

Umm. This has nothing to do with AGW. Nothing at all. It has to do with local environmental destruction which is real by humans. I don’t want local environmental destruction as much as the next person.

@iansand “Que. get over the models, already.” OK. But they are the models which the IPCC claim are the evidence to reduce CO2. Are you admitting that this is without basis?

I think these posts reveals your emotional attachment to a environmental concept rather than a disciplined approach to scientific evidence. Try to separate AGW from other environmental issues.

Al says:

09:34am | 15/06/11

Que - give me a break.
The medieval warming period is a crock. None of the dates correspond or match up with as much as 300 years between warmer seasons in different part of the world.
The medieval warming period has been repeatedly been shown to not have existed in the way you describe. Are you sure you are a scientist?
The modelling is the second part of the IPCC report - as youwould know if youread it. The first part is the physics and what is occurring.
Secondly, the IPCC gives spans based on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are definitely running at the top of that span.
Are you sure you aren’t making things up again?

persephone says:

09:39am | 15/06/11

Que

Let’s deal with your fallacies one by one.

1. “Temperatures have risen since the little ice age before industrialisation’

http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/images/reports/makingupyourmind_top10_web.pdf

Look at the graph.

There is no consistent warming trend before 1960.

But let’s look at the past 2000 years:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html

‘During the last 2,000 years, the climate has been relatively stable. ‘

‘There is a high level of confidence that the global average temperature during the last few decades was warmer than any comparable period during the last 400 years.’

I note that the Little Ice Age ended @ 1850 - by which time industrialisation was well and truly underway.

iansand says:

09:59am | 15/06/11

Que - Deforestation is one of the causes of climate change.  I read some interesting work recently about the effect of forests on the inland penetration of rain.

Where did I say “get over the models”?

Jim says:

10:17am | 15/06/11

@Blind Freddy

“So are the satellites being affected by local warming as well.” - no. They are picking up infra-red emissions in remote areas that are not influenced by the immediate surrounds. Look at a place like Hong Kong…hanging out of every window there is an aircon (I’m assuming you know how they work?). So the entire city is a heat sink. Any ground based monitoring done there should be excluded, but it’s not excluded by the AGW mob.

“More CO2 = more warmth. You can do the experiment in your loungeroom if you have the equipment. C02 levels in the atmosphere are increasing.” - only to a point. I’ve already explained it down the page, I won’t repeat it. We are already past that point of maximum heat absorption. CO2 levels may be rising, but we are still historically in the lowest 1% of CO2 concentration this planet has ever seen.

“The oceans are becoming more acidic because of CO2 absorbtion which has dire consequences for the marine ecology- explain that, That is a direct measurement not a model.” - that is a furphy thrown up to explain coral bleaching. The buffer effect of the oceans protect itself from pH swings…billions of tonnes of acid would need to be added to get even a 0.01 swing. Coral bleaching is caused by the degradation of coastal wetlands and fertilizer use in those reclaimed areas. Sugar cane farming is destroying the reef, not coal. But there’s no money to be made in returning the wetlands, is there?

“Science can prove nothing - it can only (at best in all fields) describe probabilities.” - that is truer than you think. Unfortunately, bad science delivers bad probabilies. Also, science is not a democracy - Al Gore Inc. could pay up 100,000 scientists to agree on AGW, it still wouldn’t mean it’s real.

“Next time you use any technology (like flying in a plane that was designed with modelling,, or benefit from scientific research, just remember that the same scientific paradigm created that as well.” - most scientific research is conducted by experts in their field. Somehow the term ‘climate scientist’ can apply to anyone from arts major to an economist to a paleontoligist. The Punch even published a piece written by a 19 year old music editor from some inner city rag that no one outside of Sydney Uni has heard of, who went to a ‘couple of seminars’. THAT’S the level of science we are basing a trillion dollar industry in carbon trading on.

Que says:

10:28am | 15/06/11

@ iansand “Where did I say “get over the models”?”

Apologies. It was persephone.

Jim says:

10:44am | 15/06/11

LOL…it was only a few weeks ago that persephone was banging on about the models! The models, the models, won’t somebody think of the models!!!

I guess the new missive from the backroom has a backflip and a new set of spin for her to punch out…

Blind Freddy says:

10:47am | 15/06/11

So the whole issue of ACC is due to an article written on The Punch by a music student a couple of weeks ago? And that article represents the whole of scientific thought on the issue?

Science is not a democratic practice- i agree but neither should the validity of its findings be determined by opinion polls.

We can argue endlessly about the science methodologies- but ultimately the proof will be in the pudding. So we will have to wait and see- won’t we.

persephone says:

11:04am | 15/06/11

Sorry, only got as far as 1. and had to go and do something else!

So let’s continue…

2.  ‘The earth was almost certainly hotter in the medieval period and during Roman times ‘

No. All you can say with certainty was that that the climate was different in certain areas of the Northern Hemisphere, which were settled by literate humans.

If you’re using the historical record, you can’t make any statements about whether the climate was warmer in America or Australia, or indeed most of the habitable globe.

So, firstly, you’re committing the awful fallacy of making a general statement based on limited observations - the equivalent of me saying that it must be hot in Queensland today, because it’s sunny where I live.

Now, it might well be - but my observed evidence isn’t proof and would not be accepted by such by any rational person.

Unless you know that North and South America, southern Africa, and Australia were also warmer during these periods, you can’t say with any confidence at all that the globe as a whole was as warmer or warmer then.

Oh, and your link does not lead to a peer reviewed paper. It links to a general educational site. Its main references appear to be the IPCC, and it clearly supports AGW.

If you’re using links, it’s a really really good idea to make sure you understand what they’re saying.

From yours:

‘....the average surface temperature of the Earth has risen by more than one half of a degree Celsius over the last century. As small as this value may sound, it is a legitimate cause for concern.’

‘....many scientists believe that human activities—primarily fossil fuel burning— which increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and average global temperatures, are pushing climate to a tipping point…’

Joan says:

11:05am | 15/06/11

Peresphone: Physicist Clive Best compared IPCC 1990 predictions for a rise in global temperature with actual data as measured up to now and concluded that ` following a gradual rise of about 0.2 degrees from 1990 to 2000,  global temperatures have stopped increasing and have actually fallen slightly`. And you have something to support your argument, which just proves Climate science is an inexact science.  And Gillard ready to rush a Carbon tax on Australians , a nation that only contributes 1.5% to world emissions., just like Gillards other half baked policies this is a doozey that will cost Australians money, jobs,  and all for nought. While slugging Australians with a carbon tax Ferguson happy to fire China coal power stations belching more and more CO2 with Australian coal to support China new job growth from jobs lost in Australia through Gillards carbon tax. on everything.

persephone says:

11:14am | 15/06/11

My point about the models is that they’re future projections,

Any projections about the future are very likely to be out to some extent.

Modelling is important to give us an indication of the likelihood of future events, and good models make their likely degree of accuracy clear (the B o M, for example, provides several future climate scenarios for Australia, all based on the present climate science, and gives probability factors for each).

My point is that the models can be totally wrong and yet climate change be correct.

The theory is based on past and present observations.

Jim says:

11:23am | 15/06/11

Yeah Blind Freddy, way to grab one small part of ones post and ignore the rest. Typical of the bleeding heart leftoids amongst us, wouldn’t you say?

PTom says:

12:17pm | 15/06/11

Que,

But we use models to design and build car and planes.

Tell us where there is another earth we can experiment on so we verfiy the modelling to your standard.

Que says:

12:43pm | 15/06/11

@PTom “But we use models to design and build car and planes.”

Statistical models are educated guesses guided by hypotheses with predetermine inputs. These are used to try and predict what might happen in the future

Car and plane models are blueprints. These are used to determine the future (i.e. how these things are made).

I can’t believe I need to explain this.

iansand says:

02:06pm | 15/06/11

Well Que - we know your PhD is not in fluid dynamics.

Que says:

03:37pm | 15/06/11

@ iansand “Well Que - we know your PhD is not in fluid dynamics.”

What?? Whatever you are smoking, stop it.

persephone says:

04:47pm | 15/06/11

iansand

Que’s knowledge of how science works - as shown by his use of fallacious information, which anyone familiar with science would avoid - makes me question his stated qualifications.

I highly doubt he’s a doctor, let alone a PhD - or even a science student.

He demonstrates less scientific knowledge than my son, who’s studying Maths/Science at VCE level.

Harquebus says:

01:25pm | 16/06/11

Tell ‘em about perpetual energy Que. No one believes me.

RT says:

08:19am | 15/06/11

Agree.

It is actually quite ignorant to presume that humans have that much influence on mother nature… especially looking at history.

Warren says:

08:44am | 15/06/11

@RT - Are you serious? Have you checked out global fish stocks recently? What about acid rain? Seen the atmosphere in Shanghai these days? The one mighty Aral sea is now a puddle. Google some pictures of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

Liam says:

08:49am | 15/06/11

Yes, and we may as well blame neanderthal man and early homosapien for warming the earth out of the ice age 15000 years ago, with all their CO2 emission industries.

CO2 is not even the main proponent of global warming, its water vapor.
And out of all CO2 emissions Humans account for approx 3%
of that 3%, Australia is responsible for around 1.5%
and the government wants to reduce this by 5%.

Not really worth paying an extra 20%+ on your power bill

BBK says:

10:05am | 15/06/11

The sun is the major factor of temperatures on Earth… always has been, always will be.

Jen says:

10:16am | 15/06/11

Why are we now talking about fish, acid rain and garbage?

Stay on topic people - this is about global temperatures I thought.

persephone says:

12:55pm | 15/06/11

RT

Oh dear. As a historian, I disagree.

Plenty of evidence which suggests that the reason the Arabian peninsula is now a desert is largely due to human activity, such as over grazing - just to give one example.

Liam

the amount of water vapour in the air is directly linked to CO2 levels, so the more CO2, the more water vapour there is in the atmosphere.

As for the ‘there’s only a little bit, it can’t hurt you’ argument, see:

http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/images/reports/makingupyourmind_top10_web.pdf

‘Just because a substance is natural or evenessential does not mean it cannot do harm in the wrong context or in high concentrations.’

BBK

from the same source:

‘The Sun certainly influences the climate, but if recent warming was caused by a more active Sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere.
However, only the surface and the lower atmosphere are warming,
while the upper atmosphere is cooling. This is because CO2 and other greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.’

Sony B Goode says:

01:31pm | 15/06/11

persphone, can you please provide evidence that the water vapour layer that actually creates warming is real? where is the evidence? how to the models factor this in to the results?

David Evans former computer modeler for the australian government ‘s greenhouse office clearly shows the water vapour layer has never been found meaning the computer models are bunk.

[ ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTUDWy6T050&feature=fvsr]

Freeman Dyson on climate change:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU&feature=related]

“A prominent scientist who’s followed the science of global warming from the beginning, Dyson explains why climate models have no scientific merit, why average global ground temperature is a great fiction, and what he believes the real dangers of increased CO2 in the atmosphere are. He suggests that the relatively simple solution of land use management could potentially give us the ability to control the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at any level we’d like, and there’s no need to stop burning coal and oil.”

Our local galaxy has probably more impact on our climate than our minsicule 2ppm co2 output and may provide answers to why we go through ice-ages and shifts in climate.

see CERNS cloud experiements.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html
“CLOUD is an experiment that uses a cloud chamber to study the possible link between galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation. Based at the Proton Synchrotron at CERN, this is the first time a high-energy physics accelerator has been used to study atmospheric and climate science; the results could greatly modify our understanding of clouds and climate.”

why is it we need to rush in a tax before these kinds of experiments finish? or is it that we need to rush in tax *because* these experiments might find something?

Of course persephone will avoid addressing anything that might challenge a tax.

the only thing persphone wants to stabilise is Gillards popularity barometer and ability to claw back and win the next election…

persephone says:

03:28pm | 15/06/11

Sony’

I was talking about the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere being linked to CO2, not about a ‘water vapour layer’.

The CERN experiments appear to be at variance with the observational evidence (they are conducted in the laboratory; the field evidence does not appear to support them). The scientist in charge of the experiments has defended his findings on the grounds that no body else understands clouds. He appears unable to explain the discrepancy between his findings and the observable data.

As the test of a scientific theory is whether or not it can be replicated experimentally by others, this casts a bit of doubt over the whole project.

No, persephone wants action on climate change; she is quite happy for Gillard to lose the next election if that is in place.

iansand says:

04:04pm | 15/06/11

A cloud chamber does not, and is not intended to, replicate atmospheric clouds.  It is a device for measuring the tracks of sub-atomic particles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber

iansand says:

04:06pm | 15/06/11

Here is a simple explanation of the connection between CO2 and water vapour as greenhouse gases http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

DJ says:

07:38am | 15/06/11

@against_the_man you forgot: Pink Batts - FAIL, BER - FAIL, NBN - overkill if not FAIL, ...... and now Live Cattle Export - FAIL. Totally and utterly incompetent government.
Oakshott, Windsor and Wilkie need to have a damn good re-think about their roles in all of this.

Rebecca says:

01:14am | 16/06/11

I agree with NBN being a FAIL - but not because of the reason you give.  Aust certainly needs the results of the NBN - but none of the current pollies have a clue how it should be implemented - TELSTRA had far too much influence.

Dash says:

08:40am | 15/06/11

@Anth, well done mate. I’ve been saying for months this policy has nothing to do with the environment.

The ALP cannot expect people to trust them on something they lied to us about! The ALP has a serious credibility issue!

AnthonyG says:

10:28am | 15/06/11

Dash. The pm yesterday said the plumbers and Electricians are all for it because it creates work. This does not make it right. I to could join in on the Solar panel scam. People who own their own house can spend the 30 grand for a system. Then have cheap power bills and get paid for contributing to power down the grid at the expense of all the people who cannot take advantage of the scream due to being renters or struggling to pay their mortgage. The only winners are the wealthy or the bankers and a few Sparky’s.

andy says:

02:24pm | 15/06/11

Dont start with the volcanos. I know you guys have been reading that idiot who claims one chilean volcano is greater than mans contribution, but this is a load of crap. the US Geological Survey estimates man produces 130 times the CO2 as all the volcanos in the world.

AnthonyG says:

03:34pm | 15/06/11

andy even if your figure was correct, it is still more than our output. But seriously andy, you don’t really believe that do you?

persephone says:

12:16pm | 15/06/11

Actually, I’m not spouting the ALP line - I’m spouting the scientific case.

No, the Hadley emails were not leaked, they were hacked. The hackers then ‘leaked’ selective emails, using them out of context in a deliberate attempt to discredit the scientists.

Roxon didn’t accept any funds. The Liberals did. Big difference. (And how does discreditting Roxon have anything to do with whether or not climate change is real? Weird).

Whether AGW is true or not should not be a political issue. Both sides of Parliament in Australia agree that climate change is happening and that it is caused by man. The disagreement is on how to deal with that.

Aitch B says:

02:06pm | 15/06/11

@Persephone

“..... climate change is happening and that it is caused by man. The disagreement is on how to deal with that.”

No…. I think there is also quite a bit of disagreement on how much man is contributing to climate change… heck, let’s call it “global warming” because that’s what the people in the ‘warmist’ camp really mean.

“.... it is caused by man.” is such an unequivocal statement and is in fact incorrect!!

Pedantic perhaps but if people are hoping to win sceptics over then bullish, unequivocal statements such as that certainly won’t help the cause - more likely to deter them from changing their attitude.

I would think that statements that relate more to man’s contribution will be far more acceptable as fact to those who are unconvinced.

persephone says:

03:33pm | 15/06/11

So it’s just as well that climate scientists look at changes in climate which have occurred over millions of years, rather than relying just on the last century.

persephone says:

12:37pm | 15/06/11

Here’s a really good site which answers a lot of your questions-

http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/images/reports/makingupyourmind_top10_web.pdf

1. Sorry, I’m having trouble working out what you mean. Australia was a dry continent and it still is a dry continent, so what change are you referring to?

The evidence is that it is getting even drier and hotter.

2. There’s been several Ice Ages.

The latest one was ended by global waming, caused by sun activity:

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/September/27090702.asp

However, we don’t have the same amount of sun activity to explain present warming - to quote from the report I linked ot originally—

‘...changes in the Sun’s activity cannot explain the
rise in global temperatures in recent decades. If anything, the Sun’s output has diminished in recent decades yet the world is still warming.’

And;

‘The climate has changed throughout the Earth’s history but this
isn’t the same as saying that global warming in today’s era is natural. In
fact, past changes help scientists to understand the sensitivity of the global climate to forces such as the Sun, volcanoes and greenhouse gases.’

‘The scientific community has rigorously examined the other candidates for the cause of the warming in recent decades – forces that have changed the climate in the past, such as changes in the
Sun’s output or volcanic eruptions – and found them wanting.’

3. Again, I’m unclear on what your question is actually asking. Sorry.

Global temperatures have risen over the last few decades despite lower than usual sun activity. So the globe will continue to warm, regardless of sun acitivity.

If we have lower sun activity, the temperatures won’t rise as much; if we have hgih sun activitiy, temperatures will rise more.

Regardless, they will still rise; the sun is not the driver here.

PTom says:

01:00pm | 15/06/11

1) Australia moving further north and the impact of man. 40,000 the first people arrived around the time of mass die off and climate change.

2) There are cycles that come and go. Some are cause by the Solar System orbit, others by the tilt of the earth and some by events like volanic or astroids.  But what is causing the rise in CO2 now.

3) Solar flares don’t cause CO2 to rise. They cause Eletromagnet interefence.

Liam says:

08:58am | 15/06/11

I’d turn warmist for a handy couple of hundred thousand dollar pay check… I’ll say anything for that, I’ll even try and convince people that the earth is flat, a much easier challenge if you ask me!

I’ve turned “human contribution skeptic” based on lack of evidence to the contrary

amcoz says:

08:50am | 15/06/11

But the alarmists’ evidence was settled; it was in the tobacco manufacturers’ secret files in the form of biological data (real scientific stuff, not just conjecture based on stats, like the current bullsh1t espoused by so-called ‘climate scientists’).

Que says:

09:00am | 15/06/11

As a doctor and a scientist I can tell you that the data on AGW is fragile and confused compared to the overwhelming evidence that smoking causes lung cancer.

To suggest the large opposing voice against AGW is somehow ‘employed’ by big oil just dumb and juvenile.

I think you will find many independent scientists amongst us including those that are pro-environment but have assessed the AGW evidence as polemic rubbish.

Jim says:

10:02am | 15/06/11

You could also say that in the 500-odd years since tobacco became commercially available, that life expectancy has increased by over 30 years.

Bad science is bad science. AGW is bad science.

Blind Freddy says:

01:09am | 16/06/11

Is TheRaptured a Biderberg? How else did he/she get an agenda? What a clever plot - make AGW sceptics and/or deniers look like idiots by having their case argued by posters like TheRaptured.

Liam says:

09:04am | 15/06/11

Exactly!
Socialist Governments trying to redistribute wealth for their own political power, If i’m not mistaken this sounds a lot like communism!!
Add the internet censorship idea and we have ourselves a Marxist government.

andy says:

02:32pm | 15/06/11

@amazed glad you concluded with what is really important here. not the truth. not what is best for mankind - but that you feel personally vindicated and can claim some kind of victory in this argument. congratulations.

Que says:

09:02am | 15/06/11

No iansand. You can’t reverse the null hypothesis. You would fail any statistical course if you tried that on.

The responsibility is to prove that AGW is scientifically real. This has yet to occur. Only hypotheses and models have been produced. This is not evidence.

John Smythe says:

09:10am | 15/06/11

A direct correlation to human generated (you can even include industry based), animal generated, natural fire generated, volcanic activity generated, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

Taken over the last couple of hundred years, keeping in mind the increase in human population, increase in technological advancement, and showing overall trends in weather, cyclical changes, etc etc etc/

where it proves that humans are the SOLE cause of these changes and NOT the natural evolving earth itself.

Nick says:

09:28am | 15/06/11

If a sum amount of even numbers will equal an even answer then no doubt you will have a consensus on the result ,unless of course you include some odd numbers.So it depends on who is included or excluded from the so called consensus that determines whether there actually is a consensus.

iansand says:

09:30am | 15/06/11

Que - What is causing the rise in temperatures?  And why has there been a steep (and accelerating) rise since around 1850?  That is not a null hypothesis.  It is something you have to explain.

John Smythe - What?

Jim says:

09:56am | 15/06/11

iansand…I work in industry but have a couple of science degrees, and one more in statistics.

Specifically;

1. The models have been tweaked many times over to achieve the desired result. For example, in the models high altitude cloud and low cloud both increase temperatures. In nature, one has a warming effect, one has a cooling effect. The magnitude of the effect is much bigger for the cooling effect.

2. Too much data is omitted. The data used to push the AGW myth is very selective. The amount of data ignored is way beyond what is allowed in any statistical sense…it’s just plain bad science.

3. The models predict a hotspot over the tropics, between 8,000 and 12,000 in altitude. This does not exist.

4. More CO2 in the atmosphere will not absorb more heat. Solar radiation hits the planet and bounces back across a large number of wavelengths….CO2 will only absorb a very tight range of wavelengths, the molecule gets excited and heats up. It’s done and dusted in a few milliseconds…the amount of solar radiation is constant, and the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere is more than what is needed to absorb all the bounce back..i.e. a large chunk of the CO2 is unused already. This is either completelly ignored or glossed over in the cult of climate handouts.

5. Ice core samples and growth ring analyses show a 800-1,000 year lag between increasing global temperatures and increasing CO2 levels. That means the planet gets warm first! The increased temperatures allow the oceans to release more CO2 (water is like a sponge and will absorb CO2). So clearly, CO2 is not the driver for climate change. A fact conveniently ignored by pro-warmists.

6. The ‘agreement’ amongst the worlds scientists that AGW is real has no credibility at all. It was a questionaire sent out with less than 10% responding. Of that 10%, most of the answers were discarded. The number of scientists that question the AGW push far exceeds the pro-AGW ones. Also, the pro-AGW scientists come from many disciplines…most not related to any form of climate science, and most of these come from the social sciences. They are also heavily funded OR they are ideologically predisposed to finding fault with man’s evolution.

7. When ALL the data is looked at, and only the biased samples removed the planet is not warming and the oceans are not rising. Combine the billions of tonnes of sediment settling in the Ganges delta each year, new geology forming around Hawaii and under the Atlantic, and the constantly shifting poles (the Antarctic land mass is compressed now by up to 5km…it will spring back one day!) then that will influence sea levels to a much greater extent than shifting glaciers.

Shall I go on?

Virtually any ‘evidence’ the cult can throw up can be refuted by anyone with a year 12 science education.

iansand says:

10:39am | 15/06/11

Jim - And yet the temperature rises.

Que says:

10:59am | 15/06/11

@iansand “Jim - And yet the temperature rises”

So what you’ve decided is there can be no other explanation for global temperature change except for human CO2 emissions?

Temps go up and down due to many factors. The question is whether they are going up more than expected due to CO2 emissions. The models said they would and they haven’t.

John Smythe says:

11:05am | 15/06/11

>>>John Smythe - What?

I rest my case. You would rather have very filtered, very targetted information, than a complete comprehensive study.

Jim says:

11:12am | 15/06/11

“Jim - And yet the temperature rises” - even that’s debatable iansand. You can look at discrete packets of data and say yes, it is rising. You can look at other packets and say with equal conviction that it is falling. Globally, there has been no increase in the last 10 years if you look at mean global temperatures.

Inevitably the temperature will rise however, we are still coming out of the last ice age and in the history of the planet we are at one of the coldest periods ever…the only way is up.

iansand says:

11:27am | 15/06/11

Que - What is causing this (rather rapid) rise?

John Smythe - You are writing nonsense.  I’m sorry, but I suggest that you hire a proof reader.

Jim - Show me some data demonstrating a temperature fall.

Al says:

11:27am | 15/06/11

@ Jim - man, you must be walking hip deep in it.
I’m not even going to bother with all the other refutable rubbish, lets just deal with your understanding of what causes global warming, number 4.
It has nothing to do with the sun’s rays bouncing back into space you mudlark. The global warming effect occurs when the suns rays hit earth and move into the infra-red spectrum.
CO2 has a blocking effect, like water vapour and methane. What happens is the heat can’t escape. So while the sunlight still continues to penetrate with increasing CO2 in the atmoshpere, the heat finds it far more difficult ro escape back into space.
How about you go back to Science 101 and then come back when you understand the fundamentals.

LeonT says:

11:47am | 15/06/11

@Que “You can’t reverse the null hypothesis. You would fail any statistical course if you tried that on.”

You might fail the basic ones, but in the more advanced ones you learn about Bayesian priors. This is especially useful when your experiment adds to the vast pool of available knowledge, particularly useful with systems as complicated as world climate.

So the onus is on people to disprove our prior, which is that we are causing climate change.

Richard says:

12:35pm | 15/06/11

Real world experience and empirical evidence walks iansand, while bullshit just talks.

Why are the snowfields so good for skiing this season iansand? Why are all our dams overflowing iansand? Why did the Northern Hemisphere have their coldest winter in years just recently iansand?

As I say, people are not just going to blindly swallow some bien pensant spin when their own sensory perceptions are telling them the opposite.

Now of course the climate changes, it always has, always will, and people accept that. But people also know that the accepted scientific consensus is often incorrect. Remember the 1970’s scientific consensus that catastrophic global cooling was imminent? Remember the scientific consensus in the Victorian era that the size and shape of people’s skulls directly affected their intelligence? Remember the scientific consensus that washing your hands before doing surgery was for sissies?

Scientific consensus means nothing, because an unfortunate characteristic of group-think is that its proponents will inevitably begin to twist the facts to suit the theories, instead of twisting the theories to suit the facts (with apologies to Sherlock Holmes), because it is a base and immutable attribute of human sociology to crave acceptance and respect from one’s peers.

No. It mus be evidence~ that is the only thing! Give me evidence. I have quite an open mind. If you provide convincing evidence, I’m am quite willing to accept any proposition. So long as there is evidence.

Que says:

12:38pm | 15/06/11

“So the onus is on people to disprove our prior, which is that we are causing climate change.”

This is illogical .

“This is especially useful when your experiment adds to the vast pool of available knowledge”

This assumes that the ‘vast pool of knowledge’ is sound, consistent , and widely held as true - which it isn’t. Assuming that it is not enough to validate your argument.

Jim says:

01:09pm | 15/06/11

Al Al Al….oh dear. You call me a mudlark then describe in laymans terms exactly what I wrote as #4. Should I point out your foolishness, or should I let others do it? Either way I think it will go straight over your head.

iansand says:

01:18pm | 15/06/11

Here you go Richard http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html

But even with that cold winter the average temperature of the world still rises.

PTom says:

01:33pm | 15/06/11

Jim.
5 is incorrect.
Ice core and tree rings is one comparison there are others. Which like the one you use and others show in history that CO2 level can lead temperatures.

So do you care to explain why in the last 150 years raise in CO2 level vastly higher then any in the last 800,000 years.

LeonT says:

01:37pm | 15/06/11

@Que

“This assumes that the ‘vast pool of knowledge’ is sound, consistent , and widely held as true.”

No it doesn’t. The prior takes in previous information, consistent or otherwise. Data that is inconsistent with our current prior alters the prior for future experimentation.

Through quibbling on unimportant details, you are attempting to reduce science to rhetoric.

Al says:

01:37pm | 15/06/11

@Jim - a bit of physics for your chuckles. Law of thermodynamics, when the energy goes into that atom, it raises its energy level and emits energy - again in the form of infra red (heat).
The heat stays in the atmosphere, it doesn’t just disappear. That is why the atmosphere is heating - there is more energy in it.
Yup, I kept it simple for a reason so it would be easy to understand.
The CO2 at the top of the atmosphere prevents this additional heat from radiating into space. That is why it is called global warming.
Energy doesn’t just disappear. That is really basic physics.

Graeme says:

02:16pm | 15/06/11

I don’t have to be convinced the scientific consensus is incorrect Ian, I’m a sceptic.  AGW has some basis I believe but too many claims are overblown, exaggerated, leapt upon by shonky politicians for me to be convinced that there is a catastrophe approaching.
To be convinced I would need to see genuine efforts by pro-AGW scientists to critique the work of other believers in the science.  Not another limp peer review by some guy in the office down the corridor but tough sustained work to examine the next tree-ring debacle.  We don’t seem to be seeing that.  The science has become politicised and the believers do not seem prepared to cast the slightest doubt on another believer’s work.
You are happy to quote some dill from the opinion pages of the NY Times as an authority on temperature changes.  Not a hint of a falsifiable hypothesis in anything Judah talks about - any data is good enough for him.  PTom thinks The Guardian is a trusted and authoritative organ of the press, incapable of bias.  Get real.  The hint was in the first sentence - ‘I prefer the term denier’.  I could just as easily supply links to the UK Daily Telegraph with contrary views.  Proves nothing.
Get a bit selective about your quotes if you want to be taken more seriously.  Unless you want to present yourself as Bolta’s mirror image.  Try to imagine there may be more than one cause of any temperature variation.  Forget the BS line about consensus - the 97% is laughable when the survey didn’t even venture into the involvement of CO2.  Think about a falsifiable hypothesis.

iansand says:

03:00pm | 15/06/11

Graeme - You have come to the discussion too late.  That internal critiquing was happening a decade or two ago.  I remember reading about it.  At times it was quite robust.  It is over.  Done and dusted.  That is why it has become a consensus.  The shitfight was had.

iansand says:

03:53pm | 15/06/11

And Graeme - that NYT piece is supported by several scientific papers.  Do a search on ‘“standing wave” climate change cold northern hemisphere’, or something similar if you want more scientific backing.  I confess that, because I have done a little reading on this subject, I had the advantage that I knew the clue was “standing wave”.

Richard says:

04:03pm | 15/06/11

Nice little read there iansand, and I think it confirms my suspicion that negative feedback loops predominate and that the Earth’s own homeostatic mechanisms will balance out the effect of mankind’s industrialisation.

If ‘climate change’ is a euphemism for ‘global warming’, then its an oxymoron to say ” The reality is, we’re freezing not in spite of climate change but because of it.”

The real reality is that the Earth is compensating for the effects on mankind and will continue to do so. Everything is going to be ok. No need for alarmism. Everything will be ok.

Graeme says:

04:03pm | 15/06/11

And your falsifiable hypothesis?  And why McKittrick and McIntyre, why Spencer and satellites?

persephone says:

04:51pm | 15/06/11

Noticed how many countries are abandoning nuclear power at present?

Germany has stated they will phase it out, and the Italians have just voted to as well.

Yet these countries are also committed to battling climate change.

Why would we adopt a technology other countries are trying to get rid of ?

Keneth says:

09:39am | 16/06/11

persephone says:
“Why would we adopt a technology other countries are trying to get rid of ? “
So you automatically assume that Germany is making the right move. I think you will find there is quite alot of criticism aimed at Germany phasing out nuclear power. It has been commonly reported throughout Europe that Germany has had a knee jerk response to Japans situation without thinking things through first..

iansand says:

10:02am | 15/06/11

Here you go http://media.swissre.com/documents/rethinking_factsheet_climate_sceptic.pdf Reinsurers are particularly hard nosed.

fairsfair says:

10:33am | 15/06/11

That is not in line with what is going on in the industry.

Dash says:

11:01am | 15/06/11

Hi Fairs - Actuaries have not been able to prove a correlation between insurance losses and climate change. There is no correlation between the two. Few Insurance Actuaries are using climate change in their pricing models as a result. An Actuary I was talking with last week, prepared a report which highlighted that there is no correlation between insurance events and climate change. He mentioned that he has since been howled down by lefty environmentalists for reporting the facts.

The alarmnist crap from Brown and sections of the ALP over the floods and Yasi, are rediculous and completely uninformed.

The insurance industry is looking very closely at this and is concerned, (they have significant money on the line) however they have been unable to prove a link.

Also, the weather events in Australia recently are consistent with the LaNina event we are experiencing at the moment in conjunction with the water temperatures in the indian Ocean. There is a correlation between this 40year cycle and the insurance events we have seen recently. That is a cyclical weather pattern and is not due to climate change.

Dash says:

11:14am | 15/06/11

@iansand - have you seen Swiss Re’s results after Japan?? The Reinsurance industry could do with some rate rises! I anticipate property cat premiums to rise. But not as a result of global warming! Excess capacity in the market particularly here in Australia may well keep a lid on things, however, when secondary reinsurance markets such as Lloyds take the hit and spirals are seen through the corporate names there, Cat cover is going to become more expensive.

I also anticipate a move away from Proportional cover and towards Excess of Loss cover on Treaty business. Lets see, perhaps the June 2012 renewal period will be a better indicator than this year.

iansand says:

11:20am | 15/06/11

OK Fairsfair - What is going on in the industry?  Please document your statement.

This is what I found on a quick google search http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SKPB_enAU393AU393&q=isurance+premiums+climate+change#hl=en&rlz=1T4SKPB_enAU393AU393&sa=X&ei=lgj4TYOPB4umugOw0ZmDDA&ved=0CBwQvwUoAQ&q=insurance+premiums+climate+change&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=22157933aa0f08cd&biw=1669&bih=757

iansand says:

11:30am | 15/06/11

Dash - Check the date on the Swiss Re paper.

fairsfair says:

12:04pm | 15/06/11

Until I receive a renewal on my household policy (in a cyclone zone) that details a risk upping my premium solely due to the projected effects of “climate change”, I will not believe that they are worried.

Until underwriters request detailed carbon emission data from the insured upon renewal (much like they request financial information to calculate Business Interruption and other organisation specific data for ISR), I will not believe it that they are concerned.

There is no scramble.

The events of the QLD summer just gone were within the insurer models. Dash is not the only person to confirm that on the back of their own research, Insurers are not concerned by the rediculous projections that we can expect multiple Yasis per year in the coming decades.

Given that they are the ones likely to pay out and have to source their own insurance as well, I’d be inclined to believe their assessments over some circle jerkers who at present refuse to seperate the issue of the Carbon Tax and AGW.

Dash says:

12:11pm | 15/06/11

ian, I work in the industry, read my comments. Rates will increase but not because of climate change.

iansand says:

12:27pm | 15/06/11

fairsfair - Have you ever received an insurance renewal notice specifying the allocation of premiums to various insured events?  The shuttle for the real world will depart in 45 minutes.

Dash - But more frequent extreme events are consistent with AGW.  Premiums will rise because of that.

AAAdam says:

12:33pm | 15/06/11

Agreed Dash. The actuaries I know who work at the APRA (the govt regulator for insurance companies) don’t even require insurers factor in climate change into their risk modelling due a lack of evidence and correlation.

fairsfair says:

12:58pm | 15/06/11

No I have not Iansand, but if I phoned my broker about any price hike over and above the accepted renewal increase of 12% (as calculated on the base premium nil claims history), they would be able to advise me where the risk factors lie. Their little writing software packages unearth a world of information that people have the right to ask questions about.

...and I will do so the moment my premium increases - at the moment I don’t have to though, because the insurers are not increasing their rates for this reason.

iansand says:

01:20pm | 15/06/11

fairsfair - Your BROKER?  Thanks for the laugh.

Dash says:

01:38pm | 15/06/11

@AAAdam - thank you, yes I have been discussing this issue with both APRA and the Actuarial community, there is just no correlation between climate change and the incidence of insurance losses. Pricing models reflect this.

@iansand - Sorry Ian but you are incorrect. There has not been “more frequent extreme events”. The events we saw in Australia for example were consistent with the Lanina and ocean temperature movements we have seen and modelled in the past. It’s a 40year cycle. We are moving now into a period of stability where the risk of bushfire will increase and the risk of flood will deminish.

In terms of rates, capacity and the reinsurers are the drivers of rates. Of course there are other factors such as investment returns as well. What we have seen is a number of catastrophies over the last 6 months which has impacted the reinsurance markets, both the big players and the secondary market in Lloyds. Expectations are that these will impact rates probably in Australia more so during next years renewal season.

However, the catastrophese have not been linked to AGW at all. There is no correlation and as I have said, the floods in Australia are consistent with the weather patterns.

fairsfair says:

01:40pm | 15/06/11

Hilarious isn’t it iansand - using the services of an individual who is employed at a brokerage and educated on a product, as to ensure adequate coverage.

Care to elaborate as to why you think that is funny?

Dash says:

01:52pm | 15/06/11

iansand, it’s reasonable for insureds to use a broker. Particularly small to medium business owners. Why are you being so rude to Fairsfair?

John Smythe says:

02:04pm | 15/06/11

/cheer Fairs.

Maybe because he saw Wall Street, maybe even the sequel and thinks BROKERS are only for trading.

around and around he goes…....running out of anything worthwhile to say…he turns questions into questions,.....no! You prove it first! no you….I don’t have to….

sigh…..no chance of logical debate there.

iansand says:

02:11pm | 15/06/11

Dash - Have you ever known a broker to set a premium, or have any input into premium rates (shopping around insurers for the best price is not setting a premium).  Are you sure you work in the insurance industry?

John Smythe says:

02:27pm | 15/06/11

Correct me if I’m wrong Fairs, but I believe you have mentioned this some time ago in a post far far away…...

http://www.investorwords.com/2512/insurance_broker.html

Dash says:

02:36pm | 15/06/11

@iansand, the Broker deals on behalf of the insured. It is their job to understand products and coverage offered by insurers. Since the insured, in this case Fairsfair, employs the broker to act on their behalf, why would it be funny for her to call her broker to discuss prices and coverage? Whilst the broker is not an underwriter, they should understand what’s driving rate movements. Particularly given the way commission works. If they don’t, time to get a new broker!

Yeah I’m pretty sure mate. YTD U/W result to the end of May was a bit sick due to the prop cat experience! Must be all that global warming - lol

fairsfair says:

02:47pm | 15/06/11

Ian have you ever heard of intermediary purchasing groups like Steadfast, OAMPS etc? These are collective groups of brokerages who negotiate better prices and terms for their clients. Be it (for example) a “Steadfast Accidental Damage” policy which offers additional cover for the same price as direct insurance. Or, they negotiate and rate an individual business policy directly.

If you have heard of those you will probably have also heard of Business Development Mangers or BDMs, whose sole purpose in the chain is to represent the insurer to the Broker and field queries. The BDM and their underwriting staff have the power to re-rate and negotiate prices on policy, which is done on your behalf by your broker.

I challenge you to phone Suncorp or AAMI direct and ask to speak to someone in the underwriting room - I’d love to know how far you get.

If all Brokers did was shop around on our behalf why would anyone use them?

I have to have an Insurance Agent because I am in a body corporate, but even if I was not I would retain their services. In QLD, Insurers do not place strata policies directly. You must use an intermediary.

They are accountable for the risk assessment of my personal assets (just another potential avenue for recovery for me in the event I sustain loss and any kind or error has been made when placing the cover) and they offer a degree of transperency that I would not get if I had a policy direct with an insurer.

They take the headache out of it and are worth the small fee (even though my current contents policy is cheaper including all fees than I could obtain myself direct with an insurer and offers me higher sub limits on things like jewellery. This is thanks to the buying group they are a member of). Not to mention they are handling all the paperwork on my current Yasi fence claim. I shot off an email to my agent and was returned a claim number that afternoon, my neighbour sat on the phone for one hour and forty minutes to get hers.

JS, I think we spoke about this stuff around the time of the floods. I remember having a discussion with a man who claimed that insurance brokers are leeches - which could not be further from the truth. People have no idea what they do, because if they did - everyone would have one.

persephone says:

05:07pm | 15/06/11

fairsfair

insurance actuaries were amongst the first industries to identify that there was an increase in the incidence of extreme climate events, and thus amongst the first to agitate for action on climate change.

I’ve been to seminars where representatives for the insurance industry and demonstrated this with actuarial tables, and urged action.

Although they don’t assess risk on the basis of an individual’s carbon output - because unfortunately, even if I emit less carbon than you, I’m just as likely to suffer the effects of an extreme weather event - they do discriminate against businesses who are likely to be impacted by the increased risks due to climate change.

So, for the first time ever, local businesses in our area can’t get flood cover. At all. Because the risk of flood has increased due to global warming.

Read:

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/126171/anna-gero-iag-namoi-climate-change-forums.pdf

which was put together by IAG, the largest insurance group in Australia and NZ, for details on the impact of climate change on insurers.

Or

http://www.theinstitute.com.au/journals/risk_responsibility_and_reward.pdf

On the insurance industry’s response to climate change.

Quotes:

‘....climate change a clear and present threat to the commercial viability of the global insurance industry….’

‘Almost universally, re-insurers acknowledge that only in the area
of atmospheric risk has there been a marked increase in the intensity,
occurrence and frequency of loss –and that this appears to have a direct
correlation with industrial activity.’

‘....the predicted impact on the insurance sector is immense, since
climate change will hit all lines of business or risk underwritten.’

Oh, and there’s heaps more links I could give you.

The insurance industry takes climate change very seriously indeed.

Graeme says:

06:32pm | 15/06/11

Reinsurers v insurers I think Persephone.  Reinsurers are happy to spruik the risks to get premiums up however they can.  And many of them are European (Munich Re, SwissRe) so they have trouble with political correctness and sanity anyway.

Going back a couple of years the same question was put to QBE execs in a presentation.  They were officially agnostic on climate change.  They continued the long-time practice of raising premiums after a bad run and seeing them competed away in the quiet times.  They mentioned Atlantic storms in the 40s - these days such a pattern of storms would gleefully be leapt on as proof of climate change.  But then the climate changed back again apparently.  I genuinely think there was a large element of self-interest in the reinsurers beating up the issue of climate change.

fairsfair says:

09:35am | 15/06/11

True JS, and I think that is one of the greatest issues that people refuse to talk about. Everything else has been chatted to death, but the main issues I have with the entire set up are never spoken about as they are quickly diverted to a discussion on the complexities of carbon’s effects on the environment - which is *not* what the greater population want to actually chat about.

She lied. Word for word lied. She can’t explain that away and personally I would have absolutely no problem if she changed her mind on the back of public opinion, was honest and said so. In fact, I would respect her more for it. But this situation is different. The Greens have her over a barrel, she is is going against her own personal beliefs in a big way to simply hold on to power. She has said numerous times that she believes an ETS is the way to go but she is instituting a Carbon Tax. That doesn’t sit well with me.

Those people who have been labelled as “deniers” are not being spoken to. They are being spoken at like they are children. People do not respond well to that. The ire is building. Couple that with the fact that every person rolled out to support the economic plan is being paid by the government - people are right to be wary of the information that they are being supplied when it is ultimately being used to re-feather the governements rat eaten nest.

The amount of times longterm science has been wrong in terms of environment, is off the scale. It is a little bit “boy who cried wolf”. I wouldn’t say I am a full on skeptic - I think it rediculous to think that we can lead all consumptive lifestyles and have it have no impact on the the planet, I just have some doubts regarding the manner in which the carbon dioxide debate is framed.

We have a right to discuss these things. We have a right to ask these questions and many others. I like you though am sick and tired of being dismissed as something I am not for the mere fact I disagree with a blatant cash grab undertaken by a dodgy government.

Nick says:

09:50am | 15/06/11

Is the $50 billion NBN one of these Essential programs? Now that would be a shame because It currently takes me 5 minutes to download a movie and I was looking forward to fast internet.

Mike says:

09:13am | 15/06/11

Wot (what) if were wrong? A What if argument is a pointless justification to impose a new tax and try and redistribute the wealth.

Why doesn’t every Alarmist stop driving their cars, stop using electricity(except essential needs). If all the Alarmists did that i’m sure we can reach our 5% target

Who Cares says:

09:24am | 15/06/11

The world will get warmer and life will go on just more abundantly.

Stiffy says:

09:47am | 15/06/11

Mike - You have not addressed the question. Lets say Abbott wins the next election and puts in place his way of Australia addressing the risk of climate change. Would you then agree with that? If yes then your (non) belief is purely based upon your political allegiances.
Who Cares - OK , the world gets warmer, how would life be “more abundantly” what does that mean? You appear to be saying that there will be no great difference.

Graeme says:

02:36pm | 15/06/11

What if non-believes are wrong?  It doesn’t matter.  Whatever half-baked program Labor comes up with would at its most effective have its results reversed by a week’s growth in China’s emissions.  Iansand urges us to get on the shuttle to reality.  He has got it confused with the Streetcar Named Despair.

AAAdam says:

09:02pm | 15/06/11

And what if we were all gullible enough to believe every doomsday theory that was rolled out without any empirical evidence backing it up? We’d already be broke. I hear 2012 is coming up soon Stiffy. Want to pay me a tax to save you from it? I haven’t got any empriical evidence the world will really end in 2012, and I can’t guarentee giving your money to me will help, but hey, what if we’re wrong and don’t try to avoid 2012 anyway? Think about the children! P.S. I take cheques, cash or Bpay

Que says:

09:53am | 15/06/11

Almost no-one denies climate change. A significant portion of the scientific and lay communities debate whether it is due in great part to AGW.

Nice try.

David C says:

02:07pm | 15/06/11

I will rephrase , the debate in the scientific community is largely settled re mans influence in climate change ie CO2, methane, deforestation, dams etc etc .
The debate is going forward how bad and what to do about it .
My issue is that this article and the constant stream of commentary assumes just becaue you are not marching in the street demanding a tax you are a denier. There are a stack of better ways to deal with this issue without introducing another tax, adaptation is one great example.

Que says:

03:39pm | 15/06/11

@David C. Nope, you are still wrong. So I will rephrase.
The debate in the scientific community is NOT largely settled re mans influence in climate change ie CO2.

Knemon says:

11:12am | 15/06/11

@ Blind Freddy - Agree…it makes for amusing reading though!

Harquebus says:

01:33pm | 16/06/11

Hey, oil depletion is going to kill three quarters of the planet. Problem solved.

iansand says:

10:13am | 15/06/11

You are quite right.  But as the average temperature is still rising, notwithstanding the cold outbreaks in areas with high concentrations of news camerafolk, somewhere else must be stinking hot.

A while ago I found something that predicted cold outbreaks in the temperate regions of the northern hemisphere.  Something to do with stalled standing waves in the atmosphere,  affecting the jet streams http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html

PTom says:

02:09pm | 15/06/11

Like Cate.

Vince says:

12:16pm | 15/06/11

Actually, Sid, Howard and Co would have had an ETS by now, which I understand Tony Abbott supports even less than a Carbon Tax, go figure.

But I can see where you’re coming from and I agree.  Australians are confused and skeptical.  That is certainly the fault of the current government in that they have not been able to find a way through the misinformation and scare-mongering which Tony Abbott and Co. have been pouring out.  He really is the ultimate source of much of this, in my view.  A right ** who will say anything on this subject if he thinks it will get him into power.  He doesn’t care about doing the right thing or even what is good for this country.  Frankly, I cannot fathom what he stands for, except winning at all costs. 

Listen to Ross Garnault.  Read his reports.  He is a smart man and he understands the economics.  I say we should take his advice and put this debate away.  Get on with it.  Putting a price on carbon will ultimately have many benefits for Australia, but we need to get started.

Lance says:

09:41am | 15/06/11

This is normally the case for an Opposition Leader. The incredible thing is the Prime Minister is neck and neck with the Opposition Leader and Abbott keeps closing the gap, which is almost unheard of especially when she’s only 12 months into her term. How does SHE do it?
By the way an Essential Poll if asked if they support Gillard on eating babies would come out, “yes, majority support Gillard on this issue”.

nossy says:

09:43am | 15/06/11

@Kim - grreat minds think alike Kim - see my post @8.25am - yes he has maintained his unbroken record as being less Prefferd PM - despite of course being at the absolute height of his Dr NO powers - its all downhill from here Kim - all the way to the 2013 election - hopefully by then someone will have twigged in the Libs that Tony stinks in voter land !  hahahaha

Angela says:

10:07am | 15/06/11

Kim says - “Tony Abbott has maintained his 100% record as less preferred PM.”
He’s the oppostion Leader, but that gap has almost closed. And when it does it will be a first for an Oppostion Leader to be preferred PM. The clock is ticking for Gillard Kim.

Dash says:

10:28am | 15/06/11

@Kim - Two party preferred and primary show the ALP well behind though Kim. Sorry to break the news to you, but that’s what counts! the ALPs primary is at record lows. 70% of the voting population wouldn’t vote ALP! 16% more would vote LNP. That spells death to the ALP unless they wake up and start listening to the people.

Say what you like about Abbott, but if he’s as bad as you say, that speaks volumes for just how crap the ALP are.

TimB says:

10:29am | 15/06/11

The more remarkable thing is that AASQ still thinks changing his screen name somehow magically makes his point more relevant.

Ask yourself this: On election eve would Julia prefer to be:

A)  5 points ahead on PPM whilst the ALP trails by a massive 8% on 2PP?

or

B) Trailing in PPM whilst the party commands an election winning lead?

Incidently, as you state, these figures come from Essential which is somewhat left-leaning. Newspoll (generally hailed as more accurate) paints an even worse picture for Gillard. A mere 3 point lead in PPM, and a whopping 10 point deficit in 2PP.

You keep clinging to that PPM poll though.

The Badger says:

10:45am | 15/06/11

And you keep hope alive timmie.
It’s all you have for the next 2 plus years.

Kim says:

11:27am | 15/06/11

@ Dash

I didn’t say anything about how bad Abbott was, but if Labor are as bad as you say, that speaks volumes for just how crap he is.

Dash says:

11:48am | 15/06/11

@Kim, as I said, the LNP leads the ALP clearly where it matters. End of story.

Brad McT says:

01:16pm | 15/06/11

@ Badger - spoken like a true ALP servant!

Blind Freddy says:

01:04pm | 15/06/11

You wouldn’t be a rusted on Liberal voter would you?

Do you support taxes being spent by TA on ‘real’ action?

iansand says:

10:43am | 15/06/11

Elphaba - You seem unable to separate the high probability of AGW from a decision about how to deal with it.  The carbon tax is the latter, not the former.

Elphaba says:

10:59am | 15/06/11

@iansand, the Government would have us believe they’re inextricably linked.  That’s how they bill the idea, and that’s how they’re selling action on global warming.

THEY can’t separate it.  But we’re not going to agree, and I’m not going to argue.  Cheers.

NicoleG says:

11:23am | 15/06/11

The carbon tax is a crock of shit iansand. End.Of.Story.

iansand says:

11:23am | 15/06/11

Elphaba - What does the government have to do with whether the climate is changing?

Elphaba says:

12:24pm | 15/06/11

@iansand, your question is a furphy.  I didn’t say the government has anything to do with the climate changing.  You asked me how (probable) AGW and the carbon tax were linked.  I answered that.

I never said the climate wasn’t changing.  But I find it very hard to believe that humans are wholly responsible for it.  Again, there’s no point arguing that, because we’re going to disagree. 

I’ve never said I don’t agree with lowering carbon emissions, or changing behaviours, or getting off coal.  Our government seems to think this is the only solution to the problem - something that will do none of what they say it will.  Since they’re in charge, I don’t believe they’re trying hard enough to find a solution, and need to go back to the Brains Trust and come up with something that will actually do what they say it will.

I said it above - not the governement, nor the Labor apologists, can provide the voters with concrete numbers about how a carbon tax will halt AGW (if such a thing exists).  They can’t tell us how they’re going to protect jobs.  They can’t tell us how we’re supposed to ‘change’ our behaviour and get cheaper food, fuel and electricity when such a thing does not exist. 

I have no problem with a green future, and doing something about global warming.  But I’m not going to convert myself to the alarmist position (which is all the warmists are) and latch onto the first thing that looks like change but is actually a tax grab.  Call me selfish if it makes you feel better - I don’t care.

Angus says:

11:09am | 15/06/11

The argument is about Gillards Carbon Tax not skeptics. The majority of Australians are not skeptics, this shows in constant polling on that issue. The majority are against Gillards Carbon Tax to deal with climate change.

Al says:

11:33am | 15/06/11

Read the article again Angus

Jim says:

11:02am | 15/06/11

I’ve used this argument before Badger. The main difference between the Ozone/CFC theory and the CO2/Climate change one is that the first one was cut and dry. It was proven that ozone blocks out some of the harmful UV spectrum, it was then proven that CFC’s destry ozone at a much faster rate than electrical storms replenish it.

The size of the hole or the rate of change (if it even was changing) was irrelevant…here we had it; repeatable, black and white proof that CFC’s should be eliminated.

The same cannot be said for the latter.

Cuz says:

11:13am | 15/06/11

Badge grab 100 of those Carbon dioxide jars and shove em up your clacker, There would be plenty of room hahahahahaha

Dash says:

11:24am | 15/06/11

Wow - I’m convinced, we need to redistribute the nations wealth. That will clearly solve the problem!

Knemon says:

11:43am | 15/06/11

Ease up Badger - you’re confusing them

Anubis says:

01:20pm | 15/06/11

And at what stage was there a CFC Tax to fix the problem. Honestly - if Co2 were as major a problem as the warmists are banging on about there would be immediate international action taken to correct this. All we are seeing is a tax to be used to redistribute wealth. There have been no proposals for nuclear energy, there are no alternatives to provide base load power without the use of coal generation. Professor Gumnuts report inidcates allocation of 110% of the revenue raised (corrected back to 100% due to as yet non-existent factors). What Gumnut did not include in his modelling was the 10% tithe to the UN that our Giovernment in their (lack of) wisdom have signed us up to - this money is to be distributed to third world countries and tin-pot dictators. No mention either of the cost in establishing his wished for three levels of bureaucratic management of the tax administration. In effect the imposition of the Carbon Tax will pull more money out of Government funds. Then there was Julia’s comment just two weeks ago that the Carbon Tax “pot-o-money” could be used to fund infrastructure such as new roads and railways. Hmmm - this will reduce carbon dioxide emissions won’t it.

No where is proof given that this new charge will stimulate development of new technology for energy generation that will be within the financial reach of the populace. What the tax is aimed at, and its major effect, will be to increase power bills, drive manufacturing in Australia out of business by making it noncompetitive, increase the cost of everything due to the compound effect of prices increasing at every level - all businesses pay for power and fuel for distribution. They will all pass their costs on to the next level and eventually all Australians will be paying for Julia and Bob’s Fairies and Rainbows Utopian fantasy.

And if you believe that the offered compensation will be sufficient then you are dreaming. Only 55%, at most, will be used to compensate the population (as long as you earn less than $80 k a year). Compensation will not increase over the years yet they have clearly stated that the tax ill increase. The increases will naturally be passed on down the chain. And if you think that the tax will be removed when the Trading Scheme comes in to being then you are also off with the fairies and unicorns. Once the Government has established a method in which they can tax us for the air that we breath they are not going to give it up. Look at Julia’s Flood Levy - “it will only be for a year”. Whooops, that is now two years. Wonder what calamities may occur before that two years expires that will need it be extended again, and again ad infinitum.

The Carbon Tax (or if you wish Price on Carbon) is bad policy, will do nothing to affect climate change and will make Australia totally non-competitive on the world market.

BTW - A charge levied by Government is a tax. Excise is a Tax, Government charges are a Tax, Carbon Pricing is a Tax. If the Government legislates that a charge is due to be paid to Government then it is a tax. Semantics that insist it is a Price and not a tax is just that, semantics.

The Badger says:

04:42pm | 15/06/11

Cuz
Sorry mate not enough room
Your mum’s up there with the rest of your family.

The Badger says:

04:54pm | 15/06/11

The atmosphere as you know is composed of gases. The most abundant of these are nitrogen and oxygen. These account for 99% of the atmosphere.
If you could separate all the gases that comprise the atmosphere and fit them into 1billion glass jars (1,000,000,000)
Oxygen would take up 209,500,000 jars
Nitrogen would take up 780,800,000 jars
Carbon dioxide which is .039% of the atmosphere, would take up 390,000 jars.
Not much compared to the big 2 is it? You might be thinking ,how can something that is just a trace gas have the potential to be so harmful.

Consider this. Ozone which is .000004% of the atmosphere, would take up 40 jars out of a billion.
Yet, if all developed nations had not taken action by signing and taking action to address the depletion of this “trace” gas in the 1987 Montreal Protocol, by 2065, we would not have been able to go out into the sunshine. We would have become a species of mole men.

This is an example of how it is possible to actually do something about an environmental problem. One wonders if we had discovered this growing ozone hole in the age of the internet would the ignorant voices have prevented us from addressing the issue. Fifty years from now would we have been heading down into our burrows never to feel the warmth of the sun upon our faces again?

Cuz says:

05:16pm | 15/06/11

Badge no they are in that empty space in your head

The Badger says:

09:42am | 16/06/11

Nah
Just punched them out with a few other Grogans.
You can pick them up at sewerage pipe 42 in about half an hour.

The Badger says:

07:53pm | 16/06/11

Jim
Didn’t make sense last time either.

nihonin says:

11:45am | 15/06/11

lol @ Holly, brilliant, it’s the Liberals who should be worried.

Richard says:

12:59pm | 15/06/11

With 46% of the Primary vote Holly, and 55% of the 2PP, the coalition are extremely comfortable. They are winning Holly, Labor is losing, and Gillard is trapped: she can’t back out of the Carbon Tax now because she’s staked (what’s left of) her credibility on it, but she can’t follow through with it either, because that would be electoral suicide.

The only straw she can clutch onto is the desperate hope that she will be able to ram a carbon tax down our throats and force us to swallow it, and then hope like hell we all forget about it and get distracted by the flashy new compensation package she intends to dangle under our noses.

But she is hoping in vain. If the Carbon Tax is imposed, I hear and now guarantee that it will cause terrible terrible stagflation, especially now at a time this when in all likelihood in my opinion we’re going into recession even as we speak.

Your beloved Labor brand is dying Holly, we are watching its spectacular death throes. There is a precedent for this, with the recent electoral wipe-out of the Canadian Liberal party, and now we are watching unfold in our own country as well.

The Kerryman says:

10:42am | 15/06/11

Paddy and Aengus, come across a girl whose bike has a flat wheel. Aengus leaves Paddy to help her and goes on his way.

A few minutes later Paddy passes Aengus on the girls bike. “What the feck happened”? asks Aengus.
“well i fixed her bike an b jaysus she takes her feckin knickers off, lays on the ground and says, take what you want big boy!
I took her bike.” “good on ye says Aengus, sure the feckin knickers wouldnt fit you anyway”

Paddy logic.

iansand says:

10:46am | 15/06/11

John Smythe - What if you could plant trees and sell the carbon credits you generate because of doing the planting.  Or if you could do this geo-sequestration thing on your land. That would encourage people to plant trees, I think.

Oh.  I seem to have described one aspect of an ETS.  Sorry.  I will try not to confuse you again.

Bilby says:

11:01am | 15/06/11

iansand - How much is a tree worth? $10? $20? What if it’s going to grow into a really big tree? Do I get progress payments depending on how big it is? Does a govt. rep. have to supervise when I prune to ensure I’m not throwing the logs in the fireplace? Does my chain saw have to run on unleaded? How about grass? I’ve got lots of grass. Do I get money for that? This is sounding better all the time. Can’t wait for the cheques to start rolling in!

John Smythe says:

11:13am | 15/06/11

No confusion here mate except for you confusing me with something I’m not.

You and pers…..one track records.

I have the upper hand though for people like you. I don’t pay Australian taxes.  See what I did there?

Jim says:

11:17am | 15/06/11

“What if you could plant trees and sell the carbon credits you generate because of doing the planting.” this is exactly why Al Gore Pty Ltd is buying up huge tracts of land my friend…why else do you think he’s pushing the carbon credit line so hard?!

iansand says:

12:15pm | 15/06/11

So Al Gore is putting his money where his mouth is.  Bastard.  You lunatics would criticise him if he didn’t.

jf says:

12:33pm | 15/06/11

iansand says:12:15pm | 15/06/11

“So Al Gore is putting his money where his mouth is.”

Bullshit. He lives an extravagent life happily emitting more carbon than most people on the planet.

If he wanted to put his money where his mouth was he would immediately stop travelling the world, sell all his properties other than a modest, non-air conditioned house, not drive etc…

He would also donate all of his money to a buying as much native forest as possible and put it into a perpetual trust with a condition that it never be logged.

Instead, he’s happily continuing to live his high-polluting lifestyle and investing money to profit from the con that he’s helped to manufacture.

iansand says:

11:03am | 15/06/11

Sony B Goode - Those pesky scientists have made suggestions far more extreme than a few aerosols in the atmosphere.  Giant sails between the sun and the Earth.  Fertilising the oceans so more algae grows.  There are some seriously whacky ideas out there if you look.

iansand says:

11:07am | 15/06/11

Here are some http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=geoengineering+climate+change&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart and http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/312138/geoengineering_climate_solution_or_dangerous_distraction.html

Graeme says:

03:13pm | 15/06/11

We only have Glover’s word for it that he was making funny.  He has a track record of being an idiot.  More likely he was being an idiot again.
Try not to combine tattoos and furnaces in the one post again, there’s a good economist.

Dash says:

11:28am | 15/06/11

Yes, but what makes a socialist policy of wealth redistribution the correct way to act?

Oliver says:

12:00pm | 15/06/11

@ Dash: That was a question of policy that should have been resolved 20 years ago. We’re now at the point where we’re quibbling about which way to jump to avoid the oncoming train.

Dash says:

12:23pm | 15/06/11

Oliver, I agree with you that time is important. But that doesn’t make this policy right. If the ALP want to act quickly and significantly reduce our Co2 emmissions and not burden the country with a significant cost, then they should do two things:

1. Pursue nuclear energy. That’s what is happening in the UK! Would significantly reduce our emmissions and it’s the only viable alternative to coal at the moment.

2. Stop selling coal in increasing quantities to China. this is damaging the environment more than any benefit we will ever get from this tax.

Those two things would significantly reduce Australia’s carbon footprint and ease the burden on Australian families. It would also reduce our energy costs. But of course, this is not about the environment. It’s about tax revenue and wealth redistribution.

Anubis says:

02:51pm | 15/06/11

It was only a matter of time before a “believer” trotted out a variation of the old chestnut “For god sake think of the children”

iansand says:

11:08am | 15/06/11

I’m glad the argument is only semantic.  I was beginning to think it might be serious.

RyaN says:

01:01pm | 15/06/11

@iansand: hardly semantic, you cannot claim things might happen with science, its only a matter of fact.
Say it will happen and that will start people on the track.

iansand says:

01:24pm | 15/06/11

RyaN - No competent scientist will say something will happen without a controlled experiment.  Do you have a spare Earth to use as a control?  I left mine in my other suit.

You are playing semantics.

RyaN says:

02:32pm | 15/06/11

@iansand: fair enough, if that’s the semantics to which you refer.

Graeme says:

03:34pm | 15/06/11

I agree with your post RyaN.  Its ridiculous to continue to float worst case scenarios as facts and then claim the science is settled.  If warmists want to be taken seriously they should be prepared to countenance other results apart from worst cases.  But that is not the Stephen Schneider way.  Scaring the pants off the rubes is the Stephen Schneider way, happily embraced by many of our politicians.

Anubis says:

11:42am | 15/06/11

@ PatC would that be hypocrisy like Cate Blanchett recently buying a getaway home on a pacific island. According to Timmy “Flim Flam” Flannery (reported in today’s paper) the islands near Australia are already being evacuated - funny how none of that has been reported on in the papers.

Samuel says:

11:56am | 15/06/11

Exactly.

If they were less about ‘government fix this, government fix that’ and more about individual responsibility and grassroots efforts to reduce carbon footprints, I’d be more inclined to believe them.

Practice what you preach, actions speak louder than words - take your pick of a cliche. The point is, as many have said before, I’ll believe there’s a crisis when the people who say there’s a crisis start acting like there’s a crisis.

Dash says:

11:26am | 15/06/11

A mythical Greek god.

hermes says:

11:56am | 15/06/11

....daughter of zeus (who was rather liberal with his favours, pretty much shagged anything that moved) and the earth goddess demeter (aka ceres) who went down to hades, and against all advice, ate the seeds of a pomegranate; thus dooming her to spend 6 months of every year in hades, hence winter. aka kore, the corn goddess; but also known as the dread goddess of the underworld.

non-warmist says:

06:58pm | 15/06/11

persephone is Blog Mother
Erick is Blog Father

PatC says:

11:40am | 15/06/11

Don’t tell the alarmist that!!!!

Now they be saying all our carbon is warming Mars as well and we have to double the tax to combat it. haahahahaah

Sony B Goode says:

12:43pm | 15/06/11

Its ok the UN and IPCC will mandate a tax on martians as well.

something more for perspehone to ignore

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4254
“THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE by Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. - Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory”

“Key Excerpts: Observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is “not guilty” and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop. [...] Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop. [...] It follows that warming had a natural origin, the contribution of CO2 to it was insignificant, anthropogenic increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide does not serve as an explanation for it, and in the foreseeable future CO2 will not be able to cause catastrophic warming. The so-called greenhouse effect will not avert the onset of the next deep temperature drop, the 19th in the last 7500 years, which without fail follows after natural warming. [...]”

Sony B Goode says:

12:35pm | 15/06/11

lies. Some part has been promised by Combet to 3rd world countries. So we are being taxed to support non taxpayers, non-residents or voters.

lies: this is not a small cost of living increase its $20b a year of extra burden for business, that was not there previously. it is nothing but socialist redistribution.

lies: CO2 is not smog, it is clear, odourless, colourless gas. it is not pollution.

lies: there is no evidence acidic oceans are a bad thing, when CO2 levels where several times higher the oceans where still teeming with fish.

lies: massive economic loss is a myth perpetuated by the left. a 30cm rise in ocean levels by 2050 is within the current tidal variations. ie irrelavent.

Tim says:

12:40pm | 15/06/11

There’s no CO2 in smog, the particles from burning coal have been filtered out for decades.
So how will a carbon tax result in less smog?

Josh says:

02:17pm | 15/06/11

Sony B and Tim, you need to get your head checked and put things in perspective.

Your assertions are full of half truths and are just too ridiculous to refudiate. I can’t be bothered arguing with your stupidity. Go back to school and get an education.

SimonTigey says:

03:24pm | 15/06/11

Josh, you are so gullible and naive it’s sickening. If you think a tax on carbon will lower the worlds emissions then you are sorely mistaken. If you actually take the time to do some research you will find that the Earth is actually cooling and the whole CC ideology has been cooked up by the UN to create a global government. It is done under the cover of CC. Do some research mate, you will soon see what a fool you look!!!!

Your arguments about the tax money still in the economy are ridiculous and just show how dumb and ill informed you are.

Bringiton says:

04:56pm | 15/06/11

You sound young enough so get an earful of this, I am nearing retirement, I have a number of houses and numerous investments, you might say I am a millionaire. 

Point is I don’t give a stuff about the fake ALP “Carbon Tax” I have never believed in AGW and the more I see the alarmists fibbing and exaggerating the firmer my scepticism is entrenched.

However I say bring on the tax! - Why? – because all my houses and goods have been purchased tax-free (carbon tax that is) – it is the young who will pay this tax in everything they purchase / build / create. My stuff will have an instant increase in value as it will be so much more expensive to replace.

There will be no impact on my consumption because I can afford to keep on polluting.

It is a tax on the young – so thanks to all those young (naive) ALP voters.

PatC says:

08:30pm | 15/06/11

This so wrong on so many levels.
1. All the leading scientist of the day said the world was flat because that was the dogma of the time - so to today.
2. “All the leading scientist” have not said so - only the ones who’s grants are tied to AGW. (Plenty of links in this article alone)
3. Yes lets go with the science and the maths - ummmm where is it???? The irrefutable stuff that is. Not the East Anglia variety.
4. This tax won’t reduce emissions - it will only tax them. Once the Government gets addicted to the revenue they will be doing nothing to reduce emissions because it will reduces taxes. (Consider poker machine taxes)
5. Your wonderful Gillard government only recognised “how important” this was when they need the Greens to hold on to power. Before that and I quote “There will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead.”
6. They aren’t risking losing an election - they already know it’s lost. (Refer today’s news poll). This is about prolonging their stay in power because if they lose the Green/Independent support they will have to go back to the polls.

Graeme says:

03:47pm | 15/06/11

Any idea why the role of CO2 wasn’t surveyed?  Seems like the obvious question.  Do you detect the faint smell of rat in the breeze?

Bringiton says:

05:34pm | 15/06/11

All you need is a harsh pentrating voice and you would sound exactly like the bogan princess herself.  (At leat the last time I head her, which was along time ago as I habitually switch off the TV / Radion whenever she speaks).

bleD says:

01:34pm | 15/06/11

Well said Brad. The core of the problem is human overpopulation. Until that is reduced the rest is hot air.

Graeme says:

03:58pm | 15/06/11

More shabby pseudo science Kevin.  I know I look gullible but you, you surprise me.  A 40% increase in CO2 levels has produced what percentage change in temperatures?  Keep it real, use degrees Kelvin.  He writes as if the temperature changes are massive, clearly identified as anthropogenic in origin.  In fact it is barely measurable and other cycles have an input into whatever the real move is.  He’s a man with a set of beliefs, good on him.  But beliefs can lead people astray if they abandon the need to think critically.  BTW meteorologists aren’t great believers in AGW.  BoM’s temperature datasets are not given a lot of respect.

iansand says:

04:20pm | 15/06/11

Graeme - How about you explain why a percentage, instead of an absolute figure, is appropriate.

Graeme says:

05:52pm | 15/06/11

Just to emphasise the disproportions involved Ian.  Is that not something we should talk about?  I think it is curious at least.
You will have noticed I left the Venus thing alone.  Quite restrained of me don’t you think, given the atmosphere’s CO2 content has been so much higher in the past and we didn’t turn into Venus then.  I am not trying to have a go at you but this seems like just another example of any argument is a good argument for some proponents of AGW.  No need for reflection or filtering, just throw it all out there.  It just hurts the argument of those who try to build some credibility for AGW in my view.  What do you think?

Warwick says:

05:39pm | 15/06/11

What a jerk!

James says:

02:10pm | 15/06/11

A prime candidate for a very painful lesson in what you should give a f*** about.

toast says:

03:17pm | 15/06/11

@ james - meh

James says:

09:13pm | 16/06/11

That is what people say when you get a foot up your backside

cerebus says:

02:22pm | 15/06/11

“1. We’re told CO2 is a pollutant.”

“How we choose to define the word ‘pollutant’ is a play in semantics. To focus on a few positive effects of carbon dioxide is to ignore the broader picture of its full impacts. The net result from increasing CO2 are severe negative impacts on our environment and the living conditions of future humanity.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm

“No one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic (6). Living systems, be they an ecosystem or an organism, require that a delicate balance be maintained between certain elements and/or compounds in order for the system to function normally. When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant, despite the fact that it is required in small quantities. “
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html

“3. CO2 has naturally been higher.”

That’s not the point, and not disputed. What is relevant is that the rate of increase is unprecedented and is at a rate which doesn’t allow the environment to adapt.

‘The “scary thing”, he added, was the rate of change now occurring in CO2 concentrations. In the core, the fastest increase seen was of the order of 30 parts per million (ppm) by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years.

“The last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don’t have an analogue in our records,” he said. ‘
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm

“The rapid rise in greenhouse gases over the past century is unprecedented in at least 800,000 years, according to a study of the oldest Antarctic ice core which highlights the reality of climate change.”
http://www.terranature.org/antarcticIceCore.htm

James says:

02:07pm | 15/06/11

The above proves that more words do not equal more right.

Anubis says:

04:00pm | 15/06/11

@ James - strange response from you there.
@ The Science was quoting word for word from the IPCC - the much vaunted “Authority who can do now wrong” in the eyes of warmists like you.

Have you actually read ANY of the IPCC publications ? or are you just content to accept the dribble handed down to you from Gillard’s cast of fools without doing any independent research yourself ?

James - you have just managed to put yourself in to the role of Village Idiot.

Nathan says:

04:05pm | 15/06/11

Did you read it with a view to understand it, or misrepresent it?

SimonTigey says:

02:56pm | 15/06/11

Your comments are true Neil, earths normal climate is an Ice Age climate, we are merely going through a mild warming phase that occurs like clockwork about every 100,000 years. Evidence also indicates that CO2 does not drive temperature rises, in fact it is the other way around, CO2 has been proven to lag temperature increases by around 800 years. This clear cut evidence garnered by using Vostok ice cores provide accurate temperature and CO2 concentrations going back 400,000 years. The global con that is pushing this carbon tax stuff is just disgraceful. The beauty of the internet means we can see all the evidence for ourselves now which makes Labor/Greens job of trying to fool us that much more difficult!!!!

cerebus says:

02:45pm | 15/06/11

There’s a link missing, this should follow the paragraph starting “This is also worth a read….”
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

cerebus says:

02:54pm | 15/06/11

The exact same thing could be said about the denial side, and would be just as meaningless.
Do you have any science to add to the discussion?

Against the Man says:

08:18pm | 15/06/11

The ALP’s own internal polling shows that Gilltard is toxic, radioactive poison of the worst kind and the ALP is looking to suffer a worst fate than the Titanic. Gilltard has brought shame to her party and things are really looking bad.

Harquebus says:

01:37pm | 16/06/11

Egg seeking faces I call it.

cerebus says:

03:07pm | 15/06/11

“...the fact is nobody likes an ignorant, backstabbing liar.”

Covers pretty much every single politician.

“I think, roughly, the desire to be a politician, should ban you for life for ever being one. Don’t vote, it encourages them.” Billy Connolly

RyaN says:

04:03pm | 15/06/11

@cerebus: “Covers pretty much every single politician.” these pathetic attempts to attribute the abhorrent behavior of Gillard and her crew of incompetents to other politicians has been done over so many times now that its becoming tiresome.
There is not the slightest, closest resemblance in any other politician to date that has barefaced lied to the Australian people in such a manner, with such blatant impunity as Gillard and Swann have.
So take your playground argument “but they are just as bad as us” back to the playground before you get a spanking.

cerebus says:

05:35pm | 15/06/11

@Ryan, I admire your naivety in thinking only “the other side” tell lies. They all do, deal with it. They’re not there to do good for you, however much you may think they are….they are their for their own purposes, it just so happens that sometimes what they say to keep themselves elected is something you agree with (or in the case of your hatred of Gillard, disagree with), and that goes for all sides. 
Voting in this country is not voting for who you want, it is voting to keep the other lot out…..it’s about the lesser of the evils.

There are examples of both sides telling bareface lies, but that’s a good reason not to get your science from politicians. If you think the side you prefer doesn’t lie, that only those evil ALPers do, then you may need to take your blinkers off.
My point wasn’t “but they are just as bad as us”, which is fairly obvious from anything other than a jaundiced reading of what I said, my point is they are all the same, particularly when it comes to the Liberals and Labor, they are so close to each other politically it’s just shades of grey. You have no idea which way I vote, you just make an assumption.

And as for ‘a spanking’, grow up, you sound like a petulant child.

Enrico: says:

05:48pm | 16/06/11

Lies, maybe.  But for sheer, breathtaking incompetence and waste, nobody - and i mean nobody - comes close to this Rudd/Gillard/Swan circus.

cerebus says:

03:03pm | 15/06/11

@Tbowler, time to invoke Godwin’s Law I think.

“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (100%).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

Also, Reductio ad Hitlerum,
“The suggested logic is one of guilt by association, a classic confusion of correlation and causality, as if to say that anything that Adolf Hitler did, no one else should do, for it will obviously or eventually lead to genocide.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

neil says:

03:18pm | 15/06/11

Very few people, even among environmentalists, have truly faced up to what the science is telling us. This is because the implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of “emergency” responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.

Clive Hamilton 2007

iansand says:

04:24pm | 15/06/11

A true sceptic would follow the money on both sides.  Have you?

Mark says:

04:08pm | 15/06/11

True, except the Fossil Fuel industry is only protecting its investment. The scientists promoting this fear mongering are the only ones that stand to gain from convincing the general public of human caused GW. The Fossil Fuel Industry has share holders and, even though I’m fairly against capitalism, they are only protecting their profits, like any other corporation would when under threat from an industry running a covert scare campaign that has captured the imaginations of governments world wide.  Mainstream media is definitely not on the fossil fuel industries side and media is the main form of spreading propaganda to the uneducated masses, funnily enough, its these masses that get labour into government in the first place!
You do make a good point relating to the connection between the 2 biggest denials of the last hundred years, but the article’s first line is a quote from Arnold Shwarzernegger, not a reputable “climate scientist” (a term that has only made an appearance to “prove” global warming is man made) he is barely a reputable human being. Hardly debate winning stuff there

cerebus says:

05:08pm | 15/06/11

@Mark, I hope you read more than just the bit mentioning Arnie….as you say “Hardly debate winning stuff…”, but that’s ok, because I wasn’t relying on that Arnie quote (I did say it was an interesting article, not that the debate will be settled once you read this quote from Arnie).

You could make the same point about cigarette companies defending their profits and looking after their shareholders when they deny the smoking-cancer link.  Does that mean they are justified? It is understandable that both the cigarette industry and fossil fuel industry want to defend their profits, nobody is arguing that point. It doesn’t make it right though, and it’s something people seem to forget when they say AGW proponents are only in it for the money, when it’s a charge that could be levelled the opposite way just as easily.

At the end of the day it’s a distraction and a stalling tactic. It’s an attempt to smear intentions rather than attempting to engage in the science. Whilst it may have some small relevance (I would suspect most people on this discussion are motivated just as much by money as any climate scientist or denier), it is much less relevant than the science.

Anubis says:

04:05pm | 15/06/11

Would possibly be an interesting comment from you @ Ben if not for the fact that the Carbon Tax will do absolutely nothing to address climate conditions. And give up with the Denier tag when people don’t agree with you. Skepticism is actually a healthy view point that helps to refine science. Without skepticism you don’t have science you have voodoo.  Ben - You have just graduated in to the class of Village Idiot with James.

greg says:

04:34pm | 15/06/11

The illness is real enough
The needle is real enough
But the jab only contains saline solution.

Im not skeptic of warming just a skeptic of the tax

Anthony G says:

04:46pm | 15/06/11

And what year did Tuvalu disappear? I know it must have because 10 years ago the People in the know said it was going to in the within 5 years. Ben i’ve got this special potion for everlasting youth. You can have it at a bargain price price of 1oo dollars a litre. It looks and smells like pineapple juice but don’t worry mate I’m a wizard. Infact I will extend my offer to all the bright carbon tax supporters.just ask the punch to pass on the cheques and I will send the stuff down the line. Please dont thank me just send money

cerebus says:

05:15pm | 15/06/11

@AnthonyG,
“For the rate of absolute sea level change at Tuvalu to lie within the
range of global average sea level rise given by the IPCC, only modest constraints have to be applied to the vertical land motion at Tuvalu; the observations from Tuvalu are therefore not inconsistent with the IPCC estimate of global average sea level rise.”
http://staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/tuvalu.pdf

Anthony G says:

05:34pm | 15/06/11

Cerberus,
Do you want some to. Just send the money and I will look after the rest thank you very much.Anymore takers feel free I have plenty

cerebus says:

05:51pm | 15/06/11

@AnthonyG, it might be worth linking to evidence you feel backs up your position that Tuvalu isn’t feeling the effects of rising sea levels.
Good luck with that potion of yours, I’ve no doubt you could find a market for it, as we’ve seen lack of evidence is no impediment to some claims.

Don of Adel says:

01:19am | 16/06/11

Good info like this helps http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/truth-is-that-garnaut-is-partisan/story-e6frgd0x-1226075912763

iansand says:

04:22pm | 15/06/11

Gosh.  Here come the pixies.

Richard says:

08:51pm | 15/06/11

Well you might snicker iansand, but my mates Lovelock and Flimflam would beg to differ…

iansand says:

08:30am | 16/06/11

Richard - I have a nasty thought for you.  You seem to think that Gaia is interested in optimising the Earth for human occupation (a very biblical attitude).  What if Gaia has come to the quite reasonable conclusion that the Earth would be better off without humans?

Is Flimflam a real person?

Steve says:

04:32pm | 15/06/11

James. I feel it is best to stick to the facts of a particular subject. Scientists being right on smoking does not impact on the facts relating to global warming. Otherwise the debate degrades to the instances science was wrong compared to when science was right.

There are plenty of occasions when science has got it right and wrong so there is amunition for both sides but it does not promote understanding of just how CO2 impacts on the climate.

James says:

05:30pm | 15/06/11

Ah why are the right this time when they are clearly wrong about smoking being bad for you.  Go on Steve if you feel so confident about the scientists being wrong, dip a ciggie in DDT and light up, that way if you are wrong and it is infact bad for you, you only hurt yourself as opposed to oh i don’t know, the entire planet.

TheRaptured says:

06:14pm | 15/06/11

Only thing is James, the same Globalist who own the cigarette companies, JP Morgan, Rothchilds, Phillip Morris etc., are the same global parasite’s who are paying a small minute of climate scientist’s billion’s to prove this man made global warming fraud in order to enslave the population into globalised fascism/socialim with China being the model, not Communism. If Communism was the agenda then the Global Elite would be first to be removed and exterminated, they are not stupid. Remember the Climate God, “Al Gore,” big Tobacco farmer, do you really think he cares about the human race?

Steve says:

06:40pm | 15/06/11

James. If you look at my post again you will find that I agree that smoking is bad for the health. Also lighting up a cigarette laced with DDT will not promote understanding of the CO2 debate.

What i said was there are plenty of instances when the concensus has been proven wrong. 70 years ago the consensus amongst the medical fraternity and scientists was that smoking was not harmful and had a slight aniseptic value. It was the minority sceptics who proved the consensus wrong and ultimately became the consensus group.
The history of science shows us that most breakthroughs are not made by the consensus. it is the small group of sceptics who challenge the consensus that account for most scientific breakthrough.

When Einstein published material that challenged the consensus theories of Newton he was pillioried by the existing scientific experts. Germany’s top 100 scientists wrote a book to discredit him. I don’t need to tell you who was right in the end.

James says:

06:41pm | 15/06/11

Are you related to Sarah Palin?

Steve says:

07:31pm | 15/06/11

No James I am not related to Sarah Palin and I trust she hasn’t been plagarising me!

James says:

10:40am | 16/06/11

Sorry Steve I was talking to Raptured.  By the way Newton wasn’t all wrong it is just that with the technology/knowledge of the time there is no way he could have investigated special relativity or quantum theory, that is a very different situation to climate science, where the quantum leap has already happened and AGW can be proved using ‘run of the mill technology’

If you can’t see the difference I doubt you have studied physics.

cerebus says:

11:48am | 17/06/11

@Steve, the argument that the consensus has been wrong in the past is a common one, just take a look at the anti-vaccine discussion, the people who disagree with germ-theory, creationists etc.
Yes, the consensus has been wrong in the past, there’s no argument there; it has also been right, neither point is relevant.  The point is that when the consensus shifts it is as a result of the science and the evidence…..if there was convincing science and evidence against AGW then the consensus would shift. If you feel that the consensus is not shifting despite the science and evidence then I think we’re heading into conspiracy theory territory….the number of people who would have to be involved is just too huge to make it believeable.
There are plenty of people online who are against the consensus when it comes to things like 9/11 and the moon landings….they claim to have evidence also, but it doesn’t stand up against the evidence to the contrary, so the deniers shout “conspiracy!”.
You mention Einstein…..relativity wasn’t accepted because he was some rebel against the consensus, it was accepted because the science supported it.  People who were skeptical were persuaded by experiments such as the deflection of light by the sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun).
For a long time there was a consensus that there must be an ether to transmit electromagentic waves, it wasn’t someone saying “the consensus says there is an ether so there mustn’t be!” that changed that view, it was the science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment).

At the end of the day you are correct that the consensus can be wrong, but you are incorrect in how it shifts, and if history shows us anything it is that the scientific consensus will shift when presented with the evidence.

tickets on yourself? says:

04:06pm | 15/06/11

Ah, you sound just like a government funded climate scientist. In fact, you probably are one. Don’t go out into the wind.

Anubis says:

04:10pm | 15/06/11

@ iansand - what colour are the unicorns and fairies in that cosy little world of yours ?

NicoleG says:

04:19pm | 15/06/11

You’re so right there iansand. You’re miles ahead in the smart arse department.

iansand says:

04:29pm | 15/06/11

One day I will explain the difference between attacking something and substantiating it.  Lots of sceptics attacking here, but very little substantiation from them.

cerebus says:

04:34pm | 15/06/11

@Anubis, @tickets, rather than ad hominem attacks, how about some providing some links to support your position, then we can continue to debate the issue.

John Smythe says:

04:56pm | 15/06/11

attacking? Like you did to Fairs?

When you realise the difference between skeptic and someone not accepting a carbon tax as the only solution, then maybe you will start to understand the arguments being held.

But you and pers keep at it. You are both legends in your own lunch hours.

NicoleG says:

05:48pm | 15/06/11

Well said John!

iansand says:

05:48pm | 15/06/11

John Smythe - When will the proof reader start?

Tickets on yourself? says:

06:55pm | 15/06/11

@cerebus

So you are saying that employing the discussion tactics of a climate scientist is a negative thing?

TimB says:

06:59pm | 15/06/11

Is that so iansand? Winning are you?

I suppose that’s why you’ve fled from Fairsfair. Made a bunch of smart-ass comments about the insurance industry and then promptly got schooled by someone who actually knows what they’re talking about. Can’t help but notice you didn’t come back for seconds.

It’s easy to believe you’re winning when you run away everytime you lose.

iansand says:

09:04pm | 15/06/11

Fled form fairsfair Her idea of substantiation is what she thinks her insurance broker might say if she took the trouble to ask the question.

I assume a small degree of intelligence from contributors.  I forgot TimB might be in the building.

cerebus says:

09:12pm | 15/06/11

@tickets, no, I’m saying if you have any science to support your position it would be interesting to see it.

john Smythe says:

01:19am | 16/06/11

Ian, Nicole had no issue reading my comment, why do you? You seem to boast of self-importance and intelligence, yet you got schooled in insurance. That same intelligence that made you laugh at her for using the term “insurance broker”.

So how did you enjoy Wall Street II then?

iansand says:

08:37am | 16/06/11

Fairsfair can (and should) use a broker.  But to suggest that her comment is substantiated by what she thinks her broker (not even an underwriter) might say if she bothered to ask him is roll on the floor hilarious.

fairsfair says:

09:11am | 16/06/11

So Ian, I can’t ask my broker to supply me information on the rating factors used when my policy was calculated? I can’t ask for a print out of the data plugged and returned from programs like Cchange (QBE) which tell me which risks apply to my asset and give a dollar value all adding up to my total premium? I can’t email my broker a list of questions that they can take to the underwriter on my behalf?

Underwriters are protected from direct contact with the insured (and rightly so or they’d have no time to get their job done), but that does not mean you do not have the right to send your broker in on your bahalf. My broker is merely an extension of myself and the key to the one making the decisions. I know I was that to my clients when I worked as one.

I think you are a top bloke Ian, you usually have a great conversation with people but you are nothing but a smartarse prick on this thread and it has changed my opinion of you. I’m not telling you that because I think you will care, I’m just saying it because I am not the only one thinking it.

Duff says:

10:13am | 16/06/11

Iansand, keep up the good work, mate.  Your sanity is welcome.

iansand says:

03:56pm | 16/06/11

You can ask your broker whatever you want fairsfair.  But if you seriously think that what you think your broker might tell you if you asked is a source, which is what you were asked for, you have spent too much time in the tropic sun.

John Smythe says:

05:48pm | 16/06/11

I can’ be arsed to sort through all your shit stirring Ian, but I do believe it was you who was stating that insurance premiums were including climate changing factors within their pricing structure.

Fairs then showed it wasn’t, at least not in her case. To which you just laughed at her use of the term “broker”.

To which you got schooled about insurance. Then you go off on another tangent, and get schooled even further.

You now come back saying her argument is moot because she provided no link?

Your arguments are all over the place, and especially so when you get your arse kicked. You then play a horrible game of internet troll saying link it or it didn’t happen.

It’s rather childish really and Fairs’ previous comment is shared by me as well. You aren’t as intelligent as you make yourself out to be. If you wee, there would be a well constructed argument, conceding when you are wrong, and counter-arguing with concise arguments. Not bantering and name calling, and playing find the wikipedia link.

Pathetic really.

iansand says:

07:28pm | 16/06/11

John Smythe - I can understand why you think that what fairsfair thinks her broker might say if the question was ever asked is substantiation.  If I was fairsfair I would be worried that you support her.

It is no wonder that the deniers are successful.

Against the Man says:

08:14pm | 15/06/11

A straight answer from Gilltard? The immoral one? The one with poor upbringing? Surely you Jest my good sir?

iansand says:

06:08pm | 15/06/11

Graeme - The role of CO2 has been understood for 150 years and quantified for about 120.  If you seriously doubt that CO2 contributes to global warming I suggest you investigate what the Earth’s temperature would be without it.  Life as we know it would not exist.  Anyone who tells you that the effect of CO2 is uncertain can be safely ignored.  Then, with that newly acquired information, cogitate about what effect an increase of ~30% might have.

neil says:

11:11pm | 15/06/11

Graeme,
??????????? back of the “C” man!

I think you are about 20 years behind the debate, amphetamines will do that to you!

Graeme says:

09:45am | 16/06/11

Quantified in a lab maybe Ian.  Were any feedbacks measured in a lab?  They might have been a bit hard for the IPCC to measure.  That must have been why they gave instructions not to allow for them in their reports.  Does the word mendacious come to mind at all?

You come over as an intelligent and well-read guy.  Does it disturb you that by signing up for the full warmist breakfast you give up the right to point out that Flannery is a clown, Garnaut is a cheap Labor spearchucker, that the debate is full of frauds coming at you from all angles.  Like Tory do you forfeit the right to say, ooh, he might have got a bit excited there.  7 metres you say?  Try being a little sceptical for a while, good for your soul.  You can still swing the boot at Andrew and Piers at the same time and you can give up tugging the forelock to every climate scientist you meet in the street.  Treat each claim on its merits.  Good luck.

Graeme says:

09:46am | 16/06/11

Neil any imbalance in my brain chemicals is entirely natural.  You have different experience perhaps.

iansand says:

03:51pm | 16/06/11

Graeme - Do you seriously doubt that CO2 has a role in keeping the Earth at a habitable temperature?  Do you doubt that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 30% over the last 150 years?  Do you seriously doubt that the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere has not been tested over the 150 years that its role has been understood, or that that role has been established beyond rational doubt?

Maybe, just maybe, the liars and dissemblers are on the denialist side, because I have seen all of the above indubitable propositions challenged.  They fall into the same level of daftness as the “CO2 is not a pollutant” bullshit we are currently hearing, as if that makes a difference to the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere.  Who cares whether it is a pollutant or not?  That CO2 has an effect, and that increased CO2 has a greater effect, is beyond sane challenge.  Then go to Venus and spend some time enjoying life on a planet with a serious concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere.  Your major problem will be that your spaceship melts.

Be a true sceptic.  Challenge everything, not just one side.

Graeme says:

06:21pm | 16/06/11

Hi Ian.  It seems to be accepted by a lot of thoughtful sceptics, and believers, that CO2 in the atmosphere makes a real difference to the global temperature (30 degrees was it?).  I have no reason to doubt it.  And to continue on the same line the impact of rising CO2 levels falls with rising levels.  I gather you need to keep doubling to continue to get a linear rise but no doubt that is an oversimplification.  So many other factors and feedbacks are at work, to imagine there are any direct relationships between CO2 and temperature rise seems unlikely to me.

More than a 30% rise I believe.  I very seriously doubt any correlation has been established in the field over that 150 years.  The myriad complicating factors make it too difficult I believe.  Not something I wish to dissemble about.  I see tricky ground ahead for you if you make claims to the contrary.

Liars and dissemblers are everywhere Ian.  To imagine they all congregate on one side of the room is to ignore human nature.  Look at Windsor.  You think he’s a believer?  Nup, there’s a buck in this for farmers.  Unless perhaps he’s tried to get his land back from coalminers recently….  The Greens are a party of stunts.  You think they believe blocking up drainpipes of environmentally compliant manufacturers is for real?  Labor, claiming droughts, floods and heatwaves have been found to be connected with rising CO2 levels?  They’re just being politicians trying to manipulate the ignorant.  And I don’t mind if you point the finger at the coalition at the same time.

I have never claimed CO2 can’t be a pollutant, or used the lines you complain of.  The Venus argument was apparently first advanced by Hansen, in his more excitable days.  You can imagine how much CO2 was in our atmosphere before plants proliferated.  The sun may well have been cooler then but I would have thought if we were going to become Venus it would have happened then, not well below 1% CO2.  I have been happy to argue against some of Piers Akerman’s lines if that puts you at ease.  I stay well away from Jones, Bolt, Monckton and all but expect even they make some valid points at times.  Well, maybe not Jones.

iansand says:

07:23pm | 16/06/11

Are you doubting that there has not been a 30% increase?  Seriously?  Have you looked at anything past your own imagination?  That is a straight, flat out, inarguable measurement.

What Venus argument?  Venus is hotter than hell because of greenhouse gases which are most of its atmosphere.  It is hotter than Mercury.  There is no argument there.  It is straight, flat out, inarguable measurement.  Venus probes melted.

Graeme says:

08:00pm | 16/06/11

Read again, my hasty friend.  I said the CO2 levels have risen more than 30%.

Any idea of the CO2 levels on Mars?  Might be a bit more than ours.  Venus is a lot more to do with the atmospheric pressures exerted I think.

iansand says:

08:49pm | 16/06/11

Hey.  Tell me what the CO2 levels on Mars are?

You are floundering.

Graeme says:

10:25am | 17/06/11

Over 95% of Mars’ atmosphere is CO2.  I won’t make the comparison with Venus, you can have a go at that yourself.  To me this is kind of indicative of where a fixation with one molecule to the exclusion of all else can lead people astray.  Fair or unfair?

Leopard says:

07:06pm | 15/06/11

@Nil by mouth.  Agree.
And none of us will get to know who was right.

Steve says:

07:28pm | 15/06/11

I assume you are referring to the effect of methane on climate rather than CO2.

neil says:

11:01pm | 15/06/11

Post happy hour?

iansand says:

07:39am | 16/06/11

So, in summary, something is happening and we are causing it.  The impact is real but unpredictable. 

That is a fine basis on which to decide to do nothing.

Duff says:

10:07am | 16/06/11

I liked your point about the real purpose of the Carbon Tax - that it is more about preparing the economy for eventual transition.  I think that is why I support it.  Have to get started somewhere, and putting a price on Carbon, even if it is too low to start, is the way to go.

Jim says:

10:30am | 16/06/11

Re iansand,
``So, in summary, something is happening and we are causing it.  The impact is real but unpredictable.  ``

In my opinion what you said would be interpreted by many people as a reason to do something.  This is especially true since I think the chance that nothing will happen to the climate is very unlikely.  I don`t understand the science of modelling well but if most climate scientists tell me that there is a strong possibility of deleterious changes to the climate which will impact human kind I will listen.  Most climate scientists, just like any scientist, are in the business because they have a fascination with science and seek the truth. Some scientists are willing to exaggerate or overplay the interpretation of their results of course, it is human nature.

iansand says:

04:06pm | 16/06/11

Must be a new Jim.

Val says:

09:27am | 16/06/11

Why did she say “there will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead” then?
“And she still did it because she knows why it is important to get some action on this issue”.
You don’t think the Greens forced her to do it and it was part of her deal with them to be elected PM?

Nil by mouth says:

09:29am | 16/06/11

@Thomas Bywater:
Were you hiding under a log between the time when Gillard knifed KRudd until Gillard lost - err I mean won - the election? The first thing she dumped after KRudd was his version of the carbon tax. She doesn’t sound very principled to me.

Joseph Logan says:

10:47am | 16/06/11

Thomas, you are forgetting Juliar is a Labour leader.
I do not believe she thought “all hell would break loose”.
What has Labour ( this time ) again not made a mess of?
Why would she not make a mess of this nonsense?
People would be naive to think that Gillard has not been briefed, and knows full well that “solar power”,  “wind power” and “hot rocks”, is not a viable proposition.  It is madness, and Labour’s history isfull of that.
“Renewables” as they preach is pure fantasy! 
I really believe it seems,tragically, that Australia will have to hit “rock-bottom”  - economy crises through manufacturers going off-shore, massive power black-outs, horrendous cost of living rises etc.
Then, yet again, a tough Liberal Government will have to come to the rescue amidst hysteria from the left.
If this tax is applied, we are in a lot of trouble!!!
Gillard lied and continues to lie and deceive.

Nil by mouth says:

11:42am | 16/06/11

@ Jonathan -
What drugs are you on dude? Wake up and smell the CO2! Take a chill pill! Before you go on these endless rants, find some cold hard evidence to back up your hysterical claims. The whole ‘Global Warming’ oops, I mean ‘Climate Change’ issue is a complete furfy. The earth has been heating up and cooling down for millennia - it’s just what the planet does, so get over it already!

LC says:

03:51pm | 20/06/11

So you blame globalization and western capitalism for the environment’s woes. OK.

You’d be the biggest hypocrite if you used something created by western capitalists, say, a computer (the most polluting item in the average household because of the manufacturing process) to use another tool created as a result of globalization (the internet) to spread your message…

Oops. You just did.

James says:

10:41am | 16/06/11

Like what?

iansand says:

06:45pm | 16/06/11

Translation:  I will see your ill informed journalists and raise you my ill informed journalist.

Can I suggest that we all investigate the world beyond blogs and actually try and find proper sources?

iansand says:

06:06pm | 16/06/11

An examination of climate refugees http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028104.600-searching-for-the-climate-refugees.html?full=true  You may need to log in.  If you can’t get to it I will copy and paste if you are truly interested.  As far as other predictions, the main prediction is that temperatures will rise.  That is undoubtedly happening.  What more do you want?

The leading remedy is not a tax - it is an ETS.  Even the government has said that the tax is a precursor to an ETS.  However, both those methods are intended to send an economic signal to reduce emissions.  Economic signals are generally regarded as quite powerful in our market driven economy.

Graeme says:

08:04pm | 16/06/11

You don’t think population pressures and the wars that result will have mass movements of refugees before climate issues?  Haven’t read your link sorry, home time.

iansand says:

08:46pm | 16/06/11

All I can say is that it is absolutely clear that you have not read the link.  But why would that stop you making a comment?  Why change the habit of a lifetime?

What I am prepared to bet is that, before you made your first comment about climate refugees, you made no attempt to make your own investigations.

Mikeymike says:

11:54am | 17/06/11

Thanks Iansand, but I won’t be paying $9.90 to read an editorial.  This is the internet, I can get opinions for free.  There is one thing: the map that was used (and since taken down) from the UN site has population growth in the regions that were supposed to be the drivers of climate refugees.

You mean the 0.8 degree rise since 1880?  Or do you mean the 2010 0.6 degrees above 20th century average?  Pick your time based trend and cite your papers.  I’m especially interested in those that confirm the direct correlation between co2 and global temperature.  Here’s mine: http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=3447  Please, commence attacking the author’s credentials and the journal in which it was published.

Fair enough, point taken, let’s start with a tax and move to an ETS.  But we’ll start with a tax first because….?  Don’t know that one.  And why are we compensating?  Surely the point of an economic driver is to change behaviour, why offer compensation that will have a net effect of 0 to some in the community?  What behaviour will that change?  Moving on.

ETS has worked out great elsewhere, hasn’t it?  Like the EU where more permits to pollute were granted than there was pollution (Souorce: Open Europe)?  Or the investigation in to 1 Billion pound tax fraud using the ETS?  Sure, lets give environmental management over to the same people who gave us the GFC.

And what about those other remedies?

John Smythe says:

12:15pm | 17/06/11

Very well said Mikey.

Fred Firth says:

10:18pm | 16/06/11

Fred Firth (Heracles) in answer to Cerebus (shouldn’t it be Cerberus?)
Q: “Do you honestly think the rebuttal to AGW is as simple as “CO2 is heavier than air”??
A: Actually, yes I do.
As for why we aren’t drowning in the stuff, it’s because CO2 sinks through the ground, is absorbed by plants and it is immiscible with water. The only CO2 in the upper atmosphere is descending from aircraft and volcanic activity.
You will find the main recording site for CO2 is at Mauna Loa just below the flight path of most of the trans-Pacific airlines and in-between two active volcanoes. The recording station was put there to provide early warning of volcanic eruptions.
It is a shame the UN didn’t suggest we were entering an ice-age because getting CO2 into the upper atmosphere, to keep the glaciers at bay, would be monster effort.

cerebus says:

10:36am | 17/06/11

Odd, I posted a reply to this last night, but it hasn’t appeared, so lets try again….

@Fred, it’s definitely cerebus thanks, Cerberus is another kettle of fish…

Whilst Mauna Loa is an important site, it is not the only source of atmospheric measurements of C02, particularly in recent years.
http://geology.com/nasa/carbon-dioxide-map/

“In this paper we have presented, for the first time in the 5–
25 km altitude range, five years of monthly mean CO2 vertical
profiles from the ACE-FTS limb-viewing space-borne
instrument (Bernath et al., 2005).”
http://www.ace.uwaterloo.ca/publications/2011/Foucher-FirstCO2.pdf

As for CO2 always falling as you seem to be suggesting, from the nasa link above:-
“The team attributed the increased levels of carbon dioxide detected over the western North Atlantic to emissions transported from the Southeast U.S. on warm atmospheric “conveyor belts.” These belts lift carbon dioxide from Earth’s surface into the middle and upper troposphere.”

Estimates for the average lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere, but the smallest I could find (on a site disagreeing with AGW) was 5 years, which would still leave enough in the atmosphere for it to collect as a layer if your premise was correct.

If you wish to prove your premise, can I again suggest you try the experiment I linked to in my earlier post.  If you are correct then the experiment as described will fail and the upper jar will contain no CO2.

If you want to do a bit more research, I suggest diffusion, Brownian motion and Graham’s Law as good places to start. 

Interestingly, the CO2 “heavier than air” argument is one that even the scientists who disagree with AGW don’t use, because it is such as easily disproveable idea.  If you are so sure that this one idea will disprove AGW, then a simple experiment as described should win you the Nobel prize in chemistry, and presumably something like a Pulitzer for investigative journalism in being the person who single-handedly disproved AGW with something so simple. Good luck.

btw, nobody is disputing the statement that CO2 is heavier than air, what is in dispute is that means that all CO2 emissions fall to the ground and are immediately absorbed.

cerebus says:

11:00am | 17/06/11

@Fred, completely unrelated to the discussion (but worth a look if you want to take a break from the science), your name reminded me of one of my favourite guitarists I haven’t listened to in ages, so thanks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU1RhuSYJQg

mullumhillbilly says:

09:16pm | 16/06/11

Spot on Fred. Actually Tori’s question need to be put the other way around. For warmist believers, what would they accept as clear falsification of the AGW hypothesis?

cerebus says:

09:30pm | 16/06/11

@Fred, yes, I would suspect most climate scientists did basic science at school.  Do you honestly think the rebuttal to AGW is as simple as “CO2 is heavier than air”?? If it was that simple, we wouldn’t be here having this discussion.
I suggest you look up some of the basic science you refer to, concentrate on diffusion of gases in air.
If you want to do an experiment to confirm this for yourself, give this one a go, we can wait…..
http://www.uq.edu.au/_School_Science_Lessons/UNChem2a.html#3.55.1

Are you willing to admit that there is C02 in the atmosphere? If your premise is correct then why is the lowest layer of the atmosphere not entirely C02?

Sammy says:

11:11am | 17/06/11

Actually Fred, the balloon would sink.
This has nothing to do with the CO2 in the balloon however. The mass of the balloon itself is enough to make it sink. Another way to look at it would be to do a control using air itself.
Fill a balloon with air and see if it hovers in one place. If it remains hovering in place, then by your logic it weighs the same as air. If it sinks however then it, again by your logic, be “heavier than air”. If it sinks the only logical conclusion is that since it is filled with air and is “floating” in air, then the mass of the balloon is what is weighing it down.

On an atomic level you are correct, CO2 weighs more than “Air”, if we take the simplified version that air is pure nitrogen, or even pure oxygen, they both weigh less than CO2. However, this is not the basis for good science An molecule of ozone, or O3, has more mass than CO2, however it is rarely found below the stratosphere. (Some 10-50km above the Earth’s surface)

Finally to your point previously about CO2 being immiscible with water I think you need to check your definitions here.
1) Immiscible means “unable to make a homogeneous mixture when added together” such as oil on water, however CO2 dissolves quite readily with water, about 1.2 grams of the stuff per litre of water. (The oceans are the biggest CO2 sinks on the planet)

Mikeymike says:

01:51pm | 17/06/11

Thanks for your contribution there, James.  In four short lines you have insulted your opponents, wished death on them and included “Won’t somebody think of the children?!?”  Way to contribute.

Since many of these third world children are in India and China, I would assume that their leaders would be boneheaded as well for trying to use the same technologies that we used to build our lifestyle.  Yes, such a liability to their own people, how dare they try and improve their lot using carbon based energy.

James says:

02:09pm | 17/06/11

I would call it an accurate charaterisation of science deniars, I certainly do not wish death on them but if they choose to commit suicide, I would rather they did not involve me or anyone else in their efforts, the same way I would hope a suicidal driver who cannot be dissauded from the deed would at least let me out of the car before he drives it off a cliff.

I think any leader in China or India who suggested that they use coal to power their economy to per capita parity with Australia should be regarded as a dangerous lunatic and immediately be sedated.  Fortunately the Chinese and Indians are much brighter than that and are making much greater efforts than the West to move to a zero emissions future.

James says:

01:44pm | 17/06/11

And the twit of the year goes to…..

cerebus says:

02:47pm | 17/06/11

@James, which bits do you disagree with, and do you have references to back them up? Or is it just ad-hominem attacks?

Mike of Jerra Shore says:

03:12pm | 17/06/11

Slightly agree with you in some cases sammy, in the long run its better to have a climate friendly industry, but taxing current industry and taxing all products made from major industry is pointless, it won’t stop any pollution, its just a money-go-round, or a socialist redistribution of wealth(if you want to start talking politics)
And I think your overestimating humans impact on global warming.
Some ‘opinion’ pieces ive read put CO2’s contribution to climate change at about 3% when you factor in things like water vapor, volcanoes and geothermal activity, solar system activity (solar winds, solar flares) and slight increases and decreases in the suns temperature.
Of all CO2 emissions human contribution is around 3-5%
Of all human contribution Australia’s contribution is around 1.5%
of our output, the government wants to reduce it by 5%
which brings a grand total of about 4 thousandths of a percent of human CO2 output we will reduce if we meet our goal!
**These are only some scientific estimates, I don’t think there is a way to accurately measure amount of CO2 in the air, or humans contribution to an exact number**

James says:

03:27pm | 17/06/11

I disagree with all of it, it is just another ill informed rant with nothing to back it up, my reference is any report put out by a credible scientific institution on climate science.

Graeme says:

05:37pm | 17/06/11

Without trying to be provocative Sammy climate science to me is the science of maybes, could bes and possiblies.  I really think we need something more.

I would be very surprised if the Queensland floods were due to rising CO2 levels.  More directly the reason was the La Nina weather pattern.  One area of the ocean’s temperature rose strongly in relation to that of another part.  La Nina.  So the odds of the energy retained in the atmosphere due to higher CO2 levels heating up one area of the ocean but not another seem slim to me.  You can argue a contribution but I just don’t see any evidence of it.  Scientists aren’t prepared to make the link without years of out of the ordinary weather.  Politicians in their wisdom see evidence of climate change in every heatwave, flood and bushfire.  Try and ignore them, they have no reason to look for the truth.

Chrissy says:

04:33pm | 20/06/11

@ Mike of Jerra shore:

Nice post mate, it is true depending on your source, that human co2 contribution to the atmosphere is somewhere between 3 to 15% of total additions. A fact global warming alarmists convieniently never tell you. They tend to try to make us believe all co2 added to the atmosphere is human made. Fact is, that even termites add more co2 to the atmosphere each year than humans, somewhere around 20% of total emissions. Try getting a global warming alarmist to reveal that. It blows there theory right out of the water. Another fact, weve all seen those ads where there are dirty big smoke stacks pumping out co2 like its a pollutant yeah? well funny thing is, only about 2% of that smoke is co2, the rest water vapour….........

Greenhouse gases make up about 2% of the atmospehere. 97% of those greenhouse gases are water vapour, roughly 2% co2 and about 1% methane. Yes methane, another by product of industry, especially farming. Funny thing is, methane has 25 TIMES the greenhouse effect than co2 does, so why is no one making any effort to slow its production? because there is not as much money to be made off of it. Its not so widely produced you see.
The whole problem is, we are being fed rubbish from a bunch of fanatics who want to feel good by thinking they are doing something good when really you are just clutching at straws. Go and do some voluntary work or something if you want to feel good.

cerebus says:

08:04pm | 20/06/11

@Chrissy, do you have references to support your claim that termites produce up to 20% of CO2 emissions?
“The only pollutant of concern from termite activity is CH4.”
“Termite activity
also results in the production of carbon dioxide (CO2). These CO2 emissions are part of the regular carbon cycle, and as such should not be included in a greenhouse gas emissions inventory.”
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch14/final/c14s02.pdf

“They tend to try to make us believe all co2 added to the atmosphere is human made.”
I have never heard anybody who suggests that AGW is correct make the claim that *all* CO2 is human made. If you have any references, please prove me wrong.

“The whole problem is, we are being fed rubbish from a bunch of fanatics who want to feel good by thinking they are doing something good when really you are just clutching at straws. “
Do you have scientific references to back up your argument?

As has been stated before, the problem is the rate at which the CO2 levels are increasing…..it is faster than has occured previously and is at a rate which doesn’t allow the environment to adapt.

Chrissy says:

10:22pm | 20/06/11

@ cerebus:

I could post dozens of links that support my claim, but i dont have the time right now to read through them all to make sure they are worthy of posting, so i say just google it, but by the link you posted it seems you already have. Unsurprisingly posting a link which seems to downplay the termites addition of co2 into the atmosphere, refering to it as a regular part if the carbon cycle thus it should be ignored….

Regular part of the carbon cycle or not, it doesnt change the fact that termite activity releases more co2 into the atmosphere each year than all human activity combined. Maybe we should eradicate termites…..

“Quote from cerebus” I have never heard anybody who suggests that AGW is correct make the claim that *all* CO2 is human made. If you have any references, please prove me wrong.”

I too never made any claim that anyone was suggesting that, What i mean is that they dont make any reference to the fact that humans contribute 3 to 15% of co2 annually. Its not so supportive of their arguement..

Saying that co2 levels are rising faster than ever before is a little hard to back up. That would all depend on which science you choose to believe. When the siberian traps erupted millions and millions of years ago causing mass extinction on earth, the amount of co2 released into the atmosphere then was many times more than we are releasing now.

Fact: All ice core data and scientific evidence suggests that co2 levels naturally rise in levels around 300 to 400 years after a rise in global temperature. Considering that around 400 years ago the earth came out of a mini ice age, this would suggest the rises in co2 are completely natural, and our 3 to 15 % additions of total additions dont make a rats ass of difference.

cerebus says:

11:05pm | 20/06/11

@Chrissy, if you don’t have time to research your claims and support them here, then you shouldn’t have time to make unsubstantiated claims as if they are fact.
If you make a claim, back it up, don’t make a claim and then tell people they should google it themselves. I have googled, I have found references, you can do the same.

cerebus says:

11:36pm | 20/06/11

@Chrissy, you refer to the Siberian Traps releasing lots of CO2 and causing mass extinction (the Permian-Triassic boundary).  So from this I infer two things…..1) you admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and 2) rapid rises in atmospheric CO2 leads to mass extinctions as whilst the planet recovers, many of the life on the planet (particularly the large ones) don’t.
My questions, based on these two assumptions, are then, what rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is acceptable, and what do you base this number on?

Chrissy says:

04:31pm | 21/06/11

@ cerebus:
If you go up 4 or 5 posts you will see that i clearly stated that c02 is a greenhouse gas, i would never make claim as to otherwise. I also stated that Methane is also a greenhouse gas with 25 times the greenhouse effect when compared to co2. Methane is another product of industry which for some reason is overlooked by the alarmists.

As for the siberian traps, the rises in co2 were not the one and only cause of climate change, the eruptions took place over millions of years and continued to release co2 into the atmosphere during this time, much more than we are releasing with human activity now.

Further to that, continental shift at the time brought the land masses together causing a super continent to form and super continents are known to cause warmer global temperatures.

But all these factors plus many more did make for a rise in temperatures yes, but it was not catastrophic until, UNTIL the temperatures rose by around 10 to 15 degrees warmer than they are now, at which time all the trapped methane at the bottom of the ocean began to melt, thus filling the atmopshere with methane which sent the temperature sky rocketing. It was methane not co2 that was the killer blow, co2 was only a number a factors in the equation.

But at that time co2 levels were way higher than they are today, above 20% of the atmosphere, right now at 0.0038% of the atmosphere it will take another 10 million years at the current rate to reach such a total…...

James says:

05:04pm | 17/06/11

I’m on the same side as anyone who accepts the conclusion of the vast majority of world’s best climate scientists i.e.

a)  The annual average global temperature is rising (planet is warming)
b)  Greenhouse gas emission due to human activity is responsible for the majority of the warming.
c)  This is a major risk to the viability of 7 billion humans all being feed and having enough water, that is, there is a real risk that global warming could reduce the maximum viable human population significantly.
d)  The only logical response to this threat is to reduce greenhouse gas emission emitted by human activity ASAP.

Graeme says:

07:29pm | 17/06/11

Probably the phrase you are looking for James is ‘post hoc, ergo propter hoc’.

James says:

10:02am | 20/06/11

Ah, Latin was phased out some time ago Graeme so I have no idea if that is the phrase I am looking for.

Chrissy says:

04:19pm | 20/06/11

@ james, So then, according to what you believe causes climate change, please tell me what you think brought the earth out of the last ice age some 17 000 years ago and into this inter glacial period which we are currently in? But be honest, dont dribble on with bullshit, because according to what you believe, the only explanation you could give me is that cave men were cooking more mammoth burgers on camp fires…........

Having said that im off to light my fireplace, its getting cold.

James says:

04:47pm | 20/06/11

Chissy, now is where you are going to have to grow up, you can’t get by with being ignorant anymore, your ignorance will have negative consequences, for you most of all.

To answer your question (are you listening well?):
The Average Global temperature of the Earth can be affected by a number of things:

a)  Earth’s orbit, that is where it is in long term cycles (distance from the sun)
b)  Solar output (how “bright” the sun is)
c)  Composition of the atmosphere (i.e. amount of greenhouse gases or how much solar energy is “trapped by the atmosphere”)

Scientists have ruled out a) and b) (which have been causes for climate change in the past as you suggest) leaving only c) does this compute?

cerebus says:

08:06pm | 20/06/11

@Chrissy, “Having said that im off to light my fireplace, its getting cold.”
Do you honestly think that that in any way refutes AGW?

cerebus says:

09:56am | 21/06/11

(Another comment that got lost, so I’m reposting)

@Chrissy, the “it’s cold here so AGW is rubbish” is a common argument I’ve seen, and yes, often it is used as an attempt to refute.
And since you haven’t provided evidence for any of your claims, the “it’s cold here” argument holds just as much weight as the rest of your claims.

James says:

10:35am | 21/06/11

Holy crap there is just no hope for you if you are that confused Chrissy.

a)  All of these factors you talk about need to be qualified by significance.  A cracker, is not the same as a grenade is not the same as a 1000 pound bomb is not the same as a nuke despite all being explosive devices the important bit is their magnitude.

The dominant factor once you have ruled out increased solar output (done and dusted), orbital change (global warming is happening on too fast a time scale for this to be the culprit), meteor impact (clearly not the culprit), increased volcanic activity (clearly not the case).

So Chrissy, you are going to have to pay very close attention here, global heating has happend mainly over the last 100 years, now which of the factors a) solar output b) earth orbit c) amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere has changed most in the last 100 years?

Chrissy says:

04:42pm | 21/06/11

James you are still dribbling, all the evidence you posted above which you feel backs up your claim is unproven science. If it were proven and settled we wouldnt be having this debate would we. Half the Australian public dont believe in man made global warming anymore, they had enough of the lies and dodgy science ( ie hockey stick graph and climate gate etc etc), most of us went on our own fact finding missions and realised we are being fed a load of furfies. Ive made it clear what i think causes climate change, including the current climate change.

So please without the dribble this time, just answer my original question. Else keep going on living with the pixies with the belief that a carbon tax is going to make any difference what so ever to the earth.

How naive are we to think we can play god and stabilize the climate with a tax?

Its fair dinkum the dumbest thing ive ever heard

cerebus says:

05:33pm | 21/06/11

@Chrissy, “most of us went on our own fact finding missions and realised we are being fed a load of furfies”

THEN SHOW US! Show us the information you found on these ‘fact finding missions’ and where you found them!  Show us the references! Allow us to see for ourselves the information which has convinced you, you never know, it might convince us…..or it might allow us to point to other resources refuting the ones you have consulted.

“Ive made it clear what i think causes climate change, including the current climate change.”
Yes, you have, what you haven’t done is provide a single piece of evidence to support your ‘thoughts”.  If all of this is simply “what I think” then we’re wasting our time, I will stick with the science thanks.

“How naive are we to think we can play god and stabilize the climate with a tax?’
With all due respect, does this perhaps point to a religious aspect to your position? I’m not trying to be smart, I’m just trying to work out if you are using the phrase “play god” in a generic sense to mean doing something you think we can’t achieve, or in an actual religious sense?

James says:

07:33pm | 21/06/11

Chrissy you are going to have to wise up YOU can’t see it but WE are in deep sh*t, I have a degree in physics I have studied the science in great detail, if you don’t understand that the science is settled they you are going to have to trust me that you really don’t understand what you are talking about.  I suggest you do research on the rate of change of climate, past (last 200,000 yrs) vs present (i.e. last 100 years).

Right now you are a liablity to yourself and your community, I can hope that you get it sooner rather than later and become part of the solution.

Chrissy says:

10:50pm | 21/06/11

Cerebus, im a taoist, we dont really have gods so my comment was just said in jest.

James, i hope one day the science will be settled and we can all jump on the same bandwagon, sing happy songs and dance around a camp fire. But that day is not today, and i cant see it happenning any time soon.

cerebus says:

10:28am | 22/06/11

@Chrissy, fair enough, the reason I asked is there have been suggestions that in many cases (particularly in the US) there is a connection between being religious and doubting AGW.

http://www.green-blog.org/2009/04/18/evangelical-christians-in-usa-help-spread-climate-denial-and-confusion/
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/blog/2010/03/creationism-global-warming-denial-and-scientific-integrity/

Here’s an interesting one with plenty of science too
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ackerman/Articles/p250-264Ackerman_rev.pdf

cerebus says:

11:41am | 22/06/11

“This is a strong statement, but anyone who has read key Taoist masters such as Lao Tzu knows to what extent this faith tradition emphasizes environmental stewardship as a sacred duty, something we simply must do in order to preserve our future and the balance of the entire world. Take climate change. The whole problem and challenge can be beautifully captured and explained through the concepts of Yin and Yang: The carbon balance between earth and sky is off kilter. This causes instability and disasters.”
“the Taoists are walking the walk. Over the last year or so they have installed solar panels on half of their thousands of temples around China and the job will be completed soon for all their sacred places. They are providing comprehensive guidance on all aspects of environmental and climate stewardship: water and land management, protection of biological diversity, energy efficiency of buildings, educational curricula, moral teachings, outreach through media and advocacy to business, etc.”
http://www.undispatch.com/taoism-the-way-for-climate-action-in-china

“...im a taoist, we dont really have gods…”

I’m intruiged, every reference I’ve come come across on Taoism seems to suggest there are deities? As you would undoubtedly know more about this than me, I’d be genuinely interested to hear how you feel that Taoism doesn’t really have gods?
“Traditional Chinese religion is determinedly polytheistic. Its deities arranged into a heavenly civil service that mirrors the bureaucracy of imperial China.”
http://www.religionfacts.com/taoism/deities.htm

Chrissy says:

12:56pm | 22/06/11

Being a taoist doesnt mean i have to tow the line of other taoists. I dont support the view that the carbon balance is off kilter at all.

And as i said, Taoism doesnt really have gods, its complicated and im not really interested in debating religion thanks.

cerebus says:

02:56pm | 22/06/11

@Chrissy, fair enough, I wasn’t trying to debate religion, I was actually interested, I don’t know much about Taoism, but I will do some more reasearch….

Chrissy says:

10:54pm | 21/06/11

Just a quick one, id give anything published by the abc about as much time of the day as i would a fly in my soup.

cerebus says:

10:55am | 22/06/11

@Chrissy, you prefer Murdoch perhaps?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/climate-change-deniers-damaging-us-scientists/story-e6frf7jx-1226078247113
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/scientists-demand-respect-for-their-work/story-e6frgcjx-1226078390107

Fairfax?
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/scientists-face-death-threats-over-climate-20110620-1gb3h.html

In this case, unless you are accusing the abc of manipulating or misquoting, then the source of the article is not relevant.  This wasn’t a link to a scientific resource, but I felt they were interesting comments from scientists, especially the one relating to sowing doubt.  You are free to disagree with their opinions

Chrissy says:

04:51pm | 21/06/11

Oh no here we go again, another alarmists rolling out the sea level crap in an effort to prove their point.

Sea levels like the temperature rise and fall for a variety of reasons. Reasons such as, polar caps melting, large fresh water lakes draining into the ocean, continental shift, continental upshift and down shift, post glacial rebound. External gravitational forces like the sun and moon whose orbits and distances are never constant, why even the earths rotation and tilt effects sea level.

No one has ever proven that current rises in sea level are due to more co2 in the atmosphere…...........

cerebus says:

05:25pm | 21/06/11

@Chrissy, once again you make claims with no references.
“The researchers found that since the late 19th century — as the world became industrialized — sea level has risen more than 2 millimeters per year, on average. That’s a bit less than one-tenth of an inch, but it adds up over time.”
“The predicted effects he cites aren’t new and are predicted by many climate scientists. But outside experts say the research verifies increasing sea level rise compared to previous centuries.”

So, are you disputing the results of this study? If so, where are your references?  If not, and you agree that it has risen as described (”..since the late 19th century — as the world became industrialized”), then the question becomes, where are your references to say that this is more likely due to “polar caps melting, large fresh water lakes draining into the ocean, continental shift, continental upshift and down shift, post glacial rebound. External gravitational forces like the sun and moon whose orbits and distances are never constant, why even the earths rotation and tilt effects sea level.” Or, if you prefer, your evidence that shows that whatever caused it, it couldn’t possibly be AGW?

All we’re asking for is evidence.  If you don’t have the time to find this evidence, where do you get your information from?
I understand you don’t believe in AGW, what I don’t understand is how you have come to that conclusion without research. If you’ve done the research, provide some links.

Or is the quote I mentioned in another post relevant here:
“I think it’s too easy for people to pick one little bit of this or that and constantly ram it home, because there are a lot of people in the world who know that you don’t have to be bright, you just have to sow doubt.”

cerebus says:

10:12am | 22/06/11

@Chrissy, I’ll agree with you that if you’re not willing to post links or proof read “dozens of documents” then all we have is your opinion, and in that case I am more than happy to stick with the science.

As for “we could post links supporting our views for ever”, that’s more that a little disingenuous, you are yet to post a link, and I suspect are yet to read any of the ones I posted.

I disagree completely that you can’t change my mind….I have changed my mind about many things I was implaccably opposed to in the past, for example the need for nuclear power.  I used to be totally against the idea, but after researching the issue and reading the science I have come around and now fully support nuclear as the best current option for cheap, emission free (or if you want to be thorough and include construction, low-emission) electricity.  In fact, I’d *prefer* climate change not to be connected to human activity (I never claimed 100% btw, but all the science points to humans being the major contributor), and am more than open to science showing that. I just haven’t seen any, all I have seen are unsupported opinions and cherry-picking.

You may find it boring, that’s your choice, but some of us feel this is a subject worth not giving up on…and in this case feel that the unqualified opinions need to be challenged, otherwise other people tend to pick up on those opinions and assume they are fact. You are free to have your opinion of course, but it would be helpful if you preface your comments with “This is my unsupported opinion”.

Manipulating that quote as you have doesn’t make sense.  The majority of the links I have posted aren’t opinion, they are science. If you feel they are the same then we have a more fundamental semantic issue to sort out before we can get anywhere.  My opinion is that Pink Floyd are the greatest band ever, science has nothing to say on the issue. Science says that the overwhelming probability is that AGW is correct, opinion should have nothing to say on the issue.  And don’t forget, opinions can be dangerous, there are many out there of the opinion that vaccinations lead to autism, that germ-theory is incorrect, that homepathy works…...in each case the science says differently.