is a crock of you know what
Finally, some good news - scientists find cities can be surprisingly good at soaking up carbon dioxide | Information, Gadgets, Mobile Phones News & Reviews | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/technology/finally-some-good-news-scientists-discover-cities-are-surprisingly-good-at-soaking-up-carbon-dioxide/story-e6frfro0-1226093101460)
they just happened to leave an important variable out of the equation. Could it explain why the Earth isn't warming the way they thought?

It appears the great minds (scientists some call them) who analyse climate etc attribute no value to vegitation in cities as carbon sinks and yet there are some who take what these dills serve up as absolute truth and a reason to change our way of life. I wonder what variable we shall find they left out next. Perhaps they left the oceans out of their calculations? I know how you can predict AGW; think of a number, double it, take away half the number you first thought of, divide by 9 and if what you have is a whole number use that, otherwise do the exercise again.The number you get is the predicted temperature rise by the year 2050

And then there's this: Nine Out of Ten Climate Denying Scientists Have Ties to Exxon Mobil Money - Environment - GOOD (http://www.good.is/post/nine-of-out-ten-climate-denying-scientists-have-ties-to-exxon-mobil-money/?fb_ref=rightrail)

And then there's this: Nine Out of Ten Climate Denying Scientists Have Ties to Exxon Mobil Money - Environment - GOOD (http://www.good.is/post/nine-of-out-ten-climate-denying-scientists-have-ties-to-exxon-mobil-money/?fb_ref=rightrail)

And then there's this: Nine Out of Ten Climate Denying Scientists Have Ties to Exxon Mobil Money - Environment - GOOD (http://www.good.is/post/nine-of-out-ten-climate-denying-scientists-have-ties-to-exxon-mobil-money/?fb_ref=rightrail)

So we have frauds on both side of the debate, which leads me to say I don't believe any of it. Look, Climate Change is happening, whether this is just an on going process, and there is evidence it might be, the result of human activity, and there might be evidence to support this theory, or the latest way of funding scientific research, and there is evidence it might be, there is also strong evidence to the contrary. We know there appears to be a group of scientists for hire by the tobacco industry, the oil indistry, the coal indistry, etc but there is also a group of scientists who make it up as they go along, and then there are the vested political interests who are using this to restructure the world economy

They are scientists... quid pro quo their research is unimpeachable... Isn't that what we were told about the leading climate scientists who's research support the hypothesis of human caused AGW ?

So we have frauds on both side of the debate, which leads me to say I don't believe any of it. look, Climate Change is happening, whether this is just an on going process, and there is evidence it might be, the result of human activity, and there might be evidence to support this theory, or the latest way of funding scientific research, and there is evidence it might be, there is also strong evidence to the contrary. We know there appears to be a group of scientists for hire by the tobacco industry, the oil indistry, the coal indistry, etc but there is also a group of scientists who make it up as they go along, and then there are the vested political interests who are using this to restructure the world economy



Global warming? Climate change? Climate cooling? Perhaps we can apply Occam's and come up with a micro view, rather than concentrating on a macro view of global warming/climate change/climate cooling. In this case science fiction may well be as good as science fact.

What might this fictional view view look like?

Sometime in the future climate scientists will eventually come to the conclusion we are slowly entering into a era where climate will manifest itself in terms of localized climatic phenomenon. The world might be looked at in terms of hundreds of mini climatic zones, each different, but each exhibiting a similar phenomena. That being, a dramatic almost day to day shift in climatic conditions.

For example, in the temperate zone during Winter minimum temperatures could range from -5 to 15 degrees within the one area on a regular basis. That is to say, day to day, week to week, during the Winter months We will get the impression we are experiencing a very brief period Summer in the middle of Winter. Exactly the same thing applies to Summer, i.e we are experiencing Winter condition in Summer, but only for a brief period.

Yes, I do dabble in science fiction writing. Sometimes science fiction becomes science fact.

Tut

Yes, I do dabble in science fiction writing. Sometimes science fiction becomes science fact.
Tut ;the 21st century HG Wells .

Of course it doesn't take a scientist to determine that a city park with trees is cooler than a city street without trees. I need to get me some of those research bucks.

Tut ;the 21st century HG Wells .


Hi Tom.

Yes, we don't want a group of scientists making the political decisions. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case at the moment.

This is the problem with democracy. Decision making is slow and in the end we never move away from the middle ground. Philip of Macedon understood this very well when it came to dealing with Athenians.

Perhaps some scientists are also aware of this principle.

Tut

They are scientists ...quid pro quo their research is unimpeachable ...Isn't that what we were told about the leading climate scientists who's research support the hypothesis of human caused AGW ?

Who told you that, you've been smoking dope with Ex again

Global warming? Climate change? Climate cooling? Perhaps we can apply Occam's and come up with a micro view, rather than concentrating on a macro view of global warming/climate change/climate cooling. In this case science fiction may well be as good as science fact.

What might this fictional view view look like?

Sometime in the future climate scientists will eventually come to the conclusion we are slowly entering into a era where climate will manifest itself in terms of localized climatic phenomenon. The world might be looked at in terms of hundreds of mini climatic zones, each different, but each exhibiting a similar phenomena. That being, a dramatic almost day to day shift in climatic conditions.

For example, in the temperate zone during Winter minimum temperatures could range from -5 to 15 degrees within the one area on a regular basis. That is to say, day to day, week to week, during the Winter months We will get the impression we are experiencing a very brief period Summer in the middle of Winter. Exactly the same thing applies to Summer, i.e we are experiencing Winter condition in Summer, but only for a brief period.

Yes, I do dabble in science fiction writing. Sometimes science fiction becomes science fact.

Tut

Tut we have tried that and look at the conclusion they came too. Interesting you have just described the winter/summer climate where I live. How many observations did you take?

Tut we have tried that and look at the conclusion they came too. Interesting you have just described the winter/summer climate where I live. How many observations did you take?

Hi Clete,


There are possibly many areas that have experienced a number of seasons within the one season so to speak. I have few observations and thus no evidence for the theory. There also exists the problem of drawing macro conclusions from micro facts.

If we keep going the same way then perhaps in a hundred years or so we will no longer experience Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter. The terms may well become superfluous in many areas.

Hey! It's no worse than any other theory on climate change going around at the moment. I just wish I had a few figures to fudge.


Tut

Hi Clete,


There are possibly many areas that have experienced a number of seasons within the one season so to speak. I have few observations and thus no evidence for the theory. There also exists the problem of drawing macro conclusions from micro facts.

If we keep going the same way then perhaps in a hundred years or so we will no longer experience Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter. The terms may well become superfluous in many areas.

Hey! it's no worse than any other theory on climate change going around at the moment. I just wish I had a few figures to fudge.


Tut

Hi Tut I think there are six seasons where I live maybe more now certainly there are not four distinct seasons. The bulbs in my garden are very confused. It seems we can have snow anytime up to December and what we would describe as winter conditions anytime. Summer has fled in recent years and now is a short hot period perhaps in late January. Global warming is a great theory but I think is only truly experienced in the high latitudes and these Antarctic blasts seem to be becoming more frequent. No data to to prove any of it. Ah for the heady days of my youth when we could expect at least one good heat wave

Hi Tut I think there are six seasons where I live maybe more now certainly there are not four distinct seasons. The bulbs in my garden are very confused. It seems we can have snow anytime up to December and what we would describe as winter conditions anytime. Summer has fled in recent years and now is a short hot period perhaps in late January. Global warming is a great theory but I think is only truely experienced in the high latitudes and these Antarctic blasts seem to be becoming more frequent. No data to to prove any of it. Ah for the heady days of my youth when we could expect at least one good heat wave

Hi again Clete,

In my youth I lived in Sydney and in the middle of Summer you could always rely on a 'southerly buster' to cool things down for a few days. Don't see many of them these days,

I usually try and get down to Mt Selwyn as much as possible during the ski season. The start of the ski season was just about perfect down there. Big snow falls just in time for the long weekend. I checked it out on the web cams they have in place and it looked absolutely perfect.

I thought I would wait a week after the event ( when the crowd goes home). Anyway, I checked out the web cams again just before I was about to leave and I couldn't believe my eyes. Most of the snow had disappeared due to the rain and warm conditions.

Anyway, it's back again. I acknowledge that Mt. Selwyn is not as high as the other ski resorts in Australia, but it was interesting nonetheless.

Tut

And in repression to that, all the other news refuting AGW and the fact that most Americans no longer believe in AGW (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gore-launches-climate-reality-project-asks-people-to-reject-mistruths-about-climate-crisis/), The Goracle is riding to the rescue.

The Climate Reality Project (http://climaterealityproject.org/)

And in repression to that, all the other news refuting AGW and the fact that most Americans no longer believe in AGW (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gore-launches-climate-reality-project-asks-people-to-reject-mistruths-about-climate-crisis/), The Goracle is riding to the rescue.

The Climate Reality Project (http://climaterealityproject.org/)

So we are once again to be subjected to Mr Gore's powerpoint presentation of selective facts but note climate change has become CLIMATE CRISIS and we need to realise climate change is not a matter of whether you believe it or not, it is happening but the idea that we can do anything about it is the big question mark. Science tells us many conflicting facts;
1. it is caused by human CO2 emissions.
2 only one fifth of CO2 emissions come from human activity.
3. global warming will continue for a hundred years even if emissions stop completely
4. renewables can replace all emitting energy production.
5. this is only a warm interlude between ice ages
6 glaciers are melting but some glaciers are still growing

And in repression to that, all the other news refuting AGW and the fact that most Americans no longer believe in AGW (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gore-launches-climate-reality-project-asks-people-to-reject-mistruths-about-climate-crisis/), The Goracle is riding to the rescue.

The Climate Reality Project (http://climaterealityproject.org/)


It doesn't really matter what most people believe; 99.9 percent of the population can be wrong at any one time.

Tut

Clete you forgot sunspots. I pick #5

It doesn't really matter what most people believe; 99.9 percent of the population can be wrong at any one time.

Tut

When your 'proof' is propaganda it's all that matters.

Clete you forgot sunspots. I pick #5

Well Tom that's not actually a scientic fact. We could also attribute it to approaching the galactic merdiian or some such. The point I was making, once again, is the science is not as settled as some would like to think and there are conflicting theories depending upon which disciple you consult. As our knowledge of this world is actually only a couple of hundred years old we really have no idea of what is normal, or even if a norm other than ice age exists. We have people digging up dinosaurs, finding tissue and still saying this creature died millions of years ago. We are worrying about CO2 when there are other things we should be more concerned about like getting us to hell out of here. We are, scientists say, overdue for a super volcano eruption, an asteroid strike, an extinction event, shift of the poles and facing starvation from over population, water shortages, depletion of energy sources. I think we have just outstayed our welcome and we have only been here a short time

When your 'proof' is propaganda it's all that matters.

Hi Speech,

Your statement is certainly true. It becomes a case of who is winning the battle for the hearts and minds of the population.

As I have said before, we are all extremely bad at predicting the future. Yet we see politicians galvanizing the population in opposing camps.

Strange isn't it? It is though one group knows the truth while the other group is deluded.

Tut

Strange isn't it? It is though one group knows the truth while the other group is deluded.

Tut

Hi Tut interesting observation but which group knows the truth?

but which group knows the truth?Hello again, clete:

Who cares, if the solution provides benefits which far exceed the costs to implement them? The bottom line is we are running out of fossil fuels, so we'll have to replace them anyway. Why not now? Plus, we'd have the added advantage of NOT transferring our wealth to nations that hate us, and we might create a few jobs in the process.

If we DID that, we may NEVER find out which group knows the truth, and it wouldn't bother me one bit.

excon

Last I heard the US had zero operating mines of the rare earth minerals required for alternative energies. The last one operating was shut down due to environmental concerns .So bottom line ;even with new technology we will still be net importers of energy from nations that hate us .

even with new technology we will still be net importers of energy from nations that hate us .Hello tom:

Not really. We won't be importing energy... We'll be importing the tools we need to MAKE our OWN energy... It's the difference between importing raw materials or importing finished products. It's a BIG difference, too.

excon

Hello again, clete:

Who cares, if the solution provides benefits which far exceed the costs to implement them? The bottom line is we are running out of fossil fuels, so we'll have to replace them anyway. Why not now? Plus, we'd have the added advantage of NOT transferring our wealth to nations that hate us, and we might create a few jobs in the process.

If we DID that, we may NEVER find out which group knows the truth, and it wouldn't bother me one bit.

excon

But ex what if you took the pain of higher energy prices and it didn't make any difference. I'm not against finding alternatives to fossil fuels but do you actually know, with all the emphasis on renewables, that they are predicting a rise in the use of fossil fuels after 2030. They already know it isn't going to work, the growth in demand is too great and we are going to take the pain now for nothing. We already have the solution both your nation and mine have vast reserves of uranium but we won't take the chance which is a very small risk really. Those jobs you need should be in construction of nuclear plants and we could put 50000 abos to work digging uranium where they have no prospect of employment now. What I know is we are too thick to see the obvious. That's the truth

they are predicting a rise in the use of fossil fuels after 2030. They already know it isn't going to work, the growth in demand is too great and we are going to take the pain now for nothing. Hello again, clete:

I don't know who THEY are. But, THEY seem to be saying we don't need to do the science, because THEY already KNOW the outcome...

Seems to me, the only people who would say that, are people who DENY basic science.

excon

Hello again, clete:

I don't know who THEY are. But, THEY seem to be saying we don't need to do the science, because THEY already KNOW the outcome...

Seems to me, the only people who would say that, are people who DENY basic science.

excon

No ex the forecasters are using simple equations based on on the same science used to forecast climate outcomes. In the next two decades renewables will significantly reduce production of CO2 from Coal/Oil however after 2030 new technologies like sequestration will increase the use of coal/oil again and the curve goes right back up to where it started and way beyond
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DiscussionPaper18.pdf. Look at the graph on page 15
There is also the problem of fugative emissions which no one is addressing.
Do some research man

Do some research manHello again, clete:

Ok. THEY were predicting that the Wright brothers would fail. They didn't. Instead they changed the future... About the same time, Bell was up against naysayers too - it's a good thing he didn't listen... He changed the future. There's more.

The research you'd like me to do can only uncover the PAST. It couldn't tell me about future breakthroughs... But, it DOES tell me that breakthroughs HAPPEN.

excon

Hello again, clete:

Ok. THEY were predicting that the Wright brothers would fail. They didn't. Instead they changed the future... About the same time, Bell was up against naysayers too - it's a good thing he didn't listen... He changed the future. There's more.

The research you'd like me to do can only uncover the PAST. It couldn't tell me about future breakthroughs... But, it DOES tell me that breakthroughs HAPPEN.

excon

It's not breakthroughs we need Ex it's breakouts. Our thinking is tied into our economy and so we only make incremental gains. 100 years after the Wright Brothers planes have just got bigger but the concept is the same, cars still use internal combustion engines. We must understand our past so we don't repeat our mistakes, but we must not be bound by it. No the research I'd like you to do is look at all aspects of the debate before you decide which side you are on.

No the research I'd like you to do is look at all aspects of the debate before you decide which side you are on.Hello again, clete:

Let's recap. We're running out of oil. If we want to maintain our present lifestyle, we're going to have to replace it. Personally, I'm for SEEKING out whatever it is that WILL replace it. You? Not so much.

What am I missing?

excon

PS> Oh, yeah... If we DO that, then whether the world is heating up or not WON'T matter anymore.

What am I missing?

excon



Your consensus scientists are missing the obvious Ex their calculations are WRONG. Yet another report of how far they are out
Forests absorb a third of fossil fuel carbon emissions - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-15/forests-absorb-a-third-of-fossil-fuel-carbon/2795884)

Now this doesn't solve the oil problem but it goes along way to solve climate change and AGW. The solution is simple stop the destruction of tropcial rainforest and the Amazon basin. It also tells us how much B/S we have been subject to from the so called scientists who gave us alarmist forecasts instead of firming up their research

I have given you the answer Ex but you didn't answer it. Nuclear! It seems like your ears are closed and you just want to push your argument first the garbage in the air barrow and now the peak oil barrow. We could also try wave energy there is plenty of ocean to go around, of course some of us have more than others

I have given you the answer Ex but you didn't answer it. Nuclear!.Hello again, clete:

I'm a supporter of nuclear energy.

excon

Hello again, clete:

I'm a supporter of nuclear energy.

excon

How unfashionable of you, but it appears you and I agree on that one. We will have to watch it here Ex, you and I are agreeing on more and more

Lord Monkton said something interesting in his address to the Australian Press Club yesterday. He said that mathematically and he is a mathematician it isn't possible to predict more than a 1 degree rise for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. His logic was that doubling of CO2 concentrations since 1790 had only produced 1 degree of warming. While I think his logic was a little off on the day and pure rhetoric, it sounds like a good reason to revisit the modelling and question the assumptions particularly those of catastrophic climate change which he claims is not borne out by the evidence
Oh lord, there's a climate sceptic in the house (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/oh-lord-theres-a-climate-sceptic-in-the-house-20110719-1hn9a.html?from=smh_sb)
Although this fellow is a scientist investigating weather variability he doesn't regard himself as a climate scientist. Begs the question then, what is a climate scientist?

Let's see what has come forth since I posted this thread, we have been told "scientists" underestimated the impact of forests on CO2 emissions and we have been told that modelling was inaccurate regarding heat loss from the Earth. Now we know what happened to "global warming" it got lost with the rest of the scientific B/S. Now I wonder how many grants will be given out to investigate all sorts of issues, such as heat lost into space, heat retained by the Earth, absorption of CO2 in oceans and forests and let's not forget urban gardens, and the impact of greater vegetation growth due to CO2 abundance. I want a grant to investigate catastrophic climate change on Mars. I think it might have some relevance to Earth after all Mars has a CO2 atmosphere and guess what? Its colder. Where did all these "scientists" come from. Why higher education of course. We have been turning out educated idiots for years and this is what we have got

Hey Ex how's this for a consensus
Nearly Three Quarters Believe Global Warming Data Falsified (http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/08/nearly-three-quarters-believe-global-warming-data-falsified/)
I'm willing to bet this is the sort of consensus you aren't willing to accept. It's not nice to find yourself on the wrong side of history. I 'know you are going to tell me these people aren't "scientists", but given the size of the population there must be a fair few "scientists" among them. Perhaps these are falsified statistics? Falsified in the same manner as the climate models were falisfied? Or is it that people have just lost faith in B/S

That poll is weak, It is an indisputable fact that the leading scientists ;heading the top climate research institutions ,proponents of man made AGW, falsified their data.

Hi Clete and Tom

Unfortunately when it comes to scientific consensus it doesn't matter what we think. We are not part of the consensus. Consensus is as an issue only applicable to the scientific community involved. This doesn't mean the consensus is right. It also doesn't mean we can't have an opinion.

Some consensus issue within science may be controversial within the public arena but non-controversial within the scientific community.


Tut

Tut ;don't you think that by definition 'consensus ' is anti-scientific by nature... especially when the consensus scientists control the media where their hypothesis should meet the falsifiable test ? Part of the most disturbing aspects of Climategate is the coordinated efforts to purge the publication of material that falsifies their work ;and to limit peer review to those that affirm their results.

Tut ;don't you think that by definition 'consensus ' is anti-scientific by nature ....especially when the concensus scientists control the media where their hypothesis should meet the falsifiable test ? Part of the most disturbing aspects of Climategate is the coordinated efforts to purge the publication of material that falsifies their work ;and to limit peer review to those that affirm their results.

Tom it is always the same with academia, a sense of ownership of the discipline, nooneelse has any authority or any right to question their absolute authority until they decide they have been wrong, except in this case there is no discipline just a lot of computer geeks doing some modelling and very incomplete modelling at that. I just have one comment bah humbug!

Tut ;don't you think that by definition 'consensus ' is anti-scientific by nature ....especially when the concensus scientists control the media where their hypothesis should meet the falsifiable test ? Part of the most disturbing aspects of Climategate is the coordinated efforts to purge the publication of material that falsifies their work ;and to limit peer review to those that affirm their results.


Hi Tom,

Very difficult question to answer.

Is it unscientific? Could be. A scientific consensus is not necessarily arrived at via the scientific method. Yes, a scientific consensus can the result of a shared political opinion.

Falsifiability is a great idea in the scientific and political world. Popper saw his method as an epistemology. Well, in theory anyway. When it comes to politics people are not generally in the mood to consider their ideas subject to falsification ( I haven't seen it here in this forum, left or right). It seems science suffers from the same problem.



Tut

The Goracle is coming unglued. Not the first time mind you but he seems especially frustrated now that most people don't believe in his scheme, 69 percent believe scientists have falsified the research (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/69_say_it_s_likely_scientists_have_falsified_globa l_warming_research) and in light of the new NASA study (aren't they the same scientists he's relied on before?) that blows a huge hole in the consensus opinion (http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html).

Mr. Gore has countered not with research but with screaming "BULLSH*T"!

Al Gore calls B.S. on climate change naysayers ... (http://soundcloud.com/realaspen/audio-recording-on-monday)


The model they’re using in that effort was transported whole cloth into the climate debate. And some of the same people — I can go down a list of their names — are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: “This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.” Bullsh*t! “It may be sun spots.” Bullsh*t! “It’s not getting warmer.” Bullsh*t (http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/08/08/290822/pissed-off-al-gore-calls-bull****-on-crap-peddled-by-climate-denial-machine/)!

There are about ten other memes out there. When you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again. They have polluted this — There’s no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. People have no idea! And yet our ability to actually come to a shared reality that emphasizes that this matters — It’s no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the godd**n word “climate.” They have polluted it to the point where we cannot possibly come to an agreement on it.

Attaboy Al, if junk science won't convince us to follow your dream, screaming and cursing at us will.

Hello again, Steve:

Ok, then. You can continue to throw your trash into the air and be GUILT free about it. We can continue to use ever more expensive oil and send our treasury over to Arabia. And, we can let the industry that's going to BE the moneymaker in this century, GO to China.

Now, I don't know why a right winger would embrace policies like that, but I don't know why right wingers do much of anything.

Personally, I don't CARE about Gore, or about his ideas or fortunes. You see, it doesn't take scientists for me to know that throwing your trash into the air isn't a good idea. To ME, it matters NOT, who delivers the message, but whether the message is credible.. Gore's is, and I don't care if only HE and I believe it.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Ok, then. You can continue to throw your trash into the air and be GUILT free about it.

You really need to do away with that straw man. It doesn't become any more true the more you say it, though it does follow today's Democrats' strategy, “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”.


To ME, it matters NOT, who delivers the message, but whether the message is credible.. Gore's is, and I don't care if only HE and I believe it.

And here I thought you liked science (http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html).

The Goracle is hot and bothered because he staked his future wealth on being on the ground floor of the carbon tax trading industry.

69 percent believe scientists have falsified the research Hello again, Steve:

What's your point? 58% of Republicans don't believe Obama is a citizen.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

What's your point? 58% of Republicans don't believe Obama is a citizen

And 72 percent of progressives thought Bush was going to install a theocracy before the 2008 election. The point was already made, such numbers depress Mr. Gore so now he's throwing tantrums.

The numbers depress me but I'm not throwing a tantrum. Reality is, even if the "climate scientists" are right, (BIG IF) nothing we do is going to reverse the trend. So MR Gore can rant and rave all he likes, it doesn't change the fact that he has been on the B/S end of climate facts

The Goracle is coming unglued. Not the first time mind you but he seems especially frustrated now that most people don't believe in his scheme, 69 percent believe scientists have falsified the research (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/69_say_it_s_likely_scientists_have_falsified_globa l_warming_research) and in light of the new NASA study (aren't they the same scientists he's relied on before?) that blows a huge hole in the consensus opinion (http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html).

Mr. Gore has countered not with research but with screaming "BULLSH*T"!


Al Gore calls B.S. on climate change naysayers ... (http://soundcloud.com/realaspen/audio-recording-on-monday)



Attaboy Al, if junk science won't convince us to follow your dream, screaming and cursing at us will.


Hi speech,

The words, "alarmist computer model" is being thrown around rather frequently in various articles. My guess is that an alarmist model is a worse case scenario model. In other words, there would be a number of competing models.

It is unlikely that this will blow a hole in the consensus simply because I think 'the consensus' at the moment is partly based on science and partly based on politics. In other words, it hard to demonstrate to any particular group that their politics is wrong.


Tut

So it is naysayers 1 Gore Nil we will just take a timeout in the game to review the state of play;

Atmosphere doesn't heat as much from CO2 emissions as predicted
Trees trap more CO2 than thought
Ocean traps more CO2 than thought
Cities vegetation trap more CO2 than thought
Data has been manipulated
Long term trends have been ignored

So it adds up to models that are not worth the time and effort to produce them. Of course Mr Gore is furious, all that lovely money is flying away.

Now perhaps we can get down to debating which technologies should be pursued on economic grounds

So it is naysayers 1 Gore Nil we will just take a timeout in the game to review the state of play;

Atmosphere doesn't heat as much from CO2 emissions as predicted
Trees trap more CO2 than thought
Ocean traps more CO2 than thought
Cities vegetation trap more CO2 than thought
Data has been manipulated
long term trends have been ignored

So it adds up to models that are not worth the time and effort to produce them. of course Mr Gore is furious, all that lovely money is flying away.

Now perhaps we can get down to debating which technologies should be pursued on economic grounds


Hi Clete,

If you conclusion is that computer models are limited in their prediction potential then I think this is a fair assumption. At least you have not fallen into the trap of the author of the original article, 'New NASA Data Blows Gaping Hole... '

I am sure there won't be a rethinking of the debate based on the NASA measurements for a number of reasons. Firstly, the author of the article commits the fallacy of modus tollens. In this case the absence of evidence doesn't prove the non-presence of something.

I think that any computer model based on the NASA data will suffer from the same problem as every other model. It will be just another competing model.

The problem will become, "which model to choose?". The answer will be to choose the model which best suits your political philosophy.

Tut

The problem will become, "which model to choose?". The answer will be to choose the model which best suits your political philosophy.

Tut

Hi Tut I think we have already been down that road and found that the bridge is rotten. We don't need another model or to rely on the pseudo science of computer modelling. What we need to do is stand back and take a serious look at where we are and what our capabilities are. Both you and I live in a country with some ridiculous targets; a 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 and an 80% reduction by 2050, The first target contributes nothing to reduction of world CO2 emissions and may even move production of coal/oil to countries which have no intention of making reductions and the second will cripple our economy for no result because nooneelse is doing this.

I refuse to sign on to the ideology of climate change just as I refused to sign on to the ideology of communism

Hi speech,

The words, "alarmist computer model" is being thrown around rather frequently in various articles. My guess is that an alarmist model is a worse case scenario model. In other words, there would be a number of competing models.

It is unlikely that this will blow a hole in the consensus simply because I think 'the consensus' at the moment is partly based on science and partly based on politics. In other words, it hard to demonstrate to any particular group that their politics is wrong.


Tut

Thanks, I can certainly agree that the consensus is a mix of politics and science. If we can all agree on that much we have a starting point. Science shouldn't have a political agenda, and that's the crux of the 'deniers' message. In other words, Gore has the right word for it... but it should be aimed at him.

Why don't we get back to talking about real science, i.e. observation, hypothesis, data and not the pseudo science of computer modelling where the outcome is a set of assumptions. These assumptions have been demonstrated not to have any resemblance to the real world and should be junked. Gore presented his own line of B/S which has been shown to be a very narrow view of a vast sea of knowledge, His conclusions are flawed and should be junked.

Why don't we get back to talking about real science, ie observation, hypothesis, data and not the pseudo science of computer modelling where the outcome is a set of assumptions. These assumptions have been demonstrated not to have any resemblence to the real world and should be junked.

Hi Clete,

Unfortunately 'real science' (classical science) has shown to be inadequate when it is applied to climate change. This comes as no surprise because weather forecasting suffers from exactly the same problem.

The real world goes a lot deeper than classical science allows. It is realized that quantum effects (the extremely tiny) have implications for the world of the very large (real world). Classical predictions don't match Quantum predictions ( shown to be true using very basic experiments).

Unfortunately, quantum computer modelling is a long way off. In other words, we are stuck with what we have got.

Tut

Yeah ;hide the decline here ;forget to read that indicator there ,manipulate it until it matches a predetermined conclusion;fudge a result here and there, suppress peer review . That's what passes for 21st century science.

yeah ;hide the decline here ;forget to read that indicator there ,manipulate it until it matches a predetermined conclusion;fudge a result here and there, suppress peer review . That's what passes for 21st century science.


Hi Tom,

You have come up with a pretty massive generalization here. You mean 'what passes' for some scientists. It is not typical of 21century science.

I'm sorry you are disappointed in 21 st century science but science like everything else moves on. The Hockey Stick graph is now history; all be it an unfortunate part. Obviously some scientists suffered from weakness of will.

There has been and will continue to be new research and new data to crunch. Data is not from temperature alone. It can range from anything to lightning activity to shifts in ice packs. New ways of using new information is being created all the time. This is way we have so many competing models.

There doesn't seem to be a way deciding upon the best model because there seems to be a problem matching prediction with observation. No surprise here.

Tut

Hi Tom,

Obviously some scientists suffered from weakness of will.



Do you really think that is what they suffer from Tut? I think they were all too willing to make outrageous pronostications out of ego, greed and stupidity. In any case I don't think these modellers are scientists because they didn't follow scientific disciple but worked in an opportunistic manner. They are charlatans!

If we cannot predict the weather with real accuracy more that a few days out what makes these idiots think they can predict the weather years in advance using statistics

The same is true in other fields so climate scientists are in "good company" .

If we cannot predict the weather with real accuracy more that a few days out what makes these idiots think they can predict the weather years in advance using statistics

Hi Clete,

If we extend anything far enough we will eventually expose its weakness. I think this is true of classical science. However, this does not stop us from trying. It is only by exploring our theories and pushing them to the limit we will eventually come to see the need for a different approach.

Actually, weather forecasters sometimes get it wrong in a two day forecast but they don't just give up and go home. Quantum computers are a long way off so all they can do is work with the knowledge they have.

When it comes to computer modelling all they have are bits, 0 or 1 , on off, true or false; whatever you want to call it. In an odd sort of way the scientific method mirrors this technology.

Naturally, any climate scientist would rather have a small quantum computer than a state of the art super computer.

At the moment, and possibly for a long time to come, we are paying the political price for being in the middle of 'a change over' so to speak.

Just my opinion

Tut

P.S. "Weakness of will". Actually I was just being polite. I think you estimation is probably closer to the mark

At the moment, and possibly for a long time to come, we are paying the political price for being in the middle of 'a change over' so to speak.



Hi Tut

Political price? There should not be a political price associated with a piece of unproven computer modelling in fact it should not be in the political arena at all. What we have here is pure political opportunism on the part of a lobby which is anti our way of life.

anti our way of life.Hello again, clete:

Anti your way of life?? Really?? Do you like driving? Do you like keeping warm? How about reading at night? If we don't find another energy source, you'll be walking to work.

So, whether burning oil is damaging our environment, or NOT, is a moot point, because WHO cares? We're going to STOP burning it in any case, whether we like it or not. So, seeking an alternative energy source is, to my way of thinking, not anti our way of life at all...

excon

Hello again, clete:

Anti your way of life??? Really??? Do you like driving? Do you like keeping warm? How about reading at night? If we don't find another energy source, you'll be walking to work.

So, whether burning oil is damaging our environment, or NOT, is a moot point, because WHO cares? We're gonna STOP burning it in any case, whether we like it or not. So, seeking an alternative energy source is, to my way of thinking, not anti our way of life at all...

excon

Well Ex perhaps you haven't examined the manifesto or the political utterings of a political party called the Greens but among other ratbag ideas they have called for the shutdown of the coal industry to be replaced by renewable technologies. These dills have taken no account of the environmental cost of extracting the rare Earths needed for these technologies, the fact that a large part of the source is in the hands of the Chinese or the environmental damage caused by the refinement of silicon used in solar cells where there is no net gain in CO2 emissions. They happen to hold the political balance of power in my nation and others at the moment and clearly are willing to destroy our way of life to reduce emissions.

They happen to hold the political balance of power in my nation and others at the moment and clearly are willing to destroy our way of life to reduce emissions.Hello again, clete:

Well, then if you haven't been able to convince those in your own nation, why should we believe you?

In any case, I don't carry water for any wing of any party, and they all have nutbags.

excon

Hello again, clete:

Well, then if you haven't been able to convince those in your own nation, why should we believe you?



There is only one way to convince them Ex and sadly that is illegal. I'm sure you know what it is like when a minority forces an issue, I think we were able to observe that in your own land recently and the outcome was a resounding GONG!

I know you are not going to believe me, it is of no consequence.

I guess Obama really did cause the oceans to stop rising.

Weather cycles cause a drop in global sea level, scientists find (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/weather-cycles-cause-a-drop-in-global-sea-level-scientists-find/2011/08/25/gIQA6IeaeJ_story.html)


The global sea level this summer is a quarter of an inch lower than last summer, according to NASA scientists, in sharp contrast to the gradual rise the ocean has experienced in recent years.

The change stems from two strong weather cycles over the Pacific Ocean — El Niño and La Niña — which shifted precipitation patterns, according to scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. The two cycles brought heavy rains to Brazil and Amazon, along with drought to the southern United States.

So it's just weather after all.

According to the Goracle you are a racist for questioning AGW .

Weather cycles cause a drop in global sea level, scientists findHello again, Steve:

Nahhh. The ocean is simply spilling off the edges of the flat earth.

excon

:p

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh. The ocean is simply spilling off the edges of the flat earth.

excon

Even though you can't hit the effin' ball, once in a while you get a real zinger. That was good, lol.

Even though you can't hit the effin' ball, once in a while you get a real zinger. That was good, lol.

Here's another one we can laugh at. Apparently Greenland isn't green after all or at least not as green as climate scientists would have us believe. One more bastion of misinformation has been uncovered
Times Atlas of the World row: Hold on, Greenland isn't really that green | Space, Military and Medicine | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/row-over-the-times-comprehensive-atlas-of-the-world-showing-greener-greenland/story-fn5fsgyc-1226142456026)

I love this quote from the article, "The company admitted yesterday that the 15 per cent figure was incorrect, but said it stood by the accuracy of the new maps in the 13th edition of the atlas."

Ain't that rich, and typical of consensus "science" - we're wrong, but we aren't changing our minds. LOL.

Hello again:

I spose you can find scientists who disagree with the consensus, when their living depends on their disagreement... Those guys don't impress me.

But, scientists, who pursue science for the sake of science, understand that there's a downside to throwing your trash into the air..

I don't doubt, however, that you could find a private industry scientist who'll tell you that throwing your trash into the air is GOOD!

excon

Once again instead of acknowledging the point, that the publishers admitted their figure was incorrect but stood by their maps, you throw up that trash in the air straw man. No one says that's good but you.

Once again instead of acknowledging the point, that the publishers admitted their figure was incorrect but stood by their maps, you throw up that trash in the air straw man. No one says that's good but you.Hello again, Steve:

Ok, but what's the POINT you're making?? From what I can gather, it's that global warming ISN'T a result of throwing your trash into the air... I'm left with the impression that you don't think throwing your trash into the air HAS a downside...

If you BELIEVE that throwing your trash into the air ISN'T good, which is what I THINK you're trying to say, what DO you believe it's doing?

excon

Ex you are back to that ridiculous argument put forward by your government that CO2 is trash. CO2 is a natural substance, EX, and every time you breath you throw this "trash" in the air. Stop it man before it's too late and you become overheated.

Do you know, Ex, that this global warming argument was thunk up by Margaret Thatcher to justify building nuclear reactors?

Ex you are back to that rediculous argument put forward by your government that CO2 is trash. CO2 is a natural substance, EX, and every time you breath you throw this "trash" in the air. Stop it man before it's too late and you become overheated.

Do you know, Ex, that this global warming argument was thunk up by Margaret Thatcher to justify building nuclear reactors?


Hi Clete,

Depends on how you define 'pollutant' or 'trash', as in the case of Ex.

Salt is a natural occurring substance and is important to the overall health of the environment. However, too much salinity results in the degradation of the environment. This doesn't make it harmless and desirable in large quantities. Every time we exercise we are putting salt into the environment.

No one would suggest this is a problem. The toxic properties only become evident when we talk about the amount being produced in a particular environment.

Tut

Hi Clete,

Depends on how you define 'pollutant' or 'trash', as in the case of Ex.


Tut

Now Tut that's not nice, to call Ex "trash".

As far as salt is concerned again another natural occurring element that causes an environmental problem and by Ex's definition "trash". Therefore the use of salt should be banned. Are we going to ban Lithium too? No we have singled out CO2 because it suits some to find something they can tax.

I wonder has anyone asked who invented the industries that cause these problems?

Now Tut that's not nice, to call Ex "trash".

Yes, you are right I''m sure his sexual behaviour is just as moral as anyone.



As far as salt is concerned again another natural occuring element that causes an environmental problem and by Ex's definition "trash". Therefore the use of salt should be banned.




Is this what he is claiming? I think Ex would have have something to say on that.

Yes Tut I'm sure Ex has a long list of trash after all it's an easy argument, just call it trash

Hello clete:

Water is a natural occurring substance.. We can't live without it. Yet, too much, and you're dead... CO2 in the atmosphere is the same thing, but too much and we're dead.

Now, you can wear your blinders and deny that too much CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth to heat up... But, it will in SPITE of your blinders... So, I call it trash.. You call it wonderful... It's going to kill us no matter what we call it.

excon

Hello clete:

Water is a natural occurring substance.. We can't live without it. Yet, too much, and you're dead... CO2 in the atmosphere is the same thing, but too much and we're dead.

Now, you can wear your blinders and deny that too much CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth to heat up... But, it will in SPITE of your blinders... So, I call it trash.. You call it wonderful... It's going to kill us no matter what we call it.

excon

OK so now water is trash. I think you don't realise that what we are arguing about is how much as too much. We can't have too much H2O because the amount of H2O always stays the same. You think we are making more CO2 but are we? All that is happening is that we are realising it from where it is trapped. I don't think you are in danger of being killed by CO2 Ex unless you deliberately place yourself in a tank of CO2. The whole argument is spirious, put together by a bunch of wankers. The Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 and we are all still here, it didn't kill anyone

ok so now water is trash. I think you don't realise that what we are arguing about is how much as too much.



Hi Clete,

I think this is where the discussion needs to focus.

As you are aware the Murray-Darling Basic is suffering form a salinity problem. Nothing too unusual here salt has long been a natural part of the environment in this particular area. A problem comes about when there is too much. Salt becomes toxic to the natural flora of the area.

In a similar fashion CO2 has been around for a long time in various quantities. Again, nothing too unusual. However, CO2 like salt can cause toxicity when excess amounts are dissolved in the oceans of the world.
Apparently it raises the PH levels near the surface.

It only poses a problem for small organisms and coral. It is not a problem for us because we are at the other end of the food chain. Or is it?

Tut

Hello again, Steve:

Ok, but what's the POINT you're making??? From what I can gather, it's that global warming ISN'T a result of throwing your trash into the air... I'm left with the impression that you don't think throwing your trash into the air HAS a downside...

If you BELIEVE that throwing your trash into the air ISN'T good, which is what I THINK you're trying to say, what DO you believe it's doing?

excon

It's a really simple point ex, the expert in this case says, "yes, we're wrong, but we don't care." Maybe I'm being picky but that doesn't inspire much confidence in the expert or their research.

P.S. I've already told you a gazillion times that I like clean air.

Hi Clete,

I think this is where the discussion needs to focus.

As you are aware the Murray-Darling Basic is suffering form a salinity problem. Nothing too unusual here salt has long been a natural part of the environment in this particular area. A problem comes about when there is too much. Salt becomes toxic to the natural flora of the area.

In a similar fashion CO2 has been around for a long time in various quantities. Again, nothing too unusual. However, CO2 like salt can cause toxicity when excess amounts are dissolved in the oceans of the world.
Apparently it raises the PH levels near the surface.

It only poses a problem for small organisms and coral. It is not a problem for us because we are at the other end of the food chain. Or is it?

Tut

Tut the Murray Darling salinity problem arises out of excessive irrigation, you could blame water, or you could put the blame where it lies with agriculture on unsuitable land. We should not be using European and American techiques when growing stuff in our soils.

As far as the acidity of oceans is concerned this is a natural process and the only reason we are concerned is coral bleaching. Nothing we do in Australia will have any effect on that. I don't know to what extent it affects krill but the fish stocks are being depleted by commercial fishing not CO2 absorption.

So what do we have here; two pieces of environment damage caused by blatant commercialism and of course CO2 emissions have the same cause

Tut the Murray Darling salinity problem arises out of excessive irrigation, you could blame water, or you could put the blame where it lies with agriculture on unsuitable land. We should not be using European and American techiques when growing stuff in our soils.

as far as the acidity of oceans is concerned this is a natural process and the only reason we are concerned is coral bleaching. Nothing we do in Australia will have any effect on that. I don't know to what extent it affects krill but the fish stocks are being depleted by commercial fishing not CO2 absorption.

So what do we have here; two pieces of environment damage caused by blatant commercialism and of course CO2 emissions have the same cause



Hi Clete,

I didn't quite get your last point. Are you say that CO2 is the result of commercialism in a similar fashion to salinity?


ALso,I should have included the study.

Impacts of Anthropogenic CO2 on Ocean Chemistry and Biology (http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/spot_gcc.html)


Cities and rainforests are very good at absorbing excess CO2 and apparently so are the oceans of the world. Commercialism is the problem. Nothing wrong with commercialism, we all need the benefits of that. The problem seems to be that we are producing CO2 at a rate that is not sustainable in terms of the environment.

By this I mean we cannot keep increasing the amount of CO2 and expect the natural process to rectify the problem for us.


Tut

Who is we ? I've yet to see the evidence that human emission of
C02 contributes significantly to any overall global levels.

Hi Clete,

I didn't quite get your last point. Are you say that CO2 is the result of commercialism in a similar fashion to salinity?


ALso,I should have included the study.

Impacts of Anthropogenic CO2 on Ocean Chemistry and Biology (http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/spot_gcc.html)


Cities and rainforests are very good at absorbing excess CO2 and apparently so are the oceans of the world. Commercialism is the problem. Nothing wrong with commercialism, we all need the benefits of that. The problem seems to be that we are producing CO2 at a rate that is not sustainable in terms of the environment.

By this I mean we cannot keep increasing the amount of CO2 and expect the natural process to rectify the problem for us.

. Tut

Tut

This world has survived various levels of CO2 concentration, the CO2 problem is a furrfy. You rightly agree commercialisation is the problem but there is another problem we don't want to address and it ultimately will do more damage to the human race than CO2, that is population. We have exceeded our population limit, this is made obvious by the incidence of famine and various food availability problems. We take up 1% of available land apparently but already we have problems. Our lifestyle is unsustainable. It wasn't a problem when the population was 2 billion just a short century ago but now at 7 billion we are the problem, not CO2. We are rapidly depleting the resources of the world

Tom is right our CO2 emissions represent 20% of all emissions, this is a beat up problem for political purposes. In Australia it is being used as an excuse for socialist wealth redistribution.Yes commercialisation is the problem. Our processes are wastefull and inefficient whether it is commercial fishing, crop production, oil and coal usage, energy consumption, the list goes on.

who is we ? I've yet to see the evidence that human emission of
C02 contributes significantly to any overall global levels.

Hi Tom,

It can be seen in the first paragraph of, "Impacts of Anthropogenic CO2 on Ocean Chemistry and Biology". Posted earlier.

It is not an argument for global warming but an argument to say why we shouldn't be putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere. It is starting to have toxic ramifications for organisms at the bottom of the food chain.

As to human contributions in all of this?

Taken from first paragraph:

A group of fifty international experts discussed how the release of huge amounts of CO2 from fossil fuel burning, land-use pracitices and cement production will affect the chemistry and biology of the oceans.

For 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution,atmospheric CO2 concentrations remained between 200 to 280 ppm. As the result of industrial and agricultural activities, current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are about 380 ppm and increasing at a rate of 1% per year.



Tut

Hi Tom,

It can be seen in the first paragraph of, "Impacts of Anthropogenic CO2 on Ocean Chemistry and Biology". Posted earlier.

It is not an argument for global warming but an argument to say why we shouldn't be putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere. It is starting to have toxic ramifications for organisms at the bottom of the food chain.

As to human contributions in all of this?

Taken from first paragraph:

A group of fifty international experts discussed how the release of huge amounts of CO2 from fossil fuel burning, land-use pracitices and cement production will affect the chemistry and biology of the oceans.

For 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution,atmospheric CO2 concentrations remained between 200 to 280 ppm. As the result of industrial and agricultural activities, current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are about 380 ppm and increasing at a rate of 1% per year.

Tut

Tut

Time to forget the studies and use common sense, which is in short supply. Modelling tells us only that something might happen. Observation tells us what has happened. In between there is a vast gulf which has been poorly intrepreted. You cannot extrapolate what has happened into a truthfull scenario because we do not know the peremeters, Yes, CO2 concentrations are increasing but not at the rate predicted and there are parts of the world seeing effects but many of the effects attributed to the effect of rising CO2 concentrations are within normal and past experience, what is making it more obvious is greater population and better communications. Maybe you should read Asimov's trilogy to understand the effect of runaway modelling. Tomorrow I have a one in 3200 chance something will fall on my head. Do you realise this is a greater chance that the possibility the predictions are right?

Time to forget the studies and use common sense, which is in short supply.Hello again, clete, flat earther:

Common sense says that more CO2 in the atmosphere will trap more heat.. Common sense says that burning carbon based stuff creates, or releases MORE CO2. It's common sense to think that stuff will melt if it gets warmer.

I call what comes out of smoke stacks, trash. You call it wonderful... You can call it whatever you wish, but you're fooling yourself.

Most people ain't fooled, though.

excon

Hello again, clete, flat earther:

Common sense says that more CO2 in the atmosphere will trap more heat..

Common sense? What happened to science?

Hello again, clete, flat earther:

Common sense says that more CO2 in the atmosphere will trap more heat.. Common sense says that burning carbon based stuff creates, or releases MORE CO2. It's common sense to think that stuff will melt if it gets warmer.

I call what comes out of smoke stacks, trash. You call it wonderful... You can call it whatever you wish, but you're fooling yourself.

Most people ain't fooled, though.

excon

What part of the brain you were born with tells you CO2 traps heat or that burning releases CO2? Someone told you this Ex because observation tells you that which is burned reduces to ash. I don't call smoke and ash wonderful but the ash can be useful, which more than can be said for the people who told you CO2 is trash. You speak of most people and you are right, most people aren't fooled by this nonsense, in fact, they are becoming quite angry when confronted with the costs being imposed on society by those who think as you do.

You don't like CO2, plant some trees

Common sense says that burning carbon based stuff creates, or releases MORE CO2. Most people ain't fooled, though.

excon

Hey Ex you really need to get the facts it appears switching away from coal to gas actually makes things worse or so the scientists think
Coal seam gas could 'accelerate' warming (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/coal-seam-gas-could-accelerate-warming-20110923-1kpdf.html)
Who is for throwing some trash in the air now?

Time to forget the studies and use common sense, which is in short supply.



There seems to be a disagreement here at the moment as to what is common and sensible. Why is my common sense better than yours? It's not. Yours is just as good as mine. That's why I prefer the studies.





Modelling tells us only that something might happen. Observation tells us what has happened. In between there is a vast gulf which has been poorly intrepreted. You cannot extrapolate what has happened into a truthfull scenario because we do not know the peremeters,



I probably would disagree with that. Most of the studies of CO2 ocean sinks are based on actual data . What is most useful in this argument are not the linear extrapolations used for modelling the future but what has happened from the beginning of the industrial age to the present.




Yes, CO2 concentrations are increasing but not at the rate predicted and there are parts of the world seeing effects but many of the effects attributed to the effect of rising CO2 concentrations are within normal and past experience, what is making it more obvious is greater population and better communications. Maybe you should read Asimov's trilogy to understand the effect of runaway modelling. Tomorrow I have a one in 3200 chance something will fall on my head. Do you realise this is a greater chance that the possibility the predictions are right?





I haven't read it. You would have to explain the 'possibility' and 'prediction' thing to me.

Tut

I haven't read it. You would have to explain the 'possibility' and 'prediction' thing to me.

Tut

It is about relying too much on predictive mathematics

Hey Ex you really need to get the facts it appears switching away from coal to gas actually makes things worse or so the scientists think
Coal seam gas could 'accelerate' warming (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/coal-seam-gas-could-accelerate-warming-20110923-1kpdf.html)
who is for throwing some trash in the air now?


Hi Clete,

Interesting article.

Right from the very beginning I was suspicious that in Australia we were just going to swap one form of pollution for another. I wasn't actually thinking in terms of other greenhouse gases. I was thinking more about such things as erosion and damage to the water table form gas exploration.

To be honest I don't really see why our small country has to be the white mice in a green experiment. I though the carbon tax was a good idea in the beginning. Now I have cold feet on the issue.


Tut

Hi Clete,

Interesting article.

Right from the very beginning I was suspicious that in Australia we were just going to swap one form of pollution for another. I wasn't actually thinking in terms of other greenhouse gases. I was thinking more about such things as erosion and damage to the water table form gas exploration.

To be honest I don't really see why our small country has to be the white mice in a green experiment. I though the carbon tax was a good idea in the beginning. Now I have cold feet on the issue.


Tut

Tut you are starting to get the point. We don't need to be the leader and we don't want to be the laughing stock as one of the few who swallowed the rubbish. Who else has a target to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050? It is quite ridiculous both as a target and the resources necessary to achieve it. I was part of the NSW power industry when it went it alone under Bob Carr to reduce emissions by 20%. If you are living in NSW you are reaping the rewards of that. Massive increases in electricity pricing along with massive increases in infrastructure for what? We are told we must reduce consumption so why are we making huge investments in infrastructure? I'm not talking about power stations.The existing infrastructure meets our needs and the future must pay their own bills. We live in a world gone mad

Not only will the EPA need to hire 230,000 employees to enforce their "absurd" and “impossible to administer” (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/who-job-creators-part-deux-cause-somebodys-always-closing-threads-596620-12.html#post2900690) rules, they violated their own policy and peer review process (http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/weird-science-epas-own-inspector-general-calls-green-house-gas-science-flawed/#ixzz1ZHep4ET5) in determining that greenhouse gases are bad for us.


In response to a report that could lead to questions about the credibility of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is calling for hearings to investigate. The report — from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the EPA — reveals that the scientific basis, on which the administration’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases hinged, violated the EPA’s own peer review procedure.

In a report released Wednesday (at Sen. Inhofe’s request, dating back to April) the inspector general found that the EPA failed to follow the Data Quality Act and its own peer review process when it issued the determination that greenhouse gases cause harm to “public health and welfare.”

But we're supposed to trust them, right?

Why are you required to trust any arm of government just because they are there?They are an extension of whatever political party is in power