USA OUTLAWS EU Carbon Tax...

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

None of that 'nasty' ole Carbon Tax' for us ....say USA....:=

From AvWeb
"
HOUSE PASSES BILL OUTLAWING EU CARBON TAX
The European Union has delayed implementation of its controversial airline carbon tax to 2014, citing progress on a global carbon emission effort by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). However, the U.S. House of Representatives increased the pressure against the EU's plan with passage of a bill that will make it illegal for U.S. airlines to pay the tax. The bill passed after only a few minutes of debate Tuesday. "In my view, the EU's proposed emissions trading scheme is inconsistent with international aviation law and practice," said Rep. Nick Rahall. D-W.Va. "It goes against international law and agreements. It brings the hand of European regulators into our own airspace." More...

Some sense at last... :D
(IMHO...):}

[peterc005]

After all the hubris in Australia, the implementation of a Carbon Tax here was a big non-event. I think it was inevitable and would have been done eventually by either of the major political parties.

Global Warming is already having a detrimental effect on weather patterns and sea levels. A Carbon Tax is an essential step to help mitigate Global Warming.

[...still single]

A Carbon Tax is an essential step to help mitigate Global Warming.

Well, you can't help stupid.

But, you can tax it.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

I got stuck for four days in Broome earlier this year after importing an aircraft from Indonesia while they worked out
A) Did I have airconditioning ($3000 tax if I did)
B) Did I have an ozone depleting substance in the fire extinguisher (fcukin A!, bromochlorodiflouromethane, Halon 1211, BCF, as fitted to almost every other aircraft in Oz and it sure as hell eats ozone!):E
C) Who was actually going to come out and look at this stuff!

But it's all good! Bend over and grab your ankles with a smile because WE'RE SAVING THE WORLD WITH THIS BULLSIHT!!!:rolleyes:
narf....

[Jenna Talia]

Global Warming is already having a detrimental effect on weather patterns and sea levels. A Carbon Tax is an essential step to help mitigate Global Warming.

FFS :ugh: :rolleyes:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Hey, Pete, maybe your next big support issue could be doing something about those nasty contrails?:sad:

[Oktas8]

A Carbon Tax is an essential step to:

A) ...help mitigate global warming.
B) ...be seen to be Doing Something.
C) ...increase revenue in this difficult time.
D) ...mimic our important allies overseas.

Answer matrix:
A) Assigned to Public Relations office.
B) Assigned to Political Liaison office.
C) Assigned to Chief Commissioner's office. Entry to the management fast-track programme.
D) Assigned to Policy Creation unit.

[Jenna Talia]

...and the final answer: Assigned to the Department of Stupidity :rolleyes:

[Rich-Fine-Green]

Global Warming is already having a detrimental effect on weather patterns and sea levels. A Carbon Tax is an essential step to help mitigate Global Warming. :hmm:

Hey Pete, your belief in global warming is admirable...:rolleyes:

Have you thought about a hobby change that burns less dinosaurs - Forestry or Bird Watching Perhaps?.

[baswell]

Peter, Peter, Peter, what were you thinking? This is the RUMOUR network.

1 out of every 100 scientists is rumoured to say global warming is not human-caused and is not changing the climate, so that's the one we go with. :ok:

Is that so hard to understand?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re
"I think it was inevitable and would have been done eventually by either of the major political parties."

NOT by the ONE 'Oi' would vote for Pete.......

:=

[Avid Aviator]

NOT by the ONE 'Oi' would vote for
I didn't realise Pauline was running for parliament again!! :p

[Frank Arouet]

It's my humble opinion that peterc005 is a paid troll.

Been done to death here and elsewhere and feeding that identity only encourages it.

"Say agian please,,,, do you want sauce with those chips".

Bad spelling inteentional for the spelling police!

[Flying Binghi]

.


via Frank Arouet;
It's my humble opinion that peterc005 is a paid troll.


Frank Arouet, why so worried about peterc005 ? Not a global warming hysteric are yer..:confused:

Its fairly obvious that climate hysteric peterc005 has a very limited understanding of the 'global warming' issue so methinks best leave em to-it... good value..;)



WUWT covers Europe - EU aircraft carbon emissions tax crashes and burns | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/aircraft-carbon-emissions-tax-crashes-and-burns/)






.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Global Warming is already having a detrimental effect on weather patterns and sea levels. A Carbon Tax is an essential step to help mitigate Global Warming.

Peter, you are training to be a pilot. Obviously, you have studied a small amount of meteorology. What drives weather, what stores the heat and what mixes it all up?

The laws of Thermodynamics are inviolate!

What amount of tax will change the temperature of the Earth by even a tenth of a degree?

The green movement is annoyed that Peak Oil is a myth. If the stuff doesn't run out then we are just going to have to make it too expensive to use!

[Sunfish]

The least pollutiing business is the most profitable business.

If one aircraft is spewing more CO2 than another equivalent aircraft then the first aircraft is using more fuel and generating less profit.

What the tax does is efficiently and accurately send a message to European airlines and European manufacturers to invest in building and flying more fuel efficient aircraft.

The net result of failure of the Americans to follow suit will be exactly the same as happened to their auto industry - the American gas guzzler got knocked off the road by the more economical VW and Japanese imports.

Dont argue about economics if you don't know what you are talking about.

[Frank Arouet]

And Coriolis effect should keep those nasty northern hemisphere gasses away from us in the south. Can't wait for the sea level rise. I'll have waterfront and the joint will skyrocket in value. I'll probably have to sell the boat trailer.

Strewth! peter....maaaate. The Catholics are in strife. Use your time for better projects. Take up a collection they need the money.

BTW: did you ever read "Power without Glory".

[T28D]

Sunfish I mostly enjoy your logic, in this case I must challenge you, the R R engines ( european build ) are the most inefficient of the large fan high thrust engines, followed by CFM asI understand the numbers and certianly aced by G E and P & W.

Don't call the game too soon, the old days of U.S. engines leaving black trails is long gone.

G E on a 777 is about the most efficient heavy beast in the sky.

Good on the U.S. for calling the Euro bluff.

[Flying Binghi]

.



via Sunfish;
...The least polluting business is the most profitable business...


errr...No. China is the most "polluting" business on the planet - and the most profitable..:hmm:


via Sunfish;
If one aircraft is spewing more CO2 than...

Try not to breath to heavy Sunfish, we dont want all that extra 'pollution'..:hmm:


via Sunfish;
...The net result of failure of the Americans to follow suit will be exactly the same as happened to their auto industry - the American gas guzzler got knocked off the road by the more economical VW and Japanese imports...


errr, Sunfish... are yer saying an added tax will make the yanks more competitive..:confused: .....China, India....Nyet..:hmm:



via Sunfish;
Dont argue about economics if you don't know what you are talking about.

...or CO2 'pollution'..:hmm:






.

[DutchRoll]

........has a very limited understanding of the 'global warming' issue

Pretty impressive coming from someone who quotes WUWT as an authoritative source of scientific understanding.

But then as we've extensively covered already, you've been denying the realities of basic physics for quite some time now, right Binghi?

[mcgrath50]

The fact of climate change is totally accepted in the scientific community. Whether we like it or not the climate is changing and the increased greenhouse effect is a cause.

I'm not saying the carbon tax is the right solution but to deny climate science is ridiculous.

1 out of every 100 scientists is rumoured to say global warming is not human-caused and is not changing the climate, so that's the one we go with.

Baswell, :D

[Flying Binghi]

via DutchRoll;
...you've been denying the realities of basic physics for quite some time now, right Binghi?



Do tell DutchRoll, what "basic physics" have ah been "denying"..:)





.

[Flying Binghi]

.


via mcgrath50;
The fact of climate change is totally accepted in the scientific community...


The 'fact' the climate changes is accepted by all as far as i can see. The climate has always been changing since before human time and the climate always will change - Fact.



via mcgrath50;
...Whether we like it or not the climate is changing and the increased greenhouse effect is a cause...


Rrriiight... so two thousand odd years ago we had the warmer then today Roman warm period, then we had a mini ice age, then we got a warmer then today medieval warm period followed by a little ice age which we came out of a couple of hundred years ago and the planet has been steadily warming to today.... Hmmm. So where does human Co2 emmisssions take effect - the Roman warm period?, the medieval warm period?,...:hmm:



via mcgrath50;
I'm not saying the carbon tax is the right solution but to deny climate science is ridiculous.

Oh, i dunno - there's a few so-called climate scientists who 'deny' science..:hmm:





.

[Jack Ranga]

Global Warming is already having a detrimental effect on weather patterns and sea levels

Prove it, you can't because there is no proof. What a load of tripe. They had to change it from 'global warming' to 'climate change' because the globe wasn't warming. How can you track 'climate change' over thousands of years when records have only been kept for a hundred or so?

You've been conned bro :cool:

[baswell]

How can you track 'climate change' over thousands of years when records have only been kept for a hundred or so?
Ice cores, anyone?

[mcgrath50]

A good summary of the proof ladies and gentlemen:

Climate Change: Evidence (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

Two articles discussing rising temperatures:

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)

CRU Information Sheet no. 1: Global Temperature Record (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/)

A study to see if climate scientists really are in agreement:

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full)

And an article that uses evidence to show we are currently warmer than the medieval warm period:

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html)


A couple of minutes on google found me all that, from reputable government, university and scientific journal websites. But please find me proof that climate change isn't occurring.

I await with interest. :8

[OZBUSDRIVER]

principia-scientific.org/index.php/latest-news/heat-streams-one-way-not-two-how-greenhouse-gas-physics-fails. (http://principia-scientific.org/index.php/latest-news/heat-streams-one-way-not-two-how-greenhouse-gas-physics-fails.htmlttp://)

I see you McGrath :E

[Bing Gordon]

FACT: Whichever side you're on, you're going to find facts, opinions, numbers and reports to back what you want to put across. What isn't called for is the typical smugness the same group of people here show when someone offers a different opinion to the one that you've chosen, especially after putting across what is laughable evidence and expecting that's the end of the discussion.

There are currently 0 climate scientists in any of these discussions. What makes any of you think your opinion is more correct than any one else's?

[mcgrath50]

Whichever side you're on, you're going to find facts, opinions, numbers and reports to back what you want to put across.

Couldn't agree more. I did think though it was time for some facts rather than just a slugging match with one side calling the other disillusioned, conspiracy theorist, lefty tree huggers.

What makes any of you think your opinion is more correct than any one else's?

I have chosen to believe evidence that I have read and what I believe is overwhelming scientific opinion. Could the other side be right? It's possible.

Ozbusdriver has posted an interesting article, that a quick google can't denounce. Although I am 'sceptical' of how accurate it may be as it's put out by a private institution for climate sceptics rather than a peer-reviewed scientific journal. But at least we are starting to quote evidence in this debate rather than resort name calling. :ok:

[T28D]

In ALL the peer review papers the Co2 debate on human activity contribution is overshadowed by the Co2 that is put into the atmosphere by lightning initiated wild fires in unihabited forest areas.

So does human Co2 emmisssions take effect yes but to a significantly lesser effect than forest fires that have always been there.

[FGD135]

I have chosen to believe evidence that I have read and what I believe is overwhelming scientific opinion.

Actually, you have chosen to read the evidence from one side of the debate - and believe that one side.

Do not believe the "overwhelming scientific opinion" line. The ABC and the pro-warmists such as Tim Flannery regularly espouse it, but it is complete rubbish.

[garrya100]

Carbon dioxide is known to effect the thermal capacity of the atmosphere, humans have been assisting with the introduction of more CO2 into the atmosphere in our history though it has been higher in pre-historic times.

The modeling that was introduced 10 years ago showing that global warming was spiraling ever upwards has proved to be flawed, and scientists can't seem to agree on a model that makes sense and agrees with the current data.

That said, I think it's time to take CO2 production seriously and take steps to reduce our carbon output.

However I fail to see how a 'wealth re-distribution' tax, with the later option of buying trees in Brazil is going to help us develop carbon reducing technologies or jobs.

[sprocket check]

Soooo, which one of you is stealing my oxygen!?!???

Should be an offence of strict liability!

[T28D]

Sprocket you really should be worried about the loss of Co2, we humans cannot live without it !!!!!!!!!!!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

'Tis said that the period of 'most' CO2 in the atmosphere occurred around 165 M years ago - in the period of the dinosaurs - when the land was rather warm, and had lots of rain forest / foliage.....

The demise of which was hardly caused by humans causing 'Global Warming'.....

'Tis also shown over time that the good ole Earth 'pulsates' with regard to temps etc.

So nothing is constant - or 'new'.... Just as the Continents are 'on the move'...just like B.P. fuels.....

'Tis a luvly noice day over 'ere....I'm going flying..!!:D:ok:

(And cause some more 'Global Warming'.....:})

[Fonz121]

The ignorance of some will never cease to amaze me. Climate change is not a myth. I suppose you think evolution is a lefty liberal conspiracy theory as well.

If 9 out of 10 doctors (99 out of 100 is probably more accurate) told you you had cancer and you should do something about it, why the f**k would you listen to the one who said you didn't? Sure, he could be right. But I'll take my chances with the other 9.

[404 Titan]

Fonz121
Climate change is not a myth.
None of us have said “Climate Change” is a myth. You obviously have a problem with reading and comprehension.
If 9 out of 10 doctors (99 out of 100 is probably more accurate) told you you had cancer and you should do something about it, why the f**k would you listen to the one who said you didn't?
Prove 99 out of 100 scientistist agree with AGW. Oh and quoting quotes from the ABC or BBC or UN doesn’t count. The fact is almost all the scientists that push the “AGW theory” are on the teat of the tax payer where they have seen their funding increase in the order of 1000% over the last 10 years. It is in their own selfish interest to maintain this sham theory so they can keep their filthy snouts firmly planted in the tax payer funded money trough.:ugh::yuk:

[Fonz121]

ha yeah those scientists are a selfish lot, willing to sell out their morals for a few bucks.:rolleyes: Have you ever met a scientist? Trust me, they're not doing it for the lavish lifestyle.

Regardless of whether or not you believe in climate change, spewing all this sh!t into the atmosphere is not good for the planet and implementing regulation that incentivises innovation to reduce it is a good thing.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

But what about the children?!?
WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!:}

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

So Mr Fonz,

As this is an aviation forum, how do you propose to prevent our favourite pastime / occupation / hobby etc ..i.e. aeroplanes. to stop 'spewing all this **** into the atmosphere'..??

I would suggest to you that one 'good' volcano would put out in a day, what 'we collectively' put out in a decade..??

Speculative, Oi know, but... have heard it expressed so....

Beware...the next Ice Age Cometh.......as it will...eventually....

:8

[baswell]

As this is an aviation forum, how do you propose to prevent our favourite pastime / occupation / hobby etc ..i.e. aeroplanes. to stop 'spewing all this **** into the atmosphere'..??
Aviation is not the problem, it only puts out a small amount of CO2 compared to the main culprits. It's also a vital part of our society where only minor improvements can be made.

What needs to be done is to replace the mundane with clean renewables: electricity generation and road transport. That's 50% of CO2 output right there.

People would care very much if air travel prices sky rocketed, but people don't give a **** about how they electricity is generated. And they'll actually like electric cars.

Doing both would create a technology shift that, like all technology shifts in the past, will be a great boon for the economy and prosperity.

Not to mention we'll stop fighting wars over dead dinosaurs and f***ing up the planet for our children. Yes, we should think of the children.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

So why does our govenment tax an essential item? We don't have electric aircraft. All they are doing is dipping in yet again and claiming it's for our own good to justify it. Why aren't they protecting the price residents get from solar energy? 8c per kw down from around 50?
What a load.

And they'll actually like electric cars.
Spoken like a true politician.
You WILL bend over and you WILL like it.

Difference between a Tarago and Labour government?
After the next election, the Tarago will still have more than six seats....

[OZBUSDRIVER]

What needs to be done is to replace the mundane with clean renewables: electricity generation and road transport. That's 50% of CO2 output right there.


Bit selective there, Bas. Power (35%)and ALL transport(15%) comes out at 50%. Breakdown all transport you get cars at 47.9% trucks and buses 21.4% airlines at 8.4% EDIT-All these are domestic figures

so to be correct....trucks and buses represent 3.4% of TOTAL CO2 emmisions so your statement COULD read
What needs to be done is to replace the mundane with clean renewables: electricity generation and road transport. That's 38.4% of CO2 output right there. Of which generation represents 91.1% of that figure


Don't you just love playing with percentages....4 5ths of 5 8ths of F all!:ok:


by the way, these figures come from the climatechange.gov.au (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/~/media/climate-change/emissions/2012-06/QuarterlyUpdate-NationalGreenhouseGasInventory201206-PDF.pdf) site.

[mcgrath50]

Oh and quoting quotes from the ABC or BBC or UN doesn’t count

Of course, better to get your quotes from an organisation with clear bias towards denouncing climate change like principia-scientific. How about the National Academy of Sciences of the USA a non-profit, scientific organisation who publishes peer-reviewed data. As close as you are going to get to facts in the world of science.

Expert credibility in climate change (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html)

Difference between a Tarago and Labour (sic) government?
After the next election, the Tarago will still have more than six seats...

And Romney was sure to win in the US as well :ouch:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

MacGrath...Principia Scientific will go anyone who incorrectly uses science.

There is a huge difference between the terms "climate change" and "catastrophic human induced climate change"

[rutan around]

The contributors to this thread who advocate little or no action be taken to prevent human carbon pollution remind me of the young lad caught by his father masturbating. On being told it would make him go blind he asked if it was ok to keep doing it just till he needed glasses.
So how far do we risk going with atmospheric pollution before action is taken?

Cuyahoga River fire 40 years ago ignited an ongoing cleanup campaign | cleveland.com (http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2009/06/cuyahoga_river_fire_40_years_a.html)

This site makes interesting reading about how far water pollution was allowed to go before someone said enough. Reversing a damaged atmosphere might be much harder than cleaning up a polluted river.
Cheers RA

[Jack Ranga]

mcgrath50, you will note that I didn't throw any of the names about in my post that you automatically inserted in your post after mine. Google? Really? Do you include wikipedia in your sources as well?

It's common bloody sense to know that humans will have an effect on the earth's atmosphere. It's common sense too to recognise dirty, pollutive activity and to rectify and implement clean alternatives where possible.

Icecores, smicecores, sweet. Bit like carbon dating I suppose? Something is carbon dated at 1.32456435623445 billion years old...........Yeah, OK.

Doomsday though? It appears to me that the 'Global Warming/Climate Change' brigade appear to be a little un-hinged at times. Global warming? Come to Melbourne and spend a summer here, in particular last summer, and tell me the globe is warming. Explain that one to me first?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

C'mon youse Guys and Gals,

Pleeze tell me how to convert my 'gas - guzzling' aeroplane into an electric one....Oi don't mind the expense of the 'leccy motor' mind U's, ...'Tis the cost of the ever- lengthening EXTENSION CORD that really has me in a tangle...:{

OOpppsss 'Traffic Was'....
(And both descending...together..):}

C'Mon Mr Fonz et al...:ugh: :eek:

[Flying Binghi]

.


Hmmm...:hmm:

Via J. Gillard, Prime Minister... "...International carbon markets will cover billions of consumers this decade. Ask the bankers at your table whether they want Australia to clip that ticket. We’re going to help them get their share..."

Did Julia really say that? She’s here to help bankers “get their share”? « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/did-julia-really-say-that-shes-here-to-help-bankers-get-their-share/)



Via baswell... "Reminds me of all the banks I worked for in London..."

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/484906-gillards-carbon-tax-effect-aviation-fuel-8.html





.

[Flying Binghi]

.


.....:suspect:


via mcgrath50;

A good summary of the proof ladies and gentlemen:

Climate Change: Evidence (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

Two articles discussing rising temperatures:

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)

CRU Information Sheet no. 1: Global Temperature Record (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/)

A study to see if climate scientists really are in agreement:

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full)

And an article that uses evidence to show we are currently warmer than the medieval warm period:

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html)


A couple of minutes on google found me all that, from reputable government, university and scientific journal websites. But please find me proof that climate change isn't occurring.

I await with interest. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/nerd.gif


Here we go again..:hmm:


via mcgrath50;
"A good summary of the proof ladies and gentlemen: Climate Change: Evidence (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/) "


April 10, 2012; "...49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.
The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance..."


Hansen and Schmidt of NASA GISS under fire for climate stance: Engineers, scientists, astronauts ask NASA administration to look at empirical evidence rather than climate models | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/)


mcgrath50, do yer really wanna use NASA as yer scientific 'proof' ? shorely yer got somethin better...
(copy and past from #332 http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/484906-gillards-carbon-tax-effect-aviation-fuel-17.html (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/484906-gillards-carbon-tax-effect-aviation-fuel-17.html) only the name has changed)






.

[Flying Binghi]

.


"...Remember that pesky ice age scare from the 1970s which NCAR, CRU, NOAA and The National Academy Of Sciences thought they saw?...


....:)


via mcgrath50;
...Of course, better to get your quotes from an organisation with clear bias towards denouncing climate change like principia-scientific. How about the National Academy of Sciences of the USA a non-profit, scientific organisation who publishes peer-reviewed data. As close as you are going to get to facts in the world of science...




"In 1937 the US National Academy of Sciences organised a study aimed at predicting breakthroughs; its report makes salutary reading for technological forecasters today. It came up with some wise assessments about agriculture, about synthetic gasoline, and synthetic rubber. But what is more remarkable is the things it missed. No nuclear energy, no antibiotics (though this was eight years after Alexander Fleming had discovered penicillin), no jet aircraft, no rocketry nor any use of space, no computers; certainly no transistors. The committee overlooked the technologies that actually dominated the second half of the twentieth century. Still less could they predict the social and political transformations that occurred during that time."

http://davidappell.********.com.au/2012/08/predicting-breakthroughs-1937-nas-study.html


National Academy of Sciences appointee caught “making up stuff” to win lawsuit, RICO lawsuit follows | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/13/national-academy-of-sciences-appointee-caught-making-up-stuff-to-win-lawsuit-rico-lawsuit-follows/)


The National Academy of Sciences Loses The Plot | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/23/the-national-academy-of-sciences-loses-the-plot/)

Exciting News from Hansen – The Ice Age Scare Has Now Been Completely Erased | Real Science (http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/exciting-news-from-hansen-the-ice-age-scare-has-now-been-completely-erased/)





.

[Fonz121]

Pleeze tell me how to convert my 'gas - guzzling' aeroplane into an electric one....Oi don't mind the expense of the 'leccy motor' mind U's, ...'Tis the cost of the ever- lengthening EXTENSION CORD that really has me in a tangle...

OOpppsss 'Traffic Was'....
(And both descending...together..)

C'Mon Mr Fonz et al...


If you old coots were making any sense I'd be happy to. You would make the Koch brothers proud.

[Aussie Bob]

Fying Binghi, thanks for that link. At least a few of us here are aware of the scam that those supporting a carbon tax cannot see.

[baswell]

Spoken like a true politician.
You WILL bend over and you WILL like it.
You mistake me for someone who wants to force this on people. All I ask is, for instance, the hundreds of millions various state government have been shovelling into the troughs of unviable local operations of international car manufacturers to be spent more wisely. Build it and they will come. The Tesla Model S is going to be awesome. Put the same tech in a mass-produced mid-range car ("Falcon") and you'll have a real winner.

Bit selective there, Bas.
Not at all. First of all, I am looking at global figures. Secondly, it does not take away at all from my statement that the things that CAN easily be changed to renewables should be changed before ones that are virtually impossible with current technology. (But please keep looking into the problem.)

[Aussie Bob]

Bas,I agree with you on the cars, the problem is the gubmit don't want you driving these things, they have prostituted themselves to the petro dollar, spent the income before they have got it and don't want to loose the revenue stream. All this means is no electric. Cynical? Perhaps, but you and I both know it can be done, so why else isn't it?

[rutan around]

Griffo, try this site for something to replace your gas guzzling Mark 1 fuel to noise converter. It has to be good - Rutan designed airframe.(someone tell me how to do smileys)

Home | Flight of the Century (http://www.flightofthecentury.com/)

Cheers RA

[outnabout]

Like many of us, before I go flying I have a good look at the weather forecast. Some I have seen change markedly in 8 hours or less, with say a front moving through quicker than expected.

If I'm going on a cross country trip (ie Adelaide to Darwin, for eg, in Nov), I start monitoring the weather from about a week out, just to see what the trend is. I have yet to see a weather forecast that remains unchanged from 7 days out to today.

So if the scientists / forecasters can't get it right for that short amount of time, why should I believe when I am told that over the next 100 / 1000 years, it's all going to go to ****e?

I do agree obvious polluters should get their ****e together, as the planet is a finite resource. I think that for us to be taxed on carbon when others, inc China / India, without fear of penalty, are belching out clouds of pollution that would make a Dickensian pea souper look like VFR, and America is producing a Wholy Crap amount of rubbish per head of population......oh, please!

Moderators, why is there no icon for a pineapple? It seems to get mentioned a lot in GA circles....

[Flying Binghi]

.


via rutan around;
The contributors to this thread who advocate little or no action be taken to prevent human carbon pollution remind me of the young lad caught by his father masturbating. On being told it would make him go blind he asked if it was ok to keep doing it just till he needed glasses.
So how far do we risk going with atmospheric pollution before action is taken?

Cuyahoga River fire 40 years ago ignited an ongoing cleanup campaign | cleveland.com (http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2009/06/cuyahoga_river_fire_40_years_a.html)

This site makes interesting reading about how far water pollution was allowed to go before someone said enough. Reversing a damaged atmosphere might be much harder than cleaning up a polluted river.
Cheers RA


Heh... conecting sex to "carbon pollution" ...rutan around, did yer mother catch yer at it making them human emmissions ..:ooh: ...perhaps yer need to talk to a shrink about it..:)




Back to the subject...

via rutan around;
...The contributors to this thread who advocate little or no action be taken to prevent human carbon pollution...
...So how far do we risk going with atmospheric pollution before action is taken?...


Hmmm... i thought the 'tax' were about human CO2 emmissions. Carbon is a whole other subject..:hmm:

rutan around,If humans adding to atmospheric CO2 is a concern perhaps yer need keep in mind that the atmosphere is currently in a CO2 deprived state. Plants actually grow better with an increase of atmospheric CO2 as they evolved in a CO2 rich atmosphere - as did we..:)

An increase of atmospheric CO2 means food plants produce more food and need less water to do it. A win-win situation..:cool:





.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

And Romney was sure to win in the US as well

What, the earlobe dragger isn't going to lose the election after the schools projects, insulation debacle, Slipper support and not least the great carbon fleecing?
Couldn't even be fcuked wearing a poppy on rememberance day!

As for my tarago reference, two words, QLD Labor.
Hell, Blight resigned in shame and has just left the state!

Maybe Juliar will leave the country too?:D

If the answer is Gillard, then it must have been a fcuking stupid question!:cool:

[baswell]

Enjoy your LNP government while you can, Sunfish! :)

http://i.imgur.com/whmf7.png

Oops, I guess the romance is already growing stale. Maybe something to do with getting "Newmanned":

http://i.imgur.com/kddua.jpg

Aaahhh... the liberals, the party of economic growth and prosperity, imagine what they could do in control of a whole country! :ok:

[Aussie Bob]

You people that advocate the majors don't realise, the same puppeteers control both parties. The agenda goes ahead no matter who you elect.

You think Tony will reverse this tax? Yep Santa is visiting soon as well.

Sadly the greens are no better. I just don't vote.

[baswell]

You people that advocate the majors
Hope you don't think of me as that; I just choose the lesser of two evils! :ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Here is another article from the Principal-Scientific group. The language is more attuned to the meteorologist within all pilots.

THE GREENHOUSE GAS BLANKET THAT FAILS TO WARM THE WORLD. (http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/67-the-greenhouse-gas-blanket-that-fails-to-warm-the-world.html)

[Flying Binghi]

.


via Aussie Bob;
...the same puppeteers control both parties...



Who be them "puppeteers" yer refering to there Aussie Bob ..:confused:





.

[Flying Binghi]

.



via DutchRoll #20;
...as we've extensively covered already, you've been denying the realities of basic physics for quite some time now, right Binghi?



Still waiting...:hmm:

Do tell DutchRoll, what "basic physics" have ah been "denying"..:)






.

[gobbledock]

Could the concept of a Carbon Tax be as simple a rort as some may expect?
Read "The Report From Iron Mountain". You will either believe the report to have been a hoax or believe that it is based on reality. Either way, there are some clever tax grabbing con's listed in this 'report', and some of these have been introduced in the past 20 years. Not bad from a report from 40 years ago that discusses these 'clever, subtle and astute' ways to grab money from your pocket without you either noticing or fighting it.
Government loves scaring you with gloom and destruction stories so they can soften your resolve and scare you into submission.
Carbon Tax = 110% baseless money grab. A con, a rort, a fiddle. CROOKS!

[baswell]

CROOKS!
Considering Australia has the 3rd lowest level of taxation in the developed world, I would say that makes our politicians not very successful as crooks! :ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Aye Aye Mr B,

Be that as it may, (I haven't checked..) IF 'they' didn't bloody well waste half of it on 'hair brained' schemes and 'feel good' overseas donations, etc, we would have a wunnerful country ....full of the required infrastructures, and, water even......

Don't start me....
:yuk:

Charity begins at home......:ugh:

[Aussie Bob]

Gobbledock: :ok: :ok: :ok:

[peterc005]

The Carbon Tax in Australia turned out to be a big non-event, in spite of all the conservative whiners.

More needs to be done to mitigate the effects of man-made global warming.

My biggest criticism of the Carbon Tax would be too-little too-late.

[Capn Bloggs]

The Carbon Tax in Australia turned out to be a big non-event
So much so that the Ranga (no offence to you, Jack ;)) is now trying to drop power prices by adding gizmos and thingamejigs to my meter box. :cool:

[Extra260]

The Carbon Tax in Australia turned out to be a big non-event, in spite of all the conservative whiners.

So an 18% hike in my business electricity costs in 1 year (17% of which the supplier attributes to the carbon tax, or 9% if you believe the guvmint) is a non event? I took last months bill and compared it to the same month last year, usage almost identical, this year the price is up 18%:mad:

If my electricity costs went up by that much, so did others(and fuel costs), they will pass that on, and in turn others will, this tax will snowball and we're already seeing that happen. I'm an exporter, not in the position to pass the costs on.. and not receiving any of the so called "compensation" which is supposed to offset the effect. This is socialist wealth redistribution, does nothing for the environment:=

BTW, Juliar can threaten the electricity providers all she want's... it doesn't change the fact that the main price problem is caused by the tax she swore we would never have..:mad:

[peterc005]

I think those Smart Meters are great!

Those old electro-mechanical power meters were 60 year old technology. Good riddance. Some old fuddy-duddies can't handle any change, no matter how small or compelling!

One of the things I like about the Smart Meters is that now I can get solar cells for the roof and they will plug straight in.

[Aussie Bob]

Peter, your propaganda inspired missives are amusing at best but sadly indicitave of a troll doing no more than promoting a government agenda.

Solar cells have never plugged into smart meters and never will, your lack of understanding of solar power is obvious. I am guessing your understanding of the carbon tax is equally lacking.

[baswell]

Be that as it may, (I haven't checked..) IF 'they' didn't bloody well waste half of it on 'hair brained' schemes and 'feel good' overseas donations, etc, we would have a wunnerful country ....full of the required infrastructures, and, water even......
I dunno; moving here from Europe and seeing my fist tax bills, I couldn't believe it. The level of services we get here, quality of infrastructure - Western European quality, for a fraction of the tax rate.

I have no issue with overseas humanitarian aid; I wish we'd do more of it. Australia spends one third as much as top givers. (Probably doesn't include the money wasted on blowing up buildings and shooting people abroad.)

And even most "*hare* brained" schemes have had a positive effect in that it kept money flowing in times when nobody else was spending, which saved us from a possibly much worse recession.

Keynesian economics and all...

What surprises me is that people whinge about a few million wasted here and there, but nobody cares about to hundred billion+ combined cost of buying a poor 5th gen fighter we don't need and letting the same mob build new submarines because the previous lot they built was no good.

[peterc005]

Here is another article from the Principal-Scientific group. The language is more attuned to the meteorologist within all pilots.

THE GREENHOUSE GAS BLANKET THAT FAILS TO WARM THE WORLD.

@OZBUSDRIVER - Yawn, another climate skeptic conspiracy web site. Run by nutters and believed by the gullible.

[baswell]

This is socialist wealth redistribution

A man, I f***ing HATE wealth redistribution, here are some great examples of how the government takes from the rich and gives to the poor:

Scrapping diesel rebate for mining would save $5.1b, say Greens (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/scrapping-diesel-rebate-for-mining-would-save-51b-say-greens/story-e6frg6n6-1226519143643)

Coal and gas paid $7b in subsidies | Latest Business & Australian Stock market News | The Courier-Mail (http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/coal-and-gas-paid-7b-in-subsidies/story-fn7kjcme-1226301312395)

After $1.1bn in subsidies, Falcon can't fly (http://afr.com/p/national/after_bn_in_subsidies_falcon_can_xF1GYxMvwyJ2YVr9cGrPoM)

This is really getting out of control! Australia has become a real welfare state - a corporate welfare state, that is. One where we fund foreign-owned companies because they can't compete on their own here. Disgraceful.

[peterc005]

Australia is a modern western-style social democracy.

If you examine key economic and political indicators it becomes apparent the country is quite well run. There is a reason lots of people want to come here, it's a comfortable, safe and well run place to live.

If you look at things like:

Relatively low tax rate for a modern economy
Low corruption and well-respected instututions
Quite transparent democratic systems, judiciary and government
High education levels

etc etc

It's a good place to live. If you don't like it, no one will stop you leaving. Drop me a line, I'll make time to drive you to an international airport.

[Aussie Bob]

Yawn ... Peter you are at it again, you don't fool us, the average aviator is a bit smarter than the average troll. How much do you get paid for your boring and useless job?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Diesel fuel rebate goes to a few more companies than BHP, Twiggy or Gina. But hey, it makes a good headline. Heard talk of a young fella with an earthmoving business up in Qld coal country. Over 40 big machines pushing dirt, after the mining tax came in, he was forced to park up half of them. Big bucks for him but imagine the hit on the shifts of employees that got layed off. But do not worry, only those big nasty rich companies are the ones targeted.

[baswell]

The diesel rebate is only one example of the great corporate welfare state.

Don't complain about "wealth redistribution" and "socialism" but at the same time justify corporate subsidies. :=

Child care rebate, government paid healthcare and, yes, even the dole, create jobs. And do so more evenly spread than subsidies to individual sectors.

For my company, all I need to do is go out to the local airfield and ask myself how many of these 30-somethings would be flying recreational airplanes and buying my products if they had to pay full rate for child care for their kids...

[Flying Binghi]

via baswell #77;

here are some great examples of how the government takes from the rich and gives to the poor:

Scrapping diesel rebate for mining would save $5.1b, say Greens (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/scrapping-diesel-rebate-for-mining-would-save-51b-say-greens/story-e6frg6n6-1226519143643)

...




via baswell #81;

The diesel rebate is only one example of the great corporate welfare state.

Don't complain about "wealth redistribution" and "socialism" but at the same time justify corporate subsidies...



eerrr baswell, you do you know that the "diesel fuel rebate" is actually a rebate of a tax on diesel ?

Perhaps an understanding that the diesel tax were originaly put in place as a way of paying for and repairing public roads and that the farmers on their tractors and miners with their bulldozers and others etc who dont actully use public roads are then rebated the tax..:hmm:





.

[baswell]

Perhaps an understanding that the diesel tax were originaly put in place as a way of paying for and repairing public roads and that the farmers on their tractors and miners with their bulldozers and others etc who dont actully use public roads are then rebated the tax..
I am well aware, just as I am sure you are aware that this earmarking of funds for road maintenance has not been the case since 1959, a whole two years after the introduction of diesel excise. Now, 53 years later... those poor miners still need a rebate. And the farmers wouldn't need it either if the ACCC had the guts to take on the Coles/Woolies cartel.

And I don't use my airplane on the road either. :cool:

[jas24zzk]

I think those Smart Meters are great!

Those old electro-mechanical power meters were 60 year old technology. Good riddance. Some old fuddy-duddies can't handle any change, no matter how small or compelling!


I reckon there's a whole plethora of meter readers.......many not qualified to do anything else, that would tear your throat out for that blasphemy.

Lets have a basic look at smart meters.

Designed to save you money...you can actually see your usage. :D
Saves the energy company not having to pay meter readers :hmm:
Guvment says energy companies can recoup the cost of the meter from you :sad:
Savings achievable versus paying the extra for the meter.....not possible! :ugh:


Yep good piece of spin from the establishment.

[Flying Binghi]

via baswell ;

I am well aware, just as I am sure you are aware that this earmarking of funds for road maintenance has not been the case since 1959, a whole two years after the introduction of diesel excise. Now, 53 years later... those poor miners still need a rebate. And the farmers wouldn't need it either if the ACCC had the guts to take on the Coles/Woolies cartel.

And I don't use my airplane on the road either.


In plain speaking words baswell, you want a whole new tax where there aint been one before..:hmm:


some history - Fuel Tax Inquiry - Background Papers - History of Fuel Taxation in Australia (http://fueltaxinquiry.treasury.gov.au/content/backgnd/002.asp)






.

[Aussie Bob]

And I don't use my airplane on the road either

Baswell: we are in Australia, not America. It is aeroplane! :ugh:

[Denzeldude]

Bas:
"I have no issue with overseas humanitarian aid"

You do realise that most of this "aid" goes to the overseas and often corrupt governments who use the money on anything but the people it is intended to help.

And even then we know that our government doesn't really give this "aid" to help people, merely to be seen to do our part in the world, and buy friendship from our neighbours to the north.

But no, you just keep living in your perfect little dream world.

[baswell]

You do realise that most of this "aid" goes to the overseas and often corrupt governments who use the money on anything but the people it is intended to help.
As the moderators on Wikipedia would say: "citation required".

[peterc005]

@baswell - good point.

If people are going to make assertions they should substantiate them with a reputable source.

Climate change sceptics nutters melt like an ice cream on a hot day when asked to cite proven facts rather than just psychotic conspiracy theories.

[Frank Arouet]

Yes mate...."the science is in". (Troll, sorry Droll).

Trouble is most don't believe the "facts" because the author of those words and her paid scientists are "proven" pathological socialist "liars".

[Towering Q]

Frank, how do you know what "most" do and don't believe?

[Denzeldude]

Bas,
This ain't wiki.

Peter,
Do you mean a reputable source that is pro-global warming?
"reputable source" as shown by all the scientific evidence for global warming, is very subjective.

Reputable (government climate change funded) source?
Scientific (make it support my government funded global warming theories) evidence?
Proven (to support my government funded global warming theory scientific evidence) facts?

And by the way, my ice cream is melting a little slower than it did 15 years ago.:ok: But, because you won't take my word for it, here's a reputable source.

www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/)

October 2012

The UK mean temperature was 1.3 °C below the 1981–2010 average, and it was provisionally the coldest October since 2003; Northern Scotland had its 5th coldest October in a series since 1910.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:


Edit: Oh yeh it's now called "climate change", not global warming, so the evidence above suggests that the climate is changing, just not the way the "experts" claim.
:}

[baswell]

Oh yeh it's now called "climate change", not global warming
That single quote on its own show just how ignorant you are on the subject you are ranting about like you are an expert.

Let me spell it out: the climate is changing because the globe is warming.

Taking a one month sample from one tiny region of the globe to disprove the work of actual scientists just has you digging your own hole of ridicule even deeper.

[baswell]

the author of those words and her paid scientists
Yeah, Australia is the only country that does climate research and has only done so since Gillard became PM. Right.

I just can't fathom what the government has to gain from this financially. Revenue is flat - some pay more because of the carbon tax, some pay less.

What's more, they are spending money on initiatives to tackle climate change. The government is financially worse off because of their acceptance of climate change.

This whole "paid scientists" angle to the debate has no merit.

I tell you who benefits financially from denying climate change, though: the vested interests funding the fear, uncertainty and doubt campaign. Their next quarterly results are more important than the long-term survival of the planet.

[Denzeldude]

Oh Bas, you didn't get the joke in that edit.:rolleyes:

"Paid scientists"?
Very interesting article in the Daily Telegraph today about how much funding the CSIRO is getting to research "climate change" (which you yourself indicate is still "global warming" in different clothes:hmm:). The article also mentions how little CSIRO is doing of its traditional roles of helping agricultural Australia by developing new ideas, processes and equipment. It describes how the annual report is focussed almost totally on climate change. And don't try and make the ridiculous association that researching a changing climate is the most important work they could do.:ugh: They've gone from doing something for agriculture to researching jack ****e.

There are plenty of other samples from many parts of the globe which reflect very little, if any, change in the climate since even before a certain Minister said Sydney's dams would be all dried up a few years ago. By the way, have you seen the water levels lately?:ok:

I just can't fathom what the government has to gain from this financially. Revenue is flat:D You should get a job with Jooolia's PR team.

What's more, they are spending money on initiatives to tackle climate change. The government is financially worse off because of their acceptance of climate change.
OMG, where's the smiley for ROFLMFAO?

[peterc005]

The science behind climate change is solid and backed by more than twenty years of peer-review.

The reason there are no climate change skeptics at the CSIRO is because climate change is good science and the CSIRO are good scientists.

Unfortunately it is an area that attracts conspiracy theory nutters in hordes.

[Denzeldude]

The science behind climate change is solid and backed by more than twenty years of pro-global warming alarmist peer-review. The science behind disproving global warming is also solid and backed by many years of anti-global warming peer-review.

Who said there are no skeptics at CSIRO?

When you say "conspiracy theory nutter", I assume you're not talking about nutters on your side of the fence like Bas (and maybe you) who think there's an agenda (conspiracy) behind debunking the man-made global warming myth.
Bas - "I tell you who benefits financially from denying climate change, though: the vested interests funding the fear, uncertainty and doubt campaign. Their next quarterly results are more important than the long-term survival of the planet."

Fair go on poor Bas.

If you're just referring to those on my side of the fence then what you call conspiracy theory nutters, I call effective :mad: BS detectors.

[Frank Arouet]

Yes, but the "science is in".

Trust me I'm your PM.

Have I ever lied to you before?

[Aussie Bob]

I am more into the Gaia theory myself ...

[Towering Q]

Very interesting article in the Daily Telegraph today

The Daily Belly Laugh...an outstanding Murdoch rag....up there with the NTnews.:ok:

[peterc005]

Personally, I think the UFO conspiracy theory nutters are more interesting than the climate change conspiracy theory nutters. I'm a sc-fi (Star Trek) fan and appreciate their imagination, pity they take it seriously.

[empire4]

peterc005, [QUOTE]Climate change sceptics nutters/QUOTE] In using the word skeptic you are assuming that the majority believes its real. That is absolutely BS.

Climate change exists, it has to. That is why there are no "skeptics" as you say at the CSIRO. What people don't believe, me included is that HUMANS are a major contributing factor. There is evidence to suggest the world average temperature has not warmed in 16 years.

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html)

But I'm sure they are just "skeptics" or conspiracy theorists. Julia Gillard's carbon dioxide tax, which was supposed to change Australian buying habits. “There will be price impacts,” Prime Minister Julia Gillard promised in 2011. “The whole point of pricing carbon is to say that goods that have got a lot of carbon pollution in them get relatively more expensive.” The government now says impact of the carbon tax is sufficiently compensated so as to have little/no impact on consumer behaviour. The “whole point”, as the Prime Minister put it, has been missed.

keep dreaming mate, maybe you'll be able to see Elvis in concert again.

[sprocket check]

The Carbon Tax in Australia turned out to be a big non-event

or so you think...

hoodwinked again!

If it was such a non event.... why am I $1900 poorer?

Oh, sorry it was not because of the carbon tax, it was all the peripherals they snuck in around it while we were looking in the other direction:

Wait for your cold store prices to go through the roof-

I had to get my air con re-gassed after moving it from the old place and being in storage for 3 years. The gas, as in vast majority of units is R22. Not under the carbon tax, according to the fridgie... BUT now subject to a carbon LEVY introduced under the tax, hidden in the fine print.

So, here we have an 800% !!! increase on the price of this gas.

Means a refill is now going to be more expensive than a new unit.

This fridgie also does the local supermarkets, who are screaming blue murder. It won't be long before your fruit, veg, meat etc gets a hike. And it might not be a small one.

The worst thing of all... this levy will probably end up in the pocket of those that come with these kind of hair brain schemes to justify their own existence. Like Pinocchio. The nose just keeps on growing.


sc

[baswell]

This fridgie also does the local supermarkets, who are screaming blue murder. It won't be long before your fruit, veg, meat etc gets a hike. And it might not be a small one.
One word: doors.

[sprocket check]

doors?

How are they going to stop leaky pipes???

[baswell]

Saves more in power bills every year than they could possibly spend on refrigerant.

[Flying Binghi]

Proof of climate hysteria perhaps...

via peterc005;

The science behind climate change is solid and backed by more than twenty years of peer-review.

The reason there are no climate change skeptics at the CSIRO is because climate change is good science and the CSIRO are good scientists...



via peterc005;

If people are going to make assertions they should substantiate them with a reputable source.

Climate change sceptics nutters melt like an ice cream on a hot day when asked to cite proven facts rather than just psychotic conspiracy theories.





peterc005. I have asked you before to produce the scientific 'proof' for AGW that you claim exists, and i'm still waiting, waiting...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif

via #299 http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/484906-gillards-carbon-tax-effect-aviation-fuel-15.html (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/484906-gillards-carbon-tax-effect-aviation-fuel-15.html)






.

[Flying Binghi]

via baswell #88;

As the moderators on Wikipedia would say: "citation required".



Heh, your a gift baswell..:) The moderators at wikipedia only allow citations that suit their own agenda..:hmm:


Some info about wikipedia website administrator Connolley...

"...Connolley rewrote Wikipedia's articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug. 11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and.........cont.

The American Spectator : Wikipedia Meets Its Own Climategate (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/30/wikipedia-meets-its-own-climat/)




http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/376163-wikipropaganda.html







.

[Flying Binghi]

.


Hmmm... the climate hysterics seem to have done a runner.

Amazing what happens when yer ask them AGW spruikers fer proof of claims. First they abuse yer and call yer names... then they try and muddle through with some nonsensical easly debunked claims... then they run away..:)


Meanwhile, over in Doha a Duh Oh moment...

How is Doha going? (Where was that, again?)
The Indians have gone home, The Chinese are being told off. Nobody else is very interested, except developing nations looking for a handout. The Australians already agreed to everything whatever it is. (Great negotiation ploy by our Labor Government that.) The EU wants to do what it’s already doing.
Mike Haseler at the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum says it’s all over, bar the shouting. Kyoto ends on December 31, and there is no treaty to replace it, and there can be no ratified treaty by Jan 1...

continues...
Doha: dead — Kyoto: kaput, but NGO’s win anyway « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/doha-dead-kyoto-kaput-but-ngos-win-anyway/)





.

[peterc005]

The science underpinning climate change and global warming has almost 30 years of research and peer-review behind it. All of the Australian universities and the CSIRO accepted that carbon emissions are causing global warming and climate change.

No educated, informed, sane person has doubts about the science of climate change - which leaves us, on the other hand, with the climate change skeptics.

More needs to be done to reduce carbon emissions, and while the Carbon Tax was a good step forward, it is not enough by itself.

[Flying Binghi]

.


Dang !... still a hard core one left..:D


via peterc005;

The science underpinning climate change and global warming has almost 30 years of research and peer-review behind it. All of the Australian universities and the CSIRO accepted that carbon emissions are causing global warming and climate change.



"The science underpinning climate change and global warming has almost 30 years of research and peer-review behind it ..."

Well peterc005, ah do wonder if you know much about the subject. The science behind the worlds naturaly changing climate goes back hundreds of years. The science behind the claims that CO2 is a greenhouse gas goes back a hundred odd years.'

...although peterc005, i might be wronging yer there. you could be refering to the computer models that gave us such brilliant 'science' as the hocky stick graph. That'd be about 30 years of 'peer review'..:hmm:





.

[Frank Arouet]

The science underpinning climate change and global warming has almost 30 years of research and peer-review behind it. All of the Australian universities and the CSIRO accepted that carbon emissions are causing global warming and climate change

Man made of coursse?

Hey Binghi! don't feed the troll.

Of more importance is the fact that 1.5 million new voters are "enrolled" by Gillard and the facts are that most are not Abbott friendly. Sad but he could loose the election by the masses not being informed.

[rutan around]

No Frank he will lose the election because the masses are finally becoming informed. RA

[Flying Binghi]

via rutan around;

No Frank he will lose the election because the masses are finally becoming informed. RA


rutan around, the masses are becoming informed about what ?





.

[Flying Binghi]

via Frank Arouet;

Hey Binghi! don't feed the troll.


Oh, leave poor ol peterc005 alone..;)

I rekon peterc005 is genuine enuf. peterc005 shows very simular characteristics to many of the anthropogenic global warming true believers i've run into on some of the hard core climate forums - its just the way they are..:)





.

[baswell]

The science behind the claims that CO2 is a greenhouse gas goes back a hundred odd years.
You really ought to look up these "ice cores" I have hinted to on several occasions.

rutan around, the masses are becoming informed about what ?
The Carbon Tax has nothing to do with that. It's mostly that the "Reaganomics" he preaches, his proposed "fair taxes" and the austerity measurers his buddy Newman is trying out in Queensland turn good economies into those like the United States. Whereas Keynesian economics keep everyone in prosperity - as evidenced by how well Australia came through the GFC with some of the worlds lowest tax rates, debt and deficit!

Now Labor are no saints, but Abbott's goal is to make Gina Reinhart even richer than she already is at the expense of the rest of us.

(Also: his hilarious "cut tax rates, increase spending" economics and people are realising his propensity for making mountains out of mole hills when it comes to the personal lives of his opponents have no substance to them, nor affect their own lives.)

[Towering Q]

Frank, just because peterc005 has a differing view to yours, (and I realise his delivery style can be a little 'blunt' at times), it doesn't necessarily follow that he is a 'troll'.

Binghi, the problem with reading Jo the Microbiologist's blog, is that it only reinforces your current beliefs. Have you tried widening out from Jo, wattsupwiththat and the ICSC?;)

[peterc005]

@Towering Q - some people see conspiracy theories everywhere and no amount of rational thought or facts can make them budge.

Luckily these types are rarely make to positions of influence and only get a voice in anonymous forums like this.

I usually can't be bothered getting involved in pointless arguments on forums, but sometimes join in to ask people substantiate their wild claims. Conspiracy theory nutters of various flavours melt away in the light of facts and scientific thought.

[FGD135]

Conspiracy theory nutters of various flavours melt away in the light of facts and scientific thought.

peterc005,

Here are some facts and "scientific thought" for you:

1. None of the claims made by the models have come to pass. The temperature has not risen as the models have predicted; the sea levels have not behaved as the models have predicted; the ocean temperatures have not conformed to the model predictions, and the atmospheric heat distribution has not changed as per the predictions.

2. There has been no global warming for 16 years now. The models never predicted this (absence of heating), of course, so this inconvenient truth just further questions the validity of the modelling and the assumptions made by the modellers. Something very different is happening to the "global temperature" but the warmist scientists have no idea what. What does that tell you about them and their assumptions?

You should be interested to know that, a few weeks ago, a large group of high profile scientists wrote an open letter to Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General.

They basically said that the science does NOT support the claims he has been making about climate change and that he should therefore, tone down his statements.

You can read the letter, and the names and qualifications of the scientists here:

Open letter to UN Secretary-General: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists | FP Comment | Financial Post (http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/)

There were over 120 prominent scientists that signed their names to that letter. Every one of them has "climate" related specialties, e.g, Climatology, Meteorology, Atmospheric Physics, Modelling & Simulation, etc.

[Frank Arouet]

Groan. Fight you bastards.

Merry Christmas if I'm still not flooded or sunburned to death.

Well, the thought was there. From one "nutter to another".

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Well Frank, if you really want to avoid 'floods', you could wander over to the West,....we haven't had real rain here for a g e s . . .

Dunno about the sunburn though....

Merry Christmas to yerself too......

:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Mate, if I can get a water frontage here in 12" rainfall area west NSW, I'm hanging in there. Imagine the capital gain, imagine the fishing, bugga me, I'll have to sell the boat trailer.

All the best to you too buddy.

[sprocket check]

What a load of useless, oxygen and carbon and carbohydrate wasting discussion this is.

Climate change, hmm... no longer Global Warming, huh?

Well climate change has been happening constantly, just not at a constant rate of change.

Act now!!!!!! ummmm.... on what?

Stop living? Go back to how we lived 150 years ago? With the current population globally? nice.

Sea will rise, for whatever reason. Storms will get bigger, heat waves, cold snaps, etc, etc.

Chinese will get richer and they aren't going to stop for climate change... nor will the Indians. Nor the Africans. Fast forward 25 years and we will keep digging the dirt here and sending it off, climate change or not.

I remember as a kid the socialist/communist regime of the time saying how the west was the source of all evil, with their capitalist ideas polluting the environment, all the while they spewed radioactive and chemical waste directly out into the rivers and lakes.

Man made?

Even if it were so, it is unstoppable.

my 2c
sc

[Denzeldude]

peterc005, you just aren't getting it are you.


I...sometimes join in to ask people substantiate their wild claims
You ask people to provide evidence to support their wild claims, and so people like FGD135 and others give you the evidence (opposing the fact that we're all gonna melt into puddles of bodily fluids on the footpath by the end of this century) and yet you are ignoring it and continuing with the name calling, probably in the hope of distracting yourself and others from that evidence.
nutters of various flavours melt away in the light of facts and scientific thought.

Anyway, I watched The Inconvenient Truth not too long after it was released, and there's a couple of hours I'll never get back, and I keep remembering the graph he dramatically presented showing CO2 levels (red line) and the apparent resulting changes in the temperature (blue line). Remember this?
http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh211/denzeldude/Truth.jpg
Well, according to the red line in this graph it looks as though the blue line is gonna have to skyrocket too (after all, these are facts being shown aren't they?), and we might actually become puddles of bodily fluids on the footpath, because holy crap it's going to reach about 3000 degrees soon.:eek:
Is this some of the irrefutable evidence you keep mentioning?:ugh:

I'll give Mr Gore an A+ for drama with that huge screen and the rising platform he was standing on. Bravo.:D

I've been wondering, whatever happened to that ice age the scientists were predicting in the 70s? Apparently they also had 30 years of scientific data to back their claims. I guess they were just nutters too, because they don't support your beliefs. Right peterc005?

[FGD135]

About that movie "An Inconvenient Truth":

Soon after the film began screenings in UK schools, some members of the public brought a lawsuit alleging the film was promoting partisan political views, which is illegal in UK schools unless there are appropriate warnings.

The judge hearing the case, Justice Burton, found that the movie constituted "propaganda" and made a ruling that further screenings must be accompanied by explanations of the errors.

The judge found nine "errors". They were:

1. Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland.

Justice Burton: "This is distinctly alarmist ... (and) is not in line with the scientific consensus".


2. Low-lying islands in the Pacific Ocean are having to be evacuated because of the effects of global warming.

Gore himself makes the statement "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand."

Justice Burton: "There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened".


3. The Gulf Stream would be shut down by global warming, causing sharp cooling in northwest Europe.

Justice Burton: "According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the (effect) will shut down in the future".


4. There was an exact fit between graphs showing changes in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures over a period of 650,000 years.

Justice Burton: "... the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts."


5. The disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania was due to global warming.

Justice Burton: "... the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change".


6. The shrinkage of Lake Chad in Africa was caused by global warming.

Justice Burton: "... the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution".


7. Hurricane Katrina was likewise caused by global warming.

Justice Burton: "It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that."


8. Polar bears were being found drowned after having to swim long distances to find the (melting) ice.

Justice Burton: "The only scientific study ... indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."


9. Coral reefs were being bleached by the effects of global warming and other factors.

Justice Burton: "... separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult."


More information on the lawsuit here:

Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills)

[Flying Binghi]

via baswell #115;
You really ought to look up these "ice cores" I have hinted to on several occasions.


Now dont be shy baswell, there's no need to hint around here. Please do come right out with it. What is it about them ice cores?..:)





.

[Flying Binghi]

via Towering Q #115;
Binghi, the problem with reading Jo the Microbiologist's blog, is that it only reinforces your current beliefs. Have you tried widening out from Jo, wattsupwiththat and the ICSC?

Now Towering Q, do tell how you think you know what my reading is..:hmm:




.

[Towering Q]

Just a wild guess based on the links you provide in your posts....

#14 Watts Up With That?

#49 JoNova

#50 Watts Up With That?

#51 Watts Up With That? (Twice)

#108 JoNova

[Flying Binghi]

.

Oh Dear...:hmm:

Germany’s leading media outlets are reporting that 500 German police officers and tax authorities raided mighty Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt earlier today. According to Die Welt here (http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article111965498/Ermittlungen-gegen-Deutsche-Bank-Chef-Fitschen.html), five managers have been linked to a scam involving the trading of carbon permits. Arrest warrants have been issued.

500 German Authorities Raid Deutsche Bank Amid Alleged Tax Evasion Scam Surrounding CO2 Certificate Trading! (http://notrickszone.com/2012/12/12/500-german-authorities-raid-deutsche-bank-amid-alleged-tax-evasion-scam-surrounding-co2-certificate-trading/)



.

[peterc005]

We need to to more about Climate Change and Global Warming.

A Carbon Tax is a good place to start, but not enough.

[Denzeldude]

TROLL!!!!!

[FGD135]

peterc005,

A serious question for you: What would it take for you to reverse your belief that mankind is causing dangerous climate change?

Would it take, for example, the ABC reversing its position? Or, would it take a number of pro-warming scientists to reverse theirs?

What about evidence? Would evidence that (mankind induced) climate change is not happening be enough to sway you?

This is a genuine question. I would like to know your answer.

I am somebody that is not yet convinced that man is changing the climate to any measurable degree. Even if man were changing it slightly, I am not convinced that the "new climate" would be worse for living creatures.

For me to become the believer that you are, all it would take would be for the pro-warmist scientists to start getting most of their predictions right.

As you know, we have heard hundreds of claims/predictions ranging from lakes drying up and glaciers melting to insect plagues, sea-level rises, temperature rises, increased cyclone/hurricane incidence, melting icecaps, coral bleaching, ocean acidification, etc, etc.

But none of these things are happening or can be shown to have been caused by "global warming" or "climate change". The success rate of the pro-warming scientists with their claims and predictions seems to be pretty close to zero.

With this kind of success rate, I am curious how people like you can believe the alarmist view.

I have told you what it would take for me to reverse my view. Please tell me what it would take for you to reverse your conviction.

[rutan around]

FGD135 We're in cloud and my captain says his instruments are telling him we're in an uncontrolled spiral dive and accelerating towards the ground. Everything seems ok to me. I can't see the ground coming up. The instruments are probably wrong and what would the Captain know? He's only got 10,000hrs on type. I'll phone Alan Jones. He'll know if we're crashing or not. Hello Alan I'm in aeropla#^%@*#@&$%----
RIP RA

[Denzeldude]

RA,
The world is flat. It's also going to end in 2012. The sky is falling. Better be good because Father Christmas is coming soon. Don't forget to leave your tooth under the pillow for the Tooth Fairy. Nuclear power will destroy the Earth. It's ok to sell coal and uranium to China because they're a developing country and therefore can pollute as much as they like and not be held to the Kyoto Protocol. There's an ice age coming. Sydney's dams are going to dry up by 2009, so we need a desalinisation plant. We are going to die from mad-made global warming by the end of this century. There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead......
Have fun.
DD

[Frank Arouet]

Maate;

Go to bottom left hand side...."post reply", NOT bottom right hand side.............. "reply"

This will give you access to "smiley's) on RHS border. There are no thumbs down here.

#^%@*#@&$%---- Looks like your'e swearing.

BTW, the only fraud worse than global warming is the Labor Party and their hangers on in the House of Representatives.:hmm:

:rolleyes::ooh::{:yuk:;):D:=:(

I hope this helps.

[Flying Binghi]

via rutan around;

FGD135 We're in cloud and my captain says his instruments are telling him we're in an uncontrolled spiral dive and accelerating towards the ground. Everything seems ok to me. I can't see the ground coming up. The instruments are probably wrong and what would the Captain know? He's only got 10,000hrs on type. I'll phone Alan Jones. He'll know if we're crashing or not. Hello Alan I'm in aeropla#^%@*#@&$%----
RIP RA

..."Hello Allen I'm in.." Just then, rutan around's mother walks into the bedroom and yells "rutan around are you making prank calls to Allen Jones again! get off that bloody phone.. and stop playing with that computer flight simulator. Carn't you see its broken. Get outside and play, its a glorious clear day outside..."

rutan around, you do know that the so-called 'proof' of Anthropogenic Global Warming is some shonky computor models..:hmm:





.

[rutan around]

Frank & Dude,Please correct me if I've got the wrong take on what you are saying. You are saying that in an increasingly industrialized world, 6,000,000,000 people can keep pouring crap onto the land, into the streams and seas and into the atmosphere and nothing will go wrong. I sincerely hope I have somehow misunderstood what you are saying.
Cheers RA

[rutan around]

Via Flying Binghi
rutan around, you do know that the so-called 'proof' of Anthropogenic Global Warming is some shonky computor models.

Given the absence of of any recent strikes by giant asteroids,the lack of any abnormal volcanic activity and the non expansion of the sun you are fast running out of other possible culprits especially when you look at what man has been up to over the last 100 or so years.What do you reckon is causing the warming? Fairies with ray guns? Some of the deniers here will know. They're often away with them.
Cheers RA

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I wonder what the planet was like when the volcanoes were erupting more frequently (?), and the ice age cometh...and went....and cometh...and went....'cause there's been more than one.....

Planet warming, planet cooling, planet warming again....etc etc....

Almost like a cycle...(?)

I was flabbered and gastered to read somewhere that OZ was once covered in very thick ice, before the ocean covered it....before......

Cheers

[FGD135]

What do you reckon is causing the warming?


Errr, what warming?

There has been no warming for 16 years now - despite atmospheric CO2 content having increased significantly during that period.

[Denzeldude]

Earth created.
...cooling....warming....cooling....warming....cooling....wa rming....cooling....warming....cooling....warming....cooling ....warming....cooling....warming....cooling....warming....c ooling....warming....cooling....warming....cooling....warmin g....cooling....warming....cooling....warming....cooling.... warming....cooling....warming....cooling....warming....cooli ng....warming....cooling....warming....cooling....warming... .cooling....:eek:DINOSAURS:sad:....warming....cooling....war ming....cooling....warming....cooling....warming....cooling. ...warming....cooling....warming....cooling....warming....co oling....warming....cooling....warming....cooling....warming ....cooling....warming....cooling....warming....cooling....w arming....cooling....warming....cooling....:eek:HUMANS:sad:. ...warming....cooling....warming....cooling....warming....co oling....warming....cooling....warming....cooling....warming ....cooling....warming....cooling....warming....cooling....w arming....cooling....warming....cooling....warming....coolin g....warming....cooling

[rutan around]

Griffo & Dude there are two points you seem to want to ignore. 1-Most of the historical climate changes you allude to took place over very long periods of time so life had time to adapt. 2- The ones that were sudden wiped out a very large % of life on earth.
One hundred years over the geological time scale is a blink of the eye. You don't have time to grow fins and learn to live in an acidic sea. A 2-6 deg average temp rise (no matter how much FGD135 wants to deny it) over the whole planet is a very large change and no one really knows how it will play out. I do think it's like messing with a mother-in-law - not worth doing.
Cheers RA

[rutan around]

The SMART QUOTE in todays Aviation E-brief might be useful on this thread. "No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking" Voltaire. Frank did you really say that?

[Flying Binghi]

.

Round and round we go...

via rutan around #137;

...Given the absence of of any recent strikes by giant asteroids,the lack of any abnormal volcanic activity and the non expansion of the sun you are fast running out of other possible culprits especially when you look at what man has been up to over the last 100 or so years.What do you reckon is causing the warming? Fairies with ray guns? Some of the deniers here will know. They're often away with them.


"What do you reckon is causing the warming"

Hmmm... why dont we see what the late Reid Bryson had to say about it. In his time it were said he were "the most frequently cited climatologist in the world" and "the science some say he invented"

Some extracts of an interview of Reid Bryson...

...“Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past,” he told us in an interview this past winter. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?”

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

Little Ice Age? That’s what chased the Vikings out of Greenland after they’d farmed there for a few hundred years during the Mediaeval Warm Period, an earlier run of a few centuries when the planet was very likely warmer than it is now, without any help from industrial activity in making it that way. What’s called “proxy evidence”—assorted clues extrapolated from marine sediment cores, pollen specimens, and tree-ring data—helps reconstruct the climate in those times before instrumental temperature records existed.

We ask about that evidence, but Bryson says it’s second-tier stuff. “Don’t talk about proxies,” he says. “We have written evidence, eyeball evidence. When Eric the Red went to Greenland, how did he get there? It’s all written down.”

Bryson describes the navigational instructions provided for Norse mariners making their way from Europe to their settlements in Greenland. The place was named for a reason: The Norse farmed there from the 10th century to the 13th, a somewhat longer period than the United States has existed. But around 1200 the mariners’ instructions changed in a big way. Ice became a major navigational reference. Today, old Viking farmsteads are covered by glaciers.

Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?”

We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.

“A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,” he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”...

WECN May 2007 (http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html)





.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

RA, do you believe in depopulation of the human species?

In terms of biomass, we humans are still not the greatest impact on our environment. You will surprise yourself. However, we humans, ever since our hunter gatherer ancestors invented the plow and domesticate a wild grass and a couple of animal species, master our environment. Indeed we change the conditions to suit our species. RA, you propose that we humans are a threat!

RA, just tell me one thing. You are a molecule of CO2. What do you do with Infra-red radiation?

[Flying Binghi]

.


via #126: Now Towering Q, do tell how you think you know what my reading is...


via Towering Q #127:

Just a wild guess based on the links you provide in your posts....

#14 Watts Up With That?

#49 JoNova

#50 Watts Up With That?

#51 Watts Up With That? (Twice)

#108 JoNova



errr... Towering Q, one thread is bit of a short time frame to be making an assessment of my reading/research habits don't yer think..:hmm: Admittedly, by using short time periods, yer doing just what them AGW pushing climate 'scientists' do to support their claims..:)


Reference my use of WUWT and JoNova... Watts Up With That (WUWT) is one of the worlds main climate websites where most anything of interest re AGW will get a mention. WUWT lists many links to other web sites even including a rabid raving climate hysteria site. JoNova is one of the main Australian AGW related web sites so anything of Oz interest will likely be mentioned there. ...So, it would be of no surprise that those two web sites get a lot of reference links..:)





.

[peterc005]

The problem of Climate Change and Global Warming is so big and so encompassing, that "sustained thinking" will not be enough.

My opinion is that the Carbon Tax was a good idea to reduce Carbon Emissions and help mitigate Global Warming. At least it makes people think about what is coming out of smoke stacks.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Hold the phone! Rapid climate change? Where and how much!

If anyone mentions the extended drought from 98 till 09 then we had two that long at the turn of the previous centre and one in the mid eighteen hundreds that was hotter still than current "extreme" temperatures. What burns me up is I still haven't got any hotter than the summers of 68 thru to 71 when I lived in Wangaratta. AGWers hope and prey on people with short memories.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

David Karolly goes on about the November temperature in Mildura just recently. Funny, it always seems to be that hot every harvest season. Especially in 2000 was that hot for a bumper harvest.

[Frank Arouet]

To attempt to correct the thread drift, the discussion is about the US outlawing the carbon tax, not whether climate change/ global warming/ cyclic ice ages/ kangaroo farts is or is not a fact.

My take on the matter, despite my leaning as far away from our incumbant government involvement, is that a tax will not fix whatever the problem is, perceived or otherwise.

Or to put it another way, if the answer is a tax, what is the question.

[waren9]

peterc005

im really curious how juliars carbon tax is supposed to have any effect at all when the revenue collected is almost entirely (supposedly) redistributed to the masses so they can afford to keep buying the taxed goods in the same quantities as before? wealth redistribution by another name.

of course the climate changes. always has, always will. why have you blokes stopped calling it global warming? even if it is warming (which i'm not convinced) how much of that is man induced? that bit i think will not be properly understood or agreed on for quite a few generations yet.

if i was to believe some of the language being used i should be out the back building my arc now.

[Towering Q]

errr... Towering Q, one thread is bit of a short time frame to be making an assessment of my reading/research habits don't yer think

From the "Gillard Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation Fuel" thread...

#237 Watts Up With That?
#328 Watts Up With That?
#368 Watts Up With That?
#401 JoNova
#425 JoNova
#436 Watts Up With That?
#472 Watts Up With That?

[Towering Q]

Watts Up With That (WUWT) is one of the worlds main climate websites where most anything of interest re AGW will get a mention.

Watts Up With That, was created up by former TV weatherman, Anthony Watts.

Watts was paid $44,000 by the Heartland Institute in January – with a further $44,000 promised later this year.

The Heartland Institute was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism".

Hmmm.:suspect:

[Flying Binghi]

.


:)

via Towering Q:

From the "Gillard Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation Fuel" thread...

#237 Watts Up With That?
#328 Watts Up With That?
#368 Watts Up With That?
#401 JoNova
#425 JoNova
#436 Watts Up With That?
#472 Watts Up With That?



Keep going Towering Q. Under the Flying Binghi call sign ah gots a thousand or so AGW related posts here at pprune. Over a thousand AGW posts at the defunct The Environment Site, and many posts at Deltiod, the defunct Senator Steve Feilding site, The Permaculture site, the Hypography science site, the Weather Zone site, and even a vegetarian site. That should keep yer occupied for a while..:)



via Towering Q#152:

Watts Up With That, was created up by former TV weatherman, Anthony Watts.

Watts was paid $44,000 by the Heartland Institute in January – with a further $44,000 promised later this year.

The Heartland Institute was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism".



Towering Q, yer starting to look like some religious evangelical trying hard to find a devil. If i don't believe in your 'religion' it must be the devils work eh.:hmm:

Towering Q, if yer got nothing to prove the catastrophic global warming claims, just say so..:)




.

[peterc005]

There are two sides to the Global Warming debate:

In one corner are all of the universities, the CSIRO and 99% of relevant scientists. This side is backed up by thirty years of peer-reviewed science.

In the other corner we have a collection of grumpy old men and conspiracy theory nutters who post pseudo-scientific and unsubstantiated rants on anonymous internet forums all day. This side is backed up by AM shock-jocks like Alan Jones.

Man-made Global warming is real and a Carbon Tax is a good first step to reduce carbon emissions.

[Denzeldude]

Time to play a different tune peterc005. More name calling. Heard it before.:rolleyes:

Yet again you've contributed nothing to your cause.

[404 Titan]

peterc005
In one corner are all of the universities
Unsubstantiated crap. Prove it.
the CSIRO and 99% of relevant scientists.
Prove it again and by the way what is your definition of relevant?
This side is backed up by thirty years of peer-reviewed science.

In the other corner we have a collection of grumpy old men and conspiracy theory nutters who post pseudo-scientific and unsubstantiated rants on anonymous internet forums all day. This side is backed up by AM shock-jocks like Alan Jones.
Prove it. Funny every time I see any dissent from within the scientific community they are castigated for their point of view by the hard line AGW believers. From where I sit I would call that Peer Group Pressure rather than Peer Reviewed Science. But hey that is how bullies work isn’t it? It’s a bit like you and some of the other “True Believers” here who constantly use derogatory terms to describe the non-believers but at the same time refuse to answer the questions being asked of you.:ugh:

[Towering Q]

yer starting to look like some religious evangelical trying hard to find a devil

Not me Binghi...maybe you....hell, yer even talkin' like one! :ok:

[rutan around]

Fred Hoyle the leading mathematician of his day never accepted that our universe is expanding.
Doctors took 20-30 years to accept that ulcers are caused by helicobacter pylori bugs
The catholic church took 350 years to accept that the earth orbits the sun.
Based on these facts how long will it take to convince a climate change denier that we must change our polluting ways? Most certainly much more time than I have left. Much as I would like to discuss the effect of co2 on radiation in the 13-17 micron absorption band and wax lyrical about depopulation being automatic if we stuff our environment I'm afraid I'm going to have to take my wife's advice and "Stop talking to those d*^k heads on P-Prune and do some work"
Cheers RA

[Denzeldude]

And it's taken about 10 years for the facts of climate alarmists/scientists to finally receive the scrutiny they deserve.

[baswell]

Oh dear, looks like the real scientists are have a great old time shredding the "met office didn't record rising temperatures for the past 16 years" nonsense.

Climate Change Deniers Write Another Fact-Free Op-Ed (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/03/climate_change_deniers_write_another_fact_free_op_ed.html)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8476/8116402222_9476ac7488_b.jpg

The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science (http://www.skepticalscience.com/latest-pre-bunked-denialist-letter-in-lieu-of-science.html)

Even the met, who supposedly "published" this, is weighing on the issue: Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012 « Met Office News Blog (http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/)

But I guess it's all a conspiracy (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scientific_pape rs.html?wpisrc=most_viral)...

[FGD135]

Err, Baswell,

Take another look at those graphs.

The top graph shows the period only from 1997, the bottom from about 1975.

The post 1997 trend can, in fact, be clearly identified in the bottom graph - it is that red bit of the graph.

It is the red bit of the bottom graph that shows the 16 year period of cooling. That same period, and only that period, is shown in the top graph!

Sure, the graphs look very convincing - at first glance - and this must be heartwarming for the alarmists, but in reality they just confirm what we already know: there has been no warming for 16 years now.

Somebody must think we are complete fools to fall for something so obvious. Many will fall for it though, as they did the infamous "hockeystick".

[FGD135]

And another thing, Baswell,

That article you linked to contains this statement:


On top of that, Rose was using global surface temperatures, which don’t really represent global overall heat content well; most of the heating is going into ocean waters.

Note that claim about the ocean waters. The Argo project, which became operational in 2003, is a series of buoys spread around the world's oceans to measure their temperatures.

The Argo buoys have shown that there has been no increase to the world's ocean temperatures for the life of that project (since 2003).

[Towering Q]

FGD135, the David Rose article from the Daily Mail gets some good analysis in the Met Office link that baswell provided.

The following link also provides an interesting insight into his assertions...

Temperature “analysis” by David Rose doesn’t smell so sweet | Open Mind (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/temperature-analysis-by-david-rose-doesnt-smell-so-sweet/)

The major problem is that David Rose has made one of the most common mistakes studying data. He looked at a graph and concluded that the long-term temperature trend had changed around mid-1997, then showed only the data since mid-1997 and claimed it was “the chart that proves it.”

His choice to start with mid-1997 was made because that gave him the result he wanted. That’s a practice called “cherry-picking.”

[Towering Q]

The Argo buoys have shown that there has been no increase to the world's ocean temperatures for the life of that project (since 2003).

From the Argo home page...

Global Change Analysis (http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html)

Salient points...

A key objective of Argo is to observe ocean signals related to climate change.

The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 7-year globally-averaged time series.

Argo's greatest contributions to observing the global oceans are still in the future, but its global span is clearly transforming the capability to observe climate-related changes.

[FGD135]

You're missing the point, Towering Q.

The whole point of picking 1997 as the start point is to show that there has been a decline in world temperatures since then.

A 16 year decline is especially significant when compared against the hundreds of alarmist claims/predictions that the temperature would be steadily rising throughout that period.

That decline is excrutiatingly embarrassing to the alarmist scientists. The "climategate" email revelations showed us just how embarrassing.

To the uninitiated, the "climategate" scandal came about when an email server at the University of East Anglia was hacked and thousands of emails messages were copied and released to the public. Those messages revealed the personal discussions between the world's "top-most" climate scientists.

The phrase "hide the decline" was used by one of the climatologists. The full passage was:


I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.


And, Dr Kevin Trenberth, referring to the decline in another email, said this:

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

[Chimbu chuckles]

AR5 leaked - IPCC doing a LOT of backpeddling...read it and weep alarmists...no man made signal evident in droughts, floods, cyclones and the world is indeed NOT warming these last 16 years.

Draft IPCC report leaked (the evidence is so overwhelming it has to be kept secret!) « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/draft-ipcc-report-leaked-the-evidence-is-so-overwhelming-it-has-to-be-kept-secret/)

[Towering Q]

The whole point of picking 1997 as the start point is to show that there has been a decline in world temperatures since then.


From the Met Office News Blog...

As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade..

[Frank Arouet]

This topic is so, so, off thread, and all the usual suspects, are at it, achieving nothing except failing to agree on a cruel fraudulent social experiment forced on a targetted gullible public to the extent it is divisive and a waste of time and energy unless you hapen to support the ravings of alarmists.

Try this thread:http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/471031-climate-change-debate-91.html

58,835 hits with 1,808 replies. A place where all disappear up their respective suck-holes and jetblast carry the can.

They deserve you all.

I'm off to fight CASA and their perceived right to exist.:ugh:

[Towering Q]

a cruel fraudulent social experiment forced on a targetted gullible public

Hard hitting rhetoric, Frank....even by your standards.

Good luck with the CASA thing...

[baswell]

there has been no warming for 16 years now
But if you pick 17 years, there clearly has been. So, it is just mind blowing how the temperature changed from one year to the next and then stayed the same for 16 years!

In fact, why don't you pick that one spike from roughly 1995 as starting point and prove the earth has been cooling?

[FGD135]

baswell,

Even the climate scientists don't dispute that there has been an absence of warming. Those climategate email quotations prove that.

[peterc005]

Delusional humbug.

Global warming has been increasing and following the trends predicted as far back as 1982.

[Flying Binghi]

.


"...The real bombshell of the report is now evident, a lack of warming to match model projections..."



IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing – as well as a lack of warming to match model projections, and reversal on ‘extreme weather’ | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/)






.

[peterc005]

Doesn't matter what you conspiracy theory nutters rant on about, the science is accepted and proven, the world is moving forward.

Man-made carbon emissions have lead to global warming and climate change.

The Carbon Tax is a good way to mitigate carbon emissions.

[FGD135]

Global warming has been increasing and following the trends predicted as far back as 1982.
Oh really peterc005?

Take a look at the following graph. This graph comes from the IPCC themselves (via the leaked AR5 report).

The coloured bands are the IPCC-predicted temperature ranges. The black squares and bars are the actual observations.

Take a look for yourself at how well the observations fit with the predictions - then tell me again how "global warming has been increasing and following the predictions".


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_fig1-4_models_obs.png

[Chimbu chuckles]

Peter005 = Another moron for the ignore list:ugh:

[Denzeldude]

I'm amused by global warming nutters like peterc005 and baswell and all the others out there. Lots of talk about how important it is to do more to prevent man-made global warming. "Gotta reduce our CO2 emissions and stop polluting the atmosphere, rivers, lakes, oceans."

But when push comes to shove, they won't give up their cars, buses, trains, planes and won't turn off their TVs, airconditioners, heaters, and never use lights at night (all these things never to be used again). They even travel by gas-guzzling airliners to another state or country, and we know how many tons of CO2 that produces :rolleyes:. No, no, no, because that would stop them from living the lifestyle they enjoy.:O

Instead they keep singing praise for pathetic initiatives like a carbon tax, and Earth Hour (how f##king pathetic is that gesture of turning lights off for 1 hour a year, OMFG :ugh:).

As peterc005 says:
"A Carbon Tax is an essential step to help mitigate Global Warming". Well peter, an even more effective thing than a tax is for you to stop driving your car, or using any other type of emissions producing transportation. It has an immediate and measurable effect. There ya go, that's how you can do your bit.

Baswell says: "Aviation is not the problem, it only puts out a small amount of CO2 compared to the main culprits. It's also a vital part of our society where only minor improvements can be made." Yeh, not worth giving up your right to travel by air, I mean it doesn't contribute much to man-made global warming. An airliner only goes through 100s of car tanks worth of fuel in an international flight. That's not much. Pffft, not even worth worrying about. OR, you and the other 90% (apparently) of global warming nutters could stop travelling by plane, then the demand for flights will reduce, causing less flights to happen, causing less emissions and voila...less global warming.:D

But it's these 'feel good' gestures that seem to make them think they're doing their part to save this Earth.:ok:

That's right guys, fight the necessary fight, but don't you do anything real about the situation.:= You just keep enjoying life's luxuries at the expense of the Earth.

F##king hypocrites.:ugh:
(The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behaviour does not conform)

[Towering Q]

The IPCC Draft Report leak is discussed here...

IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun (http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1776)

In summary:

The leaked IPCC report states that there may be some connection between GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays) and some aspects of the climate system.

However, the report is also consistent with the body of scientific literature in stating that research indicates GCRs are not effective at seeding clouds and have very little influence on global temperatures.

Solar activity has been nearly flat and slightly decreasing in recent decades, meaning that if GCRs do amplify solar influences on climate, they are amplifying a cooling effect.

The body of peer-reviewed scientific literature is very clear: human greenhouse gas emissions, not solar activity or galactic cosmic rays, are causing global warming. The leaked IPCC report is entirely consistent with this conclusion.

One of the comments at the end of the article says it all:

In a way, this is precisely the "climategate" model: gain access to information that is not yet publicly available; sift through looking for useful bits; trumpet those bits out of context, relying on the target audience to buy it hook, line, and sinker without ever reading the original context.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hi Mr 'D',
Taking a line from you....and not disagreeing with you, so for the remainder....

Re ". "Gotta reduce our CO2 emissions and stop polluting the atmosphere, rivers, lakes, oceans."

Funny ain't it? Around 165 MILLION years ago, the Co2 content was VERY HIGH, and allowed those BIG trees to grow...you know the ones that were the food source of the herbavores.
The planet was supposedly then covered in lush vegetation, thus allowing the dinosaurs etc to thrive.

Now it ain't covered in lush vegetation...is this because there is insufficient
Co2 these days to promote the growth of same vegetation...??

Your call....the 'remainder'.....that is....

Cheers

[Denzeldude]

Towering Q,
Just as global warming lovers don't take much value from anti-warming websites, I also don't take much value from the website you provided, which is maintained by the "Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland", with articles and comments provided by many more "peer reviewed" alarmist scientists.

Just look at his temperature scale of "climate myths" which would be more accurately described as "global warming skeptic myths". I've never seen such a massive site full of propaganda. Links and picture to everything pro-warming, and also everything anti-denier. Not holding back for one second on putting down "deniers".

Wow!!:eek:

So when you're trying to have a go at Binghi by saying (emphasis added):
Binghi, the problem with reading Jo the Microbiologist's blog, is that it only reinforces your current beliefs. Have you tried widening out from Jo, wattsupwiththat and the ICSC?

I'd respectively say the same to you, if you're going to quote articles from SkepticalScience!:=

[Denzeldude]

And peterc005, maybe you should visit that SkepticalScience website so you have more to say than "tax is good", "people are bad".:ok:

[Towering Q]

Denzel, there is an element of truth to what you say about quoting articles.

It is very easy to search the internet for material that suits your argument, and then post the links...both sides of this debate operate this way.

Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing. From my experience at least, it has forced me to dig deeper into this complex issue and learn more in the process. The key, I believe, is to keep an open mind whilst doing this...sometimes easier said than done.

What I do enjoy about Flying Binghi's contributions is his ability to 'play the ball...not the man.' He doesn't use colourful, emotive language like...'global warming lovers' and 'conspiracy theory nutters'. He just presents his case, and provides the links to back it up. Now I certainly don't agree with his view point most of the time, but that is part of the learning process, and is to be expected.

And finally, I don't agree with your assessment of John Cook, the creator of Skeptical Science, (surprise, surprise I hear you say!:})

One of Cook’s priorities is distilling math- and jargon-heaving journal articles into plain language – something that opponents of action to deal with climate change have been successful at.

Taken from...

Not all climate ‘skeptics’ are created equal | Vancouver Sun (http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/11/29/not-all-climate-skeptics-are-created-equal/)

[FGD135]

Towering Q,

At your post #178, you posted a link to an article on the SkepticalScience website and quoted some of that article.

I followed your link to that article and read it - and compared it to the article on which it was based (the essay by Alec Rawls - the leaker of the AR5 draft).

It appears the intent of the author of the SkepticalScience piece ("dana1981") is to play down and obfuscate the claims made by Rawls.

There were a number of bombshells in the Rawls essay but none of these were tackled by the dana1981.

The author quoted 3 of Rawls' non-bombshell statements and bolded a portion of one. I quote that one here, and reproduce her bolding:


"There is very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular, over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite observations of the TSI [total solar irradiance] and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero (–0.04 W m–2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of ~1.0 ± 0.3 W m–2."
Check out the bit she bolded. This was the only bit she bolded out of 3 quoted statements.

How's that for trying to baffle us with obfuscation?

The truly bombshell claims by Rawls, ignored by dana1981, are:

"The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don’t know what the mechanism is."

And,

"This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing."
And,

"The report still barely hints at the mountain of evidence for enhanced solar forcing, or the magnitude of the evidenced effect. Dozens of studies (section two here) have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices, suggesting that solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change, very little of which could be explained by the very slight variation in TSI. At least the Chapter 7 team is now being explicit about what this evidence means: that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work."
And finally:

"The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum."

[Denzeldude]

TQ, the link you provided is made to sound like John Cook is a sceptic. He never was, isn't now, and I'm sure we both agree that he never will be.
His aim on that website is, as the article mentions, is to debunk the claims of deniers by putting the "undeniable" evidence into plain language.

From the wording in that article and on his website, his whole work was to share his database of pro-manmade global warming articles. To put it another way, there is nothing on his website that even remotely could be considered a balanced discussion on any of the issues raised in the ongoing debate.



Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis, I see only one problem with the US ruling. Those airliners are parked at EU sovereign airports for some small part of the trip. The US can jump up and down as much as they want...no money...no pushback!

As for the fallacy that is human induced climate change, even my high school physics and chemistry. Tech college thermodynamics and my flying meteorology tell me different. CO2 is a stable molecule. That alignment is a straight bar that is fairly resistant to excitation. Therein is the reason the signature of the presence of CO2 is depicted by two main frequencies of IR. the two bands correspond to the excitation of the molecule resulting in stretching and bending. This is where the science of CC is corrupted. Broad wavelength IR radiation is emitted into the atmosphere from the planet. Two specific wavelengths cause the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere to vibrate...stretching and bending... High School physics and Thermo law number one says energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So CO2 absorbs IR, an amount of that IR is converted to heat as a product of the vibration of the molecule. The excess is re-radiated at the same frequency in random directions...this is the con...by inference the heat is also transmitted in random directions. Half up and half down. Trapping the heat in lower atmosphere. This violates the second law. Heat only travels from a warmer object to a cooler object. Heat can only travel in one direction. The heat is not stored in the CO2 molecule the same way latent heat is stored in H2O. Now, this small band of IR is now deminished by about 8%. Every time it hits another CO2 molecule it keeps deminishing ....annihilation! All interesting if CO2 was the only constituent of our atmosphere. The pro people use the argument that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas that absorbs this wavelength of IR when compared to water vapour. However, when you put liquid water in the equation, CO2 is swamped!

Water vapour or liquid water. Psychrometery! Humidity, clouds, WEATHER! Latent heat and wide band IR absorption. There is no feedback because the heat still is emitted out into the atmosphere not trapping it like either the glass of a greenhouse or stopping advection similar to insulation ...as in trapping air and stopping its movement. Any AC engineer can tell you how insulation works. Any pilot can tell you how weather works. The first and second laws of Thermo are inviolate!

CO2 is not a strong driver of atmospheric heat. Increase concentration does not increase absorption linearly. The relationship decreases logarithmically. Methinks the realisation will drop as concentrations of CO2 continue increasing linearly. There is nothing wrong with reducing emissions. It makes economic sense and we have all been doing it since the oil shocks of the seventies. There are more of us on the planet but our footprint is not increasing directly. There are plenty of issues facing us. Using a tax on a trace gas as wealth redistribution is just so yesterday's socialism!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Before anyone picks me on it. Latent heat and sensible heat wrt H20 changing state shouldn't need to be explained here. It certainly needs to be explained to warmists. The amount of energy emitted by CO2 after IR excitation doesn't hold a candle to water. 0.039% to 2.3%? A factor of a 1000? Yet somehow, this candle heats a furnace load of energy by a measurable amount.

[sprocket check]

Here is something for you all to chew on:

IPCC Climate Change 2013 Report Leaked - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/ipcc-climate-change-2013-report-leaked-2012-12?goback=%2Egde_129918_member_196421871)

[Flying Binghi]

.

Heh, temperatures didn't play ball so they need some excuse...


Quote via Towering Q #178:
In a way, this is precisely the "climategate" model: gain access to information that is not yet publicly available; sift through looking for useful bits; trumpet those bits out of context, relying on the target audience to buy it hook, line, and sinker without ever reading the original context.

via Towering Q #182:
It is very easy to search the internet for material that suits your argument,...


Well, lets have a look-see at a couple of books.

Via the book Living in the Hothouse by Ian Lowe, written in 2005. Page 51 referring to CSIRO climate temperature computer models... "All the modelling predicts significant temperature increases for Australia, even on a short time scale of 25 years." All the models, significant temperature increases - No ifs butts or maybe there..:hmm:
Who's Ian Lowe; (2005 book reference) "Ian Lowe is... an emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University. An expert on global warming... contributed to IPCC... member of the Australian Climate Group..."


Via The Garnaut Climate Change Review 2008. Page 84, 4.2.1 Confidence in climate models:
"...The ability of climate models to accurately simulate responses in the climate system depends on the level of understanding of the processes that govern the climate system, the availability of observed data for various scales of climate response, and the computing power of the climate model... ...For some elements of the climate system, such as surface temperature, there is broad agreement on the pattern of future climate changes... ...The likelihood of a particular outcome can be assessed through the use of a range of models. However, outcomes at the high or low end of a range of model results may also be plausible..."
Garnaut gave himself plenty of outs there with the "high or low end" range. Trouble is the actual real world temps drop clean off the low end of the scale... so much for the "level of understanding", or as Al Gore and co would say "the science is settled"..:hmm:


Now lets hear from a sceptic of the climate models used by Lowe and Garnaut...

Via The Climate Caper 2009, by Garth Paltridge, atmospheric physicist and a former Chief Research Scientist with CSIRO division of Atmospheric Research:
Page 34 "...Perhaps one of the biggest problems with numerical modelling is that it is a gentlemanly activity conducted entirely from one's desk. There is no need to visit the real world to often... ...The fact that the results may have nothing to do with the real world can conveniently be ignored. Other models take the place of observation...
...The high probability attached by the IPCC to its thesis of climate disaster is not the result of careful scientific analysis of theory verses experiment. Basically it derives from a set of people sitting around a table making personal guesses about the quality of the models..."

Looks like the IPCC geussed wrong... oh well, there's always the sun to blame..:hmm:




.

[Denzeldude]

Shhh Binghi, don't mention the Sun. := It's such an insignificant thing up there in the sky. No way on Earth (pun intended) can it be the cause of heating the planet.

[Flying Binghi]

Shhh Binghi, don't mention the Sun...


Heh, we might hafta, apparently the IPCC has just discovered it..:)

[Flying Binghi]

.


Ah been chaffing at the bit fer the last week odd listening/reading a heck of a lot of heated nonsense. This dumb ol hill farmer me not being paid by the govmint/activists to research 'correct' climate answers aint had time to attend the matter.... soon..:)


Something i were involved in during the last heat/fire extreme hysteria...

via http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/283315-climate-change-debate-252.html

Page 252 #5034:
Re my previous post here's something ah posted in another forum (weatherzone) -

A Leading climate scientist claims that the temps in town X are the highest they've been since records began.

An illiterate points out that that temperatures have actually been warmer in town X many years ago, in fact in the news papers of 150 years ago, temps are mentioned that are much hotter then today.

Scientist says official records only go back 100 years and not to believe the news papers. According to the scientist, the thermometres used to record the temps 150 years ago were just hung up on the back veranda under a hot tin roof and are unreliable as there was not a proper scientific method used.

Illiterate (hmmm, when was roofing tin invented) points out that in town X the roofs of 150 years ago were in fact mainly wood shingle and in many cases there was insulation in the ceilings - it is well recorded and found with 30 seconds of googling.

Scientist continues with tin roof and cheap thermometre under tin roof theory.

Illiterate further notes that the thermometers of 150 years ago were not cheap items just randomly hung up on back veranda's.

Scientist sticks to guns with claims that THE official scientificly aproved method of temperature record in town X only goes back 100 years, and no other reliable records are available for town X.

Illiterate reading the official government records of town X discovers that ther was an official full time employed met man and met station 150 years ago and that he regularly posted his readings to the government gazett record and news papers.

Scientist blathers something about checking the records...


Leading Australian climate 'Scientist' Blair Trewin vs 'illiterate' Flying Binghi discusing temp records for Melbourne Australia.... Who's Blair Trewin ? google is your freind...




.

[peterc005]

Another whacko psychotic conspiracy theory rant.

Speak with your doctor about the level of your medication.

Climate Change is good science, backed by 30 years of peer-reviewed research.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

US/China opposition 'helped delay' EU carbon tax (http://www.paneuropeannetworks.com/print/news_us-china-opposition-helped-delay-eu-carbon-tax.html)


12 December 2012
Last Updated: 11:55

Europe: International opposition to the EU's proposed carbon emissions tax encouraged member states to oppose the green policy, a Reuters Insight report has found.

In the past, China has threatened to withhold aircraft orders from European plane maker Airbus if the emissions tax went ahead. It's also understood that Indian and Chinese airlines also declined to submit emissions data to Brussels.
According to a senior EU official, the European Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard (pictured), was “under extreme pressure” and the UK, France and Germany were preparing to exclude the aviation industry from the tax. “(Hedegaard) fought very, very hard for a year-long freeze…Barroso backed her,” said the source.
Key European airlines, including Air France, Lufthansa and KLM, are thought to have written to national leaders warning of possible retaliation if the tax went ahead in 2013. Airbus is thought to have been concerned about potential major job losses as two Chinese airlines are alleged to have withheld a large aircraft order due to Beijing's opposition to the law.
In response to the Reuters report, Hedegaard says the delay of the tax was due to positive progress at an ICAO meeting in addressing aircraft emissions, adding that she had the support of the UK, France and Germany for the freeze.
Last month, the European Commission delayed the carbon tax for 12 months. The move means that flights between EU airports and those outside the Union will be exempt from having to pay duty on their carbon emissions until 2014. Airlines that fly within the EU will still have to pay the levy.
Legislators in Washington, DC have passed an act to allow US-based airlines to be exempt from the charge.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

NASA U Turn admits global warming bias on sun's key role (http://http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/98-breaking-nasa-u-turn-admits-global-warming-bias-on-sun-s-key-role.html)

In one of the biggest body blows to climate alarmism comes an astonishing new u-turn from NASA. In essence, the prestigious American space agency has admitted it has been shackled for decades into toeing a political line over man-made global warming so as to play down key solar factors.

don't flame for selective copy and paste... Just too many images to edit out on my phone!

[peterc005]

Great. A link to a whacko conspiracy-theory web site with an official-sounding name to add a varnish of credibility to the incredible.

Climate change sketics, secret UFO landings, the CIA assassinated JFK etc. There is no shortage intellectually challenged people to fall for their mis-information or even perpetuate paranoid conspiracy theories.

Climate change is good science, backed by thirty years of peer-reviewed research.

[Flying Binghi]

.


via peterc005:
Climate change is good science, backed by thirty years of peer-reviewed research.

So, peterc005. With "thirty years of peer reviewed research" to aid him one of Australia's climate scientists Blair Trewinn were completely unaware that there were a government funded climate station in Melbourne that supplied wx reports for the government gazzet and newspapers of the day..:ooh: ...one wonders what exactly the 'peer' reviewed research were that our tax payer dollars are paying for..:hmm:




.

[Flying Binghi]

.

sarc on/


Apparently Oodnadata airport just had a temperature 'record'... i'm looking for the 1850's Oodnadata airport temperature records - anyone know where to find them..:)




.

[baswell]

Pro tip: If you are going to shout about how it's all a hoax, I would pick an uncharacteristically cold period to do it.

Just sayin'...

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re - "I would pick an uncharacteristically cold period to do it."

How about the last Ice Age.....

Been 'warming' ever since..??

Until the next one that is...

Ho HUM
:ok:

[peterc005]

Another whacko psychotic conspiracy theory rant. At it's best anecdotes and pseudo science.

Climate Change is good science, backed by 30 years of peer-reviewed research.

[jas24zzk]

Climate Change is good science, backed by 30 years of peer-reviewed research.

So is chemtrails. They have lots of peers to back up the 'science'. Best of all they do it free for our benefit.:rolleyes:

[Towering Q]

Binghi, I see you've decided to kick the tin a little further down the street.

I read a blog recently, covering the David Rose and Judith Curry articles in the Mail on Sunday .

Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial (http://skepticalscience.com/rose-curry-double-down-denial.html)

The basic assertion is that global surface temperatures have not warmed in 16 years, well 15 and a bit....but who's counting.:8

IMHO, one of the posters in the comments section provides a good summary of the situation....

"AGW as an issue of science is generally accepted within the science community and the data that serves as evidence for this position, though it is complex, is not confusing for those who have studied the science and understand the nature of natural systems.

Now how many people in the general population are going to be able to fit in this niche of comprehension?

For every Einstein there is a soccer stadium full of halfwit hooligans swilling beer and screaming at men kicking a ball.

Taking a marginal point and spinning it into a unjustifiable conclusion is as easy as selling lotto tickets to the delusional."

[Flying Binghi]

.


...Taking a marginal point and spinning it into a unjustifiable conclusion is as easy as selling lotto tickets to the delusional...

...Heh,like Al Gore selling carbon credits to climate hysterics..:hmm:



.

[Flying Binghi]

.

"Data"..:confused:

via Towering Q: ...the data that serves as evidence for this position, though it is complex, is not confusing for those who...


Do tell Towering Q, what is this "evidence" ?


-------------------------------------------------------

In the news 1913...

"...The heat in the country last week was terrific, ranging from 120 to 125(51.7c) degrees. Birds and plain turkeys were found dead, and kangaroos and wallabies were so overcome as to refuse to move, and could be killed without resistance..."

09 Dec 1913 - TERRIFIC HEAT. BIRDS FALL DEAD. A CYCLONE FOLLOW... (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/15468919)



.

[Frank Arouet]

Climate Change is good science, backed by 30 years of peer-reviewed research.

And paid for by whom?

This "science" is robbing medical R&D by years. Lets hope nobody's Mother is put to medical risk by this dumb misappropriation of funding. Funding which may find a cure for cancer in five years, but the climate change fraud must be attended to now despite probably a million years for it to happen.

Another social engineering experiment put up by snake oil salesmen/ women.

[peterc005]

In the Climate Change Corner we have:


The Science Faculties of every major university
CSIRO
NASA
Thirty years of scientific research and peer review
etc etc etc


In the Climate Skeptic corner:


A bunch of jaded, grumpy old men who think they know more than everyone else and who believe people like Alan Jones
The paranoid and psychotic who see conspiracies behind every corner
A disparet bunch of backyard pseudo-science and anecdotes

[Flying Binghi]

via peterc005:

In the Climate Change Corner we have:
The Science Faculties of every major university
CSIRO
NASA
Thirty years of scientific research and peer review
etc etc etc

In the Climate Skeptic corner:
A bunch of jaded, grumpy old men who think they know more than everyone else and who believe people like Alan Jones
The paranoid and psychotic who see conspiracies behind every corner
A disparet bunch of backyard pseudo-science and anecdotes


Dont know the subject all that well do ya peterc005..:)

Here's some heavy hitters...

Joanne Nova - American Geophysical Union – cheat, deceive, steal, “It’s OK”. « JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/american-geophysical-union-cheat-decieve-steal-its-ok/)

Jennifer Marohasy - Jennifer Marohasy » Your Temperatures Diddled (http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/07/your-temperatures-diddled/)

Donna Laframboise - This Is Called Cheating (Part 1) « NoFrakkingConsensus (http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/12/20/this-is-called-cheating-part-1/)




-----------------------------------------------------------------

In the news for 1924...

A HEAT WAVE. BIRDS DROP DEAD. Sydney, January 18.

In Savernake yesterday, the thermometer varied from 112 to 118 in the shade. So excessive was the heat that many birds dropped dead.
19 Jan 1924 - New South Wales. A HEAT WAVE. BIRDS DROP DEAD. S... (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/66926094)

[peterc005]

All you've done is post more links to nutter Climate Skeptic web-sites.

It costs $20 to register an internet domain with an official-sounding name and setup a web site to make loud noises about whatever whacko conspiracy theory you have.

Hate to break the bad news, but not every thing you read on the internet is true.

Climate change is solid science, backed by thirty years of peer-reviewed research.

[Towering Q]

Yes Peter, if you want to learn more about the subject, you will have to immerse yourself in material provided by the 'heavy hitters'.:rolleyes:

Joanne Nova, (Nova is a stage name:yuk:), UWA trained Microbiologist. Who knows what effect Staph Aureus has on Radiative Forcing!? (BTW, if you want to see a different perspective on Nova's "science", check this out...

Joanne Nova « itsnotnova (http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/category/joanne-nova/)

Donna Laframboise....the Canadian writer, journalist and photographer, who once said that we do not need to act on climate change now, because in the future we will have superior technology.:D

Climate scientist Peter Gleik posted a review of her book, "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert", calling it a "stunning compilation of lies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods about the fundamental science of climate change."

[baswell]

Illiterate further notes that the thermometers of 150 years ago were not cheap items just randomly hung up on back veranda's.
So, collect all the anecdotal temperature readings from that period, do a study on the likelihood of their accuracy, get it peer reviewed and published so the scientists can take them into account.

Science is easy, anyone can do it!

[peterc005]

The original topic was a dig at a Carbon Tax from Europe, posted in some reason in an ANZ forum.

My observation is that the Carbon Tax in Australia turned out to be a non-event and you hardly hear about it any more.

In the same quarter the Carbon Tax was introduced the CPI actually fell, suggesting the Carbon Tax has had no impact on prices.

To all of the people complaining about the Carbon Tax and predicting that the sky would fall - you were wrong!

[CHAIRMAN]

Peter, you obviously either don't pay your own elect bills, or don't read them...............the carbon tax is having a huge effect.
Personal example:
Home Integral eneregy account 23 July 2012 says, and I quote ' Qld Competition Authority estimates a 2012-2013 carbon price impact on domestic tariff 11 as 2.4c/kWh & economy tariffs 31 & 33 as 2.5 & 2.4 c/kWh'[/COLOR] Unquote.
This forward estimate represents over 10% of my before then rate.
Curious that invoices received after that one do not quantify the carbon tax effect. Gillard originally agreed to the power companies listing the direct carbon tax charge, but later reneged as labour has done on most promises.
This charge is also filtering through to my business as it is to all other Australian businesses.
Another cross for our economy to bear, when the only other economies to implement such stupidity are going down the gurgler.
This tax is slowly filtering through our whole economy, not just elect, which is the obvious target.
To claim it is a non-event is sticking ones head in the sand.
Cheers

[peterc005]

I pay three different electricity bills and haven't noticed a difference. A couple of bucks either way doesn't matter.

The Carbon Tax was a text book measure to discourage carbon emissions and I think it is good to see the government taking steps to mitigate global warming.

Most of the people moaning about the Carbon Tax seem to have been grumpy old men, nostalgic for the way things were in the 1950s and not able to adapt to the 21st century.

[Aussie Bob]

A review of Peterc005's comments to date
@ 2 Peter tells us the tax is good
@ 69 Peter tells us the tax is a non event
@ 72Peter tells us smart meters are great
@ 75 Peter brings in the words "climate sceptic conspiracy"
@ 77 Peter tells us "Australia is a modern western-style social democracy"
@ 88 Peter mentions "climate change sceptic nutters" and "conspiracy"
@ 95 Peter again mentions "conspiracy theory nutters"
@ 100 Peter mentions "conspiracy theory nutters"
@ 109 Peter tells us the tax is good
@ 117 Peter mentions "conspiracy theory nutters"
@ 127 Peter tells us the tax is good
@ 146 Peter tels us the tax is good
@ 154 Peter mentions "conspiracy theory nutters"
@ 172 Peter refers to a differing opinion as "delusional humbug"
@ 174 Peter mentions "conspiracy theory nutters"
@ 192 Peter mentions "conspiracy theory rant"
@ 195 Peter mentions "whacko conspiracy theory"
@ 200 Peter mentions "whacko conspiracy theory rant"
@ 206 Peter mentions "conspiracies"
@ 208 Peter mentions "nutter climate sceptic"
@ 211 Peter tells us the tax is good
@ 213 Peter tells us the tax is good and opponents are just grumpy old men

Peter has also failed to answer a single question, or put forward anything meaningful to this thread. This conspiracy theory nutter is beginning to sense a bit of a conspiracy.

[Flying Binghi]

via Towering Q:
Yes Peter, if you want to learn more about the subject, you will have to immerse yourself in material provided by the 'heavy hitters'.:rolleyes:

Joanne Nova, (Nova is a stage name:yuk:), UWA trained Microbiologist. Who knows what effect Staph Aureus has on Radiative Forcing!? (BTW, if you want to see a different perspective on Nova's "science", check this out...

Joanne Nova « itsnotnova

Donna Laframboise....the Canadian writer, journalist and photographer, who once said that we do not need to act on climate change now, because in the future we will have superior technology.:D

Climate scientist Peter Gleik posted a review of her book, "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert", calling it a "stunning compilation of lies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods about the fundamental science of climate change."


"Nova is a stage name:yuk:"

Hmmm... Interesting reaction there Towering Q..:hmm:

...anyway, Jo Nova has a recent posting about Peter Gleick:

...Gleick’s welcome back to AGU prominence – without serving even the equivalent of a game’s suspension – was pretty startling, given his admitted identity fraud and distribution (and probable fabrication) of a forged document. Last year, then AGU President Mike McPhadren, a colleague of Eric Steig’s at the University of Washington, had stated on behalf of AGU that Gleick had “compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific society” and that his “transgression cannot be condoned”...
American Geophysical Union – cheat, deceive, steal, “It’s OK”. « JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/american-geophysical-union-cheat-decieve-steal-its-ok/)

...:hmm:


By the way Towering Q, how goes yer search for that "Data" and "Evidence". We will be getting some shortly i hope... perhaps our current 'record' heat wave might help yer..:)




.