CARBON TAX-It's Started!

[Frank Arouet]

Rule 22;

The science behind Climate Change is proven and good.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

peter old mate. Go straight to rule 25;

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Can one ask if you are one of the Trolls paid for with Taxpayer expense to the tune of $300K per week to respond and ridicule dissent on websites?

[sisemen]

The science behind Climate Change is proven and good.

Incontrovertible; set in stone; can't be questioned; science must be right; the science is settled.

So how come in this last version of the IPCC report (them wot said that the science is settled) they're now backtracking furiously on the claims that more extremes of climate will be experienced because of human induced carbon pollution?

Science is settled? Pig's arse.

Anybody who quotes that mantra obviously still believes that fairies live at the bottom of the garden. And any self-respecting scientist who actually believes in the process of science would never, ever say that the science is settled.

It's a political scam pure and simple.

[Towering Q]

Agenda's can be influenced through the allocation of resources.

In much the same way as industry advocates and large oil and gas corporations provide resources to the anti-AGW side.

[Jabawocky]

I know one PPRUNER knows the answer, because as a retired CSIRO scientist and pilot, he was in the right job to know........But what is it that CSIRO spend more time and effort researching than anything else?

Chocky frog to the winner!

[Frank Arouet]

Cancer, diabetics, small tits, big tits?

Am I getting close?

[Chimbu chuckles]

Worth a read

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...ridley_rsa.pdf

[peterc005]

@Frank - see a doctor regarding the dose of your medicine.

[flyingfox]

Thanks Breakfastburrito for alerting me to my apparent 'Hegelian dialectic' efforts. I can't say that I was aware such a crime existed and certainly wasn't aware of it's potential to coerce a debate in any direction whatsoever!

knowing full well most people will come to a conclusion somewhere in the middle

Maybe I could have a future 'calling' in whatever field that is!!

[breakfastburrito]

flyingfox, perhaps you misinterpreted what I was saying, I wan't accusing you of being the perpetrator, just the opposite, the victim of someone else's campaign.

Chimbu Chuckles, excellent piece, I would suggest everyone on both sides of the debate read it. He eventually gets to the meat of the problem:

Well here’s why it matters. The alarmists have been handed power over our lives;
the heretics have not. Remember Britain’s unilateral Climate Change Act is officially expected to cost the
hard-pressed UK economy £18.3 billion
a year for the next 39 years and achieve an unmeasurably small change in carbon dioxide levels.

At least sceptics do not cover the hills of Scotland with useless, expensive,
duke-subsidising wind turbines whose manufacture causes pollution in Inner
Mongolia and which kill rare raptors such as this griffon vulture.

At least crop circle believers cannot almost double your electricity bills and
increase fuel poverty while driving jobs to Asia, to support their fetish.
At least creationists have not persuaded the BBC that balanced reporting is
no longer necessary.

At least homoeopaths have not made expensive condensing boilers, which
shut down in cold weather, compulsory, as John Prescott did in 2005.
At least astrologers have not driven millions of people into real hunger,
perhaps killing 192,000 last year according to one conservative estimate, by
diverting 5% of the world’s grain crop into motor fuel.

That’s why it matters. We’ve been asked to take some very painful cures.
So we need to be sure the patient has a brain tumour rather than a nosebleed.

That is my concern - that what strikes me a scam is being used to control millions of lives, and if they had their way billions for dubious science. It would appear that science has been hijacked too justify a pre-ordained outcome: the control of the populous.

[DutchRoll]

Originally Posted by Jaberwocky

His words are CO2 is a clourless, odourless and naturally occurring gas that is a benefice to life.

Jabberwocky, if you're going to gaze into your crystal ball and attempt to determine where I got the info from that Bob Carter relates CO2 not being harmful to being colourless and odourless, it would behove you to ask me first so that you don't come up with the wrong source, as you just have.

Opinion Piece, Bob Carter, October 5th 2011, The Daily Climate

"carbon dioxide is not toxic, nor a pollutant, but rather a colorless, odourless and tasteless gas essential for life on earth"

He uses this same argument repeatedly. Carter (or "Bob", as you and he seem to be great mates), is clearly inferring that being colourless and odourless has something to do with CO2's alleged harmlessness. It has nothing to do with the debate at all. Zero. Carter is simply absurdly attempting to prop up his argument by using CO2s physical properties when they bear no relevance.

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

Sure go stand in a chamber of 100% CO2 and see how long you last, but if you won't do that how about a chanber of 100% Nitrogen??? Ok Dutchie that is stupid, so how about 100% oxygen? Nope did not think you would be in that either.

Huh? ITS A GREENHOUSE GAS. NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT BREATHING IT IN A CHAMBER. Oh yeah, and I'd be happy to stand in a chamber of 100% oxygen, BTW, as long as no-one lit a match. But I don't get it - how can oxygen be so life-giving yet so potentially harmful?

Do you understand that something may be detrimental in some ways yet not in others? Can you understand, for example, that phosphorus is an essential trace element in the body with detrimental effects if you have a deficiency, yet in other circumstances, like when it's stacked in drums in the corner of a fireworks factory, that it can be extremely hazardous? Can you get your mind around this "might be good in some ways, bad in others" concept? Honestly, if you don't comprehend that principle, I'm at my wits end as to how to explain it to you. I don't think I can help you any further and I don't think this avenue of the argument can progress at all.

I have to correct you again Dutchie, the IPCC and AGW's have always maintained a fear campaign on DANGEROUS......go watch the Al Gore movie again, without rose tinted glasses.

Once again, your crystal ball malfunctions badly. You really need to get it checked out. I have never watched Al Gore's movie. Al Gore is not the IPCC. I don't care what Al Gore says and I never have. I have never read his book. He is not a scientist. I do care what the scientists say, and I subscribe to and read online (and in hardcopy for a few) a lot of scientific articles, magazines, journals, and a university textbook or two. Which is a heck of a lot more than I can say for some people on this thread. Because hey, when you're a sceptic, why would you actually read about science from a science book when you can learn everything you need from a conspiratorial website or movie?

explain to me how when CO2 has kept increasing, the temperatures have done the opposite?

They haven't "done the opposite". They have risen at a slower rate for a decade. This phenomenon of natural variability is not unusual, and has been addressed many times. The rising temperatures still continue either side of it though (since industrialisation). Also what is happening now, and what happened thousands of years ago, are not the same thing.

And of course Climategate 1.0 and Climategate 2.0

They are the same batch of emails! The 2nd batch are the previously unreleased ones which were hacked with the first batch. They're referring to exactly the same things that were referred to years ago and have been addressed by a multitude of different inquiries. Some of the new emails are in fact identical (ie, exactly the same email, but renumbered to make it look as if they're new), but fake-sceptics, completely lacking any ability to critically examine them at all, think that they're new.

And just like the first time, they are cherry picked one-liners which feed the fake-sceptics all the info they need without any context (which fake-sceptics don't need). Example:

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.”

Fake-sceptics are right onto this one as evidence of yet more vast scientific conspiracies to mislead the public, and it even gets a mention a couple of pages back on this very thread. But some fake-sceptics are so freaking stupid and lazy, that they don't realise that the full email says this:

“I think the hardest yet most important part is to boil the section down to 0.5 pages. In looking back over your good outline, sent back on Oct 17 (my delay is due to fatherdom just after this time) you cover A LOT. The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change. Moreover, we have to have solid data – not inconclusive information.”

Puts a totally different perspective on it, right? They were doing nothing more conspiratorial than editing a large chunk of information down to what was really relevant and essential.

[Captain Dart]

You seem to be a fount of knowledge, Dutch. Every time I take off out of my home port in Australia for my 'overnight horror' flights north, there is a line of red blinking lights on the horizon delineating a row of huge wind powered turbines.

These things are monsters. Apart from their visual abomination on the landscape, danger to birds (and even aircraft), noise to local residents etc, they obviously require a huge amount of steel, concrete and other metals to construct; and of course, transport to site, energy involved in erection, and ongoing maintenance.

My question: how long does it take for these things to repay the 'energy debt' involved in the processing of their construction materials from raw products, their installation, and their ongoing maintenance?

[Lodown]

Well Canada is about to announce that it is pulling out of any Kyoto agreement, following the USA, Brazil and Russia. Durban's turning out to be a dud. Now that the UK has suddenly discovered a shipload of natural gas and has access with frakking, I wonder how long before the UK turns its back on climate change too. Served its purpose when oil and coal had to be purchased overseas. Different policy entirely when there are enormous energy sources right under the home soil.

Good job Australia! Just when the main players are pulling out, Australia jumps in head first. Tell me who we are supposed to be trading carbon credits with again? It won't be long before the entire country is riding solely on the backs of the miners and the farmers. Any other exporting industry will be gone.

"The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering."

And another recent climate change hit. The wheels are falling off the fear jalopy:

Whoo boy… just a few days ago it was argued in a new peer reviewed paper published in Science that climate sensitivity might be lower than the IPCC stated in AR4. Now we have this damning admission from Dr. Tom Wigley of NCAR that it can’t be determined at all from the data we have. Of course they’d never tell anyone publicly such things.

Wattsupwiththat

[breakfastburrito]

Originally Posted by Captain Dart

My question: how long does it take for these things to repay the 'energy debt' involved in the processing of their construction materials from raw products, their installation, and their ongoing maintenance?

Capt Dart, there a concept of EROI- Energy Returned on Energy Invested - your energy debt.

Here is a good article discussion: Energy from Wind: A Discussion of the EROI Research

The next issue is weather a particular technology will scale. It may have a high EROI, but many renewable don't scale well.

From the discussion: Figure 3: EROI of various electric power generators.

[sisemen]

Transcript from Lateline last night - interview with David Murray, Chairman of the Future Fund:

ALI MOORE: Just a final question. This week starts the mark of a UN - or the UN, I should say, climate change talks in Durban. Would you describe yourself as a climate sceptic?

DAVID MURRAY: Ah, yes. A sceptic is not the word you should use when you disagree with somebody. You should say you disagree. And I don't think there is sufficient evidence to take the sort of risks that are being taken around the world. I've always thought that with the global population growing as fast as it is, that there would be real pressure on energy prices and people would correct automatically by using energy much more sparingly and that would start to self-correct - if there's a problem.

ALI MOORE: So you don't rule out there being a problem; you're just not convinced there's a problem.

DAVID MURRAY: No, but with these things one looks at probability and severity. And you look for actions you can take which would reduce the severity if the problem is there. But if we're not certain that the problem's there, then we don't - we shouldn't take actions which have a high severity the other way.

My bolding.

[Jabawocky]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaberwocky
His words are CO2 is a clourless, odourless and naturally occurring gas that is a benefice to life.

Jabberwocky, if you're going to gaze into your crystal ball and attempt to determine where I got the info from that Bob Carter relates CO2 not being harmful to being colourless and odourless, it would behove you to ask me first so that you don't come up with the wrong source, as you just have.

Opinion Piece, Bob Carter, October 5th 2011, The Daily Climate

"carbon dioxide is not toxic, nor a pollutant, but rather a colorless, odourless and tasteless gas essential for life on earth"

Ahhh now you are quoting him in full context........and it differs in its inference to that which you posted previously . By the way a few subtle differences in words is acceptable, the ones I quoted were first hand, but hiw written words are almost identical. So stick to the full story shall we

As for crystal balls........mate your comments are all aligned with the references I used, just because you have not seen the "Inconvenient Lie" does not mean you are not preaching along party lines so to speak.

As for Oxygen toxicity, yeah sure for a short period, but for how long? No problem, but after a while that much larger concentration of a good thing is bad. But you go on to ask.....
Do you understand that something may be detrimental in some ways yet not in others? ..... Well that is the whole point. And a bit more CO2 is actually good. Agriculture has benefitted significantly over the last 50 or so years, it is a benefit.

They haven't "done the opposite". They have risen at a slower rate for a decade.

Ahhh you need to stop studying facts in isolation again.

Here are some graphs that need to be understood. Look at the temperature record for a "climate bink of an eye" or 30 years, just so happens that is also how long satellite data has been recorded.

Now lets take the stance of the AGW's for a minute use this raph and draw a line of best fit into it, CO2 has risen 15% over this time, and yes you could say....see the CO2 has caused the warming.



But remember, testing the Hypothesis is what science is about. So if we take the first 20 year roughly with a 10% increase in CO2 and there is no change. Take the ElNino cycle into account (Solar driven) and then look at the next ten years.....and bugger me if there is no change again yet CO2 kept rising. Do you think the CO2 had one almight slam dunk hidden in a El Nino cycle?

And here are the lines of best fit, allowing for the El Nino, which climatologits regard as a step or 0.2 degree shift, but the trends either side of it are static. In fact if you best fit through the El Nimo you get a rise pre 98, and bugger me if you would not get a fall ever since.....ahh but Jaba, that shows a fall in averages if you do that, so yes lets take the climate scientists version of a peak event out of the graph so we can look at trends in the "modern era", which is after all what the greenies want to focus on, not thousands of years. So the trend is either STATIC as shown or if you include the El Nino of 98 it rose slightly and has been falling ever since.


Now you can't have your cake and eat it too, so where is the trend? it is either falling at a greater rate, or its static, but it is certainly NOT climbing at a lesser rate.

Some of the new emails are in fact identical (ie, exactly the same email, but renumbered to make it look as if they're new), but fake-sceptics, completely lacking any ability to critically examine them at all, think that they're new.

Ohhh really, so you have managed to crack the passwords on the second batch? I think you will find that there is in the words of The Kelpie....More to Follow

[DutchRoll]

Captain Dart, I have no idea.

Unlike others, I do not pretend to make arguments on topics about which I have no clue. I merely state the scientific facts. I do not know much about the economic facts and how these might tie into the equation. To even begin worrying about that, you have to acknowledge the scientific facts first (my opinion only).

Originally Posted by lodown

And another recent climate change hit. The wheels are falling off the fear jalopy:
Quote:
Whoo boy… just a few days ago it was argued in a new peer reviewed paper published in Science that climate sensitivity might be lower than the IPCC stated in AR4.

Thankyou lodown. I was wondering just yesterday how long it would take for a "sceptic" to pin that one up here. One of the problems with fake-sceptics is that they read the headlines, but not the article, even when their very own source undermines their basic arguments that global warming is not an issue! So I'm curious - why exactly would you link to a Wattasupwiththat article which actually links to a science news article and peer-reviewed paper that quite clearly concludes that it is happening and it will be a serious problem, but that we just have a little more time to deal with it?

The lead scientist of this study is Professor Andreas Schmittner, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University and he has very good scientific credentials. So what does Professor Schmittner have to say about his own study? And why are sceptics ignoring what Schmittner says about his own paper when they post the headlines up? I think we're about to find out why.......

Schmittner:

“When we first looked at the paleoclimatic data, I was struck by the small cooling of the ocean,” Schmittner said. “On average, the ocean was only about two degrees (Celsius) cooler than it is today, yet the planet was completely different – huge ice sheets over North America and northern Europe, more sea ice and snow, different vegetation, lower sea levels and more dust in the air.

“It shows that even very small changes in the ocean’s surface temperature can have an enormous impact elsewhere, particularly over land areas at mid- to high-latitudes,” he added.

Schmittner said continued unabated fossil fuel use could lead to similar warming of the sea surface as reconstruction shows happened between the Last Glacial Maximum and today.

"Hence, drastic changes over land can be expected,” he said. “However, our study implies that we still have time to prevent that from happening, if we make a concerted effort to change course soon.”

Now lodown, I have sat here and read, and re-read, and re-re-read that article and Schmittner's accompanying paper a few times over, and I cannot for the life of me figure out how it supports the sceptical argument that:

a) global warming isn't happening
b) if it is, it's not a big deal

Can anyone, anyone at all on Pprune, explain to me why a sceptic would post a link stating that "the wheels are falling off" that then proceeds to undermines their entire argument?

[DutchRoll]

Originally Posted by Jaberwocky

Now you can't have your cake and eat it too, so where is the trend? it is either falling at a greater rate, or its static, but it is certainly NOT climbing at a lesser rate.

Aaah, the famous Bob Carter straight flat line trend graph.

Look carefully at the graph. There is no possible way that you can get a flat line as a trend on that graph. How Carter did it is still a mystery to pretty much everyone except himself, because if you do a proper trend analysis on the data you get something more like this:



Once again, I can't explain how Carter gets a flat line trend out of data which doesn't give a flat line trend. You'll have to ask him that. Needless to say that chart originates from a powerpoint presentation to two extremely "non-neutral" lobby groups. It does not exist in any scientifically peer-reviewed paper by Carter, and there's probably a good reason for that.

And if you want to see for yourself, you can go to woodfortrees.org and plot the UAH data trends. Woodfortrees.org uses the actual data, and uses a C++ software routine to plot trends over the data. Go on. Go there, select UAH data, and give it a try. Tell me if you can massage it into a flat line trend. I bet you can't, because no-one else (except Carter) can!

[flyingfox]

Sisemen. What's with the David Murray quote from Lateline? He is just another observer. No scientific data was included by this former banker. Just his opinion. He is no more able to assess scientific material than any other non scientist. His field is financial investment.

[Jabawocky]

UAH data you wanted?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...LT_current.gif

Look familiar, and leaving the El Nino in and using a different graphing method, look what we get?

Now Wood for Trees is interesting, not used that site before, but here is my first crack at it. I picked the since 2000 data set, wanted the last 10 years, did not do any fancy fiddling with the data and look what it did

You were right........I found it very hard to get a FLAT LINE, Carter is selling us short, he is erring on the AGW side, I have been betrayed



Of course on a more compressed scale, that line will appear to be flatter, and lets be frank, when you consider the vertical axis and think about 2 degrees being the "greenies" benchmark, I think Carters flat line is probably more fair game. I think you will agree

Now stop giving me ammo to shoot back at ya! I am enjoying it too much.

So now we all agree using DutchRolls preferred data and processing tool that the last 10 years it has become cooler......despite rising CO2. I wonder does this mean The Science is Settled.

[sisemen]

Sisemen. What's with the David Murray quote from Lateline?

Simples. This thread is, or should be, about the political nature of the climate change scam. Hence the title "Carbon Tax - It's Started". There is a perfectly adequate thread running in JB which discusses the merits/demerits of the "science".

So, the quote from David Murray, an eminent economist, gives the warning that the severity of the actions leapt upon by some governments far outweighs the perceived benefits of what may or may not be a problem anyway. And that there is, at the moment, insufficient rock solid incontrovertible evidence supporting man-made climate change.

And if an economist of that stature is telling us that we are going down the wrong track then we ought to, at least, take some note. And the bunch of rat bags currently leading our country ought not to screw us for little or no benefit.

Now, does that explain???