EU Emissions Trading Scheme - Aviations Greatest Threat.

[nomorecatering]

Look in Rumour and news, our great friends of the earth, the EU lefty tree hugging, social engineers have decided to include Aviation in a European emissions trading scheme.

Airlines will have to buy the right to emit CO2. This is going to cost a bomb and will decimate aviation in Europe, along with many other industries. It will make the fallout of 9/11 and SARS look like a walk in the park.

But, one thing confuses me, after all I'm just a dumb pilot, they want all CO2 emitters to pay up. But my Meteorology text book here on my desk, on page 1, says that the worlds oceans hold 99% of the CO2 and absorbs or releases it according to its temperature, and volcanoes, what about them too, a single eruption can release millions of tonnes of that damn stuff.

Oh, I nearly forgot, I breathe..........O2 in and CO2 out. Ok, who do i send my cheque to, what if i dont pay????..........will they take my breathing rights away from me??

Shoot, I forgot about the birds, trees, mamals and reptiles, they breathe too. Bugger, they should be made to pay too!

The lunatics have finally taken over the assylum.

[Jabawocky]

Not wrong.......... but the world is made up of various atoms, and the make up is based on a few things like electrons, protons etc.

A recent scientific study revealed that its 1% Protons, 1% Neutrons 1% Electrons and 97% Morons! :ugh:

On a serious note..... maybe this thread should be merged into this one

http://www.pprune.org/forums/d-g-general-aviation-questions/283315-great-global-warming-swindle.html

J

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Agree, Jaba. Now this IS an about turn. International air travel was supposed to be exempt from any emission trading requirments. Back to the swindle.

[thewatcher]

No doubt that paying for CO2 will affect aviation but believe me , would've been worst if they were charging on NOx (NOx is a generic term for mono-nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2)).

[Boney]

Millions of tons of fuel burnt every day and the effect on the earths atmosphere, little to none. It is amazing and scary that this is still the view for many in 2008?

hoWARd would be proud!

[mattyj]

good one boney..you've obviously bought the AGW story hook line and sinker..good for you. hoWARd?..heh heh, what are you, local greenpeace fund raiser? You probably make your own Tampons out of seaweed!

[Dark Knight]

Methinks the Inmates are well & truly in charge of the Asylum!!!
DK
The missing link in the Garnet reportMelbourne Age· Geoff Russell, Peter Singer and Barry Brook
· July 10, 2008
The real climate change culprit is methane gas from cows and sheep.

PROFESSOR Ross Garnaut has managed to write a 548-report on climate change in which he mentions Australia's largest current contribution to climate change precisely once — in the glossary, where we find a definition of "enteric fermentation".

Never heard of it? It's what goes on in the digestive systems of ruminants, like cattle and sheep. It produces methane, Australia's largest but also most under-appreciated contribution to climate change over the next few decades.

The second-largest current contribution is coal. It gets mentioned 272 times in the report — as it should.

Why is methane so under-appreciated? There's a political reason and a technical reason.
The political reason is that if telling Australians that they need to pay more for petrol and electricity is tough, telling them they need to consume less beef, lamb and dairy products is going to be tougher still.

As for the technical reason, maybe the best way to explain it is like this: Suppose I offer you $1000 if you let me hold a blowtorch to your leg for 10 seconds.

When you decline, I explain that you should not focus on just that 10 seconds when the torch is applied to your leg. I have calculated that the average temperature applied to your leg over the 20-minute period that starts when I apply the blowtorch, will be only 48 degrees, which is hot, but quite bearable.

That, in effect, is the approach Garnaut takes to methane in his draft report.
Just like the crazy guy with the blowtorch, Garnaut underestimates the heating impact of methane by averaging it over 100 years.

Methane is mostly switched off after just a decade, and almost entirely gone after 20 years, so averaging it over a century dramatically reduces its apparent impact.

The problem is that during the decade in which it is doing its damage, it has had a much larger impact than talk about its average impact over a century would lead you to believe.
The source of Garnaut's methane howler becomes clear when he introduces the climate scientist's term "radiative forcing" in his report but soon shows that he does not really understand what it means and why it is so important. (Read Wikipedia re `Radiative Forcing and form your own opinion – mumbo jumbo to justify the academics positions? [DK])
Radiative forcing refers to factors that change the difference between incoming and outgoing energy in a climate system.

Positive forcings warm the system, negative forcings cool it down. There are two ways in which Garnaut misunderstands forcing. The first, as we have already seen, is the use of relative forcing averaged over 100 years.

That would be reasonable if there were no urgency about dealing with climate change, but we don't have 100 years before tipping points are crossed, so we should not be averaging methane's forcing over 100 years. This mistake leads Garnaut to rate methane as 25 times more potent, per tonne, than carbon dioxide in causing global warming, whereas the correct figure, if we average over 20 years, is that it is 72 times more potent. That's a hugely significant difference.

The second misunderstanding is the opposite of looking a century ahead. Garnaut includes in his report a chart of contributions to climate radiative forcing. It's an accurate historical description of what has heated up the planet. It includes the full impact not only of our recent activities, but of those of our parents, grandparents and more distant ancestors all the way back to 1750.

Carbon dioxide dominates this picture. No surprise there. Some of the carbon dioxide currently heating up the planet, and shown in Garnaut's chart, was put into the atmosphere by the pioneers who cleared 1 million square kilometres of the US forests more than a century ago. (Standard `The Age’ Anti USA Claptrap! [My note DK)
More of it came out of the exhaust pipes of all the T-model Fords that came off Henry Ford's (Standard `The Age’ Anti USA Claptrap! [My note DK]) assembly lines.

On the other hand, the methane in the chart is all ours. Almost every bit of it was put there in the past 20 years. The historical chart is interesting if you want a historical picture, but it is irrelevant if we are interested in what we are doing now, and how we might get out of this mess. If that is our concern, we need to focus most attention on the impacts of current forcings during the next 20 years.

These are the forcings we are causing now and can do something about. If we were to chart them, methane and carbon dioxide would be almost equal in significance. That is what Garnaut seems to miss.

The practical implication is that his draft report recommends against including methane emissions from cattle and sheep in his proposed emission trading scheme.

To ignore Australia's biggest contribution to climate forcing is just plain silly.

Australia's methane emissions come primarily from 28 million cattle, 88 million sheep and a bunch of leaky coal mines. The livestock emissions, on their own, will cause significantly more warming in the next 20 years than all our coal-fired power stations.

The good news is that methane is easy to deal with.

We don't have to wait for engineers to solve a bunch of really tough infrastructural problems. We can do it now. Just stop breeding so many sheep and cattle in Australia. And because methane is such a huge contributor to climate change, this is not just an "earth hour" stunt. This is the real deal.

Geoff Russell is a mathematician and computer programmer. Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne. Barry Brook is Sir Hubert Wilkins professor of climate change at the University of Adelaide.

[Jabawocky]

This lunatic is up there with the Oz of The Year who thought sulphur would be a good thing to pump into the atmosphere.:ugh:

Should be a $10,000,000 bounty on their heads!:mad:

J

[Pinky the pilot]

Am I the only one who finds it somewhat odd that a report on 'climate change' that seems to have a lot of people in a tizzy was written by an ecomomist??

I would'nt mind reading what Chimbu Chuckles would say on this latest effort!:ok:

[Jabawocky]

Pinky, can't be 100% sure he would write it......but I bet he thinks it goes something like this........Should be a $10,000,000 bounty on their heads!:mad:

J:ok:

[TBM-Legend]

This genius Garnaut :ugh: leaves out the fact that the greatest C02 emitter is as mentioned here - the hooman been....was only a couple of billion of us a couple of hundred years ago now more than 6 billion [4bn x 37C = ??] and rising>>

what % of the earth's CO2 is Australia - not per head but in total. I'm sure that if Kevin07 and his gang of amatuers :mad::mad: did nothing then the earth will not fail because of us...

this is tax by stealth in the name of saving mankind. K07 could not answer the question last Sunday when asked "what is an emissions trading scheme?" and "where does the money go?":=

[Stationair8]

Another great tax grab by the government and associated dogooders!!!

Garnaut ego is that big that it will need its own postcode.

Listening to a ABC Radio and a guy from a motoring organisation believes that car fuel would rise to $2.50 to $3.00 a litre within two years if the government implement the Garnaut report, and that was with the Aussie dollar staying at the present level.

So where will Melbourne get power from if Latrobe Valley power stations are forced to close?

[dijon moutard]

We as an "aviation industry" will have to play our part in this debate and it ain't going away.
if anyone thinks that burning "carbon" (fossil fuels) has nil affect on our atmostphere then they are seriosly misguided.
We are tearing our way through "carbon" at a great rate and if we are to take up alternatives then carbon should be "priced" for the damage it does cause.
if we are to pass on our planet to future generations then let's follow some "precautionary principles".

Every generation has "done some heavy lifting" and maybe ours will be graded/judged as to how we respond to such things !

cheers
mustard

[mattyj]

It will too go away..its a fashion trend

I can feel it fading out now..going, going...

..I'm glad I didn't buy that anti CO2 T-shirt at the flea market

(PS its freezing here this year..its costing me a fortune to heat this place..I wish there was global warming..really)

[shortshorts]

Dijon who is guiding you?? Surely not the politicians, maybe Gore?

The artic as a whole is as warm now as it was in the 1930’s.
There has been no global temperature increase since 1998, despite an increase in CO2 conc of about 15 ppm (4%).
The temperature rise and fall during the Halocene in the Greenland ice core are between + and – 2.5 degrees per century, the alleged “abnormal” rate of late 20th century change is between 1 and 2 degrees per century.

A temperature increase between 1905 and 1940 occurred before any greatly increased industrial emissions of CO2. The rapid post 1940 increase in CO2 emissions was accompanied by a falling temperature between 1945 and 1965.

Climate changes naturally all the time. A distinct human signal has not yet been identified within the variations of the natural climate system, to the degree we can not even be certain whether the global human signal is one of warming or cooling.

[Dark Knight]

'Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.'

DK

[SIUYA]

Dark Knight..........

The doctrine of political correctness that you quote can also be expressed more crudely as:

"they can call a turd a sandwich, but they're still feeding you sh1t." :}

[Chilli Muscle]

More information

Global Warming | Love for Life (http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/129)

Spend some time here and you will get an idea of whats going on.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Manmade catastrophic global warming is a scam, no that is not a strong enough word...it is a conspiracy, of monumental proportions that has been ongoing now for over 20 years but has its genesis in the hippy movement of the late 60s. The environmental movement was born of the hippy sub culture that was predominately the preserve of upper middle class white university students and an element of older, more cynical, deeply left wing manipulators who saw an opportunity to hit back at western capitalist society.

Gaia is the Greek Goddess of the Earth and the myth of Gaia was a fairly early conscript to the environmental movement. As mainstream religions lost their appeal throughout the 70s and 80s Gaiaism began to replace mainstream religion as an alternative belief system. Mankind has an innate need to believe it is part of something greater than self hence wherever mankind has evolved some form of religion has been a part of that evolution...even where totalitarian regimes have tried to crush it, Russia as an example, it flourishes underground...it is part of our makeup and very difficult, particularly in the less well educated, to eradicate.

As mainstream religions became more and more exposed via the media as flawed, and they most assuredly are deeply flawed, Gaia became the alternative for a generation of young people who desperately NEEDED to believe in something. She seemed so perfect...the Earth Mother...clean and beautiful and completely incapable of starting wars or inflicting suffering on individuals or populations generally the way practitioners of mainstream religion have done for 1000s of years. Over time Gaiaism came to believe that Earth itself was a living sentient being who was under attack from capitalism and hence capitalism is evil incarnate....the devil. Every religion has zealots and environmentalism is no different. Religious zealotry is marked by a a deep sense of moral authority and superiority. Non believers, 'skeptics', are to be saved from their ignorance whether they like it or not.

Over the last 4 decades those hippy students have risen to the top of media companies like the ABC, National Geographic Channel etc, and things like the EPA, UN and various environmentally based Govt departments, both local, state and federal. Not to mention starting political parties like the Greens. They have refined their beliefs and practices over those 4 decades and learnt from both their failures and their victories, like the Franklin river dam protests of the 80s.

The environmental movement is, through political activism, responsible for 25% of the cost of production of fossil fuels, for instance, via environmental laws, some of which have been good and needed but many not so.

They are responsible wholly for the fact that the current drought is perceived as 'the worst in recorded history' because they vetoed water infrastructure being built by successive state Labor Govts. Rudd himself is largely responsible, while he was advisor to the then QLD state Labor Premier Wayne Goss, for stopping a major dam being built west of Brisbane that would have essentially completely negated the recent and current water restrictions in SE QLD. While this historic fact is completely ignored by the media we are bombarded by media reports and billboards everywhere that this drought is the worst ever and it is a result of AGW...but if you take the time to look at the BOM rain records dating back over 100 years you see it is no different to every other cyclic period of drought SE QLD has ever experienced...and the rest of Australia is basically the same.

The greens are largely responsible for great swathes of Australia, including some of the best catchment areas, being locked away as National Parks and never being available for water infrastructure again. Now we need some national parks but this land belongs to all Australians not JUST to the greens...but they insist through ever more restrictive environmental legislation on restricting access to average Australians and making them like Temples to Gaia where only they can go and worship. Democratic?

So over the last 38 years since the first Earth Day the environmental movement has been becoming more and more politically and media savvy...and then in 1988 James Hanson, a NASA Astrophysicist (NO Climatology credentials whatsoever but clearly a Gaiaist) sits in front of the US Congress and states that the world's climate is about to go ballistic and manmade CO2 is solely responsible.

SOLELY RESPONSIBLE!!!

All of a sudden the greenies had their great overarching threat to Gaia the Earth Mother. The media had the greatest headline scare story of all time to fill their front pages with...not to mention an entire new area of 'environmental journalism'...much sexier than reporting on the law courts, sport or political goings on. Lawyers had a never ending litigation opportunity (lots of money). Politicians had something to scare/save the electorate and garner votes and POWER with. Whole new Govt Departments were born (at every level of Govt) requiring expanded public servants and management opportunities (more power) in well funded departments. Scientists had the opportunity to unleash vast funding for whatever was their pet project as long as they included 'Global Warming' in the grant application...pretty soon we had celebrity scientists basking in the adulation of all concerned...just look at the gravy train that is the IPCC and the never ending gabfests at top locations around the world. Celebrities had something to lend meaning to their otherwise meaningless lives of playing dress ups and make believe and which elevated their celebrity to ever higher levels. Industries, both new and old, becoming 'green' and subsidy farming their way to profitability...wind, solar and biofuels are all examples of industries that WOULD NOT exist, either at all or in their present form, without govt mandates and subsidies. Power, funding, job security, wealth, celebrity.

Powerful stuff.

Note I suggested this was a conspiracy at the very beginning. It is, but not a Grande Conspiracy. Grande Conspiracy would need all the above groups to collude deliberately and that is not happening. What we have seen and are seeing is sundry 'single issue advocasy groups' coalescing around a central idea for their own benefit.

All against an invisible trace gas that makes up .004% of the atmosphere. A trace gas the you and I expel with every breath. A trace gas that has been very much more prevalent in our atmosphere in times long past because the single biggest repository is the worlds oceans...a great big blue accumulator that releases or absorbs CO2 as the solar activity warms or cools the planet based on it's cyclical orbital physics.

A trace gas without which NO LIFE WOULD EXIST ON THIS PLANET.

Extreme Environmentalism is now a HUGE religious and political movement...and the greatest threat to mankind that any religious or political movement has ever been. Its nature is anti mankind, anti capitalist and deeply socialist. They rejoice in $146/bbl oil and see it as enormously beneficial to Gaia...they would love to see oil go a LOT higher to FORCE people out of their cars and off aeroplanes because the health and well being of Gaia is the ONLY thing that is important. There are even serious calls from a section of the environmental movement (the Peak Oilers) for mass euthansasia as the only 'merciful' alternative to the mass starvation that faces a sinful mankind as we deplete Gaia's resources.

Make no mistake...this is scary stuff....these people and their mob mentality are scary. They completely discount and deny the reality that surrounds them. That the world is not warming currently, and is likely cooling, and what small warming that occurred in the late 20th century was wholly beneficial to mankind, and that CO2 literally CANNOT cause the runaway doom narrative they espouse.

They deny this reality because they have FAITH. And lets face it their 'secret friend' is no kookier than that of EVERY other faith extant on the planet from the Roman Catholic Church to the Scientologists...but the social re-engineering, social 'justice' and economic destruction their faith calls for is scary indeed.

[SOPS]

Make no mistake..my sister is a leftist greeny lesbian ( and I mean it) she comes into my house, tells me how I dont know how to bring up my kids ( what the fcuk she would know, she has none) tells me I am killing the planet using my mobile phone because I have to charge it somewhere, tells me not to use A/C, drive the kids to school..bla bla bla.....

But THE FACT IS..in 30 years time when her lesbian anti kid bum needs wiping in a hospital bed, it is all of us who used the resources to bring up the kids that are now her nurses...she aint going to send me a cheque..!!! Rant over

[Chimbu chuckles]

I read something a while back which I would like to share with you.

If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating to him that he is
wrong, he either stops being wrong, or he stops being honest..

Bare the above in mind as you ponder our current elected political leadership's actions on 'climate change' and remember that CO2 is the only global warming culprit in the environmentalist narrative.

I have deliberately used links to youtube presentations by climate scientists because links to raw data can be hard going.

YouTube - Bill Kininmonth - Analysing the IPCC`s climate change models (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QJuUTal05k)

YouTube - Climate Change - Bob Carters 5 Tests of Co2 part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9IHKfzDdn8)

Notice how this scientist correctly predicts the weather we have been experiencing the last year...cooling. The environmentalists like Rudd, Wong et al and the Greens continue to claim the warming has not stopped and will be disastrous.

YouTube - Past & Future Climate change - Pt 1of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDX2ExKYyqw)

YouTube - Past & Future Climate Change - Pt 2 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP4mYcrd_18)

YouTube - Past & Future Climate change pt 3 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAUdDLTLXGU)

YouTube - Past & Future Climate Change - pt 4 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDiJyr0TK6E)


This is Prof Bob Carter from JCU...a very entertaining speaker.

YouTube - Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI)

YouTube - Climate change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 2 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8)

YouTube - Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - pt 3 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY)

YouTube - Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause?- pt 4 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno)

Here is the Australian BOM rainfall records for Australia going back 108 years...worst drought in recorded history?

You can click on anywhere in Australia and see for yourself whether your local rainfall has been unusual.

Timeseries Graphs (http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi)

Here is the temperature record for UK between 1659 AD and 1999 AD. Europe's temperature record (which I cannot lay my hands on) would be similar in its variation but colder because Europe is a continental weather system rather than the maritime weather system associated with the UK. Point out the scary trend that leads to an EU ETS if you can.

Image Container (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCET_an.html)

Here is the satellite data for the upper stratosphere, which is cooling despite the AGW Greenhouse theory which says it should be warming, and the lower Troposphere, which is indeed showing a slight warming as solar phsicists suggest is completely as we would expect from solar variation.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png

Note in all the above that the Scientists who suggest solar influences on our climate can present empirical data that explains climate variation while the left wing narrative uses appocalyptic rhetoric based on computer models that have been invariably wrong.

Note also in another thread on D&G GA in the last few days Green Senator Milne shown saying that warming has not stopped in the last 10 years where it quite clearly has. She also denied the validity of the Oregon Petition...well above are a handful of the 31000+ names that appear on that petition. She went on to say 2 degrees more warming this century would mean doom for us all when the data clearly shows the world has been warmer than today many times before and far from being environmental doom it was environmental boom.

Now re read that quote above about honest men.

[teresa green]

Blimey, my head's spinning after all that. Seems to me in spite of Dear Leader's great ideas, it would only take a couple of Ash Wednesdays to put the whole box and dice back in the red. Or another blast from a volcano, or a severe cyclone on the eastern seaboard, ditto. Meanwhile one lot of "experts" say the ice in the Arctic is melting, whilst another lot say the ice in the Antartic is increasing. Meanwhile Chimbo surgests we stick corks up the A#ses of 28 million sheep and cattle (perhaps a job for those about to be made redundant, they probably wouldn't notice the difference after years in QF) and in the middle of all of this some poor bugger has to put up with his whale hugging, lesbian sister, who gets stuck into him for flying his aircraft & discipling his kids. All to much, time to take the dog out, have a port, and get some shuteye (in case the Pope rings me in the morning for a latte)

[Chimbu chuckles]

'Dear Leader' hasn't had a single good idea yet and I worry less about Methane than I do about CO2, and CO2 is as relevant to climate change as my inside trouser leg measurement.

Think about this too...if the EU and Australia both implement an ETS QF pax will be paying through the nose at both ends of the Kangaroo route.

[altonacrude]

Note also in another thread on D&G GA in the last few days Green Senator Milne shown saying that warming has not stopped in the last 10 years where it quite clearly has.Chimbu, if that's right you really ought to set the Australian Bureau of Meteorology straight.

A paper on the subject (http://www.aussmc.org.au/documents/waiting-for-global-cooling.pdf) that it released in April stated:
WAITING FOR GLOBAL COOLING

Summary

There is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 1998-2007 remains upward. While 1998 was the world’s warmest year in the surface-based instrumental record up to that point in time, 2005 was equally warm and in some data sets surpassed 1998. A substantial contribution to the record warmth of 1998 came from the very strong El Niño of 1997/98 and, when the annual data are adjusted for this short-term effect (to take out El Niño’s warming influence), the warming trend is even more obvious.

Because of the year-to-year variations in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures, about ten years are required for an underlying trend to emerge from the “noise” of those year-to-year fluctuations. Hence, the fact that 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, is nowhere near enough data to clearly establish a cooling trend.

Global warming stopped in 1998. Global temperatures have remained static since then, in spite of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Global temperatures have cooled since 1998. Because 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, a global cooling trend has established itself. All these statements, and variations on them, have been confidently asserted in the international and Australian media in the past year or so, but the data do not support them.
While you are at it, perhaps you could explain to the United Nations World Meteorological Organization, which is the co-sponsoring body for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/) and also issued a debunking statement (http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/info_notes/info_44_en.html) on the subject in April, that there is a marine geophysics professor at James Cook University who somehow knows more about global climate than they do.

[mattyj]

I think everyone agrees now that the IPCC has been well and truly discredited, and anyone with a small amount of intelligence seeing the words "United Nations" discredits anything associated!!

[Chimbu chuckles]

What - the same BOM that has repeatedly agreed with the environmental narrative that has consistently lied about the current drought being the worst 'ever'. Can't they read their own data - can't you? There is a link at the beginning of my last post. The same environmentalist propaganda that falsely claims the 'worst drought in recorded history' is the result of man made global warming - warming that actually has NOT HAPPENED in the southern hemisphere.

That is right - through all the doom laden projections of GCMs there actually has been NO WARMING in the southern hemisphere.

Or is the real reason why this drought seems worse is because of environmental political pressure that stopped state Labor Governments from building dams like the proposed Traveston (?) dam west of Brisbane that Rudd/Goss knocked on the head 15+ years ago and the dam on the Mitchell river in Victoria that was knocked on the head by greenies and resulted in the present water shortages in Melbourne and the 10s of millions of $ in losses from its recent flooding where more fresh water ended up in the Tasman than Melbourne uses in years?

Do I think Bob Carter knows more about climate than the IPCC?

ABSOLUTELY. Not to mention his 1000s of peers working in the various related fields that signed the recent Oregon Petition.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is made up of 49 odd government appointed beaurocrats who are their respective govt's climate change representatives. They are true believers appointed by predominately left wing/green western govts. They are not scientists but a panel of government functionaries that contract out scientific research and then review and publish findings that MUST be in accordance with the wishes of their political masters - as already noted predominately socialist/green EU govts.

This is a group of individuals who have repeatedly shown themselves to be politically biased. The 2007 FAR (Fourth Annual Report) from the actual scientists ( I have it on my hard drive) was not made public for 8 mths or so after the Summary for Policy makers, Which I also have - written by the panel, and they had the unmitigated gaul to state quite clearly that the underlying science would not be released 'until it had been edited to more closely align with the summary for policy makers' UNQUOTE!!!

So the BOM doesn't agree that the world has stopped warming and is likely entering a protracted period of cooling?

Well the Hadley Center, NASA, NOAA and UAH (University of Alabama) all disagree with BOM.

They have been looking at MSU (Microwave Sounding Unit - Satellite) data that is unaffected by Urban Heat Island effect (still highly likely to be responsible for a significant % of Northern Hemisphere warming) and all come to the same conclusion.

NOAA has had 5000 little robot temperature measuring devices scattered around the oceans for YEARS measuring, and they, NOAA, suggest quite clearly that the ocean stopped warming 5 years ago.

Solar physicists have found an 87% correlation between sunspot activity and terrestrial temperature variability - as opposed to CO2 which has precisely 0% correlation...in fact an inverse relationship where temperature variation causes CO2 variation.

The BOM's stance does not even stand up to the most basic 'common sense' test. The 20th century was marked by both warming AND cooling that was clearly not related to exponentially increasing atmospheric CO2.

Why would the 21st century be different?

Even your much vaunted IPCC has, in just the last week, published a paper that suggests that their GCMs have overestimated the magnitude of climate sensitivity.

The IPCC and various environmental groups have stated they don't expect 'warming' to re establish itself over various natural influences until around 2030-2040. Sounds like mad back peddling to me. The wheels have fallen off the grand green 'catastrophy' narrative and face saving/arse covering is the order of the day.

Does that mean research need/should stop? No but it needs to be depoliticised and grant money needs to be made available with NO strings attached.

Even Rudd et al are running scared. They just released their green paper on the ETS and despite the Wong doom rhetoric still being a feature of its public release it is a economic non event initially with no review of substance until 2015...they had to do it that way or LOSE the next election.

So is AGW the greatest threat mankind has ever faced or just the greatest (self inflicted) threat the socialists/greenies have ever faced?

[altonacrude]

From the UK Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Chang (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html)e:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/CRUTEM3_bar.png

[Chimbu chuckles]

I'll leave others to decide why you only bothered to reproduce the 1 graph, of 3, in that link that doesn't show a downward trend in temperature in the last years.

A down trend that has happened, and continues happening, despite atmospheric CO2 continuing to increase unabated.

Or don't you think that the 70+% of the world's surface area that is liquid has any effect on global climate?

[Torres]

Ahhh, Chucky, if only I was convinced you were correct. :{

My problem is I can't work out whether the previous Y2K, then QA, then WH&S "expert consultants" have hit upon their greatest scam to date, or whether our Earth really is in trouble.

But back to my pocket, what I haven't yet worked out is:
What is the Government going to do with all the squillions of dollars of "carbon tax" Teflon Kev hopes to gather??? :confused: If I plant 100 trees to suck up the CO2 you generate, does the Government take the tax off your employer and pay me??? Or does it all go into "consolidated revenue"? :confused:

Fuel prices are obviously a Government scam. A significant percentage of Australian fuel comes from Australian soil, but we still pay exhorbitant "price parity" for crude, royalties, Excise and GST???

Don't lie, cheat or steal - the Government hates competition! :ugh:

More importantly, SOPS - please PM your sister's contact details! :}

[Chimbu chuckles]

Not my job to convince you...it is the raw data's job.

Has anyone ever seen a graph that shows empirically that the world is warming in a disastrous way?

I don't mean the thoroughly discredited 'Hockey stick' or the GCM prognostications I mean actual data.

Ignoring for a moment the scientifically proved relationship between CO2 and temperature - known now for decades btw - If CO2 causes disastrous warming, and everyone agrees that in the long past there was up to 20 times more atmospheric CO2 than now, and that the world has been warmer in the past than now, how come it wasn't a disaster before?

What mechanism overpowered CO2 and led to glaciations?

Millions of years ago there was up to 20 times more CO2 than now and the world was about 8 degrees warmer than now...and life as we know it not only wasn't wiped out but flourished.

But according to Green Senator Milne 2 degrees C in the next decades will decimate the planet...and despite their pronounced belief that we are at the point of no return and must act now the Labor ETS can be guaranteed to have only one effect...to increase the cost of everything.

Europe's more serious ETS has had no effect whatsoever on CO2 emissions in the eurozone, quite the contrary in fact - they are growing, but Krudds much watered down version will be different?

[altonacrude]

I'll leave others to decide why you only bothered to reproduce the 1 graph, of 3, in that link that doesn't show a downward trend in temperature in the last years.Happy to explain, Chimbu and important for you to remember, especially if your regular flights take you over the sea. The vast majority of humanity lives on land and has trouble living in water. Land temperature is the chart I cited. That's where the biggest human effect is.

If you were prepared to give credence to the UK Met Office's other charts, prepare to pillory them mercilessly now for their fall into a left wing, disreputably socialist fawning lackey posture of the Global Left, for issuing a statement in January which said (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html):
Global temperature for 2008 is expected to be 0.37 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C, the coolest year since 2000, when the value was 0.24 °C.

For 2008, the development of a strong La Niña in the tropical Pacific Ocean will limit the warming trend of the global climate. During La Niña, cold waters upwell to cool large areas of the ocean and land surface temperatures. The forecast includes for the first time a new decadal forecast (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070810.html) using a climate model. This indicates that the current La Niña event will weaken only slowly through 2008, disappearing by the end of the year...

These cyclical influences can mask underlying warming trends with Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, saying: "The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years (and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998) does not mean that global warming has gone away. What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000."It's disgraceful how these government funded institutions shamelessly flaunt evidence in a futile effort to dispel thinking humanity's most important beliefs. I think you should complain to your member of parliament about it, if you have one.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Land temperature is the chart I cited. That's where the biggest human effect is.

So you're suggesting that UHI effect overpowers everything else? Within the terrestrial record I would agree with you...but localised heating effects from cities is not global climate.

What is the geological significance of a 1961-1990 average temperature?

I would put it to you that since 70+% of the earth's surface is water and the recording of temperature over those vast reaches was problematic, to say the least, until the advent of satellites measurements in the late 70s that NO ONE has any accurate idea what the average temperature of the world has been, or indeed is, let alone to decimal places of a degree.

Look at the error bars that bracket those graphs for starters and then tell me again that .21 or .44 degree above a '1961-1990 average' is a meaningful number that should be used as a basis for govt policy...let alone panic.

Richard Lindtzen (Prof Emeritus Climate Studies at MIT) has stated many times that the mere concept of an 'average global temperature' is flawed.

No one denies that warming (and cooling) has taken place in the past nor that it won't happen in the future. The only argument is whether it will be disastrous and is caused by mankind.

As Robert Carter shows comprehensively there is not one shred of empirical data that indicates the climate variability the earth experienced in the 20th century was outside historical natural variability either in scale or rate of change.

The ONLY way GW can be manmade is if CO2 is the culprit, and that is the ONLY thing the environmentalists seek to control.

That CO2 has not been the primary driver of climate in the geological record is scientifically uncontested.

That a doubling of atmospheric CO2 over pre industrial levels should cause a 1 degree rise in temperature (assuming no negative feedbacks - which is a bit silly) is also scientifically uncontested.

That we had nearly 3/4s of that warming before 1940 is uncontested. More likely it was sunspots than CO2 though. Likely CO2 was responsible for a small % of that pre 1940 warming...unlikely it was the manmade variety though.

That the logarithmic nature of CO2 means that if the atmospheric CO2 was tripled, quadrupled or more over pre industrial levels it would still not cause much more than 1 degree C warming is scientifically uncontested.

Even assuming for a minute that the world has not cooled slightly in the last 10 years are you really suggesting that +.3C in the next 100 years worries you?

That might mean the 'average global temperature' might be 14.3C - ****, it might even hit 15C:ooh:

We are seeing NOW the effects La Nina, Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index (Northern Hemisphere version of La Nina - but longer lived) and solar activity have...all natural events far beyond our control.

You gonna tell is this La Nina is the last one ever, that sunspot activity will never vary again, that the PDO is gonna stick it up us from next year onwards...forever?

The environmental movement are wrong every time. The poles/Greenland are not melting, the oceans are not rising (satellite data actually shows them decreasing slightly), Polar bears are not endangered. Did you read where, not once but twice in the last months, a polar bear swam ashore in Iceland and was greeted each time by greeny journalists ready to swoon? They even had cute names for them. Turns out there was **** all "oooo" and a lot of :eek: Said Bears were a tad fecking hungry after floating 1000nm on an iceberg and thought the greenies looked yummy - both charged and both were shot dead by the journo's escorts - mighta been better for the bears if the journos just left them alone you think? The odd Polar bear has floated across to Iceland since forever - these are the first two shot to save greenies that I am aware of.

They were, and remain, wrong about global cooling, DDT, Population explosion, Mass starvation, Nuclear winter, Biofuel, Wind power, solar power, Nuclear Power, coral bleaching and Ozone depletion. Anyone still worried about acid rain?

They would do better rolling a die or throwing darts at a board while blind folded...and having done so leaving the rest of us alone...the old saying 'even a broken clock is right twice a day' springs to mind.

IF the world warms a degree or two in the next 100 years we will be lucky and so will the biosphere. If it continues to cool we will be in trouble. Millions more people will die prematurely in a cooling world than will die in a warming one. 100s of millions more will be forced into poverty in a cooling world than will be in a warming one.

Where is the disaster in a degree or two warming in the next 100 years? A few degrees which, unfortunately, we are unlikely to actual experience.

What will be the greeny answer to a medium term, say 30 years or so, cooling?

To answer that we need look no further back in time than the 1970s.

Last time it was spread coal dust in the poles to melt them.:ugh:

All this anguish over a greeny fantasy of a time long past where mankind lived in harmony with nature.

Don't greenies read history?

[altonacrude]

:rolleyes:

[Chimbu chuckles]

This will give you all a laugh...so typical of green rhetoric.

Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html)
:D

[4PW's]

Keep up the good work, Chuckles.

You are very well-read, and your explanations are very clear.

The same cannot be said for others...

[Jay & Silent Bob]

Interesting opinion piece in today's Australian.

No smoking hot spot | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html)

[teresa green]

Read it and most impressed. Cuts out the bulls$hit!