Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel [Archive] - Page 2

Flying Binghi

2nd Jul 2012, 11:32

via Towering Q;

With respect Binghi, you miss the point entirely.

What does the GWPF have to hide? If, for example, some of the groups backers were found to be Shell or BP, would that cause open minded members of the community to question the GWPFs motives, bearing in mind the obvious conflict of interest?

From the Guardian article:

If successful, the FOI request may, by exposing one link in a devious manipulation of public opinion, start a process that allows the public to be aware of what is happening, what is at stake, and where the public interest lies.

And from Lawson, the GWPF Chairman:

"Proper scientists, scientists of integrity, they reveal, and voluntarily they wish to reveal, all their data and all their methods; they do not need a Freedom of Information Act request to force it out of them." He later added: "Integrity means you show everything, absolutely." His reluctance to reveal the identity of the GWPF's donors has led him to be accused of double standards.
(My bolding.)

...If, for example, some of the groups backers were found to be Shell or BP,...

Yer may have something there Towering Q. James Delingpole in his book Killing the Earth to Save It writes -

"...One of my favorite late afternoon pastimes - before the witching hour of 6pm and the moment arrives for my customary foie gras on toasted Poilane bread served with Chateau d'Yquem and poached gull's or leatherback turtle's eggs (depending on the season)- is to lie face down on my bespoke Philippe Starck massage table, while my Crimean masseuse Ivana pours hot oil onto my back and gives me a really good pummeling, to the soothing sounds of my personal string quartet in the billiard room of my private wing of the modest $79 million Regency townhouse I own on the edge of regent's park. Its a tough life but such are the sacrifices a fellow has to make when he is funded by big oil..."

...question the GWPFs motives...

Well then Towering Q, for the sake of discussion, lets work with GWPF being funded by "Shell or BP"

So back to my question...

Now that we have the funding taken care of, Towering Q what is it that GWPF is wanting Australia to do ? How much money do GWPF propose to extract from the Oz tax payer ? What Oz industrys do GWPF intend to destroy ? In general, how much money do the GWPF want Australia to piss against the wind ensuring an inpoverished future ?

.

jas24zzk

2nd Jul 2012, 14:17

The Carbon Tax is here and the world has not ended.

Taking into account the compensation package out into place I don't think the Carbon Tax will have any net financial affect on myself or my family. It might go $100 either way, certainly nothing to notice.

Environmental conservation should be based on science, but sadly it has become an easy political target for conservatives.

Introducing the Carbon Tax is sound Public Policy and a positive step to mitigate the effects of man-made global warming.

At the risk of being banned/censured.........

are you f*cking delerious or what!!!!!!

I am no greenie by any shake of the stick. But I am certainly a person whom is enviromentally concious. I own a 4wd drive, and I have a penchant for going bush bashing. That doesn't mean I go out and intentially destroy the bush. It also doesn't mean that I take the cheapest option for dealing with the waste that comes with my daily job. I seek out the environmentally friendly alternative, and pass those costs onto my customers.

This carbon tax that has been forced upon us, against the will of the majority will not address any of our concerns, nor will it make one iota of difference to the environment.
I think you will find that 99% of posters on this thread would be happy to pay the tax if they seriously thought it would make a difference.

Lets have a brief look at that shall we............... hmm I cannot find any goverment initiatives where Carbon Tax has been budgeted to be spent on clean energy research. No mate, its all been spent to balance dillards books.

Yep if the guvmint spent 100% of the tax collected on clean energy research/development, i'd shut the f*ck up, as would most posters on this subject. It ain't going to happen.

Sorry, but you an your doomsday mob are a joke.

Towering Q

2nd Jul 2012, 15:03

Now that we have the funding taken care of, Towering Q what is it that GWPF is wanting Australia to do ?

I have yet to complete all 49 pages of the Global Warming Policy Foundation Report number 4, so I cannot tell you what the GWPF would like Australia to do.

...still single

2nd Jul 2012, 17:13

Environmental conservation should be based on science,

Couldn't agree more. So how come you start at science, then...

Introducing the Carbon Tax is sound Public Policy and a positive step to mitigate the effects of man-made global warming.

POW!!!!
You take a flying leap into the faith-based church of anthropogenic global warming. Where questioning the IPCC deity is heresy and debating the subject is blasphemy.

So, IF CO2 was toxic (it's not) AND reducing it's concentration in the atmosphere is a good thing (probably not) AND the reduction of CO2 would consequently lower global temperatures (no proof of that), WHAT EXACTLY IS THE CARBON TAX DOING TO ACHIEVE THAT END?

djpil

2nd Jul 2012, 21:39

peter peter peter has not been brainwashed

peterc005

3rd Jul 2012, 09:38

Here's a good high-level break down of the Carbon Tax effects on ordinary tax payers from The Australia Institute:

The Australia Institute (http://www.tai.org.au/)

https://www.tai.org.au/downloads/Great_big_new_tax.pdf

For most people the Carbon Tax will have no nett cost.

As Greg Combet, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the Minister for Innovation and Industry, observed that the Carbon Tax costs about $20 a ton (of carbon), while achieving the equivalent using solar rebates costs about $400 a ton.

Clare Prop

3rd Jul 2012, 10:50

So if most people will have no nett cost, why is Gillard giving out all those millions in "compensation"?

Frank Arouet

3rd Jul 2012, 11:24

Don't reply to the Troll, you only encourage him.

404 Titan

3rd Jul 2012, 11:24

peterc005

The Australia Institute is the country’s most influential progressive think tank. Based in Canberra, it conducts research on a broad range of economic, social and environmental issues in order to inform public debate and bring greater accountability to the democratic process.
In other words it’s a lobby group whose sole purpose is to influence government decision making.
For most people the Carbon Tax will have no nett cost.
Well if that is the case how will this reduce CO₂emissions? The whole point of the carbon tax is it’s suppose to make using fossil fuels more expensive for everyone. The way it has been structured the wealthiest in society will pay the tax and lower income earners won’t. I can assure you that for the wealthiest this carbon tax will have a zero effect on their consumption and as the lower income earners are being compensated it will have minimal effect on their consumption habits either. All this tax is, is another excuse by left wing ideologist that pollute the ALP and Greens at further wealth redistribution, nothing more, nothing less, so please spare us the BS that it is good for the environment because it clearly has nothing to do with the environment at all.:yuk:

Jabawocky

3rd Jul 2012, 11:27

For most people the Carbon Tax will have no nett cost.

BULL ****!!!

Do you understand that?

How on earth can you explain your way out of that? Please do. If you can't it is time you admitted defeat.

You are wrong plain as day.

Stop making silly statements and explain yourself.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Please tell me all you do is fly ultralights in the circuit area of some obscure airfield. Please. I would hate to think with this level of reasoning skills you fly a RPT jet :uhoh:

Old Fella

3rd Jul 2012, 11:55

As has already been stated here, if the imposition of the Carbon Tax could be shown to positively reduce the level of emissions globally we would likely all be prepared to accept the tax. To those whom accept the ALP line that "Only the large polluters will pay" crap, do you all think that the businesses which are taxed will absorb that cost. Of course they will not. They will, as with any other costs incurred, pass it down the chain till where the end user pays. In that sense it is just like the GST. We will all pay, and for what? Prof Garnaut is a Professor of Economics, not an expert on the climate or global warming. Strangely we rarely hear anything from Tim Flannery these days, you remember him? He told us that the water storage dams would never fill again. The only truthful thing he said was "That even if we reduced our emissions to the target level now it would be 600 to 1000 years before any measurable reduction in global warming would occur". Julia must have had him gagged because he is very quite these days.

jas24zzk

3rd Jul 2012, 12:43

I agree Old Fella, it won't make one Iota of a difference.

Something that keeps getting raised here, which I feel is incorrect, is the comparison of the introduction of the GST Vs the Carbon Tax.

With the GST, it removed several other taxes, theoretically lowering the base price of an item. It was however easily simple to deal with from a business point of view. Even from a family point of view..you were going to pay 10% more for anything you needed. Fairly simple.

Dillard has already jumped in the media to say, hey the sky didn't fall...that is coming!!

There are a number of business owners here, that like myself, have no true idea on how we are going to be affected. As much time and effort we put into it, we can't project it. We ask our suppliers what the change in our charges are going to be, and they don't know!!!!
How do we project that and make changes to our pricing to accomodate it? We CAN'T. For many businesses, they won't work out the true change until its too late and unrecoverable....mine might be one of those..i don't know.

I have some 80 suppliers, only ONE has been able to provide me with data that I can use to work out my costings....the rest I cannot act upon until they settle.

As far as I can see, it might be 2 years before this crap settles, but you can guarantee costs will steadily rise. You'll note it when you take your Porsche in for a Major service next week, and a Minor service in 3 months, and the cost of the minor is bigger thant the major.

Dillard has destroyed this country....not quite overnight, but overtime as people adjust............................................:ugh:

Old Fella

3rd Jul 2012, 13:06

jas24zzk

3rd Jul 2012, 14:01

jas24zzk. Agreed on the GST. One very big difference also, Mr Howard took the GST to the voters pre-election. It is politically expedient to forget the myriad of sales taxes removed and replaced by the GST. Also, the GST goes back to the States, albiet not always in the proportions which satisfy all States.

Yep, at least Howard had the ballz to take something this major to an election...Equivalent of a budget referendum in my view. I probably voted against him, as I grew up to be a staunch Labour voter, not that it mattered too much as the result didn't kill our economy. I am still a fan of Keating.

Dillards people swap deal with Malaysia, should only be approved if the first boatload we send them includes, Kirner, Cain, Dillard, Brumby, Bracks, Balleiu (or however you spell that import), Brown sandwich, yabbot and Shorten!

What you say about the return of the GST to the states, albeit unfairly, is probably the best thing about our tax system.

hmm

Heres a thought...
Turnbull gets his nads out of the frost, pulls the Nat party away from the co-alition and gives us a 3rd party option. That might wake up the Libs and Labs! I'm sick of the options we have, which really equate to 2 different shades of sh*t

Cheers
Jas

peterc005

3rd Jul 2012, 22:36

@Jabawocky - I hold a CPL and my VH-registered plane is hangared at YMMB.

In response to your other points:

The financial impact of the Carbon Tax is minimal, typically less than $10 a week.

The Government offsets, in the form of direct compensation and tax breaks, are typically slightly greater than $10 a week.

The true cost of the Carbon Tax is not financial (which probably has no net cost); the true cost is the pain of having to listen to boorish, crazy and ill-informed people rant on about it on a popular aviation forum.

@Jabawocky - you should consult your doctor with a view to having the dose of your medication reviewed.

peterc005

3rd Jul 2012, 22:56

In terms of Public Policy, you should consider comparing the Carbon Tax with the taxes on Tobacco.

Initially the negative health impact of smoking was not recognised. When the first research emerged relating smoking with serious diseases such as cancer the big Tobacco companies resisted this and tried to discredit the research.

Eventually the government recognised the negative health impacts of smoking and took steps to discourage smoking, such as restricting access to tobacco to minors and adding taxes.

Taxing something makes it more expensive and will directly reduce it's demand.

I don't recall what happened at the time, but I imagine smokers complained about the cost and how it was impinging on their ability to enjoy smoking.

This approach worked, and the levels of tobacco consumption have been falling in Australia for decades.

I don't think any rational person would argue about the idea of discouraging tobacco consumption, although assuming rationality in anonymous internet forums may be futile.

Climate change is a scientifically proven fact, backed by more than two decades of peer-reviewed academic research.

Reducing carbon emissions should help to mitigate climate change.

Putting a tax on carbon should reduce carbon emissions by making it more expensive and encouraging alternatives.

Looking back now, we can say public policy decisions made decades ago to reduce tobacco consumption were obvious and wide.

I suggest that, while not everyone will agree now, in decades to come taxing carbon emissions to reduce the pressure on global warming will be viewed in a similar light.

djpil

3rd Jul 2012, 23:19

Climate change is indeed a fact, the cause is only a hypothesis but that is irrelevant to the current issue - the claimed objective of the carbon tax bears no resemblance to the outcome.
(As an aside, I note that lefties and greenies very quickly turn to insults in the face of rational debate.)

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

3rd Jul 2012, 23:33

What do you think would have happened to smoking levels if smokers had been monetarily compensated for the same amount as each tax rise? Do you think as many would have quit or reduced their intake? I doubt it. Where is the incentive? Just like the Carbon Tax.

I suggest that, while not everyone will agree now, in decades to come taxing carbon emissions to reduce the pressure on global warming will be viewed in a similar light.

No, the light it will be viewed in is the same one that shines on the AIDS/Swine Flu/Y2K/World will freeze over/Bird Flu doomsday predictions. I am ashamed to think what the world will look back on and think of this era.

eagle 86

4th Jul 2012, 00:10

P.....
The reason the co2 tax will not affect you is now clear - you obviously have a bit of money behind you to own and operate an aircraft in the current fiscal world - the average joe in struggle street can't afford those luxuries. Got a house in T'rack as well? The only person not listening here mate is you. I say again my one luxury in life is a daily cup of coffee with my wife in my favourite cafe. On Sunday 1 July 2012 the price went up .50cx2x7=$7.00 per week - I have only $3.00 left for all other weekly expenses. Wake up to yourself mate, separate yourself from your other chardy sipping chaps and go have a look at the real world. Bandt your local member by any chance?
GAGS
E86

404 Titan

4th Jul 2012, 00:20

peterc005

You have got to be kidding.

A number of different measures were introduced in Australia between 1980 and 2001 to try to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use. These measures included banning the promotion of cigarettes, increasing the price of cigarettes, limiting the number of places where tobacco could be smoked, the presence of effective anti tobacco advertising, effective health warnings on tobacco products, and restricting adolescents’ access to tobacco products.

The Excise Duty on cigarettes is currently 53.4% plus 10% GST and yet with all these taxes and the above restrictions cigarette use in Australia has only declined from 35% of the population smoking in 1980 to 23% in 2011.

You still haven’t explained to anyone how imposing a tax on carbon polluters and then compensating the end user, i.e. tax payers is going to reduce carbon emissions. I don’t see cigarette smokers getting a tax break from the excise on cigarettes.:ugh:

Towering Q

4th Jul 2012, 00:32

As an aside, I note that lefties and greenies very quickly turn to insults in the face of rational debate

From jas24zzk:

At the risk of being banned/censured.........

are you f*cking delerious or what!!!!!!

From Jabawocky:

BULL ****!!!

Do you understand that?

:hmm:

eagle 86

4th Jul 2012, 01:29

STOP PRESS
Gosford Council on the mid north coast of NSW has rescinded a previous edict warning about sea rises that will wipe out coastal housing. This knee jerk reaction a year or so ago caused house prices in the local area to plummet and insurance premiums to soar. The lobster talks of Abbott's scaremongering - none are worse than her and her cronies led by flannery whose only qualification is a degree in looking up a dead dinosaur's bum.
GAGS
E86

djpil

4th Jul 2012, 02:03

Of course Towering Q, I might've added Ppruners in general but I was referring mainly to the outside world.

Flying Binghi

4th Jul 2012, 02:26

Heh, the ol "climate hysteric has no idea so lets compare to tobacco" furhpy..:hmm:

via peterc005;

In terms of Public Policy, you should consider comparing the Carbon Tax with the taxes on Tobacco.

Initially the negative health impact of smoking was not recognised. When the first research emerged relating smoking with serious diseases such as cancer the big Tobacco companies resisted this and tried to discredit the research.

Eventually the government recognised the negative health impacts of smoking and took steps to discourage smoking, such as restricting access to tobacco to minors and adding taxes.

Taxing something makes it more expensive and will directly reduce it's demand.

I don't recall what happened at the time, but I imagine smokers complained about the cost and how it was impinging on their ability to enjoy smoking.

This approach worked, and the levels of tobacco consumption have been falling in Australia for decades.

I don't think any rational person would argue about the idea of discouraging tobacco consumption, although assuming rationality in anonymous internet forums may be futile.

Climate change is a scientifically proven fact, backed by more than two decades of peer-reviewed academic research.

Reducing carbon emissions should help to mitigate climate change.

Putting a tax on carbon should reduce carbon emissions by making it more expensive and encouraging alternatives.

Looking back now, we can say public policy decisions made decades ago to reduce tobacco consumption were obvious and wide.

I suggest that, while not everyone will agree now, in decades to come taxing carbon emissions to reduce the pressure on global warming will be viewed in a similar light.

Well, ah used to be a pack and a half a day man until i stopped 30 odd years ago... so i geuss like many posters here i gots some personal experience of the mater.

"...tried to discredit the research..."

peterc005, ask any of our top physical sports athlets how much they smoke. Think you will find none.

Anyone who has ever taken up smoking will tell you smoking affects physical performance - yer dont need to be a scientist to know that. If its affecting physical performance you wonder what else its doing to yer body.

Regarding the known medically proven health effects, well we all seen them research proof photos of tarred lungs... we all seen them heavy smokin relatives/freinds dying of lung cancer... we all seen that GOOD HARD EVIDENCE. Smoking is bad fer you, and most current smokers will tell yer that.

"...Climate change is a scientifically proven fact, backed by more than two decades of peer-reviewed academic research..."

Yer dont know much about the subject do ya peterc005. I have asked you before to produce the scientific 'proof' for AGW and i'm still waiting..:hmm:

As to the 'fact' that CO2 by itself is a green house gas, well thats been known fer about 150 years - Not two decades.

Gettin back to the smoking compare... The medical claims that smoking is bad fer you is backed up by good solid real world proof that most people on the planet have personal experience of or can see right there in front of them - PROOF.

The IPCC claims the science of AGW is proven via computer models (models of the garbage in garbage out type) showing ever increasing world temps. The famous, and corrupt, IPCC Hocky stick graph was supposed to be the real world proof. The real world observations of earths temperatures do NOT back up the computer models - FACT.

.

djpil

4th Jul 2012, 02:45

404 Titan - did you go as far as converting those percentages of populations to actual numbers? I.e. has cigarette use actually declined?

404 Titan

4th Jul 2012, 03:09

djpil

No I didn’t but it is an interesting question.
1980 = 14.7M x 35% = 5.2M
2011 = 21.5M x 23% = 5.0M
Therefore since 1980 there is only 200K less smokers in Australia.

Flying Binghi

4th Jul 2012, 03:35

.

"Let the carbon tax take the blame, after all, your costs will be going up due to it."

Heh, at least Brumby's managing director Deane Priest is correct about the carbon 'tax' putting prices up.

Brumby's under fire over 'blame carbon tax' memo - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-04/brumbys-under-fire-over-carbon-tax-memo/4109424)

Meanwhile, over in NZ, an outbreak of common sense...

"The Government has indefinitely postponed key stages of the emissions trading scheme, saying the economic environment means consumers and businesses simply can't afford it..."

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1672

.

Rusty1970

4th Jul 2012, 07:27

I say again my one luxury in life is a daily cup of coffee with my wife in my favourite cafe. On Sunday 1 July 2012 the price went up .50cx2x7=$7.00 per week

If your coffee went up by $0.50 and they're blaming the carbon tax, ring the ACCC and dob them in. No way is it that much. More likely to be 1c or 2c. Your local, friendly coffee shop is ripping you off and blaming the Government.

And that comment is nothing to do with whether the tax is a good idea or not.

Animalclub

4th Jul 2012, 08:35

Rusty
I don't think that you can raise the price of any item 1 or 2 cents can you??? I thought 5 cents was our smallest denomination coin.

jas24zzk

4th Jul 2012, 08:51

It might actually be close to the truth.

Lets breakdown our humble coffee shall we.

Cost of the water
Cost of heating the water
Cost to purchase the Cup
Cost to purchase the spoon
Cost to purchase the sugar
Cost to .............

I think you see where I am going... I did this roughly and stopped counting at 20 different items involved making the humble coffee, that would on their own attract a portion of carbon tax.

If you were to do it as a time wasting exercise, and said each element was worth 1c, you might be surprised at what the cost impost is going to be.

Keep in mind, once you've added em all up, you need to add the 10% other tax the guvmint wants on this.

jas24zzk

4th Jul 2012, 08:52

CHAIRMAN

4th Jul 2012, 09:37

I can't believe this one.
Just watching ABC 7 o'clock news, just mildly interested.
Then on comes this guy whose company recycles green waste.
He reckoned that the carbon tax was a great thing, and expected his business to go from recycling 20k tons of green waste per year to 1mil.
Local residents were complaining about possible sinus and asthma effects on the increasing business, and stuff coming out of the flue.
The bit that got my attention, and direct quote from the guy................"it's basically just carbon dioxide!"

What hope have we got for common sense to prevail:ugh::ugh:

Rusty1970

4th Jul 2012, 10:43

Rusty
I don't think that you can raise the price of any item 1 or 2 cents can you??? I thought 5 cents was our smallest denomination coin. Ha. Good point. Still, 50c per coffee is taking the p*ss a la Brumbys today. Dob em in.

Sarcs

4th Jul 2012, 11:20

Since this thread seems to have been ambushed by a few resident trollers!! How about we get it back on topic with a Phearless Phelan contribution::ok:

Even a tax on fighting carbon-emitting bush fires! – aviationadvertiser.com.au (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/07/even-tax-on-fighting-carbon-emitting-bush-fires/)

Help! Aviation slammed by new tax – aviationadvertiser.com.au (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2011/07/help-aviation-slammed-by-new-tax/)

Member groups of the Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum say they are “disappointed” with the Government’s Clean Energy Future plan and have again raised concerns about the government’s lack of consultation with the aviation sector

Girrard, Albo and Co along with the regulator are killing off the GA sector...it won't be until there is a need for a mass aerial application to stop an insidious weed or bushfire that they'll realise what they have done..."GA what GA!":{

eagle 86

4th Jul 2012, 21:51

The trouble is rusty, p.... and others just blindly follow what juliar tells them without thinking about the compounded results of juliar's rubbish, failed policies.
GAGS
E86

peterc005

5th Jul 2012, 03:18

As an airplane, business, house and office owner I am well qualified to comment on the cost of the Carbon Tax.

The only financial impact on me will be thru electricity bills and small increases in the cost of petrol and Avgas.

The costs I estimate will be:

$200 Avgas
$200 petrol for the car
$600 home electricity
$600 office electricity

Offsetting this:

$800 compensation from the government
$400 saved on electricity bills by choosing a cheaper provider

So the net financial cost to me might be $400 a year tops.

I was going to buy a new Babolar tennis racquet for myself, costing about $400. Instead I'll use the old one for another year and I'm square.

The Carbon Tax will probably cost me nothing financially overall. The true cost is time wasted getting caught up in stupid discussions on topics of no consequence.

peterc005

5th Jul 2012, 03:22

P.S. I like Julia Gillard and think she is a fine person doing a good job.

Flying Binghi

5th Jul 2012, 03:48

.

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 peterc005;
...The Carbon Tax will probably cost me nothing financially overall...

There are many in Oz who will be in a simular blissful position - in the short term..:hmm:

via peterc005;
...The true cost is time wasted getting caught up in stupid discussions on topics of no consequence.

Run along then peterc005..:)

.

404 Titan

5th Jul 2012, 04:29

peterc005

I’ve asked you at least twice now to explain how the Carbon Tax will reduce CO₂ emissions when the end users according to you and the Gillard government will be compensated almost 100% for its cost. The whole idea of this tax is to reduce CO₂emissions by making it more expensive for everyone.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

5th Jul 2012, 04:30

And it's "aeroplane" in this country.

De_flieger

5th Jul 2012, 04:37

I have asked you before to produce the scientific 'proof' for AGW that you claim exists, and i'm still waiting, waiting...
Here is NASAs view:Climate Change: Evidence (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Here is a direct quote from ExxonMobil, from their website in the section discussing climate change:Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems.
You can see this, and a lot of other information here ExxonMobil (http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/safety_climate.aspx)
And here is the statement on the Shell website
Population growth and economic development are driving energy demand. All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of demand. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies. We believe the best way Shell can help secure a sustainable energy future is by focusing on four main areas: natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency.
You can see this statement here: Climate change | Environment & Society (http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/environment/climate_change/)

With NASA, ExxonMobil and Shell all in agreement, is that enough evidence for you? I havent looked at the other oil company websites but those two are massive corporations that have enormous financial interests in fossil fuel consumption and production, and if they had credible evidence against AGW it would be shouted from the rooftops in a campaign that would make a federal election campaign look understated.

Both NASA and ExxonMobil also provide citations for their statements, allowing you to find and read all of the publications and evidence for yourself if so desired.

De_flieger

5th Jul 2012, 04:53

I’ve asked you at least twice now to explain how the Carbon Tax will reduce CO₂ emissions when the end users according to you and the Gillard government will be compensated almost 100% for its cost. The whole idea of this tax is to reduce CO₂emissions by making it more expensive for everyone
If companies are charged an extra $1 for the carbon emitted on every widget they produce, and consumers are given tax breaks or assistance to cover their extra costs in purchasing their weekly widgets, the money goes round in a circle and nothing is gained. If the company then changes their processes to a low-carbon emission method/power source, and now only pays 50c per widget they can either make more profit, or cut costs and gaining a real competitive advantage against other companies using the older more polluting technologies or processes. This in turn will give the company a big advantage, and if they choose to pass the lower cost on to the consumer a benefit for the consumer. This gives us market forces acting to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide emitted.

eagle 86

5th Jul 2012, 05:49

P......
As I said before, you obviously have enough money to afford luxuries well out of reach of the average joe - new racket to impress the other chaps and chapess's down at T'rack. I don't care how you got your money - inheritance - work hard - luck - good on you. But what irritates me about you is that you appear to not have any concern for the vast majority that are far worse off than you. By the way is the CPL for go or just for show?
GAGS
E86

404 Titan

5th Jul 2012, 06:58

De_flieger

What makes you think companies will upgrade their processes to a lower carbon base beyond what they would normally do with normal plant upgrades etc, in a properly functioning free market economy? What also makes you think for one second companies will pass on savings made with a reduction in carbon taxes?

As I have said without a substantial carbon tax impost on the end user, i.e. the consumer, all the carbon tax achieves is further wealth redistribution.

Please don’t get me started with oil companies and their investments in the renewable energy sector. Shell made a substantial investment in the early 2000’s only to sell almost all of it at the height of the market boom in 2009. Mobil made a similar investment in the sector in 2009 after pressure from the Obama administration. In fact, climate legislation is likely a key driver in oil companies' decisions to invest in alternative-energy technologies and hence their talking up of the sector to bolster their investments. I can assure you that if they weren’t being forced to make these investments in renewable energy they wouldn’t be talking about carbon emissions the way they currently are.

Towering Q

5th Jul 2012, 07:36

Thanks for the links De_flieger , interesting reading.

I clicked on the Climate Policy Principles tab on the ExxonMobil site and found this statement at the end of the article...

It is rare that a business lends its support to new taxes. But in this case, given the risk-management challenges we face and the policy alternatives under consideration, it is our judgment that a carbon tax is a preferred course of public policy action versus cap and trade approaches.

peterc005

5th Jul 2012, 08:15

@eagle 86 - never inherited a cent. Don't drink, smoke or gamble - just work hard.

My estimate is the Carbon Tax will add about $1.50 an hour (4.5 cents a litre for 35 litres an hour) to my flying - so who cares. How could anyone so miserable about $1.50 an hour survive in aviation?

The rise of China and India has added to global demand to oil and probably added 70 or 80 cents a litre to the cost of Avgas. Let's keep it all in perspective.

My degree is in Economics and my background is wholesale banking (treasury). I shouldn't waste my time on anonymous internet forums, but I keep seeing so many patently wrong and dumb things being written I feel compelled to say something for the sake of others who might see the postings and think they are credible.

There are so many rants on this forum by boorish, crazy and ill-informed people it gets tiring. In another thread here people criticised Flight Safety Magazine. It's a good read, relevant and FREE - and yet people (the same old nutters) criticised it.

Once again - my financial exposure to the Carbon Tax is tops $400 a year for everything and I have a lot more exposure than others here.

The $400 a year will not cause me any grief and I think it is well spent anyway as one method of helping to mitigate global warming to help leave a better world for my four kids.

Frank Arouet

5th Jul 2012, 09:17

My degree is in Economics and my background is wholesale banking (treasury).

And that my friends is why we have people such as M Turnbull and every other Merchant Banker supporting the concept despite their political affiliations.

Money, greed and corruption.

I've changed my mind about you peter, you're not a Troll, but a dangerous member of society trying to ingratiate yourself on PPRune where you are as welcome as a pork chop in a Synagogue.

Sarcs

5th Jul 2012, 09:20

There are so many rants on this forum by boorish, crazy and ill-informed people it gets tiring.

Breaking rule 101 "don't feed the troll" but some of the diatribe and thread drift coming out of pc5 is insulting!

Mate go find a forum that is more to your liking, I'm sure there are plenty of tree hugging, leftist sites out there that would love to have you contribute and would welcome a small donation so you can clear your carbon sins.

Before you p:mad: off this bit takes the cake..The $400 a year will not cause me any grief and I think it is well spent anyway as one method of helping to mitigate global warming to help leave a better world for my four kids. but I'm glad you feel better because you certainly aren't decreasing your carbon footprint!:ugh:

Chimbu chuckles

5th Jul 2012, 09:32

So you must have links to empirical evidence that manmade greenhouse gasses are warming the world/changing the climate dangerously then Pete?

Please enlighten us.

And I don't mean "I believe" or 'I am convinced" I mean accepted, empirical scientific data.

Not product from models either - real world data. I am sure as an educated man you will accept that computer models are only as good as the assumptions fed into them that modify the behaviour of the accepted physics that is also fed into them.

You see many of the people posting on this thread have done a LOT of reading and a few even have degrees in hard subjects. I have read the output from IPCC (as in the entire FAR for starters) and I studied physics.

I can tell you without fear of contradiction that atmospheric physics is very poorly understood. The IPCC FAR is chock FULL of scientists saying directly that their knowledge of various factors effecting climate is poor - clouds, warm water ocean upwellings, monsoons, aerosols etc.

The Summary For Policymakers on the other hand displays very little doubt that man is warming the world dangerously.

FAR is written by scientists - SFP is written by beaurocrats.

Here is one empirical scientific data point for you. Utterly uncontroversial and widely accepted as fact within the scientific community.

On every time scale atmospheric warming has occurred 800-1000yrs BEFORE atmospheric CO2 increased.

Here is another inconvenient fact - the GC Models have been unanimous in predicting warming whereas 6-7 years ago solar physicists were predicting cooling...and we have had cooling. I fly all over the world for a living and I have seen widespread cooling in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the ME and Europe in the last 4 years. We have all read the reports that show the same in North America. Mates who fly into Russia and NA regularly tell me they have seen the same there. Colder winters and cooler summers. Its REALLY obvious in the ME and EU/UK.

I was just talking to a mate in NZ today who was telling me that while washing his C185 in Wanaka a few days ago, just after lunchtime, his aircraft ended up completely covered in ice - born and raised in Wanaka and never seen that before - coldest June/July on record.

So the physics tells us run away dangerous warming is impossible - the scientists most closely associated with the IPCC and other world renown academies say, either, they are not sure or just plain discount the AGW hypothesis and the model outputs are diverging more and more from the reality we see around us.

Over the course of the last 120 odd years, where accurate records have been available, we have seen cyclical slight warming and cooling ending in 1998 at about a net +.7C, droughts and floods that have been both worse and less severe than recent ones, new records for coldest days/months on record but no new record highs (the hottest days in the last 10 years have only been 'hottest since 1930 something).

The satellite temperature record since the late 1970s when they were first put up has shown not a lot of anything happening, same with the weather balloons that have been going up since the 1950s, same with the argos system in the oceans.

So far EVERY alarmist prediction has proven false. Whether its Flannery predicting no more significant rain leading to moron pollies spending big on desalination just before flooding rains have swept across most of Australia - again, or IPCC predictions about glaciers in the Himalayas or Mt Kilimanjaro, polar bear extinctions, extinctions more generally, sea level rises that have not happened or where they have they are happening at rates of 1/10th the alarmist predictions...it goes on and one.

Not to mention those emails:hmm:

But hey - if you wanna donate money to hopeless causes you are perfectly free to do so - it is YOUR RIGHT.

But excuse me for pointing out that it is an indication of the closet totalitarian in you to expect EVERYONE else to do so whether they want to or not.

A huge % of the Australian population that used to believe mankind was warming the world dangerously (because they had never given it much thought - and I include myself in that %) now DON'T. As a result the ALP/Greens will be removed from the levers of power soon - at least - more likely they will be decimated politically for a generation or more.

But fear not - you will still be free to 'invest' money in renewables, donate to the less well off, or whatever floats your boat.

So will the rest of us - IF IT FLOATS OURS.

De_flieger

5th Jul 2012, 09:32

Titan 404
What you're saying is correct, noone will force companies to upgrade their processes and they certainly dont have to. If Joes Widgets can save $100,000 by not upgrading their equipment, and over the life of the plant that will cost them $50,000 in carbon taxes, well working that out is what the accountants are employed for.

What makes me think companies will pass on the costs or savings they make? Simple - outside of a monopoly/cartel situation, one company can pass on the savings, and offer their product cheaper, and people will buy it! For example, Eagle 86 can go to a cheaper cafe that isnt putting up the price of coffee by 50c a cup and hoping people will blame the carbon tax, leaving him more of his $10 to cover all of his weekly expenses. How he can cover the running costs of an aircraft as well out of that is an exercise for another day...:suspect:

Towering Q Yeah, I thought the multiple places where ExxonMobil stated their support for a carbon tax as the best way to allow market forces to drive a reduction in carbon emissions was interesting, but it was hard enough writing my earlier posts from the iPhone and I couldnt fit everything in!

I saw the first impact of the carbon tax today though... looking through my first payslip for the financial year I paid $26 dollars less tax than on the last payslip of last financial year - that is, an extra $26 into my bank account on effectively the same taxable income (slight variations due to minor differences in hours worked, but insignificant here). The reason was due to the increase in the tax-free threshold to $18,000 as part of the other changes to the tax system in conjunction with the introduction of the carbon tax. Before I am accused of being a ultra-light glider pilot flying paper darts from a commune in Outer Tofuville - not that it should matter anyway - nope, lowly-paid turboprop FO with the assorted licences that go along with it ;).

De_flieger

5th Jul 2012, 10:06

So you must have links to empirical evidence that manmade greenhouse gasses are warming the world/changing the climate dangerously then Pete?

Please enlighten us.climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://www.pprune.org/climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

Its empirical evidence. It lists real world data. They cite their sources.
and we have had cooling. I fly all over the world for a living and I have seen widespread cooling in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the ME and Europe in the last 4 years. We have all read the reports that show the same in North America. Mates who fly into Russia and NA regularly tell me they have seen the same there. Colder winters and cooler summers. Its REALLY obvious in the ME and EU/UK.What reports? NASA and NOAA have specifically said that, with records to back it up, that
Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. 5 (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#no5) Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. 6 (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#no6) And your statement
Over the course of the last 120 odd years, where accurate records have been available, we have seen cyclical slight warming and cooling ending in 1998 at about a net +.7C, droughts and floods that have been both worse and less severe than recent ones, new records for coldest days/months on record but no new record highs (the hottest days in the last 10 years have only been 'hottest since 1930 something).is incorrect.
Have a look at State of the Climate (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/) , the monthly NOAA State Of The Climate report. It is a report on the weather observations made throughout the US and the world, and opens with "May 2012 global temperatures were second-warmest on record". One interesting point they make is that May 2012 was the 327th consecutive month with a global average temperature above the 20th century average. (Thats since February 1985) Thats not based on models or guesswork, that is based solely on observations and measurements made over the last century and a bit.

I was just talking to a mate in NZ today who was telling me that while washing his C185 in Wanaka a few days ago, just after lunchtime, his aircraft ended up completely covered in ice - born and raised in Wanaka and never seen that before - coldest June/July on record.That sounds suspiciously like an anecdote as opposed to empirical evidence to me!

Frank Arouet

5th Jul 2012, 11:10

75% of people surveyed, (yes I can quote those figures like any politician), believe global warming/ climate change is a load of crock. Probably that amount of people obviously don't believe a tax will fix that imaginative problem. In Europe they call it the "hot air tax".

I stand out as an example of that group opposing it's imposition.

Carbon trading is linked to an old Jewish proverb;

"Anything you get for nothing, and sell for anything, makes for 100% profit".

It's a confidence trick of the highest order. Be careful who you vote for next time. And no, The Greens are not considered rational in any way shape or form.

Jabawocky

5th Jul 2012, 11:29

De Flieger

You have to understand that the data produced by these agencies is flawed.

See now, they produce temperature records from a small selection, I don't recall exactly but say something like 20% of the recording stations that were once captured.

Now that would be fine if it was a truly representitive selection.

Trouble is that in the state of California 3 of the 4 reference points are SFO airport some where on the concrete beaches of somewhere south of LA, somewhere else I don't recall now that was equally "environment" affected and one out in the country.

None in the high country at all.

Now when you compare one data set to another, even if nothing changed, what kind of trend result do you think you would get??? I'll give you a clue, it is + and not by a small amount.

Have a look at the global temp charts for Bolivia, damned near warmer than Queensland......WTF??? :ugh::ugh::ugh: I know why, do you?

These things have been gone over time and time again, so long ago I am now over even trying to remember the finer details.

Maybe Chuckles does, he is clever like that.

I once believed that we could be causing change.....but the more I used my head and looked around at the facts.....The result was not in favour of AGW.

Put in simple terms, if man made CO2 was significant, and dispute the small amount we contribute, CO2 has been climbing quite impressively, the Temps have not and have defied the obvious link. Well how can that be???? Impossible?

Temp leads CO2, by several hundred years, ask a proper paleoclimatologist! If you do not know one, trust me, I do. The only credible one in this country.

We are living in the noise band of millions of years of data......FACT!

Nitey Nite!:ok:

De_flieger

5th Jul 2012, 13:32

Hey Jabawocky, I have heard those criticisms of the data, and was a legitimate criticism, but recently debunked.

Are you familiar with the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project? It is funded in part by the Koch brothers, who are billionaire industrialists active in conservative politics and the project employs among their senior staff a couple of key figures identified as climate skeptics. The effects of temperature measurement station quality was the subject of a specific study they carried out, and it was proven, quite conclusively, that the station quality issues could be quantified, and did not bias the results of the temperature analysis. The paper they produced, which is accessible here http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-station-quality.pdf (http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-station-quality.pdf)is a straightforward read that sets out its data set and demonstrates how the results were obtained. They specifically look at the location and number of temperature measurement stations and assess their quality based on a number of factors such as surrounds, local slopes and local heat sources such as concrete areas, carparks etc. Their conclusions were
Based on both slope analysis and on temperature record reconstruction for the contiguous United States, using the temperature evaluations of Fall et al. [2009], we conclude that poor station quality in the United States does not unduly bias estimates of land surface average monthly temperature trends. No similar study is possible for the rest of the world because we do not have indicators of good/bad station quality; however, the lack of a significant difference in US stations suggests that such effects may be minimal.They have another paper that looks at the heat island effect, which can be read here: http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-uhi.pdf and shows that the heat island effect that some people claims invalidate data supporting global warming trends, does not exist in the manner claimed by those who identify as global warming/climate change "skeptics". Both these papers are relatively easy reads as scientific papers go, but if you're in a hurry skipping to the conclusions will give you the gist.

Global temp charts for Bolivia being warmer than Queensland? I havent seen them, where did you find them? And if Bolivia is warming up and you know why, do tell! Who is the paleoclimatologist you're referring to? Surely theres more than one credible paleoclimatologist in the whole country, and if theyre making that claim they should be happy enough to be identified.

Flying Binghi

5th Jul 2012, 16:32

.

via De_flieger;
...shows that the heat island effect that some people claims invalidate data supporting global warming trends, does not exist in the manner claimed by those who identify as global warming/climate change "skeptics"...

Lets get the basics done, ah will have a closer look later at "the manner claimed"..:)

This is reference Melbourne...

"...The urban heat island (UHI) effect refers to the phenomenon whereby a metropolitan or built up area is significantly warmer than its surrounding areas. In some cases, the UHI effect makes average urban daytime air temperatures around 5-6°C higher than the surrounding rural areas in summer..."

Cooling the urban heat island with more reflective roofs (http://theconversation.edu.au/cooling-the-urban-heat-island-with-more-reflective-roofs-5038)

.

Flying Binghi

5th Jul 2012, 16:37

.

via Towering Q;

Thanks for the links De_flieger , interesting reading.

I clicked on the Climate Policy Principles tab on the ExxonMobil site and found this statement at the end of the article...

Wot, the oil companys the good guys now...:hmm:

.

Towering Q

5th Jul 2012, 22:55

Wot, the oil companys the good guys now

Yes Binghi, the thought had crossed my mind too.:confused:

Jabawocky

5th Jul 2012, 22:58

Yeah take a look at those maps of the world with red blotches all over them. Bolivia is red as bro!

Of course we know it's freezing as, why the difference......they take averages from really strange places, and it is something akin to a temp record for say the top of our snowys instead of being Jindabyne we use Amberley.

I am not joking, 1000 k away and at sea level. :ugh:

Still today, I say it yesterday.

Prof Bob Carter. Suggest you spend a few hundred bucks and go to Townsville, buy him lunch, enjoy the sunshine and be willing to have an open discussion. He is not personally hell bent on an agenda, in fact he dragged himself into the debate about ten years back when some public comment was around by so called experts, that was completely wrong. It was his exact area of speciality too. He then discovered before he could make a public statement he needed to brush up on something like 40+ areas of science before he opened his mouth. Took him almost a year.

Research funding at the uni stopped shortly after, ;) you know why, not because he was wrong, he was the victim of a political agenda. So today he works away retired but still doing research, on drilling ships taking geo samples and so on, and he is probably 74 now.

Great guy, no axe to grind, just has a good understanding of as many facets of science as anyone can on climate.

So when the theory is man made co2 is such a significant driver, and co2 continues to climb at a steep rate, how is it even possible to have cooling?

Go talk to Bob.:ok: give him my regards:ok:

Jabawocky

5th Jul 2012, 23:00

Oil companies like political parties have to be seen as "green" such is the swing of things.

It is nothing more than media spin. And potential funding grants ;)

eagle 86

5th Jul 2012, 23:08

P.......
As I said "good on you". But the more you are engaged here the more you expose yourself as being fairly well off financially - you show no regard for those far worse off than you.
There is no doubt that this tax will only give people like you a warm fuzzy feeling and unless the rest of the developed world falls in behind (and they largely are not) then stuff all difference will be made to "climate change".
Like all things there is an "ON/OFF" switch - use it.
GAGS
E86

peterc005

5th Jul 2012, 23:18

Below is an interesting article published in The Age this morning:

Big polluters convinced carbon price is here to stay (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/big-polluters-convinced-carbon-price-is-here-to-stay-20120704-21hix.html#ixzz1zmtgIkiw)

Big polluters convinced carbon price is here to stay
Adam Morton
July 5, 2012

EVEN if the carbon price is repealed by a Tony Abbott government, it is likely to be brought back again within a few years, according to a survey of experts who work for the heaviest-polluting companies.

The latest study of expectations about the climate change laws, by the Australian National University's Crawford School of Public Policy, found 40 per cent thought the scheme would be repealed by 2016. But 79 per cent expected a price on carbon to be in force by 2020.

''An overwhelming majority think there will be a carbon price in the medium to long term, but more than half the experts from liable entities think the legislation will be repealed along the way,'' said the economist Frank Jotzo, the author of a report on the survey.

''It really puts the spotlight back on to the uncertainty that is dominating the area.''

The Opposition Leader, Mr Abbott, has given a ''blood pledge'' to repeal the carbon price scheme if elected, either with the support of a defeated Labor party or after a double dissolution election over the issue. The survey received 76 responses from big emitters, the carbon finance and investment sector and other experts.

Dr Jotzo said he did not claim the survey was representative of all companies liable for the tax, but that the respondents were responsible for more than half the emissions covered by the scheme.

Among the big emitting companies directly charged the $23-a-tonne tax, slightly more than half expect it to be rolled back. Big emitters paying the tax were twice as likely to believe the scheme would be repealed as investors.
Other findings included 70 per cent of those surveyed believed the bipartisan emissions target of a 5 per cent cut below 2000 emissions levels by 2020 would still be in place in 2015. A quarter thought the target would become more ambitious. Hardly any thought it would be scrapped.

Three-quarters did not expect the Australian scheme to have linked with the seven-year-old European system by 2018. However, 60 per cent thought Australian businesses would be trading carbon permits with Europeans by 2020.

Seven out of 10 representatives from the big emitters said their companies had already cut emissions in anticipation of the carbon price, and 84 per cent said they expected to make cuts over the next three years.
Dr Jotzo said it suggested big emitters were not holding back in starting to cut emissions, but the extent of the action was likely to be limited by uncertainty over its future.

The ANU report follows a survey by multinational GE and The Economist finding that three-quarters of senior executives polled expected the scheme to survive, but only a third believed the opportunities created by carbon pricing would outweigh the longer-term risks of the scheme.

Mr.Buzzy

5th Jul 2012, 23:52

Yep. Show me an article from a lefty rag and I can show you 10 from the other papers!
The big polluters are quiet because if they are exporters, they wont be paying a carbon tax!

Bbbbbbbzzbzbzbz zbzbz z

De_flieger

6th Jul 2012, 00:39

Hey Jaba, I think you may have mis-interpreted those maps! If this is one of the ones that you are referring to, with Bolivia and the surrounds with red blotches, its a temperature anomaly map, not an absolute temperature map, charting the differences in temperatures at locations against a long term average for that location.

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201205-201205.gif
If the average temperature in QLD goes from 24 degrees to 20 degrees against a long-term average of 22 degrees, it'll get a blue dot - relative cooling. Likewise if the average temperature in Bolivia goes from -5 degrees to - 1 degree and the long term average temperature is -3 degrees, it will get a red dot indicating relative heating. Its not showing - or claiming that - Bolivia is hotter than Queensland. You cannot look at the red dots in Siberia vs the blue dots in Brisbane and say that Siberia is hotter than Brisbane!! (better nightlife maybe, but thats another story!)

Flying Binghi, noone is claiming that the urban heat island effect isnt real, the analysis I linked to was done to compare rural and urban temperature measurements. The aim of that was to determine if the location of some weather stations was skewing the global average temperature measurements. Obviously if a large number of weather stations were in cities that were kept warmer, it would skew the global temperature data. Their conclusions were that - while there is definitely an urban heat island effect - it wasnt causing the observed long-term warming trend at both rural and urban measurement sites. They actually observed a cooling trend at some urban locations too, although not enough to offset the overall warming trend. This is summarised at the end of the Abstract section of the paper:
The small size, and its negative sign, supports the key conclusion of prior groups that urban warming does not unduly bias estimates of recent global temperature change.

Jabawocky

6th Jul 2012, 02:02

That is the one, and yes you are correct, its the anomaly, I do not recall saying it way absolute at all, if I did, my bad!

The point is how can you trust the anomaly map when Bolivia's anomaly is based on a data collection that is now 1000km and at sea level, compared to when it was actually in bolivia. :ugh:

Any bunch of data can make a story to suit the occasion.

In fact the funniest one is take the same data set, the ones the greenies and IPCC use, and put a line of best fit to determine a trend, the greenies always pick the one that suits their argument at the time. I have seen them. They do show a trend up. No argument. That is true.

But hang on a minute. Now take a climate "snap shot" which is 30 years, and you get a flat line, no climb, no descent...nuthin! From 78 to 2008 a 30 year blink of an eye in climate terms, the satellite data showed no change, it went up a bit down a bit but the reference point was the same.

Now if you can cherry pick a time zone like the greenies do I can show you 10 years with an equal cooling slope.

Bottom line is a 10-20 year sample is worthless unless you compare the types of trends to this that happened in the last few thousand or million years. All trends that are logged and agreed as acceptable science by both sides.

When you do that...... You find that we have nothing remarkable happening at all. NOTHING!

So when when the earth had a CO2 o 4500PPM, not 385ppm, did we not have disastrous Dinosaur Made Global Warming?

Pleas answer that thoroughly and answer my last question. About how if CO2 is such a significant climate driver by forcing temperatures up, we see no correlation of anything like the alarmists still preach, and despite ramping up CO2 levels, the temps are not following?

Two simple things.

I am over the digging up data and so on. I have enough people wanting me to help them with piston engine operation education which is far more satisfying, but also takes too much time away from my work.

So unless you can answer those things for me without my help and input, I am out of here.

I do seriously hope you can answer it, because some very smart well researched AGW believers, one even works for me and he just walks away. He can't provide the evidence.

Rusty1970

6th Jul 2012, 04:42

So when the theory is man made co2 is such a significant driver, and co2 continues to climb at a steep rate, how is it even possible to have cooling?

That one's kinda easy. You assume all heat is via direct atmospheric warming. But that's not the case. Take Europe. It gets a lot of it's warmth from the North Atlantic current (ie the what the gulf stream becomes) so the ocean is considerably warmer than it would otherwise be, and thus so is the climate. Without it, Europe would be much colder (particularly Western Europe). More like the kind of temps you'd expect at that latitude.

Turn that current off, as most climate scientists agree will happen with a warming at equatorial latitudes for reasons that are too complicated for me but if oceanographers say so.... and Europe gets colder.

That's one of the reasons you don't hear them calling it global warming anymore. Sure, the average temp will be warmer, but not everywhere on the globe will be. Hence they stopped using the term (it gave people a stick to beat them with) and they use climate change instead.

As for Bob Carter, I actually believe he is well meaning and with no particular axe to grind, but that doesn't mean he is correct. A quick Google will find well qualified people who have debunked his theories.

I have no particular dog in this fight. But there are a lot of very well qualified, well meaning, not conflicted scientists who believe this stuff is real. (and some hopelessly conflicted ones - but nowhere near as many), And a very few who don't. That's great, that's how science works, but when non-scientists start sprouting stuff that isn't true on talkback and the like, backed by serious commercial interests, I know who I'll turn to. And it isn't Alan Jones or "Lord" Monckton.

I didn't question the Higgs Boson, and nor did anyone else really, because there is no money involved. Funny that.

peterc005

6th Jul 2012, 04:46

Since people have used this threat to criticise the economic performance of the government, I'd like to take the opportunity to set things straight.

Australia has the best economic growth and lowest unemployment in the developed world. See attached graph.

The ALP government has managed the economy well in difficult situations and Wayne Swan is the quiet achiever of modern Australian politics.

Australia is probably the best place in the world to live right now.

http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/bp1/image/bp1_bst1-3.gif (Employment)
http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/bp1/image/bp1_bst1-2.gif (Economic growth)
Graph source: Australian Federal Budget 2012/2013 Papers, Canberra
http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/overview/download/Budget_Overview_may.pdf (page 4)

http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/overview/download/Budget_Overview_may.pdf

Mr.Buzzy

6th Jul 2012, 05:31

Labor, your mate? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/embed/uEgSbof-qcg)

Bbbbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzzzzz

Frank Arouet

6th Jul 2012, 07:22

people have used this (sic) threat to criticise the economic performance of the government.

Well yes they would seeing as we are some $47 billion in debt which if you add the surplus left by the Libs, they have frittered away probably $60 billion since coming to the illigetimate office they now foist on the Australian public. And.......... wait for it, they "FORCAST" a surplus next year. Oh, and the employment is due to 800,000 public servants or part time workers mainly attributed to the "clean energy industry".

All Bankers, merchants Bankers and Speculators love this scheme. Even Westpac endorse it. What's that tell you?

How goes the "Future fund" BTW?

peterc005

6th Jul 2012, 13:38

It's late at night and I don't have the reference at hand, but ...

From memory the Australian National Debt/GDP ratio has not exceeded 4% in the last five years.

By comparison the USA Debt/GDP ratio is about 140% and Greece about 300%.

Australian government debt is tiny and very manageable.

The Australian Government debt ratios are probably the best in the world.

I'll check with with definite figures and references on the weekend when I have time.

jas24zzk

6th Jul 2012, 13:47

Peter Peter Peter,
as you are an educated man, I am surprised at the purphy you just threw onto the table. I'm starting to think your intellect is begining to overheat a little.

You just attempted to turn a scientific debate into a political one. But I'll take a chomp.

Economy.
We both know that the effects of a previous governments policies/budgeting will carry over into the term of the next government. Good or bad. It sometimes takes several years to play out to the result, unless a government puts in seriously flawed policies.

Trade as an example. When lil jonnie howler got dumped, we had a trade deficet that was diminishing, and became a growing surplus whilst under krudds rule.
Several months ago, that flatlined. And now for the 5th month in a row we have recorded a deficit. Why? come on, you are the educated one, i'm just a dumb year 11 drop out trying to get a better understanding.
Can we blame the high dollar? I don't think so, because when the dollar was 1.05, the trade surplus was still growing.
In your view as an economist, what has caused that turn around?

Jobless rate.

In this country, this is the most falsified piece of data you will ever see!!! And as an economist, you should know that!

Static unemplyment
One of the first things the Gillard government did, was to lower the parameters that dictated if you were employed/unemployed. Now if you work more than 18 hours a week, you are deemed employed, but most likley qualify for part dole. Listing yourself as part time, also removes you from the unemployed numbers if you do more then 9 hours work.
The biggest changer, which was driven under Keating's reign, moved volunteer workers from the unemployed lists to the employed ones. Despite the lack of proper pay.

Dynamic unemployment.
One of the twists the government uses to play the numbers game, is to have 'training courses' set up for the long term unemployed. They enrol them into the courses just before the reporting period. These people are no longer unemployed as they now on TRAINING, and therefore deemed a student. (unemployable)

Hmmm
nice side step there buddy. This guvmint has screwed us for a long time. And I don't have much hope of yabbot repealing it. I only hope at least he comes up with some decent ways to use the dollars.

There are so many other ways the guvmint could have extracted the dollars to fund pollution reduction measures.

The irony is, that my business generates some pretty nasty waste. I, being environmentally aware, ensure that said waste is disposed of by the proper means of the day. That costs money, money I try to pass onto the consumer. The problem is, the more educated the consumer is, the more they object to the charge.
I'd place you in that group in an instant Peter.

You realise, when I do an oil change on your car, every litre of oil I extract and send away for recycling/proper disposal, costs almost as much as each new litre i put in your car. I cannot even add a processing surcharge equalling my trade discount on your new oil, else it would cost more to send each litre away than it would to on sell you a new litre.

This tax, just means the govmints of the world found a way to tax us for air. I am anti conspiracy theory..but not on the carbon tax

Flying Binghi

6th Jul 2012, 14:48

Lets have a look-see...:)

via De_flieger #302;
...With NASA, ExxonMobil and Shell all in agreement, is that enough evidence for you?...

I'm a bit bemused by yer thought proccess ther De_flieger. Why do you think that "with NASA, ExxonMobil and Shell all in agreement" suddenly we got 'enough evidence'..:hmm: ...ah can see why Towering Q is -:confused:

via De_flieger #302;
...Here is NASAs view:Climate Change: Evidence (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)...

Houston, we have a problem...

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/)

De_flieger, do yer really wanna use NASA as yer scientific 'proof' ? shorely yer got somethin better...

If yer do no problemo, we'll go thru yer link point by point...:)

via De_flieger #303; ...the money goes round in a circle and nothing is gained...

No, due to our higher costs the money goes to China.

.

Sarcs

6th Jul 2012, 22:26

Had to check the top of the page to check the topic for this thread....nope definitely 'Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel'!:E

Peter and co if your serious about debating climate change and Oz politics...why not get serious and put your money where your mouth is...

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/471031-climate-change-debate-51.html

and here...

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-80.html

...because this thread has been perpetually drifting (although somewhat more relevant), spare a thought for the fresh food producers and fishmongers..

Industry fumes as refrigerant costs soar - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-05/refrigerant-costs-soar-post-carbon-tax/4111770)

So aerial application costs are set to go up with the rise in avgas, refrigerant costs up and there are probably a lot more hidden costs yet to be discovered....Girrard better get the carbon cops onto this one hey!!

Lodown

7th Jul 2012, 01:58

Well worth the read:

http://hockeyschtick.********.com/2012/07/bill-comes-due-for-californias-climate.html
...but there is no way that it will ever affect Australia in the same way...yeah right!

Click on the link above, then, substitute "blog-spot" for the asterisks and remove the hypen between the "g" and "s". Direct link to Wall Street Journal requires a subscription.

De_flieger

7th Jul 2012, 02:19

Flying Binghi - regarding this
I'm a bit bemused by yer thought proccess ther De_flieger. Why do you think that "with NASA, ExxonMobil and Shell all in agreement" suddenly we got 'enough evidence'..http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif ...ah can see why Towering Q is -http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif
maybe I didnt explain it as well as I should. When a number of massive global corporations who have significant financial interests in being allowed to emit as much CO2 or other gases as they can, all express very similar views about the benefits of reducing these emissions, and share these views with the CSIRO, NASA, NOAA, Greenpeace and any number of other environmental activist groups, then it tends to suggest that this view is correct. The oil companies and Greenpeace obviously have different views on the action to be taken, but none of them are actually disputing the science behind climate change.
Chevron Climate Change | Environment | Chevron Australia (http://www.chevronaustralia.com/environment/climatechange.aspx)
BP Climate change | BP (http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9036321&contentId=7067103)
and BHP Billiton BHP Billiton - Environment (http://www.bhpbilliton.com/home/aboutus/sustainability/Pages/Environment.aspx)
all have similar views about the role of greenhouse gas and climate change, although with different views on the best method to approach the problem. These arent radical environmentalists, they are the companies that make fortunes selling us our petrol and aviation fuel. If they had legitimate evidence that showed that CO2 emissions werent involved in climate change, or that climate change wasnt occurring, they could present this evidence and not only take a massive swing at Greenpeace and other organisations that have caused them problems in the past, but make billions of dollars in increased profits through not taking the CO2 emission reduction steps they are taking. Thats what I was getting at there. Do I want to use NASA as my only proof? No, absolutely not, but NASA, the CSIRO, NOAA and numerous other scientific organisations all in broad agreement is more convincing than a bunch of bloggers.

Interesting article Sarcs! Particularly the bit about how the impact of the carbon tax would increase the cost of the refrigerants by $75 per kilo, but suppliers have increased the price by $285 per kilo. Someone's definitely making some money there...

Jaba, I'm not sure where you get the idea that the temperature records for Bolivia are measured somewhere else entirely. I couldnt find a reference anywhere for it, but 30 seconds of googling did turn up todays weather forecast for Bolivia with output from 36 separate stations at various locations around the country recording and reporting data. Obviously there's more than one thermometer in Bolivia, and the La Paz station as a quick (2 clicks from google) example lists a station elevation of 4014 metres, so nowhere near sea level. I suspect this may be an urban legend you've been told.

But hang on a minute. Now take a climate "snap shot" which is 30 yearsOk then. Much as I dislike citing Wikipedia, they have a graph which charts satellite temperature anomaly measurements on the same axis as the measured surface temperatures.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Radiosonde_Satellite_Surface_Temperature.svg/500px-Radiosonde_Satellite_Surface_Temperature.svg.png
and you get a flat line, no climb, no descent...nuthin! From 78 to 2008 a 30 year blink of an eye in climate terms, the satellite data showed no change, it went up a bit down a bit but the reference point was the same. No, I am afraid you dont. One of the very few places I have heard that claim was in an article by Bob Carter. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature has a similar graph showing the surface temperature measurements and they discuss how short-term fluctuations within a few years can give gross positive or negative trend lines depending on where you start and stop measuring, but the overall trend is still up. Here is their image:
http://berkeleyearth.org/images/berkeley-earth-land-surface-average-temperature-60yr.jpg
That should cover your 1978-2008 period hopefully! :ok:

djpil

7th Jul 2012, 02:22

Anyone read Gillard's blog at the Herald Sun with her responses to questions? There was a follow up with more questions and answers by Combet's staff: Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/prime-minister-julia-gillard-a-sure-hand-in-selling-carbon-tax/story-e6frf7jo-1226418361895)
(not sure that link will work)
I wasn't impressed with Gillard's answers at all - reading earlier posts here I can see the sort of advice she gets. Combet's bureaucrats must've spent a long time developing their story - I'd like to see their answers to the questions posed to Gillard earlier but that won't happen.

Sarcs

7th Jul 2012, 03:12

Particularly the bit about how the impact of the carbon tax would increase the cost of the refrigerants by $75 per kilo, but suppliers have increased the price by $285 per kilo.

Well DF maybe Girrard's bean counters have made a mistake, God forbid! This part of the article is perhaps more telling:

On its website it says there are other costs, such as financing, insurance and compliance, which all contribute to the rise, which estimates will cost the industry $270 million.

Or hopefully you are right and the ACCC (carbon cops) ably supported by the AFP will smash this carbon crime syndicate!:E

With all due respect DF can you take your lovely (oversized) graphs and widgets across to jetblast as I now can't fit the thread page on my (energy efficient) electronic notepad!:{

Personally in my household we've got everything pared back to the max to try and survive the rising cost of living (and that was before the carbon tax). I'm more interested in the present and whether the GA industry can survive further imposts from a totally disenfranchised, illegitimate Labor government!:rolleyes:

Towering Q

7th Jul 2012, 06:05

spare a thought for the fresh food producers and fishmongers..

Yes, the fluoro-vest wearing Tony Abbott should leave them in peace for a while.:}

Frank Arouet

7th Jul 2012, 10:24

spare a thought for the fresh food producers and fishmongers

You mean the Asian's. There's not much left of Australian fishing. Oh, and Jules wears red mainly, or orange whenever she can.

Where did Asians come into the discussion.

Whales will be my fault next I suppose.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

7th Jul 2012, 12:22

........Australian fishing. Oh, and Jules wears red mainly, or orange whenever she can

= Orange Roughy?

Lodown

7th Jul 2012, 15:59

De flieger, you've linked to papers and articles that indicate the global temperatures have warmed for roughly 150 years up to 1995 or 1998 (accounts vary a little). Very few people deny this. All through its history, the earth has warmed or cooled. There is comparatively very little in its history when the temperatures have remained constant for any period of time. What is missing is proof that man's CO2 emissions are the sole, or even predominant cause for this comparatively recent rise. The fact that temperatures have not risen since 1998 or so while CO2 concentrations have continued to go up, seems to indicate that CO2 is not the cause of rising temps, particularly as some evidence appears to indicate the reverse might be true; that the rising temps might be the reason for much of the CO2 concentration rise.

There is little argument that man is having some affect on the atmosphere. How much affect is the subject of conjecture. You appear to have taken the side of the argument that temperatures have risen for the last 150 years and so has man's industry, so therefore fossil fuels are to blame. Like the alarmist climate scientists, you have chosen to minimise or discount changes to the sun's output, cosmic rays, ocean and air currents, clouds, water vapour, volcanic activity, etc., and have focussed on the CO2.

So the earth has warmed a little. Roughly 0.8 degrees C. Alarmist climate scientists have blamed that entirely on a connection between CO2 (specifically man's component) and those warming temperatures. That's yet to be proven in it's entirety. It is what it is. It's the next step; a set of assumptions and predictions that many people have an issue with. The alarmists use positive feedbacks from clouds and water vapour and a definitive runaway feedback loop from growing CO2 concentrations to predict snowless winters and a catastrophic increase in temperatures. There is simply no evidence of this at all. In fact, as research accumulates, it appears that the catastrophic predictions are no more than the same predictions that we have had from crackpots ever since the dawn of man that the world will end tomorrow. The predictions are simply not holding true. If the predictions (cloaked in the "science" mantra) are not holding true, then that says the assumptions and information that led to those predictions is wrong or incomplete. This is the crux of the matter. However, the alarmists are not to be put off. They continue to fiddle with their models on the basis that the catastrophic prediction holds true. It's the timeframe, or the wrong evidence, or something else that they've overlooked, that is disrupting their predictions. They refuse to consider that maybe they've over-emphasised the affect of CO2. There are many conjectures on why this might be so.

Meanwhile, the Australian government has decided to ignore cautious advice about throwing all their eggs in one basket and has implemented the carbon tax with at best; a dubious outcome, and at worst, hamstringing many businesses and taxpayers for no benefit whatsoever to the environment. This is simply to appease the Greens, who don't really care if the "science" is there yet; they just want to penalise industry and "polluters" who impact on their deluded perception of how the world should be. If the example of California is one to mimic, then the actions of the Australian government will result in reduced CO2 emissions simply because less people can absorb the increased costs, many businesses will move or go broke and economic activity goes backwards.

Renewable energy (solar, wind, tidal) rely heavily on immense government subsidies and cannot provide base load power. It is unlikely at any time in the next 100 years (if ever) that they will despite some of the more optimistic reports. But the subsidies go on. The oil companies don't care. They know full well that any change of regulations benefit them. World oil consumption is rising, despite the flurries of a renewable energy industry that will never seriously threaten their interests. People are and will still buy oil, and natural gas, and coal, and methane clathrates. Changes to regulations help keep the little players out of the big boys' sandpit.

Flying Binghi

7th Jul 2012, 16:07

The internet has given back the POWER TO THE PEOPLE..:cool:

(Edit - I hadn't seen the very well written Lodown post prior to my post)

via De_flieger;

maybe I didnt explain it as well as I should. When a number of massive global corporations who have significant financial interests in being allowed to emit as much CO2 or other gases as they can, all express very similar views about the benefits of reducing these emissions, and share these views with the CSIRO, NASA, NOAA, Greenpeace and any number of other environmental activist groups, then it tends to suggest that this view is correct. The oil companies and Greenpeace obviously have different views on the action to be taken, but none of them are actually disputing the science behind climate change.
Chevron Climate Change | Environment | Chevron Australia (http://www.chevronaustralia.com/environment/climatechange.aspx)
BP Climate change | BP (http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9036321&contentId=7067103)
and BHP Billiton BHP Billiton - Environment (http://www.bhpbilliton.com/home/aboutus/sustainability/Pages/Environment.aspx)
all have similar views about the role of greenhouse gas and climate change, although with different views on the best method to approach the problem. These arent radical environmentalists, they are the companies that make fortunes selling us our petrol and aviation fuel. If they had legitimate evidence that showed that CO2 emissions werent involved in climate change, or that climate change wasnt occurring, they could present this evidence and not only take a massive swing at Greenpeace and other organisations that have caused them problems in the past, but make billions of dollars in increased profits through not taking the CO2 emission reduction steps they are taking. Thats what I was getting at there. Do I want to use NASA as my only proof? No, absolutely not, but NASA, the CSIRO, NOAA and numerous other scientific organisations all in broad agreement is more convincing than a bunch of bloggers.

"...When a number of massive global corporations who have significant financial interests in being allowed to emit as much CO2 or other gases as they can, all express very similar views about the benefits of reducing these emissions, and share these views with the CSIRO, NASA, NOAA, Greenpeace and any number of other environmental activist groups, then it tends to suggest that this view is correct..."

Who cares what the oil companys say. The oil companys know they will be selling all the oil they can pump - if some muppets want to give them even more money to pump CO2 into the ground, then mores the profit (read the oil co's links)
De_flieger, yer either pulling my leg or you've led yer-self clean up the garden path... or perhaps yer trying to avoid addressing the basics - i.e., where is the proof for AGW..:hmm:

De_flieger since yer want to work with the NASA link perhaps yer can show, this dumb old hill farmer me, the NASA proof fer AGW so we can have a look-see at the claims.

Looking at the basics again - we gots Urban Heat Island (UHI) covered and agreed to. UHI = up to 5-6 degrees. Lets now add temperature history...

Reid Bryson comments -

"...All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd, ...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..."

So who were Reid Bryson (He passed on a couple of years ago)

"Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” ...

Long ago in the Army Air Corps, Bryson and a colleague prepared the aviation weather forecast that predicted discovery of the jet stream by a group of B-29s flying to and from Tokyo. Their warning to expect westerly winds at 168 knots earned Bryson and his friend a chewing out from a general—and the general’s apology the next day when he learned they were right. Bryson flew into a couple of typhoons in 1944, three years before the Weather Service officially did such things, and he prepared the forecast for the homeward flight of the Enola Gay. Back in Wisconsin, he built a program at the UW that’s trained some of the nation’s leading climatologists..."

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

.

Flying Binghi

7th Jul 2012, 16:43

.

A quick reminder about the Donna Laframboise speaking tour.

I think somebody said she were just some feminist...

Donna Laframboise is a Canadian feminist, writer, and photographer. She holds a degree in women's studies, and her writing has often supported organizations such as fathers' rights groups. She is the author of The Princess at the Window: A New Gender Morality (1997), a book critical of many aspects of contemporary feminism; and of The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert (2011), a book about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. She maintains noconsensus.org, a website that argues that there is no scientific consensus on global warming (via wikipedia)

Melbourne and Sydney were sell outs, i think there is still seats for Brisbane and Perth.

book seat via - Institute of Public Affairs Australia (http://www.ipa.org.au/events/information/event/donna-laframboise)

Imagine a REAL ABC TV global warming debate - On the climate realist side we have; Donna Laframboise, Joanne Nova, Jennifer Marohasy, and a token male say, Andrew Bolt...
On the climate hysteria side we have the main hysterics; Tim Flanery, Bob Brown, Milne... who am i kidding. The piss weak climate hysteric crew would be finding all sorts of reasons not to show so it wont happen..:hmm:

.

De_flieger

8th Jul 2012, 06:25

De_flieger, yer either pulling my leg or you've led yer-self clean up the garden path... or perhaps yer trying to avoid addressing the basics - i.e., where is the proof for AGW..http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif
De_flieger since yer want to work with the NASA link perhaps yer can show, this dumb old hill farmer me, the NASA proof fer AGW so we can have a look-see at the claims.The NASA details are at the link I provided earlier - Climate Change: Evidence (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/) They discuss in a lot more detail than there is room for here, the evidence for global warming and why the scientific consensus is that it is due to man-made CO2 emissions. They also cite all the relevant papers, and a lot of them are freely accessible so you can read the methods involved and how they came to their conclusions.

There is a section that specifically discusses solar radiance and how it was involved in the Little Ice Age you refer to, in causing the Little Ice Age and when it ended. It also discusses the measured changes in solar radiance over recent years and how there has been a very slight decline in solar radiance in the past 30 years, which should have a cooling effect. Changes to the solar output have been conclusively shown to not be linked to the current warming that is being observed - the solar radiance trend has been a decrease at the same time global temperatures have increased. Regarding volcanic ash distribution, that is another thing that is measured and taken into account - if you look at the graph on the previous page you can see the brown graph that shows volcanic aerosol levels, and it has markings for a couple of key events, major eruptions such as at Mt Pinatubo.

The internet has given back the POWER TO THE PEOPLE..http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cool.gif
- It sure has! But at some point you also need to consider the source. Ever read the comments on a YouTube video, and compared them to scientific journals that publish online?? NASA, NOAA and the National Academies Press (publishers for the US National Academy Of Science, among others - heres a book they publish, and make available to read online for free: Advancing the Science of Climate Change (http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782) ) are just a few of the large number of worldwide scientific organisations in broad agreement on the causes of climate change. In response you are citing a 2007 article published in the Wisconsin Energy Co-operative News....it goes on to discuss the Great Wisconsin Cheese Festival :uhoh: , so perhaps they arent at the forefront of climatic research. Their website states that they are a magazine "published on behalf of the Wisconsin Electric Cooperative Association by Cooperative Network. Established in 1940, the publication continues to serve Wisconsin’s rural areas, but it also circulates in other parts of the state. "

The hysterics, as you describe them, do noone any good - grossly exaggerated claims only damage the causes they are interested in, but at the same time individuals such as Andrew Bolt arent exactly balanced either. If a Labour Government made seatbelts and airbags mandatory he would claim that it was an infringement of individual rights and car crashes toughen you up anyway. :}

Frank Arouet

8th Jul 2012, 09:11

evidence for global warming

Why am I so f:mad: cold? (Oh, yes.. it's Winter),

The whole thing is a fraud, and the only people who support the notion are those who are strangely addicted to socialism or have a vested interest in share trading.

Saving the planet is a fraud.

Saving General Aviation in Australia is a worthy cause and the case for extreme countermeasures that only support the CAA to decimate it further are not worth counter discussion.

A fool and his money are easily parted. (someone said that).

peterc005

8th Jul 2012, 10:06

If this thread is about the Carbon Tax and Aviation, why are there all these repetitive boorish posts by the usual gaggle of Anti Global Warming conspiracy nutters?

peterc005

8th Jul 2012, 11:20

The young female receptionist at work believes in fairies, psychics and magical crystals.

Trying to talk facts and logic with her has the same level of futility as arguing with anti-global-warming conspiracy theory nutters. The difference is she is much prettier than the nutters.

Flying Binghi

8th Jul 2012, 11:31

.

via peterc005;
...this thread is about the Carbon Tax and Aviation...

The reason for a tax is part of the discusion about the tax is it not..:hmm:

If yer got nothing to contribute peterc005 - Please Leave..:)

.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

8th Jul 2012, 14:43

Hypocrite, elitist, and now sexist. Ticking all the boxes!

peterc005

9th Jul 2012, 04:33

The Carbon Tax has been here for a week now and it's been a big non-event.

There were a couple of articles in the paper about businesses (Brumbys the first one) using Carbon Tax as an excuse to price gouge customers, but apart from that not a lot.

Here's how the Carbon Tax will affect aviation.

The cost of fuel will rise by about 4.5 cents a litre, which is about 3%.
The cost of fuel is typically something like 30% of the total cost of aviation.
The net effect is that Carbon Tax might add, say, 1% to the cost of aviation in Australia.
Luckily for us, the price of oil-based fuels in Australia has fallen in recent months due to the strong Australian dollar, meaning overall fuel prices have probably fallen.

NET EFFECT: somewhere between nil and a tiny bit.

The Carbon Tax was a big non-event for Australian aviation.

porch monkey

9th Jul 2012, 04:38

Sadly, you don't even see the irony in your own posts.............:sad:

Towering Q

9th Jul 2012, 08:44

On a lighter note....I have recently discovered a few 'climate' apps for the iPhone/iPad. There is one for the alarmists and another for the sceptics. I understand the alarmist version has a few bugs that are yet to be sorted out.:{

djpil

9th Jul 2012, 08:59

To save me the trouble of going through all the links generously provided can some-one please provide a link to where the scientists have correlated their modeling with data going back a very long time. Being scientists they would naturally see how good their model is in predicting temperatures in the past. A simple graph of actual vs predicted for a simple person. And I expect the usual error bars on the actual data.
I haven't seen anything like that, surprisingly, as I'd expect it to be an inherent part of validating the models.

Of course, as some-one pointed out, that has nought to do with this thread on the carbon tax.

THE Labor Party thinks that the Greens are "extremists" and "loonies". The Greens think that the Labor Party "doesn't stand for anything" and are "diseased".pretty much sums up why there is this tax.

peterc005

9th Jul 2012, 10:38

@Dave: there are many sources of this information to be found via Google. This one seems to be the easiest to follow and has credible source references:

[IMG]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png[/IMG

File:Climate Change Attribution.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png)

The Carbon Tax was inevitable in Australia and is a good measure towards reducing carbon emissions with a view to mitigate global warming. I support the Carbon Tax and other moves to deal with climate change.

Getting back to the original topic. See my post higher up on this page. The Carbon Tax has a negligible effect on Australian aviation.

There is no real financial cost, the real cost is time wasted talking about the Carbon Tax in anonymous internet forms.

Frank Arouet

9th Jul 2012, 10:49

The Carbon Tax has been here for a week now and it's been a big non-event

Yes it's still winter. Temps about the same and probably the same amount of Carbon being chucked into the atmosphere.

So there has been no indication that these taxes are doing anything at all.

What a FRAUD!

djpil

9th Jul 2012, 10:57

Thanks Peter but its not what I was after. Others have mentioned the last 20 years to add on to that graph (it was done in 2004 so much of the predicted data was there and now there is actual data to be added).

I want to see a correlation going back many many more years.

(That image also shows the cooling effect of sulfate emissions - I saw somewhere about an engineering solution based on that. I wonder what I need to burn in the bipe to get merit points.)

good measure towards reducing carbon emissions with a view to mitigate global warming. Even Gillard avoided that subject in her recent blog.

Lancelot37

9th Jul 2012, 11:03

Perhaps that horrible woman should watch this.

Three minutes puts carbon dioxide into perspective.

The Rice Video - Carbon Dioxide in perspective by The Galileo Movement - YouTube

peterc005

9th Jul 2012, 11:42

@Dave - yes, the Sulfate curve is interesting.

My daughter Max now has a BSc (Chem) so I'll ask her about the Sulfate. Speaking with her I understand that the science behind global warming is universally accepted and taught in the Monash Uni Science Faculty.

Max doesn't agree with me about much, but she also feels the climate change skeptics have no credibility.

Climate Change is an important and interesting area. It needs to be approached using scientific disciplines, relying on referenced and peer-reviewed material.

Anecdotes and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories add nothing to this kind of science.

The graph does show a strong correlation between modeled and observed data.

The Greenhouse Gas curve also seems to correlate with rising temperatures since 1950, which is what is expected.

When I get some more time I'll fish around for a good set of data for your question.

djpil

9th Jul 2012, 12:16

When I get some more time I'll fish around for a good set of data for your question.Peter, don't waste your time, I am not going to make a judgement on that topic.
I do get to make a decision relevant to the carbon tax when next I get to vote.

Flying Binghi

9th Jul 2012, 15:09

.

Here's some golden words displaying complete understanding of the Australian economy from one of the prime architects of the Oz carbon tax...

CHRIS UHLMANN: A lot of that money is circulating in the economy. It's creating job, Senator, it's bouncing through to our cities.

BOB BROWN: Yes, Chris, and what we would do is take the advice of the Treasury of this nation and recoup the $145 billion over the next 10 years through a super profits tax. Tony Abbott says...

CHRIS UHLMANN: But you can't recoup it if you shut the industry down.

BOB BROWN: Treasury...

CHRIS UHLMANN: If you shut the coal industry down there won't be that money...

BOB BROWN: I'm sorry...

CHRIS UHLMANN: ..available to you.

BOB BROWN: I'm sorry, Chris, Treasury has no intention to shut the industry down. it tends to- it tends...

CHRIS UHLMANN: No, but you do.

BOB BROWN: No, I'm not.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Didn't you say back in 2007 that we had to kick the coal habit?

BOB BROWN: No, I did not. You're looking at the Murdoch press, where I said back in 2007 we should look at coal exports with a view to phasing them out down the line.

CHRIS UHLMANN: It wasn't the Murdoch press, it was a comment piece that you wrote. So you want to phase out the coal industry?

BOB BROWN: The world is going to do that because it is causing massive economic damage down the line through the impact of climate change.

CHRIS UHLMANN: But the question-

BOB BROWN: No, let me...

CHRIS UHLMANN: The simple question is how do you replace $50 billion worth of export income?

BOB BROWN: You go to renewables over the coming decades and you do that by exporting... Look, Germany did this. It's closed its coal mine. It's closing its nuclear power stations. It's gone into exporting renewables - including using Australian technology...

CHRIS UHLMANN: And those jobs...

BOB BROWN: It's created 350,000 jobs and a multibillion dollar export industry and Australia- China's going to have as many solar panels by 2020 as the whole world has now, using, again, a mission of technologies, including those from Australia while this country is captivated by the old polluting industries which are making climate change worse.

Now, we can do much better than that. This is a resource rich country. We should follow 37 other countries, take some of the money from those resource riches, put it into a sovereign fund and make sure this country can be educated, wealthy and wise into the future.

CHRIS UHLMANN: We're going to have to leave it there, thank you.

7.30 - ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2011/s3219517.htm)

http://www.myemoticons.com/emoticons/images/msn/moods/cryingwithlaughter.gif

.

Flying Binghi

9th Jul 2012, 15:49

.

De_flieger, ah been waiting to see if yer commented on the Lowdown post... perhaps yer away ?..... anyway, back-to-it..:)

"...the NASA proof fer AGW..."

via De_flieger #344;
The NASA details are at the link I provided earlier - Climate Change: Evidence (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/) They discuss in a lot more detail than there is room for here, the evidence for global warming and why the scientific consensus is that it is due to man-made CO2 emissions. They also cite all the relevant papers, and a lot of them are freely accessible so you can read the methods involved and how they came to their conclusions...

De_flieger, just to speed things up fer this dumb old hill farmer could you post some quotes from the "relevant papers" seems ah caint find them...
I did seen there were this AGW 'proof' shown - "The disappearing snowcap of Mount Kilimanjaro" .... proof of AGW.. Hmmm..:hmm:

via De_flieger #344;
...There is a section that specifically discusses solar radiance and how it was involved in the Little Ice Age you refer to, in causing the Little Ice Age and when it ended. It also discusses the measured changes in solar radiance over recent years and how there has been a very slight decline in solar radiance in the past 30 years, which should have a cooling effect. Changes to the solar output have been conclusively shown to not be linked to the current warming that is being observed - the solar radiance trend has been a decrease at the same time global temperatures have increased. Regarding volcanic ash distribution, that is another thing that is measured and taken into account - if you look at the graph on the previous page you can see the brown graph that shows volcanic aerosol levels, and it has markings for a couple of key events, major eruptions such as at Mt Pinatubo...

De_flieger, do all that mean there is an agreement that the worlds 'average' temperature has been getting warmer since we came out of the mini ice age in the mid 1800's ? That there would be agreement with at least this part of the Reid Bryson comments ? -
"...the temperature going up... ...It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age..."

via De_flieger #344;
...The internet has given back the POWER TO THE PEOPLE..http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cool.gif
- It sure has! But at some point you also need to consider the source. Ever read the comments on a YouTube video, and compared them to scientific journals that publish online?? NASA, NOAA and the National Academies Press (publishers for the US National Academy Of Science, among others - heres a book they publish, and make available to read online for free: Advancing the Science of Climate Change (http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782) ) are just a few of the large number of worldwide scientific organisations in broad agreement on the causes of climate change. In response you are citing a 2007 article published in the Wisconsin Energy Co-operative News....it goes on to discuss the Great Wisconsin Cheese Festival http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gif , so perhaps they arent at the forefront of climatic research. Their website states that they are a magazine "published on behalf of the Wisconsin Electric Cooperative Association by Cooperative Network. Established in 1940, the publication continues to serve Wisconsin’s rural areas, but it also circulates in other parts of the state. "...

De_flieger, what on earth do it matter where the Reid Bryson comments were reported ?

via De_flieger #344;
...The hysterics, as you describe them, do noone any good - grossly exaggerated claims only damage the causes they are interested in, but at the same time individuals such as Andrew Bolt arent exactly balanced either. If a Labour Government made seatbelts and airbags mandatory he would claim that it was an infringement of individual rights and car crashes toughen you up anyway

Well De_flieger, Bolt covers politics and any other subjects that interests him, I mainly follow his AGW coverage. I'm yet to find where Bolt has been proven wrong on his AGW reporting and commentary - perhaps you can show me where he were wrong..:)

.

Lodown

9th Jul 2012, 18:15

Max doesn't agree with me about much, but she also feels the climate change skeptics have no credibility.

A BSc doesn't hold much credibility either in comparison to the skeptical PhD's and Nobel Prize winners.

Climate Change is an important and interesting area. It needs to be approached using scientific disciplines, relying on referenced and peer-reviewed material.

Absolutely! I don't disagree with you. Unfortunately, we already know from the Climategate emails between the comparative few running the show how the peer review process can be manipulated. How's that Hockey Stick coming these days? It represented a central, peer-reviewed analysis in support of climate change. It has been totally debunked for selecting data and processing with a specific conclusion intended. It took years to access the original data because the scientists involved did not believe in sharing. Considering the impacts, I would think that the alarmists would take great care in getting their facts correct, welcoming criticism and seeking replication. The actions have been extremely insular.

Anecdotes and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories add nothing to this kind of science.

Would that include Al Gore's Sea water Swindle (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/28/al-gores-seawater-swindle/)? Or Tim Flannery's drought predictions (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/an_excuse_from_flannery_for_his_dud_prediction/); predictions of polar bear extinctions; ice free polar regions; the Sydney Opera House awash in ocean; huge methane expulsions from thawed tundra; Maldives disappearing under the waves; Himalayas being glacier free in just 35 years, and extreme weather events? Articles like U.N. Proposes Global Taxes to Fund ‘Global Challenges’ Such As Climate Change (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/un-proposes-global-taxes-fund-global-challenges-such-climate-change) do not bolster the UN's cause either. Let's not forget the deliberate alarmist tactics to release catastrophic warnings from questionable science papers to the media long before the peer review process is complete. Typically, the peer review process results in the deletion of the alarmist propaganda some months later, but there is rarely, if ever, an official retraction or correction in the media.

The graph does show a strong correlation between modeled and observed data.

Of course there's a strong correlation between modelled and observed data! It's easy to fit model outputs with past data. There's not much hope if the scientists get that part wrong. (Although if you go back far enough, they completely omitted the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods until it was pointed out. They argued that these were regional variations until evidence indicated they were global.) The validation comes in predictive outcomes and all the models are failing on that score. What has that graph done since 1998? Temperatures have remained stagnant while CO2 concentrations have continued to rise. The alarmists predicted that we'd be on track for unavoidable continually rising temps. It hasn't happened. So what's up? The alarmists said that we might see periods where world temperatures may level off or even decline slightly, at variance with the model predictions, but there was no way these periods would exceed 7 years...then 10 years...then 14 years...then...you get the picture how the goalposts keep moving. The model projections were correct for the first few years, as could be expected. They've now been wrong for longer than they were right. There are not a few astrophysicists currently predicting a cooling trend based on observations of the sun's activities. Unfortunately, (as I understand it) the CO2 effect in the alarmist models is programmed at a magnitude about 20 times greater than changes to the sun's output. Extended periods of cooling world temperatures are just not in the realm of possibilities for the alarmists.

The Greenhouse Gas curve also seems to correlate with rising temperatures since 1950, which is what is expected.

Maybe a little Freudism there? Surely you mean the rising temperatures seem to correlate with the Greenhouse Gas curve? It's important to get that right, otherwise it might be assumed you are supporting some of the skeptical arguments.

Half a century? What is expected? Of course it's expected when it suits your argument. Does it show where man's emissions are to blame? It certainly doesn't correlate over the last 15 years, but let's just ignore that. Must be black carbon, missing deep ocean heat absorption or some other furphy. According to the alarmists, we should also expect an atmospheric hot spot. Despite the billions spent looking for it, it still hasn't materialised.

peterc005

10th Jul 2012, 00:30

Back to the original topic. The Carbon Tax has been here for a week now and it's been a big non-event.

There were a couple of articles in the paper about businesses (Brumbys the first one) using Carbon Tax as an excuse to price gouge customers, but apart from that not a lot.

Here's how the Carbon Tax will affect aviation.

The cost of fuel will rise by about 4.5 cents a litre, which is about 3%.
The cost of fuel is typically something like 30% of the total cost of aviation.
The net effect is that Carbon Tax might add, say, 1% to the cost of aviation in Australia.

The price of oil-based fuels in Australia has fallen in recent months due to the strong Australian dollar, meaning overall fuel prices have probably fallen.

NET EFFECT: somewhere between nil and a tiny bit.

The Carbon Tax was a big non-event for Australian aviation.

eagle 86

10th Jul 2012, 00:57

Today's polls and the political comment would indicate there are more against than for and if you don't believe this is an indication of people's dissatisfaction with the co2 tax then it must be because juliar is stuffing up in other areas - and of course we know the lobster has!!
GAGS
E86

Towering Q

10th Jul 2012, 02:30

An interesting article about the Galileo Movement...

"Galileo Movement" Fuels Climate Change Divide in Australia: Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galileo-movement-fuels-australia-climate-change-divide)

Jabawocky

10th Jul 2012, 04:25

David Archibald is involved with them too! Well there ya go, another smart guy who refuses to be hood winked.

He went to a really good school too! ;)

peterc005

10th Jul 2012, 09:59

The topic is this thread is the the effect of the Carbon Tax on Australian Aviation.

It should not be used as a platform for anti-global-warming conspiracy theory nutters.

Flying Binghi

10th Jul 2012, 11:39

.

via peterc005;
The topic is this thread is the the effect of the Carbon Tax on Australian Aviation.

The thread title is -

Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel

peterc005, with yer conspiracy theory talk and such yer seem to suffer from a bit of befuddlement there. Perhaps you is a product of the Oz Whackademia system..:)

(Whackademia, by Richard Hil, is a book about the 'troubled' Oz universtys)

.

Flying Binghi

10th Jul 2012, 11:58

.

"Gillards Carbon Tax and..."

"Julia Gillard has said there will be no tax on carbon while she leads the federal government.
The Deputy Prime Minister, Wayne Swan, said last week that if Labor won the election there would be no carbon tax during its three-year term.
Ms Gillard seemed to go a step further yesterday. ''There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,'' she told Network Ten..."

Read more: Gillard rules out imposing carbon tax (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/climate/gillard-rules-out-imposing-carbon-tax-20100816-1270b.html#ixzz20Hp2z3wO)

.

Captain Nomad

10th Jul 2012, 12:06

The Carbon Tax was a big non-event for Australian aviation.

9th Jul 2012 18:15

If you really are in banking you should know that companies don't necessarily go bankrupt overnight. Besides, this is just the start - we have only been promised increases once it morphs into an ETS with no cap on where the price can go. Plus there will be other exemptions that will be withdrawn and more industries affected with the passing of time.

Lodown

10th Jul 2012, 20:37

It should not be used as a platform for anti-global-warming conspiracy theory nutters.
And who would the conspiracy theory nutters be peterc005? I don't think there's been a conspiracy. I think there's been a lot of snouts in the trough and millions of unknowing people with good intentions encouraged and led by vote-grabbing politicians (and money/fame hungry ex-US politicians) and complicit, irresponsible and lazy sections of media; both of whom should know better, and money-grubbing non-profits, in willingly handing over their money and the money of others for some imaginary, ridiculous and unattainable ideal. And what greater ideal can there be, To Save the Earth!

...but she also feels the climate change skeptics have no credibility.

A consensus! I guess the Nobel Laureate physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever doesn't have any credibility either when he asks members of the audience to judge for themselves whether climate change is a "pseudoscience" at the 62nd Meeting of Nobel Laureates, 2012.

Lindau Mediatheque (http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/#/Video?id=1410)

In the video linked above, he outlines how science comes in many forms: real science, pathological science, fraudulent science, junk science, and last on the list, pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience is where you begin with a hypothesis which is very appealing to you. And then you only look for things that confirm the hypothesis. You don't look for other things.

Global warming has become a new religion, because you can't discuss it...and that's not right.

Do the quotes have familiar overtones?

BTW, I don't expect you'll watch the video, but others might.

•The cost of fuel will rise by about 4.5 cents a litre, which is about 3%.

In 150 years, the earth's temperature has supposedly gone from an average of 288K to 288.8K. A rise of 0.3%.

NET EFFECT: somewhere between nil and a tiny bit.

Flying Binghi

11th Jul 2012, 05:41

.

via Towering Q #264;
I have yet to complete all 49 pages of the Global Warming Policy Foundation Report number 4, so I cannot tell you what the GWPF would like Australia to do.

Towering Q, how goes the reading? Now that yer probably getting a bit conversant with the IPCC 'discusion' (via the GWPF report) you could probably help De_flieger find some 'proof'.. :)

Towering Q, De_flieger used NASA as a 'proof' though if yer have a look-see yer will note the NASA source of info for the linked page of evidence is...

The following are the key sources of data and informationcontained on this page:
- IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers.
-IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Technical Summary.
- NOAA Paleoclimatology.

Climate Change: Evidence (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#no4)

Towering Q, dont yer wonder why NASA scientists and astronauts went to the extraordinary step of sending this letter -

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/)

.

Chimbu chuckles

11th Jul 2012, 07:53

Another kick in the nuts for the already neutered hockey stick

Tree rings suggest Roman world was warmer than thought - environment - 10 July 2012 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22040-tree-rings-suggest-roman-world-was-warmer-than-thought.html)

I read something a few days ago where Gavin Schmidt was suggesting that, yes, for 10s millions of years Temperature variability DID in fact PRECEDE CO2 variability - but, since 1800 - a mere 212 years - it doesn't.

And they call US deniers:rolleyes:

OZBUSDRIVER

11th Jul 2012, 11:54

Was listening to NewsRadio yesterday and just about fell out of the truck...

World Today..Professorial Debate over Teaching Science (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3542594.htm)

EMILY BOURKE: Do they not have a point though, in that there are some scientific theories, such as those around climate change, that are contested, that are the subject of vigorous scientific debate and their argument about the subjectivity of science is borne out there?

JOHN RICE: We have no problem with people pointing out that science is a contestable thing, and you have only to look at its history to see that there were great and vigorous debates. And in a climate change situation of course we are in a situation where, although some people want to say that the science is settled, clearly with the level of argument that's going on around the place, there are a lot of things which are not settled.
And I think that's all perfectly appropriate. If that's the point that people want to make, they should make it and we're happy for them to make it.

But if they want to say that scientific knowledge in itself is nothing other than a consensus among a group of scientists, that is wrong. That vastly oversimplifies what has happened in order for people to say that science is settled in a whole lot of respects.

warms the heart...sainer people are returning to the argument!

Towering Q

12th Jul 2012, 01:43

Chimbu chuckles...I've just read the Tree Ring article, and noticed this statement, 3rd paragraph from the end....

The finding does not change our understanding of the warming power of carbon dioxide. In fact, it shows that human CO2 emissions have interrupted a long cooling period that would ultimately have delivered the next ice age.

And this from the hockey stick guy...

But others have doubts. Mann argues that Esper's tree-ring measurements come from high latitudes and reflect only summer temperatures. "The implications of this study are vastly overstated by the authors," he says.

Chimbu chuckles

12th Jul 2012, 01:56

I have often noted similar statements in articles like this. I suspect they feel the need to put that in so they're not ostracised by the true believers...or maybe so the magazine publishes the article.

What else would you expect Mann to say? He also insisted against all evidence that there was no MWP. The MWP was deemed 'inconvenient' back in the 90s by the true believers. if it was warmer back then by a significant margin but it was good for mankind/planet (all evidence points to exactly that) then it would be impossible to convince people that another degree or two now will lead to hell on earth.

Lodown

12th Jul 2012, 02:09

I can understand the doubts Towering Q. It's ironic how Mann embraced one set of data from tree rings (the debunked Hockey Stick) that supports his POV, and then readily disses another far more extensive and authoritative study that appears open to criticism and replication. It seems to be sound evidence against the hypothesis of climate change, but give it a little while for other scientists to disect it. At least the information and data appears open to independent analysis and review. That's a change...

Your first quote might be designed to give the alarmists a means for a graceful exit. Who knows?

Flying Binghi

12th Jul 2012, 03:00

.

CO2 - the magical gas...

- Added CO2 makes plants grow better.

- Added CO2 makes more food to feed the world.

- Added CO2 and plants need less water.

...the deserts will bloom. Handy fer a country like Oz that is mainly dry..:cool:

.

Flying Binghi

12th Jul 2012, 03:26

.

Hmmm... looks to me like more of the corruption of Oz science is exposed..:hmm:

Australian Bureau of Meteorology altering temperature data - rewriting Melbourne climate history by eliminating many frosts

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1653

A job fer Dick Smith perhaps...:)

Via the book, Dick Smiths Population Crisis...

"...Thirty years ago i was involved in the foremation of a group called the Australian Skeptics. This organisation is dedicated to exposing fraud, silliness and innocent foolishness among the gullible. I have found its work, as we have proceeded to expose both fraudsters and the genuinely deluded... ...to be very revealing about human nature. During my sceptiacal research I have learned that, while there have been a small number charlatens, most are true believers who are genuinly deluded when they make claims that defy natural laws..."

.

Lodown

12th Jul 2012, 03:34

That the same Dick Smith in full support of global warming some years ago?

Flying Binghi

12th Jul 2012, 04:36

.

via Lodown;
That the same Dick Smith in full support of global warming some years ago?

He still is as far as i know..:)

"...if a significant and credible body of scientific research keeps indicating that we face potential calamity, then I believe it is sensible to take that advice..." (Via the book, Dick Smiths Population Crisis)

...although, ah is wondering if perhaps Dick Smith gets a bit ruefull re-reading his chapter heading "Risky business - Climate change and population"

.

peterc005

12th Jul 2012, 07:33

Climate change is backed by more than twenty years of peer-reviewed scientific and academic research. Climate change and global warming are real and governments are being way too slow moving to deal with it.

Arguing with climate change skeptics is like trying to be rational with UFO spotters, and I suspect both groups share the same anti-psychotic medication.

Chimbu chuckles

12th Jul 2012, 08:13

Pete please sit back and watch as your "we're all doomed - doomed I say" fetish gets dumped on the same pile as every other doomsayer scenario going all the way back to when we lived in caves and were afraid of the dark.

The world can no longer afford this left/greeny imposed self flagellation - even if it was a real problem which it is NOT. The world may well net warm a little over the next 100 years and there will be cooling phases too...just like the 20th century and every century before that.

There are only two possible scenarios facing Labor/Greens - a bit of a drubbing at the next federal election or total political annihilation for a generation or two. The Greens will be wiped out for ever even if it takes a double dissolution.

In either case LNP will be in power - they will dump the carbon dioxide tax AND their own silly policy AND will do what 'Can Do' is doing in QLD - dismantling the left/greeny bureaucracy.

Howard lost govt because after 12 years he took that one ideological step to the right too far for the Australian people. Krudd was just pure incompetence and Brown/Gilliard were trying to drag the Australian people 4 steps too far to the left right out of the gate - Milne is just out of her tree, looney tunes far left.

The Australian people are VERY angry.

Bank on it.:ok:

jas24zzk

12th Jul 2012, 09:02

The Australian people are VERY angry.

and VERY broke

Frank Arouet

12th Jul 2012, 09:57

This thread is a waste of bandwidth, hijacked by global warming alarmists, (not sceptics), and simply repetitive. Avags will go up, not down, as a result of this stupid tax which will do nothing but burden aviation in Australia with another problem they don't need and do nothing to halt the imagined devastation of our planet.

It should be shut down for the sake of everybody's sanity.

Yes..... the Australian people are very angry as will be displayed at the next elections.

Flying Binghi

12th Jul 2012, 11:03

.

via Frank Arouet;
...and simply repetitive...

Frank Arouet, this is a forum for discusion. Let the pro AGW crew put their case..:ok:

An interesting comment from the book Dick Smiths Population Crisis

"...I do have respect for those people who are not so locked into a fixed position that they cannot alter their views once the evidence suggests they are wrong..."

.

Lodown

12th Jul 2012, 21:03

Chimbu :D

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017616639538970c-pi

Pete, here's a climate model projection. The temperature is currently UNDER the projection (and has been for quite some time) for "CO2 emissions reduced to zero impact by 2000". We should, according to the alarmists, be up above or near the line for "business as usual". The models are a huge FAIL. The alarmists only had a few things to hang their hats on as proof of global warming:
1. CO2 being a greenhouse gas (Far, far outperformed in the greenhouse gas Olympics by water vapour. Water vapour has finished the 100m and CO2 has fallen just out of the blocks.);
2. indications that the world was warming;
3. alarming model projections;
4. the hockey stick.

Responses:
1. So?
2. Something to watch if man's fingerprint becomes apparent.
3. BS!
4. More BS!

CHAIRMAN

13th Jul 2012, 14:04

Hey Pete Climate change and global warming are real and governments are being way too slow moving to deal with it.

Like governments can fix climate change:ugh:

Just like they can fix unemployment, world poverty, Greece's debt problem, and a flat tyre................no hope, so give up relying on governments to fix your perceived problem.

Look up to the sun god and pray. It's your best bet:ok:

Jabawocky

13th Jul 2012, 19:31

Chairperson

That there is THE Post of The Year Award :ok:

Not just damned funny, but 100% correct.

You have made my day........

By the way outside the office window here......I have a view of Bonanza Heaven. The best way to turn Avgas into Anti Global Cooling. Tornado Alley :}

Forkie and Chuckles would have trouble containing themselves!:8

Sarcs

13th Jul 2012, 21:34

Top post from the Chair! Bit like the article in the Oz...
The AAAA estimates the carbon tax adds 6c a litre to aircraft fuel costs and has written to Julia Gillard asking for an exemption.

Mr Hurst, a former director of education for the federal Environmental Protection Agency, said this produced a response from Climate Change Minister Greg Combet that indicated the government did not understand the issues involved.

....the government doesn't understand..nah your joking right!:ugh:

Hurst goes onto say...
He questioned the policy process that saw heavy road transport exempt until 2014, cars out permanently and agriculture exempt. However, it had picked on an industry unable to change its behaviour because of regulatory restrictions such as engine certification requirements that made quick changes impossible.
"It's just a tax, a grab for cash," Mr Hurst said. "Why pick on aviation? There are so many good things that the government could be doing for aviation that it's not."

And the response....
A spokesman for Mr Combet confirmed aviation fuel would be subject to an effective carbon price but said this would have only a marginal impact on operating costs of about 5c a litre in 2012-13. "This is around 3 per cent of the price of aviation gas and within the range of normal market price fluctuations," he said. "Even after the effective carbon price is extended to heavy on-road vehicles in 2014-15, the excise on aviation fuel will still be significantly less than that applying to the diesel used by trucking operators (30c a litre) or the unleaded petrol used by the ordinary motorist (38c a litre)."
The spokesman said the excise rate on aviation fuel made no distinction as to use but that the government offered a carbon price rebate on fuel used by air and sea rescue services.
It also provided $14 million a year to lease firefighting aircraft.

....ah but don't worry the bespectacled 'Boy Wonder' has got it all sorted..just blame it on the 'Mad Monk!'

djpil

13th Jul 2012, 22:28

Mr Combet is still waiting to hear from peterc about whether GST applies to the carbon tax.

Frank Arouet

14th Jul 2012, 00:50

The GST is imposed on the total of the bill including stamp tax, levies, and carbon tax. There are some exemptions to larger business and even some taxpayer funds to offset impending closures of other business, but when all the dust settles the end user pays the tax plus the GST.

Combet lives in a parallel Universe full of compulsive-obsessive people tugging at their trouser legs. Oh, and now hates The Greens who's policy in partnership with Labor he trumpets.

scandistralian

14th Jul 2012, 16:47

The other night I flew with a bloke who deserved a Carbon Tax bill for the emissions he was making after eating the onboard Lamb Curry... I also suggested use of the fumes removal checklist, which didn't go down too well

Seriously though, are there any tangible links between the revenue from this tax and investing in the pursuit of cleaner (+economically viable) energy sources? would it be too cynical to float the idea that the government may be using climate change as a guise to pursue its own goals of wealth re-distribution, whilst at the same time earning more marginal green votes?

peterc005

15th Jul 2012, 01:00

@Lodown

1) that graph comes from another one of those wacko conspiracy theory websites, which are about as reliable as wet paper parachutes.

2) all of the graphs show a trend of climate warming, in the past and looking forward.

3) nothing would make me happier than to be wrong about global warming, but all of the credible scientific evidence points to man-made global warming.

Getting back to the Carbon Tax and aviation topic of this thread, when I was down at YMMB yesterday the cost of AirBP Avgas was about 20 cents a litre cheaper than earlier this year. The cost of aviation has recently fallen!

Jabawocky

15th Jul 2012, 02:14

peterc
@Lodown

1) that graph comes from another one of those wacko conspiracy theory websites, which are about as reliable as wet paper parachutes. As opposed to all those wacky AGW sites? Come on, surely you can do better than that?

2) all of the graphs show a trend of climate warming, in the past and looking forward. Are you sure? all the AGW folks graphs are not consistent at all. A hypothesis is only as good as its last test, only takes one failure.....

3) nothing would make me happier than to be wrong about global warming, but all of the credible scientific evidence points to man-made global warming.

Getting back to the Carbon Tax and aviation topic of this thread, when I was down at YMMB yesterday the cost of AirBP Avgas was about 20 cents a litre cheaper than earlier this year. The cost of aviation has recently fallen!

Are you ever going to address any of my questions? Few pages back now.

Captain Nomad

15th Jul 2012, 02:16

Peterc005, I am quite convinced that despite any amount of evidence you probably won't change your mind on this subject...

I would like to remind you that while small price changes at the bowser may not bother you personally very much it is certainly a cost worth considering for bigger players in the industry. May I remind you of this quote that I have quoted previously from the AA magazine May edition this year. In the article by Michael Bridge and Jim Davis looking at regional aviation: "The annual cost to RAAA members of the carbon tax, being imposed through an increase in the levy on aviation fuels, is estimated at over $20 million a year but it will bring no efficiency gains or reduction in emissions. Private motor vehicles, our competition on shorter routes, are exempt. Trucks, meanwhile, are exempt until 2014. But there was no exemption for regional air services. Why not?" (emphasis supplied) - You cannot say that the carbon tax is a non-event. It is both untrue and unfair on those who are bearing the burden while others (maybe yourself?) benefit from the distribution of wealth with NO DEMONSTRABLE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT.

They are a bit old, but here are a couple of other interesting tidbits for fire fuel... Note how in this NASA study they have found problems with the climate models - ie. the climate models are far from empirical fact:

"NASA Study: Global Warming Alarmists Wrong

Thursday, 28 Jul 2011 02:23 PM
By Sylvia Hubbard
NASA has released a new study that may prove global-warming alarmists have been wrong all along.

Data from NASA's Terra satellite covering the period 2000 through 2011 shows that when the earth's climate heats up, the atmosphere appears to be better able to channel the heat to outer space.

The satellite data call into question the computer models favored by global warming believers and may put to rest controversy over the discrepancy between the computer models and actual meteorological readings.

Co-author of the study, Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama's Earth System Science Center, said in a press release, "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In an Op-Ed in Forbes, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute James M. Taylor, said, "In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space.

"Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space that the alarmist computer models predict."

The new research further shows that not only is more energy released to space than had been theorized, but also that the energy is released at an earlier point in a cycle of warming than previously documented.

In fact, the new data reveal, energy is discharged beginning at a point about three months before a cycle peaks. "At the peak," Spencer said, "satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained."

The research was published in the journal Remote Sensing.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved."

And this non-technical rebuff from Professor Ian Plimer:

"Professor Ian Plimer (a member of the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide. He is also a joint member of the School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering) could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
Are you sitting down?

Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet, all of you.

Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress, that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans, and all animal life.

I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY.

I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year, think about it.

Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus ''human-caused'' climate change scenario.

Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention ''Global Warming'' any more, but just ''Climate Change'' - you know why? It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.

And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme (that whopping new tax) imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.

But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!

PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?"

Peterc005, I hope you have a plan for dealing with the volcanoes - they certainly are more of a problem than your 200 hours a year of pleasure flying when it comes to environmental impact... But oh, that's right! So long as you are paying a carbon tax that completely offsets your 200 hours of carbon guilt and you can then go on PPRuNe and pat yourself on the back about how much of a great environmental citizen you are! I'm glad it makes sense to someone... Not me...

Towering Q

15th Jul 2012, 04:51

Professor Ian Plimer says...

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY.

However, I noted this passage from the following website...

Anti-global heating claims – a reasonably thorough debunking | Scholars and Rogues (http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/#m20)

Volcanoes emit a lot of gases, including significant amounts of CO2. Unfortunately, according to papers from back in the late 1990s, “Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man’s activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year.”

This means that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are 100x greater than volcanic CO2 emissions.

In addition, volcanoes generally cause global cooling through the emissions of cloud-forming sulfur dioxide and water-cycle feedback.

eagle 86

15th Jul 2012, 08:00

Clare Prop

15th Jul 2012, 10:11

"Getting back to the Carbon Tax and aviation topic of this thread, when I was down at YMMB yesterday the cost of AirBP Avgas was about 20 cents a litre cheaper than earlier this year. The cost of aviation has recently fallen! "

Um, the cost of fuel has fallen this month. But it would have fallen 5c a litre MORE if we hadn't had the ta...er "excise" of an extra 5c a litre added as of 1 July.

Edited to add the excise is applied, then GST charged on the total including the excise. All crystal clear on the fuel bill.

Rusty1970

15th Jul 2012, 10:18

P......,
If you are what you say you are you should know that the price of all fuel in Oz is set by the price in Singers and the rate of the $A. The co2 tax will still add a cost to everything.
GAGS
E86

That's the wholesale price. The retail price reflects many other things (inc taxes and margins).

djpil

15th Jul 2012, 11:25

Was just reading that if we all gained weight the increased earth mass would increase the radius of the orbit around the sun leading to some cooling. Some scientist has calculated that a 5% increase in average BMI will cool the planet by 1.14 degrees.
I've also been told that if I change to a diesel engine I will add more sulphur dioxide to the atmospher which further adds to the cooling.
I'm doing my bit.
(incidentally - people keep comparing the Australian CO2 emissions with other countries per head of population - it should actually be done per unit of land area - we have much more air in Australia per head of population so our emissions have less effect because there is much more air per person)

jas24zzk

15th Jul 2012, 12:32

Nice DJ,
I spoke with the ACCC about increasing my prices to cover the direct and indirect impact of the Carbon tax. I was told I needed 3 solid reasons. I came up with 3, but have yet to recieve a response.

1. C02 pricing
2. Inflation
3. My empty pockets.

:p

Jabawocky

15th Jul 2012, 22:13

And the new study on Diesel and cancer recently released. Have not read it, but I am sure someone will go take a look for it. Sound like TEL arguments from the 70-80's?:ooh:

Flying Binghi

15th Jul 2012, 22:38

.

via Towering Q #253;
I think it’s a good thing for groups like the Global Warming Policy Foundation to examine the IPCC in detail. After all, policy decisions based on reports from the IPCC will have enormous ramifications on society. I don’t think anyone would dispute this.

However, they too should not be immune to scrutiny.....

Towering Q, how goes yer "scrutiny" of the GWPF report..:)

http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mckitrick-ipcc_reforms.pdf

.

Flying Binghi

15th Jul 2012, 23:02

.

The lie of a no 'carbon' tax while she is prime minister.

The lie that 'carbon' is polution...

Ecologist Dr. Moore coments on a new report -

“...These people are either completely naive about the relationship between CO2 and plants or they are making this up as a way of deflecting attention from the lack of warming for the past 15 years.”
...“Plants grow much faster when CO2 is higher, the optimum concentration is between 1500-2000 ppm so there is a long way to go before plants are happy. ... “We should challenge them to admit that CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on earth and to admit that it is proven in lab and field experiments that plants would grow much faster if CO2 levels were 4-5 times higher in the atmosphere than they are today...
...At 150 ppm CO2 all plants would die, resulting in virtual end of life on earth.
“Thank goodness we came along and reversed the 150 million-year trend of reduced CO2 levels in the global atmosphere. Long live the humans,..."

NZ Scientists “stunned”, “shocked” by mere 1% rise in CO2 absorption. What spin! « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/nz-scientists-stunned-shocked-by-mere-1-rise-in-co2-absorption-what-spin/#more-22691)

.

peterc005

15th Jul 2012, 23:32

I like Julia Gillard. I think she is a fine person and doing a good job.

peterc005

15th Jul 2012, 23:42

Getting back to the topic of the Carbon Tax, I have been reading recently about Californian Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (a conservative Republican) in 2006 and 2007 passed laws mandating that large businesses reduce their carbon emissions back to pre-year 2000 levels.

Schwarzenegger made carbon reduction a law, but I think using a Carbon Tax instead is a more flexible and less oppressive way to reduce carbon emissions.

Schwarzenegger

Low-carbon fuel standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbon_fuel_standard)

Even conservative US Republicans accept global warming is a fact and that carbon emissions must be reduced.

The only people who don't believe in global warming are far right-wing and conspiracy-theory nutters and the usual band of dim witted people who believe what they hear on AM talk back radio.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

15th Jul 2012, 23:42

"I like Julia Gillard"

Now I am certain you are taking the p$ss.

Towering Q

16th Jul 2012, 01:41

Binghi, I'm still working through the GPWF report, it's a great remedy to insomnia.:zzz:
Feel free to highlight the sections you feel are most relevant.

Re: Patrick Moore.

Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore | Greenpeace (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/news-releases/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/)

By exploiting his former ties to Greenpeace, Moore portrays himself as a prodigal son who has seen the error of his ways. Unfortunately, the media - especially conservative media - give him a platform for his views, and often do so without mentioning the fact that he is a paid spokesperson for polluting companies.

And regarding his comments about CO2 and plant growth...

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655)

However, while experiments on natural ecosystems have also found initial elevations in the rate of plant growth, these have tended to level off within a few years. In most cases this has been found to be the result of some other limiting factor, such as the availability of nitrogen or water.

Captain Nomad

16th Jul 2012, 02:17

In addition, volcanoes generally cause global cooling through the emissions of cloud-forming sulfur dioxide and water-cycle feedback.

Once again this is probably an over-simplification.

"Climate modeling following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 (using both aerosol and non-aerosol starting inputs) produced a general cooling of the troposphere (the band of the atmosphere where most clouds circulate), but also, the models yielded a pattern of winter warming of surface air temperature over the Northern Hemisphere. Dual effects such as these complicate longer-term climate impact predictions.

To what extent this tropospheric cooling is mitigated or “canceled out” by other sources of warming, such as from solar activity, build-ups of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and long-term variation in Milankovitch cycling (currently only one cycle, precession, favors glaciation), depends on the timing and duration of all these factors, and makes for the highly complex science that is climatology."

Planetsave (Volcanoes: The ‘X Factor’ in Climate Change | Planetsave (http://s.tt/12tp2))

The same website also says, "Numerous volcanoes presently active and erupting across the planet will impact short-term warming and climate change. Longer-term impacts are unknown."

In other words, the jury is still very much out on how much natural forces are also impacting the observable climate changes. Some changes attributed to man-made emissions might very well be (at least partially) due to other natural inputs also.

I do not deny that man made pollution has been a problem since the industrial revolution and we should be making efforts to reduce it. But how about making the changes where they are needed?

The jury is still out on whether CO2 is actually a 'problem.' Yes, there might be a considerable number of people and even some governments who tow that line and once upon a time there were a considerable number of people (scientists included) who believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth also. I say, even still, even if CO2 is a problem, Australia's net contribution of 576 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent is only 1.5 percent of world emissions! In any computation of cost vs return, one seriously has to ask whether there will be any measurable return on the enormous cost that the carbon tax imposes on Australians. Not only that, but the deck is stacked so that the biggest players (industry) get compensated to keep on doing what they have always done while the smaller fish in the pond have to caugh up.

There are those like peterc005 who will happily pay his tax and exhibit no change in his emissions behaviour (essentially nullifying the point of having a tax to alter people's emissions behaviour), while others will get compensated to make them feel that they are not out of pocket for the tax either (at least for this year, and also essentially nullifying the point of having a tax to alter people's emissions behaviour). So with everyone maintaining their behaviour while the tax man goes around with his hand out makes no sense at all to me. I'm sure the net effect on our 1.5% contribution to global man-made CO2 will be even less, and the net effect on a global scale will not even register. Meanwhile, back on planet weird, everything now costs more for no good reason because no one is capable of stopping the ALP/Greens policy freight train.

Rusty1970

16th Jul 2012, 02:40

There are those like peterc005 who will happily pay his tax and exhibit no change in his emissions behaviour (essentially nullifying the point of having a tax to alter people's emissions behaviour), while others will get compensated to make them feel that they are not out of pocket for the tax either (at least for this year, and also essentially nullifying the point of having a tax to alter people's emissions behaviour). So with everyone maintaining their behaviour while the tax man goes around with his hand out makes no sense at all to me. I'm sure the net effect on our 1.5% contribution to global man-made CO2 will be even less, and the net effect on a global scale will not even register. Meanwhile, back on planet weird, everything now costs more for no good reason because no one is capable of stopping the ALP/Greens policy freight train.

I think this assumes that the principal behavior the tax is designed to change is all at the consumer level. I am not sure that's 100% correct. While there is certainly a consumer level behavior change (people worried about, say,. power bills) it's actually most effective higher up the production chain. That's why the flow-on effects are compensated at the consumer level for the majority of consumers.

The idea is that industry, in an effort to reduce costs, will take steps to lower emissions. Not necessarily today, but at a point. So if they are investing in a new machine to make their widgets, and there is a more environmentally friendly (but possibly more expensive in terms of purchase price) option, there is now a longer term incentive to buy the environmentally friendly option.

Your last point, that "now everything costs more". I've seen no evidence of this. In fact, I've seen no evidence of anything going up with the exception of power. Power accounts for from memory about 2.1% of household expenditure (Beer: 2.2%. Smokes 2.3%. Takeaway Food 5.4%), so any increase a small base of 2.1% and mostly compensated.

I know power is going up by more than that, but it isn't the Carbon Tax. It's mostly years of underinvestment by State Governments catching up with them, but that's another story.

In terms of aviation, there will be very little effect as far as I can tell. A small fuel increase but far less than normal fluctuations in price.

Love it or hate it, think it's useless and pointless or a great idea, but we should have an honest debate. Not just say we'll all be rooned. We were all gong to be paupers with the floating of the dollar, with the GST, and with just about everything else. And we seem to be doing OK.

Flying Binghi

16th Jul 2012, 03:01

via Rusty1970;
...I've seen no evidence of anything going up with the exception of power...

Give it time..:hmm:

Vegetable growers fearing the pinch of the Carbon Tax

Vegetable growers fearing the pinch of the Carbon Tax (http://ausveg.com.au/media-release/vegetable-growers-fearing-the-pinch-of-the-carbon-tax)

h/t - Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/)

.

peterc005

16th Jul 2012, 03:04

Some good points Rusty.

The reality is that the Carbon Tax has had a negligible day to day effect on people in the street.

A few business have tried to use the Carbon Tax as an excuse for price rises, but it doesn't seem an extensive problem.

I got a letter from the Avgas supplier notifying me of a 4.5c/litre price rise due to Carbon Tax, which will probably cost me a hundred bucks a year.

I'm thinking of querying this, as my recollection is that fuel is exempt from the Carbon Tax and I assume it's for carbon emissions during the Avgas refining process, rather than the actual fuel.

If this is the case, then 4.5 cents a litre sounds a lot and I'll ask for an explanation.

Rusty1970

16th Jul 2012, 03:14

Give it time..http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif

Vegetable growers fearing the pinch of the Carbon Tax

Vegetable growers fearing the pinch of the Carbon Tax (http://ausveg.com.au/media-release/vegetable-growers-fearing-the-pinch-of-the-carbon-tax)

Sure. But you need to remember a couple of things when reading this stuff.

1. Business hates tax increases (fair enough) so it is in their interest to overstate the effects. We need to see the effects to get a real indication.
2. There will certainly be some effect at the checkout, but probably nowhere near as much as people who have a vested interest in not having the tax are claiming (but probably more than those saying there will be no effect are saying - somewhere in the middle).
3. Every time there is change everyone panics, and it almost always turns out to be nothing.

I'm neither advocating for or against the tax. But I suspect it will all turn out to make very little difference.

It is worth noting though that the alternative Government has a policy to spend taxpayer dollars on schemes that will allegedly make the same reductions in Australia's CO2 production. So no matter who you vote for billions will be spent and it is taxpayers that will pay for it one way or another.

So if you don't believe that humans are having an effect, or that our contribution is not enough to make a difference, then you'll get no comfort from the Coalition. Their targets are identical.

Rusty1970

16th Jul 2012, 03:23

"I got a letter from the Avgas supplier notifying me of a 4.5c/litre price rise due to Carbon Tax, which will probably cost me a hundred bucks a year.

I'm thinking of querying this, as my recollection is that fuel is exempt from the Carbon Tax and I assume it's for carbon emissions during the Avgas refining process, rather than the actual fuel."

Fuel is exempt for households, and for agriculture, fisheries and forestry. Heavy vehicles are exempt for I think 2 years then I suspect it will be reviewed.

I think domestic aviation fuel will be subject to an increase in the excise equivalent to a carbon tax on $23/tonne. I have no idea what this works out to in cpl. So it will rise. I assume most reputable suppliers will be able to say how they arrived at their increase (likely the fuel companies will have decided for them). But if they tell you the cost of getting the fuel trucked to them is included in the rise, at this point they are fibbing.

Flying Binghi

16th Jul 2012, 03:28

via Towering Q;
I'm still working through the GPWF report, it's a great remedy to insomnia.
Feel free to highlight the sections you feel are most relevant...

Towering Q, please "highlight" the entire document. I've spoted a couple of things ah question - be interesting to see what you find. The report has been out a while so the climate hysterics shoulda listed all the 'faults' by now..:)

via Towering Q;
...And regarding his comments about CO2 and plant growth...

Towering Q, perhaps yer shoulda had a bit more of a look-see at it. I did a quick google of CO2 useage in nurseries and here's one off the first page...

"...Carbon dioxide (CO2) plays an important role in increasing crop productivity (Rijkdijk and Houter 1993). An actively photosynthesizing crop will quickly deplete the CO2 from the greenhouse environment (Rijkdijk and Houter 1993). In summer, even with maximum ventilation, CO2 levels within the typical Alberta vegetable production greenhouse typically fall below ambient levels of CO2 . It has been estimated that [B]if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doubled to 700 ppm, the yield of field crops should increase by 33% (Tremblay and Gosselin 1998). Optimum CO2 targets in the greenhouse atmosphere are generally accepted to be approximately 700 to 800 ppm (Portree 1996)...
... CO2 is especially advantageous for use on sensitive seedling plants early in the crop season (Portree 1996). Distribution to the crop can be accomplished through a system of delivery pipes to the crop canopy as with the stack recovery systems. The draw-back to the use of liquid CO2 has been the cost..."

Hmmm... costly, though those that can afford it still use it...

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/ba3468a2a8681f69872569d60073fde1/61d9d340c7bbe8ac07256b3500667257/Information/29.37C2!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg

Components of the Greenhouse System for Environmental Control (http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/opp2892?opendocument)

So, we have the plant growing industry spending money to increase the CO2 atmosphere of their nurserys because it makes plants grow better then in our CO2 deficiant 'natural' environment... and Australia has a muppet government that wants to remove one of the best plant foods around... errr..:hmm:

.

eagle 86

16th Jul 2012, 03:32

As usual a lot of people only tell some of the story. The co2 tax is part of the clean energy reforms. Another part is diesel subsidiary changes which will affect the price (upwards) of diesel for heavy transport. This increase in haulage costs will be passed on to the consumer.
GAGS
E86

Rusty1970

16th Jul 2012, 03:39

"As usual a lot of people only tell some of the story. The co2 tax is part of the clean energy reforms. Another part is diesel subsidiary changes which will affect the price (upwards) of diesel for heavy transport. This increase in haulage costs will be passed on to the consumer."

Doesn't come in for (I think) a couple of years. Certainly not in place as of today. Agriculture, fisheries and forestry will retain their subsidy - is no change for them. (Boats, tractors, chainsaws, that kind of thing.)

If people are blaming transport costs / fuel on Carbon Price today, they are telling porkies.

Rusty1970

16th Jul 2012, 03:53

"So, we have the plant growing industry spending money to increase the CO2 atmosphere of their nurserys because it makes plants grow better then in our CO2 deficiant 'natural' environment... and Australia has a muppet government that wants to remove one of the best plant foods around... errr..http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif"

Leaving aside the scientific questionablity of the statement....

Government AND Opposition. They both have the same CO2 reduction targets. (5% less than 2000 levels by 2020 I think). They both will use taxpayer dollars to do it. Just in different ways. Most economists agree that a price is the best way, but then economics is the "dismal science", so take that how you will.

But the point remains, if you disagree with the climate science you'll get no comfort voting Lib/Nat.

Unless you think they are lying. But given the comments about the current Govt lying I am sure nobody here would think that would be acceptable.

Frank Arouet

16th Jul 2012, 04:11

The reality is that the Carbon Tax has had a negligible day to day effect on people in the street.

At the risk of feeding the Troll;

I note the climate hasn't changed much for the better in those 16 days either.:rolleyes:

Rusty1970

16th Jul 2012, 05:13

"At the risk of feeding the Troll;

I note the climate hasn't changed much for the better in those 16 days either.:rolleyes:"

You're not really saying anyone who disagrees with you is a Troll, are you?

Your point is a fairly silly one (I was hoping it was in jest, but I imagine not given earlier posts). It's a shame the debate about this not only here but in the wider community has come to this.

Captain Nomad

16th Jul 2012, 05:31

I think this assumes that the principal behavior the tax is designed to change is all at the consumer level. I am not sure that's 100% correct.

Considering that we are all individually and corporately (at an industry level) consumers and producers of CO2 I don't see what you are objecting to especially considering this statement that you also make:

Government AND Opposition. They both have the same CO2 reduction targets. (5% less than 2000 levels by 2020 I think).

I see that you haven't bothered to comment on whether a miniscule change in our 1.5% global contribution WILL actually measurably impact the climate change models...

Rusty1970

16th Jul 2012, 05:51

Quote:
I think this assumes that the principal behavior the tax is designed to change is all at the consumer level. I am not sure that's 100% correct.
Considering that we are all individually and corporately (at an industry level) consumers and producers of CO2 I don't see what you are objecting to especially considering this statement that you also make:

Quote:
Government AND Opposition. They both have the same CO2 reduction targets. (5% less than 2000 levels by 2020 I think).
I see that you haven't bothered to comment on whether a miniscule change in our 1.5% global contribution WILL actually measurably impact the climate change models...

What I was saying (in the first bit) was that there is no great expectation that consumers will change their individual behavior. So no individual is expected to fly less, for example, for the scheme to have an effect.

In terms of our contribution to global emissions, you're absolutely correct. No reduction in our emissions will lead to much of a difference in itself. That is true of almost every country. Collective action is required if it is to make a difference to CO2 levels. And even them we're talking about a slowing of the rise for quite a while. Anything faster will require a much higher price / more drastic action and there is zero appetite for that except among the more extreme Greens.

So when we go to the G20, or APEC, or EAS or RIO+20, and ask the rest of the world to do something, and our emissions are higher per capita than most (and land size if not relevant, it's emissions per person that counts) and they say "well, what are you doing", what do you propose our response is?

It'd be like the Japanese saying "why don't the Norwegians stop whaling?"

And please don't say nobody else is doing anything. That's just not correct.

Frank Arouet

16th Jul 2012, 06:49

Rusted;

Your point is a fairly silly one

It was Peterc that said the carbon tax had no effect albeit only 16 days, and by way of comparison, I mentioned the climate hasn't changed either.

Do you get it now? Don't you think peterc is a bit silly? and don't you feel your support for him is a bit silly also?

No I guess you don't.

The two, or however many of you there are, are as believable as Ali Hassan al Majid.

Rusty1970

16th Jul 2012, 07:16

"It was Peterc that said the carbon tax had no effect albeit only 16 days, and by way of comparison, I mentioned the climate hasn't changed either.

Do you get it now? Don't you think peterc is a bit silly? and don't you feel your support for him is a bit silly also?

No I guess you don't.

The two, or however many of you there are, are as believable as Ali Hassan al Majid."

It was, and the difference is that the tax began on July 1 so you'd expect to see price impacts fairly quickly. However, businesses offsetting those costs with less carbon intensive processes or equipment will take much longer. And change to the climate (which as I said will take global action) will take much longer. Hence the "has the climate changed in 16 days" was ridiculous and you deserved to be called on it.

As it happens, I've not said whether I agree with the scheme or not. I've just corrected some of the factually wrong assertions in some posts.

But I do like your conspiracy theory about "however many of you there are". Quite a few as it turns out. At last count, 4 in 10 Australians supported a carbon tax. That number rises to 6 in 10 (that'd be a majority) when they have it explained to them in moderate detail. How's that for a conspiracy?

I genuinely don't mind talking about this stuff. I know a bit about it but am no expert, but am happy to debate it. The problem with this thread is it is all vitriol. Nobody wants a genuine debate, they want to sprout dubious "experts" and make patently outlandish claims. ("everything will go up", "why hasn't the climate changed yet'). I applaud PeterC for giving it a go but I do wonder what the point is.

Don't forget though, the Libs/Nats will either 1. Raise taxes (potentially back to PM Howard levels who hold the record as the highest taxing Govt in Aust history) or 2. Cut Services to pay for their scheme (roughly $5bn a year by their own estimates) to do exactly the same thing. So who do you plan to vote for if this bothers you so much? You have to preference one of them ahead of the other no matter who you put first.

Frank Arouet

16th Jul 2012, 10:38

Earth calling Rusty, you are unreadable, say again........say again......say again.......

Lost him. Oh well, no loss.:{

Rusty1970

16th Jul 2012, 10:42

Which bit is wrong Frank?

Flying Binghi

16th Jul 2012, 14:27

via Rusty1970;

Leaving aside the scientific questionablity of the statement....

Rusty1970, do tell me more about this scientific "questionablity" ..:confused:

.

Flying Binghi

16th Jul 2012, 14:32

.

Oh dear...

"...When independent auditors found errors, gaps and deep questions about the HQ (High Quality) dataset for the official record of Australian temperatures, the BOM responded by producing a completely new set called ACORN in March 2012. But this set is also plagued with errors. One of the independent auditors, Ed Thurstan writes to me to explain that though the BOM says it aimed for the “best possible data set” and specified that they check internal consistency of data (one such check is to make sure that the maximum on any given day is larger than the minimum) when Thurstan double checked ACORN he found nearly 1000 instances where the max temperatures were lower than the minimums recorded the same day..."

http://www.myemoticons.com/images/minis/people-emotions/lol.gif

BOMs new data set, ACORN, so bad it should be withdrawn (954 min temps larger than the max!) « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/boms-new-data-set-acorn-so-bad-it-should-be-withdrawn-954-min-temps-larger-than-the-max/#more-22725)

.

peterc005

16th Jul 2012, 21:32

@Flying Binghi - all that shows is you spend all your spare time reading whacko conspiracy theory web sites.

Speak to the doctor about the dose of your medication and get back to the real world.

Chimbu chuckles

17th Jul 2012, 01:01

To label Jo Nova's site 'whacko conspiracy theory' shows who is the denier:ugh:

OZBUSDRIVER

17th Jul 2012, 02:33

History has a habit of biting people on the backside....

Charles Sturt and his "Farenheit's Thermometer". What really is the hottest recorded temperature in Australia? 1828 53.9C?

Go read about it on JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/charles-sturts-time-so-hot-that-thermometers-exploded-was-australias-hottest-day-in-1828-53-9c/#more-22045).
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/silliggy/josh-cartoon-web.gif

De_flieger

17th Jul 2012, 02:39

Flying Binghi - interesting point, and worth looking into. (regarding an earlier question you asked - yes, work is a rude interruption to this interesting debate ;) )The BOM makes that dataset available, and you or I can easily look up the daily min-max temperature records for each station. I looked up a couple of dates that were highlighted on her website as having this particular discrepancy and you - and she - are correct in that regard. The minimum daily temperature is recorded as higher than the maximum. Uh oh!

Unfortunately here is where it spears off into entirely uncharted territory and starts drawing conclusions not supported by the evidence. The Joanne Nova website publishes the claim that This is a blindingly obvious type of error which should not have escaped quality control. It throws serious doubt on the whole ACORN-SAT project. In my opinion, these violations indicate that the entire ACORN-SAT database is suspect, and should be withdrawn for further testing.whereas the BOM report actually on how the dataset was created specifically looks for these errors, and a number of other error types. It discusses in some detail how these errors may have occurred, their impact on the overall dataset, and the techniques used to mitigate their presence, which include excluding those particular data points if necessary. If the author of the website had read the articles she is attempting to discredit she would have seen this. She makes the specific claim that:
Why are basic checks like these left to unpaid volunteers, while Australian citizens pay $10 billion a year to reduce a warming trend recorded in a data set so poor that it’s not possible to draw any conclusions about the real current trend we are supposedly so concerned about. — Jowhich is factually incorrect. These checks, and a range of others, are done and discussed in great detail in the report produced by the BOM, available here: http://cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_049.pdf which she is attempting to discredit, but it is obvious she hasnt actually read. Unfortunately its errors like this that do a lot of damage to her credibility - she has made statements that are factually incorrect but not at first glance obviously wrong. It then takes a bit of reading and research to find the relevant papers she is referring to, and understand what the papers are actually saying, which in this case at least is entirely different to what she is claiming.

A couple of points that are worth considering here - the dataset consists of approximately 7 million data points, and that particular error was found in just under 1000 points. Thats a large number, but an extremely small proportion of the records, it works out to 0.014% of the records. These errors were typically in the hand-written records derived from manual observations of maximum and minimum recording thermometers, and as you can see on the Joanne Nova website, typically occurred prior to the advent of automated temperature recording methods. This wasnt exclusively the case, and the report also details recording protocols and errors - such as power surges in automated equipment, recordings attributed to preceding days, thunderstorms in tropical areas producing short-term fluctuations in temperature not representative of the entire day that, and so on - that were made that cause these problems in the data. The descriptions are a bit verbose to go into here, but its available in the report linked above. It discusses how the errors occurred, were detected and both the number of changes, exclusions and corrections made, and the direction both positive and negative they were made in.

Towering Q

17th Jul 2012, 08:50

Whilst I respect Joanne Nova's opinion as a Scientist, it should be remembered that her field of expertise is Microbiology, not Climate Science.

The minimum daily temperature is recorded as higher than the maximum. Uh oh!

This point gets covered quite well in one of the comments made in Flying Binghi's link.

BOMs new data set, ACORN, so bad it should be withdrawn (954 min temps larger than the max!) « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/boms-new-data-set-acorn-so-bad-it-should-be-withdrawn-954-min-temps-larger-than-the-max/#more-22725)

Check out comment #22 by Adam Smith. (He's a brave lad, venturing into that Lions Den.:eek:)

It's a bit too lengthy to cut and paste here, but does provide an insight into how it is possible to have the minimum higher than the maximum.

Rusty1970

17th Jul 2012, 09:57

Quote:
via Rusty1970;

Leaving aside the scientific questionablity of the statement....

Rusty1970, do tell me more about this scientific "questionablity" ..http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

Sure Binghi.

If it is true that some plants benefit from additional CO2 (and I'll take your word for it - I'm not arguing that bit, just the conclusion you drew from it), that doesn't mean that additional atmospheric CO2 is totally beneficial.

If, for example, we have significant temperature drops in continental Europe because of the stopping of the North Atlantic current as predicted in various models, then it doesn't matter that they're getting more CO2, it'll be too cold for many existing plants to survive.

Equally, where it gets hotter, same effect. Not necessarily fewer plants I imagine, but different ones. Where wheat grew before, for example, it will no longer. It'll grow elsewhere though presumably assuming there is water there. The local effects are somewhat unpredictable. The Europe scenario though is obviously a big deal.

Your original conclusion is like saying that the human body needs Arsenic (which it does in trace amounts) so it's OK to increase the concentration in our homes. Clearly this is not the case.

Of course all this is based on you believing the vast majority of scientists who believe that human CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) are causing climate change. If you don't and choose to believe the small minority (many of who have conflicts - contracts from big miners, etc etc) then I guess this all seems ridiculous.

It's worth stating that under John Howard if he had won in 2007 there would have been an Emissions Trading Scheme now. It was an election policy. The same scientists in the CSIRO now advising the current Government by and large were advising him then. It's not a Labor thing. And of course, again, the current Opposition has the same CO2 reduction targets as the Government. They too, officially, believe in human induced climate change, and have a multi-billion dollar plan to try and stop it.

OZBUSDRIVER

17th Jul 2012, 10:29

It's worth stating that under John Howard if he had won in 2007 there would have been an Emissions Trading Scheme now. It was an election policy.

It is also worth stating that Howard would have commited nothing until the rest of the world moved on it. If Howard was still in now both the trading scheme and water policy would have been scraped! Howard was a tough enough pragmatist to admit that to the voters.

The simple truth of the matter is this...The drought broke ten months too early and saved us from Rudd.

OZBUSDRIVER

17th Jul 2012, 10:47

Rusty1970....just show me one link that proves that CO2 has any effect on global temperature.

CO2 is a trace gas....even though the politicians talk in billions of tonnes, it means nothing when you are comparing to the entire atmosphere. it is still 335 parts per million, which is 0.000335% of the atmosphere!

Second law of Thermodynamics...heat flows from a warmer object to a cooler object. So, there is no radiation from CO2 that will warm the Earth. The blanket effect...a resistor that slows the flow of heat...CO2 only acts on two narrow wavelengths of radiation.

The true driver of climate is the Sun and the Moon. Sun provides the energy and the Moon does the mixing...always has, always will. El Nino/La Nina, NPDO, IOD...all of it driven by Solar energy and gravitational force. What is happening now happened in the 20's and 30's in the US. PDO in a cool phase, jet streams sitting further south in the SW US and you get drought...nothing to do with ice melt or a trace gas, just plain old physics!

Rusty1970

17th Jul 2012, 10:52

Quote:
It's worth stating that under John Howard if he had won in 2007 there would have been an Emissions Trading Scheme now. It was an election policy.
It is also worth stating that Howard would have commited nothing until the rest of the world moved on it. If Howard was still in now both the trading scheme and water policy would have been scraped! Howard was a tough enough pragmatist to admit that to the voters.

The simple truth of the matter is this...The drought broke ten months too early and saved us from Rudd.

That's not actually true. The promise was unconditional is my recollection. There already was broad international agreement on targets. Kyoto. Only Aus and US hadn't signed.

Mr Abbott was never convinced about an Emissions Trading Scheme of course. He wanted a "simple tax."

Tony Abbott:"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax." - YouTube

Rusty1970

17th Jul 2012, 11:45

OZBUSDRIVER,

"Proves". There's that word. Given evolution and relativity are still "theories" that pretty much nobody except the religious (and these days few of them) dispute, you'll have to make do with very "high levels of confidence" of hundreds of climate specialists. Those crazy scientists - cause themselves more problems that it is worth by not just telling little while lies and saying they're certain.

In fact (as an aside), that's a good way to tell somebody who is not to be taken seriously. The denialist "scientists" are all "certain", real scientists are "very confident". Certainty usually arrives with a paycheque from a big company.

Anyway, to your question. You've probably read and dismissed it, but try:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

There are many, many others, but this is the best.

The "trace gas" argument is a bit of a furphy. CO2 (and other greenhouse gases like Methane, Nitrous Oxide, CFCs etc etc) are all trace, but they nevertheless keep the planet warm. Otherwise, we'd be like the moon. (Nitrogen and Oxygen aren't going to do it - not greenhouse gases). So that it is present in very small quantities doesn't really matter. It works. What matters is the increase in amount. It's closer to 390ppm at the moment, which is much higher than any time in the last 650,000 years (it got to 290ppm at one point). Then it works a little too well.

As the report says, "During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic
forcings would likely have produced cooling." We should be seeing a drop in average global temps, but we aren't. Quite the opposite. Of course the sun provides the warming, but how much of that heat is trapped depends on the makeup of the atmosphere - otherwise, again, we'd be the moon. We change it, we change the planet. That too, is physics.

The weather phenomena you're referring to are relatively short term. This is not that. Nor is it localised (though there are local effects).

I'm no climate scientist or physicist. My degree is in chemistry. But I can read a report or article. I know scholarly and credible and I know biased and conflicted. I'm yet to read anything from the denialists that isn't easily debunked or full of straw men.

But somehow, I don't think I will have convinced you!

And to stay on topic, the effect on aviation will be very minor. Except that it will drive companies to look at cleaner fuels.

Flying Binghi

17th Jul 2012, 14:19

./QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE].

This will be interesting and of importance to Oz...

"...A climate change group has taken the National Institute for Atmospheric and Water Research (NIWA) to court over what they say are inaccurate temperature recordings.
The New Zealand Climate Education Trust - a branch of the NZ Climate Science Coalition - are challenging NIWA figures which show a rise in temperatures in New Zealand of 1degC over the past 100 years.
This figure is significantly higher than global warming figures around the world and the trust is questioning how NIWA calculated the figures and whether they are accurate..."

Kiwi weather station data shenanigins going to court | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/16/kiwi-weather-station-data-shenanigins-going-to-court/#more-67585)

.

Flying Binghi

17th Jul 2012, 14:41

.

Recap -

"So, we have the plant growing industry spending money to increase the CO2 atmosphere of their nurserys because it makes plants grow better then in our CO2 deficiant 'natural' environment... and Australia has a muppet government that wants to remove one of the best plant foods around... errr.."

via Rusty1970;
Leaving aside the scientific questionablity of the statement....

Rusty1970, do tell me more about this scientific "questionablity"

via Rusty1970 #435;
If it is true that some plants benefit from additional CO2 (and I'll take your word for it - I'm not arguing that bit, just the conclusion you drew from it), that doesn't mean that additional atmospheric CO2 is totally beneficial.

If, for example, we have significant temperature drops in...

errr, Rusty1970, ah thought yer were going to tell me all about the "scientific questionablity" of our CO2 deficiant 'natural' environment..:hmm:

Yer see Rusty1970, knowing that most plants on earth are growing in a CO2 deficient environment tells us that they obviously evolved in a CO2 rich environment. Now, knowing that plants evolved in a far higher CO2 environment tells us that there will not be the climate hysteria visions of doom if we get to a higher CO2 environment...

...which then leads us to the question of why the fleck are we taxing a valuable plant food ?

.

Flying Binghi

17th Jul 2012, 15:26

via De_flieger;
Flying Binghi - interesting point, and worth looking into. (regarding an earlier question you asked - yes, work is a rude interruption to this interesting debate http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif )The BOM makes that dataset available, and...

...and De_flieger, dont yer want to have a closer look-see at the NASA links yer referenced..:confused:

A recap....

"...the NASA proof fer AGW..."

via De_flieger #344;
The NASA details are at the link I provided earlier - Climate Change: Evidence They discuss in a lot more detail than there is room for here, the evidence for global warming and why the scientific consensus is that it is due to man-made CO2 emissions. They also cite all the relevant papers, and a lot of them are freely accessible so you can read the methods involved and how they came to their conclusions...

De_flieger, just to speed things up fer this dumb old hill farmer could you post some quotes from the "relevant papers" seems ah caint find them...

via De_flieger #344;
...There is a section that specifically discusses solar radiance and how it was involved in the Little Ice Age you refer to, in causing the Little Ice Age and when it ended. It also discusses the measured changes in solar radiance over recent years and how there has been a very slight decline in solar radiance in the past 30 years, which should have a cooling effect. Changes to the solar output have been conclusively shown to not be linked to the current warming that is being observed - the solar radiance trend has been a decrease at the same time global temperatures have increased. Regarding volcanic ash distribution, that is another thing that is measured and taken into account - if you look at the graph on the previous page you can see the brown graph that shows volcanic aerosol levels, and it has markings for a couple of key events, major eruptions such as at Mt Pinatubo...

De_flieger, do all that mean there is an agreement that the worlds 'average' temperature has been getting warmer since we came out of the mini ice age in the mid 1800's ? That there would be agreement with at least this part of the Reid Bryson comments ? -

"...the temperature going up... ...It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age..."

And lets not ferget UHI -

"...The urban heat island (UHI) effect refers to the phenomenon whereby a metropolitan or built up area is significantly warmer than its surrounding areas. In some cases, the UHI effect makes average urban daytime air temperatures around 5-6°C higher than the surrounding rural areas in summer..."

...and that should take us nicely into the BOM dataset matter..:)

.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

17th Jul 2012, 15:37

choose to believe the small minority (many of who have conflicts - contracts from big miners, etc etc)

Of course, there is a LOT more money to be made if you are one of the vast majority of scientists who believe that human CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) are causing climate change none of which would have any conflicts or contracts of any kind, would they?

SgtBundy

17th Jul 2012, 15:57

Traffic, so its to believable that thousands of independent scientists, mostly working in academia, using differing models and methods and in different fields, all reached the same conclusion in peer reviewed studies because they are part of a secret global conspiracy to extract more research money? Yet a minority with poor methods and nit picking arguments that tend to be funded by large energy consuming businesses are the noble few trying to tell us the truth? :ugh:

Lodown

17th Jul 2012, 17:48

Sgt Bundy and Rusty: what conclusions in peer reviewed studies are you referring to? There is no, or little issue with accepting that the world has become a tad warmer in 150-200 years. There is no, or little issue with acceptance that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes something to the temperature of the atmosphere. There is little to no issue that man has contributed in some way to the additional warming. Just because the concentration of CO2 is higher than an arbitrary amount selected by an alarmist, doesn't mean that man is automatically responsible. The issue is how much (man's and nature's respective contributions, although they might also be considered one and the same perhaps), whether that is harmful, and whether proposed, wholesale, massive changes to the Western economies will make one speck of difference in the grand scheme of things and be beneficial overall.

Sgt Bundy, surely you are aware of the petition signed by tens of thousands of scientists who don't believe in the alarmist views of some climate scientists? I can paste the link if you need it. Always nice to trot out the over-used accusation that sceptics are funded by the large energy-consuming businesses. Which sceptics in particular, or does that include all of them? (I genuinely don't know and would like to find out.) Likewise, the comparisons with evolution are brought into the discussions as if the mere mention of the subject automatically grants scientific elitism and authority on the side of AGW proponents. (I'm surprised the tobacco line hasn't been used yet.)

Science works on hypothesis, experiment, facts and evidence (among others). Theories of evolution and relativity are supported by evidence. Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, or climate change, or extreme weather (or whatever PR puff it will be called next) remains a hypothesis. With all the hard work to find something...anything..it lacks evidence. This despite all the conniving efforts politicising science in trying to convince the world that "consensus" is a valid scientific substitute for evidence when it comes to influencing public opinion. Even without the required evidence, the AGW proponents have no shame in loudly proclaiming the scientific high ground.

The fact is that the AGW crowd do not have convincing facts. They have guesses. They have models. They have assumptions. They have PR teams with strategies and tactics. They have political influence. What they don't have is evidence. They can't point to anything and say with confidence that the example is a definite example of catastrophic global warming because they don't have supporting evidence. They tried predictions for a short while, but they backfired. Now they stick to projections, but even many of those are so far off as to be considered a joke. Recently, they are reverting to long term projections so far in the future, that no one can call them on their statements. The best they can do is make comments on recent events like, "It is consistent with global warming" or "That's what global warming looks like." Maybe they will have something someday, but at present, politically targetted Chicken Little predictions, alarmist and premature press releases, aspersions about sceptical scientists and fear campaigns make a very poor substitute.

In fact (as an aside), that's a good way to tell somebody who is not to be taken seriously. The denialist "scientists" are all "certain", real scientists are "very confident". Certainty usually arrives with a paycheque from a big company.

I've been looking for a way to judge the voracity of an argument in the absence of evidence, and now I have it. I'm looking forward to jury duty when I can put your assertions into practise. Thank you!

Jabawocky

17th Jul 2012, 20:55

And to add to that, most of the Qualified to Comment scientists that are skeptical are not funded at all by any big companies, let alone big energy companies.

Most by far do it out of their own genuine interest in science.

The fact is that the major green groups, WWF, Greenpeace et al are incredibly wealthy over cashed and very powerful political tools.

Do a search on founding members who have left in disgust mainly over the alarmist AGW stand. That certainly surprised the heck out of me. I can't be bothered finding the links, as none of the alarmists on here bother to answer my questions, or others for that matter, so do your own research :ok:

OZBUSDRIVER

17th Jul 2012, 22:16

Lowdown:}

Concensus is an often used UN weasel word.

Returning to the thread.... Clean fuel? Seriously? As much as Bob Katter wants an ethanol industry, we do not have enough arrible land to either feed ourselves, keep an export industry as well as make biofuel. Early news is a SA Uni has found a super algie that has promise to turn CO2 and nutrient rich saline water into a product useable to produce biofuel.... Scale of production is the problem.

However, as pointed out years ago. The biggest driver to lower emissions is economic. The cost of fuel drives the need for better efficiency. The opposite of this argument is you would still be driving around in JT8s and being damn happy! What's the BSFC compare between a CFM56 and the JT8 on the exact same frame? How much CO2 saving does that represent? Did a government make you do it?......other than noise:E

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

17th Jul 2012, 23:16

SgtBundy,
I don't think there is a "global conspiracy to extract money " underlying AGW alarmism. The money is coming along just nicely all by itself due to the massive fear campaign of the few. I do think that the trough has never been bigger for the academic/politic snouts to dig into. There is huge money being thrown at AGW. You don't see skeptics jetting off en masse to (ineffective) gab fests in Copenhagen, Cancun and other holiday hotspots. There is no incentive to prove AGW is false. If you do, the gravy train stops. There is no government grabbing money off their people and funding research into whether it is actually happening or not. The money is going into how bad will it be, how can we stop it or slow it down etc. The basic premise is that it is happening, it is real. You are on the outer if you even question it. Why not hitch your coat tails to the gravy train and ride it as long as it lasts. Every one else has. Look at the IPCC. A bunch of bureaucrats who are answerable to nobody, pontificating like the IOC or FIFA. There is no accountability. You can make any outlandish prediction you like and it's accepted as gospel because we're all doomed. Glaciers are turning into raging torrents as we watch, Islands are going down for the third time, deserts are greening up, pastures are blowing away, the earth will be uninhabitable in twenty minutes if we don't act now!!! And what do they all want to fix it/compensate them for it? Money. With the amount of crap we have been fed by these so called experts, how can ANYONE believe them? I'm so sick of a hot day here and a rainy day there all being signs of catastrophic CLIMATE CHANGE. Remember when there just used to be hot days or cold days? There is such a sanctimonious moral high ground assumed by the AGW proponents. Their opponents are all "deniers", you know, just like those nasty holocaust ones.
I honestly believe most thinking people secretly know it's all BS. So do governments (oxymoron?), but no one is game to come out and say it. Abbott let his personal opinion out once and got howled down. You can't even voice a negative opinion if you are in power anywhere (unless you are Václav Klaus). But they know, that's why they won't really do anything about it. It's all window dressing to look good, but no one except our f*ckwits are actually prepared to bugger their country over something they know they actually have absolutely no influence over, is nowhere near as bad as trumpeted, and will be soon forgotten when the next big scare comes along.
The future will laugh at our naivety.

Towering Q

18th Jul 2012, 00:25

The New Zealand Climate Education Trust have some interesting supporters...

Exclusive: Flat Earth Society appeal to NZ climate sceptics (http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/2012/07/16/exclusive-flat-earth-society-appeal-to-nz-climate-sceptics-join-us/)

Flying Binghi

18th Jul 2012, 00:32

Rest easy knowing yer extra five cents a litre is goin to a good cause...

"HANDOUTS to low-income workers under the carbon tax scheme have led to a surge in pokie revenues in May and June, according to The Australian Financial Review..."

Carbon tax compo being gambled away | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/business/worklife/carbon-tax-compo-being-gambled-away/story-e6frfm9r-1226428729094)

http://www.myemoticons.com/images/hobbies-leisure/gambling/slots.gif

.

peterc005

18th Jul 2012, 01:51

Back to the original topic: the effect of a Carbon Tax on Australian aviation.

The simple answer is "negligible".

With falling oil prices recently the overall cost of aviation has actually been reduced.

Jabawocky

18th Jul 2012, 02:56

With falling oil prices recently the overall cost of aviation has actually been reduced.

And your point is? :ugh:

It should have fallen further.:*

Rusty1970

18th Jul 2012, 03:39

errr, Rusty1970, ah thought yer were going to tell me all about the "scientific questionablity" of our CO2 deficiant 'natural' environment..http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif

Sorry. I thought I did. I'll be more clear.

You are taking one bit of evidence (more CO2 is better for plants) and ignoring another (changes in temperature is bad for plants). If climate change is happening and caused by increases in CO2 then you can't have one without the other.

You can add all the fertiliser you like, but if you get more frosts (as the expect will happen in Europe), or temps increase significantly and effect rainfall patterns (less rain in some parts of Australia) then the plants will die, no matter how much they might like the additional CO2.

It might be plant food, but that's not the only thing it will do. And CO2 levels have never in the past 650,000 years, been anything like what they are now. So no, they didn't evolve in a CO2 environment like this one. That is wrong.

Is that clearer?

But you think the whole AGW thing is not true, so nothing I say will convince you I suspect.

Rusty1970

18th Jul 2012, 03:52

Flying Binghi

18th Jul 2012, 04:20

...:)

via Rusty1970;
If 1300 LAMEs told me not to fly an aircraft for mechanical reasons, and 2 plumbers told me it was fine, I know who I'd believe, or at least listen to...

"My lifetime work from childhood to the present has been focused on aircraft/spacecraft design and development, with flight-testing being my career specialty. Thus, I have always been challenged to determine the accuracy and meaning of a large amount of disparate data and have often been required to apply those interpretations to development of a product that absolutely must be safe and robust.

"Four years ago I noticed something troubling about the challenges facing the global warming alarmists. I started my research on anthropogenic (i.e. man-caused) global warming (AGW) because, I found to my surprise, that to claim a catastrophic AGW theory as a "proof", the climate scientists thought they only needed to show that...." continues -

Burt Rutan calls Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) a Fraud (http://www.iceagenow.com/Burt_Rutan_calls_AGW_a_Fraud.htm)

.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

18th Jul 2012, 04:36

it's what experts have said is a problem amount
Some experts. Other experts have said it is not. Who is right? There is no possiblity of discussion. A scientist (any one) for AGW is an expert who must be listened to. A scientist who is against AGW is a "denialist" who must be ignored. Rational debate is stifled.

Nowadays everyone is a Climate Scientist. Didn't seem to be so many a few years ago. Must finally be some money in it.
And you can be one too:
How to Become a Climate Scientist | eHow.com (http://www.ehow.com/how_8411557_become-climate-scientist.html)
Ironic that it's listed under "Personal Finance".

Rusty1970

18th Jul 2012, 04:49

Burt Rutan calls Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) a Fraud (http://www.iceagenow.com/Burt_Rutan_calls_AGW_a_Fraud.htm)

Seriously. Burt Rutan? What on earth has that to do with climate science? If he said he could cure cancer would you believe that too? I mean, he isn't a doctor but he's read a few reports in his time....

Lodown

18th Jul 2012, 05:00

The IPCC's mission:
The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential and options for adaptation and mitigation.
There is no mission to assess whether climate change is occurring or not. The assumption is that climate change is already occurring. As a result, you can't expect the IPCC to issue any documents calling into doubt the validity of human-induced climate change. It's just not in the IPCC's mission. Combine this with the knowledge of the NASA GISS stuff linked earlier which references the IPCC reports and you can see how this whole subterfuge just goes round in round in circles; each uses the other's documents as evidence when there is really no evidence at all.

Rusty1970

18th Jul 2012, 05:05

Some experts. Other experts have said it is not. Who is right? There is no possiblity of discussion. A scientist (any one) for AGW is an expert who must be listened to. A scientist who is against AGW is a "denialist" who must be ignored. Rational debate is stifled.

That just isn't right. It's often trotted out, but it is just plain wrong.

It isn't some. It is almost every single qualified person with any expertise in climate science or related fields. To suggest that those who disagree are any more than a time handful is just wrong - and it is even fewer of those who are qualified to make a judgement. The number who disagree who could actually be considered "experts" is, well, if you can find one who is qualified to talk about climate change, and who has never taken a dollar from industry, I' love to hear their name.

So yes, when people who have previously or currently taken the coin of those in private industry who would benefit from a relaxing of any or all environmental regulations suddenly leave their field of expertise and become "climate change experts" who challenge the 99.9% of those who agree there is a problem, then they are rightly called denialists.

It isn't rational debate when a few largely unqualified, well funded people get their voices heard in national newspapers above those vast, vast majority of qualified scientists that agree. It is hardly being stifled! It wouldn't happen in any other field. Nobody takes the "smoking doesn't cause cancer" crackpot scientists seriously yet the causal links are very nearly as strong.

...still single

18th Jul 2012, 05:08

Seriously. Burt Rutan? What on earth has that to do with climate science? If he said he could cure cancer would you believe that too? I mean, he isn't a doctor but he's read a few reports in his time....

And there it is! No debate is allowed!

AGW is settled science, anyone who disagrees is a nutter, I can't hear you, Lalalalalalalala...

Rusty1970

18th Jul 2012, 05:08

...you can see how this whole subterfuge just goes round in round in circles; each uses the other's documents as evidence when there is really no evidence at all.

Yes, it's all part of that giant One World Government conspiracy....

OZBUSDRIVER

18th Jul 2012, 05:08

Troll Alert! Troll Alert! Troll Allert!

Rusty, do you realy know who Burt Rutan is?

Rusty1970

18th Jul 2012, 05:12

And there it is! No debate is allowed!

AGW is settled science, anyone who disagrees is a nutter, I can't hear you, Lalalalalalalala...

Not at all. I didn't use the word nutter nor did I say Burt isn't allowed to speak his mind. So let's not put words in anyone's mouth. Burt and everyone else are entitled to their opinion. But if you're quoting him as your expert, then you're argument is a little thin. And if you're using him as your source of expertise on the subject, why? He isn't one. Just a smart guy in a different field.

Rusty1970

18th Jul 2012, 05:17

Driver,

Yeah, he's the guy who admitted in that same presentation that he "isn't a climate change expert".

If he's not willing to say he is, why are you?

Frank Arouet

18th Jul 2012, 05:53

Hey OZ;

We have had done some sabre rattling over the years, but talking to this mob is like trying to reason with "Noddy and Big Ears". They are cynically unconcerned that vital CSIRO cash that should be spent on medical research "is misused on proving the science is is".

No wonder Gillard just stumped up a few more millions for those low paid workers in the "care industry". Add this to the failing dollar tossing "car" industry and there will be nothing left for the future to benefit our kids other than a perceived clean air future.

This mob need two tickets to go to the Zoo. One to get in and one to get out. Actually that covers their political affiliates in government.

OZBUSDRIVER

18th Jul 2012, 09:45

True,Francis...very true.

Rusty1970

18th Jul 2012, 10:47

but talking to this mob is like trying to reason with "Noddy and Big Ears"

Well we agree on one (and probably only one) thing. Nobody is going to be convinced of the others position no matter what we say. So I think I'll give it a rest. PeterC can of course continue to fight the good fight.

BTW, the millions (it was actually a billion) dollars for the "care industry" might come in handy when you get even older and grumpier, so that the worker in your aged care home takes home more cash than the local kid at McDonalds.

And "Federal shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the coalition supported the pay increases", as does Barry O'Farrell according to the SMH on the weekend. Don't know abut CanDo, he's too busy burning books.

On the auto industry, the Liberal State Govt kicked in some cash as well, and the federal Libs said they'd review it but "supported continuing and targeted assistance to the industry".

You've really got to stop picking on Labor for things that the Coalition agrees with (like CO2 reduction targets, for example) and have said they'll do as well. Choose something they actually disagree on, like IR.

Frank Arouet

18th Jul 2012, 10:57

We'll see if you give it a rest. Over to the tag team partner. Your turn peter.

Oh, and nobody said anything about IR. A red herring by any name. Next you'll all be screaming Workchoices.

Go back to the cage mate.

...still single

18th Jul 2012, 11:21

I didn't use the word nutter nor did I say Burt isn't allowed to speak his mind. So let's not put words in anyone's mouth.

True dat. I lumped you together with Peter -my apologies.

BUT, play the ball, not the man. True science doesn't care where the data comes from. Political science does.

Burt talks about the diminishing increase in greenhouse effect as concentration of CO2 increases (doubling CO2 doesn't double its greenhouse effect). I haven't seen that referenced in any alarmist material. Is burt wrong?

djpil

18th Jul 2012, 11:51

Been a while since I read Burt's stuff but my recollection is that his main point is that the issue is so important that it should undergo a rigorous independent review - after all the governments require a very detailed type certification process for every new civil airliner. This is the engineering approach - test and verification. Not just engineering of course, I understand that the pharmaceutical approval process is similar. Why would we accept anything less rigorous here.

Similarly, I see that the FAA has decided that the certification applied to LSAs doesn't work - somewhat analagous to peer reviews.

Incidentally, I've long thought that Australia would be a safer place if CASA put the bulk of their efforts into surveillance of the public hospital system.

Flying Binghi

18th Jul 2012, 12:24

Burt talks about the diminishing increase in greenhouse effect as concentration of CO2 increases...

The generaly accepted theory is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and ignoring all other feedbacks increases temperature by about 1.1 degrees celsius. i.e. going from 300 parts per million to 600 parts per million will give a temperature increase of 1.1C - going from 600 parts per million to 1200 parts per million will give a temperature increase of about 1.1C.

.

Flying Binghi

18th Jul 2012, 13:52

.

via Rusty1970; ...So I think I'll give it a rest.

Oh dear... and such a promising start...:ooh:

via Rusty1970 #47;
...This is largely the least informed debate I have ever read...

via Rusty1970 #425;
...Nobody wants a genuine debate, they want to sprout dubious "experts" and make patently outlandish claims...

via Rusty1970 #439;
...I know scholarly and credible and I know biased and conflicted. I'm yet to read anything from the denialists that isn't easily debunked or full of straw men...

...try: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4_syr_spm.pdf (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf)

There are many, many others, but this is the best...

I was so looking forward to going through that "best" IPCC science document with yer Rusty1970...:) ....oh, well...

via Rusty1970;
...But you think the whole AGW thing is not true, so nothing I say will convince you I suspect.

Reads like a cop-out to me..:hmm:

Edit - best finnish this off as it ties into other posts re the NASA/IPCC claims...

via Rusty1970 #453;
Sorry. I thought I did. I'll be more clear.

You are taking one bit of evidence (more CO2 is better for plants) and ignoring another (changes in temperature is bad for plants). If climate change is happening and caused by increases in CO2 then you can't have one without the other.

You can add all the fertiliser you like, but if you get more frosts (as the expect will happen in Europe), or temps increase significantly and effect rainfall patterns (less rain in some parts of Australia) then the plants will die, no matter how much they might like the additional CO2.

It might be plant food, but that's not the only thing it will do. And CO2 levels have never in the past 650,000 years, been anything like what they are now. So no, they didn't evolve in a CO2 environment like this one. That is wrong.

Is that clearer?

But you think the whole AGW thing is not true, so nothing I say will convince you I suspect.

Oh, we is just gettin the basics done there Rusty1970

Lets see, we established that the world has come out of a mini ice and were showing a warming trend BEFORE CO2 were a consideration. The medieval warm period were warmer then today. UHI of up to 6 degrees C is a given. And we now have it accepted by Rusty1970 that atmospheric CO2 levels have been far, far higher in the past and we is still here. (the claimed CO2 effect on climate comes later)

.

peterc005

18th Jul 2012, 16:18

The Carbon Tax has been here for almost three weeks and it's been a big non-event.

The world didn't end, the sun still rises in the morning and unfortunately those nutty climate change sceptics are still raving.

Frank Arouet

19th Jul 2012, 00:45

Yes, and the climate hasn't changed for the better either. So the tax has achieved nothing.

Flying Binghi

19th Jul 2012, 01:33

.

Yep, always the same. Start havin a closer look-see at just what is behind the IPCC claims and those with a mild dose of climate hysteria disappear.

There's always the one though with a full blown case..:hmm:

peterc005, im still wondering where is this good, solid and peer-reviewed science ?

Whilst we is on climate hysteria,David Karoly has made a muppet of himself... again... Another Untrue Allegation by Karoly « Climate Audit (http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/14/another-untrue-allegation-by-karoly/#more-16434)

Professor David Karoly is an ARC Federation Fellow and Professor of Meteorology in the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne

.

Flying Binghi

19th Jul 2012, 01:56

.

GASP!... this dumb old hill farmer me has literacy... http://www.myemoticons.com/images/minis/people-emotions/cool.gif

"...It’s easy to get the idea that global warming skeptics aren’t familiar with the science, that if they were more educated they would accept the idea catastrophe is right around the corner. A new study dispels this myth, in fact demonstrating the opposite—an increase in scientific literacy actually leads people to challenge the prevailing scientific wisdom concerning climate change..."

New end of the world book treats climate change just like many other end of times worries that have not come to pass.

These doomsday scenarios have actually bankrupted people and destroyed their lives. A few people have gotten rich at the expense of the more gullible.”

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4706524573794323&pid=1.1

Is global warming just another ‘End-of-the-World’ delusion? | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/is-global-warming-just-another-end-of-the-world-delusion/#more-67722)

.

De_flieger

19th Jul 2012, 04:27

Flying Binghi - ..and De_flieger, dont yer want to have a closer look-see at the NASA links yer referenced..http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

A recap....

"...the NASA proof fer AGW..."

De_flieger, just to speed things up fer this dumb old hill farmer could you post some quotes from the "relevant papers" seems ah caint find them...

Ok. I had hoped you'd look at the link I posted, where there are a number of pages which cite findings and where to find the relevant papers if they arent directly linked - often you will be taken to the authors or institutions publication listing from which the papers are available - but anyway...

Here is the abstract of the paper "Global Temperature Change", authored by Hansen, Sato et. al. Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Vol 103, pages 14288-14293 and available to download here: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Global surface temperature has increased ≈0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West-East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within ≈1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than ≈1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute "dangerous" climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.As for warming ocean temperatures, one of the articles cited was "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems", by Levitus et. al., published in Geophysics Research Letters, Vol 36, April 2009. Available to download by googling the title, it is the first result that is returned. The paper opens with:
We provide estimates of the warming of the world ocean for 1955 – 2008 based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, correcting for instrumental biases of bathythermograph data, and correcting or excluding some Argo float data. The strong interdecadal variability of global ocean heat content reported previously by us is reduced in magnitude but the linear trend in ocean heat content remain similar to our earlier estimate.And some of the abstract of the paper "Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants.", by Root et. al. and published in Nature, edition 421, pages 57-60, available to download here:http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Root_etal.pdf
Over the past 100 years, the global average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6°C and is projected to continue to rise at a rapid rate. Although species have responded to climatic changes throughout their evolutionary history, a primary concern for wild species and their ecosystems is this rapid rate of change. We gathered information on species and global warming from 143 studies for our meta-analyses. These analyses reveal a consistent temperature-related shift, or 'fingerprint', in species ranging from molluscs to mammals and from grasses to trees. Indeed, more than 80% of the species that show changes are shifting in the direction expected on the basis of known physiological constraints of species. Consequently, the balance of evidence from these studies strongly suggests that a significant impact of global warming is already discernible in animal and plant populations. All these are good, solid peer reviewed science - there are plenty more papers available by looking through the "citations" section at the bottom of the NASA link and its subsidiary pages that I gave you earlier.

Im really not sure why you keep coming back to the urban heat island effect though. It is a red herring in the context of this discussion. I'll summarise here:

Is there an urban heat island effect? Yes.

Is it affecting global temperature measurements and giving them the impression of climate change where otherwise one isnt present? No.

How do we know? Research by the Berkely Earth Surface Temperature group, among others, has shown this definitively. Here is the abstract of the paper "Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average Using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications", available to download from here: http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-uhi.pdf
The effect of urban heating on estimates of global average land surface temperature is studied by applying an urban-rural classification based on MODIS satellite data to the Berkeley Earth temperature dataset compilation of 39,028 sites from 10 different publicly available sources. We compare the distribution of linear temperature trends for these sites to the distribution for a rural subset of 16,132 sites chosen to be distant from all MODIS- identified urban areas. While the trend distributions are broad, with one-third of the stations in the US and worldwide having a negative trend, both distributions show significant warming. Time series of the Earth’s average land temperature are estimated using the Berkeley Earth methodology applied to the full dataset and the rural subset; the difference of these shows a slight negative slope over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.19°C ± 0.19 / 100yr (95% confidence), opposite in sign to that expected if the urban heat island effect was adding anomalous warming to the record. The small size, and its negative sign, supports the key conclusion of prior groups that urban warming does not unduly bias estimates of recent global temperature change. (my italics).