CARBON TAX-It's Started!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Climate Change is well-established science. No ifs, not buts, the science behind climate change due to man made warming is undeniable.
The Carbon Tax will have a minimal effect on us and it's good to see the government taking action on this important error.
No complaints from me about the Carbon Tax, I think it's a good idea and shows great foresight by the government.
The Carbon Tax will have a minimal effect on us and it's good to see the government taking action on this important error.
No complaints from me about the Carbon Tax, I think it's a good idea and shows great foresight by the government.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters that heat the air and water before entering the boilers.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Climate Change is well-established science. No ifs, not buts, the science behind climate change due to man made warming is undeniable.
The Carbon Tax will have a minimal effect on us and it's good to see the government taking action on this important error.
No complaints from me about the Carbon Tax, I think it's a good idea and shows great foresight by the government.
The Carbon Tax will have a minimal effect on us and it's good to see the government taking action on this important error.
No complaints from me about the Carbon Tax, I think it's a good idea and shows great foresight by the government.
Climate Change is far-fetched science. No ifs, not buts, the science behind climate change due to man made warming is dubious.
The Carbon Tax will have a maximum effect on us and it's good to see the government is going to loose the next election on this important error.
Lots of complaints from me about the Carbon Tax, I think it's a bad idea and shows the great stupidity of the government.
Thats more like it
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well fkuc me peter. There is a post worthy of being catalogued.
I now know the calibre of the idiots who put this Country in it's present state and, of more importance, whom to blame.
I now know the calibre of the idiots who put this Country in it's present state and, of more importance, whom to blame.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just get a bit sick of listening to all the loud mouthed, ill-informed, climate change sceptics who believe everything they hear on talk back radio or read on conspiracy web sites.
It's very similar to the UFO spotters down at Moorabbin airport. They think there is some government conspiracy to deny UFOs have abducted people.
When I bump into the UFO people I nod or say hello. There is no point in trying to show the fallacy of their deluded thoughts or psychotic conspiracy theories.
It's same with the multitude of climate change sceptics here.
It seems the most popular whacko conspiracy theories are, in order:
Good on the ALP for taking steps to do something about global warming.
It's very similar to the UFO spotters down at Moorabbin airport. They think there is some government conspiracy to deny UFOs have abducted people.
When I bump into the UFO people I nod or say hello. There is no point in trying to show the fallacy of their deluded thoughts or psychotic conspiracy theories.
It's same with the multitude of climate change sceptics here.
It seems the most popular whacko conspiracy theories are, in order:
- UFO landings, hangar 51
- The Mafia assassinated JFK for the CIA
- United Nations taking over the world
- Climate Change sceptics
- CIA blew up the World Trade Centres
Good on the ALP for taking steps to do something about global warming.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
n a 2004 email Ricardo Villalba, a researcher involved in preparing material for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, writes to a number of other researchers: "The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what's included and what's left out."
Explain to me how this is not the greatest hoax ever.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW, it's no wind up.
I live in Hampton and fly out of YMMB. My Bachelors degree was in Economics.
I appreciate good science and think the established method of establishing science by testing theories and peer review works well.
Climate change and global warming are good, peer reviewed, science.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last time I counted there had been six Nobel Prizes for science awarded in the are of climate change research.
Galileo Galilei had "flat earth" sceptics who refused to believe the Earth is round. Today the same type of white, male, conservative people exist as "climate change" sceptics.
I live in Hampton and fly out of YMMB. My Bachelors degree was in Economics.
I appreciate good science and think the established method of establishing science by testing theories and peer review works well.
Climate change and global warming are good, peer reviewed, science.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last time I counted there had been six Nobel Prizes for science awarded in the are of climate change research.
Galileo Galilei had "flat earth" sceptics who refused to believe the Earth is round. Today the same type of white, male, conservative people exist as "climate change" sceptics.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: some dive
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little Peter. Below is from an email going around. Have a good read and then sit back for a night and have a real big think about things. I would suggest you go and read the thread about globalization before you open your mouth again!
First I should clarify, my name is Terence Cardwell. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Stations near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.
I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading scheme.
Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so-called incorrectly named man-made 'carbon emissions' which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet
Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.
And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters that heat the air and water before entering the boilers.
The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
Coal-fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate a massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost-wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.
As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal-fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
We have, like, the USA, coal-fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia – exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.
The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the coal supply for the future.
Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't exist
Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.
The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied on for a 'base load ‘because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.
The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (the ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain And yes, they can pump it back but it costs to do that. (Long Story).
Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro-electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.
Based on an average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.
As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types.
Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.
Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal Power Generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts, - not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)
We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness is that the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.
According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.
To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
If you had a room 3.7 x 3.7 x 2.1 metres the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25 x .25 x ..17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.
Australia emits 1% of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by 20%t or reduce emissions by 0.2 % of the world's total CO2 emissions.
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?
By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.
Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by...004%.
Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = ....00008%. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).
Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 =...0000008%.
Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 =...00000016% effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to an area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and Roofing Installations, Clean Coal Technology Renewable Energy, etc, etc.
How ridiculous it that?
The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller businesses.
T.L. Cardwell
I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading scheme.
Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so-called incorrectly named man-made 'carbon emissions' which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet
Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.
And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters that heat the air and water before entering the boilers.
The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
Coal-fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate a massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost-wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.
As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal-fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
We have, like, the USA, coal-fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia – exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.
The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the coal supply for the future.
Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't exist
Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.
The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied on for a 'base load ‘because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.
The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (the ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain And yes, they can pump it back but it costs to do that. (Long Story).
Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro-electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.
Based on an average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.
As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types.
Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.
Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal Power Generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts, - not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)
We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness is that the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.
According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.
To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
If you had a room 3.7 x 3.7 x 2.1 metres the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25 x .25 x ..17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.
Australia emits 1% of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by 20%t or reduce emissions by 0.2 % of the world's total CO2 emissions.
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?
By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.
Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by...004%.
Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = ....00008%. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).
Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 =...0000008%.
Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 =...00000016% effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to an area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and Roofing Installations, Clean Coal Technology Renewable Energy, etc, etc.
How ridiculous it that?
The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller businesses.
T.L. Cardwell
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou Rat Poison for posting such a interesting article, of course the Labor people will find holes in it, but as a bogan as Dutch Roll describes, (a disbeliever) I think it was a sensible and probably truthful article.
Herding Cats and Sceptics.
RATpin, teresa, other anti-science contributors. T. L. Cardwell is a power station worker. Apart from the obvious confused nonsense about steam from cooling towers and 96% thermal efficiency of his coal fired power stations, he has added nothing to the debate except his curious opinion. This subject cannot be understood on the basis of such tripe. The idea that burning fossil fuel can be done without CO2 emmissions should give you a clue to the verasity of his letter. Collecting or containing carbon and CO2 from a process by any method whatsoever, does not diminish the fact of it's production in the first place or solve the problem of it's disposal. Likewise, just because a popular 'letter to the editor' is 'going around as an email' or is repeated ad nauseum, does not give it any more substance as to it's value or correctness. The fact that so many people actually repeat, quote and forward such letters is not only an indictment of standards of scientific education in our schools, but also of the limited ability of so many to separate any form of fact from fiction or opinion. I, for instance, hold the opinion that 'god does not exist'. That opinion may have a large following by many others, but it doesn't have any scientific research or credibility to back it. My opinion on that subject is purely based on personal or borrowed anecdotal observations. It is possible that another opinion based also on anecdotal observations could arrive at exactly the opposite conclusion to mine, therefore suggesting 'that god does exist'. Look at the vast hordes of 'god botherers' and 'crystal gazers' peddling their beliefs from Abenaki shamanism to Zen Budhism or new-age spiritualism. All fun stuff if you are so inclined. However 'creationists', 'holy warriors' and 'snake-oil salesmen' are not so philosophically far apart. (Nor are oil industry executives who don't like 'science' which may cause consumers to shun their products in favour of more environmentally friendly energy. Lord Monkton is a hired gun for the oil industry and has been paid millions to muddy the waters with spurious arguments and fake scientific web sites. He personally is not qualified in any scientific discipline, though he does hold qualifications in 'The Classics' and marketing. His role in confusing scientific debate should not be underestimated. He has previously been a spin doctor for the Vatican and later managed the damage control for the Exxon Valdez oil spill. It was his expertise which saved Exxon billions of dollars in compensation and left many Alaskans in financial ruin. More recently his utterences on the BP Gulf oil spill have followed the same pattern.) If 'proof' doesn't involve scientific observation and measurements, it can be no more than a subjective or 'belief' based view. 'Flat Earthers' eventually went to ground under the weight of scientific evidence. If you can't understand how science works, start looking for a burrow now. You are going to need somewhere to hide your eventual and inevitable embarrassment. Sure scientific research has some hiccups and misinterpretations along the way. That is why peer review and cross referencing is so critical in reaching scientific concensus. But as the weight of evidence builds, knowledge is gained and made available for new determinations and thinking. Ignorance is so demeaning in an educated society. Swallowing every excuse for ignoring solid scientific findings is childish at best. And there is no point in placing scientific evidence before people who have a zealous and willful determination to ignore it. Looking in the wrong places for scientific research and discussion is laziness of the highest order and would never be tolerated by a trained researcher. The internet has few signposts and finding reputable sources is not automatically assured. It is a discipline in itself. Science is published in a very small group of web sites. Mischievous commentary and misrepresentation of those reports and discussions are sadly more common. It is the nature of the internet as an open forum that much of it's comment and material is at the very best, apocryphal. Scepticism is actually a scientific notion which holds unproven ideas to be nothing more than that until backed by clearly repeatable evidence. Some people contributing to this thread are claiming to be 'sceptics' when in fact they are devout adherents to a worship of 'scientific blindness'. Science is the system and force which is raising us out of the mysticism of prehistory. If you don't wish to be 'raised' that is your choice, but don't hold back those who are heading that way by deception and obstructionism. Science is not a political persuasion either, so keep your politics out of the mathmatics, chemistry and physics. If tea-leaves, tarrot cards and the mark-1 eyeball are all that reside in your toolbag, enjoy the illusion of your precious haven while you can. The 'Galileos' of our time are at your door.
Last edited by flyingfox; 24th Nov 2011 at 17:20. Reason: text errors, spelling, additional paragraph.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al Gore and the IPCC shared a Nobel PR Prize.
My mistake...a Nobel Peace Prize.
I'm wondering how I can get one. Barack Obama was a virtual unknown and received one 4 days after taking office.
(Don't know how this comment slipped in here. I was responding to Frank's post below.)
My mistake...a Nobel Peace Prize.
I'm wondering how I can get one. Barack Obama was a virtual unknown and received one 4 days after taking office.
(Don't know how this comment slipped in here. I was responding to Frank's post below.)
Last edited by Lodown; 24th Nov 2011 at 15:39.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hicksville, Alabama
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peterc005 et al,
I'm asking this question in all seriousness. What are you doing to completely eliminate you and your family's carbon foot print.
I'm paraphrasing Tim Flannery here, but he stated that if no more man made CO2 was put into the atmosphere, it would take up to 1000 years for the CO2 to start coming down. The system is that slow. I'm assuming Tim Flannery knows what he is talking about, as he is a government employee hired to explain to the public the need for climate change action, and you all support the government taking action.
Now if I understand the message you and the government are telling us, then 1000 years will be way too late, and the earth will have runaway climate change. I think we all can say that the carbon tax in Australia will make very little difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This action is knowhere near enough as advised by Tim Flannery.
So I would expect you to lead by example and completely eliminate your carbon footprint. I'm interested in how you are going about this. For example, the airline industry is supposed to be one of the more carbon intensive industries (something like 3% of man made CO2 output), so it surprises me that Dutchroll has in his profile that he is a commercial pilot.
I know we all contribute to man made CO2, but if it's so urgent to take action, then surely you as people who have studied the science (you certainly sound like you have, and good on you if you have) then you will be leading by example?
I'm asking this question in all seriousness. What are you doing to completely eliminate you and your family's carbon foot print.
I'm paraphrasing Tim Flannery here, but he stated that if no more man made CO2 was put into the atmosphere, it would take up to 1000 years for the CO2 to start coming down. The system is that slow. I'm assuming Tim Flannery knows what he is talking about, as he is a government employee hired to explain to the public the need for climate change action, and you all support the government taking action.
Now if I understand the message you and the government are telling us, then 1000 years will be way too late, and the earth will have runaway climate change. I think we all can say that the carbon tax in Australia will make very little difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This action is knowhere near enough as advised by Tim Flannery.
So I would expect you to lead by example and completely eliminate your carbon footprint. I'm interested in how you are going about this. For example, the airline industry is supposed to be one of the more carbon intensive industries (something like 3% of man made CO2 output), so it surprises me that Dutchroll has in his profile that he is a commercial pilot.
I know we all contribute to man made CO2, but if it's so urgent to take action, then surely you as people who have studied the science (you certainly sound like you have, and good on you if you have) then you will be leading by example?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting choice of words, Flyingfox, because to many of us sitting on the fence in this debate " 'holy warriors' and 'snake-oil salesmen' are not so philosophically far apart", or far apart from AGW proponents.
Everything you accuse 'skeptics' of, is bountiful in the AGW arguments.
Prove, under scientific method as you have described, that the climate is warming. Then, describe your scientific proofs that human activity is THE CAUSE of said warming. Then, show why warming is bad, or at least WORSE than non-warming. THEN you will have credibility- the credibility you seem to think is lacking in any skeptical voice. If, however, you debunk statements such as Mr. Lawrence's above with straw-man argument and rhetoric, you don't speak with moral authority, you just sound like another cretinous zealot guilty of his own accusations- however well-intentioned.
Everything you accuse 'skeptics' of, is bountiful in the AGW arguments.
Prove, under scientific method as you have described, that the climate is warming. Then, describe your scientific proofs that human activity is THE CAUSE of said warming. Then, show why warming is bad, or at least WORSE than non-warming. THEN you will have credibility- the credibility you seem to think is lacking in any skeptical voice. If, however, you debunk statements such as Mr. Lawrence's above with straw-man argument and rhetoric, you don't speak with moral authority, you just sound like another cretinous zealot guilty of his own accusations- however well-intentioned.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DutchRoll, you are arguing from a position with one very large misconception. It took me a while to understand why you defended the hockey stick and the models in earlier posts. You have succumbed to the PR of the alarmists. You think you are right and in a select and knowledgeable group. You have taken the position that you are defending the world, and anyone who denies your position must be wrong and committed to eliminating life on earth. Understandable, but one-eyed.
Skeptics are not anti-science, or against the science as the pro-AGWers (and others on here) label them and like to point out. They do not deny CO2 being a greenhouse gas. In fact, if you read the literature from the skeptical viewpoint, you’ll find that in general there is no problem with the science. It’s the inflated, catastrophic predictions of the pro-AGWers where the problem lies.
Whether the ice coverage goes up or down. Whether global temperatures go up or down. Whether sea levels, glaciers and CO2 levels go up or down, is really beside the point. That’s what they do. That human activities are having some influence on the global climate is not denied. Yes, we’re putting additional CO2 into the atmosphere: somewhere around 3-4% of the total as best we can tell. Yes, it will add a little heat to the atmosphere…a tiny amount. It’s in the catastrophic predictions where the problem lies.
The pro-AGWers have built their case on models that have produced a temperature hockey stick predicting global temperatures that should be on an exorbitant climb by now. The pro-AGWer predictions included an absence of snow in some locations, more severe storms, and accelerating sea level rise, etc. The hockey stick is based on the AGW presumption that increasing CO2 will cause a concurrent toppling of dominoes, so to speak, and cause the global temperature to increase. The pro-AGWers have managed to implement an effective and deliberate fear campaign based on these predictions. They’ve managed to get a large policy change implemented in Australia based on these predictions. They’ve publicly and most vocally stated that we should be seeing the evidence already. The hockey stick was their rallying cry.
Just one small problem: the lack of supporting evidence! (flyingfox take note.) Not evidence supporting natural global warming or natural climate change; there’s plenty of that: evidence validating the models and their predictions. There is absolutely NO prediction from the models, the hockey stick or the pro-AGWers for the current leveling of global temperatures and the drop in sea level. They can try and blame natural variations all they like. The subsequent problem with this line is that is that IF the pro-AGWers were so certain of the output of their models, why then didn’t they correctly factor the input of natural variations into their predictions? On the hockey stick predictions, the pro-AGW scientists even provided a range of increasing temperatures that included generous allowances for error. We are currently not even just a little bit, but WELL outside below the lowest range of those predictions and have been for some time. And it's trending away further.
The bottom line is that the models are wrong. The hockey stick is garbage. There is nothing else. The science isn’t wrong per se. It’s the conclusions leading to the predictions that are wrong. You’re stuck on supporting the theory of catastrophic global warming and it seems that you are the one denying the evidence. The pro-AGWers have made predictions based on a theory and on their assumptions. I don’t have a problem with that. Most of the limited science that I know, tells me that if my predictions don’t hold, then my theory and/or my assumptions must be in error and need to be re-evaluated. Even most politicians and their advisors can see this basic fact.
The pro-AGWers have tied their catastrophic warnings into political and ideological beliefs for a new world order. They can see the current evidence no longer supports their predictions. They are hoping and praying it turns around soon. The "scientist" within them would readily admit that they were wrong and set about re-evaluating their experiments and adjusting the models and the input to get it right. Just one small issue: they’ve taken a political stand. “I was wrong.” is a career ending statement for a politician.
P.S.: If Strim is still following the discussion, here's an article that might be of interest:
The Myth of Renewable Energy
Skeptics are not anti-science, or against the science as the pro-AGWers (and others on here) label them and like to point out. They do not deny CO2 being a greenhouse gas. In fact, if you read the literature from the skeptical viewpoint, you’ll find that in general there is no problem with the science. It’s the inflated, catastrophic predictions of the pro-AGWers where the problem lies.
Whether the ice coverage goes up or down. Whether global temperatures go up or down. Whether sea levels, glaciers and CO2 levels go up or down, is really beside the point. That’s what they do. That human activities are having some influence on the global climate is not denied. Yes, we’re putting additional CO2 into the atmosphere: somewhere around 3-4% of the total as best we can tell. Yes, it will add a little heat to the atmosphere…a tiny amount. It’s in the catastrophic predictions where the problem lies.
The pro-AGWers have built their case on models that have produced a temperature hockey stick predicting global temperatures that should be on an exorbitant climb by now. The pro-AGWer predictions included an absence of snow in some locations, more severe storms, and accelerating sea level rise, etc. The hockey stick is based on the AGW presumption that increasing CO2 will cause a concurrent toppling of dominoes, so to speak, and cause the global temperature to increase. The pro-AGWers have managed to implement an effective and deliberate fear campaign based on these predictions. They’ve managed to get a large policy change implemented in Australia based on these predictions. They’ve publicly and most vocally stated that we should be seeing the evidence already. The hockey stick was their rallying cry.
Just one small problem: the lack of supporting evidence! (flyingfox take note.) Not evidence supporting natural global warming or natural climate change; there’s plenty of that: evidence validating the models and their predictions. There is absolutely NO prediction from the models, the hockey stick or the pro-AGWers for the current leveling of global temperatures and the drop in sea level. They can try and blame natural variations all they like. The subsequent problem with this line is that is that IF the pro-AGWers were so certain of the output of their models, why then didn’t they correctly factor the input of natural variations into their predictions? On the hockey stick predictions, the pro-AGW scientists even provided a range of increasing temperatures that included generous allowances for error. We are currently not even just a little bit, but WELL outside below the lowest range of those predictions and have been for some time. And it's trending away further.
The bottom line is that the models are wrong. The hockey stick is garbage. There is nothing else. The science isn’t wrong per se. It’s the conclusions leading to the predictions that are wrong. You’re stuck on supporting the theory of catastrophic global warming and it seems that you are the one denying the evidence. The pro-AGWers have made predictions based on a theory and on their assumptions. I don’t have a problem with that. Most of the limited science that I know, tells me that if my predictions don’t hold, then my theory and/or my assumptions must be in error and need to be re-evaluated. Even most politicians and their advisors can see this basic fact.
The pro-AGWers have tied their catastrophic warnings into political and ideological beliefs for a new world order. They can see the current evidence no longer supports their predictions. They are hoping and praying it turns around soon. The "scientist" within them would readily admit that they were wrong and set about re-evaluating their experiments and adjusting the models and the input to get it right. Just one small issue: they’ve taken a political stand. “I was wrong.” is a career ending statement for a politician.
P.S.: If Strim is still following the discussion, here's an article that might be of interest:
The Myth of Renewable Energy
Last edited by Lodown; 25th Nov 2011 at 01:08.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We had a wasted decade with Howard where the Libs did nothing. The conservatives are still living in the 1950s, They are dusty, grumpy and short sighted - just like a crazy old uncle.
no, it was 10 yrs of throwing money at the previous labor governments debts..
money that could have been spent on infrastructure, not saving our hides from the GFC Mk1, so whats left in the kitty for GFC new and improved MKII with upgrades?ZIP. Nadda.
what will the next liberal government be doing? paying off Labor debt, again...
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last time I counted there had been six Nobel Prizes for science awarded in the are of climate change research.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,305
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
And now we get Juliar and her team of slimeballs taking the Australian public for a bunch of gullible fools by her smart-arse tactics of pressuring Harry Jenkins, the Speaker, to step down and railroading Slippery Slipper into his place before the Libs had a chance to de-select him.
She's certainly living up to Richo's mantra "whatever it takes".
Still, it's only until 2013. Hopefully they won't cause too much irreversible damage until they get booted out.
She's certainly living up to Richo's mantra "whatever it takes".
Still, it's only until 2013. Hopefully they won't cause too much irreversible damage until they get booted out.