Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel
.
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.."
Rusty1970, do tell me more about this scientific "questionablity"
errr, Rusty1970, ah thought yer were going to tell me all about the "scientific questionablity" of our CO2 deficiant 'natural' environment..
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 ?
.
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....
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...
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..
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 ?
.
Last edited by Flying Binghi; 17th Jul 2012 at 14:42.
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
)The BOM makes that dataset available, and...
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...
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...
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...
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...
...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 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..
.
choose to believe the small minority (many of who have conflicts - contracts from big miners, etc etc)
vast majority of scientists who believe that human CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) are causing climate change
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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? 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
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.
Last edited by Lodown; 17th Jul 2012 at 20:42.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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
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
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
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
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 17th Jul 2012 at 22:19.
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.
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.
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 17th Jul 2012 at 23:21.
Seasonally Adjusted
The New Zealand Climate Education Trust have some interesting supporters...
Exclusive: Flat Earth Society appeal to NZ climate sceptics
Exclusive: Flat Earth Society appeal to NZ climate sceptics
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
.
"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
.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The simple answer is "negligible".
With falling oil prices recently the overall cost of aviation has actually been reduced.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
With falling oil prices recently the overall cost of aviation has actually been reduced.
It should have fallen further.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
errr, Rusty1970, ah thought yer were going to tell me all about the "scientific questionablity" of our CO2 deficiant 'natural' environment..
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.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
CO2 levels have not been anything like as high as they are now in the last 650,000 years. It's not higher than an "arbitary amount". It's higher than at any time in human existence. And even then, it's not arbitrary, it's what experts have said is a problem amount. They didn't just throw darts at a board.
1300 scientists in the field of climate science or related (not denialists who always seem to have a qualification in some other field) who contributed say they are as sure as the possibly can be that increases in CO2 are human induced, and have a very high level of confidence that it will lead to dangerous climate change.
I don't know how else to say it. 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
.
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...
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
.
Last edited by Flying Binghi; 18th Jul 2012 at 04:22.
it's what experts have said is a problem amount
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
Ironic that it's listed under "Personal Finance".
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burt Rutan calls Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) a Fraud
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....
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IPCC's mission:
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.
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.
Last edited by Lodown; 18th Jul 2012 at 05:03.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Papua New Guinea
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
AGW is settled science, anyone who disagrees is a nutter, I can't hear you, Lalalalalalalala...