View Poll Results: Which statement do you agree with
Global warming is caused by humans
27
19.01%
Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is substantial
44
30.99%
Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is negligible
65
45.77%
Global warming seems unlikely
6
4.23%
Voters: 142. You may not vote on this poll
Global warming
Dec 3rd 2009, 2:10 am
#181
Democracy advocate
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,460
Re: Global warming
Back in the real world, it's unlikely that an ETS as proposed by the Rudd government would deliver any decrease in CO2 emissions anyway.
Firstly, the Liberal proposals as accepted, to give free passes to most of the major "polluters" is ludicrous. if the objective is to make the enduser change his consumption by making the supplier pay and therefore pass on higher charges it is ridiculous to subsidise the suppliers.
Secondly, the likely result would be the (desired) substantial increase in energy (and goods') prices, causing the inflation index to rise and then to increases in linked payments such as pensions, as well as union demands for higher wages. All of which would negate the desired outcome of forcing lower consumption.
Firstly, the Liberal proposals as accepted, to give free passes to most of the major "polluters" is ludicrous. if the objective is to make the enduser change his consumption by making the supplier pay and therefore pass on higher charges it is ridiculous to subsidise the suppliers.
Secondly, the likely result would be the (desired) substantial increase in energy (and goods') prices, causing the inflation index to rise and then to increases in linked payments such as pensions, as well as union demands for higher wages. All of which would negate the desired outcome of forcing lower consumption.
Dec 3rd 2009, 2:14 am
#182
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 666
Re: Global warming
Back in the real world, it's unlikely that an ETS as proposed by the Rudd government would deliver any decrease in CO2 emissions anyway.
Firstly, the Liberal proposals as accepted, to give free passes to most of the major "polluters" is ludicrous. if the objective is to make the enduser change his consumption by making the supplier pay and therefore pass on higher charges it is ridiculous to subsidise the suppliers.
Secondly, the likely result would be the (desired) substantial increase in energy (and goods') prices, causing the inflation index to rise and then to increases in linked payments such as pensions, as well as union demands for higher wages. All of which would negate the desired outcome of forcing lower consumption.
Firstly, the Liberal proposals as accepted, to give free passes to most of the major "polluters" is ludicrous. if the objective is to make the enduser change his consumption by making the supplier pay and therefore pass on higher charges it is ridiculous to subsidise the suppliers.
Secondly, the likely result would be the (desired) substantial increase in energy (and goods') prices, causing the inflation index to rise and then to increases in linked payments such as pensions, as well as union demands for higher wages. All of which would negate the desired outcome of forcing lower consumption.
Is it just me or there was also another part that said that lower income earners will also recieve compensation for the increase in their costs of living.
Just another wealth redistribution scheme.
Dec 3rd 2009, 2:14 am
#183
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,565
Re: Global warming
Interesting graph Cape Blue, but if we included a larger population we get even more interesting results:
Hantemirov and Shiyatov analysed some 2000 Yamal tree cores for their paper “A continuous multimillennial ring-width chronology in Yamal, northwestern Siberia”
http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/pape...ocene_v12a.pdf
Take a look at the results. No hockey stick. No warming.
Take a look at other peoples analysis of this 2000 core dataset:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/3...t-as-roadkill/
flat….
Hantemirov and Shiyatov analysed some 2000 Yamal tree cores for their paper “A continuous multimillennial ring-width chronology in Yamal, northwestern Siberia”
http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/pape...ocene_v12a.pdf
Take a look at the results. No hockey stick. No warming.
Take a look at other peoples analysis of this 2000 core dataset:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/3...t-as-roadkill/
flat….
Dec 3rd 2009, 2:18 am
#184
Democracy advocate
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,460
Re: Global warming
I should have added:
The 1998 paper by Mann is the one that Al Gore used in his shock horror movie “Inconvenient Truth”. The Hockey stick Graph showing temperature increasing during the 1980s.
The only inconvenient bit (for Al) was that it was based upon Manns analysis of just TWELVE BLOODY TREES!!!!!
The 1998 paper by Mann was used as the centrepiece evidence of the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report.
The only thing it assessed was the life of TWELVE BLOODY TREES!!!!!
Almost every other piece of Climate Warming evidence is linked to these SAME TWELVE BLOODY TREES!
The 1998 paper by Mann is the one that Al Gore used in his shock horror movie “Inconvenient Truth”. The Hockey stick Graph showing temperature increasing during the 1980s.
The only inconvenient bit (for Al) was that it was based upon Manns analysis of just TWELVE BLOODY TREES!!!!!
The 1998 paper by Mann was used as the centrepiece evidence of the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report.
The only thing it assessed was the life of TWELVE BLOODY TREES!!!!!
Almost every other piece of Climate Warming evidence is linked to these SAME TWELVE BLOODY TREES!
Dec 3rd 2009, 2:27 am
#185
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 666
Re: Global warming
It's amazing really isn't it - all these scientists and NASA/Met Office, National science institutions etc and they make this basic error of not having a big enough sample size - madness really. They should be made culpable, I mean parents etc are going to end up freezing to death due to the policies that are going to be implemented over this sample size.
So far it has been held on a pretty high level.
This comment is not.
Typical example of how the AMGW supporters change the discussion from facts and their interpretations (where both sides have some valid points) to calling opponents mad heretics.
Dec 3rd 2009, 2:40 am
#186
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,397
Re: Global warming
I've a doctorate in physical climatology and have been working in the field for over twenty years.
I can say with a high degree of certainty that the AGW hypothesis is fatally flawed, and therefore the IPCC conclusions that derive from the data are incorrect.
The assumptions that increased CO2 levels equate to a mathematically linked warming effect ignore the blanket effect at the 500 angstrom wavelength, and the supposed correlation between the methane outgassing from revealed tundra and high latitude albedo is debunked in the paper by Smith and Jones (2005, Nature).
Every word above, from "I've" to "Nature" is, of course, utter rubbish. The problem is that, thanks to the internet, people can stick similar drivel onto blogs and websites and, within minutes, it's plastered all over the web in references, quotes, cut and pastes and becomes "fact".
It's how conspiracy theorists (aka delusionists) make their marks, and how millions of people get to believe garbage such as Intelligent Design.
And, because the experts involved have neither the time nor the inclination to rebut each and every crackpot idea they themselves are called "conspirators" by those who peddle the rubbish. As for the rest of us we have neither the will nor the expertise to do it ourselves. And so the wheel keeps turning, and even more disinformation becomes received fact.
I'm not saying there should not be debate on this subject, but you can trawl through blogs, websites and podcasts for years and see gaping holes in the arguments and "science" of so many posters. You just can't see which are false and which are proven.
Welcome to the internet-supported madhouse!
I can say with a high degree of certainty that the AGW hypothesis is fatally flawed, and therefore the IPCC conclusions that derive from the data are incorrect.
The assumptions that increased CO2 levels equate to a mathematically linked warming effect ignore the blanket effect at the 500 angstrom wavelength, and the supposed correlation between the methane outgassing from revealed tundra and high latitude albedo is debunked in the paper by Smith and Jones (2005, Nature).
Every word above, from "I've" to "Nature" is, of course, utter rubbish. The problem is that, thanks to the internet, people can stick similar drivel onto blogs and websites and, within minutes, it's plastered all over the web in references, quotes, cut and pastes and becomes "fact".
It's how conspiracy theorists (aka delusionists) make their marks, and how millions of people get to believe garbage such as Intelligent Design.
And, because the experts involved have neither the time nor the inclination to rebut each and every crackpot idea they themselves are called "conspirators" by those who peddle the rubbish. As for the rest of us we have neither the will nor the expertise to do it ourselves. And so the wheel keeps turning, and even more disinformation becomes received fact.
I'm not saying there should not be debate on this subject, but you can trawl through blogs, websites and podcasts for years and see gaping holes in the arguments and "science" of so many posters. You just can't see which are false and which are proven.
Welcome to the internet-supported madhouse!
Dec 3rd 2009, 2:40 am
#187
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,565
Re: Global warming
It's amazing really isn't it - all these scientists and NASA/Met Office, National science institutions etc and they make this basic error of not having a big enough sample size - madness really. They should be made culpable, I mean parents etc are going to end up freezing to death due to the policies that are going to be implemented over this sample size.
Dec 3rd 2009, 2:46 am
#189
Banned
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,733
Re: Global warming
I've a doctorate in physical climatology and have been working in the field for over twenty years.
I can say with a high degree of certainty that the AGW hypothesis is fatally flawed, and therefore the IPCC conclusions that derive from the data are incorrect.
The assumptions that increased CO2 levels equate to a mathematically linked warming effect ignore the blanket effect at the 500 angstrom wavelength, and the supposed correlation between the methane outgassing from revealed tundra and high latitude albedo is debunked in the paper by Smith and Jones (2005, Nature).
Every word above, from "I've" to "Nature" is, of course, utter rubbish. The problem is that, thanks to the internet, people can stick similar drivel onto blogs and websites and, within minutes, it's plastered all over the web in references, quotes, cut and pastes and becomes "fact".
It's how conspiracy theorists (aka delusionists) make their marks, and how millions of people get to believe garbage such as Intelligent Design.
And, because the experts involved have neither the time nor the inclination to rebut each and every crackpot idea they themselves are called "conspirators" by those who peddle the rubbish. As for the rest of us we have neither the will nor the expertise to do it ourselves. And so the wheel keeps turning, and even more disinformation becomes received fact.
I'm not saying there should not be debate on this subject, but you can trawl through blogs, websites and podcasts for years and see gaping holes in the arguments and "science" of so many posters. You just can't see which are false and which are proven.
Welcome to the internet-supported madhouse!
I can say with a high degree of certainty that the AGW hypothesis is fatally flawed, and therefore the IPCC conclusions that derive from the data are incorrect.
The assumptions that increased CO2 levels equate to a mathematically linked warming effect ignore the blanket effect at the 500 angstrom wavelength, and the supposed correlation between the methane outgassing from revealed tundra and high latitude albedo is debunked in the paper by Smith and Jones (2005, Nature).
Every word above, from "I've" to "Nature" is, of course, utter rubbish. The problem is that, thanks to the internet, people can stick similar drivel onto blogs and websites and, within minutes, it's plastered all over the web in references, quotes, cut and pastes and becomes "fact".
It's how conspiracy theorists (aka delusionists) make their marks, and how millions of people get to believe garbage such as Intelligent Design.
And, because the experts involved have neither the time nor the inclination to rebut each and every crackpot idea they themselves are called "conspirators" by those who peddle the rubbish. As for the rest of us we have neither the will nor the expertise to do it ourselves. And so the wheel keeps turning, and even more disinformation becomes received fact.
I'm not saying there should not be debate on this subject, but you can trawl through blogs, websites and podcasts for years and see gaping holes in the arguments and "science" of so many posters. You just can't see which are false and which are proven.
Welcome to the internet-supported madhouse!
Dec 3rd 2009, 2:57 am
#192
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,565
Re: Global warming
Good point, but this is simple. Mann selected 12 trees (out of 252 that he had access to) , calculated temperatures and then added real temperatures. This isn’t “drivel on blog and Websites, it’s now admitted in the supporting data from the CRU.
The last paper I quoted was by Hantemirov and Shiyatov, two respected scientists from the Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Their research was funded by the European Commission Environment and Climate Programme, and the Russian Foundation for Basic Researches. It appears well researched, is based upon the same Yamal forest, and used a sample population 166 times larger than Mann used. It doesn’t show any evidence of global warming.
The results in this paper (and many similar scientific papers) should ring warning bells from Cairns to Copenhagen. But the juggernaut rumbles on, crushing reality, common sense and science in its path.
Dec 3rd 2009, 4:22 am
#193
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global warming
The problem now is that anyone who questions anything about climate change is called a denier.
The Liberal party for example now want to hold back this vote for a new tax, until after the Copenhagen conference, and as such are now called climate change deniers. Yet most don't deny it, they just want a different solution than a tax.
The Liberal party for example now want to hold back this vote for a new tax, until after the Copenhagen conference, and as such are now called climate change deniers. Yet most don't deny it, they just want a different solution than a tax.
Dec 3rd 2009, 4:51 am
#194
Banned
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,733
Re: Global warming
The problem now is that anyone who questions anything about climate change is called a denier.
The Liberal party for example now want to hold back this vote for a new tax, until after the Copenhagen conference, and as such are now called climate change deniers. Yet most don't deny it, they just want a different solution than a tax.
The Liberal party for example now want to hold back this vote for a new tax, until after the Copenhagen conference, and as such are now called climate change deniers. Yet most don't deny it, they just want a different solution than a tax.
Dec 3rd 2009, 4:57 am
#195
Proudly Deplorable
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Re: Global warming
The problem now is that anyone who questions anything about climate change is called a denier.
The Liberal party for example now want to hold back this vote for a new tax, until after the Copenhagen conference, and as such are now called climate change deniers. Yet most don't deny it, they just want a different solution than a tax.
The Liberal party for example now want to hold back this vote for a new tax, until after the Copenhagen conference, and as such are now called climate change deniers. Yet most don't deny it, they just want a different solution than a tax.
Last edited by Amazulu; Dec 3rd 2009 at 5:10 am.