Re: Global warming
 

Well you can't have been following it very well - I was commenting on slapphead's previous comments.

Re: Global warming
 

Agreed ABC, to even doubt or question AGW puts you in the same bracket at paedophiles and holocaust deniers.

And that’s part of the problem. They are so strident in their self belief that they is no checks and balances to what they say. If its pro warming it must be accurate and true, anything else is rubbish.

Long ago there was a Mcdonalds in Newtown, Sydney. You could get a meal for $5. Everything else n Newtown was 2-3times that price. It was a Capitalist soup kitchen full of people who couldn’t afford anything else. There were never ending protests outside – “Meat is Murder”. One day I pointed out to a layabout anarchist that the same meat was being sold in the hundred Thai restaurants up and down King street. He looked at me and shouted "Meat is Murder, down with capitalism". He was so indoctrinated with bullshit that he couldn’t reason or recognise reality. Eventually Mcdonalds closed the store. Lunch in Newtown now costs $15. The anarchist won his victory, and everyone else pays for it. :(

I find most of the Climate doomsayers belong in this same group.

Re: Global warming
 

No, I'm agreeing with you, it seems madness for all these scientists working across different agencies and countries for the past 20-30 years to have been basing their entire AGW theory around 12 trees.

Although this guy seems to indicate that many have used other sources of data to create the same type of graphs.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...09/hey-ya-mal/

Re: Global warming
 

As per Wol's post. P.s. the humour in that link is brilliant.

Re: Global warming
 

Absolutely, no one posting here has enough knowledge and every cut and paste can be repudiated by another one, with none of us able to spend the time proving or disproving it.

Re: Global warming
 

They are all just reading the internet, putting 2 and 2 together and 7,093,041 (squared).

Re: Global warming
 

Quite.

At 1740 NSW time, putting "climate" and "12 trees" into google produced 9910 hits.

I will do the same thing later and see how many more "factual" hits there are!

(I'm not denying the 12 trees issue - I just have no means of verifying it and frankly haven't the inclination)

PS Just *one* hit:

http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/30/br...re-ever-learn/

....and on and on and ................

Re: Global warming
 

And so it goes on….

A senior CSIRO environmental economist has resigned after saying his criticism of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) was censored.
Dr Clive Spash has resigned after three years with CSIRO. For most of this year, he had been in a dispute over the publication of his paper which criticised carbon trading schemes.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...03/2761141.htm

Re: Global warming
 

He didn't resign because he didn't believe in Climate Change though did he.

Re: Global warming
 

Dunno mate, I’m not bright myself.

I do work with multidimensional predictive analytics. That involves collating disparate data, weighting and normalising it, concatenating data strings, developing dimensional models, developing conceptual data models, etc.

To be honest, I wouldn’t work with just a 12 sample population. But like I say, I’m not bright. :lol:

Re: Global warming
 

No, and that’s why its getting scary. Now the mantra isn’t only “believe in AGW or else”, its become “believe in our Punative Tax Scheme or else”.

Openness, Transparency, Robustness. I keep asking for it…..

Re: Global warming
 

Well, here's how I see it.

(1). We know that CO2 (as a proxy for all greenhouse gases) acts as a greenhouse gas in that it absorbs re-radiated infra-red heat from the earth's surface, preventing it from escaping to space. We need some greenhouses gases as they prevent us from becoming very chilly. These properties have been known about for over 150 years and the science is proven, I see no scientists saying that CO2 does not have greenhouse properties.

(2). We know that we emit shed-loads of CO2 - about 27,000,000,000 tonnes per year from fossil fuel burning. This CO2 isn't from "fresh" carbon - i.e. if we cut down and burn a 30 year-old tree we are emitting CO2 that was only removed from the atmosphere in the past 30 years, no, this carbon was stored underground for the past 350,000,000 years.
This burning of fossil fuels is a relatively new process.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e_to_Y2004.png

(3). The concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased during the same period as we have been burning fossil fuels.
http://nomads.gfdl.noaa.gov/CM2.X/fa...timeseries.png

(4). At the same time we have increasing temperatures that have been measured by thermometer. (and other proxy temperature histories from tree rings etc going back much further that are disputed)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ure_Record.png

(5). There are a large number of potential feedback loops both positive and negative that could have significant impacts (albedo, permafrost methane, ocean absorbtion or release, etc) along with other non-warming pollution impacts (particulate suplhates from coal combustion creating a temporary dimming, sun spots)

(6). Motives and conspiracies.
In the one camp we have the IPCC/NASA/Met Office/National Science Academies/Enviro NGOs/Governments etc - what are their motivations to over-promote MMCC? I can see the green NGOs might have a motivation, but why would governments want to alienate their electorate, expend political capital and impact negatively on their countries economies? Why are the majority of the serious peer-reviewed scientists, looking at a whole range of indicators, still on the MMCC bandwagon?

I don't buy into the communist, one-world-government conspiracies (Lord Monckton).

I don't buy into the global redistribution of wealth conspiracy - even George Bush came round to MMCC!

I don't see the "government needs new reasons to tax us" theories - it goes against logic and how have Greenpeace/FoE/Sierra Club and all the worlds governments together with hundreds of thousands of scientists come together in this conspiracy for the past 30+ years, just to tax people more?

I don't see the "environmentalists want us living back in caves" argument - most enviro types I know are very happy having electricity and mobility, they would just be prepared to pay more for it being non-carbon. Does anyone really think that people want to be shivering in caves and hunting with spears?

I can however see that oil, power and automotive companies have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo - of course they do, they have huge investments in the status quo and changes will allow other participants and business models to edge them out. One way to accomplish this is to create doubt that the science is solid - the same way the cigarette and asbestos industries did in the past http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...g-tobacco.html

Interestingly, both Shell and BP have decided to fess up (at least publicly) to MMCC through fossil fuel combustion and CO2 (although doubtless they sponsor delay privately).

(7). There is too much information and disinformation available on the internet - every bit of data has another one disparaging it. Non-specialists cannot realistically assess the truthfulness of web-data, nor can they assess the magnitude of the various feedbacks loops and other climate drivers.

(8). There is always plenty of anecdotal evidence expressed, most of it concerns weather rather than climate.

(9). There have been warming periods before - so what? Not all warming periods MUST be fossil fuel related, it is allowed for the world to warm or cool based on other criteria as well, that doesn't negate the current greenhouse science does it?

(10). The rate of warming and its likely magnitude appear to make this warming period stand out from previous ones. That and there are several billion humans this time around whose (often) comfortable lives are based around existing infrastructures that may not work in a warmer climate.

So how does a layperson decide?

(a). CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we emit lots of it from fossil fuels, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased, global temperatures have gone up (thermometer measured). I don't think any of those statements can be denied.

(b). Trust the process - its the UN/IPCC and its pretty open, but its also scientists from around the world and the majority support the IPCC. If governments (and their scientists) thought there was a chance of avoiding the unpleasant measures they need to take (taxes etc) then they would jump at it.

(c). It is doubtful that scientists have, over the 30-odd years they have been studying CC, forgotten to check if the sun got warmer or relied solely on only 12 trees for the entire theory. These are trained scientists, many thousands of them, if some made errors, the peer-review system has plenty of their colleagues and competitors ready to pounce and the errors are corrected.

(d). Look at the motives of the actors involved - Communist One World Government, a reason to tax us, back to living in the middle ages - really? :blink: Or a fear of the change of status quo destroying their fossil fuel companies and livelihoods?

(e). Are every developed national government, every national science academy, the UN and all the scientists and NGOs (and so on), either a bunch of fools or involved in some nefarious scheme?

Am I 100% sure that MMCC is real? How could I be? But the evidence and (a) to (e) above makes me consider that it is highly likely and that the precautionary principle might be a good idea until further data gives us something else to consider.

Re: Global warming
 

So his resignation has bugger all to do with your theory?

Re: Global warming
 

Bring on the end of the world, I've lost the will to live now........

Re: Global warming
 

It's not happening, remember?