Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar (Post 8342935)

Google it..

Originally Posted by ABCDiamond (Post 8343184)

Talk about confusing....

The pro-public-health Science and Public Policy Institute, addressing electrosensitivity, mobile phone health risks, and the health risks of tobacco, was founded by George L. Carlo in 1994.

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool (Post 8342373)

"Probably" and "most likely" have no part in a rebutal.

There is nothing scientific about probably and most likely. They are the sort of feel good comments that belong in bar room conversation.

Will we give those who do not support AGW the same lattiude?

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8342856)

Thunderstorms. Right?

Shouldn't they be getting less powerful with CO2 as a major greenhouse gas?

Originally Posted by Wol (Post 8343232)

Now you are just being silly.

Without invoking Heisenberg <g> what would you expect?

"Climate warming is *definitely*, 100% due to increased CO2 levels which were made by man"?

That would be highly unscientific, to my layman's eye, since the data *are* capable of being interpreted in several ways. The fact is that many teams have investigated the data and the methodology and in the main have come to the conclusions that have been published.

They may be wrong, and some disturbing things have come out concerning emails and the like - but an awful lot is being made of some of these things which haven't, in fact, anything to do with the data or the conclusions.

The Himalayan glacier contretemps, for example, is an apparently flawed projection of consequences - but is completely irrelevant to the results of the modelling. It *is* indicative of a lack of judgement of the IPCC political layer, including the chairman but these projections that may or may not have been tarted up, or borrowed from a sixth form essay, should not IMO necessarily be read across to the scientific consensus withing the IPCC panels.

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool (Post 8343453)

You miss my point Wol….

If you are going to use the word probable in a scientific arena then it needs to be qualified - ie there is a statistical probability of an event taking place in given circumstances.

Take a look at this paper on jet engine turbine blades:

http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Aero.../proj3_sol.pdf

Section 2 covers a simple means of using Matlab and Monte Carlo modelling to calculate the failure of probability of failure to within +/- 0.01 at 99% confidence.

Now Wol, ask yourself this next time you get onto Jetstar with your wife and kids:

Do I accept a scientific mathematical modelling of the bloody engine exploding, or will I take the word of someone who says – “its ok Wol, it probably wont crash today”

When people start using serious modelling techniques with hard data I will pay attention. When they say “probably” I don’t get on their plane…..

(and take my advice, don't get on it either)

Originally Posted by Wol (Post 8343284)

How so? They are driven by atmospheric instability, one aspect of which is lapse rate - which has a large temperature correlation.

Originally Posted by Wol (Post 8343280)

Burbage:

>>If there is one thing that has caused me to reject the AGW hypothesis more than any other it is this behaviour from those who propose it, in addition to the lack of scientific debate on the issue. This is not how science is conducted, and it only leads me to conclude that they are hiding something.<<

Granted that a hypothesis is merely a starting point, to progress to a full blown theory is surely a little more difficult when dealing with (a) global climate and (b) the timescales involved for observation to either prove or disprove the principle?

For example, the LHC may have cost billions and taken a couple of decades to set up, but in principle it is very likely to prove the standard model is still a going concern or not. It may well come up with all sorts of questions rather than definitive answers, but the project is *in principle* sound.

Climatologists don't have the luxury of looking at forecasts for centuries into the future against observations, nor of having several identical planets to do double blinds with, and I think there's too much made of their inability to produce certainties in their conclusions.

Reading many blogs on the subject, I am struck by the fact that it is only the "deniers" who seem to have certainties. And the lion's share of the abusive comments, too.

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool (Post 8342152)

1. Taxing Coal
There is a global socialist idea that the West has too much money, and uses too much of the worlds resources. (I agree with this). These socialists believe that it is acceptable to use subterfuge and bulldust to reallocate resources and money.

They therefore believe we should tax our natural resources and pay money to other less well off countries. It is classic socialism.

(Take note – a large portion of Carbon Taxes are earmarked for disbursement to third world countries, including INDIA!!!!! (who refuse to control its own carbon emission).

Taxing the resources makes us less competitive, and is unilateral. Other countries can refuse to tax resources, making their products cheaper.

Taxing coal isn’t the point f AGW reduction. Reducing CO2 is. The desperate attempts by some groups to reduce Australia’s coal production are more politically based.

Let me say it again in case you miss the point – we are trying to reduce CO2. That can be achieved with more efficient use of coal.




What you are doing is wrapping up a whole load of social activism issues under a CO2 banner, and that is exactly what piddles me off about the AGW movement. Why not throw land rights and a 20 hour working week into the argument. What about whaling?

AGW is about controlling CO2 content in the atmosphere. Nothing else. It is not a bandwagon for other movements.

Originally Posted by Budawang (Post 8343756)

You're making all these wild assumptions about my political views which are completely unfounded. I'm not a socialist (global or otherwise). My idea of a carbon tax has nothing to do with reallocating resources by subterfuge. How revenue from a carbon tax could be used is purely a political issue. It could go straight back to taxpayers - there is nothing inherently "socialist" about this idea.

The whole point of my idea for a carbon tax is for it NOT to be unilateral. Australia would have to do it with other countries with large coal reserves. If they don't want to play ball then I don't think we should do it. My point is that it's worth a try - that's what are diplomats are for.

On the one hand you say we should be controlling the CO2 content in the atmosphere. Then you say reducing coal production is missing the point but using coal "more efficiently" is what we should be doing. No comprendo amigo.

Where have I indicated that I'm using my idea for a carbon tax as a bandwagon for socialist ideas? What socialist ideas? What the heck are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8343747)

The Nature deniers do everything they can to avoid talking about the science. I have asked several pertinent questions here and have still to receive a reply that scientifically addresses them. All I get is bizarre statements along the lines of: Can you prove all previous climate changes were natural? Hello? Our species has only been on this planet for 200,000 years.

Originally Posted by ABCDiamond (Post 8343065)

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science.