Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Prosecute Climate Change Advocates

Jump to new
prozac said:
Do a search for Lord Christopher Monckton. This knowledgeable gentleman speaks most eloquently on the subject. Better still, listen to him on 2GB here - http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&task=view&id=2&Itemid=41
Click to expand...
I'd not heard Lord Monckton speak so was interested in the item about his speech in Sydney featured in the 7.30 Report this evening.

I simply don't know which side is right in this debate, probably am agnostic, veering to sceptic, but I'm sorry to say that Lord Monckton did nothing to win me to his view. He seemed to me to be an exceptionally egocentric 'personality' who rather pathetically found it necessary to demonstrate to the interviewer that he was a Classics scholar. I understand he's a mathematician by training.

His presentation was to my mind populist and sneering in that way only the British upper class can do.

He may well be very knowledgeable and an authority on climate change.

Left me completely cold.
 
Julia said:
I'd not heard Lord Monckton speak so was interested in the item about his speech in Sydney featured in the 7.30 Report this evening.

I simply don't know which side is right in this debate, probably am agnostic, veering to sceptic, but I'm sorry to say that Lord Monckton did nothing to win me to his view. He seemed to me to be an exceptionally egocentric 'personality' who rather pathetically found it necessary to demonstrate to the interviewer that he was a Classics scholar. I understand he's a mathematician by training.

His presentation was to my mind populist and sneering in that way only the British upper class can do.

He may well be very knowledgeable and an authority on climate change.

Left me completely cold.
Click to expand...
Julia

Would you expect anything else from the 7:30 report?? I would suggest you have a listen to this,

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2800684.htm

The counterpoint podcast is a full 28 min of him stating his case. Please, even for the warmist there is some good points that need to be considered.
 
wayneL said:
I've got nothing I want to prove on the issue... which would be futile anyway. I'm happy with my views and happy to let those views evolve as more information comes to hand. Though I'm satisfied the Goreist/Hansenist/RealClimate position is largely BS.
Click to expand...
It would have been useful for you to defend your statements. However, my original assessment of your capacity to argue a case is validated.

However the fact that I have more pleasant and/or productive things to do with my time, does not change the science, whether I choose to collate it here or not.
Click to expand...
It really is not a matter of "collating" the science, but of understanding it. This is a big ticket item and it is unfortunate that so many sink into the gutter rather than try to come to grips with its essential theme.

Meanwhile, I act on my views on sustainability, which is very much more than the IPCC gravy trainers are prepared to do.
Click to expand...
There is nothing preventing sustainability running hand in glove with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, it is a simple extension of the sustainability case. This is exemplified by some Pacific Ocean islands where traditional crop lands are now being regularly inundated by sea water.

I am at peace with the world... 'cept for those religious AGW zealots who should be locked up for fraud.
Click to expand...
As your previous paragraph acknowledges, the final arbiter has not spoken.
It remains to be seen who are the real lunatics, so in the interim you might want to find a good lawyer.;)
 
sneak'n said:
It would have been useful for you to defend your statements. However, my original assessment of your capacity to argue a case is validated.
Click to expand...
Yes, the truth is I don't have the time or energy to go over it all again. As stated, I'm happy for others to do a better job.

It really is not a matter of "collating" the science, but of understanding it. This is a big ticket item and it is unfortunate that so many sink into the gutter rather than try to come to grips with its essential theme.
Click to expand...
It is the warmists who tread this path more than anyone. Once the science is challenged, the primary tactic is credibility assasination... because their science just doesn't stack up under close scrutiny.

I understand the science as much as the next guy, but to present a case on this forum requires collating the relevant information and putting it together in a way that makes sense. It's probably at least eight hours work which would not be appreciated by the target audience... probably a waste of time as religious zealots just filter it out and/or attack the messenger.

I don't mind a bit of Internet argy bargy, but like I said, there are more enjoyable things to do with my time than spend hours going over old ground adequately covered elsewhere.

There is nothing preventing sustainability running hand in glove with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, it is a simple extension of the sustainability case.
Click to expand...
Of course there are many really good reasons to reduce fossil fuel use. It is a polluter and we're using it all up at an alarming rate. I just think that co2 is minor amongst those reasons

is exemplified by some Pacific Ocean islands where traditional crop lands are now being regularly inundated by sea water.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but your credibility just took a six sigma nosedive into the abyss of junk science. Ferchrissake would you look outside of GW propaganda and examine the true reasons for those problems. It's nothing to do with sea level rise. DYOR :rolleyes:
As your previous paragraph acknowledges, the final arbiter has not spoken.
It remains to be seen who are the real lunatics, so in the interim you might want to find a good lawyer.;)
Click to expand...

If I ever need a lawyer, it will only be because of a vexatious claim. Actually I won't. My assets are well protected. Why pay a lawyer to protect what nobody can get? ;)

If it is about actions (not words) on the environment front, it is likely to be people like Gore, Hansen, Mann et al... perhaps even yourself, who might need a lawyer. That is the point of the thread.
 
wayneL said:
It is the warmists who tread this path more than anyone.
Click to expand...
I can see this evidence where?

Once the science is challenged, the primary tactic is credibility assasination... because their science just doesn't stack up under close scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Where the science is concerned, it stacks up.
Judging from your efforts, the opposite would seem a more likely outcome.

I understand the science as much as the next guy, but to present a case on this forum requires collating the relevant information and putting it together in a way that makes sense. It's probably at least eight hours work which would not be appreciated by the target audience... probably a waste of time as religious zealots just filter it out and/or attack the messenger.
Click to expand...
If you understand the science as much as you say, it should take very little effort to state why the IPPC is likely to be wrong. The principal scientific constructs are straightforward, while the empirical evidence is abundant.

Of course there are many really good reasons to reduce fossil fuel use. It is a polluter and we're using it all up at an alarming rate. I just think that co2 is minor amongst those reasons
Click to expand...
That view would therefore also discount concerns about ocean acidification.

I would have preferred you stated from the outset that you found justifying your positions too much effort. Thus far about all I can agree with you on is the need for a more holistic approach to managing the earth's resources and its effluent.
 
sneak'n said:
There is nothing preventing sustainability running hand in glove with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, it is a simple extension of the sustainability case.
Click to expand...
"Sustainability" certainly, no real conflict there. But I'll guarantee you right now that those who promote "conservation", which is a very different thing to "sustainability", will be up in arms in a big way if we ever do get serious about reducing CO2 emissions.
 
Smurf1976 said:
But I'll guarantee you right now that those who promote "conservation", which is a very different thing to "sustainability", will be up in arms in a big way if we ever do get serious about reducing CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...
I must be missing something here. Why would they be up in arms about reducing CO2 emissions, Smurf?
 
Joe Blow said:
Please do not infringe the copyright of others on ASF.

I see a lot of people reproducing whole articles and/or not posting a link to or identifying the original source of quoted material.

The ASF code of conduct states:



If you are quoting another source you must do two things.

1. Not quote the entire article as this infringes copyright. Please only quote a small portion of it (maximum 10%) as this constitues 'fair use' or 'fair dealing'. See here for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing

2. Always include a link to the original article. If the article is not on the internet you must specifically refer to the publication (title and issue/date) from which it came.

Posts may be removed or quoted material shortened by myself or one of the site moderators if this rule is ignored.

Thank you all for your co-operation.
Click to expand...

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10373&highlight=copyright
 
Purple XS2 said:
Nuttiest. Thread. Ever.

GG, you've set the bar higher (lower ..? further ...?) than I could have imagined. I'm stunned with an amazement bordering on stupefication(sic)



And it's goodnight from me.
Click to expand...

What about you easily led? Use some rational logic Purple pls.
 
Julia said:
I must be missing something here. Why would they be up in arms about reducing CO2 emissions, Smurf?
Click to expand...
It's the means of achieving it they won't like. With the technology and overall economic paradigm we have today, it basically comes down to two options if we're going to achieve meaningful CO2 cuts quickly.

1. Nuclear. Convert as much energy use as possible to electricity and embark on a crash course in nuclear plant construction. Plus we'll need more transmission lines etc too.

2. Renewable. Again switch energy use primarily to electricity. But this time build vast numbers of wind farms (primarily in coastal regions in the Australian context) whilst also getting all we can from biomass (think scaled up agriculture, land clearing and so on) and a bit from hydro (the debate that literally started the Greens).

It all comes down to what is practical. Solar, wave, tidal, geothermal, thorium reactors etc all sound very nice and they do fix the CO2 issue. But they're not ready for large scale use yet and won't be for years to come - if we're going to do it now then we're stuck with the established non-fossil energy sources (nuclear, hydro, biomass) plus wind. Everything else just doesn't stack up either technically or economically beyond small scale niche applications.

Now think about what this means in the Australian context. Either we're going nuclear in a very big way or we're about to dot the coast with wind turbines, burn everything we can grow and dam everything we can dam. I can't see conservationists being overly happy with either scenario.

Personally, I very much accept that we need to go to renewables and/or thorium in the long term. But given the environmental consequences, deciding to rush ahead with phasing out fossil fuels isn't a decision to be taken lightly.

Acting "just in case" is a bit like turning the fire sprinkers in a building on "just in case". Sure, you've eliminated any reasonable chance of a fire, but you've caused a lot of other damage in doing so. Same goes with the CO2 issue.

Thinking back to the environmental debates surrounding energy over the past 4 decades in Australia, basically all of them came down to conservation in the traditional sense versus CO2. Save the rivers, keep city air clean, don't risk nukes, save the birds and so on - ALL of them at the direct cost of higher CO2 emissions in order to deliver some other environmental benefit. Until very recently, conservationists have always been on the side arguing against things which would have reduced CO2 emissions from the energy industry be it in NSW, Qld, Vic, WA, SA and of course Tasmania.

That's a very consistent pattern over the years. Against nuclear. Against hydro (not just in Tas). Against gas. Against wind. That leaves coal as the default option and one of the reasons we're so reliant on it now is as a direct consequence of these past debates.
 
The UK Guardian, a very left wing newspaper, is now spruiking that the University of East Anglia's dodgy data Conspiracy against Science was exposed by big business, and not by Scientist hackers.

How low can these godbotherers stoop. It makes the Crusades and the Reformation seem like a dignified tea party.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/04/climate-change-email-hacker-police-investigation

I'd bet my Bentley to a Pious that the Guardian will run with this drivel.

gg
 
wayneL said:
Just one example from thousands below with thanks to Duckman.
Click to expand...
You specifically stated "It is the warmists who tread this path more than anyone", while the article in question actually does the opposite of what you suggest. Bolt could have added that Monckton is not a climate scientist and, perhaps, have stated the leading role he (Bolt) has played amongst Australia's journalists in prosecuting the case against IPCC findings.
Thus, I score that as one point to me, nil to you.
Next.
 
Tink said:
LOL @ Andrew Bolt

from one extreme to the other.
Click to expand...

You can laugh if you like Tink, but please, play the ball and not the man.

Actually read the article. If you don't get caught up in his overblown language, he makes some very valid points.

The agenda was not to give Monckton a forum to air his views, but to publicly discredit him in the eyes of viewers. The ABC's work has been done.

Look at Julia's response to seeing Moncktons story on the 7:30 Report. I'm not suggesting in any way that Julia would definitely think differently of Monckton if the report had been presented in another way. However Julia's response, is exactly the response that Bolt felt the ABC wanted the intended outcome to be.

Duckman
 
Smurf1976 said:
It's the means of achieving it they won't like. With the technology and overall economic paradigm we have today, it basically comes down to two options if we're going to achieve meaningful CO2 cuts quickly.

1. Nuclear. Convert as much energy use as possible to electricity and embark on a crash course in nuclear plant construction. Plus we'll need more transmission lines etc too.

2. Renewable. Again switch energy use primarily to electricity. But this time build vast numbers of wind farms (primarily in coastal regions in the Australian context) whilst also getting all we can from biomass (think scaled up agriculture, land clearing and so on) and a bit from hydro (the debate that literally started the Greens).

It all comes down to what is practical. Solar, wave, tidal, geothermal, thorium reactors etc all sound very nice and they do fix the CO2 issue. But they're not ready for large scale use yet and won't be for years to come - if we're going to do it now then we're stuck with the established non-fossil energy sources (nuclear, hydro, biomass) plus wind. Everything else just doesn't stack up either technically or economically beyond small scale niche applications.

Now think about what this means in the Australian context. Either we're going nuclear in a very big way or we're about to dot the coast with wind turbines, burn everything we can grow and dam everything we can dam. I can't see conservationists being overly happy with either scenario.

Personally, I very much accept that we need to go to renewables and/or thorium in the long term. But given the environmental consequences, deciding to rush ahead with phasing out fossil fuels isn't a decision to be taken lightly.

Acting "just in case" is a bit like turning the fire sprinkers in a building on "just in case". Sure, you've eliminated any reasonable chance of a fire, but you've caused a lot of other damage in doing so. Same goes with the CO2 issue.

Thinking back to the environmental debates surrounding energy over the past 4 decades in Australia, basically all of them came down to conservation in the traditional sense versus CO2. Save the rivers, keep city air clean, don't risk nukes, save the birds and so on - ALL of them at the direct cost of higher CO2 emissions in order to deliver some other environmental benefit. Until very recently, conservationists have always been on the side arguing against things which would have reduced CO2 emissions from the energy industry be it in NSW, Qld, Vic, WA, SA and of course Tasmania.

That's a very consistent pattern over the years. Against nuclear. Against hydro (not just in Tas). Against gas. Against wind. That leaves coal as the default option and one of the reasons we're so reliant on it now is as a direct consequence of these past debates.
Click to expand...
Many thanks, Smurf, for - as always - a succinct and helpful explanation.
Now understand what you mean about the environmentalists.



Duckman#72 said:
You might like to read Andrew Bolt's Blog regarding Moncktons treatment by the 7:30 Report. Provides a different slant Julia.

Duckman
Click to expand...

Duckman#72 said:
You can laugh if you like Tink, but please, play the ball and not the man.

Actually read the article. If you don't get caught up in his overblown language, he makes some very valid points.

The agenda was not to give Monckton a forum to air his views, but to publicly discredit him in the eyes of viewers. The ABC's work has been done.

Look at Julia's response to seeing Moncktons story on the 7:30 Report. I'm not suggesting in any way that Julia would definitely think differently of Monckton if the report had been presented in another way. However Julia's response, is exactly the response that Bolt felt the ABC wanted the intended outcome to be.

Duckman
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, Duckman. I've read Andrew Bolt's comments.
He is, of course, absolutely correct about the ABC's bias and about the condescending tone taken by the interviewer.

I think I've made enough comments in the past about Kerry O'Brien's bias to be clear that I wasn't vulnerable to being taken in by the general tenor of the segment. What I said about Lord Monckton - and I acknowledged that I'd not heard him speak before - was that he left me cold.

That stands, and was based on his general demeanour which I found to be very self important, and somehow less than serious. If that's unfair, then I offer my apologies to Lord Monckton. It is, however, simply correct to point out that he is primarily a mathematician and a classics scholar. His past political appointment doesn't seem any more relevant to me than the current political affiliations of many involved in the present debate: i.e. they all have a political agenda imo.

From Andrew Bolt's blog:

Fifth, despite this being purportedly a report on Monckton and his views, it’s in fact Monckton’s critics who get most air time. The three warmists get to say 412 words (not including those of the reporter or of IPPC chairman Rajendra Pachauri); Monckton himself is permitted 401.

Sixth, while Monckton’s motives and funding were questioned, his critics’ were not, allowing them to falsely present themselves as disinterested. Yet Connor’s institute, for instance, depends on the warming scare for almost all its donations from green sympathisers. Sackett has conceded her appointment by the Rudd Government was a political one.
Click to expand...

Quite true, of course.

So, all I'm trying to do is retain some objectivity about this whole debate.
I found Lord Monckton to be personally unappealing to me. That's all.
He may be the bearer of the ultimate truth. I don't know.

What I do find interesting is post Copenhagen the gradual and quite subtle backdown by the warmist scientists and followers that the science is absolute, definite and unequivocal. Now they are all emphasising how much they actually don't know. So maybe we are getting closer to some honesty.
But maybe not.
 
sneak'n said:
You specifically stated "It is the warmists who tread this path more than anyone", while the article in question actually does the opposite of what you suggest. Bolt could have added that Monckton is not a climate scientist and, perhaps, have stated the leading role he (Bolt) has played amongst Australia's journalists in prosecuting the case against IPCC findings.
Thus, I score that as one point to me, nil to you.
Next.
Click to expand...

Hi Sneak'n

What comes first the chicken or the egg? Bolt's article was in response to the ABC's dismissal of Monckton's views and credibility. I'm sure that was Wayne's point. Bolt only responded to the ABC story.

Who has the potential to be more influential - The 7:30 Report, broadcast into every home in Australia in prime time, or Andrew Bolt's internet blog?

I think the 7:30 Report has been an excellent example of Wayne's point.

Duckman
 
Julia said:
That stands, and was based on his general demeanour which I found to be very self important, and somehow less than serious. If that's unfair, then I offer my apologies to Lord Monckton. It is, however, simply correct to point out that he is primarily a mathematician and a classics scholar.
So, all I'm trying to do is retain some objectivity about this whole debate.
I found Lord Monckton to be personally unappealing to me. That's all.
He may be the bearer of the ultimate truth. I don't know.
Click to expand...

Julia did you listen to his stuff in that link on counterpoint I posted above. Yes he is a mathematician. but who better to take the scientist data and run a test on it?

Have a listen, there is some stuff in there that sounds wacky but there is also some very interesting points about the scientist data.
 
Julia said:
That stands, and was based on his general demeanour which I found to be very self important, and somehow less than serious. If that's unfair, then I offer my apologies to Lord Monckton. It is, however, simply correct to point out that he is primarily a mathematician and a classics scholar. His past political appointment doesn't seem any more relevant to me than the current political affiliations of many involved in the present debate: i.e. they all have a political agenda imo.

So, all I'm trying to do is retain some objectivity about this whole debate.
I found Lord Monckton to be personally unappealing to me. That's all.
He may be the bearer of the ultimate truth. I don't know.
Click to expand...

Good points Julia. Sorry if I sounded like I was talking on your behalf or cornering you into a position.

I just found your response very relevant to Bolt's blog.

Duckman
 
Top