This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Prosecute Climate Change Advocates

Jump to new
If it is important for your happiness to have scored a point against me, I won't challenge it.
 
3rd Viscount Christopher W Monckton of Brenchley is a good speaker and sounds good in radio broadcasts.
He has a past record of sudden change of views as he did on the AIDS epidemic when he talked about his plans to quarantine everyone with aids. Many years later in his usual joyful tones he said, this is of course not now possible because of the numbers.

Numbers are the main factors here on climate change as coal fired power-stations are being built at a rate above 70 a year. A race for growth of economies has massively outpaced the new technology advances and it is time now for coal and oil to pay more for technology advances.

There is a tariff of 20c per tonne paid voluntarily by some coal companies that is used to advance new technology at places like Cessnock. This needs to become compulsory and be raised to at least A$2 per tonne.

New greener technology must be given the chance to advance more quickly and coal and oil must pay for it.
 
Duckman#72 said:
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.
Duckman
Click to expand...
It is difficult to discredit one if one has a sustainable position.
It is also a matter of opinion as to what the ABC's motives were in putting Monckton to air.
I note that Bolt uses some choice words and phrases, such as statistical trickery, to malign some climate change advocates, but does not render the same burden on Monckton.
Monckton agrees there has been warming for the past 300 years, so there is a sense he does not deny warming. He forgot to mention that 300 years ago the Maunder Minimum was our climatic norm, so warming since then was a reasonably certain outcome.
Monckton's claim on sea ice is equally mischievous. North and South Polar regions are also opposites in that one is mostly land and the other sea, overlain with snow and ice. The data clearly shows northern sea ice areas to be contracting markedly, in tandem with ice thickness. This is not the case in the Antarctic, for reasons which are complex. To use total ice area rather than explain the marked differences at each Pole is plain and simple statistical trickery.
I admit to not seeing the ABC interview, but Monckton may have been saved from needing to justify his earlier calculations on warming that serve only to prove how poorly he understands the science.
 
wayneL said:
If it is important for your happiness to have scored a point against me, I won't challenge it.
Click to expand...
You are gracious.
I do regret your continued lack of desire or ability to sustain the assertion that led me into this forum.
So if you and Mr Gumnut want to prosecute climate change advocates you will need a stronger base than available here.
 
Thanks for the link. I usually try to hear "Counterpoint" which at least provides a small degree of balance to the Left bias of the ABC, but missed this.

I've read the transcript and agree Lord Monckton makes what seem like really good points.

I've never been convinced about any changes in climate being anthropogenic, but I'm simply trying to qualify that response in myself with some level of objectivity. If anyone wants to check back in other threads, I've been a strong objector to the instituting of an ETS which - at least in the absence of a global agreement - would seem more likely to significantly damage our economy than make any difference to climate.
 
Yes, focussing on the content and not the personality goes far.

The rest of the solar system is experiencing similar changes.
 
Julia said:
...
I've been a strong objector to the instituting of an ETS which - at least in the absence of a global agreement - would seem more likely to significantly damage our economy than make any difference to climate.
Click to expand...


That’s my maths too:

If we contribute 2% to global warming, even if we reduce by 50% it still leaves 99% to take care of, if nobody else does their bit.

As Julia said at what cost to our economy?

Taking into account that developing economies will be exempt our reduction might be gracefully absorbed even exceeded.
 
spooly74 said:
Reference for the ice thickness?
Click to expand...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-20090707r.html

Also, the graph below shows that sea ice not contracting at all.
Click to expand...
Was there a reason you chose the Monckton approach?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Sea ice anomalies (30 year averaged) only correct towards a positive value during the antarctic winters nowadays.
The trend for Arctic sea ice is dire.
 
Sneak'n,

That is a lovely graphic, it goes up and down over the 31 year period. If we compare total sea ice right now to 30 years ago we see what??

What a surprise!!! It is EXACTLY the same now.

brty
 


Good points Noirua could'nt agree more.


As for Bolt watched him on the outsiders get pulled up by the other guess jurno's as he sprouted the anti CC lie they pointed out that he was paid or sponsored by anti CC lobbyists. Credibility?
His right wing bias is also an embarrassment when he seeks to establish arguments.
 
If you look at what actually changed after Kyoto then it was simply this. Previously we went about getting coal, oil and gas out of the ground at an ever increasing pace. Then as Kyoto deadlines approached, we simply maximised the rate of increase in getting fossil fuel out of the ground - we burnt like we've never burnt before.

Regardless of what politicians say, global fuel use has continued to rise despite all talk about CO2. The only thing that actually reduced emissions was the GFC, and that effect seems to be fading.

Australia sure can't be the only country with rising emissions when you realise there's a boom in fossil fuels globally. Someone somewhere might have cut a bit, but as a whole we're emitting more than ever and that trend seems certain to continue.

Looking back at the past century, there's really only a few things that ever did dent fossil fuel use: Great Depression, the World Wars, 1973 oil embargo, the boom in use of nuclear power in the early 1980's, and the 2008 financial crisis. But the trend always remained up and that trend is still very much intact.
 

left the "n" out previous post
 
brty said:
That is a lovely graphic, it goes up and down over the 31 year period. If we compare total sea ice right now to 30 years ago we see what??
What a surprise!!! It is EXACTLY the same now.
brty
Click to expand...
Actually the anomaly shows a decrease of about one million square kilometres or, about 6% less ice now than on average.
Mr Gumnut, please banish this parishioner of yours to a favourable clime and practise him in maths.
 

Yep, spot on.
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
I don't want you warmists to get too upset, but Pluto is undergoing weather change. Quite more rapidly than anticipated.

Explain that!

http://www.bigpondnews.com/articles...lescope_sees_Pluto_changing_color_425194.html

gg
Click to expand...

Is Climate Change on Pluto man made?

A lambian silence.

Is Climate Change on earth man made, every refugee from the old left has an opinion that it is.

http://www.bigpondnews.com/articles...lescope_sees_Pluto_changing_color_425194.html

Remain sceptical, very sceptical.

gg
 

If right wing bias embarrassing:

Is left wing bias also embarrassing?

Is it embarrassing to the left wing or the right wing?

Is left wing bias embarrassing to the left wing or the right wing?

Are both biases embarrassing to the centre?

Is it only embarrassing if you disagree?

We all know Bolt is right wing. But we also know who is left wing too.

I'd really like to know if cognitive biases such as those above and attitude polarization is just all round embarrassing e or just selectively embarrassing. I'd also like to know if hypocrisy exposed is embarrassing.

Embarrassingly yours....
 
I point out that the science has not a thing to do with the surrounding political bull****. The response is absolutely pure 100% undiluted COMEDY GOLD.

I find that statement quite insulting SmellyTerrier.

You see the problem with your presumptions for solutions is that you don't understand Marx.
Click to expand...

Oh.
My.
GOD.

There's no arguing with you lot, is there?

I've posted a link that shows what a fraud and liar Monckton is - does anyone make the slightest effort to respond, to refute? Nope. Just wave his name around and you'll be right.

You know he claimed to Congress that he was a member of the House of Lords, right? And that he's NOT, right? Quite apart from his many failings towards the science (see link earlier in thread), he's full of ****. Do you think someone accidentally forgets whether or not he's in the HOUSE OF LORDS?

Yep, with Monckton I'm willing to go ad hom. Even though I don't need to (again, see link earlier).

I've posted the sheer stupidity of believing in a conpsiracy so vast, but does anyone bother to justify themselves? Nope. Just say the impossible is true and it will be true.

I've attacked every substantive argument that Wayne has put up (precious few though they are) and he doesn't even seem to have read my posts, let alone tried to answer them. Are you guys after a discussion, or a self-congratulatory circle-jerk?

You guys don't understand the science, and have made absolutely no attempt to show you do. Many freely admit they don't, which is fine. But in that case WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO DO UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE? Not me - the scientists of planet earth.

It just seems to me that, to believe that somehow virtually the entire community of scientists are liars, frauds and idiots, while you, Forum Reader Extraordinaire, know more than these people with decades of training and experience and the best equipment known to man, and know more than virtually every government on earth, is simply hubris beyond measure.

Look at Rudd. Look at the little sleaze trying DESPERATELY to look like he's doing something about climate change, while doing as little as he can possibly get away with. Look at most of the governments on earth doing the same. And then getting the crap kicked out of them electorally whenever they do a damn thing, since anything effectual will be painful for their voters.

Do you seriously think that if ANY of them had evidence that all of this was a crock that they'd hold back for a SECOND?

TERRIBLE news everyone - everything's fine! PROSPERITY FOR EVERYONE!

Piss off. Governments have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into this - just as the scientific community had to be. Remember, AGW was once the fringe theory, that had to do the hard yards over a period of decades to be reluctantly accepted by these scientists you now accuse of being liars and frauds.

You don't need to know a thing about the science to see this conspiracy theory is nonsense. No-one has made the slightest effort to show how it makes any sense at all. I can't see that most of the "sceptics" are arguing in any good faith at all.

So I'm done arguing with you. Go on believing your little theory (which by amazing coincidence makes you very smart and worldly and superior to the hoi polloi). The world has moved on.

...not that I get any satisfaction from that, since "moved on" just means "the pollies get to completely screw it up"...

---
Sorry, there was a reference to the science I missed. Fool I am. Briefly out of retirement to post this:

Sneak'n,

That is a lovely graphic, it goes up and down over the 31 year period. If we compare total sea ice right now to 30 years ago we see what??

What a surprise!!! It is EXACTLY the same now.

brty
Click to expand...

This is a good example of forum science. Yeah, EXACTLY the same.

... http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

The first low on the chart for Daily Area (blue line) is a touch under 17. The present low is at 15. So you think 2 million square kilometers less is no difference at all, do you?

The first maximum was around 22. The last maximum was 21. So you think 1 million square kilometers of difference is no difference at all, do you?

Draw a line along the 22 mark, and the 15 mark. Note how many times 22 is breached in the first half of the time period, and how many times in the second half. Note how many times the minimums come anywhere near 15 int he fist half, and how many times it comes close or even crosses it in the second half. Look at the anomaly directions (red line at bottom).

Exactly the same, is it?

Climate IS complicated. It varies to a huge degree. This is accepted. But a very large number of very smart people with a huge amount of experience already know that. They allow for that. And they are telling you something that you still refuse to accept because you are confused by noise. You might as well use a cold day in January to disprove summer.

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE. You don't come close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...