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

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Malthusianism come and goes, but seems does seem to travel in lockstep with the AGW crowd and greens generally.

If you want to reduce birth rates, increase prosperity. This is the very thing the AGW crowd would prevent, if they could, via carbon dioxide reduction measures that would restrict economic development in the third world. At Copenhagen, the Chinese effectively told the west to take a flying leap, and I understand why.

Birth rates in the west are serious decline.
 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/alarmism-a-danger-to-democracy-vaclav-klaus/story-fn59niix-1226098608900

It's a shame the science has been muddled in with the political.
 

Thanks derty. We can argue about the causative factors (and no doubt will ), but I agree that our (grand)children will live in a different world to this one.

The great shame is how those at either fringe of the debate have polarized points of view. I means that the great bulk of good that can be done in the middle is ignored.
 

Post of the month. Puts some perspective on the matter.
 

Thanks derty huge post
 
Here is a letter written by Frederick Seitz,
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University,
regarding a Research Review of Global Warming Evidence,
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm

A petition signed by over 31,000 American Scientists - see the following site
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm

Click on The Global Warming Review Paper link and it brings you here.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

In the words of J.Gillard, i respect the scientists, i respect the science, the science is in. She should sit down and read this, pretty damning.
 
We are looking at a low of 9 degrees in Townsville tonight. It's bloody colder presently so the forecasters are out by a bit.

This , from a comment on The Economist


I rest my case.

gg
 
How about we strike a deal. The politicians, guided by Ross Garnaut, give up everything that they use which is derived from the earth and move into the bush. That means selling the house and contents, car and toys. This is called leading the way and dealing with the climate change directly.
 
Apologies for the late reply - life is quite busy at the moment.

Basically the scientific solution has been presented by scientists qualified in climate and atmospheric science. It is to reduce CO2 emissions.

Unfortunately the implementation of that solution is only really viable via political and economic means. It requires the enticement, coercion or forcing of emitters to reduce their emissions. This is necessary, as while the cost of discharging your waste into the environment is cheaper than the cost of cleaning your waste before discharging it, there will be resistance from corporations and individuals to take the more expensive option. The incentive to change will generally require laws or taxation devices, and that is when the politicians and economists come in.

As for how taxation or emission trading schemes will work to limit the rise and possibly eventually begin to reduce atmospheric CO2 is quite simple. I'm sure you already understand the concept but I'll just put down my take on it. Taxes will make it more expensive to release the CO2 than treat it. Cap and Trade will place upper limits on how much CO2 a nation can emit and within that how much industries and businesses can emit. Those that emit less than the limit can sell their credits to those that can't. The cap limit can be reduced over time, reducing the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere and causing those industries and businesses that cannot comply to be priced out of business. Emissions trading allows the sale of carbon credits gained by emitting less than your cap or by sequestering CO2 to those that need to reduce taxes or allow production above a cap.

Ultimately the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere can only be facilitated by widespread adoption of non-CO2 emitting power generation and CO2 sequestration.

The sequestration of CO2 is not in the realm of climate scientists expertise. This is largely the work of chemists and engineers.
 
Thanks, Derty. No worries taking time. These longer posts can take up quite a bit of time and I appreciate your effort...

I do understand the concept in FORCING people to use alternative energy. I am concerned that such energy has not yet been fully developed and, at this stage, green energy is generally more expensive than coal fired.

However, it seems the political goal is to make coal fired so unreasonably expensive, that people will be left with no choice economically than to try and work with alternatives. But, what if these alternatives are not reliable? I posted the story on the White Cliffs solar power station that eventually was fed into the grid as it was too expensive and didn't work at night.

But that aside, do we know if carbon tax is actually the most efficient method? Have tests been done in other countries that have priced carbon before us to know exactly how much co2 is reduced (as that seems to be the AGWers goal)? Has it been adjusted for economic factors such as recession or economic growth and how established, affordable and reliable alternatives were at the time of initiating carbon pricing? Scientists are good at this - are there any reports? I haven't been able to find any - only economist reports which I don't trust when they are delving into an area of science for which they are not qualified.
 
Derty, in a nutshell, I am asking if scientists monitoring the effectiveness of pricing carbon?

And hopefully that is not just scientists on government payrolls as there is potentially a massive conflict of interest. Politicians are generally not known for their honesty...

I have major doubts that pricing carbon is going to change co2 in the atmosphere as there are far more causes of co2 other than our electricity use. But it is an essential service, so it makes sense from a political viewpoint that this is an area to tax to get the most revenue.

Too many things don't add up. I think it's time to move on from the controversial science and now that we are being threatened with the imposition of a tax that was promised wouldn't happen, we need to know how much this has been researched.

There seems to be nothing on it except from economists and they are not scientifically qualified, imo.
 
It will work when the nations that pump 1000 times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere follows this plan.
 
The following address by Dr David Evans is an excellent short explanation (for those who are always asking for references but can't be bothered taking the time to look them up and spend the time reading them) of how we are being misled by the propaganda of the climate change "warmists".

Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.

He says.........

"The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians."

read the rest -it won't take long.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/

I thinkyou will agree he has the right credentials!
 
DANGEROUS GLOBAL WARMING ALERT!

News article from the Nelson Mail.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/5336024/Motuekas-first-snow-in-several-decades

and this excerpt from the NZ Herald.
"Yesterday saw the most widespread snow since 1995, with snow driven by a cold southerly falling from the southern tip of the South Island to Waikato, including in unusual spots such as Nelson, Palmerston North and the Kaimai Ranges near Tauranga.

The snow blanketed Christchurch in white.

The city had the heaviest snowfall, dumps of 30cm and 15cm disrupting electricity, transport, health and education services.

The University of Canterbury reopened again this morning at 11am after closing yesterday. Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology remains closed for a second day.

Orion Energy said damage to overhead lines cut power to at least 2000 Christchurch homes. Power has now been restored to almost the entire network, with only a handful of Tai Tapu customers still without power this morning.

Elective surgery and outpatient clinics at Christchurch Hospital were cancelled.

The St John ambulance service was called to 24 incidents in the South Island - eight in Christchurch - in which people injured themselves by falling on ice or snow.

Bus services have also been affected, with many runs cancelled. Metro hope to get some buses back on the road from 11am.

Later in the day, the cold air moved north, bringing snow flurries to Wellington. Some snowflakes drifted on to downtown Lambton Quay.

MetService said Greytown, in Wairarapa, had its first snow in 70 years.

Weather ambassador Bob McDavitt said the record cold was caused by a southerly push arriving at the coldest time of year and in an uninterrupted flow from the Antarctic.

"The coldest days usually come in late July," he said.

"But what is unusual is that ... this cold air has managed to bring snow to widespread areas ... and to places that haven't seen it for 15 to 20 years or more."

Federated Farmers adverse events spokesman David Rose said fortunately the snow did not come during lambing or calving.

"It's winter and spring that concern us the most," he told Radio New Zealand.

"Winter [weather] in winter is okay and we do have plans in place."

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research climate scientist Georgina Griffiths said the temperature at a weather station in Whangaparaoa, north of Auckland, dropped to 4.5C.

Dr Griffiths said that the last time it snowed in Auckland, in June 1976, the temperature was between 4C and 5C.

BIG CHILL

* First snow in Greytown, Wairarapa, since the 1940s.
* 45cm of snow in central Christchurch.
* Light snow in Nelson, Motueka, and Wellington.
* Airports, roads, hospitals closed, power cut.
* Coldest July day on record in Banks Peninsula (-1.2C).
* 12cm of new snow at Turoa skifield; -10C on upper slopes."


Those kiwi fools! If only they had left carbon alone all this could have been averted.
 
DANGEROUS GLOBAL WARMING ALERT!

News article from the Nelson Mail.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/5336024/Motuekas-first-snow-in-several-decades
Cold snap is cold.

From the same article:
Mr Palmer welcomed the cold snap, saying it would help to provide the chilling many horticultural crops such as apples needed and reduce the risk of diseases and pests, which was high after such a warm autumn and a mild start to winter.
Swings and roundabouts - it's all about the long term averages.
 
Can you inform the Gorists and the Hansenists of this please.
It's a problem that afflicts both sides of the fence.

It's often used to score cheap points, push the barrow or scaremonger, in the full knowledge that they are perturbations in the trend.

Though more often than not, especially at the level this forum operates at, it is presented as genuine evidence for or against warming and just reinstates the posters lack of understanding of the processes at the most basic of levels.
 

The article was posted toungue in cheek, obviously it's long term trends that matter, but it's still fun to take the p!ss out of global warmists with the odd short term event, just as they propose short term trends as the definitive evidence of climate change.

How long term is long term anyway, even 10,000 years is a pimple on a dog's butt in terms of planet age. Our scientific records date a couple of hundred.
 
...Though more often than not, especially at the level this forum operates at, it is presented as genuine evidence for or against warming and just reinstates the posters lack of understanding of the processes at the most basic of levels.


Maybe so, Derty. However the majority of Australians are not scientists and yet we have to give a verdict at election time. Most people can see through lies, and I think the level of deception at play with AGW being used as an excuse for a new tax is something people can see through.

It seems that Gillard is using many partial truths in a desperate attempt to get voters on side, however, the more porkies and truth stretches she uses, eventually the public will find out and she will be further despised together with her policy.

Those of us without scientific qualifications have to rely on common sense in weighing up evidence from all sides of the debate. At this stage for me, the warming side is coming up severely wanting and made worse by the partial truths being sprouted.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...