Resisting Climate Hysteria

basilio said:

A Global carbon tax makes sense in terms of redirecting investment to non CO2 polluting technologies. And regardless of global warming issues we need to find long term renewable energy technologies. Fossil fuels can only disappear in the foreseeable future.

Click to expand...

Agreed that there is ultimately no future in fossil fuels. However:

1. A purely Australian carbon tax, or even one that includes (say) the EU, is completely ineffective in this regard. It must be either global, at the same rate everywhere, and backed with rigid tariffs and/or sanctions against non-taxing countries.

2. The carbon tax encourages the use of natural gas, a relatively scarce resource, in preference to the far more plentiful coal whilst doing basically nothing to address the oil situation. As a means of bringing about action to address fossil fuel depletion, it is an incredibly blunt tool that is in many regards counterproductive.

Agreed that we need to move away from oil, gas and coal in that order, but this tax or an ETS isn't an effective means of facilitating that shift. For a start, they focus very heavily on electricity generation when the main near term fuel problems relate to transport.

Basilio, I also believe you are right for the concept and general aim : we need to move on from fossil fuels and reduce pollution but as Smurf pointed: the carbon tax we have in no way help going in the right direction: transport fuel will not even be affected and we are just reducing our competitiveness without even taxing carbon dirty imports....
sheer madness but what can i expect from this government...

Smurf1976 said:

Agreed that there is ultimately no future in fossil fuels. However:

1. A purely Australian carbon tax, or even one that includes (say) the EU, is completely ineffective in this regard. It must be either global, at the same rate everywhere, and backed with rigid tariffs and/or sanctions against non-taxing countries.

2. The carbon tax encourages the use of natural gas, a relatively scarce resource, in preference to the far more plentiful coal whilst doing basically nothing to address the oil situation. As a means of bringing about action to address fossil fuel depletion, it is an incredibly blunt tool that is in many regards counterproductive.

Agreed that we need to move away from oil, gas and coal in that order, but this tax or an ETS isn't an effective means of facilitating that shift. For a start, they focus very heavily on electricity generation when the main near term fuel problems relate to transport.

Click to expand...

Excellent post !

If only the whole thing could be approached with a reasoned, long term view that allows open discussion using unadulterated data we may actually make some progress.

In Australia we have effectively given away our greatest bargaining tool buy bringing in a useless tax without getting agreement from the worlds major polluters. Every manufacturer we drive offshore means we encourage more pollution to be released as we have far better pollution controls that China or India.

To use a "mobile" source of energy like liquified gas to produce electricity clearly illustrates the fact that the people making these decisions have NFI what they are doing

"Houston, we have a problem", Hansen and Schmidt of NASA GISS under fire for climate stance: Engineers, scientists, astronauts ask NASA administration to look at empirical evidence rather than climate models


And yes, we need to find effective alternatives to fossil fuels...but somehow I don't think that's a priority by the AGW extremists, otherwise the $80B+ spent on AGW propaganda since the 1980's could have been easily used for research into fossil fuel alternatives.

Lesson 9. Use feelgood environmental strategies to drive political agendas. Use UN Agenda 21 as the playbook and derive local agenda 21 initiatives and taxes.

Yep, NASA had better toe the line or there funding will be cut further.

The US weather bureau toed the line already, removing access to their data and providing limited "modified data" to keep their funding.

While we are at it, lets close down the research facilities.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/02/28/science-pearl-arctic-research.html

If we don't know about it, it will go away!

And if you only listen to sources that distort and miss out facts when reporting:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-rigg/climate-change-denial-gcca_b_1397534.html
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/the_war_on_science/

And ignore clear evidence that extremes are increasing, for example in Nature, the worlds most respected publisher of scientific reports:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1452.html


Then this is the point where you can see if you are a denier or a skeptic.

If you figuratively put your hands on your ears and say "not listening, not listening" i.e. cannot bring yourself to read the threads posted, then I am afraid you are a denier.

If you read them and can argue a case against the information provided then you are a skeptic.

Excellent list of articles Knobby. But I wouldn't bet my house (or even 2c..) on them getting any currency amongst most of the members in this forum. After all you don't want to let any evidence to muddy the waters of clear denial.

basilio said:

Excellent list of articles Knobby. But I wouldn't bet my house (or even 2c..) on them getting any currency amongst most of the members in this forum. After all you don't want to let any evidence to muddy the waters of clear denial.

Click to expand...

lol Basilio - it's not just members of this forum - your problem is with most of Australian voters...

Knobby22 said:

While we are at it, lets close down the research facilities.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/02/28/science-pearl-arctic-research.html

If we don't know about it, it will go away!

And if you only listen to sources that distort and miss out facts when reporting:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-rigg/climate-change-denial-gcca_b_1397534.html
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/the_war_on_science/

And ignore clear evidence that extremes are increasing, for example in Nature, the worlds most respected publisher of scientific reports:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1452.html


Then this is the point where you can see if you are a denier or a skeptic.

If you figuratively put your hands on your ears and say "not listening, not listening" i.e. cannot bring yourself to read the threads posted, then I am afraid you are a denier.

If you read them and can argue a case against the information provided then you are a skeptic.

Click to expand...

basilio said:

Excellent list of articles Knobby. But I wouldn't bet my house (or even 2c..) on them getting any currency amongst most of the members in this forum. After all you don't want to let any evidence to muddy the waters of clear denial.

Click to expand...

Oh brother!

I lost count of the quantity of argumentative/logical fallacy in these two posts.

Let's keep the conversation above kindergarten level shall we ladies?

Now Wayne surely it wasn't that hard even for you ? Knobby is simply pointing out examples of reporting which accurately report what is being found by scientists around the world. This is distinct from liars and hacks who either ignore the evidence or carve out a particular piece they like and then ignore the rest. (I was particularly struck by a columnist from The Australian who faithfully quoted the IPPC on areas of the world that showed colder temperatures - and then ignored the next 3 paragraphs which highlighted the huge increases in other spots.

Then Wayne old boy, after actually reading the research, you just have to offer a cogent, intelligent alternative explanation for what is being documented around the world.

Or you can stick your fingers in ears, ignore the evidence and prattle about argumentative and logical fallacies.

basilio said:

Now Wayne surely it wasn't that hard even for you ? Knobby is simply pointing out examples of reporting which accurately report what is being found by scientists around the world. This is distinct from liars and hacks who either ignore the evidence or carve out a particular piece they like and then ignore the rest.

Click to expand...

I'll repeat and reassert a previous comment: It's the AGW alarmists in forums such as this that have played an ongoing role in destroying the credibility of AGW research.

Legitimate research is now almost impossible to identify and cannot be appropriately acted upon. The default answer alarmists use is CO2 and warming are the enemy of mankind without any substantive reasons or rationale and are unable to show real observed evidence - except a warming trend that is no different in rate to any other.

I thought the development of alternative energy sources would be a key focus for the people that want to move off fossil fuels - knowing that solar and wind is not going to fulfill the need. As I too mentioned over a year ago to Basilio, Knobby, why aren't you leading a discussion on practical energy alternatives? v's the impractical and improbable rubbish you keep posting here? I think the simple answer is that you're not interested in alternatives at all, but believe everyone else must fulfill your beliefs.

What exactly are you doing in your lives to help? Why aren't you protesting about the Green MPs who continue to use gassy cars are planes? Why do you continue to "educate" those here on your views on AGW alarmism when it's clear it's not working and the evidence doesn't support your beliefs? Why don't you respond openly and honestly to the failure of models to predict climate change? Why do you both avoid presenting observed evidence of man's CO2 driving temperature (with agreement from scientists from all sides) v's dancing around the topic?

Until you both can address some of these fundamental questions, your ongoing comments remain controversial and highly questionable at best.

I suspect the folks at NASA have had enough of the AGW spin being published too.

basilio said:

...Or you can stick your fingers in ears, ignore the evidence and prattle about argumentative and logical fallacies.

Click to expand...

And I suspect AGW will get voted out with carbon tax. IF there is any truth buried somewhere in the hype, it will probably never be seen or heard of again for many, many years.

sails said:

And I suspect AGW will get voted out with carbon tax. IF there is any truth buried somewhere in the hype, it will probably never be seen or heard of again for many, many years.

Click to expand...

I suspect you are right there. Which is a shame, because climate change is a legitimate field for scientific research and there is a genuine need to move away from fossil fuels, especially oil. But I suspect this will be lost amidst a revolt against the carbon tax.

basilio said:

Now Wayne surely it wasn't that hard even for you ? Knobby is simply pointing out examples of reporting which accurately report what is being found by scientists around the world. This is distinct from liars and hacks who either ignore the evidence or carve out a particular piece they like and then ignore the rest. (I was particularly struck by a columnist from The Australian who faithfully quoted the IPPC on areas of the world that showed colder temperatures - and then ignored the next 3 paragraphs which highlighted the huge increases in other spots.

Then Wayne old boy, after actually reading the research, you just have to offer a cogent, intelligent alternative explanation for what is being documented around the world.

Or you can stick your fingers in ears, ignore the evidence and prattle about argumentative and logical fallacies.

Click to expand...

You see that's all you have; the claim that people are sticking their fingers in their ears and are 'deniers'. The truth is quite the opposite of course with people walking the middle line, looking at data from both points of view, considering the politics, vested interests and ulterior motives and coming up with a conclusion for themselves.

To repeat ad nauseum, I'm actually a 'lukewarmer'. I think we are having an effect. But I think co2 the least of our worries in this regard. I've said this a hundred times in this thread, but you continue with your idiotic 'you're a denier'.

You want proof of something? It proves that you are incapable of considering all data presented to you. You look at my specific position on co2 and conclude I am a denier. It shows that you have confirmation bias and cherry pick stuff you want to hear. It proves that you are unqualified to examine data of any kind and come up with a balanced conclusion.

The proof is in, now unequivocal and along with your refusal to have the courage of your convictions and live in a cold damp cave somewhere (and that's hyperbole BTW to make a point), it proves you are also a hypocrite of the highest, most obnoxious, most pompous and most repugnant order.

It is fitting that that sociopathic quack James Hansen is your idol.

With your predilection with sticking things in ears, I advise you kindly stick that in your ear and desist from the mendacious misrepresentation that folks are 'deniers' because you don't like what they have to say.

Well said, Wayne...

And let me repeat your last sentence to make sure Basilio gets the message and stops his childish name calling:

If Basilio thinks we are some sort of criminals because we choose to look at things more rationally than himself, he is completely delusional, imo.

Although, I have my suspicions that those who push AGW with so much fervour are possibly being driven by money. There is big money in AGW - just look at how much Al Gore has made.

I suspect many fervent AGWers have investments or are positioned to make big money IF carbon tax gets up and running in this country. It seems they seem to care less about the economical health of this country.

If so, shame on them.

Lets clarify a few points folks.

I don't own the global warming evidence. I never made the countless observations, did the intricate analysis, go through all the possible theories and attempt to understand what is happening to the climate and what might be the cause.

All that work is done by thousands of scientists in many fields. They have built a body of observation supported by clear evidence that

1) The world is warming at a rate unprecedented in geological history
2) The cause of this this warming , in this particular circumstance, is the rapid increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century. This increase is almost entirely human produced.

Your argument folks is not with me - it's with the scientists that have done all the spade work, with the physical reality of how greenhouse gases trap heat and with the observed effects of this fact.

The body of evidence supporting points 1 and 2 is now completely overwhelming. I often use the skeptical science website as a reference point because it is extremely effective at pulling together the thousands of papers and identifying how each one adds to the body of knowledge we have.

It is also excellent at unpicking the mistaken and sometimes completely fraudulent representations of commentators who attempt to muddy the waters on what is happening to our climate.

This current flurry of discussion comes after a number of new research papers and extreme weather events have sharpened the evidence on what is happening to our environment. The invitation Knobby and I made was to read the evidence and come up with an alternative explanation beyond simple denial.

With regard to the "sociopathic quack James Hansen". He is a scientist who started his research into climate science over 30 years ago and has built a body of knowledge probably second to none in the scientific world. As indicated earlier you can find his earliest research in 1981 and 1984 predicted how temperatures would rise and why.

Along with Dr Hansen there are hundreds of scientists whose research depends understanding of our world. Are they all quacks too because they agree that the world is warming and/or that greenhouses gases are currently the major contributor?

The ducks are all lined up folks and quacking loudly. But it seems the only quacks you hear are the amplified noise of fossil fuel lobbies.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

A review of a paper Dr Hansen wrote in 1981 on global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Scientific-Guide-to-Global-Warming-Skepticism.html

This pulls together all the basic evidence on global warming science from the impact of CO2 to the many indicators that the world is warming rapidly.

basilio said:

Lets clarify a few points folks.

I don't own the global warming evidence. I never made the countless observations, did the intricate analysis, go through all the possible theories and attempt to understand what is happening to the climate and what might be the cause.

All that work is done by thousands of scientists in many fields. They have built a body of observation supported by clear evidence that

1) The world is warming at a rate unprecedented in geological history
2) The cause of this this warming , in this particular circumstance, is the rapid increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century. This increase is almost entirely human produced.

Click to expand...

Are you admitting your incompetent? You have always asserted "thousands of scientists" yet only reference those that support AGW - in your biased belief system there are none that don't support AGW or you are incompetent, which is it?

Now This Is Interesting: A Climate Prediction From 1981
By James Fallows

Apr 10 2012, 7:33 AM ET

It is very much worth checking out an item on Real Climate, from two Dutch scientists. They have found a paper by James Hansen and others from 1981, before climate change was even an occasion for political disagreement.

Hansen is now famous in the world of climate studies, and infamous to the world of the right wing, but back then he was a 40-year-old researcher who came up with a projection of how rising CO2 levels might affect global temperatures. Science lives for the "falsifiable hypothesis" -- a claim that can be tested against the evidence -- and that is what the paper by Hansen and his colleagues offered up. Three decades later, his worst-case projections were matched against what has happened since then. You should read their full findings, but this gives you the idea:

HansenProjection.jpg

As the Dutch scientists say at the end of their Real Climate post:

To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%... It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The "global warming hypothesis" has been developed according to the principles of sound science.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...esting-a-climate-prediction-from-1981/255658/
________________________________________________________
Obviously this is a quote from another source. Worth the check to see why Dr Hansen is respected as a leader in climate science research

Yes Yes, Hansen and Flannery are elitist - we already know, their predictions are all true I can only summarize Basilio has perhaps lost it. The conduct demonstrated in this thread is ample enough to show why AGW alarmists/extremists are bias and are incompetent to truly research the topic and have a honest conversation as many here have asserted.

Basilio does your belief system allow you to look at some of the surveys on climate change/global warming/extreme weather that might provide some remote guidance to you on the general view in the world? A wake up call on how these approaches to educate us all on AGW are working?

Let's all lie back on the couch and continue, you were saying something about Hansen? Does he believe in aliens like Bob Brown?

Gary Ablett snr and Jnr are hack footballers. Pele was hugely overrated. WW2 was really just a hiccup in history.

Ozzie can please post up some piccies of the Pyramids when you get back home. (or wake up .)