Climate change is a global phenomenon

While people in Australia argue whether climate change is real or ‘crap’ one thing is certain: the climate of the planet is changing and all the arguing in the world will amount to zero. To those who argue it is crap, aka Tony Abbott, Lord Monckton, Andrew Bolt and Gina Rinehart, I’d ask on what do you base those claims?

Is a cool day in the middle of summer enough to convince you that the the planet isn’t warming? Is it your opposition to a ‘carbon tax’ that leads you to deny this global phenomena? Does it go against your political ideology? Is acceptance of it likely to cost your industry a few bucks?

Neither is valid. I prefer to take note of substantiated claims and I have come across one provided by NASA, which is reproduced below.

Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.

Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gasses produced by human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

According to the IPCC, the extent of climate change effects on individual regions will vary over time and with the ability of different societal and environmental systems to mitigate or adapt to change.

The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels will produce beneficial impacts in some regions and harmful ones in others. Net annual costs will increase over time as global temperatures increase.

“Taken as a whole,” the IPCC states, “the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.”

Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC:

  • North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them.
  • Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation.
  • Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe.
  • Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised.
  • Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions.

I don’t know about you, but I’m convinced.

The people like Tony Abbott, Lord Monckton, Andrew Bolt and Gina Rinehart who are only filled with hot air, certainly don’t convince me.

This time series, based on satellite data, sho...

This time series, based on satellite data, shows the annual Arctic sea ice minimum since 1979. The September 2010 extent was the third lowest in the satellite record. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

286 comments on “Climate change is a global phenomenon

  1. THE earth’s land has warmed by 1.5 degrees Celsius in the past 250 years and “humans are almost entirely the cause”, according to a scientific study set up to address climate sceptic concerns about whether human-induced global warming is occurring.

    Richard Muller, a climate sceptic physicist who founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, said he was “surprised” by the findings. “We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds.”

    He said he considered himself a “converted sceptic” and his views had received a “total turnaround” in a short space of time.

    The irony is that the research was largely funded by the Kocks.

    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-results-convert-sceptic-let-the-evidence-change-our-minds-20120730-23769.html

  2. I was going to link to and post about that Col. Thanks.

    They have no comeback on this as it was a study funded by the biggest deniers on the planet and for the Heartland Institute, the most strident anti-AGW organisation on the planet.

    When their own organisation, which has a history of deceits and fobbing the facts, can no longer hide it then it’s time we moved on and real or not began to take real and serious measures just in case.

  3. Even if your highly selective `evidence’ and your doom-laden prophesies were accepted, how will vastly increasing the taxation of Australian taxpayers change such a situation. The tax is just to fill a hole in the budget created by the $10 Billion plus, it is costing to pamper illegal entrants to Australia and to use the ADF as a taxi service for them.

  4. Jarl, you really are a sad, close minded and delusional little person, arguing not on the basis of fact or reason, but because you cannot or will not accept any argument but your own.
    At least Richard Muller was prepared to accept the truth when he found it.
    Take note, and grow up!

  5. I am an “It’s a load of Crap” person. Gillard’s Carbon Dioxide Tax was a great start to make a pitiful attempt to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
    Climate Change (formerly called Global Warming) has increased in direct proportion to the number of graduates with “Climate” Degrees.
    Try some very dry reading at the links below..
    http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60202/IDO60202.2011.pdf

    http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/
    The link above shows CO2 has increased in the atmosphere 1 part in 20,000 in the last 35 years (not one part per year, one part in 35 years) and yet the site has shown a graph of 45%.For a non biased person the graph would be pretty much a horizontal line.
    CO2 is one of the most minute concentration in our atmosphere….. about 1 part in 3,000 parts.
    It is a scam.

  6. THIS IS NOT A HIGH TAXING GOVERNMENT.

    The opposite is true.

    Both the MRRT and price on carbon emission should be higher.

  7. Does Sunny Days verse like someone else we all know?

    Anyway ignorance of the science doesn’t make you right SD.

    You have opened by stating of the well discredited memes of the deniers, mainly the attack on climate scientists are falsifying data for their own gain, yet time and again it has been the deniers who have been found to be under the pay of vested interests and who have been falsifying data.

    And the old it’s only a minute part so cannot do anything. Again showing amazing ignorance of the science for just about everything.

    So SD are you saying that a minute part in anything cannot have an effect on the whole?

  8. Yes Cu. Howard was a higher taxing government and the State Liberal governments are turning out to be higher taxing than the governments they replaced.

    Also read the bit doing the rounds on WA’s plans for the GST and the States they are proposing to Abbott and he’s refusing to rule out.

  9. With about a month and a half remaining in the Arctic melt season, sea ice cover continues to decline at a rapid pace, and is currently on par with where the 2007 record melt season stood at the same time of year. Arctic sea ice extent has been declining at a rate of about 12 per cent per decade since the start of satellite measurements in 1979, and a new study suggests that natural climate variability explains some, but not the majority, of this trend. The study concludes that manmade global warming is the most plausible explanation for recent sea ice decline.

    http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/bracing-record-arctic-ice-melt?utm_source=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily

  10. Sunny Days is a classic example of typical denialist… he puts forth his argument with links that offer no evidence to support his arguments. The question is whether this is a symptom of his own ignorance or whether he blindly repeating cr@p that was previously produced by some ignoramus with vest interests…. Here is a question for you Sunny, how many more parts Carbon in the atmosphere do we need before it will affect our very functioning as a human being? More importantly, how fast are we moving in that direction. It ain’t just about climate, its about us.

  11. Migs

    Sunny Days, scams usually involve a reason. What would be the reason behind a climate change “scam”?

    Its all about the research dollars and social engineering, Just look at what Gillard is spending the Carbon tax money on for example. Further just look at how much money is spent of Climate research. Its a huge industry that produces surprisingly little by way of tangible results.

    Mainly though your piece fails to make its case because you don’t seem to understand that its not the warming that is in question from AGW sceptics its the extent to which that warming can be attributed to human activity.

    It would probably be a good idea if you learnt just a bit about the scientific method as well because I see no evidence at all that you understand it in your essay here.

  12. I can’t help but notice how all the Denialist, Fiberal Party Trolls (like Jarl) are happy to label Global Warming a “scam”, but are never prepared to subject the “doom-laden prophecies” of their High Priests (like Abbott, Aliar Jones & Bolt) to any kind of rational scrutiny. If they did so, they’d see that the “we’ll all be rooned by a carbon price” mantra is thoroughly disproved by the dozens of legislatures (city, State/Province & National) that have successfully implemented such a price without any economic harm at all! Crawl back to Menzies House, you ignorant little dupes!

  13. SD, the first part of your statement was absolutely right.
    You are “A load of crap” person.
    The rest was complete rubbish.
    You and your ilk would have been happy to quote Richard Muller, and claim that his scientific credentials made him credible as a sceptic, but now that he has
    discovered the truth, he has suddenly lost that same, claimed, cred.
    You can’t have it both ways, but then the truth doesn’t rank highly in any of your arguments on, I would suggest, most if not all subjects.

  14. @ Skeptical. Give it another week, & Muller is going to be suffering from the worst kind of ad hominems & death-threats-because that’s really all the Denialist Cult have at their disposal.

  15. Iain and

    Sunny Days, scams usually involve a reason. What would be the reason behind a climate change “scam”?

    That was actually me this time. 😉

    Absolute rubbish. A PhD scholarship amounts to around $300pw..and I know because youngest at UQ (molecular bioscience) has been on one for around 3 years.

    Every year the faculties have to go cap in hand to industry, never being certain whether there will be sufficient funding to complete their half completed research.

    Tangible is that UQ and the UniSA are working in conjunction with the Germans and the Chinese in joint research projects. Believe me, the Chinese aren’t involved in this just for the fun of it…

  16. Yes, CU. Howard was very good at splashing money around on very expensive & inefficient Middle Class Welfare schemes, but his disciples are quick to bitch & moan about spending on genuinely *useful* things!

  17. @ Min-it’s also not like PhD scholarships are *only* handed out to people studying climate change. Also, the Theory of global warming has been around for more than 100 years-were scientists from the 19th century also involved in the so-called “scam”? If you want a real scam, try the roughly $4000 per month stipend that noted “skeptic”, Bob Carter, receives from the Heartland Institute. Bet that won’t stop people like “Sunny” from idolizing him ;-).

  18. Its (sic) all about the research dollars and social engineering … Its (sic) a huge industry that produces surprisingly little by way of tangible results

    Yep! Maggie Thatcher was a well known ‘social engineer’.

    As for:

    if you learnt just a bit about the scientific method as well

    Hilarious.

  19. M E
    The points that I raise are actaully the crux of the issue and one does not need to be a priest* of the Green religion to understand that.

    *Climate scientist

  20. Are the raising of climate science as religion. The longer this thread goes the more the standard memes by the opponents will be trotted out.

    Nothing new, nothing of scientific fact or anything adding to the discussion, just the usual deny by numbers list.

  21. Iain, I’m sure you can find evidence for that all by yourself. There’s plenty of it around.

    Have you tried looking? 😯

  22. Möbius Ecko @ 2:41 pm

    Oh shit, spare me. You are pulling my leg certainly?

    Not in the least, The fundamental basis of the AGW theory requires proof of human agency in the perceived changes to the climate. As yet no one has managed to do this if you are so sure then you must be able to perform this miracle of the age or you will have to admit that you are relying on pure faith in what the priesthood tells you.

    Migs
    Have you even looked?

  23. No Iain you as usual are going arse about tit, thus the spare me.

    It is the opponents who rely on pure faith and belief in discredited science and indeed unscientific proposals put forward by vested interests or by parties paid by those vested interests, yet in typical right wing projection they throw that back at the science proponents.

    Why is this almost exclusively couched along ideological lines?
    Why do they go against so much scientific evidence in this one case, yet accept things in their everyday lives with as much or less scientific consensus?
    Why is it those vested interests who couch it as religion and all the other meme by numbers over and again, using almost the same muddy the water tactics as the tobacco lobby did, including the faith based meme?
    Why is it they don’t argue on the science, at a science to science level, but conduct their attacks using well paid PR speakers with little or no expertise in the area?
    Why is it when there own study finds man made influence in global warming they immediately bury it?

    …and so many other whys that always get the same runaround answers back, all done to the same script and of course always with the religion meme thrown in for good measure.

    Spare me again.

  24. iain, like all its troll relatives demonstrates the ultimate failure of their “mission” in their clueless advocacy of long discounted denialist memes – reality always intrudes into their fantasies – if they actually were sceptical, as opposed to gullible, they would acknowledge the reality and serious consequences of agw which is accepted by virtually all who are actually cognisant of the enormous breadth (and) depth of the evidence for both the “gw” and “a” components of the threat and its reality.

    the evidence for the “gw” comes from many disciplines, not just climatology, and is based upon observed and measured phenomena. the “a” is determined by using the relative frequency of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, which clearly demonstrate that CO2 increase over and above that which might be expected from natural increase originates from fossilised carbon sources we(humanity) are the only species making significant use of such fuels.

    what they don’t recognise is that their demonstrated gullibility and dishonesty on this issue fatally affects their credibility and discounts as worthless any position they take, regardless of the issue.

  25. …have done a lot of reading and thinking on the topic.

    So we have another el gordo. Double spare me!

  26. Well Migs its all about the quality of the temperature data.
    At present we can assemble some pretty good measurements of global temperatures but go back say 50 years and the data is far more sketchy, go back one hundred years and there are lots of places for which we have no substantive data Go back 1000 years or more and we are relying only on proxy sources of temperature. Do you really think that we can make accurate valid comparisons on that range of data?

  27. troll

    actually there is a decided lack of anything resembling evidence of humanity’s culpability for the perceived warming. Even though the true believers in the AGW theory constantly assert that its man’s fault that does not constitute actual evidence that they are correct.

    this statement is a flat out lie

  28. @ 3:17 pm

    Please, you have to be kidding.

    Don’t pretend you’re a scientist and understand it all, because you like the rest of us have only the smallest fraction of a clue.

    What you are really saying is that you know more than all these scientists who are experts in the field, who have studied the records for decades now, have gathered huge amounts of empirical data. You have looked at all this data, spent years writing papers and studies on it and found that it’s bull, all from the luxury of sitting behind your computer.

  29. Iain is busy at the moment.

    He’s off gathering overwhelming, undisputed scientific evidence that humans don’t contribute to global warming, which isn’t even occurring anyway.

  30. As I have said before as soon as the facts are given the trolls disappear, lain you still haven’t answered the questions from the other day. Climate change is here and the Labor party are doing something about it.

  31. they’re so bloody boring, haven’t yet come up with any original arguments, let alone science to support their denialist memes.

    ignorance as ideology – doesn’t look like a winner to me 😆

  32. But Abbott is also proposing to do something about it and in the past advocated exactly what Gillard is currently doing.

    Only thing is Abbott’s current doing something is going to cost every household and business more than the government’s carbon price but Abbott’s scheme doesn’t compensate anyone, yet it hands over hundreds of millions to the polluters with no obligation not to pollute, and all on principals that are either unproven or economically unsound using money that is unfunded.

  33. Möbius Ecko @ 3:10 pm

    It is the opponents who rely on pure faith and belief in discredited science and indeed unscientific proposals put forward by vested interests or by parties paid by those vested interests, yet in typical right wing projection they throw that back at the science proponents.

    No Möbius I am going to first principles of science and the scientific method if you don’t understand that then you are the one arguing form a faith position.

    Why is this almost exclusively couched along ideological lines?
    Why do they go against so much scientific evidence in this one case, yet accept things in their everyday lives with as much or less scientific consensus?

    Well if you believe that then you will be able to enunciate and explain what you perceive the evidence for human culpability actaully is.

    Why is it those vested interests who couch it as religion and all the other meme by numbers over and again, using almost the same muddy the water tactics as the tobacco lobby did, including the faith based meme?

    I suggest that your belief in AGW is faith based because of the religiosity of your arguments

    Why is it they don’t argue on the science, at a science to science level, but conduct their attacks using well paid PR speakers with little or no expertise in the area?

    Well I’m still waiting for you to use anything resembling science in your argument because all that you have this far provided is deference to “climate scientists” and conspiracy theory about evil “vested interests”

    Why is it when there own study finds man made influence in global warming they immediately bury it?

    I have never doubted that man has an influence in global warming , however quantifying that influence is where the problem with AGW theory exists.

    pterosaur1@ 3:10 pm

    Iain, like all its troll relatives demonstrates the ultimate failure of their “mission” in their clueless advocacy of long discounted denialist memes – reality always intrudes into their fantasies – if they actually were sceptical, as opposed to gullible, they would acknowledge the reality and serious consequences of agw which is accepted by virtually all who are actually cognisant of the enormous breadth (and) depth of the evidence for both the “gw” and “a” components of the threat and its reality.

    So your argument boils down to “trust the men in white coats” doesn’t it? I suspect that you don’t even understand the basic principles of science

    the evidence for the “gw” comes from many disciplines, not just climatology, and is based upon observed and measured phenomena. the “a” is determined by using the relative frequency of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, which clearly demonstrate that CO2 increase over and above that which might be expected from natural increase originates from fossilised carbon sources we(humanity) are the only species making significant use of such fuels.

    Do you know anything about paleo climatology? or the margin for error in temperature proxies?

    what they don’t recognise is that their demonstrated gullibility and dishonesty on this issue fatally affects their credibility and discounts as worthless any position they take, regardless of the issue.

    😆

    the gullible ones are those like themselves who swallow, without question, the milinarian prediction of teh Likes of Al Gore and Tim Flannery.

    pterosaur1 @ 3:18 pm

    troll

    actually there is a decided lack of anything resembling evidence of humanity’s culpability for the perceived warming. Even though the true believers in the AGW theory constantly assert that its man’s fault that does not constitute actual evidence that they are correct.

    this statement is a flat out lie

    Mate, there is no need to go the ad Hom especially when I have given you no reason to do so

    pterosaur1@ 3:24 pm

    for those who are not merely trolling, here’s a link to the demolition of the DK ignorance evidenced by Iain.

    Really is that the best taht you can do? a rather tacky list of “pat” answers for anyone that questions the AGW liturgy 🙄

  34. Möbius Ecko

    Well if you are expecting me to endorse the Coalition scheme here you will be disappointed, In fact I hope they they drop the whole thing once they get into power .

  35. lain I put the question to you “Do you know anything about paleo climatology? or the margin for error in temperature proxies?” please answer???

  36. paulwello
    How precisely is the Labor party “Labor party are doing something about it.”? Surely you don’t believe that the carbon Tax will make a difference now do you?

  37. I do actually believe a Price on Carbon will work, and other countries are doing the same or are in the process of implementing a price on carbon, Investing in new technologies, Solar, wind, wave, What is the coalition going to do about it, considering the majority of the party deny climate change.

  38. troll

    Mate, there is no need to go the ad Hom

    nothing ad hom in pointing out a lie.

    got anything? i’ve plenty more refs. – you don’t.

    and i trust “the men in white coats” a lot more than any idiot who supposes their opinion bears the same weight as those who have devoted their lives to determining the nature and mechanisms of reality.

    So your argument boils down to “trust the men in white coats” doesn’t it? I suspect that you don’t even understand the basic principles of science

    personally, i’d be pretty sure that i understand the nature and reality of scientific endeavour better than you are willing to.

    and irrelevant though it may be, unless you have a couple of phd.’s under your belt, i’m more qualified to talk about “science” than you, according to your criterion.
    😎

  39. Miglo, you are wasting your time. If Iain says so, it must be true.

    It means nothing that a few hundred just met for many days at Cairns wasting their time talking about what has occurred.

    Remember there are still those who believe that the man on the moon was a hoax.

    The sceptics have no problem and as the evidence becomes a reality are able to move on. It is the deniers that have problems.

    Now, if one accepts the evidence, that Gillard price on carbon emission is cited by the experts as the way to go.

    If the deniers are correct, at least we have moved onto renewal energy and will no longer have to rely on the rest of the world for oil. Fossil fuel which one day will run out anyway.

    It those who believe in man made climate change prove to be correct, we are out ahead of the field in moving from fossil fuels.

    I find it a win win situation.

  40. paulwello @ 4:24 pm

    I do actually believe a Price on Carbon will work, and other countries are doing the same or are in the process of implementing a price on carbon, Investing in new technologies, Solar, wind, wave, What is the coalition going to do about it, considering the majority of the party deny climate change.

    well where has it actually worked? Europe? New Zealand? Where precisely?


    pterosaur @ 4:47 pm

    troll

    Mate, there is no need to go the ad Hom

    nothing ad hom in pointing out a lie.

    As my statement was not a Lie there is 😉

    got anything? i’ve plenty more refs. – you don’t.

    🙄
    You can’t even make a cogent case without the use of ad hominem arguments

    and I trust “the men in white coats” a lot more than any idiot who supposes their opinion bears the same weight as those who have devoted their lives to determining the nature and mechanisms of reality.

    No matter ho much time is spent studying “the nature and mechanisms of reality” if they go into it with a false millenarian assumption what do you think the chances of them producing a valid understanding are?


    So your argument boils down to “trust the men in white coats” doesn’t it? I suspect that you don’t even understand the basic principles of science

    personally, i’d be pretty sure that i understand the nature and reality of scientific endeavour better than you are willing to.

    You may be sure but your task is to convince others and you have so far failed to do so.

    and irrelevant though it may be, unless you have a couple of phd.’s under your belt, i’m more qualified to talk about “science” than you, according to your criterion. 😎

    Not another anonymous PHD claimant! 🙄 heaven in a hand-basket what is it about people who try to make arguments from their own authority?

  41. Great post Miglo. I am a climate change believer; the evidence is already showing through tragedies like Katrina and (closer to home) Black Saturday. The strange thing for me is that I would be happy to listen to an alternative to the carbon tax if the Coalition were to propose one (an ETS for instance). But the only climate change action they are proposing is a repeal of the carbon tax… That would be a step backwards I’m afraid.

  42. lain this list should get you started, If a price on carton is not working, why then are these counties implementing one.

    CARBON TAXES AROUND THE WORLD

    CHINA (state-based action)

    China is planning a carbon tax on big energy consumers by 2015, and it’s likely the cost of each tonne of CO2 will be $US1.55. Some states have already introduced a carbon tax.

    UNITED STATES (state-based action)

    There is no nationwide carbon tax levelled in the USA, although a few states have introduced the tax. Colorado passed a carbon tax in November 2006. California has a carbon tax of 4.4 cents per tonne of CO2. In Maryland, a tonne of CO2 is worth $5 from a source emitting more than a million tonnes of carbon dioxide during that year.

    CANADA (province-based action)

    Canada does not have a federal carbon tax, but some Canadian provinces do have carbon taxes. The provinces of Quebec and Alberta introduced a carbon tax in 2007. British Columbia introduced a tax of $10 per tonne of CO2 in July 2010.

    INDIA (tax on coal)

    In July 2010, India introduced a nationwide carbon tax of 50 rupees per tonne ($1.07) of coal both produced and imported to India.

    SOUTH KOREA introduced a national carbon tax in 2008.

    JAPAN currently does not have a carbon tax but it’s planning to implement one.

    EUROPE (national-based action)

    A carbon tax was proposed by the European Commission in 2010, but a carbon tax has not been agreed upon by the 27 member states. The current proposal by the European Commission would charge firms between 4 and 30 euros per metric tonne of CO2.

    The European Union enacted an emissions trading scheme in 2005 which places a cap on the amount of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide that can be emitted by big polluters. It operates in the 27 EU member states as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Their current target is a 21 per cent cut of 2005 emissions by 2025 (Australia’s is a 5% cut of 2000 emissions by 2020).

    Several European countries have enacted a carbon tax. They include: Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK.

    FINLAND

    Finland introduced the world’s first carbon tax in 1990, initially with exemptions for specific sectors. Manly changes were later introduced, such as a border tax on imported electricity. Natural gas has a reduced tax rate, while peat was exempted between 2005 and 2010. In 2010, Finland’s price on carbon was €20 per tonne of CO2.

    THE NETHERLANDS

    The Netherlands introduced a carbon tax in 1990, which was then replaced by a tax on fuels. In 2007, it introduced a carbon-based tax on packaging, to encourage recycling.

    SWEDEN

    In 1991, Sweden enacted a tax on the use of coal, oil, natural gas, petrol and aviation fuel used in domestic travel. The tax was 0.25 SEK/kg ($US100 per tonne of C02) and was later raised to $US150. With Sweden raising prices on fossil fuels since enacting the carbon tax, it cut its carbon pollution by 9 per cent between 1990 and 2006.

    NORWAY

    In 1991, Norway introduced a tax on carbon. However its carbon emissions increased by 43 per cent per capita between 1991 and 2008.

    DENMARK

    Since 2002, Denmark has had a carbon tax of 100 DKK per metric ton of CO2, equivalent to approximately 13 Euros or 18 US dollars. Denmark’s carbon tax applies to all energy users, but industrial companies are taxed differently depending on the process the energy is used for, and whether or not the company has entered into a voluntary agreement to apply energy efficiency measures.

    SWITZERLAND

    A carbon incentive tax was introduced in Switzerland in 2008. It includes all fossil fuels, unless they are used for energy. Swiss companies can be exempt from the tax if they participate in the country’s emissions trading system. The tax amounts to CHF 36 per metric tonne CO2.

    UK

    In 1993, the UK government introduced a tax on retail petroleum products, to reduce emissions in the transport sector. The UK’s Climate Change Levy was introduced in 2001.

    IRELAND

    A tax on oil and gas came into effect in 2010. It was estimated to add around €43 to filling a 1000 litre oil tank and €41 to the average annual gas bill.

    COSTA RICA

    In 1997, Costa Rica enacted a tax on carbon pollution, set at 3.5 per cent of the market value of fossil fuels. The revenue raised from this goes into a national forest fund which pays indigenous communities for protecting the forests around them.

  43. Energy admission: wind, solar to be cheapest by 2030

    What pricing carbon is doing for the world.

    “In fact I hope they they drop the whole thing once they get into power.”

    Fucking hypocrite. This gets me so angry you would not believe it. Here they are shouting Juliar and at every turn calling Gillard a liar on a specious argument, yet knowing full well that Abbott will not only NOT bring in a carbon reduction scheme but won’t keep most of his other brain farting promises either, yet these hypocrites are perfectly OK with that double standard and are already rehearsing their excuses of blaming Labor for Abbott having to back flip.

    Fucking hypocrites.

  44. Why bother debating with deniers. Time will quickly prove them wrong.

    The one thing that all have to remember is that nothing can cool the already raised temperatures. We can only prevent more warming.

    It will take hundreds of years to turn about the damage already done.

    There is no second chances in this game.

  45. What concerns me is the damage and cost that will occur if Mr. Abbott’s attempts to turn back the clock. I personally cannot see business allowing him to.

    Sixty percent or more still believe something needs to be done.

    What appears to be happening is many of the public have disconnected the GEF from addressing carbon emissions that they support.

    When the penny drops, that this is what they PM has done, more will come on board.

  46. I have a mental picture of lain, straggly red beard, hunched over with his knuckles dragging along the round, damn I have friends in the liberal party that look like that.

  47. Time has already proven them wrong but they continue to muddy the waters and because of that delay much needed action. The deniers have put us behind more than a decade and will keep doing so until the inevitable hits.

    What irks me is that when the shit does hit the fan they will be the ones screaming the loudest against progressive governments and scientists for not doing enough and they will be the ones demanding government handouts in compensation for the hardship caused by the climate being screwed.

    Make no mistake, the reason the deniers are almost exclusively conservative is because of greed. They see the results of the climate science as something that will eat into their wallets and purses so will deny their mothers if it means they get to keep a dollar here or there. Idiots don’t look at the cost of climate change that is already hitting their pockets, and no I don’t mean carbon taxes, but things like insurance premium increases, stricter building codes, rates increases for coastal suburbs and areas and it goes on.

  48. I forgot to add, any builder knows that if they have to demolish the existing building, it is a expensive operation.

    What worries me the most, this is all Abbott is offering. Nothing about building for the future. He seems to be taking us back to the past, and far back at that.

    Wayne Swan is now on ABC 24.

  49. Is that not what the Liberal party is about, a do nothing party, just put money in the bank for a rainy day. The only infrastructure that I can recall the Howard Govt. did was the inland railway.

  50. The railway to nowhere, that no one wanted. Now one between the eastern states might have been worthwhile. Maybe one form Mt. Isa to the west.

  51. A high speed train along the eastern coast and one from Perth to Melbourne, Adelaide to Darwin, can anyone think of anywhere else.

  52. Sydney to Brisbane is a must. At the moment the train stops at Casino in northern NSW and the train south from Brisbane stops at Varsity Lakes. That’s a gap of 145kms.

  53. re Iain Hall who wants to go back to ‘first principles’ LOL.

    At present we can assemble some pretty good measurements of global temperatures but go back say 50 years and the data is far more sketchy, go back one hundred years and there are lots of places for which we have no substantive data

    Iain it seems to me you have used the collective noun ‘we’ rather losely. Presumably, you weren’t making global temperature measurements one hundred years ago but perhaps you were making such measurements 50 years ago. But I suspect not.

    To cut to the chase, your use of ‘we’ is simply wrong. (And arrogant) You haven’t made any such measurements personally. You’ve relied on data generated by ‘scientists’ past and present. Perhaps they were only doing it for the rewards way back then. LOL.

    You seem to accept ‘science’ whem it suits you but are in denial when it doesn’t suit your a priori position.

  54. “At present we can assemble some pretty good measurements of global temperatures but go back say 50 years and the data is far more sketchy, go back one hundred years and there are lots of places for which we have no substantive data”

    Not true. There are ways of indicating temperatures that have occurred for hundreds of years.

  55. the evidence is already showing

    The most recent is the drought in America, which is devestating Grain crops, and affecting prices over here as well.

    Just a small taste of thing to come perhaps?

  56. We don’t need to look beyond our own back door for evidence of drought affecting grain crops. WA farmers are increasingly despairing after almost a decade of drought and near drought conditions. And were it not for the willingness of Labor state governments to listen to climate scientists Perth metropolitan area would not have not one but now two desalination plants meeting most of its water needs

  57. Patricia, it’s hard to argue against it when it’s happening in your back yard. But still they argue. Still they deny. 🙄

  58. I noticed that too. The editor can’t spell!

    It’s in that bag of words like data and criteria.

  59. paulwello and Cu.

    To give due where it’s due there is one decent major infrastructure program Howard did implement apart from the Adelaide-Alice Springs to not quite Darwin railway, and that was the improvement to East Coast rail system that saw many kilometres or track ripped up and replaced with concrete sleepers and seamless rails. He didn’t go far enough though and the Rudd government improved and expanded it.

    But yes for a government that raked in record revenue year on year, so much so that the Treasurer couldn’t keep count, they certainly were unbelievably miserly on infrastructure in 10½ years, and not only hardly building anything new and nothing of a nation building scale even though they were rolling in revenue, but they allowed existing infrastructure to crumble and barely kept important bits viable.

  60. Even with the war in Iraq Min Howard was giving away billions in middle to upper class welfare and barely spending a cent on the needs back in Australia.

  61. Well when one says that we have only temperatures records going back fifty years, tell us about there knowledge of science.

    They ignore or do not know of the records that are found in the rings of tree, or the evidence that is found in the layer or the earth,..

    As we know the dinosaur exists, we also know the plants that existed over times in each zones. We know that in certain eras forests existed where they no longer do. We know that there were ice ages.

    We know that in natural climate change where there is enough time. coral reefs move as the climate change.

    We also know, that as the industrial age became a reality, with it’s reliance on coal, the climate change sped up.

    I am surprised that even a six class kid would would know that we have evidence of temperatures throughout the centuries, that a educated man would not.

    We now know that the one putting up the proposition of not having records, did attend uni. We know he can use a mig welder, but that is a hobby. I wonder what did he study.

  62. Jarl, the taxation burden on the ordinary taxpayer is NOT increasing, it is decreasing. Acting as Liealot’s echo chamber doesn’t do you any credit.

    Iain, like all short sighted Liars Party barrackers you think that there should never be any research unless it involves big bucks for business.

    Don’t forget the flagpoles paulwello. That was a huge and very, very important investment by the Rodent government, far more important than all those stupid classrooms, libraries and school halls, for which he has been rightly hailed as a champion of flagpole rights. Wipes away a tear.

    ME @6.45pm, hear, hear!

  63. But yes for a government that raked in record revenue year on year, so much so that the Treasurer couldn’t keep count….

    I guess that explains the $10bn Tip lost down the back of the sofa, ME.

  64. If brain farting adds methane like cattle farting, then Abbott, Iain and Jarl should be paying the carbon price along with the other big 500 poluters.

  65. certainly the troll knows less of logic than its demonstirated (wilful) ignorance of the science behind agw.

    it also remains under the impression i might argue with it – i can’t be bothered with liars, or those who willingly overlook/dismiss evidence provided, who make vapid assertion as fact, claim “ad hom” when their lies are called, and attempt to argue from authority,while projecting their methods onto others.

    afaiac, pointing out outright lies, and the provision of links to the EVIDENCE (for any who may think the troll’s claims sound ”truthy”) refuting false assertions is as much as i can be bothered to do.

    long experience with trolls demonstrates the futility in treating them with courtesy, (unwarranted with those who attempt to promulgate lies upon entering a genuine discussion, imho) or in attempting argument or engagement with their refuted claims, as they ignore evidence, distort reality and fabricate propaganda in their cowardly refusals to engage in an intelligent manner with reality

    face it iain,you’e just another troll, maa…..te :lol::lol::lol:

  66. I always point out a simple experiment any denier(like lian Hall)can try..: When you go to bed, get your partner or friend(it always has more definite results with someone else) to duck under the blanket..when they do, hold the blanket down and give them a “Dutch Oven” and see how long they can tolerate human pollution in an enclosed (like our atmosphere) enviroment.
    I’ve never heard of on experimental failure.

  67. Hmmm, so should I believe the word of tens of thousands of scientists, over more than 150 years, who have gathered together an overwhelming body of evidence regarding the mechanisms by which humans are causing global warming-as well as the overwhelming observations of said warming taking place-or should I instead trust the words of an industry which stands to lose trillions of dollars if our global addiction to their poisonous product is broken? Well, if the examples of the Tobacco War & the Asbestos War are anything to go by, I know who I’ll place my bets with.

  68. Also, as Iaian is so determined to distrust the claims of the scientific community, I hope he’s consistent enough to refuse all the other things that science has given him-namely flight, medicine, cars etc etc. Indeed, as the same people who gave us AGW also gave us the theory of gravity, I hope Iain is prepared to jump off a building in order to show those pesky scientists that they’re not the boss of him ;-).

  69. Marcus, science also proved the world isn’t flat. And yes, there are still those who believe it is.

    My point? No matter what the evidence, there will always be those who continue to deny.

  70. I do wonder which part of the science Iain is finding so hard to understand. Is it the Geology-which tells us that coal is the remnants of 600 million year old trees, trees that grew in an atmosphere almost 10 times richer in CO2 than today (& which, in spite of a much cooler sun, was a good 6 degrees warmer than today)?

    Maybe its the chemistry he sucks at-which tells us that if you burn any CnHn molecule in oxygen, you get CO2 & O2 as byproducts.

    Maybe its the physics he sucks at-which tells us that the bonds between C & O molecules are extremely good at absorbing & re-emitting infrared radiation (as shown under laboratory conditions).

  71. paulwello August 1, 2012 @ 7:29 pm
    “A high speed train along the eastern coast and one from Perth to Melbourne, Adelaide to Darwin, can anyone think of anywhere else.’
    What about Broken Hill to Mt Isa then Mt Isa to Ghan Line, that would connect NSW, Qld and NT and open up large areas inbetween. 😀

  72. Hmmm, maybe its biology & oceanography he sucks at-the sciences which are observing such things as significant changes in plant flowering.times, animal migrations, ocean temperatures & ocean pH?
    Or maybe he has been so deluded by the High Priests of his Denialist Cult, that he refuses to accept these multiple lines of evidence for AGW, collected across a host of unrelated or partially related fields, because its easier to believe that they’re involved in a conspiracy (rather than the more plausible idea of a conspiracy between the various fossil fuel industry groups-not unlike the one which existed between the various tobacco companies-even down to using identical tactics!)

  73. I think you all should leave Iain alone….. I know I have 😀 …… take your *upyours* finger….. place it on the *scroll* reel/wheel… and …. leave Iain alone.. *scroll* … now what does *scroll* rhyme with again .. :mrgreen:
    Iain, how goods Abbott, ay, he’s the best because… { over to you Iain}… 😆 The letter Q is a long, long ways a way, Iain…… it’s afar ………………Q….. Iain 😀

  74. Pingback: CRIMINALIZE COAL? « DUCKPOND

  75. LOVO, with a train from Mt. Isa, to the west, would mean that coal; and other ores would not have to be carted out through the Barrier Reef.

  76. paulwello @ 6:10 pm

    lain this list should get you started, If a price on carton is not working, why then are these counties implementing one.

    Its all about politics Paul but the one thing that your list fails to do is demonstrate efficacy which was the central part of may question to you. For example just look at the current price in the European system @ about $6 per tonne the market is showing us what business thinks the whole rotten scheme is worth.

    Möbius Ecko @ 6:33 pm


    “In fact I hope they they drop the whole thing once they get into power.”

    Fucking hypocrite. This gets me so angry you would not believe it. Here they are shouting Juliar and at every turn calling Gillard a liar on a specious argument, yet knowing full well that Abbott will not only NOT bring in a carbon reduction scheme but won’t keep most of his other brain farting promises either, yet these hypocrites are perfectly OK with that double standard and are already rehearsing their excuses of blaming Labor for Abbott having to back flip.

    Look I fully expect that Abbott will be true to his word and introduce his scheme however as I think that it is only marginally better than Gillard’s (insofar as the actions proposed would have some benefits for our environment)I would have no trouble celebrating its demise and the saving of the expenditure to create it. There is no hypocrisy involved at all I am not a member or a spokesman for the Government I’m just an opinionated Aussie having my say.

    paulwello@ 6:41 pm

    I have a mental picture of lain, straggly red beard, hunched over with his knuckles dragging along the round, damn I have friends in the liberal party that look like that.

    The beard is going Grey and my knuckles definitely don’t reach the ground, what is more surprising though is that you have any friends at all let alone friends who are members of the liberal party. 😉

    Möbius Ecko @ 6:45 pm

    Time has already proven them wrong but they continue to muddy the waters and because of that delay much needed action. The deniers have put us behind more than a decade and will keep doing so until the inevitable hits.

    Really???? 😆 that would explain why fewer and fewer people are convinced bay the Likes of Al Gore and Tim Flannery these days then wouldn’t it?

    What irks me is that when the shit does hit the fan they will be the ones screaming the loudest against progressive governments and scientists for not doing enough and they will be the ones demanding government handouts in compensation for the hardship caused by the climate being screwed.

    Mate the world is not going to end and we do not face any sort of climate crisis. What we face is the empty predictions of a millenarian cult driven by misanthropy. As the climate changes, (something that it has always done BTW) humanity will have to adapt to those changes if and when they happen.

    Make no mistake, the reason the deniers are almost exclusively conservative is because of greed. They see the results of the climate science as something that will eat into their wallets and purses so will deny their mothers if it means they get to keep a dollar here or there. Idiots don’t look at the cost of climate change that is already hitting their pockets, and no I don’t mean carbon taxes, but things like insurance premium increases, stricter building codes, rates increases for coastal suburbs and areas and it goes on.

    No Greed has nothing at all to do with it. Those putting the AGW proposition have made some rather exaggerated claims and drawn bows that are far too long to be credible. Not once but many times and after more than a decade of hearing the “end is nigh” people are just unwilling to listen any more.

    Col @ 7:43 pm

    At present we can assemble some pretty good measurements of global temperatures but go back say 50 years and the data is far more sketchy, go back one hundred years and there are lots of places for which we have no substantive data

    Iain it seems to me you have used the collective noun ‘we’ rather losely. Presumably, you weren’t making global temperature measurements one hundred years ago but perhaps you were making such measurements 50 years ago. But I suspect not.

    My use of the pronoun is entirely correct because as a human being myself I am entitled to suggest that I am part of the process that has made record of the temperature where ever human beings have measured it.

    To cut to the chase, your use of ‘we’ is simply wrong. (And arrogant) You haven’t made any such measurements personally. You’ve relied on data generated by ‘scientists’ past and present. Perhaps they were only doing it for the rewards way back then. LOL.

    As you are attempting to be pedantic I feel that I should point out that those collecting temperature data are seldom scientists themselves quite often it was the local postman (or other lowly official ) who would maintain individual weather stations and recorded the data.

    You seem to accept ‘science’ when it suits you but are in denial when it doesn’t suit your a priori position.

    Mate you have trouble understanding the correct use of collective pronouns so don’t presume to tell me how well I accept science.
    Catching up@ 8:06 pm

    Not true. There are ways of indicating temperatures that have occurred for hundreds of years.

    My point is that all of the ways of determining temperature are not all as accurate and that the further back in time that we go the less accurate that they become. As the whole basis of the AGW theory relies on a claim that we are experiencing unprecedented warming the theory needs accurate data about what the climate was like in the past and they have to rely on data that is orders of magnitude less accurate than that which we have for the present day.

    Marcus @ 11:14 pm

    Also, as Iain is so determined to distrust the claims of the scientific community, I hope he’s consistent enough to refuse all the other things that science has given him-namely flight, medicine, cars etc etc. Indeed, as the same people who gave us AGW also gave us the theory of gravity, I hope Iain is prepared to jump off a building in order to show those pesky scientists that they’re not the boss of him 😉

    Why do you need to believe that disbelieving claims made in one aspect of science means that I don’t accept other elements of scientific knowledge?
    @ 11:24 pm

    I do wonder which part of the science Iain is finding so hard to understand. Is it the Geology-which tells us that coal is the remnants of 600 million year old trees, trees that grew in an atmosphere almost 10 times richer in CO2 than today (& which, in spite of a much cooler sun, was a good 6 degrees warmer than today)?

    How precisely do you know that the sun was cooler then?

    Maybe its the chemistry he sucks at-which tells us that if you burn any CnHn molecule in oxygen, you get CO2 & O2 as by products.

    Nup

    Maybe its the physics he sucks at-which tells us that the bonds between C & O molecules are extremely good at absorbing & re-emitting infrared radiation (as shown under laboratory conditions).

    And what is the sensitivity?
    @ 11:32 pm

    Hmmm, maybe its biology & oceanography he sucks at-the sciences which are observing such things as significant changes in plant flowering.times, animal migrations, ocean temperatures & ocean pH?

    Do you understand that observing change and discovering what is causing that change is actually the important thing?

    Or maybe he has been so deluded by the High Priests of his Denialist Cult, that he refuses to accept these multiple lines of evidence for AGW, collected across a host of unrelated or partially related fields, because its easier to believe that they’re involved in a conspiracy (rather than the more plausible idea of a conspiracy between the various fossil fuel industry groups-not unlike the one which existed between the various tobacco companies-even down to using identical tactics!)

    That you believe that there is a conspiracy “between the various fossil fuel industry groups” really demonstrates the religiosity of your argument. I bet that you are one of those AGW proponents who does not understand the scientific method either

  77. I’m just an opinionated Aussie having my say.

    The problem is your opinions are your facts.

  78. “You can always tell a denier,
    You can read their dopey touch,
    You can always tell those silly fools,
    But you cannot tell them much!”

  79. That you believe that there is a conspiracy “between the various fossil fuel industry groups” really demonstrates the religiosity of your argument.

    Was going to let his last post go but…

    It’s not a matter of belief on this, it’s fact and the links between the fossil fuel and other vested industries in paying scientists and PR speakers are easy to find. There’s a whole website breaking down the industries, lobby groups and right wing think tanks who actively derail the AGW debate and science.

    By the way the PR firm that was hired by Big Tobacco in their fight against the link to cancer of their product is one of the PR firms being used by the fossil fuel industries, and it’s using the same tactics as it did with Big Tobacco.

    On the other hand after many inquiries, some conducted by the opponents of AGW, no conspiracy has been found the other way. The constant attacks about being in it for the money and world control on the vast majority of climate scientists who are proponents, the IPCC and governments have all turned out to be baseless.

    I bet that you are one of those AGW proponents who does not understand the scientific method either.

    And the throwback of projection. Caught out, let’s just throw it back.

    This was the original reason for my “Spare me” remark, and still at it.

  80. I let it be known..Over on lian Hall’s blog I “contributed” a couple of comments…they were not taken in the spirit intended and Mr. Hall did a net-search and posted two photographs of a young lady he confidently asserted was yours truly…It is NOT me..but if anybody can recognise her and get in touch with the young lady, she may take umbrage at the slighting of her phiz and possibly litigate!
    Secondly, I’d like to remark that if that is the style of such right-wingers..ie; they like to dish it out but certainly can’t take it….it just goes to show how p*ss weak they really are.

  81. MJ, I believe one is allow to have their own opinions. Having their own facts is not on.

    If one does not agree, it proves nothing to brush things aside by saying it is not true. Saying something is not true, does no make is so.

    Jaycee, I visit most who link to this site. As for Iain’s, I have no desire.

  82. Iain, I would be surprised if anyone here shared your sense of humour. Then I could be wrong.

  83. It is a shame that one can take so much effort and write so much, that proves nothing.

    At least he appears to attract new writers who want to make comments. Miglo should be delighted with that fact.

    What he does not get, is much agreement.

  84. Möbius Ecko @ 8:40 am

    That you believe that there is a conspiracy “between the various fossil fuel industry groups” really demonstrates the religiosity of your argument.

    Was going to let his last post go but…

    It’s not a matter of belief on this, it’s fact and the links between the fossil fuel and other vested industries in paying scientists and PR speakers are easy to find. There’s a whole website breaking down the industries, lobby groups and right wing think tanks who actively derail the AGW debate and science.

    Its a very old and very tired smear M E. Have you ever considered just how much money is involved in propagating and supporting the AGW proposition? It dwarfs, by many orders of magnitude, the amount of money used to support those who are sceptical of the dire predictions produced by the Warministas.

    By the way the PR firm that was hired by Big Tobacco in their fight against the link to cancer of their product is one of the PR firms being used by the fossil fuel industries, and it’s using the same tactics as it did with Big Tobacco.

    🙄

    On the other hand after many inquiries, some conducted by the opponents of AGW, no conspiracy has been found the other way. The constant attacks about being in it for the money and world control on the vast majority of climate scientists who are proponents, the IPCC and governments have all turned out to be baseless.

    Really?

    I bet that you are one of those AGW proponents who does not understand the scientific method either.

    And the throwback of projection. Caught out, let’s just throw it back.

    Prove me wrong and I will recant


    jaycee @ 8:42 am

    I let it be known..Over on lian Hall’s blog I “contributed” a couple of comments…they were not taken in the spirit intended and Mr. Hall did a net-search and posted two photographs of a young lady he confidently asserted was yours truly…It is NOT me..but if anybody can recognise her and get in touch with the young lady, she may take umbrage at the slighting of her phiz and possibly litigate!
    Secondly, I’d like to remark that if that is the style of such right-wingers..ie; they like to dish it out but certainly can’t take it….it just goes to show how p*ss weak they really are.

    Don’t expect me to just smile and take it when you come to my blog and post three off topic and personally abusive comments.

    Catching up @ 8:50 am

    MJ, I believe one is allowd to have their own opinions. Having their own facts is not on.

    I am not claiming the latter at all

    If one does not agree, it proves nothing to brush things aside by saying it is not true. Saying something is not true, does no make is so.

    Did you understand what I was saying about temperature data?

    Jaycee, I visit most who link to this site. As for Iain’s, I have no desire.

    It saddens me to hear that as you would be most welcome

    Tom R @ 8:52 am

    Not when it comes to my kids future, NO!

    Well reconsider your support for the futile carbon tax because even a true beliver should be angry about the waste involved in a “climate ” initiative that does nothing for the climate

    Catching up @ 8:52 am

    Iain, I would be surprised if anyone here shared your sense of humour. Then I could be wrong.

    Oh I have a few people that get my sense of humour that there are few here worries me not 😉

    @ 9:00 am

    It is a shame that one can take so much effort and write so much, that proves nothing.

    It is the journey rather than the destination that is important to me

    At least he appears to attract new writers who want to make comments. Miglo should be delighted with that fact.

    🙂

    What he does not get, is much agreement.

    Ah but occasional agreement has a sweeter taste than agreement won easily

  85. Dealing with ideologues like Iain Hall is a huge waste of time but I just had to say something…and add to the comments count 🙂

    “As the whole basis of the AGW theory relies on a claim that we are experiencing
    unprecedented warming the theory needs accurate data about what the climate was like in the past and they have to rely on data that is orders of magnitude less
    accurate than that which we have for the present day.”

    Orders of magnitude ! Gosh !

    In a narrow sense you are quite correct Iain, but so what. In your eagerness to play gotcha you utterly miss the point.

    The possibility of AGW was canvassed long before any trend in temperatures was spotted (about the same time as Joule could read his thermometers to 3 decimal places), based on an understanding of the properties of atmospheric CO2.

    A trend is all the scientists need to observe, not an excessively precise temperature record, to establish an hypothesis. And, to most scientists, that trend is now backed up by a mix of proxies and actual observations, like it or not.

    To date I know of no piece of data that undermines the theory of AGW and to paraphrase Einstein, it will only take one fact to destroy the theory of AGW, not an opinion.

  86. Prove me wrong and I will recant

    Iain, a childish tactic of yours is to say things like “I bet you’re one of those…” or “I bet you’ve never run a business”…

    You usually lose the bet.

    I’m going to break a rule and say to you, I bet you can’t explain the greenhouse effect.

    I have never met a denier who had a grasp of the science.

    Prove me wrong.

  87. Jack
    you miss the point that those proposing a theory have an obligation to prove it,

    Further when it comes to “climate trends” you need more accurate data for a longer than is available and you need to prove the causal relationship with human activity because so far nothing produced does that. We have had satellite observations for what 40 years? an instrumental record that goes back at best a couple of hundred years? and then we have increasingly vague anecdotal evidence that go back to the invention of writing before that time we rely on proxies and they are less reliable again.
    Your so called trends are not outside the natural variability of our climate mate and that is the problem

  88. Migs, good post thanks. i’ve been following the story of agw since the late 60’s and sometimes take it for granted that everyone interested would know of resource sites like the sks site i linked to above with its point by point refutation of denialist claims glad you found it useful 🙂

    here’s another worthwhile site Climate Denial Crock

  89. What aspect of the Greenhouse effect do you wish me to explain Jack?

    Just to see if we are on the same page which GHG provides the majority of that effect?

  90. much as i despise engagement with trolls,particularly wrt their lies, i won’t let this pass :

    troll

    actually there is a decided lack of anything resembling evidence of humanity’s culpability for the perceived warming. Even though the true believers in the AGW theory constantly assert that its man’s fault that does not constitute actual evidence that they are correct.

    me

    this statement is a flat out lie

    troll

    my statement was not a Lie

    me

    EVIDENCE: http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm

    troll

    Prove me wrong and I will recant

    waiting……………………

  91. MJ

    A trend is all the scientists need to observe…..

    That’s it in a nutshell. The only thing that matters here is the trend and if the trend is one way or the other then to establish the cause.

    As the global trend is unmistakably up at an unprecedented rate outside of any historic catastrophic event, then the argument comes down to the cause for the upward trend. So far the man made cause of emissions into the atmosphere is the one theory that confirms just about every empirical and actual observation of what’s occurring.

    …it will only take one fact to destroy the theory of AGW, not an opinion.

    …and that’s a point I have made numerous times. It only takes one fact to destroy the entire AGW premise and put a lot of egg on many scientists, their hard worked papers and theories, the IPCC and most governments in the world.

    But to date after more than a decade though dozens of different posits have been put forward not one fact has come to light to discredit the AGW premise.

  92. Hi pterosaur, that link was one of those pesky little web sites that don’t allow us to link the WordPress way, hence my editing.

    I come across them now and again, but not too often.

  93. Jack
    you miss the point that those proposing a theory have an obligation to prove it,

    Further when it comes to “climate trends” you need more accurate data for a longer than is available and you need to prove the causal relationship with human activity because so far nothing produced does that. We have had satellite observations for what 40 years? an instrumental record that goes back at best a couple of hundred years? and then we have increasingly vague anecdotal evidence that go back to the invention of writing before that time we rely on proxies and they are less reliable again.
    Your so called trends are not outside the natural variability of our climate mate and that is the problem

    Iain, try this. Leave your mountain retreat and go into an industrial area of your capital city. Take a deep breath. Yuk.

    Have a look at the local environment. Yuk.

    Check out the smoke billowing into the atmosphere. Look at the oils and chemicals being soaked into the soil. Recognise the stench, the drudge and the pollution.

    Then say to yourself: “This can’t be good”.

  94. Iain, pterosaur recently suffered a life-threatening stroke and has been left partly immobilised. He was unable to even type for almost six months. I wouldn’t be too critical of a typo if I was you.

  95. Migs
    your response to my point about temperature data is no answer actually that said let me consider what you are suggesting:

    Iain, try this. Leave your mountain retreat and go into an industrial area of your capital city. Take a deep breath. Yuk.Check out the smoke billowing into the atmosphere. Look at the oils and chemicals being soaked into the soil. Recognise the stench, the drudge and the pollution.

    Then say to yourself: “This can’t be good”.

    I’ve done this many times what exactly do you find smells bad? the smell of freshly sawn timber? the Ozone of an electric welder? paint solvents are definitely not so nice but the environmental standards here are good. Do the same exercise in say China or India or any of the places that we are exporting our manufacturing to (more so under the Carbon tax) and you will find the horror show that you are imagining so you have to ask yourself which is better for the planet? Manufacturing here where we care about the environment or in Asia where they don’t give a toss?

  96. Migs

    Iain, pterosaur recently suffered a life-threatening stroke and has been left partly immobilised. He was unable to even type for almost six months. I wouldn’t be too critical of a typo if I was you.

    I am only human and when some one repeatedly calls me names then it is somewhat harder to be generous in return when they stuff up a link.
    That said I don’t accept the validity of the argument in your corrected link either.

    Anyway I have to go for a lay down and I will check back later

  97. MJ, your quote “In your eagerness to play gotcha you utterly miss the point.” hits the nail on the head.
    Iain’s stock in trade IS “Missing the point”.
    For someone who writes reams (of nothing), he shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the basic skills of English comprehension.
    Either he lacks those skills, or chooses to ignore them as a matter of personal expediency, because if he actually addressed the points made, he would be shown up for the hypocrite that he really is.
    Iain, don’t waste your time or mine by replying to this, as I have decided that my time is worth more to me than trying to have a decent open and honest discussion with a deaf, blind and stupid right wing troll who is only interested in bringing down the tone of any debate to the lowest common denominator,(in your case that of a pre-schooler).
    Or in other words, find the number of lifeline and tell someone who cares!

  98. I don’t know whether we’ve yet had the link for this one, but it came up the other day on the ABC.

    Ten of the most polluted places on the planet

    MORE THAN 100 million people worldwide are exposed to dangerous levels of toxic chemicals. These pollutants include radionuclides, industrial chemicals, pesticides and heavy metals, which may come from activities such as mining, industry, agriculture and weapons manufacture.

    http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/07/23/3549975.htm

  99. BTW when I say deaf, blind and stupid, this is no reference to the physical, but sadly something much worse……. personal choice!

  100. Sue, thanks for the link.
    I accidentally saw the press stop stunt, and there goes another two minutes that I will never get back. What a crock, And with your link I now know what products NOT to buy.
    Thanks again.

  101. “What aspect of the Greenhouse effect do you wish me to explain Jack?

    Just to see if we are on the same page which GHG provides the majority of that effect?”

    Iain, these questions from you tell me you haven’t got a clue.

    Anybody with a grasp of the basics could’ve answered my challenge in a couple of sentences.

    I think we’ve been here before.

  102. That said I don’t accept the validity of the argument in your corrected link either.

    QED 😆

    thanks for fixing the link Migs 😉

  103. Skeptical @ 11:04 am

    For someone who writes reams (of nothing), he shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the basic skills of English comprehension.

    utter rot

    Either he lacks those skills, or chooses to ignore them as a matter of personal expediency, because if he actually addressed the points made, he would be shown up for the hypocrite that he really is.

    Really? To what end?

    Iain, don’t waste your time or mine by replying to this, as I have decided that my time is worth more to me than trying to have a decent open and honest discussion with a deaf, blind and stupid right wing troll who is only interested in bringing down the tone of any debate to the lowest common denominator,(in your case that of a pre-schooler).
    Or in other words, find the number of lifeline and tell someone who cares!

    The sum total of your argument is just one big Ad hom !
    Miglo @ 11:06 am

    Yes, Iain, I do think you need to lay down for a while.

    Take two Panadol and go back to bed.

    Sadly Panodol does nothing for me mate.

    Min @ 11:13 am

    I don’t know whether we’ve yet had the link for this one, but it came up the other day on the ABC.

    Ten of the most polluted places on the planet

    Yep there are a lot of places with terrible environmental standards for their industry and under the Carbon tax you can expect more of our industry to be relocated to places like those in your citation

    Sue @ 11:14 am

    Todays business stunt supporting Tony Abbott’s anti carbon tax is Australian Country Choice an abbotoir in Qld, here are some of their product lines sold in Coles supermarkets

    I suggest that we all support our local butcher shop rather than buying meat at any supermarket, better product and far better service.

    Skeptical @ 11:17 am

    BTW when I say deaf, blind and stupid, this is no reference to the physical, but sadly something much worse……. personal choice!

    More Ad hom crap 🙄

    pterosaur1 @ 11:26 am

    don’t know why the link didn’t work ❓

    Maybe you need to find another source rather than that site because that is about the third time you have made citations to them.

    Mangrove Jack @ 11:37 am

    Iain, these questions from you tell me you haven’t got a clue.

    Anybody with a grasp of the basics could’ve answered my challenge in a couple of sentences.

    I think we’ve been here before.

    Of course you are right, I could have rattled off the basics in just one sentence but I chose instead to see how much you know yourself, Now play nice and answer my question and we can take it from there.

  104. paulwello, from your link above

    The short answer is that most non-science journalists (and editors!) simply don’t know much about the science of climate change or how solid it is. In this area in particular, they are classic low information thinkers, and so they make up their minds about what is newsworthy based upon short-cuts and heuristics.

    I don’t think it should be restricted jut non-science journalists (and editors!) either 😉

  105. I read somewhere that in America 90% of its climate scientists believe in climate change, yet something like 90% of its newspaper editors don’t. Guess whose message gets pushed?

  106. On the subject of journalism, some time ago and I think that we can just about pin point this to when Tony Abbott became LOTO there was a decided turnaround in the way issues were covered. It was of minimal standard previously, but became decidedly worse.

    Where once we had issues such as climate change covered in the thoughtful manner, at least least occasionally this has now been replaced by The Andrew Bolt Standard of Excellence. Bolt’s method is to present anything/everything as You are stupid if you don’t think the same way that I think.

  107. Skeptical @ 11.24

    I also let Coless know, that those products were off the shopping list. I have also asked Coles, as a major investor in Tamar Valley Dairy, if they agreed with the views of Abbott spoken with the owners of TVD yesterday, that increased refrigerant costs were due to the carbon tax. That is rather important as its a view in contravention of the ACCC.

  108. “… I could have rattled off the basics in just one sentence but I chose instead to see how much you know yourself”

    Piss weak Iain, even by your low standards.

    I think you’d need more than just one sentence to explain the significance of the Stefan-Boltzman law to your reader, assuming you wanted to do the subject justice, don’t you think ?

  109. Sue, hopefully you will receive some replies. I for one would be very interested to know if you do…plus hopefully something a little more substantial than a generic letter.

  110. The bottom line is the Libs will get in and the carbon dioxide tax will be history. So it looks like the Global Warming Doomsday Cult will not get their way…just like any minority religious nuts.

    I welcome a warming planet but it is not happening, I’m in the 550ppm camp and the more the better.

    I wonder if Howard or Abbott went down the CO2 tax avenue, the left would be screaming like banshees but that is to be expected.

    I see someone mentioned Muller, the old “I was lost but now am found” trick always sucks in the lazy that don’t do research. Muller has always been part of the GWDC but best to ignore the facts.

    The IPCC as a reference? Oh dear, best to ignore the research and book from a lefty investigative journalist from Canada that has exposed the workings of the IPCC.

    Keep the faith as that is all you’ve got. May the farce be with you…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

  111. The Trolls come in with there opinions but do not have the facts or links to sites to prove what they say. I think the joke is on them.

    I wonder if Howard or Abbott went down the CO2 tax avenue, as I recall the Liberals did go down that path, even for denialists they still had a plan to fight global warming.

  112. I was just thinking, but isn’t there something a little awry about public debate. On one hand we are told that the carbon price might cost a hundred or more jobs in one particular community. Shock, the price on carbon is going to devastate communities! But if it’s a Liberal state government such as Newman’s who wants to sack thousands of people, then we are told that the community is “grateful”.

  113. Here is the reply from the abbotoir , Australian Country Choice

    “Thanks for your view.

    My view is the carbon tax is not about sustainability- its about paying a tax instead of encouraging investment in more sustainable solutions.

    We do not think it is fair for customers to have to pay extra given the rising cost of living in the community.”

    David Foote
    Australian Country Choice Pty Ltd
    PO Box 478; Morningside Qld 4170
    Telephone: +61 7 39024141;
    Facsimile + 61 7 39024149
    Email: dfoote@accbeef.net.au
    Web : http://www.accbeef.net.au

  114. The reason I take the p*ss out on deniers, is not that I would deny them their right of opinion, but because their methodology and rational as to how they came to such a conclusion is cretinous…..their intellect is flawed to the point that they cannot reason correctly YET!…they have the right to vote and that vote, no matter how delusional will stand and it could be the vote that stands between reason to act on climate change and the destruction of our living standards and life itself.
    I make my case on the fact that if they were to do some simple investigation on the net to sites like the CSIRO. or the BOMeterology, even soil research data sites they will see that unusual events are taking place in the enviroment.
    I live in a marginal farming area, I have been seeding my small holding for a number of years along with my relative who has lived here all his life and four generations before him. These farmers around the area are real red-necks, racist, bigots xenephobic and parochially paranoid……in short, they don’t trust nobody nor nuthin’!
    They are shittin’ themselves because of the now eratic cropping conditions…..they have changed their methods, their machinery, their timing for seeding and now are sweating on some rain….You’ve read about Americas’ failed cropping year…well, they arent jumping with joy around these parts either….sure, some regions are doing good…they have a measure of saftey reserve with moisture..but in these marginal areas, any deflection from the “norm” is a worry….
    But any good gardener could give you a rundown in the strange cycling of varietal planting and harvesting these last twenty or so years….just listen to the gardening shows on theABC.
    So there…that is why I take the p*ss out on the deniers…they are either too lazy, too arrogant or just plain too stupid to see what is staring them in the face!
    So Scaper, lain….do us all a favour and go get a lobotomy..it’ll save you having to think at all!

  115. According to Iain, there can be no evidence. He has discounted all scientific endeavours not to be plausible. They do not attack the evidence but the whole scientific body, except for their 2 or 3%,.

    Everyone is wrong but them.

    Why bother to debate then. One cannot win within the rules that are set by trolls.

    He has come here to let the light in. All he brings is darkness.

  116. Sue, and encouraging investment in sustainable energies has worked so well in the past..see the Rainbow Power Company of Nimbin who have been up and running for a number of decades. Why aren’t they now a mega multi-national?

  117. I think the only evidence that Iain listens to are those of Alan Jones, Ray Hadley and the Murdoch media, where they get the info from are from Tony Abbott, Lord Monckton, Andrew Bolt and the liars website. As I keep saying when they have the facts put in front of them they still deny it and run away and hide.

  118. Iain, I might add that pterosaur has several science degrees and an intimate knowledge and understanding of climate science.

    Frankly, I’m far more prepared to believe he has a handle on the dangers of unchecked human pollution of the planet, despite his claims wrt huntsman spiders and sugar bowls. :mrgreen:

    Anyone who thinks the planet can keep absorbing pollution without consequences is a fool.

    Bolt’s method is to present anything/everything as You are stupid if you don’t think the same way that I think.

    Min, it seems as though there are a few commenting here who are ardent Dolt disciples. 😕

    Better start stocking up on food and water, scaper. A warmer planet with diminishing potable water and food sources. Sounds like paradise for bacteria.

    There’s research and then there’s research. Seems like all yours is from reading that paragon of scientific integrity “Lord” Monckton.

  119. Jane, I had a feeling that Pterosaur sounded extremely knowledgeable..well on all things, but on this subject in particular.

    Eldest has a degree in Marine Science (coastal) and youngest almost a PhD in molecular bioscience (biofuels)..given that I did science only to Year 8, I defer to people far more knowledgeable than ‘self.

    Just a small example, rising water = decimation of coastal mangroves which are baby fish nurseries = effect on one of the human species’ major supplies of fresh protein. That is something which everyone should be able to understand.

  120. paulwello

    The Trolls come in with there(sic) opinions but do not have the facts or links to sites to prove what they say. I think the joke is on them.

    You seem unable to grasp some fundamentals of science so don’t lecture anyone about our sources

    I wonder if Howard or Abbott went down the CO2 tax avenue, as I recall the Liberals did go down that path, even for denialists they still had a plan to fight global warming.

    This makes no sense
    Min @ 5:54 pm

    I was just thinking, but isn’t there something a little awry about public debate. On one hand we are told that the carbon price might cost a hundred or more jobs in one particular community. Shock, the price on carbon is going to devastate communities! But if it’s a Liberal state government such as Newman’s who wants to sack thousands of people, then we are told that the community is “grateful”.

    I’d rate that as a fair comment however most people count those who work at actaully making things as being more important than public servants especially when the previous Labor administration was rather prone to inefficiency
    Sue @ 5:54 pm

    Here is the reply from the abbotoir , Australian Country Choice

    “Thanks for your view.

    My view is the carbon tax is not about sustainability- its about paying a tax instead of encouraging investment in more sustainable solutions.

    We do not think it is fair for customers to have to pay extra given the rising cost of living in the community.”

    David Foote
    Australian Co

    Sounds a reasonable response to me Sue

    jaycee @ 6:03 pm

    The reason I take the p*ss out on deniers, is not that I would deny them their right of opinion, but because their methodology and rational(e) as to how they came to such a conclusion is cretinous….

    Your prose suggests that your reasoning is pretty sloppy when it comes down to it.

    their intellect is flawed to the point that they cannot reason correctly YET!…they have the right to vote and that vote, no matter how delusional will stand and it could be the vote that stands between reason to act on climate change and the destruction of our living standards and life itself.

    That sounds like you are advocating the suspension of democracy

    I make my case on the fact that if they were to do some simple investigation on the net to sites like the CSIRO. or the BOMeterology, even soil research data sites they will see that unusual events are taking place in the enviroment(sic).

    And your science background is what precisely because you comment demonstrates less understanding than my thirteen year old daughter has of sciene

    I live in a marginal farming area, I have been seeding my small holding for a number of years along with my relative who has lived here all his life and four generations before him. These farmers around the area are real red-necks, racist, bigots xenephobic and parochially paranoid……in short, they don’t trust nobody nor nuthin’!

    How long has it been “marginal” for as long as people have been farming there would be my guess.

    They are shittin’ themselves because of the now eratic cropping conditions…..they have changed their methods, their machinery, their timing for seeding and now are sweating on some rain….You’ve read about Americas’ failed cropping year…well, they arent jumping with joy around these parts either….sure, some regions are doing good…they have a measure of saftey reserve with moisture..but in these marginal areas, any deflection from the “norm” is a worry….

    So many words to express so much ignorance 🙄

    But any good gardener could give you a rundown in the strange cycling of varietal planting and harvesting these last twenty or so years….just listen to the gardening shows on theABC.

    A good gardener respects the local conditions and you have to do better than Gardening Australia which has gone down hill since Peter Cundal retired

    So there…that is why I take the p*ss out on the deniers…they are either too lazy, too arrogant or just plain too stupid to see what is staring them in the face!
    So Scaper, lain….do us all a favour and go get a lobotomy..it’ll save you having to think at all!

    I would say right back at you but clearly any removal of your cerebral cortex would render even a cabbage more cogent on this topic

    Catching up @ 6:07 pm

    According to Iain, there can be no evidence. He has discounted all scientific endeavours not to be plausible. They do not attack the evidence but the whole scientific body, except for their 2 or 3%,.

    Was what I said about temperature data too difficult for you to understand?

    Everyone is wrong but them.

    They are if they just reiterating the same ad hom responses

    Why bother to debate then. One cannot win within the rules that are set by trolls.

    He has come here to let the light in. All he brings is darkness.

    There are none so blind as those who will not see, sadly you too seem to have your eyes shut very tightly indeed.

    Min @ 6:13 pm

    Sue, and encouraging investment in sustainable energies has worked so well in the past..see the Rainbow Power Company of Nimbin who have been up and running for a number of decades. Why aren’t they now a mega multi-national?

    The trouble is that such things are neither as reliable or as inexpensive as that which the greenies want them to replace.

    paulwello @ 6:14 pm

    I think the only evidence that Iain listens to are those of Alan Jones, Ray Hadley and the Murdoch media, where they get the info from are from Tony Abbott, Lord Monckton, Andrew Bolt and the liars website. As I keep saying when they have the facts put in front of them they still deny it and run away and hide.

    I detest Alan Jones, never listened to Ray Hadley and while I admit to reading the Murdoch media I also read Fairfax the Guardian, The ABC and all sorts of other left of centre sources.

    jane @ 6:15 pm

    Iain, I might add that pterosaur has several science degrees and an intimate knowledge and understanding of climate science.

    I would love to believe you Jane but given the number of anonymous internet warriors who claim PHD’s I’ll take that claim under advisement.

    Frankly, I’m far more prepared to believe he has a handle on the dangers of unchecked human pollution of the planet, despite his claims wrt huntsman spiders and sugar bowls. :mrgreen:

    Well that is all very jolly for you but unless he cites both his name and his gongs why should I belive taht they are real?

    Anyone who thinks the planet can keep absorbing pollution without consequences is a fool.

    Agreed but what do you define as “pollution”?

    Bolt’s method is to present anything/everything as You are stupid if you don’t think the same way that I think.

    Sorry this makes very little sense

    Min, it seems as though there are a few commenting here who are ardent Dolt disciples. 😕

    🙄

    Better start stocking up on food and water, scaper. A warmer planet with diminishing potable water and food sources. Sounds like paradise for bacteria.

    Whay do you think that a warmer planet would have less fresh water?

    There’s research and then there’s research. Seems like all yours is from reading that paragon of scientific integrity “Lord” Monckton.

    At least Monckton can do his sums

  121. Iain and,

    I’d rate that as a fair comment however most people count those who work at actaully making things as being more important than public servants..

    Well most people who make things might find themselves in deep poo when services cannot be provided or substantially run down..that is when those people who make things can no longer start work at 6.30am because there is no longer a train..

    It could take months for employees at the Department of Transport and Main Roads to know whether they will be staying or going, minister Scott Emerson has conceded.

    Mr Emerson this morning announced nearly 2000 jobs would go from the department and related bodies as part of sweeping budget cuts.

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/two-thousand-jobs-to-go-in-transport-department-20120731-23bk7.html#ixzz22NZK6sAq

  122. Budget cuts founded on proven very shonky figures, nothing unusual for the lying Liberals there.

    Newman again speciously compared Queensland to Spain.

  123. Yeah I guess the recent report showing renewables will be cheaper than fossil in a few years and this:

    China Likely to Exceed 50GW Solar Target for 2020

    means they will never overtake non-renewables.

  124. why should i cite

    both his name and his gongs why

    to a liar who demonstrably knows nothing about the subjects in question, and is so out of its depth that its best “argument” against accepting proffered evidence is apparently a typo on my part ?

    the troll originally brought up the subject of “qualifications” being required in this discussion apparently in an attempt to devalue other’s inputs – and through ignorance demonstrated its fundamental lack of comprehension of the nature of science. it apparently cannot accept that reality is the opposite to its creed, so attempts to fit all interlocutors into its own warped version of unreality hoping to perhaps justify its attempted smears of reality based reasoning, and the inevitable challenges to its stunted pov.

    perhaps you missed the qualifier i made wrt qualifications

    and irrelevant though it may be,

    when you accused me of arguing from authority ? you certainly know how to miss a point 😆

    you don’t matter iain, and your contributions only serve to illustrate not only your intellectual failure, but also your dishonesty, and if i wished to advertise my locality and identity your (dis)belief remain completely irrelevant to me

  125. Pterosaur and your comment “your (dis)belief remain completely irrelevant to me”. This to me would be the appropriate course of action.

  126. “There are none so blind as those who will not see, sadly you too seem to have your eyes shut very tightly indeed.”

    To your rubbish, indeed.

  127. It’s a joke, right?!…This lain poster…I mean, I have only been here a couple of days, but don’t tell me you poor bastards have had to put up with such rubbish for ages?!!
    I don’t know about the others that were graced with such dopey foolishness, but the litany of buffoonery he tried to pass off as legitimate comment has to be the result of a lifetime of nefarious drug taking!…I can see I may have to revisit his blog site to grace it with more of my personal observations.
    I grant lain one error on my part..: I was mistaken in suggesting to HAVING a lobotomy!
    AND lain..watch your spelling..I noticed a couple of typos.

  128. Iain what does this mean?

    “The Trolls come in with there(sic) opinions but do not have the facts or links to sites to prove what they say. I think the joke is on them.

    You seem unable to grasp some fundamentals of science so don’t lecture anyone about our sources.”

    I have not seen your sources, so I am unable to comment on them.

  129. Intersting segment on biofuels on 7.30. Funnily, the NSW Minister was singing the praises of this potentially new industry, well probably not so funny because Manildra is one of the big backers of the project situated on the Shoalhaven river.
    (Too early for the link to be posted)

  130. Manildra. was not that Howard’s baby.

    Just heard a comment. We all know what Abbott is about. What is not as clear, what is he for.

  131. Pingback: What The World's Richest Woman Gina Rinehart Thinks About Climate Change

  132. Its whats under the bridge …… and just as I wrote that the x-files music started playing on the TV in the lounge room , ..now thats spooky 😆

  133. …the creek under El G bridge is full of ………. right-handed paddles ( and stroke) 2.,3….and turn…. and around they go…. *waves* at the skinny one :D…2.,3 and around they go… 2.,.3…..*waves* at the skinny one …… and etc…. 😀

  134. Min @ 7:25 pm

    Well most people who make things might find themselves in deep poo when services cannot be provided or substantially run down..that is when those people who make things can no longer start work at 6.30am because there is no longer a train..

    Most people who make things have as little contact with government instrumentalities as they possibly can and there is absolutely no reason to believe that Newman’s cuts will affect the frequency of public transport

    It could take months for employees at the Department of Transport and Main Roads to know whether they will be staying or going, minister Scott Emerson has conceded.

    Have you ever had to deal with this department? well I did when I built my car they certainly need a shake up!

    Mr Emerson this morning announced nearly 2000 jobs would go from the department and related bodies as part of sweeping budget cuts.

    Why is this a bad thing?

    Min @ 7:35 pm

    Iain, you really have put your foot in it now re,

    Daughter’s PhD thesis via supervisor Ben Hankamer..

    http://www.solarbiofuels.org/hankamer.php

    Well I was aware of this idea and I really hope that it works so that I can keep driving my car when the oil runs out but may guess is that it will be a long time before fuel made from algae is as cost effective as refined petroleum.

    Möbius Ecko @ 7:55 pm

    Yeah I guess the recent report showing renewables will be cheaper than fossil in a few years and this:

    China Likely to Exceed 50GW Solar Target for 2020

    means they will never overtake non-renewables.

    And How much coal will China be burning in 2020?
    pterosaur1@ 8:01 pm

    why should I cite

    both his name and his gongs why

    to a liar who demonstrably knows nothing about the subjects in question, and is so out of its depth that its best “argument” against accepting proffered evidence is apparently a typo on my part?

    Because you are trying to appeal to your own authority that’s why. As you your typo well I was admittedly mocking you with sarcasm, well toughen up princess!

    the troll originally brought up the subject of “qualifications” being required in this discussion apparently in an attempt to devalue other’s inputs – and through ignorance demonstrated its fundamental lack of comprehension of the nature of science.

    No it was you who brought up the issue of qualifications when I asked about the scientific method.

    it apparently cannot accept that reality is the opposite to its creed, so attempts to fit all interlocutors into its own warped version of unreality hoping to perhaps justify its attempted smears of reality based reasoning, and the inevitable challenges to its stunted pov.

    I argue for fun and I don’t know if you have noticed but I don’t get angry or abusive when I disagree with my interlocutors as you do.lighten up a bit mate or you may give yourself another stroke

    perhaps you missed the qualifier i made wrt qualifications

    and irrelevant though it may be,

    You raised the suggestion that you are more qualified than me in science, and even with your caveat (which is window dressing) what you were doing was appealing to your own authority and as such I am entitled to ask you to “put up or shut up” and prove that you are not just another anonymous internet identity claiming PHDs that they have copied from the back of a cornflakes packet.

    when you accused me of arguing from authority ? you certainly know how to miss a point 😆

    No you don’t understand even your own rhetoric well enough to appreciate how what you say is interpreted.

    you don’t matter iain, and your contributions only serve to illustrate not only your intellectual failure, but also your dishonesty, and if i wished to advertise my locality and identity your (dis)belief remain completely irrelevant to me

    I am being totally honest here its you who who is hiding behind the mask of anonymity and expecting others to take what you say on blind faith.

    Catching up @ 8:08 pm

    “There are none so blind as those who will not see, sadly you too seem to have your eyes shut very tightly indeed.”

    To your rubbish, indeed.

    Oh C U I am mortally wounded (sarc) 😉
    jaycee @ 8:11 pm

    It’s a joke, right?!…This lain poster…I mean, I have only been here a couple of days, but don’t tell me you poor bastards have had to put up with such rubbish for ages?!!
    I don’t know about the others that were graced with such dopey foolishness, but the litany of buffoonery he tried to pass off as legitimate comment has to be the result of a lifetime of nefarious drug taking!…I can see I may have to revisit his blog site to grace it with more of my personal observations.
    I grant lain one error on my part..: I was mistaken in suggesting to HAVING a lobotomy!
    AND lain..watch your spelling..I noticed a couple of typos.

    I would just love to see you address the topic with an intelligent comment but I won’t hold my breath

  135. I see in today’s paper that the northern Arctic region used to be a tropical forest. We may need to rejig the climate models?
    You do realise CO2 makes up less than 1 part in 2500 in the atmosphere? or 0.04 of 1% or the equivalent of 1 kilometer in a road trip from Sydney to Melbourne, Melbourne back to Sydney and Sydney back to Melbourne?
    as I regularly say on a Friday “.the line is blurred…….is this the end of a Bad week for gillard or the Start of a Worse week for gillard?”
    Next week?…….I think HSU, AWU, Union Corruption, allegedly corrupt ex partners of Slater & Gordon and houses being renovated using corrupt Union funds will be front and centre. Craig might get a guernsey if there is room and Abbott will continue to establish himself as the PM in waiting.
    I read rumours that Labor internal polling is showing no federal Labor representatives in Queensland, NT, Tasmania or WA after the election.
    Go Hawks tonight. Give Geelong the thumping they deserve.
    Have a great weekend.whisperers……..

  136. No matter how many times you discredit their folderol with scientific facts and second grade science they still repeat their nonsense.

    Skeptical hit the level of their arguments perfectly. BLAH BLAH BLAH.

  137. dear editor
    welcome to the global village level playing oval – where the game goes round in circles and everyone’s an expert but no one’s an authority.
    a.v.

  138. as for the troll who seeks to lecture others about it’s “knowledge” wrt to the scientific method – i wonder where the bit was ( i must have missed it in my studies :lol:), where you get to wave your hands around and say that you don’t accept the evidence because…. you don’t like it, come in ❓

    funnily enough, the clown doesn’t seem to understand that the entire basis, and practice of the scientific method is designed to eliminate subjectivity and opinion in forming conclusions based on THE EVIDENCE .

    though the trolls do make a good case for their general exclusion from any rational debate. or exchange of views.

    it seems that the Dunning Kruger force is strong in them 🙄

  139. pterosaur1

    what a great link Dunning Kruger

    I must admit the only Dunning I knew about was Mat Dunning, a rugby player for the Waratahs, who famously kicked a field goal when his team needed to score a try, But still the “force” of the Dunning-Kruger effect ran strong in him.

  140. pterosaur1

    as for the troll who seeks to lecture others about it’s “knowledge” wrt to the scientific method – i wonder where the bit was ( i must have missed it in my studies 😆 ), where you get to wave your hands around and say that you don’t accept the evidence because…. you don’t like it, come in ❓

    As I recall it I was asking the question of those like yourself and all that I got from you was Ad homs and unnecessary rancour.

    funnily enough, the clown doesn’t seem to understand that the entire basis, and practice of the scientific method is designed to eliminate subjectivity and opinion in forming conclusions based on THE EVIDENCE .

    Yes I know that which is why I was seeking to find out how many of the Warministas here actually understand the first principles of the issue.

    though the trolls do make a good case for their general exclusion from any rational debate. or exchange of views.

    This sounds like you are channelling your inner fascist 😆

    it seems that the Dunning Kruger force is strong in them 🙄

    Ok I’ll give you some credit for not citing “sceptical science” this time, but really, Wikipedia? come on surely you can find better sources than that.

  141. Iain obviously does not read everything in Wikipedia, only the headings. or only what he wants to read.

  142. Iain is one of those interesting chaps, often agreeable, generally knowledgeable, while all the while being a ‘wilful contrarian’ and on occasion unable to make sense of his own argument. Moreover, this lack of coherence is something he is apparently unable to see for himself. 😀

  143. Also Iain and..

    Min @ 7:35 pm

    Iain, you really have put your foot in it now re,

    Daughter’s PhD thesis via supervisor Ben Hankamer..

    http://www.solarbiofuels.org/hankamer.php

    Well I was aware of this idea and I really hope that it works so that I can keep driving my car when the oil runs out but may guess is that it will be a long time before fuel made from algae is as cost effective as refined petroleum.

    Iain, the proposal for algae into hydrogen is beautiful in it’s simplicity. Algae farms to be established on non-viable farmland. Pollutants in the process = zero.

    If scaper was around, he would be getting in on the ground floor with this one. The Chinese aren’t investing heavily in this for no reason at all. The Chinese have a long and venerable history of knowing excellent investments when they see them.

  144. Iain just wants to go back to the dark ages and live in his little cave with no fire like all liberals.

  145. paulwello @ 1:39 pm

    Iain obviously does not read everything in Wikipedia, only the headings. or only what he wants to read.

    As it happens I did read the citation.

    LOVO @ 1:54 pm

    Iain is one of those interesting chaps, often agreeable, generally knowledgeable, while all the while being a ‘wilful contrarian’ and on occasion unable to make sense of his own argument. Moreover, this lack of coherence is something he is apparently unable to see for himself. 😀

    Thanks for that which I have emboldened, naturally I disagree with the rest of your observations because I tend to think that my arguments are logical

    Min
    August 3, 2012 @ 1:55 pm

    Also Iain and..

    Iain, the proposal for algae into hydrogen is beautiful in it’s simplicity. Algae farms to be established on non-viable farmland. Pollutants in the process = zero.

    I think that the process is intended to make hydrocarbons rather than hydrogen though.

    If scaper was around, he would be getting in on the ground floor with this one. The Chinese aren’t investing heavily in this for no reason at all. The Chinese have a long and venerable history of knowing excellent investments when they see them.

    Maybe its just that they have the cash to take risks in all sorts of new ideas rather than them being canny investors

  146. Iain, there you have it your challenge. Paul doesn’t believe that you will answer. So let’s see it your vision for a cleaner and more fuel efficient Australia, given that we are currently dealing with a finite resource.

  147. Ok Iain, its on we all want an answer to your vision on a cleaner and fuel efficient Australia.

  148. Iain and I think that the process is intended to make hydrocarbons rather than hydrogen though.

    Conventional hydrogen production is expensive. A cheaper method involves using algae. The algae live in a series of ponds. Hydrogen is collected as it bubbles to the surface. An advantage is microalgae can be located on non-arable land and don’t compete with food production.

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/hydrogen-production-from-algae/3270290

    Daughter Erin has promised us a topic on this subject as this is her PhD thesis, but cannot at present as her work remains the intellectual property of the university until she is awarded her doctorate.

  149. Well Min that is an easy one 🙂

    When it comes to cars making then lighter and more aerodynamic is the way to go that way much smaller engines can give adequate performance at the cost of far less fuel. making them to last would likewise save the energy used to make a new car that is worn out in five years

    With housing I am of the opinion that simplicity is the way of the future with houses that have less unused space and features than the current Mac mansions with an emphasis on energy efficient design (passive solar) that does not require the use of expensive energy to eat and cool them. Lighting should be based upon LEDs which use only a tiny fraction of the energy of incandescent or even fluros

    To save the cost of commuting to work there is much virtue in telecommuting.

    The production of food close to wear people live it right up there along with eating produce in season,

    Is that enough to earn me a gold star Min?

  150. Iain, you have earned yourself a minor redemption. 😉

    Housing, don’t get me started on that one. Once upon a time houses in Australia were build for the climate, deep eaves, large verandas running the length of the length of the house, shutters to let in the cool air. We now sit in houses designed for east coast USA, narrow or no eaves at all so that the snow can easily slip off the roof.

    But the whole thing is about maximisation of profit for the developer. Maximum floor space over minimal land space. If you build a house suitable for Australia’s climate then instead of a 20sq house, you would have a 15sq house with the rest being taken up by deep eaves and/or verandah.

  151. I used to mock climate change. When someone told me 25 years ago that jets were contributing to the breakdown of the Ozone layer I responded that it was a load of crap.

    Over the last 25 years I’ve had the opportunity to think about it more wisely. Of course the destruction of the Ozone layer is going to let in more harmful rays. Of course that will cause the ice to melt. That only happens when temperatures rise. It’s not crap after all. It’s too logical.

  152. I’ll give u a d minus Iain, you still have to convince us on why the Coalitions Climate change policy is better.

  153. Paul

    Did you check them out?

    and the one to Jo nova?

    you still have to convince us on why the Coalitions Climate change policy is better.

    Why? I have already explained that I think that it is only slightly better than the scheme invented by Labor and I have even suggested that I think that the whole thing should be dropped. Because contrary to claims made by some here I don’t just blindly endorse everything proposed by the coalition.

  154. Interesting link, thanks ME.

    “Our analysis is an empirical approach that avoids use of global climate models, instead using only real world data.”

    Sounds fair.

    At what point do we have the deniers taken into care ?

  155. So Iain do you believe in climate change or a denier, going by your comments you seem to be a denier and climate change is not happening. 😈

  156. Paul, the people who believe in climate change look at the world around them. The people who don’t believe in climate change look no further than what’s inside their mind.

  157. paulwello @ 9:31 pm

    So Iain do you believe in climate change or(are you) a denier, going by your comments you seem to be a denier and climate change is not happening. 😈

    The climate is ALWAYS changing Paul. It is never the same from one year to the next, that said the real question that you should be asking me in this context is “To what extent do I believe that humanity is responsible for the perceived changes in the climate” because that is the bone of contention in any debate about “climate change”. The fact that you clumsily ask the wrong question suggests that you have not really considered the issue at all and that you are only taking the position that you do with regard to climate change out of a sort of tribal loyalty to the left. But If you want to know what I think about the issue go here
    Miglo @ 9:35 pm

    Paul, the people who believe in climate change look at the world around them. The people who don’t believe in climate change look no further than what’s inside their mind.

    Sadly the people who believe in climate change really only look as far as the utterances of the Profits of the Green faith like Gore, Flannery, Hansen et al and its we sceptics who look at the empirical data from the world around us and ask what are those Profits smokin’?

  158. “The climate is ALWAYS changing Paul. It is never the same from one year to the next,”

    Iain confuses weather for climate, proving he knows nothing and only goes against the science because of ideology, no other reason. The conservatives are against it because they are in the pockets of the fossil fuel and other vested industries so Iain like a good little puppy dog wags his tail and follows along.

    The “bone of contention” as you put it is not that. It is something used by the opponents to muddy the water.

    And a link to his site, how unsurprising.

    Sadly the deniers really only look to discredited paid for vested interest spruikers of mud like Monkton et al.

  159. More ignorant horse-shit:

    the people who believe in climate change really only look as far as the utterances of the Profits of the Green faith like Gore, Flannery, Hansen et al

    There are few contemporary debates more informed by references to scientists, scientific organisations, statistics, measurements, observations, graphs, data, than “pro” side of the climate change “debate”.

    The troll is either willfully misleading or willfully stupid.

  160. Yes Cuppa. When you look at all the guff he posts in supposedly supporting the contention there is no climate change it comes to a whole lot of nothing.

  161. Mobius,

    I see Germany is moving to close all its nuclear reactors and go to 100 per cent renewable energy.

    This progressive approach, unafraid of change, in fact embracing change! is what’s making Germany one of the leaders in the emerging global low-emissions competition.

    The denialist element, so well-megaphoned in places like Australia and the US, only serves to retard our national economic progress. Fear and stagnation are their odious calling-cards.

  162. Möbius Ecko @ 6:54 am

    “The climate is ALWAYS changing Paul. It is never the same from one year to the next,”

    Iain confuses weather for climate, proving he knows nothing and only goes against the science because of ideology, no other reason. The conservatives are against it because they are in the pockets of the fossil fuel and other vested industries so Iain like a good little puppy dog wags his tail and follows along.

    Dear oh dear you are wrong on so many levels. Firstly the difference between “weather” and “climate” is hardly as profound as you wish to suggest. Further as it happens my statement is in no way “against the science”

    The “bone of contention” as you put it is not that. It is something used by the opponents to muddy the water.

    So are you suggesting that the extent of human culpability for the perceived changes in the climate is not the crux of the issue?

    And a link to his site, how unsurprising.

    where appropriate why not?

    Sadly the deniers really only look to discredited paid for vested interest spruikers of mud like Monkton et al.

    Not at all, on the other hand you seem to be failing on precisely what the actual scientific questions in play are.


    Cuppa @ 6:57 am

    More ignorant horse-shit:

    the people who believe in climate change really only look as far as the utterances of the Profits of the Green faith like Gore, Flannery, Hansen et al

    There are few contemporary debates more informed by references to scientists, scientific organisations, statistics, measurements, observations, graphs, data, than “pro” side of the climate change “debate”.

    And so much of that stuff is rather pretty window dressing on a theory that is immune to testing by the scientific method. When the fundamental assumptions of the theory are queried, things like the sensitivity of the climate to changes in the concentration of Co2, the true believers have conniptions because they know that they are based upon assumptions or guesswork.

    The troll is either wilfully misleading or wilfully stupid.

    I am nothing if not a total realist
    Möbius Ecko @ 7:03 am

    Yes Cuppa. When you look at all the guff he posts in supposedly supporting the contention there is no climate change it comes to a whole lot of nothing.

    I have NEVER said that there is “no climate change” what I have always questioned is just how much responsibility can be fairly attributed to humanity and how realistic the schemes to deal with the “problem” are.
    Cuppa @ 7:12 am

    Mobius, I see Germany is moving to close all its nuclear reactors and go to 100 per cent renewable energy.

    This progressive approach, unafraid of change, in fact embracing change! is what’s making Germany one of the leaders in the emerging global low-emissions competition.

    My understanding is that they are going to be burning more coal to replace the lost Nuclear capacity but if you have any facts to the contrary then please share

    The denialist element, so well-megaphoned in places like Australia and the US, only serves to retard our national economic progress. Fear and stagnation are their odious calling-cards.

    alfred venison @ 7:52 am

    dear editor
    i don’t know how long it will take for this story to break here or if it will. so at the risk of showing people something they’ve seen already, this below has been the story this weekend at cbc:-
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/texas-drought-europe-heat-waves-are-climate-change-in-action-top-nasa-scientist/article4463666/
    yours sincerely
    alfred vension

    Alfie whay is it that when we have an unusually cold winter it is dismissed as mere “weather” but when there is a heat wave or drought it is heralded by the followers of the Green faith as proof of the AGW theory?

  163. Alfie whay is it that when we have an unusually cold winter it is dismissed as mere “weather” but when there is a heat wave or drought it is heralded by the followers of the Green faith as proof of the AGW theory?

    Probably because that, while local areas may be experiencing record cold temperatures, globally, the trend is all towards warming.

    Also, it is rarely (except perhaps by extremists) heralded as proof, generally just ‘further evidence’

    The problem is, extreme colds also are further evidence, as, though the trend is towards warming, extremes will increase, on both ends of the scale. This is what was anticipated by climate scientists and ‘their models’, this is what we are witnessing.

  164. dear editor
    its still gets cold in winter; its still gets warm in summer. The point of the article is drought, and that, in both summer & winter, its just not raining in the large parts of the usa, and, that, according to hensen’s latest research, the severity & length of the current drought is not normal.

    Last week it was announced that half of the counties in the usa have been declared disaster areas due to drought. This has affected agricultural productivity of everything from wheat to canola oil, with flow on effects leading to increased food prices. this weekend the largest fast food restaurant chain in canada (and the fourth largest in north america) has announced that it is raising the prices of its muffins and sandwiches by 5 cents and ten cents respectively due to basic food ingredients rising in cost due to scarcity due to the drought. I’ve heard that macdonalds has taken a hammering in the last financial quarter and may also raise its prices for the same reason.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/tim-hortons-raises-price-of-muffins-sandwiches-citing-higher-operating-costs/article4462085/

    and how about those tornados?
    a.v.

  165. “and its we sceptics who look at the empirical data from the world around us and ask what are those Profits smokin’?”

    You’d know all about the measured cooling of the stratosphere then Iain.

    How do you sceptics account for that ?

    Note: that’s not modelling, it’s observed, you know, empirical.

  166. ….why is it that when we have an unusually cold winter it is dismissed as mere “weather” but when there is a heat wave or drought it is heralded by the followers of the Green faith as proof of the AGW theory?

    lol, what an utter laugh. It’s the other way round and always has been. el gordo was the perfect example of that here, where every cold weather event was proffered as proof there’s no warming.

    Just go across the denial websites and you see it in spades, and in the responses to blogs, forums and news opinion pieces.

    So is this yet another example of projection. Yes.

  167. Oh and the argument was immediately lost in a big way with the religious meme. When that’s all they have then they have nothing. That is also another form of projection as it’s the deniers who run on faith as they have no science or data to back up their stance, so have nothing but faith.

  168. On religion:

    “Moreover, July is normally the warmest month of the year on average in Anchorage. This July is the coldest on record (so far) by more than 1.5º with an average monthly temperature of 52.7º. The coolest July on record occurred in 1920 with an average monthly temperature of 54.4º.”

    Here’s “Arch Bishop” Anthony Watts, titular head of Iain’s “church”.

    The average turned out to be 55.6 degrees.

    Note that “(so far)” was the 13th of July.

    This is is where Iain gets his “empirical” data.

    (I’d say a lot more but I’m typing v. slowly with a broken arm, and it hurts)

  169. “Alfie whay is it that when we have an unusually cold winter it is dismissed as mere “weather” but when there is a heat wave or drought it is heralded by the followers of the Green faith as proof of the AGW theory?”

    you only think that’s true because you have a sort memory though quick to the draw.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2100136/Europe-weather-Rivers-lakes-seas-iced-bitter-Siberian-cold-leads-temperatures-40C.html

    as for this summer in the usa, nbc new york reported that “the first seven months of 2012 have been the hottest in the mainland United States since temperature records began in 1895.”

    and yesterday in britain:-
    http://news.sky.com/story/969284/extreme-weather-takes-britain-by-surprise

    they said weather would become more extreme, more often.
    a.v.

  170. Tom R @ 9:43 am

    Alfie why is it that when we have an unusually cold winter it is dismissed as mere “weather” but when there is a heat wave or drought it is heralded by the followers of the Green faith as proof of the AGW theory?

    Probably because that, while local areas may be experiencing record cold temperatures, globally, the trend is all towards warming.

    Really is a “probably” the best that you can come up with? I have two words for you Tom “natural variability” and I ask you to consider the amount of variation in the climate before the recent era and our global industrialisation. So answer me this. How precisely do we separate out the human signal from the background variability?

    Also, it is rarely (except perhaps by extremists) heralded as proof, generally just ‘further evidence’

    Semantics aside I disagree and you have the likes of Jo Chandler doing precisely that.

    The problem is, extreme colds also are further evidence, as, though the trend is towards warming, extremes will increase, on both ends of the scale. This is what was anticipated by climate scientists and ‘their models’, this is what we are witnessing.

    Once again the issue is still about separating out the “human signal” and all of the “research” that I have read does not do well at this. maybe you have a sure fire way.
    alfred venison @ 10:59 am

    dear editor
    its still gets cold in winter; its still gets warm in summer. The point of the article is drought, and that, in both summer & winter, its just not raining in the large parts of the usa, and, that, according to hensen’s latest research, the severity & length of the current drought is not normal.

    Normal compared to what?

    Last week it was announced that half of the counties in the usa have been declared disaster areas due to drought. This has affected agricultural productivity of everything from wheat to canola oil, with flow on effects leading to increased food prices. this weekend the largest fast food restaurant chain in canada (and the fourth largest in north america) has announced that it is raising the prices of its muffins and sandwiches by 5 cents and ten cents respectively due to basic food ingredients rising in cost due to scarcity due to the drought. I’ve heard that macdonalds has taken a hammering in the last financial quarter and may also raise its prices for the same reason.

    and how about those tornados?

    a one year drought Hmm I can’t help thinking about the 1930’s to be honest when this is claimed to be unprecedented

    Mangrove Jack @ 6:00 pm

    “and its we sceptics who look at the empirical data from the world around us and ask what are those Profits smokin’?”

    You’d know all about the measured cooling of the stratosphere then Iain.

    How do you sceptics account for that ?

    Why do I have to? But I will ask you how far back do those measurements for the stratosphere go?

    Note: that’s not modelling, it’s observed, you know, empirical.

    Your Profits keep telling us that we need to look at climate on a geological time scale so Ill ask you again what is the span of our expansiveb and detailed climate data?

    Möbius Ecko @ 6:09 pm

    ….why is it that when we have an unusually cold winter it is dismissed as mere “weather” but when there is a heat wave or drought it is heralded by the followers of the Green faith as proof of the AGW theory?

    lol, what an utter laugh. It’s the other way round and always has been. el gordo was the perfect example of that here, where every cold weather event was proffered as proof there’s no warming.

    Well I’m not El Gordo.

    @ 6:10 pm

    Oh and the argument was immediately lost in a big way with the religious meme. When that’s all they have then they have nothing. That is also another form of projection as it’s the deniers who run on faith as they have no science or data to back up their stance, so have nothing but faith.

    Totally disagree because I am just noting the religiosity of the belief in AGW and the reverence offered to its priests and Profits

    Mangrove Jack @ 8:03 pm

    Here’s “Arch Bishop” Anthony Watts, titular head of Iain’s “church”.
    […]

    This is is where Iain gets his “empirical” data.

    I do occasionally read Watts who does pretty well on this topic but what you misunderstand is that he deals in empririocal; data rather than matters of faith

    (I’d say a lot more but I’m typing v. slowly with a broken arm, and it hurts)

    get well soon mate and I hope that its not too painful

  171. “Mangrove, I thought it was a given. Julia Gillard broke your arm!”

    It was my Right arm Migs so I suspect the Labor Party had a “hand” in it.

    Actually, ’twas a tree-lopping miscalculation. My main worry was getting to Maleny hospital before Can-Do shut down the emergency dept.

    Thanks for the “get well” Iain. Appreciated.

  172. Tom R @ 7:46 am

    It’s called measurements and comparison 😉

    From Your citation:

    We compare global-scale changes in satellite estimates of the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT) with model simulations of forced and unforced TLT changes. While previous work has focused on a single period of record, we select analysis timescales ranging from 10 to 32 years, and then compare all possible observed TLT trends on each timescale with corresponding multi-model distributions of forced and unforced trends. We use observed estimates of the signal component of TLT changes and model estimates of climate noise to calculate timescale-dependent signal-to-noise ratios (S/N). These ratios are small (less than 1) on the 10-year timescale, increasing to more than 3.9 for 32-year trends. This large change in S/N is primarily due to a decrease in the amplitude of internally generated variability with increasing trend length. Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.

    Besides all of the caveats that I have emboldened what this extract says is that the human signal is there but that its damned hard (near impossible) to decern.

    Mangrove Jack @ 8:19 am

    Thanks for the “get well” Iain. Appreciated.

    No problems Jack so you live round Melaney way?that means that we are almost neighbours!

  173. its damned hard (near impossible)

    Yet not impossible. Good on those scientists for having the talent and patience to detail it for you 😉

  174. Montville, Iain.

    So it was either Maleny or Nambour hospital.

    I figured Maleny would be less crowded. Plus the drive lifts one’s spirits. And if the hospital wasn’t able to help, there are 10,000 alternative practitioners in the Maleny business directory, from ayurvedic to zen.

    Migs, you mightn’t know this area but I suspect all my neighbours are like Iain, very conservative. For all I know they could be gathering signatures on a petition requesting we find somewhere else to live, as we speak. I’m sure there were murmurings about where the 2 votes for Kevin came from that they found in the local ballot box in 2007.

  175. How precisely do we separate out the human signal from the background variability?

    And a dark morass of ignorance oozes forth.

    If you don’t know the basics of the climate science then why are oppose it?

    No need to answer. Your religious like faith in a blinkered very narrow ideological view answers it for us.

  176. Not all of your neighbours MJ. A mate of mine (former work colleague) has “retired” to Montville. There would have been at least 4 votes for Kevin in that box 😉

  177. That’s heartening Bacchus. I’ll keep an eye out. He’ll be the one sipping a latte or chardonnay in a corner of the Poet’s Cafe, reading the Guardian.

  178. Tom R @ 2:52 pm

    Yet not impossible. Good on those scientists for having the talent and patience to detail it for you 😉

    Well then you need a better citation than the one you provided before to make that case!


    Miglo @ 2:56 pm

    MJ, with neighbours like that I’d be moving. Fast. :mrgreen:

    Despite what you think about my Politics I am a good neighbour to all

    😀

    Mangrove Jack @ 4:51 pm

    Montville, Iain.

    So it was either Maleny or Nambour hospital.

    I figured Maleny would be less crowded. Plus the drive lifts one’s spirits. And if the hospital wasn’t able to help, there are 10,000 alternative practitioners in the Maleny business directory, from ayurvedic to zen.

    Know that area well, in fact my late father in law used to own the African shop in Montville

    Migs, you mightn’t know this area but I suspect all my neighbours are like Iain, very conservative. For all I know they could be gathering signatures on a petition requesting we find somewhere else to live, as we speak. I’m sure there were murmurings about where the 2 votes for Kevin came from that they found in the local ballot box in 2007.

    No Jack you are safe we conservatives like to keep a few token lefties in the neighbourhood so we have someone to pity for their foolishness 😮

    Möbius Ecko @ 5:42 pm

    How precisely do we separate out the human signal from the background variability?

    Well if you can do it I’m sure that there is a flight to Oslo waiting for you.

    If you don’t know the basics of the climate science then why are oppose(d) it?

    But I do know “the basics” and that is why I’m asking this question of you lot. Its fundamental to the issue yoet all you can do is sprout Ad hom abuse in return.

    No need to answer. Your religious like faith in a blinkered very narrow ideological view answers it for us.

    😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

  179. iain, you clearly do not understand the basics of the scientific method, let alone climate science.

    apparently you don’t understand that you cannot just “refuse to accept” data contrary to your assumptions or ideology, and still claim to be performing science,as exampled by you above, when i provided a link to material which definitively showed your claim that there was “no evidence” for the “anthropogenic” portion of agw was clearly rubbish.

    perhaps you don’t beleive in isotopes either ?

  180. Climate Change is already here

    The time for debate about the reality of human-caused climate change has now passed. We can have a good faith debate about how to deal with the problem — how to reduce future climate change and adapt to what is already upon us to reduce the risks that climate change poses to society. But we can no longer simply bury our heads in the sand.

  181. pterosaur1 @ 9:43 am

    iain, you clearly do not understand the basics of the scientific method, let alone climate science.

    🙄 You repeating an assertion won’t make it so

    apparently you don’t understand that you cannot just “refuse to accept” data contrary to your assumptions or ideology, and still claim to be performing science,as exampled by you above, when i provided a link to material which definitively showed your claim that there was “no evidence” for the “anthropogenic” portion of agw was clearly rubbish.

    How did your citation do as you claimed, it is uncontested by me that humanity has made some contribution but all of your citation fails to say how much that contribution is, apart from implying that it is all the “fault of humanity” that is

    perhaps you don’t believe in isotopes either ?

    In what sense do you mean “believe”?
    Of course I understand that they exist and I even understand how their existence has been useful in Palo-climatology but you seem to be implying that such proxies are just as accurate and precise as either the instrumental or satellite climate data when obviously they are orders of magnitude less accurate.

    pterosaur1 @ 10:24 am

    here’s another link which makes informative reading 😦

    Rolling Stone??? Really????
    For someone who claims the authority of a scientific education you seem awfully fond of popular culture citations

    pterosaur1 @ 10:50 am

    Climate Change is already here

    The time for debate about the reality of human-caused climate change has now passed. We can have a good faith debate about how to deal with the problem — how to reduce future climate change and adapt to what is already upon us to reduce the risks that climate change poses to society. But we can no longer simply bury our heads in the sand.

    Michael Mann??????????

    Come on even among the true believers he is no longer respected because of his trick to “hide the decline

  182. Tom R @ 1:44 pm

    How so?

    trick to “hide the decline“

    Tom don’t you realise that for a proxy to be considered valid that the assumptions that are its foundation have to be consistent with the results that you get when you compare the results attained for a time period when you have instrumental records or it calls into serious doubt the deduced climate for the time in which you have no instrumental record? Thus if the tree rings are not consistent with the theory for the last fifty or so then why should we have trust it its claims for 1000 AD?

  183. pterosaur1 at 10:24am

    Thanks for that link to Bill McKibbin’s article.

    I note that a poll in the SMH today had 65% of respondents attributing recent extreme weather events to “climate change”. Admittedly it was a clumsily worded proposition, but it might indicate a turning point in the public’s perceptions. More articles like McKibbin’s are needed.

    Having said that, I have a pedantic quibble, one that you also might’ve spotted: the myth that warm air holds more water vapour than cooler air.

    “A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is a shocking five percent wetter,”

    If the atmosphere over the oceans actually is 5% wetter, the correct explanation is that the sea surface temperatures are higher (because vapour pressure is a function of liquid temperature and nothing else). Air temperature is irrelevant.

    Because of the huge difference in specific heats of the components, the correct explanation has some very real, and worrying, implications.

  184. Pingback: Is there ANYBODY listening? I didn’t think so… « theblogicalvoice

  185. I’m a skeptic. The IPCC is probably the worst example of climate believers. Some of the nonsense they come up with and the looney tunes who inhabit IPCC create doubts among the general population. From what I have extensively read I see undisciplined and sloppy research which inevitably causes people to be skeptic.
    Where the climate changers get bogged down is that they start off with the premise that human activity have created changes to the climate. They have then spent the last 20 years trying to get proof to fit their premise.
    If “the science is settled” then we wouldn’t be having blogs like this?

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s