Quote:

ohn Maynard Keynes, accused of having made an about-turn on monetary policy during the Great Depression, rather sensibly replied: ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’ Four fundamental facts about global warming have changed during the past decade (as detailed below). But unfortunately, far too few decision-makers and the public are aware of the changes. What do I know about global warming? As a mathematician, I spent six years building carbon-accounting models for the ���������������������� ���������������������� ��������e, including the fairly complicated one that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol in ‘land-use change and forestry’. When I started the job in 1999, the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming looked pretty reasonable. Not conclusive, admittedly, but the rami- �������������������������������������������������������������������������������� could surely worry about that later. The threat of global warming has been a boon for many scientists and bureaucrats, with enviably big research budgets, the creation of lots of jobs, media attention, power and status. On top of all that, helping to save the planet feels pretty good! But from 2003, evidence began to emerge that seriously weakened the theory that carbon emissions were the main cause of global warming (which had, in any case, stopped by 2001, as detailed below). And by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive: at best, carbon emissions play a minor role. Despite this, public policy and populist sentiment haven’t changed since the late 1990s. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations body established to assess climate-change information, has resisted even acknowledging the new evidence. ���������������� �������� ������������ ������ ������������ ���� �������������������� organisation, the IPCC is comprised mainl

tbc

http://www.mannkal.org/downloads/environment/thegreatcarbonconclsa.pdf

Quote:

of bureaucrats and conducts no research or monitoring. Its landmark report last year supposedly put an end to the debate. Perhaps it’s no surprise that policymakers and the general public aren’t aware of the most basic salient facts. What follows are the four fundamental changes in the evidence about the causes of global warming - changes that have occurred slowly, but render much of the debate about carbon emissions obsolete. None of these facts is even controversial: scientists who back the carbon-emissions case usually don’t disagree with them; they simply dispute their relevance. 1. THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE Back in the late 1990s, the only evidence to support the theory that carbon was behind global warming came from analysis of ice-core samples, collected between 1985 and 1998. This was pretty low-resolution information, with the data points more than a thousand years apart. However, it appeared to show carbon dioxide and temperature moving in lockstep. This seemed too good to be true: apparently we could alter the planet’s temperature simply by adjusting the levels of a minor gas. These old ice-core data are the only evidence Al Gore presents in An Inconvenient Truth to back the claim that carbon emissions cause global warming. Yet, by the time the movie was made, in 2005, newer data had changed the picture considerably. Higher-resolution ice-core data showed

tbc


Quote:

http://www.mannkal.org/downloads/environment/thegreatcarbonconclsa.pdf

Sounds like Dave Evans, the 'rocket scientist'  ;D . His pay cheque must have arrived and he had to write another spiel.

Land clearing, in particular tree cutting down causes massive climate change

there are too many people in the world.

Quote:

MARTIN Royds calls himself a carbon farmer. Twenty years ago the Braidwood cattle producer decided to develop regenerative farming practices, and in 2007 he was voted local carbon cocky of the year. He says his winning carbon management practices include having 100 per cent groundcover all the time, using controlled grazing to ensure his pastures are never eaten down to the roots, growing trees on his land, and using biological products rather than synthetic fertilisers. "You can see the difference," Mr Royds said. Drought has hit his region of southern NSW and he has had to sell cattle. "I have a lot of dry grass, where my neighbours have chewed down fairly close to the boards," he said. "I have less weeds and there are a lot of trees across the land." After it rained, his native grass took off. "I went and hired a harvester and made a fortune harvesting native seed," he said. Mr Royds said his soil carbon was increasing. He estimated it had grown from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent, and he was aiming to reach 5 per cent. He would like to begin carbon trading. "My goal is to get paid for building soil carbon," he said. "If we start doing that we fix all the problems. You fix the erosion problems, salinity problems."The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists estimates Australia could store an additional 1000 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent each year in soil and plants. "If Australia were to capture just 15 per cent of this capacity, it would offset the equivalent of 25 per cent of Australia's current annual greenhouse emissions for the next 40 years," the group says. The Co-operative Research Centre for greenhouse gas technologies has been working on geosequestration -- the capture and storage of carbon dioxide from coal production. CRC chief Peter Cook said: "We are doing it on a small scale in Australia. "We have injected 60,000 tonnes of CO2 over the last 18 months in the Otway Basin. It is staying down there. The technology does work." Now that approach was needed on a "very much larger scale". As long as people used fossil fuels "we have no alternative other than to put the CO2 in the ground", Mr Cook said.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/carbon-farmer-waiting-for-his-payoff/story-e6frg6nf-1225810373145

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 10:19am:

Land clearing, in particular tree cutting down causes massive climate change there are too many people in the world.

Yes, about 30% of the total effect.

On the second post, yes a lot can be achieved by changing farming practices, but if we end up in a drought situation, all that good work is lost as the carbon tends to be volatilised from the soil.

However, if we could get all farmers in Australia to adopt that approach, we'd be in a much better situation, not only from the position of offsetting emissions, but also from the position of soil fertility.

ripping out all the mangroves around brisso has halted our afternoon subtropical downpours.

every mangrove used to put 60 litres of pure refined water into the air.
many 1000's of mangrove trees are no longer there.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 11:02am:

ripping out all the mangroves around brisso has halted our afternoon subtropical downpours. every mangrove used to put 60 litres of pure refined water into the air. many 1000's of mangrove trees are no longer there.

While I doubt if Mangrove destruction had that particular effect, they are certainly good as a habitat for mudcrabs etc.

They are good at turning salt water to fresh though, and do it much more efficiently than a desalination plant./

Quote:

AL Gore faced up to inconvenient truth of his own yesterday when it was revealed the former US Vice-President misquoted an eminent climate scientist's work to suggest that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years. Mr Gore stated: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years." But the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was citing has rubbished these claims, a report in The Times says. "It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this." Mr Gore's office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was an estimate Dr Maslowksi used several years ago in conversation with Mr Gore. Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar. End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar. This is the second embarrassing gaffe for Mr Gore in recent weeks. On December 4 Mr Gore was forced to cancel a 'golden handshake' speaking engagement at the conference in Copenhagen. Attendees were encouraged to part with $US1200 to meet the climate change spearhead and have their photograph taken with him. Mr Gore's latest error came as hacked e-mails from a British University appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to bolster their argument that humans were responsible for global warming.......

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/al-gore-faces-own-inconvenient-truth-after-arctic-ice-estimates-revealed-to-be-off-target/story-e6frg6xf-1225810599409

What do you expect? He's a politician, not a scientist.

Perhaps that is the problem?
Gore being a politician, sees him looking to politics to save us from ourselves, but can we honestly expect politicians to succeed on the Climate Change Issue, when it is hard to think of any issue that politicians have ever solved, of their own volition.
Generally it is grass roots action from people that forces politicians to react to the controversy they create, when they highlight problems long ignored, but with such a strong denialist movement, countering so much of the work done by environmental groups, and concerned scientists and individuals, I do not think we have arrived at the point where politicians will be forced to act.

I sincerely hope I am wrong, and I wish we had a figurehead for Global Warming other than Al Gore, I wish we had someone that people could look to with pride and admiration, who could inspire people to demand that politicians stop fannying about and begin the work that needs to be done, but history teaches us that man is a dull and stupid creature who jumps at shadows, but ignores real danger until the last possible minute.

I am feeling very depressed about what I have seen come out of Copenhagen, and feel even greater resentment towards heavy polluters who have orchestrated the denialist campaign, which has mobilised crackpots around the world to the wrong cause.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 7:20pm:

Perhaps that is the problem? Gore being a politician, sees him looking to politics to save us from ourselves, but can we honestly expect politicians to succeed on the Climate Change Issue, when it is hard to think of any issue that politicians have ever solved, of their own volition. Generally it is grass roots action from people that forces politicians to react to the controversy they create, when they highlight problems long ignored, but with such a strong denialist movement, countering so much of the work done by environmental groups, and concerned scientists and individuals, I do not think we have arrived at the point where politicians will be forced to act. I sincerely hope I am wrong, and I wish we had a figurehead for Global Warming other than Al Gore, I wish we had someone that people could look to with pride and admiration, who could inspire people to demand that politicians stop fannying about and begin the work that needs to be done, but history teaches us that man is a dull and stupid creature who jumps at shadows, but ignores real danger until the last possible minute. I am feeling very depressed about what I have seen come out of Copenhagen, and feel even greater resentment towards heavy polluters who have orchestrated the denialist campaign, which has mobilised crackpots around the world to the wrong cause.

Sorry Mozz but you sound increasingly like a Mohammedan conspiracy nut. AGW IS a Gore-y fantasy.  It takes a politician to talk up a minor greenhouse gas and plant food to apocalyptic levels. The man is a complete mutt. Rudd is a Tin-tin fantasist with a souce bottle up 'im.

Snap out of it, all of you.

Is it Soy sauce? That effeminiate little sinophile wouldn't settle for something Aussie like BBQ sauce.

aikmann4 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 8:44pm:

Is it Soy sauce?

Grab him by the scruff of the neck, give him a shake and see.

Fair dinkum.


:)

mozzaok - despite us being on completley 100% of the fence on this matter, on the important issue you have posted here I entirely agree.

I could not agree more.

Amazing isn't it ?

Soren wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 8:12pm:

Sorry Mozz but you sound increasingly like a Mohammedan conspiracy nut. AGW IS a Gore-y fantasy.  It takes a politician to talk up a minor greenhouse gas and plant food to apocalyptic levels. The man is a complete mutt. Rudd is a Tin-tin fantasist with a souce bottle up 'im. Snap out of it, all of you.

Soren,

I can't believe that you swallow all that crap hook line and sinker.  In fact I could never understand how people will support any line based entirely on party policy.

If you just accept party policy without actually using the grey matter to think each issue through, then you will accept mediocrity every time. Of course rational thought hurts many people who have not exercised their neurons enough in life. The solution is to say "I'm ALP" or "I'm right wing". Either way, it's hiding stupidy in numbers.

I actually hate the idea of political parties and of people being forced to vote against their better judgement like so many sheep being herded into a pen. I prefer to think for myself.

Let's just look at what you're saying here. AGW is a Goreyan fantasy.  That's like saying that a news item is the invention of the newsreader.

Al Gore should be irrelevant other than being a presenter. Every time he opens his mouth without understanding the issue, he risks speaking bullshit.  The people who actually understand the issue are the climate scientists and those who have taken the time to understand the science in depth.

I used to get annoyed with those who said that I have fallen for Al Gore's nonsense. I now understand that it's just part of the script like "Ignorance is Strength" (1984).  I watched part of one of Al Gore's  videos once and I couldn't bear to watch it much because he was grossly oversimplifying the issue. It was teeth grating stuff.

I am a proud centrist. I decide every issue for myself based on my own judgement, hard evidence, scientific principles and data. I accept the conclusions regardless of whether I find them to be grossly antithetic to my current source of income or not.

If you find all that to be hypocritical, then all I can say is find me a person who has no logical conflicts, who has no internal enigmas and I will dispute their humanity.  

The same goes for elections. Politicians pander to the bulk of humanity who are pig-ignorant and proud of it. Instead of showing evidence of logical thought processes, they substitute pusillanimous slogans, such as "AGW is a Goreyan Fantasy" as an example. I really thought I could detect a glimmer of rational thought there, soren, but perhaps I was wrong.  

The sad fact that emerges from Copenhagen is that democracy and consensus among human beings is enormously over-rated, in much the same way as it is over-rated for Lemmings.

Ignorance is Strength, comrade.

Quote:

The sad fact that emerges from Copenhagen is that democracy and consensus among human beings is enormously over-rated, in much the same way as it is over-rated for Lemmings.

That is one of the most depressingly funny lines I have read, so true, and so disheartening at the same time.

It would make a fine subject for a cartoonist, showing the leading denialist campaigners leading the charge over the cliff.

muso wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 8:18am:

The same goes for elections. Politicians pander to the bulk of humanity who are pig-ignorant and proud of it. Instead of showing evidence of logical thought processes, they substitute pusillanimous slogans, such as "AGW is a Goreyan Fantasy" as an example. I really thought I could detect a glimmer of rational thought there, soren, but perhaps I was wrong.

UND



mozzaok wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 9:39am:

Quote: The sad fact that emerges from Copenhagen is that democracy and consensus among human beings is enormously over-rated, in much the same way as it is over-rated for Lemmings. That is one of the most depressingly funny lines I have read, so true, and so disheartening at the same time. It would make a fine subject for a cartoonist, showing the leading denialist campaigners leading the charge over the cliff.

Und zat is vy vi nid strong leadership, a strong Fuhrer. Und a new pipl. Dese pipl don't know vat's gut for zem. Ve should elect a new pipl.  A pipl viz higher conciousness. Like us. More power to us!!

Don't knock it. You're looking at the future.

Democracy is a token already. Basically large corporations with huge sums of money instigate social engineering to achieve objectives that suit their bottom line.

An individual thinker is dangerous. Keep the flock in political parties and they are more easily controlled by the multinationals.

Democracy is a property of fair weather/good times politics. It is doomed to fail this century, whether we like it or not.

Don't confuse fascism with a corporate take-over of the world. Look on the bright side. Most modern corporations operate a meritocracy of sorts. They probably like Democracy in a way. It offers a contented population with a smug warm glow of freedom, but eventually the facade of democracy and freedom will be too costly to the bottom line. They will introduce neo-freedom instead - a carefully sanitised multinational version of freedom, that comes with free sms messages for life.

Ignorance is strength, comrade Soren!

Heil Exxon  ;D

(Be careful not to betray your inner thoughts now. Maintain that fixed smile, or you'll be need to be taken away to have your imbedded microchips "adjusted")

Muso, we have known all along that the whole AGW wheeze was really about deep-seated (and old-fashioned) Marxist tropes.

But look! More news about manipulation. Shurely shome mishtake, what?


Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 10:24am:

Muso, we have known all along that the whole AGW wheeze was really about deep-seated (and old-fashioned) Marxist tropes. But look! More news about manipulation. Shurely shome mishtake, what? Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

LOL  Good try - The Hadcrut3 dataset is the least representative of the three main global temperature datasets, the others being NASA GISS and NOAA. Once again, Hadcrut3 shows the least warming effect because of its lack of data from certain polar regions.

If we totally wiped HadCrut3, it would make a lot of denialists very unhappy, because it's the dataset that specifically shows the least warming.

The whole CRU climategate affair was a carefully orchestrated and timed storm in a teacup blown out of all proportion, probably by the Russians, who seem to be pretty good at such things. Have you downloaded the FOI zip file yet? I have. It's quite interesting. I would recommend that you read all the emails. There is even one there from an old school mate, but absolutely no evidence of any conspiracy. They obviously hate the so-called researchers who publish nonsense in fringe magazines. That is understandable. It's only human to hate people who deliberately spread disinformation. There is no political correctness when it comes to private emails that describe Willie Soon's work as garbage. That's just calling a spade a spade.

http://www.eutimes.net/2009/12/un-deputy-climate-chief-claims-russia-is-behind-climategate-email-scandal/

I love the picture in that article by the way:

http://therealbarackobama.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/global-warming-hoax.jpg

Have you come across the term "Sucked in?"

Ignorance is Strength, comrade  ;D

muso wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 11:12am:

Have you come across the term "Sucked in?" Ignorance is Strength, comrade  ;D

Yes, poor me. On the other hand, you must glow with enermous intellectual satisfaction, knowing that you have Chavez and Mugabe on side. If I had three arms, I'd give one for that.

 ;)

I notice that every objection or question raised turns out to be 'irrelevant': Gore is now irrelevant, the hockey stick, data manipulation is immaterial, Hadley data set is something we could do without, the words 'hide the decline' do not actually mean hide the decline, peer-review bullying is just private emal banter. It's all irrelevant, don't you know.
What matters is this: whatever the questions, Islam  AGW is the answer.

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 2:19pm:

I notice that every objection or question raised turns out to be 'irrelevant': Gore is now irrelevant, the hockey stick, data manipulation is immaterial, Hadley data set is something we could do without, the words 'hide the decline' do not actually mean hide the decline, peer-review bullying is just private emal banter. It's all irrelevant, don't you know. What matters is this: whatever the questions, Islam  AGW is the answer.

It's not so much peer review bullying. The emails I read were more like "Who the hell allowed this rot to be published?" I can understand that. The likes of Bob Carter et al used running 13 month averages on temperature data, which amounted to using a highpass filter. They deliberately filtered out long-term trend data through the dishonest use of statistics.

The 'hide the decline' part refers to dendrochronology data. There was a divergence between instrument temperatures and those derived from tree-ring data. The erroneous data was from tree-ring research. It has nothing to do with instrumental temperature records.

Even though tree ring data is less accurate, there are plenty of scientists who are happy to defend its use. It's a question of how you interpret it. Temperature is not the only factor that affects tree ring development.

There was a whole series of emails arguing about whether or not to include tree ring data. If the original researcher stated that the data is suspect after say 1961, then I'd tend to go with the original researcher on that.

It was a beat-up designed to cause problems at Copenhagen. That's all.

You keep going on about the hockey stick as if it was significant. You're talking about data that was first presented 10 years ago. Since then there have been many independent studies that have confirmed the validity of the so-called hockey stick, including one by the US National Academy of Sciences in 2006.

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 2:13pm:

muso wrote on Dec 18th, 2009 at 11:12am: Have you come across the term "Sucked in?" Ignorance is Strength, comrade  ;D Yes, poor me. On the other hand, you must glow with enermous intellectual satisfaction, knowing that you have Chavez and Mugabe on side. If I had three arms, I'd give one for that.  ;)

Nah - I take no satisfaction in knowing what I do from first principles.  Maybe Copenhagen will deliver the goods, but I doubt it. I'll be pleasantly surprised if it does.

The e-mails as far as I know weren't even the most damming thing to come out of "Climategate". HARRY_READ_ME.txt was far worse.

http://therealbarackobama.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/global-warming-hoax.jpg

muso wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 2:42pm:

You keep going on about the hockey stick as if it was significant. You're talking about data that was first presented 10 years ago.

Brilliant. In global climate (activism) terms, 10 years is now ancient times, passe, irrelevant. But wait! The hockey tick was the one single data presentation that captured - was calculated to capture - people's imagination. The one slogan to woo then all.

And now? Like I said - anything criticised turns out to be 'irrelevant'.




Quote:

Since then there have been many independent studies that have confirmed the validity of the so-called hockey stick,

Bullsh!t, m'lord, with the greatest respect. The idea of a dramatic uptick is now buried as a youthful, over-enthusiastic abberration of the 'early days'.i

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 6:01pm:

Brilliant. In global climate (activism) terms, 10 years is now ancient times, passe, irrelevant. But wait! The hockey tick was the one single data presentation that captured - was calculated to capture - people's imagination. The one slogan to woo then all.

In terms of how far we have come from there, it's definitely ancient times.


Quote:

[quote] Since then there have been many independent studies that have confirmed the validity of the so-called hockey stick,

Bullsh!t, m'lord, with the greatest respect. The idea of a dramatic uptick is now buried as a youthful, over-enthusiastic abberration of the 'early days'. [/quote]

What's your problem, didn't you like the findings of the National Research Council when they found that there were statistical shortcomings, but that they were insignificant.

To illustrate exactly how insignificant, here is the original MBH 1998 study plotted with a more recent study by Wahl Amman in 2007.

As you can see, there is not exactly a significant difference. In fact, can you tell me exactly what M&M were on about ?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/MBH1999_Wahl_2007.gif


From:

Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction
of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures:
Examination of criticisms based on the nature and
processing of proxy climate evidence

Eugene R. Wahl · Caspar M. Ammann, Climatic Change (2007) 85:33–69






[/quote]

aikmann4 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 4:00pm:

The e-mails as far as I know weren't even the most damming thing to come out of "Climategate". HARRY_READ_ME.txt was far worse.

Tell me how you interpret it, Imperium. I'm sure that there are those ho will interpret it in their special way of course, but who do you think wrote the readme file, and why is it significant?

Excerpt:

READ ME for Harry's work on the CRU TS2.1/3.0 datasets, 2006-2009!

1. Two main filesystems relevant to the work:

/cru/dpe1a/f014
/cru/tyn1/f014

Both systems copied in their entirety to /cru/cruts/

Nearly 11,000 files! And about a dozen assorted 'read me' files addressing
individual issues, the most useful being:

fromdpe1a/data/stnmon/doc/oldmethod/f90_READ_ME.txt
fromdpe1a/code/linux/cruts/_READ_ME.txt
fromdpe1a/code/idl/pro/README_GRIDDING.txt

(yes, they all have different name formats, and yes, one does begin '_'!)
......................................

muso wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 6:51pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 18th, 2009 at 6:01pm: Brilliant. In global climate (activism) terms, 10 years is now ancient times, passe, irrelevant. But wait! The hockey tick was the one single data presentation that captured - was calculated to capture - people's imagination. The one slogan to woo then all. In terms of how far we have come from there, it's definitely ancient times. Quote: [quote] Since then there have been many independent studies that have confirmed the validity of the so-called hockey stick, Bullsh!t, m'lord, with the greatest respect. The idea of a dramatic uptick is now buried as a youthful, over-enthusiastic abberration of the 'early days'.

What's your problem, didn't you like the findings of the National Research Council when they found that there were statistical shortcomings, but that they were insignificant.

To illustrate exactly how insignificant, here is the original MBH 1998 study plotted with a more recent study by Wahl Amman in 2007.
[/quote]
Am I reading that graph right? The Medieval Cold period was no more than a drop of half a degree?
If so, can that be believed?

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 8:16pm:

Am I reading that graph right? The Medieval Cold period was no more than a drop of half a degree? If so, can that be believed?

It's a study of global temperatures as I understand it, rather than regional. I'm not sure what your point is. I guess compared to Christopher Monckton's graphs, it's boring. They should have used more pink. Send in the clowns.

muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 9:10am:

Soren wrote on Dec 18th, 2009 at 8:16pm: Am I reading that graph right? The Medieval Cold period was no more than a drop of half a degree? If so, can that be believed? It's a study of global temperatures as I understand it, rather than regional.

Mr Musician, you don't even know what you are posting:

"From:

Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction
of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures:
Examination of criticisms based on the nature and
processing of proxy climate evidence"



So the Medieval Cold on the Northern Hemisphere was just 0.5 degree down on 'normal'?
No need to send nore clowns, we have as many as we can handle already; they have cornered the 'climate research on government grant' market and the 'communicating future doom' market, thank you very much.

[highlight]Denialists agree on every single point -/highlight]

lol, if that is the case, then perhaps you could expand on the part about setting up a new world order to enslave mankind, that is just one of the particularly interesting beliefs very often espoused by Denialism fans.

Another thing that I also find Denialists agree upon is, "never" let the facts get in the way of a good lie.
We have witnessed the case that merely totally disproving a Denialist lie(falsehood, deceit, shameless bunkum etc), does not reduce it's credibility, or usability at all, for any good Denialist.
Being, absolutely, proved false does not reduce it's credibility one iota for them, and they just repeat, and repeat, and repeat, the lie, until it takes on the aura of being an inviolable mantra of supreme righteousness to them.

Repeat after me, "the world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat, the world is..........................................................................................................................................................
ad infinitum.

No sensible person even tries to dissuade a true Denialist, because how can you reason with someone whose whole belief is built upon totally false and unreasonable information?
All we can do is continue to point out the glaring deceit and ignorance as it is delivered, so that utter rubbish, and intentionally deceitful misinformation is not left unchallenged, to try and minimise the number of people who get sucked in by their spurious line of bulldust.

Like the great Robert Menzies so often remarked, "Bullsh1t baffles Brains."

mozzaok wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 9:32am:

[highlight]Denialists agree on every single point -/highlight] lol, if that is the case, then perhaps you could expand on the part about setting up a new world order to enslave mankind, that is just one of the particularly interesting beliefs very often espoused by Denialism fans. Another thing that I also find Denialists agree upon is, "never" let the facts get in the way of a good lie. We have witnessed the case that merely totally disproving a Denialist lie(falsehood, deceit, shameless bunkum etc), does not reduce it's credibility, or usability at all, for any good Denialist. Being, absolutely, proved false does not reduce it's credibility one iota for them, and they just repeat, and repeat, and repeat, the lie, until it takes on the aura of being an inviolable mantra of supreme righteousness to them. Repeat after me, "the world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat, the world is.......................................................................................................................................................... ad infinitum. No sensible person even tries to dissuade a true Denialist, because how can you reason with someone whose whole belief is built upon totally false and unreasonable information? All we can do is continue to point out the glaring deceit and ignorance as it is delivered, so that utter rubbish, and intentionally deceitful misinformation is not left unchallenged, to try and minimise the number of people who get sucked in by their spurious line of bulldust. Like the great Robert Menzies so often remarked, "Bullsh1t baffles Brains."

Before you all let the rhetorical horse run away with you once more, let's just see where it all starts.


Is the climate changing? Yes, it's always changing. There is no debate about this. The lazy shorthand of 'climate change' when 'man-made catastrophic climate cooling/warming' is meant is just that, lazy and stupid and/or deceitful.

What is the normal/ideal climate? Dunno.

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes.

Is it a trace gas? Yes.

Is it even the primary greenhouse gas? No.

Is all atmospheric CO2 the man-made? No.

Can we control natural CO2. No

Can we control man-made CO2? Well, to some extent.

Are greenhouse gases the only determiners of climate? No.

How do all the determiners of global (not local) climate interact? Dunno. Too complex to model.

Can we control the other determiners of climate? Well.... no. We don't always know what all of them are. It's not a neat mathematical formula, global climate. It's not even a closed system.

What is the optimum amount of atmospheric CO2? Dunno. Optimum for what?

Was climate change in the past caused by man-made Co2? No.

Natural CO2? Er... no.

What caused past changes in the climate? Dunno but have a few guesses. Not CO2, that we know for sure.


In view of all this - how are we going to control the present climate change? Why, you ignorant denier, by reducing man-made CO2, of course!! That's so obvious, only evil deniers could not see it.

muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 5:39am:

Soren wrote on Dec 18th, 2009 at 9:50pm: Huh? Denialists agree on every single point - thanks largely to there being only one point: AGW is craparooney. Climate change? Mebbe. AGW? Meh... Incorrect. Some believe that it's happening, but that it's totally beneficial. AGW is good for you - a bit like smoking. Steve Milloy and Bjorn Lomborg are examples. Then there is the "Greening Earth Society". They loved it, and advocate V8's and live like there's no tomorrow. THey had some big names including such pseudoscientists as:        * Sallie Baliunas    * Robert C. Balling, Jr.    * Patrick J. Michaels    * Willie Soon    * Sylvan H. Wittwer, and    * David E. Wojick If they think it's beneficial, and that they can contribute to it, they obviously must think it's happening, otherwise why bother thinking it's beneficial - eh? So,  thank you for smoking. Ignorance is strength, comrade.

There is a theory, a quite a plausible one, that life on earth could be the victim of it's own sucess. For eons the biosphere (particularly the great forests) has been locking up carbon in the form of sediments, coal and oil deposits etc and the CO2 content of the atmoshere (vital for life) has dwindled.  

Soren wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 10:47am:

Is the climate changing? Yes, it's always changing. There is no debate about this. The lazy shorthand of 'climate change' when 'man-made catastrophic climate cooling/warming' is meant is just that, lazy and stupid and/or deceitful.

Did 6 million people die during WWII? Yes, people have been dying for years. They have always been dying. Dying is quite natural. It was only a mere 0.25% of the global population. Many more people died in the previous 10 years, so what are you concerned about?

Deceitful is when you claim that the imminent climate change is just part of a natural cycle, even though Blind Freddie can see that it isn't.

Deceit is when you try to say that all we're concerned about is the slight warming in the last 50 years and you try to pass it off as natural because there have been temperature changes of this magnitude in the past. Of course the rate of change was about 10,000 times slower, but you don't need to actually mention that point.

muso wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 12:19pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 17th, 2009 at 7:01pm: muso wrote on Dec 17th, 2009 at 8:39am: The weak will die- possibly as much as a billion people. It's sad, but it is going to happen regardless of how much money we waste on them. Muso, you are talking like an apocalyptic nutter, like the General Turgidson of warmerists. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgyjlqhiTV8 Mate, It's your position that's looney tunes here, not mine. I'm not the one who is siding with a bunch of denialists who can't even agree on a single point, except business as usual.

Huh?
Denialists agree on every single point - thanks largely to there being only one point: AGW is craparooney.


Climate change? Mebbe.

AGW? Meh...

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 9:50pm:

Huh? Denialists agree on every single point - thanks largely to there being only one point: AGW is craparooney. Climate change? Mebbe. AGW? Meh...

Incorrect. Some believe that it's happening, but that it's totally beneficial. AGW is good for you - a bit like smoking. Steve Milloy and Bjorn Lomborg are examples.

Then there is the "Greening Earth Society". They loved it, and advocate V8's and live like there's no tomorrow. THey had some big names including such pseudoscientists as:
   
   * Sallie Baliunas
   * Robert C. Balling, Jr.
   * Patrick J. Michaels
   * Willie Soon
   * Sylvan H. Wittwer, and
   * David E. Wojick

If they think it's beneficial, and that they can contribute to it, they obviously must think it's happening, otherwise why bother thinking it's beneficial - eh?

So,  thank you for smoking.

Ignorance is strength, comrade.

muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 2:29pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 19th, 2009 at 10:47am: Is the climate changing? Yes, it's always changing. There is no debate about this. The lazy shorthand of 'climate change' when 'man-made catastrophic climate cooling/warming' is meant is just that, lazy and stupid and/or deceitful. Did 6 million people die during WWII? Yes, people have been dying for years. They have always been dying. Dying is quite natural. It was only a mere 0.25% of the global population. Many more people died in the previous 10 years, so what are you concerned about? Deceitful is when you claim that the imminent climate change is just part of a natural cycle, even though Blind Freddie can see that it isn't. Deceit is when you try to say that all we're concerned about is the slight warming in the last 50 years and you try to pass it off as natural because there have been temperature changes of this magnitude in the past. Of course the rate of change was about 10,000 times slower, but you don't need to actually mention that point.

I can see you are cherrypicking the logic - and hinting at me being deceitful. Very much the expected response.
I have outlined the picture for you, don't ignore it as if I was talking about WWII.

Or rather, ignore it.

Rate of warming - Greenland froze over pretty quickly. Whatever is happening now, it is not that quick.

Soren wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 9:48am:

Mr Musician, you don't even know what you are posting: "From: Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence" So the Medieval Cold on the Northern Hemisphere was just 0.5 degree down on 'normal'? No need to send nore clowns, we have as many as we can handle already; they have cornered the 'climate research on government grant' market and the 'communicating future doom' market, thank you very much.

I meant to say that it's a study of regional temperatures rather than global . It came out the other way around.

What's your point anyway? You think it should be more? - based on what data?

Does it matter whether it is real or not?
Most of the world is doing something about it, so isn't it politically savvy for us to do something about it as well?

Soren wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 5:33pm:

I can see you are cherrypicking the logic - and hinting at me being deceitful. Very much the expected response. I have outlined the picture for you, don't ignore it as if I was talking about WWII. Or rather, ignore it. Rate of warming - Greenland froze over pretty quickly. Whatever is happening now, it is not that quick.

The example of WWII was intended to highlight the flawed logic in your statement.  Just because climate has changed in the past does not imply that the recent rise in temperature is also natural.

It's like saying that the casualties of WWII died of a natural death where we know that they did not.

What are you talking about wrt Greenland? Are you trying to say that it was a land of milk and honey at the time of the Vikings and that the Greenland Icecap did not exist? Are you saying that Eric the Red and Leif Erikson swam in the balmy Labrador Sea then sunbaked on the beach ?

At what stage do you think that Greenland 'froze up' and what do you think the magnitude of this freeze might have been?

Senexx wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 8:08pm:

Does it matter whether it is real or not? Most of the world is doing something about it, so isn't it politically savvy for us to do something about it as well?

In some respects I agree with you. It doesn't matter why we switch over to renewables as long as we do.  However if we don't do it quickly enough, then it will still be a problem.

muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 8:08pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 19th, 2009 at 5:33pm: I can see you are cherrypicking the logic - and hinting at me being deceitful. Very much the expected response. I have outlined the picture for you, don't ignore it as if I was talking about WWII. Or rather, ignore it. Rate of warming - Greenland froze over pretty quickly. Whatever is happening now, it is not that quick. The example of WWII was intended to highlight the flawed logic in your statement.  Just because climate has changed in the past does not imply that the recent rise in temperature is also natural. It's like saying that the casualties of WWII died of a natural death where we know that they did not. What are you talking about wrt Greenland? Are you trying to say that it was a land of milk and honey at the time of the Vikings and that the Greenland Icecap did not exist? Are you saying that Eric the Red and Leif Erikson swam in the balmy Labrador Sea then sunbaked on the beach ? At what stage do you think that Greenland 'froze up' and what do you think the magnitude of this freeze might have been?

Well, lemme tell ya, if you went over there now and had naming right, you wouldn't call it Greenland.  New Freezeland, more like it.

muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 7:57pm:

It came out the other way around.

Yeah, right.
Happens all the time with the warmerist crowd.

;)

Soren wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 4:38pm:

Well, lemme tell ya, if you went over there now and had naming right, you wouldn't call it Greenland.  New Freezeland, more like it.

Ok School History 101.  Greenland or Grænlend was so named by Erik the Red to attract new colonists. It's a bit like Paradise, South Australia in that respect. You can read all about it in the Grænlendinga saga. If you like Danish, it's not too far removed from Norse, although Islandic is closer.

You see, Erik the Red was a Viking Real Estate Agent, who also committed the Viking petty crime of mass murder. (It was actually a family tradition. He wasn't all bad) The Vikings, taking a dim view on mass murder, exiled him to the balmy subtropical island of Greenland, where reports have it that he led an idyllic existence, and was often to be seen with knotted handkerchief on his head wandering around the streets of  Brattahlið swigging mead from a flask and singing rugby songs which cannot be reproduced here because of the bad word filter.

Location Location Location!

A sea-change to Greenland!.

This charming  much sought after 3 bedroom home in Godthåb is deceptively spacious, with spectacular views (if you like glaciers) of this new and up and coming neighbourhood (well it will be - trust me).  Great potential! Beach frontage for your long-ship! Free open spaces with plenty of opportunity for the occasional  pillage!


Er, Soren mate- why do you reckon that Greenland Ice Cores go back at least 740,000 years? Wasn't it s'posed to be green at some stage?