How smart was your leader, GayBob, to blackmail JuLiar into reviving the carbon tax after solemnly promising not to, so to win my votes?

Just re-enforces general opinion that criminals are dumb--

Of course, Brown is a criminal - of the worst kind - he isn't satisfied to destroy just one family he destroys the whole country !

olde.sault wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 1:32pm:

How smart was your leader, GayBob, to blackmail JuLiar into reviving the carbon tax after solemnly promising not to, so to win my votes? Just re-enforces general opinion that criminals are dumb-- Of course, Brown is a criminal - of the worst kind - he isn't satisfied to destroy just one family he destroys the whole country !

How do rational this out?

____ wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 1:50pm:

olde.sault wrote on Apr 4th, 2012 at 1:32pm: How smart was your leader, GayBob, to blackmail JuLiar into reviving the carbon tax after solemnly promising not to, so to win my votes? Just re-enforces general opinion that criminals are dumb-- Of course, Brown is a criminal - of the worst kind - he isn't satisfied to destroy just one family he destroys the whole country ! How do rational this out?

I'll answer that for olde as soon as you explain how an AUSTRALIAN carbon tax will lower GLOBAL temperature

Maqqa wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 1:59pm:

____ wrote on Apr 4th, 2012 at 1:50pm: olde.sault wrote on Apr 4th, 2012 at 1:32pm: How smart was your leader, GayBob, to blackmail JuLiar into reviving the carbon tax after solemnly promising not to, so to win my votes? Just re-enforces general opinion that criminals are dumb-- Of course, Brown is a criminal - of the worst kind - he isn't satisfied to destroy just one family he destroys the whole country ! How do rational this out? I'll answer that for olde as soon as you explain how an AUSTRALIAN carbon tax will lower GLOBAL temperature

A country acting alone can not significantly lower global temperature.

MOTR wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 2:07pm:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 4th, 2012 at 1:59pm: ____ wrote on Apr 4th, 2012 at 1:50pm: olde.sault wrote on Apr 4th, 2012 at 1:32pm: How smart was your leader, GayBob, to blackmail JuLiar into reviving the carbon tax after solemnly promising not to, so to win my votes? Just re-enforces general opinion that criminals are dumb-- Of course, Brown is a criminal - of the worst kind - he isn't satisfied to destroy just one family he destroys the whole country ! How do rational this out? I'll answer that for olde as soon as you explain how an AUSTRALIAN carbon tax will lower GLOBAL temperature A country acting alone can not significantly lower global temperature.

Yep and given China and India have readily admitted they will be increasing their emissions - this shows this whole charade up to be one giant waste of time and expense.

So, Andrei, your advocating no one does anything.

MOTR wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 2:12pm:

So, Andrei, your advocating no one does anything.

I am stating it is a global problem.

To quote the President of this country -

"I am all for addressing the emissions problem, but I tell you what that plan of having America pick up the check for everybody else. That ain't happening on my watch."

Why should everyone else look to reduce but India can say "We are not prioritising carbon reduction over poverty relief" and China to make up a 'carbon intensity' set of figures because the measures everyone else uses show them increasing off the scale????

Are we mugs or what?

At last count there were 80 countries that have made pledges to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We also have a framework in place for a legally binding international agreement for both developed and developing countries by 2020. We are slowly but inexorably heading towards a less carbon intensive future. A carbon intensive country like Australia needs to be ahead of the curve.

MOTR wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 2:33pm:

At last count there were 80 countries that have made pledges to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. .

China's emissions increased by FIVE TIMES the amount of all of the reductions of the Kyoto countries added together.

China is continuing to build dirty coal power stations at a rate of knots.
It is also increasing emissions by more than Australia's total emissions.

India have stated their energy usage will increase by 25% on a billion people.
India have also said they cannot stick to reduction targets because their emissions will increase.

See where there is a problem?

How about (novel concept) we are get set to reduce total emissions down to a % of 2000 levels?
That means everyone - not leave out countries (particularly 1st and 3rd world's worst polluters).

How about we get to a global price on carbon and let the markets work it out.

Just put a quota on amount of co2 per person, by country.    Its the only fair way.


The let each country find its own way to the co2 target.


Now there is an an obvious historical imbalance here were countries like Australia and the US emit several times more per person that the chinese, so there will need to be transition period over many decades before we reach a fair figure for all.    This will involved Australia/US reducing emissions, but may also allow china to increase emissions as we meet half way.

To say to a chinese man, you cant increase your emissions to 4 tonnes / year while your equivalent in Australia is allowed to emit 20 tonnes / year aint going to wash with anyone in the developing world.

MOTR wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 2:12pm:

So, Andrei, your advocating no one does anything.

Carbon "dioxide" is NOT a pollutant. Carbon  monoxide is and, improving technology on electric cars to run in congested cities, is one answer to battle pollution.

Over-population stinks out cities and these people should turn to contraceptives so that they don't worsen their breathing space.

Carbon  dioxide as a warming agent is a hoax and anyone who believes otherwise, after so many really qualified scientists have dismissed that as a hoax, have either a low IQ or a communist agenda.

This forum is over-loaded with either fools or watermelon Greens.

____ wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 1:50pm:

olde.sault wrote on Apr 4th, 2012 at 1:32pm: How smart was your leader, GayBob, to blackmail JuLiar into reviving the carbon tax after solemnly promising not to, so to win my votes? Just re-enforces general opinion that criminals are dumb-- Of course, Brown is a criminal - of the worst kind - he isn't satisfied to destroy just one family he destroys the whole country ! How do rational this out?

So you are back, how about an answer.

olde.sault wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 4:20pm:

Carbon "dioxide" is NOT a pollutant.

Yes it is. Try breathing it.


Quote:

Over-population stinks out cities and these people should turn to contraceptives so that they don't worsen their breathing space.

if only that view was expressed 9 months before your birth.  ;)


Quote:

Carbon  dioxide as a warming agent is a hoax

Yes, and gravity is a hoax too.

Those damned scientists!

olde.sault wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 4:20pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 4th, 2012 at 2:12pm: So, Andrei, your advocating no one does anything. Carbon "dioxide" is NOT a pollutant. Carbon  monoxide is and, improving technology on electric cars to run in congested cities, is one answer to battle pollution. Over-population stinks out cities and these people should turn to contraceptives so that they don't worsen their breathing space. Carbon  dioxide as a warming agent is a hoax and anyone who believes otherwise, after so many really qualified scientists have dismissed that as a hoax, have either a low IQ or a communist agenda. This forum is over-loaded with either fools or watermelon Greens.

Which qualified scientists? Are they the ones who make it onto you radio dial?

MOTR wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 6:09pm:

olde.sault wrote on Apr 4th, 2012 at 4:20pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 4th, 2012 at 2:12pm: So, Andrei, your advocating no one does anything. Carbon "dioxide" is NOT a pollutant. Carbon  monoxide is and, improving technology on electric cars to run in congested cities, is one answer to battle pollution. Over-population stinks out cities and these people should turn to contraceptives so that they don't worsen their breathing space. Carbon  dioxide as a warming agent is a hoax and anyone who believes otherwise, after so many really qualified scientists have dismissed that as a hoax, have either a low IQ or a communist agenda. This forum is over-loaded with either fools or watermelon Greens. Which qualified scientists? Are they the ones who make it onto you radio dial?

So far, no radio presenters have claimed to be scientists but, they interview our climatologists as well as those from abroad and of both persuasions. We, the listeners, have to make up our minds.

The theory that the world's emissions of carbon dioxide cause global warming belongs at the bottom of the garden with the fairies!

Those in Gillard's pay aren't even game to be interviewed by any presenter on 2GB - a clear indication that they are in on the hoax but haven't the hide nor the spin-craft of JuLiar.

Must admire her skill - she'd talk her way out of a snake pit!

Could you name the last mainstream climate scientist that was interviewed on 2GB?

MOTR wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 8:31pm:

Could you name the last mainstream climate scientist that was interviewed on 2GB?

Andrew Bolt, PhD doucheology.

Green Dreemers,

Enjoy your Communist Greens Socialist "CO2" tax designed to simply transfer money from the wealthy to the poor in the best Communist tradition while you can - it will be gone like Labor and the Greens in about 2 years.

By the way, what does a brown nosing career ex-unionist Laborite do after he/she loses his/her seat ?

How long will it take Kevin Rudd to rebuild the wreckage of Labor from 6 seats ?

How do you think the no confidence vote will go now after the exposure of Labor's gross incompetence, corruption, govt interference, etc ? Will wilkie waver ?

Ah we live in exciting times !!!!

Check out CO2 represented in rice grains. Just wish he used more rice to represent Australia's 1.5% of world CO2 and even better, the reduction of 5% of that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC1l4geSTP8

That's just embarrassing. If you can believe this snake oil salesman you haven't really tried to understand the science. One day you'll be ashamed you uncritically propagated this bull dust.

Do you know how cold this planet would be if there was zero carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?  Although it makes up a small part of our atmosphere it's pretty powerful stuff. Well, our actions are well on the way to doubling atmospheric CO2 (that's right doubling) in a very short period of time. Some idiot in a suit telling me that CO2 only makes up a small part of our atmosphere (true) and that our contribution is minuscule (outright lie) doesn't change the reality.

Study: Carbon Dioxide Increase Caused End of Ice Age




A team of climate experts say they've solved the chicken-or-egg question—Which came first? Carbon dioxide or temperature increases?—surrounding the global warming debate for years: Around 10,000 years ago, increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere caused the end of the last Ice Age.

Scientists have known for decades that an increased level of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere accompanied higher global temperatures, but no one was able to prove that the gas increases came before higher temperatures.

"We've known that CO2 was a big driver of the end of the ice age for a while now, but this is just another nail in that coffin," says Jeremy Shakun, who completed much of the research for his Ph.D. at Oregon State University and is now a post-doctoral fellow for NOAA at Harvard and Columbia Universities. His article was published Wednesday in the science journal Nature.

[Read Study: Global Warming is Real]

Global warming skeptics argue that carbon dioxide levels—measured in icicle records in Antarctica—seemed to have increased slightly after warming temperatures. That argument has been used by many, including Texas Rep. Joe Barton, in an attempt to discredit Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth.

"Historically, a rise in CO2 concentrations did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged temperature by 200 to 1,000 years," Barton argued. "The temperature appears to drive CO2, not vice versa. On this point, Mr. Vice President, you're not just off a little. You're totally wrong."

Shakun says his research vindicates Gore. In the past, scientists measured temperatures near where the icicles were sampled—in Antarctica. But when averaging the global temperature change, he found on average, temperatures changed after the CO2 levels did.

"We knew CO2 was connected to global warming, but it got a little chicken-and-egg like. The icicle records tell you what global carbon dioxide levels were, but they only tell you what the local temperature over Antarctica was," he says. "We said 'Let's look at the bigger picture,' and found that there's a strong argument that global temperature changes after the CO2 does."

[Read Poll: Republicans Coming Around on Global Warming]

His team compiled temperature records from 80 sites around the world and found that the temperature rises closely matched the global warming curve scientists predicted. The temperature change in Antarctica lags behind the rest of the world by a couple centuries, according to those records.

Leighton Steward, who runs Plants Need CO2, an organization that advocates for putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in order to fertilize plants, says there is more than one climate change-driver, and that temperature records dating back several thousand years could be inaccurate.

Scientists aren't positive why CO2 levels rose during the end of the Ice Age, but they have a few hypotheses. Their best guess is that pent up carbon dioxide at the bottom of the Southern Ocean near Antarctica somehow escaped, but Shakun says that's a "big outstanding mystery" in climate science.

Shakun says his study should open the eyes of those who say human carbon emissions don't contribute to modern climate change.

"Back then, it was natural, but the key thing is—we found that carbon dioxide was driving global warming back then. The Earth doesn't care where the carbon dioxide came from—if it caused it back then, it's going to cause it today," he says. "Over the last 7,000 years of the Ice Age, the CO2 levels rose by 100 parts per million. Over the last century, we've run up the same amount. You look at that, and it's sobering."


http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/04/04/study-carbon-dioxide-increase-caused-end-of-ice-age

____ wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 4:28pm:

____ wrote on Apr 4th, 2012 at 1:50pm: olde.sault wrote on Apr 4th, 2012 at 1:32pm: How smart was your leader, GayBob, to blackmail JuLiar into reviving the carbon tax after solemnly promising not to, so to win my votes? Just re-enforces general opinion that criminals are dumb-- Of course, Brown is a criminal - of the worst kind - he isn't satisfied to destroy just one family he destroys the whole country ! How do rational this out? So you are back, how about an answer.

You have seen this and you still are running from this.
Why do you refuse to answer.

MOTR wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 8:31pm:

Could you name the last mainstream climate scientist that was interviewed on 2GB?

I can't name the last one interviewed. I'm not able to listen day and night to the radio. See, I have another life.

In the past, I've heard Bob Carter, Ian Plimer on 2GB, and many others from overseas whose names escape me. Somewhere I've seen and heard Dr Karl Kruzenicvski. . .

Anyone who still swallows the propaganda of we ("we" is grammatically correct, not "us") causing global warming need their heads read.

I guess many are making money out of this hoax and many bureaucrats are facing the chop as the government is waking up to the costs of this carbon caper.

I haven't heard  Flannery for quite a while. He might have fallen into a well (a drought-well).

[quote]
Doctor Jolly wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 5:35pm:

olde.sault wrote on Apr 4th, 2012 at 4:20pm: Carbon "dioxide" is NOT a pollutant. Yes it is. Try breathing it.

Try breathing without it....

mellie posting as old salty breath wrote
Quote:

In the past, I've heard Bob Carter, Ian Plimer on 2GB,

OH LOL ROTFLMAO, I'll pay that one mellie. :D :D :D

MOTR wrote on Apr 5^th, 2012 at 5:02am:

That's just embarrassing. If you can believe this snake oil salesman you haven't really tried to understand the science. One day you'll be ashamed you uncritically propagated this bull dust. Do you know how cold this planet would be if there was zero carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?  Although it makes up a small part of our atmosphere it's pretty powerful stuff. Well, our actions are well on the way to doubling atmospheric CO2 (that's right doubling) in a very short period of time. Some idiot in a suit telling me that CO2 only makes up a small part of our atmosphere (true) and that our contribution is minuscule (outright lie) doesn't change the reality.

What is to believe. What is not to believe. Is he wrong in his figures.

____ wrote on Apr 5^th, 2012 at 5:34am:

Study: Carbon Dioxide Increase Caused End of Ice Age http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/04/04/study-carbon-dioxide-increase-caused-end-of-ice-age

The paper is based on many assumptions without supporting data.  Here are a few examples:

1. They assume that CO2 is capable of causing climate changes, even though 95% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) effect is from water vapor. In order to seriously consider CO2 as a causal mechanism, you first need to prove that very tiny increases in CO2 do indeed increase atmospheric water vapor.  However, during recent warming, purported to be caused by increased CO2, atmospheric water vapor has not gone up, it has decreased slightly. CO2 by itself cannot cause significant warming because there is little of it in the atmosphere (0.038%) and CO2 accounts for only a few percent of the GHG effect.

2. They assume that the AMOC is the only driver of climate change, totally ignoring the influence of the Pacific Ocean, which covers almost half of the Earth’s surface and we can see in the modern data a strong influence of ENSO as a driver of climate changes (actually a closer correlation than the AMOC). They offer no evidence that the AMOC is the main and only driver of climate change.

3. They assume a hemispheric ‘see-saw’ of climate changes in which the North and South Hemispheres are out of phase, despite strong evidence in both hemisphere that climate changes were closely simultaneous, not out of phase with one another (Easterbrook, 2011).

4. The dismiss all other causal mechanisms by simply stating that they are only of ‘regional importance’, similar to the tactic of dismissing the MWP and Little Ice Age as only regional climate changes, not global. They also totally ignore the complete lack of correlation of CO2 with Holocene climate changes. They don’t even mention the very strong correlation of variation in 10Be and 14C with climate changes, suggesting a solar cause.
----------------------

I have a feeling this paper will fail scrutany and will have to be revised or withdrawn all together. Will have to keep an eye on this one.

olde.sault wrote on Apr 5^th, 2012 at 7:38am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 4th, 2012 at 8:31pm: Could you name the last mainstream climate scientist that was interviewed on 2GB? I can't name the last one interviewed. I'm not able to listen day and night to the radio. See, I have another life. In the past, I've heard Bob Carter, Ian Plimer on 2GB, and many others from overseas whose names escape me. Somewhere I've seen and heard Dr Karl Kruzenicvski. . . Anyone who still swallows the propaganda of we ("we" is grammatically correct, not "us") causing global warming need their heads read. I guess many are making money out of this hoax and many bureaucrats are facing the chop as the government is waking up to the costs of this carbon caper. I haven't heard  Flannery for quite a while. He might have fallen into a well (a drought-well).

You wouldn't have heard Karl Kruzenicvski on 2GB. He is a good communicator and he follows the science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-3-Lf4-49M&sns=em

The other two have zero support amongst mainstream climate scientists.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5^th, 2012 at 8:39am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 5:02am: That's just embarrassing. If you can believe this snake oil salesman you haven't really tried to understand the science. One day you'll be ashamed you uncritically propagated this bull dust. Do you know how cold this planet would be if there was zero carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?  Although it makes up a small part of our atmosphere it's pretty powerful stuff. Well, our actions are well on the way to doubling atmospheric CO2 (that's right doubling) in a very short period of time. Some idiot in a suit telling me that CO2 only makes up a small part of our atmosphere (true) and that our contribution is minuscule (outright lie) doesn't change the reality. What is to believe. What is not to believe. Is he wrong in his figures.

Think about it, if CO2 has increased from a preindustrial concentration of 280ppm to 393.65ppm, our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is much larger than he represents in his rice analogy.

Of those 33 rice grains we are responsible for about 9.5 of them. The con involves mixing up stocks and flows.

MOTR wrote on Apr 5^th, 2012 at 9:34am:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 8:39am: MOTR wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 5:02am: That's just embarrassing. If you can believe this snake oil salesman you haven't really tried to understand the science. One day you'll be ashamed you uncritically propagated this bull dust. Do you know how cold this planet would be if there was zero carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?  Although it makes up a small part of our atmosphere it's pretty powerful stuff. Well, our actions are well on the way to doubling atmospheric CO2 (that's right doubling) in a very short period of time. Some idiot in a suit telling me that CO2 only makes up a small part of our atmosphere (true) and that our contribution is minuscule (outright lie) doesn't change the reality. What is to believe. What is not to believe. Is he wrong in his figures. Think about it, if CO2 has increased from a preindustrial concentration of 280ppm to 393.65ppm, our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is much larger than he represents in his rice analogy.

So in other words, you really don't know.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5^th, 2012 at 9:37am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 9:34am: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 8:39am: MOTR wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 5:02am: That's just embarrassing. If you can believe this snake oil salesman you haven't really tried to understand the science. One day you'll be ashamed you uncritically propagated this bull dust. Do you know how cold this planet would be if there was zero carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?  Although it makes up a small part of our atmosphere it's pretty powerful stuff. Well, our actions are well on the way to doubling atmospheric CO2 (that's right doubling) in a very short period of time. Some idiot in a suit telling me that CO2 only makes up a small part of our atmosphere (true) and that our contribution is minuscule (outright lie) doesn't change the reality. What is to believe. What is not to believe. Is he wrong in his figures. Think about it, if CO2 has increased from a preindustrial concentration of 280ppm to 393.65ppm, our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is much larger than he represents in his rice analogy. So in other words, you really don't know.

The figures are of no relevance.

CO2 drives temperature.

Not as the dude in the video claims without evidence.


So to repeat :

CO2 increases drives temperatures up.

MOTR wrote on Apr 5^th, 2012 at 5:02am:

That's just embarrassing. If you can believe this snake oil salesman you haven't really tried to understand the science. One day you'll be ashamed you uncritically propagated this bull dust. Do you know how cold this planet would be if there was zero carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?  Although it makes up a small part of our atmosphere it's pretty powerful stuff. Well, our actions are well on the way to doubling atmospheric CO2 (that's right doubling) in a very short period of time. Some idiot in a suit telling me that CO2 only makes up a small part of our atmosphere (true) and that our contribution is minuscule (outright lie) doesn't change the reality.

You are absolutely right.  What is the point of saying 32 grains of rice out of 85,000 mean nothing when we know that the 32 grains of rice keep the planet at a nice toasty habitable level, rather than a cold rock.

If anything it supports the view that only small changes in carbon dioxide make significant differences in temperature.

The problem he also fails to grasp is that the 31 grains of rice (c02) is the natural cycle. It is released and absorbed by nature. (rocks: lol), but we are adding 1 grain incrementally.  That was previously stored in rocks known as coal. Where is that extra c02 being captured ? Have we seen a boom in forestation? No? A boom in vegetation? no.
No, unfortunetly its either sticking around in the atmosphere making us warmer, or being absorbed by the sea making it more acidic (carbonic acid).
 

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5^th, 2012 at 9:37am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 9:34am: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 8:39am: MOTR wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 5:02am: That's just embarrassing. If you can believe this snake oil salesman you haven't really tried to understand the science. One day you'll be ashamed you uncritically propagated this bull dust. Do you know how cold this planet would be if there was zero carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?  Although it makes up a small part of our atmosphere it's pretty powerful stuff. Well, our actions are well on the way to doubling atmospheric CO2 (that's right doubling) in a very short period of time. Some idiot in a suit telling me that CO2 only makes up a small part of our atmosphere (true) and that our contribution is minuscule (outright lie) doesn't change the reality. What is to believe. What is not to believe. Is he wrong in his figures. Think about it, if CO2 has increased from a preindustrial concentration of 280ppm to 393.65ppm, our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is much larger than he represents in his rice analogy. So in other words, you really don't know.

It's pretty easy to work out. 9.5 grains of the 33 wouldn't be there without us. So by mixing up his stocks and his flows, matey in the striped tie, implies human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is 3% of total when it is in fact 29% and growing. So he is out by a factor of 10. The whole presentation is dodgy, I've seen pyramid scheme presentations with more credibility.

____ wrote on Apr 5^th, 2012 at 10:21am:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 9:37am: MOTR wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 9:34am: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 8:39am: MOTR wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 5:02am: That's just embarrassing. If you can believe this snake oil salesman you haven't really tried to understand the science. One day you'll be ashamed you uncritically propagated this bull dust. Do you know how cold this planet would be if there was zero carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?  Although it makes up a small part of our atmosphere it's pretty powerful stuff. Well, our actions are well on the way to doubling atmospheric CO2 (that's right doubling) in a very short period of time. Some idiot in a suit telling me that CO2 only makes up a small part of our atmosphere (true) and that our contribution is minuscule (outright lie) doesn't change the reality. What is to believe. What is not to believe. Is he wrong in his figures. Think about it, if CO2 has increased from a preindustrial concentration of 280ppm to 393.65ppm, our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is much larger than he represents in his rice analogy. So in other words, you really don't know. The figures are of no relevance. CO2 drives temperature. Not as the dude in the video claims without evidence. So to repeat : CO2 increases drives temperatures up.

lol temperature drive CO2 up which in turns drives temperature up again slightly. How are we ever going to stop the earth spewing out 32 grains of rice compared to humans coughing up 1 grain of rice.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5^th, 2012 at 10:47am:

____ wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 10:21am: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 9:37am: MOTR wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 9:34am: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 8:39am: MOTR wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 5:02am: That's just embarrassing. If you can believe this snake oil salesman you haven't really tried to understand the science. One day you'll be ashamed you uncritically propagated this bull dust. Do you know how cold this planet would be if there was zero carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?  Although it makes up a small part of our atmosphere it's pretty powerful stuff. Well, our actions are well on the way to doubling atmospheric CO2 (that's right doubling) in a very short period of time. Some idiot in a suit telling me that CO2 only makes up a small part of our atmosphere (true) and that our contribution is minuscule (outright lie) doesn't change the reality. What is to believe. What is not to believe. Is he wrong in his figures. Think about it, if CO2 has increased from a preindustrial concentration of 280ppm to 393.65ppm, our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is much larger than he represents in his rice analogy. So in other words, you really don't know. The figures are of no relevance. CO2 drives temperature. Not as the dude in the video claims without evidence. So to repeat : CO2 increases drives temperatures up. lol temperature drive CO2 up which in turns drives temperature up again slightly. How are we ever going to stop the earth spewing out 32 grains of rice compared to humans coughing up 1 grain of rice.

My favourite ignorant answer,
The earth does it so it’s ok for us to do it to.

olde.sault wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 4:20pm:

This forum is over-loaded with either fools or watermelon Greens.

Actually a fair few people agree with you? I mean greens got no seats in QLD it aint like they are a giant army of doom. These forum is pretty anti green and no one seems scared to call Greens Win out when they are delusional.

Do you always feel like you are persecuted?

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5^th, 2012 at 10:47am:

____ wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 10:21am: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 9:37am: MOTR wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 9:34am: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 8:39am: MOTR wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 5:02am: That's just embarrassing. If you can believe this snake oil salesman you haven't really tried to understand the science. One day you'll be ashamed you uncritically propagated this bull dust. Do you know how cold this planet would be if there was zero carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?  Although it makes up a small part of our atmosphere it's pretty powerful stuff. Well, our actions are well on the way to doubling atmospheric CO2 (that's right doubling) in a very short period of time. Some idiot in a suit telling me that CO2 only makes up a small part of our atmosphere (true) and that our contribution is minuscule (outright lie) doesn't change the reality. What is to believe. What is not to believe. Is he wrong in his figures. Think about it, if CO2 has increased from a preindustrial concentration of 280ppm to 393.65ppm, our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is much larger than he represents in his rice analogy. So in other words, you really don't know. The figures are of no relevance. CO2 drives temperature. Not as the dude in the video claims without evidence. So to repeat : CO2 increases drives temperatures up. lol temperature drive CO2 up which in turns drives temperature up again slightly. How are we ever going to stop the earth spewing out 32 grains of rice compared to humans coughing up 1 grain of rice.

Have a look here. just scroll about half way down to the diagram. Without us the natural sinks can cope with the carbon created by nature.

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/section2group4/the_link__human_influences_on_storm_intensity

____ wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 1:50pm:

olde.sault wrote on Apr 4th, 2012 at 1:32pm: How smart was your leader, GayBob, to blackmail JuLiar into reviving the carbon tax after solemnly promising not to, so to win my votes? Just re-enforces general opinion that criminals are dumb-- Of course, Brown is a criminal - of the worst kind - he isn't satisfied to destroy just one family he destroys the whole country ! How do rational this out?

ah the mock value of greens_liquidated talking about 'irrational posts'!!!!

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5^th, 2012 at 10:47am:

____ wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 10:21am: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 9:37am: MOTR wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 9:34am: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 8:39am: MOTR wrote on Apr 5th, 2012 at 5:02am: That's just embarrassing. If you can believe this snake oil salesman you haven't really tried to understand the science. One day you'll be ashamed you uncritically propagated this bull dust. Do you know how cold this planet would be if there was zero carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?  Although it makes up a small part of our atmosphere it's pretty powerful stuff. Well, our actions are well on the way to doubling atmospheric CO2 (that's right doubling) in a very short period of time. Some idiot in a suit telling me that CO2 only makes up a small part of our atmosphere (true) and that our contribution is minuscule (outright lie) doesn't change the reality. What is to believe. What is not to believe. Is he wrong in his figures. Think about it, if CO2 has increased from a preindustrial concentration of 280ppm to 393.65ppm, our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is much larger than he represents in his rice analogy. So in other words, you really don't know. The figures are of no relevance. CO2 drives temperature. Not as the dude in the video claims without evidence. So to repeat : CO2 increases drives temperatures up. lol temperature drive CO2 up which in turns drives temperature up again slightly. How are we ever going to stop the earth spewing out 32 grains of rice compared to humans coughing up 1 grain of rice.

Not to mention the voluminous spew from volcanoes!

It's not that voluminous, olde.sault. On an annual basis it averages about 1% of what we humans produce.

MOTR wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 11:19am:

It's not that voluminous, olde.sault. On an annual basis it averages about 1% of what we humans produce.

That is not what I heard from the really qualified scientists, of course, not from the professors of mammals and bones or economics (Flannery & Garnaut).

Garnaut is not even  a "qualified" economist!

How can he  know anything about economy if he approves of the Greenies' carbon tax that will close Australian business and strain household budgets?

Bob Brown and Gillard are both mad in their need to hold onto power.

These two have earned the death penalty.

olde.sault wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:28pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 11:19am: It's not that voluminous, olde.sault. On an annual basis it averages about 1% of what we humans produce. That is not what I heard from the really qualified scientists, of course, not from the professors of mammals and bones or economics (Flannery & Garnaut). Garnaut is not even  a "qualified" economist! How can he  know anything about economy if he approves of the Greenies' carbon tax that will close Australian business and strain household budgets? Bob Brown and Gillard are both mad in their need to hold onto power. These two have earned the death penalty.

Well you've been misled. Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, while we emit about 29 billion tonnes.

Read what a real scentist has to say about CO2 and volcanoes.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1013_jourdan.pdf


Quote:

... it has been shown by the US Geological Survey that current emissions from volcanoes are being dwarfed by human emissions to a ratio of 1/130... — Response from Fred Jourdan (Prof. of Applied Geology, Curtin University of Technology), 28th April, 2010

MOTR wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 10:56am:

Read what a real scentist has to say about CO2 and volcanoes. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1013_jourdan.pdf [quote]... it has been shown by the US Geological Survey that current emissions from volcanoes are being dwarfed by human emissions to a ratio of 1/130... — Response from Fred Jourdan (Prof. of Applied Geology, Curtin University of Technology), 28th April, 2010

Yes, and who pays this knowledgeable professor?

Eh?

Curtain University, doubtless, a Labor-geared nest of learning therefore, one has to toe the line in order to earn a salary--

From his photograph, he doesn't look like a professor, rather like a swagman!

Bob Carter is better-qualified, better-known so forget Fred, the wet-bed!

olde.sault wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 4:36pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 7th, 2012 at 10:56am: Read what a real scentist has to say about CO2 and volcanoes. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1013_jourdan.pdf [quote]... it has been shown by the US Geological Survey that current emissions from volcanoes are being dwarfed by human emissions to a ratio of 1/130... — Response from Fred Jourdan (Prof. of Applied Geology, Curtin University of Technology), 28th April, 2010 Yes, and who pays this knowledgeable professor? Eh? Curtain University, doubtless, a Labor-geared nest of learning therefore, one has to toe the line in order to earn a salary-- From his photograph, he doesn't look like a professor, rather like a swagman! Bob Carter is better-qualified, better-known so forget Fred, the wet-bed!

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1107_englandco2.pdf

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1107_ashleyco2.pdf

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1107_sherwoodco2.pdf

Do you also want to google the photographs of Prof. England, Prof.Ashley, and Prof. Sherwood, to see if they look smart enough for you. I'm sure they also work for money. It's kinda the way things work around here.

And in the interests of fairness here are some of the sources that fund Bob Carter.


Quote:

Carter is Chief Science Advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition[2], funded in part by the Heartland Institute[6], which is funded by the industries involved in producing greenhouse gases. Carter is also an advisor on a number of other right wing and denialist "think-tanks" and groups the Institute for Public Affairs (Aus), The Galileo Movement (Aus), the Science and Public Policy Institute (US), the International Climate Science Coalition (US/Canada), the Australian Climate Science Coalition, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK) and Repeal the Act (UK).[7] He was a founding advisor to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Carter is a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs. Carter's own website claimed, as recently as 2012, that he received no funding from "special interest organisations", but this was shown to be untrue with the release of private Heartland Institute documents in February 2012, which showed Carter was funded by this one front group alone to the tune of approximately $20,000 annually. Carter brushed off the revelation with the statement that being truthful about one's funding is "a very quaint and old fashioned practice".

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter

I don't think it would be going too far to say that Bob is a dead set hired hand for the denialist movement.

It's why he is so well known to you, and such a great mate of Alan 'cash for comment' Jones. Pity he is isolated from his scientific colleagues. Not because they disagree with him, but because he can't justify his position scientifically.

MOTR wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 5:28pm:

And in the interests of fairness here are some of the sources that fund Bob Carter. Quote: Carter is Chief Science Advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition[2], funded in part by the Heartland Institute[6], which is funded by the industries involved in producing greenhouse gases. Carter is also an advisor on a number of other right wing and denialist "think-tanks" and groups the Institute for Public Affairs (Aus), The Galileo Movement (Aus), the Science and Public Policy Institute (US), the International Climate Science Coalition (US/Canada), the Australian Climate Science Coalition, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK) and Repeal the Act (UK).[7] He was a founding advisor to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Carter is a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs. Carter's own website claimed, as recently as 2012, that he received no funding from "special interest organisations", but this was shown to be untrue with the release of private Heartland Institute documents in February 2012, which showed Carter was funded by this one front group alone to the tune of approximately $20,000 annually. Carter brushed off the revelation with the statement that being truthful about one's funding is "a very quaint and old fashioned practice". http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter I don't think it would be going too far to say that Bob is a dead set hired hand for the denialist movement. It's why he is so well known to you, and such a great mate of Alan 'cash for comment' Jones. Pity he is isolated from his scientific colleagues. Not because they disagree with him, but because he can't justify his position scientifically.

You and all your bogan believers (commos) will have egg on their faces - eventually.

Over-populated cities have a pollution problem and that's because they breed like vermin.

Over-population in cities does cause some degree of warming, people cooking, traffic, high-rise buildings surrounded by concrete but,

anyone who believes that our emissions and not the sun, the tides, the very spin of the globe cause climate changes, hasn't the intelligence of an insect.

That sums up the thought-makeup of leftists.

Your anger shouldn't be directed at me. It should be directed at media outlets like 2GB. Radio announcers that are systematically hiding the truth from their audience and then using that ignorance as a political pawn. They are treating you no better than the party members of 1984, with their group think, doublespeak and two minutes of hate editorials.

I've spent hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours, trying to understand the science that shapes our climate. I know I'm not the victim of propaganda. Have you put the hard yards in to make sure you're not the victim? Your last post makes it clear to me you haven't.

olde.sault wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 9:53pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 7th, 2012 at 5:28pm: And in the interests of fairness here are some of the sources that fund Bob Carter. Quote: Carter is Chief Science Advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition[2], funded in part by the Heartland Institute[6], which is funded by the industries involved in producing greenhouse gases. Carter is also an advisor on a number of other right wing and denialist "think-tanks" and groups the Institute for Public Affairs (Aus), The Galileo Movement (Aus), the Science and Public Policy Institute (US), the International Climate Science Coalition (US/Canada), the Australian Climate Science Coalition, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK) and Repeal the Act (UK).[7] He was a founding advisor to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Carter is a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs. Carter's own website claimed, as recently as 2012, that he received no funding from "special interest organisations", but this was shown to be untrue with the release of private Heartland Institute documents in February 2012, which showed Carter was funded by this one front group alone to the tune of approximately $20,000 annually. Carter brushed off the revelation with the statement that being truthful about one's funding is "a very quaint and old fashioned practice". http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter I don't think it would be going too far to say that Bob is a dead set hired hand for the denialist movement. It's why he is so well known to you, and such a great mate of Alan 'cash for comment' Jones. Pity he is isolated from his scientific colleagues. Not because they disagree with him, but because he can't justify his position scientifically. You and all your bogan believers (commos) will have egg on their faces - eventually. Over-populated cities have a pollution problem and that's because they breed like vermin. Over-population in cities does cause some degree of warming, people cooking, traffic, high-rise buildings surrounded by concrete but, anyone who believes that our emissions and not the sun, the tides, the very spin of the globe cause climate changes, hasn't the intelligence of an insect. That sums up the thought-makeup of leftists.

A godless communist pretending to be attacking communism when it is clear he is philosophically social darwinist and advocating communist population control - the pot should not call the kettle black comrade... :P :P :P

corporate_whitey wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 10:53pm:

olde.sault wrote on Apr 7th, 2012 at 9:53pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 7th, 2012 at 5:28pm: And in the interests of fairness here are some of the sources that fund Bob Carter. Quote: Carter is Chief Science Advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition[2], funded in part by the Heartland Institute[6], which is funded by the industries involved in producing greenhouse gases. Carter is also an advisor on a number of other right wing and denialist "think-tanks" and groups the Institute for Public Affairs (Aus), The Galileo Movement (Aus), the Science and Public Policy Institute (US), the International Climate Science Coalition (US/Canada), the Australian Climate Science Coalition, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK) and Repeal the Act (UK).[7] He was a founding advisor to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Carter is a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs. Carter's own website claimed, as recently as 2012, that he received no funding from "special interest organisations", but this was shown to be untrue with the release of private Heartland Institute documents in February 2012, which showed Carter was funded by this one front group alone to the tune of approximately $20,000 annually. Carter brushed off the revelation with the statement that being truthful about one's funding is "a very quaint and old fashioned practice". http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter I don't think it would be going too far to say that Bob is a dead set hired hand for the denialist movement. It's why he is so well known to you, and such a great mate of Alan 'cash for comment' Jones. Pity he is isolated from his scientific colleagues. Not because they disagree with him, but because he can't justify his position scientifically. You and all your bogan believers (commos) will have egg on their faces - eventually. Over-populated cities have a pollution problem and that's because they breed like vermin. Over-population in cities does cause some degree of warming, people cooking, traffic, high-rise buildings surrounded by concrete but, anyone who believes that our emissions and not the sun, the tides, the very spin of the globe cause climate changes, hasn't the intelligence of an insect. That sums up the thought-makeup of leftists. A godless communist pretending to be attacking communism when it is clear he is philosophically social darwinist and advocating communist population control - the pot should not call the kettle black comrade... :P :P :P

Was your last post attributed to me?

If it were, I'm not a "he" but a daughter of White Russian parents, brought up on hatred for the Reds.

However, I have always been courteous to all people - a good listener therefore, I had politely socialised  with those on the left.

I was never impressed, found leftards to be nothing but a whinging lot who thought that they shouldn't have to work hard to succeed because the world owed them the gold (yawn).

A good example is Gillard's tax on mining.  After mismanaging the economy, she turns on mining to cough up for her mistakes -

not realising (being dumb) that this tax will deter further investment in mining, an industry that saw us through the world's financial crisis.

Putting a price on carbon has nothing to do with communism. Acting now through a market based solution is more likely to reduce the need for direct government intervention.

Your anger shouldn't be directed at me. It should be directed at media outlets like 2GB. Radio announcers that are systematically hiding the truth from their audience and then using that ignorance as a political pawn.


So you are a 2GB listener. Interesting.

You do realise that 85% of people don't listen to 2GB.

MOTR wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 5:54am:

Putting a price on carbon has nothing to do with communism. Acting now through a market based solution is more likely to reduce the need for direct government intervention.

You don't consider a carbon tax to be "direct government intervention"???

MOTR wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 5:54am:

Putting a price on carbon has nothing to do with communism. Acting now through a market based solution is more likely to reduce the need for direct government intervention.

Yes lets pay billions for a 0.00084 degree decrease in temperature. lol you cant even measure it, but you can sure as hell measure the effects of this redistribution of wealth and debt and taxes of labor and the greens on the economy.

blackadder wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 7:15am:

Your anger shouldn't be directed at me. It should be directed at media outlets like 2GB. Radio announcers that are systematically hiding the truth from their audience and then using that ignorance as a political pawn. So you are a 2GB listener. Interesting. You do realise that 85% of people don't listen to 2GB.

Olde.sault listens to 2GB.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 7:43am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 8th, 2012 at 5:54am: Putting a price on carbon has nothing to do with communism. Acting now through a market based solution is more likely to reduce the need for direct government intervention. Yes lets pay billions for a 0.00084 degree decrease in temperature. lol you cant even measure it, but you can sure as hell measure the effects of this redistribution of wealth and debt and taxes of labor and the greens on the economy.

We've been through this before. It's about collective action. It's the universal argument of shirkers and free riders everywhere, my little bit won't help therefore why bother.

MOTR wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 8:03am:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 8th, 2012 at 7:43am: MOTR wrote on Apr 8th, 2012 at 5:54am: Putting a price on carbon has nothing to do with communism. Acting now through a market based solution is more likely to reduce the need for direct government intervention. Yes lets pay billions for a 0.00084 degree decrease in temperature. lol you cant even measure it, but you can sure as hell measure the effects of this redistribution of wealth and debt and taxes of labor and the greens on the economy. We've been through this before. It's about collective action. It's the universal argument of shirkers and free riders everywhere, my little bit won't help therefore why bother.

No, that is even if the pseudo science of mann-made catastrophic climate change is correct. Which it is not.

Unfortunately, progressiveslol, the science is very solid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHhLcoPT9KM&sns=em

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 7:21am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 8th, 2012 at 5:54am: Putting a price on carbon has nothing to do with communism. Acting now through a market based solution is more likely to reduce the need for direct government intervention. You don't consider a carbon tax to be "direct government intervention"???

No, when referring the carbon reduction mechanism we usually categorize them as market based mechanisms or direct intervention. Our carbon tax which is legislated to become an emissions trading scheme, squarely falls into the first category.


Quote:

The leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, is not easily embarrassed, but he showed a tiny bit of embarrassment when he had to concede that he could not find a single reputable economist to back his proposal for a 'direct action' scheme to reduce CO2 emissions. By contrast, large majorities back one or other of Abbott's numerous previous positions on the issue, supporting a carbon tax, an emissions trading scheme, or some hybrid of the two. An informal poll held at the Australian Conference of Economists found that only 11 per cent of attendees supported 'direct action', while 80 per cent favoured price-based mechanisms. From my discussions in the profession, I would say that the 11 per cent is an overstatement, and that those who responded this way fall into two groups: Non-economists attending the conference on behalf of business organisations and other bodies tied to the conservative side of politics. The small minority of economists who reject the science of climate change and correctly judge that, whatever his current statements, Abbott has no intention of doing anything about it, let alone a wasteful and costly program of direct action.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2795102.html

MOTR wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 9:07am:

Unfortunately, progressiveslol, the science is very solid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHhLcoPT9KM&sns=em

Well I never. So it isnt about a hockey stick lol

The temperature reconstructions make up just one of the multiple lines of independent evidence that confirm anthropogenic global warming.

MOTR wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 12:44pm:

The temperature reconstructions make up just one of the multiple lines of independent evidence that confirm anthropogenic global warming.

Really. In that statement you would think the world was a contant temperature. Pseudo.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 1:09pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 8th, 2012 at 12:44pm: The temperature reconstructions make up just one of the multiple lines of independent evidence that confirm anthropogenic global warming. Really. In that statement you would think the world was a contant temperature. Pseudo.

Only if you were unfamiliar with the reconstructions. If you've been keeping pace you'll know that Mann's results have been confirmed temperature reconstruction after temperature reconstruction.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/recon_lj_with_others.png

MOTR wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 1:22pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 8th, 2012 at 1:09pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 8th, 2012 at 12:44pm: The temperature reconstructions make up just one of the multiple lines of independent evidence that confirm anthropogenic global warming. Really. In that statement you would think the world was a contant temperature. Pseudo. Only if you were unfamiliar with the reconstructions. If you've been keeping pace you'll know that Mann's results have been confirmed temperature reconstruction after temperature reconstruction. http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/recon_lj_with_others.png

nice piece of BS graph you have there.

olde.sault wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 5:22am:

corporate_whitey wrote on Apr 7th, 2012 at 10:53pm: olde.sault wrote on Apr 7th, 2012 at 9:53pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 7th, 2012 at 5:28pm: And in the interests of fairness here are some of the sources that fund Bob Carter. Quote: Carter is Chief Science Advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition[2], funded in part by the Heartland Institute[6], which is funded by the industries involved in producing greenhouse gases. Carter is also an advisor on a number of other right wing and denialist "think-tanks" and groups the Institute for Public Affairs (Aus), The Galileo Movement (Aus), the Science and Public Policy Institute (US), the International Climate Science Coalition (US/Canada), the Australian Climate Science Coalition, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK) and Repeal the Act (UK).[7] He was a founding advisor to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Carter is a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs. Carter's own website claimed, as recently as 2012, that he received no funding from "special interest organisations", but this was shown to be untrue with the release of private Heartland Institute documents in February 2012, which showed Carter was funded by this one front group alone to the tune of approximately $20,000 annually. Carter brushed off the revelation with the statement that being truthful about one's funding is "a very quaint and old fashioned practice". http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter I don't think it would be going too far to say that Bob is a dead set hired hand for the denialist movement. It's why he is so well known to you, and such a great mate of Alan 'cash for comment' Jones. Pity he is isolated from his scientific colleagues. Not because they disagree with him, but because he can't justify his position scientifically. You and all your bogan believers (commos) will have egg on their faces - eventually. Over-populated cities have a pollution problem and that's because they breed like vermin. Over-population in cities does cause some degree of warming, people cooking, traffic, high-rise buildings surrounded by concrete but, anyone who believes that our emissions and not the sun, the tides, the very spin of the globe cause climate changes, hasn't the intelligence of an insect. That sums up the thought-makeup of leftists. A godless communist pretending to be attacking communism when it is clear he is philosophically social darwinist and advocating communist population control - the pot should not call the kettle black comrade... :P :P :P Was your last post attributed to me? If it were, I'm not a "he" but a daughter of White Russian parents, brought up on hatred for the Reds. However, I have always been courteous to all people - a good listener therefore, I had politely socialised  with those on the left. I was never impressed, found leftards to be nothing but a whinging lot who thought that they shouldn't have to work hard to succeed because the world owed them the gold (yawn). A good example is Gillard's tax on mining.  After mismanaging the economy, she turns on mining to cough up for her mistakes - not realising (being dumb) that this tax will deter further investment in mining, an industry that saw us through the world's financial crisis.

Your argument would be sound if it wasn't a total load of rubbish ... investment in mining is at all time record levels, and this is after the mining tax was announced  ... what exactly has been detered? Do you always go around repeating what the liberals have on their home page without checking facts? I know who I'll put my money on if we had to test who was smarter, you or Gillard, and it wouldn't be you ..

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 1:24pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 8th, 2012 at 1:22pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 8th, 2012 at 1:09pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 8th, 2012 at 12:44pm: The temperature reconstructions make up just one of the multiple lines of independent evidence that confirm anthropogenic global warming. Really. In that statement you would think the world was a contant temperature. Pseudo. Only if you were unfamiliar with the reconstructions. If you've been keeping pace you'll know that Mann's results have been confirmed temperature reconstruction after temperature reconstruction. http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/recon_lj_with_others.png nice piece of BS graph you have there.

On what grounds.

I again ask on what grounds you believe the hockey stick should be dismissed out of hand. Mike Mann under oath.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e2GlooAPkM&sns=em

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 1:28pm:

olde.sault wrote on Apr 8th, 2012 at 5:22am: corporate_whitey wrote on Apr 7th, 2012 at 10:53pm: olde.sault wrote on Apr 7th, 2012 at 9:53pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 7th, 2012 at 5:28pm: And in the interests of fairness here are some of the sources that fund Bob Carter. Quote: Carter is Chief Science Advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition[2], funded in part by the Heartland Institute[6], which is funded by the industries involved in producing greenhouse gases. Carter is also an advisor on a number of other right wing and denialist "think-tanks" and groups the Institute for Public Affairs (Aus), The Galileo Movement (Aus), the Science and Public Policy Institute (US), the International Climate Science Coalition (US/Canada), the Australian Climate Science Coalition, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK) and Repeal the Act (UK).[7] He was a founding advisor to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Carter is a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs. Carter's own website claimed, as recently as 2012, that he received no funding from "special interest organisations", but this was shown to be untrue with the release of private Heartland Institute documents in February 2012, which showed Carter was funded by this one front group alone to the tune of approximately $20,000 annually. Carter brushed off the revelation with the statement that being truthful about one's funding is "a very quaint and old fashioned practice". http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter I don't think it would be going too far to say that Bob is a dead set hired hand for the denialist movement. It's why he is so well known to you, and such a great mate of Alan 'cash for comment' Jones. Pity he is isolated from his scientific colleagues. Not because they disagree with him, but because he can't justify his position scientifically. You and all your bogan believers (commos) will have egg on their faces - eventually. Over-populated cities have a pollution problem and that's because they breed like vermin. Over-population in cities does cause some degree of warming, people cooking, traffic, high-rise buildings surrounded by concrete but, anyone who believes that our emissions and not the sun, the tides, the very spin of the globe cause climate changes, hasn't the intelligence of an insect. That sums up the thought-makeup of leftists. A godless communist pretending to be attacking communism when it is clear he is philosophically social darwinist and advocating communist population control - the pot should not call the kettle black comrade... :P :P :P Was your last post attributed to me? If it were, I'm not a "he" but a daughter of White Russian parents, brought up on hatred for the Reds. However, I have always been courteous to all people - a good listener therefore, I had politely socialised  with those on the left. I was never impressed, found leftards to be nothing but a whinging lot who thought that they shouldn't have to work hard to succeed because the world owed them the gold (yawn). A good example is Gillard's tax on mining.  After mismanaging the economy, she turns on mining to cough up for her mistakes - not realising (being dumb) that this tax will deter further investment in mining, an industry that saw us through the world's financial crisis. Your argument would be sound if it wasn't a total load of rubbish ... investment in mining is at all time record levels, and this is after the mining tax was announced  ... what exactly has been detered? Do you always go around repeating what the liberals have on their home page without checking facts? I know who I'll put my money on if we had to test who was smarter, you or Gillard, and it wouldn't be you ..

Will you still be supporting JuLiar - get into her cart on the way to her guillotining?

MOTR wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 5:57pm:

I again ask on what grounds you believe the hockey stick should be dismissed out of hand. Mike Mann under oath. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e2GlooAPkM&sns=em

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 14^th, 2012 at 8:59am:

M Mann had a dog once too and it ate all his homework and all he had left was a hockey stick to show for it but no way to explain it.

You are still running from this question Progressiveslol.

MOTR wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 5:57pm:

I again ask on what grounds you believe the hockey stick should be dismissed out of hand. Mike Mann under oath. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e2GlooAPkM&sns=em

The dog ate his homework (so cant show you the raw data). There are other studies that manage to use tree rings right up to now, not like mann who had to cut out the tree rings (at 1969 I think) and put in dubious temperature readings to make what you call a hockey stick. The hockey stick is a load of BS. Not to mention leaving out the MWP on purpose.

Roy Spencer, even today, is still finding problems with the dubious temperature records.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/13/warming-in-the-ushcn-is-mainly-an-artifact-of-adjustments/

Roy Spencer
And I must admit that those adjustments constituting virtually all of the warming signal in the last 40 years is disconcerting. When “global warming” only shows up after the data are adjusted, one can understand why so many people are suspicious of the adjustments.

Rather than uncritically posting the latest offering from Anthony Watts how about you provide some real arguments to back your position.

MOTR wrote on Apr 14^th, 2012 at 10:36am:

Rather than uncritically posting the latest offering from Anthony Watts how about you provide some real arguments to back your position.

I thought you didn't read very well, but to post and confirm that, is just plain dumb.

The offering is from a climate scientist.

It's the latest blog posting from Anthony Watt's, http://wattsupwiththat.com

It's a guest post from Dr. Roy Spencer, so what is your point. Explain to us how it calls into question Mann's reconstructions.

MOTR wrote on Apr 14^th, 2012 at 10:54am:

It's the latest blog posting from Anthony Watt's, http://wattsupwiththat.com It's a guest post from Dr. Roy Spencer, so what is your point. Explain to us how it calls into question Mann's reconstructions.

Show me the raw data to the BS hockey stick. You start with providing that information first.

So are you now taking back your BS assumption that because a climate scientist wrote on a web page you dont like, then it somehow makes his scientific work bogus.

Lets see how fruity you are.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 14^th, 2012 at 10:57am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 14th, 2012 at 10:54am: It's the latest blog posting from Anthony Watt's, http://wattsupwiththat.com It's a guest post from Dr. Roy Spencer, so what is your point. Explain to us how it calls into question Mann's reconstructions. Show me the raw data to the BS hockey stick. You start with providing that information first. So are you now taking back your BS assumption that because a climate scientist wrote on a web page you dont like, then it somehow makes his scientific work bogus. Lets see how fruity you are.

No. I've asked you to stump up on the Mann issue. The latest blog post from Watt, albeit one from a climate scientist, does not cut the mustard when it is unrelated to the issue at hand.

Stop throwing around ad hominems and provide some real arguments.

MOTR wrote on Apr 14^th, 2012 at 11:03am:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 14th, 2012 at 10:57am: MOTR wrote on Apr 14th, 2012 at 10:54am: It's the latest blog posting from Anthony Watt's, http://wattsupwiththat.com It's a guest post from Dr. Roy Spencer, so what is your point. Explain to us how it calls into question Mann's reconstructions. Show me the raw data to the BS hockey stick. You start with providing that information first. So are you now taking back your BS assumption that because a climate scientist wrote on a web page you dont like, then it somehow makes his scientific work bogus. Lets see how fruity you are. No. I've asked you to stump up on the Mann issue. The latest blog post from Watt, albeit one from a climate scientist, does not cut the mustard when it is unrelated to the issue at hand. Stop throwing around ad hominems and provide some real arguments.

It is all there for you. Hand over the raw data, otherwise the hockey stick that has no MWP and cuttoff tree ring data and getting a stick end using dubious temperature data, is just a load of BS and should be looked at as part of the mann-made catastrophic global warming pseudo scientific farce.

The raw data if you please.

Are you trying to imply that Mann's data was never made available to the public. Here is one of the findings from Penn State's review of Mann's work.


Quote:

Most questions about Dr. Mann’s findings have been focused on his early published work that showed the “hockey stick” pattern of climate change. In fact, research published since then by Dr. Mann and by independent researchers has shown patterns similar to those first described by Dr. Mann….  In some cases, other researchers (e.g., Wahl & Ammann, 2007) have been able to replicate Dr. Mann’s findings, using the publicly available data and algorithms. The convergence of findings by different teams of researchers, using different data sets, lends further credence to the fact that Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research has followed acceptable practice within his field.  Further support for this conclusion may be found in the observation that almost all of Dr. Mann’s work was accomplished jointly with other scientists. The checks and balances inherent in such a scientific team approach further diminishes chances that anything unethical or inappropriate occurred in the conduct of the research.

According to the National Academy of Science:

The fallibility of methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science.  Scientific knowledge and scientific methods, whether old or new, must be continually scrutinized for possible errors.  Such skepticism can conflict with other important features of science, such as the need for creativity and for conviction in arguing a given position[1]

The initial chief skeptics of Mann’s work were Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.  McIntyre entered the fray as a curious mathematician; McKitrick as an equally interested associate professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph, Ontario.  Curious to see how the hockey stick graph had been created, in the spring of 2003, McIntyre and McKitrick contacted Mann, requesting his raw data.  Such requests are quite common in the world of scientific research and clearly are welcomed by adherents to the guidelines procured by the National Academy of Science.  Mann obliged.

As soon as McIntyre and McKitrick began reassembling Mann’s data, they noticed a variety of sloppy errors, including mislabled and obsolete data and unexplained truncations (invloving numbers with decimal points).  When these errors were corrected and run through the computer, amazingly the sizzling blade of the hockey stick  dissapeared.  A report noting their astounding results was published that October.[2]
Nature was informed of the now published glaring errors, and, after their own investigation, ordered a list of corrections from Mann, which were not supplied until years later.[3] Attempting further to uncover Mann’s methodology, McIntyre and McKitrick requested Mann’s computer codes.  Mann refused the request.  Acting on an earlier suggestion from Mann that the University of Massachusetts’ computer archives housed his orignal data, they went through the archives for a month, only to discover that they had been led on a wild goose chase—the data they were originally working with was the same information found in the archives.  Mann seemed to have purposely provided a bad lead.  However, as is often the case in investigative work, the relentless McIntyre and McKitrick got lucky and stumbled upon some buried computer codes in the archives that turned out to be the very ones Mann had used to create his original analysis.

After correcting the striking errors in the data, and using Mann’s own data-mining algorithm, the hockey stick model was broken—there was no longer a spike on the right side of the graph, and the centuries of past warming and cooling became evident.  When the bad data was re-added, the wild, misleading hockey stick again appeared.

The lobotmizing hockey stick had been snapped like a cheap pencil.

McIntyre and McKitrick contacted Nature with their extensive results, requesting the opportunity to show the world their findings.  Despite the journal’s own admission that bogus information had been presented by Mann in his original paper, after an 8-month reviewing process, Nature refused to publish the damaging report.  The reason, according to Dr. McKitrick, was that “[t]hey concluded it could not be explained in the 500-word limit they were prepared to give us, and one of the referees said he found the material was quite technical and unlikely to be of interest to the general readers.”[4]

The frauds working at CRU have been so hacked-off at McIntyre and McKitrick that in one October 2009 email to Phil Jones excuses are made for withholding data:

the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons — but
many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The
trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,
and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is
being hidden.

Numerous others have debunked Mann’s hockey stick model, yet the Stick continues to be touted by global warming advocates as the gospel.  Check your kid’s science textbooks, it’s sure to be there as well—underscoring the fantasy that this is the hottest weather ever, because the inconvenient facts are being left out.

--
According to this, the raw data that mann used must not be the data that was released because it just does not add up.

Who are you quoting?

I guess it doesn't matter, the gist seems to be the Hockey stick has been debunked by the work of Steve McIntyre, is that a fair representation of your position.

O.K. Based on your understanding of McKitrick and McKintyre's work does it relate specifically to Mann's 1998 reconstruction or all subsequent reconstructions which have identified the same hockey stick pattern.

Secondly, are you aware of any criticisms of McKitrick & McKitryre's work in the peer review literature.

Still waiting for your reply, progressiveslol.

the major problems with Manns work are twofold

1) the statistical aggregation methodology is so flawed that the outcome is valueless. This has been confirmed by an MIT statistics professor yet curiously never taken heed of in the various reviews of his work.

2) his results completely overturn the proven historical MIA and MWP which by the very nature of the scientific method renders his results invalid. You cannot produce a theory that states that things we know happened DIDNT happen


My biggest concern ius not that Mann was wrong. Thats part of the scientific process. What I am concerned about is that repeated reviews say he is right when he is PROVABLY wrong. In fact, have you noticed that no review anywhere and any time has ever said that the work of pro-climate science was wrong or unprofessional or unethical? That seems a bit odd since almost every area of science has these problems EXCEPT climate science.  the CRU review is a case in point. Nothing wrong happened - apparently. Falsified date, destroyed data, misinterpreataion, obvious attempts to subvert peer-review etc. but 'nothing bad happened.

Just like Michael Manns work. One eminent ive league professor was once quoted as saying that he woudlnt have even given Mann his PhD for his ridiculous lame work.