pt 2.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.

Grendel wrote on Jun 26^th, 2009 at 7:49pm:



The question was loaded.  It's simplified to the extent that it doesn't make sense. Do you honestly think anyone believes that carbon dioxide produces its own heat?

By the way, carbon dioxide is not actually manmade. It's generated by the activities of 'man' such as the burning of fossil fuels, cement manufacture and changes in tropical land use.

The question was cleverly engineered so that it doesn't make sense and can't be answered directly. Here are some better questions:

Do  increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere lead to global warming?

The clear answer is yes.

Has the warming observed in the last 60 years been consistent with natural variations in solar output?

The clear answer to that is no.  

Is the 30% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide attributable to the burning of fossil fuels and other anthropogenic factors?

Yes. We can tell that from isotope ratios.

In the last (say) 2000 years prior to about 1900, was solar irradiance (a combination of solar activity and orbital factors) the main determinant for global temperatures?

Generally yes,  apart from short-lived effects due to volcanicity and ENSO cycles (which are partially solar related).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As an analogy, a person works in brilliant sunlight all his life and he later develops cataracts as a result of the UV light. He actually wore sunglasses most of this time, but they were not Australian Standard and did not absorb UV rays.

Is the primary cause of his cataracts, the fact that he was not wearing UV absorbing sunglasses?

Clearly the answer is no. The sun is the primary cause.

But  - If he had worn proper sunglasses could this have prevented cataracts?

In all probability - yes. (semantics)

The bottom line:

Loaded questions can be very powerful tools to drive an agenda.

The  meeting Fielding attended was sponsored by none other than the Heartland institute.
Editor’s note: Heartland Institute Science Director Jay Lehr presents evidence that mankind has no significant impact on the Earth’s climate. ... (read more)
They are not only climate confusionalists but out and out liers.

The institute is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, "an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming".[4]

Heartland's publications make the following assertions about climate change:

"Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate."[5]
"The most reliable temperature data show no global warming trend."[5]
"A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization."[5]
"The best strategy to pursue is one of 'no regrets'."[5]
In March 2008, and again in March 2009 the Heartland Institute sponsored an international conference bringing hundreds of global warming skeptics to New York City. Speakers included Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT; Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist; S. Fred Singer, who was founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami and founding director of the National Weather Satellite Service; Harrison Schmitt, a former NASA astronaut and Apollo 17 moonwalker; and John Theon, a former NASA administrator. Participants criticized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore.[6][7]

In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that a bibliography written by Dennis Avery and posted on Heartland’s Web site, titled "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares,”[8] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!" [9]

As everyone can see this institute is a total sham with no scientific support, just fabricated lies.

ok Grendel - Let's put it another way -


Why do you beat your wife?

Dear me...  can't answer the question eh?  Don't want to answer the question.

So needs to change the question.

Just answer the bloody question Grendel and stop being a wanker.

As for the rest of your crap and pedantry...  just answer the bloody question don't reinterpret it.

muso wrote on Jun 30^th, 2009 at 8:15am:


Well done. Exactly right.

I suggest you don't talk about my private life or make stupid negative inferences Jerk!

Just answer the bloody question coward.

muso wrote on Jul 1^st, 2009 at 2:57pm:


Didn't you say that methane has 20x the global warming effect of CO2? Yet your attributing this warming period to CO2. What about other periods when the Earth's atmopspheric CO2 levels have been thousands of ppm higher than they are today, with no corresponding global warming. In fact, some periods that should have been excessively hot (such as the late Ordovician) were ice ages!