A mate was telling me there was a protest being organised to highlight the failure of the press to report the Arctic melt. He wasn't sure who was organising it but he thought it was meant to coincide with the expected minimum. Can anyone tell me where I need to be?

Soren wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 9:40pm:


I don't get how you can be so dismissive of the scientific consensus.

Why are you so convinced our scientists are getting it wrong?

Soren wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 10:34pm:

No.

Avoiding Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt is inoculation against group-think.

MOTR wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 9:43pm:


But science is not consensus, it's facts and evidence...and your pulling up short on these 2.

namnugenot wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 11:02pm:

Which "facts and evidence" are you denying?

Are you denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Are you denying that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased significantly in recent decades?
Are you denying that the majority of the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in anthropogenic?
Are you denying there has been a measured increase in the amount of downward longwave radiation in recent decades?
Are you denying there has been measured decrease in outgoing longwave radiation at the same wavelengths as those absorbed by CO2 in recent decades?
Are you denying there has been an observed increase in global temperature in recent decades?
Are you denying there has been an observed increase in sea level in recent decades?
Are you denying there has been a decrease in global glacial mass balance in recent decades?
Are you denying there has been a decrease in Arctic sea ice in recent decades?
Are you denying there has been a measured decrease in ocean pH in recent decades?

Which part of the mountain of "facts and evidence" that exist in the body of scientific literature are you trying to pretend does not exist?

Could you explain?

You are nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated...

Prevailing wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 11:50pm:

No.  I haven't described entropy at all.

I described the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:13am:

Everything deteriorates from order to disorder...measure it any way you like...leave a brand new car out in the elements for forty years and it will rust, deteriorate and begin to break down as the certain scientific law of Entropy dictates...it is unstoppable, the universe will one day contract in on itself into nothingness...the particles and substance of the universe are random, chaotic and we are a part of that and guilt doctrines cannot be ascribed to us unless you are trying to impose some psuedo religious trip on us...

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:32am:

Because it is chaotic, therefore your argument is pointless, the universe cannot be blamed for being the way it is and you cant tax a part of the substance of the universe for the way it interacts with other elements...it just is...

You are yet to illustrate why the random chaotic interactions of the universe can be blamed and taxed...

This sounds like a superstitious 16th century Lutheran doctrine called imputed guilt to me...

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:28pm:

what empirical evidence? CO2 rising and temps staying flat is not empirical evidence. Past climate temps vs CO2 is no empirical evidence on CO2's side.

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:30pm:

What empirical evidence would you like to see?

Empirical evidence that CO2, methane NOx HCFCs etc act as 'greenhouse gasses'?
Empirical evidence that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased significantly in recent decades?
Empirical evidence that the majority of the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in anthropogenic?
Empirical evidence there has been a measured increase in the amount of downward longwave radiation in recent decades?
Empirical evidence there has been measured decrease in outgoing longwave radiation at the same wavelengths as those absorbed by CO2 in recent decades?
Empirical evidence there has been an observed increase in global temperature in recent decades?
Empirical evidence there has been an observed increase in sea level in recent decades?
Empirical evidence there has been a decrease in global glacial mass balance in recent decades?
Empirical evidence there has been a decrease in Arctic sea ice in recent decades?
Empirical evidence there has been a measured decrease in ocean pH in recent decades?

Which thread of the current overwhelming body of evidence are you most ignorant about?

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:41pm:

Are they?!?!

By "debatable" - you mean you listen to Alan Jones and you believe what he tells you, right?

I guess you will have to show us your points of debate - won't you.  Can you do that?  Or do you need to wait for next weekends Bolt show for more ideas?

So - you understand that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased significantly.  That is a start i suppose.  But you don't understand that the majority of the increase has come from anthropogenic sources.

Where has the increase come from then?  Any ideas?
And all the CO2 from the coal and oil burnt over the last 2 centuies - where has it gone, if it is not the cause of the observed increase in concentration of atmospheric CO2?
And why has the C13/C12 ration of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere decreased?

the 13 C/12 C ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed over the last 200 years by 1.5 parts per thousand
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

What is debatable here?  The increase in concentration has been measured and quantified. The increase in CO2 emissions has been measured and quantified.  The decrease in C13/C12 ration has been measured.

What exactly do you find "debatable" about the uncontroversial fact that the majority of the increase has come from anthropogenic sources?

Could you tell us?

Haven't been able to find any information on the protest. Which pisses me off because I was ready to march. Did a bit of a street poll on the record arctic melt and not one of the people I asked was aware of it. Why isn't this news?

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 7:42pm:


Of course they are interested. It's the only reason for the carbon tax, and the carbon tax is massive news.

Why are we being kept in the dark?

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 8:10pm:



So let's not report the rationale for the tax. That's an absolute failure of the press.