The Climate Change Thread

[fatprop]

the article shows there is an issue, but whatever we do, unless the rest of the world does it too, our "contribution" to the solution will mean bugger all

 

[boyo]

Are you saying that Australia should play "follow the leader"?

Australia: always the follower, never the leader.

 

[Scoey]

Does the argument that, 'no one else is doing anything so what's the point of Australia going it alone?' still hold water? I have no idea how effective China's plans will be but they at least seem to be moving in a direction that aims to reduce emissions.

China plans to roll out its national market for carbon permit trading in 2016, an official said Sunday, adding that the government is close to finalising rules for what will be the world's biggest emissions trading scheme.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/carb...rt-in-2016-official-says-20140901-10arz1.html

 

[Pfitzy]

I'd like to think that if we try it in our market, we can at the very least make mistakes that others can learn from in their carbon trading schemes.

Or, you know, let's do some sciencey things to build a better energy source.

Which leaves the average lay person (like me) wondering who to trust. With Climategate, and now our own BoM under fire, I tend to err on the side of caution when reading pro-warming articles.

Well, I'm going to go with the CSIRO. Those guys with all the degrees and research and government funding, with the peer-reviewed bits and pieces that say we're fucking the planet up at a pretty alarming rate. Forget the long-term temperature scales for a moment: go look at the amount of forest we're permanently removing, or water sources we're permanently polluting, and chemicals we're pouring into the surface.

I take your point though, its like people believing that "crime rates are on the rise in Category X, Y, and Z" when the collection of those stats may have been flawed in the past.

 

[fatprop]

Are you saying that Australia should play "follow the leader"?

Australia: always the follower, never the leader.

I am politically and economically conservative (if you hadn't guessed), I see benefit to Aus at all in being a leader in this stuff. All it would do is increase our costs and make us less competitive.

Palmer's option to me made sense, set the trading system up, but set the price at "0" until our trading partners are reciprocating.

We then start setting a price

 

[matty_k]

And we all have been kept in the dark about the 97% study being seriously flawed. The authors of the study "misclassified the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics." (Forbes Magazine 30/5/13)

So did that bring it back to 90% or 95%? I'd settle for 80%.

 

[Pfitzy]

If a politician can be voted in on less than 50% of the primary vote, I think 80% is an excellent benchmark to accept that peer-reviewed scientific literature is accurate.

 

[Mr Doug]

You (of course) realise that if they hadn't homogenised (not a term requiring scare quotes, it's very standard and legitimate practise, well known, understood and public) the data, then there would have been a GREATER INCREASE in the temperature trend? I mean, this argument is sooo idiotic, you don't even know what you're arguing against.

Wrong wilful, firstly that you assume the above, and secondly, and more importantly, you actually think that without homogenisation, the results would have led to a greater increase! If you are pulled over by a police officer for speeding, am I to assume you say: "hang on officer, I want you to homogenise the speed of the vehicles in front of, behind, and beside me, to give a more accurate reading of my vehicle's speed"?

You obviously didn't read (or didn't understand) the articles by Graham Lloyd in the Weekend Australian of August 23-24, 2014. The figures from the BoM recording station at Amberley, Qld., show the blue graph, ("raw data") is actually going 'downhill', showing a cooling of 1 degree c per century, whereas the red graph ("data after homogenisation"), is going 'uphill', showing a warming of 2.5 degrees c per century, and likewise, the figures from Rutherglen, show "raw data" graph indicating a cooling of 0.35 degrees c per century, whereas the "data after homogenising"graph indicates a warming of 1.73 degrees c per century! I find it interesting that you choose to describe these facts as "sooo idiotic"! I guess that reveals the quality of your argument.

It seems that you and your fellow Ruddites believe the word of a 'scientist' when he or she writes an article which supports your views, but when a 'scientist' writes an article that doesn't, you question their credibility, or the legitimacy of their data.

 

[boyo]

It seems that you and your fellow Ruddites believe the word of a 'scientist' when he or she writes an article which supports your views, but when a 'scientist' writes an article that doesn't, you question their credibility, or the legitimacy of their data.

You do yourself a great disservice by labelling people as "Ruddites".

 

[Sully]

Mr Doug. Was the article peer reviewed?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Mr Doug]

You do yourself a great disservice by labelling people as "Ruddites".

Come on boyo, that's an old "chessnut" which as well as being 'past it's use-by date', adds nothing to the debate!
I didn't come up with the name (I wish I had been clever enough to though).
Many folk on this forum share the beliefs of our dear (former) leader, Kevin when it comes to the impact Man-made Global Warming/Climate Change has had, and will have on planet Earth. I don't happen to be one of them!

 

[Pfitzy]

So you don't believe in it?

Or you believe we're having an effect, not quite as bad as the scientists think?

 

[boyo]

Come on boyo, that's an old "chessnut" which as well as being 'past it's use-by date', adds nothing to the debate!
I didn't come up with the name (I wish I had been clever enough to though).
Many folk on this forum share the beliefs of our dear (former) leader, Kevin when it comes to the impact Man-made Global Warming/Climate Change has had, and will have on planet Earth. I don't happen to be one of them!

I'm disappointed in you - I thought that you were better than that.

One doesn't have to be a "Ruddite" to believe in climate change.

 

[Sully]

No one only has to look at the mountains of peer reviewed literature.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Mr Doug]

I'm disappointed in you - I thought that you were better than that.

One doesn't have to be a "Ruddite" to believe in climate change.

You are right, boyo, I'll concede that one to you!

 

[Mr Doug]

You are right, boyo, I'll concede that one to you!

Boyo, I should have added that I do believe in "climate change", 'but not 'Man-made Global Warming. The Climate Change I believe in is what I prefer to call "ENE" (Earth's Natural Evolution). Some time ago, I wrote a post which you possibly didn't see. It referred to an experience that I had whilst prospecting in Western Australia in 2002. I was standing on the edge of an open-cut pit on a small gold mining lease with two Geologists from the largest mining company in the district, with long-time experience in that district. I asked them "how old are the rock structures that we are looking at, and how much higher would ground-level have been originally"?
Their answer was "three billion years old, and 10 to 12 kilometres higher"!

My question to you, Dr Karl, Ross Garnaut, Tim Flannery, and all the "environmental scientists" out there is this: "How many wind turbines and how many hectares of solar panels would have been required to prevent the weather conditions that caused such large-scale erosion"?

I will also add that I do support solar power, but owners of domestic systems must realise that there are safety risks in situations such as house fires (toxic fumes from the PV panels), and floods (when homes are flooded, the rain has stopped, the sun is shining, and the solar unit could be still generating power throughout a building which is partially inundated with water)!

 

[Gnostic]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/miners-developers-get-environmental-damage-leeway-20140907-10dk0y.html

Not directly Climate change, but shows how serious governments are about mitigating risk to the environment.

 

[Pfitzy]

Jeez. Miners able to offset by putting money into a fund.

Union corruption anyone???

 

[Mr Doug]

Mr Doug. Was the article peer reviewed?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

With respect Sully, that's a hollow statement. Yes I know "peer reviewing" is a growth industry, designed for mates to say nice things about what their mates write, in the expectation that some day in the future the situation will be reversed!
How the hell were great inventions created without being peer reviewed? It's just a bloody excuse to try and eliminate alternate thinking. A very unhealthy practice Sully, and one which, I as a creative thinker don't subscribe to. Perhaps it becomes 'justified' when "scientists" are approaching the end of their current funding, and are looking to secure a new "grant".
You may be happy to be "one of the mob" and to live your life without straying "beyond the square" in case you may get rebuked. That shows a weakness of character on your part! Perhaps you are frightened of failure.

Were William Shakespeare's plays peer reviewed, was the Mona Lisa peer reviewed, ("oh, shit Vincent you can't paint her, she's a nobody"), were the works of Banjo Paterson and Henry Lawson peer reviewed, ("no one wants to read crap about gum trees, bush rangers and sheep"), was the discovery of penicillin peer reviewed, (ah, yuk, that Petri dish has got mold growing all over it, toss it out before one of the proffessors sees it"), were the paintings on the ceiling of the cistine chapel peer reviewed, ("not up there Michelangelo, no one will see them, you idiot"), were the plans of the Sydney Opera house per reviewed? Well not originally, but they were later, and as a result, we have a lesser building. Was the invention of the steam engine, electricity, the telephone, or the planned voyages of Capt. James Cook all peer reviewed, no, no, no.
Who peer reviewed Edmund Hillary's ascent of Mt Everest Sully?
From what you say, the bloke should never have set out into unknown (non-peer reviewed) territory!

You seem to be saying "don't try anything, or write about anything with out first arranging "back-up", in case you make a mug of yourself!

I'm off to bed to do some "creative thinking", because you're making me angry!!

 

[boyo]

Some time ago, I wrote a post which you possibly didn't see. It referred to an experience that I had whilst prospecting in Western Australia in 2002. I was standing on the edge of an open-cut pit on a small gold mining lease with two Geologists from the largest mining company in the district, with long-time experience in that district. I asked them "how old are the rock structures that we are looking at, and how much higher would ground-level have been originally"?
Their answer was "three billion years old, and 10 to 12 kilometres higher"!

My question to you, Dr Karl, Ross Garnaut, Tim Flannery, and all the "environmental scientists" out there is this: "How many wind turbines and how many hectares of solar panels would have been required to prevent the weather conditions that caused such large-scale erosion"?

Do you really think that the presence or absence of wind turbines and/or solar panels would prevent the erosion of rocks and/or landscapes?

Geology and geography carry on with or without climate change.