text:
When your subsidies undermine your subsidies »
« Toxoplasmosis: could that latent infection affect people's behavior?
Skeptics are winning: "the carbon market is dead"
The collapse of the Man-Made Myth continues apace. You may not read headlines as such (at least not in major dailies) but all the signs are there.
People who we never would have imagined speaking against the Big Scare Campaign are now doing so. Key glaciers are not melting and corals are happy. Governments won't tell you it's over, but they are behaving that way (the Australian one excepted, due to an election fluke that gave the Greens the balance of power). The Catholic Herald headlined it: Is the 'anthropogenic global warming' consensus on the point of collapse?
Source Barchart.
The last year of carbon trading in EUR's continues to fall. (Click to enlarge).
Mini update: The carbon market is being referred to as "dead". Johannes Teyssen, chief executive of Germany's EON, urged policymakers to make fixes. "Let's talk real: the ETS is bust, it's dead," Mr Teyssen said in Brussels this week, adding: "I don't know a single person in the world that would invest a dime based on ETS signals." [full story: Financial Times]. Point Carbon analysts have downgraded the forecast price of carbon credits for the second time in two months as the carbon market continues to slide. What was estimated to be 12 Euros, has fallen to 9 euros for 2012, and 8 euro's for 2013. It's a long way below $23, set by our Australian "free-market-lovin'-Labor-Party". (If only they knew what a free market was.)
The best known environmentalist in the German Social Democratic Party announced he had become a skeptic (see FOCUS and read about his new book). It doesn't get much more damning than this. Fritz Vahrenholt was a chemistry professor and a leftie politician, and, could it be any more poignant… also headed up the renewable energy division of Germany's second largest utility company. CEO of a wind farm for goodness sake. H/t to Keith and many many others.
His book, The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Disaster Won't Happen, is making waves in Germany where people don't critize climate-change science much and where solar and wind power are major industries. I hear from a friend in Europe that this book is very much "hot stuff" in Germany. Thanks Stefan.
Thanks to the GWPF I also know that Australia will probably be the last-man-standing on the deck of the burning ship called "Climate Change". Everywhere else around the world, the only people who aren't abandoning ship are those who never climbed aboard. Subsidies to all new wind and solar plants were outright suspended in Spain last week, which was not just bad, but described as "one of the biggest blows ever to the sector. " The changes are predicted to kill off much of the investment in renewables there. The people selling solar power in Greece were also told the government could not afford to pay their rates, and didn't really want more of that kind of power right now either, thanks. The U.K. government joined the rush to abandon renewables and promised to cut subsidies for solar energy (see Bloomberg). Meanwhile 101 Tory ministers in the UK government declared they want to toss the wind-farm subsidies out the window. If Julia Gillard wants to lead the way in this market she could start by buying up the solar plants, and drilling their ground for shale gas.
Why now: The perfect storm?
Skeptics have been hammering away at this for years. The mainstream media won't publish any skeptical science, not even a comparison of land or ocean temperatures against the model predictions (how "technical" is that?). But thanks to the Internet, people found out anyway — it just took a bit longer.
The weather is cold or wet. The witchdoctors claim that this is what they predicted, and it's due to global warming, but the crowd are not that dumb (and again, the Internet — their bad predictions are there for all to see).
The money ran out. Ten years later, people have noticed.
Shale gas.
Dr Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation says: "Shale gas is the big game changer because it has previously been argued that fossil fuels are near to running out. There could now be enough gas for 200 or 300 years". –-Adrian Lee, Daily Express, 25 January 2012
It's a global thing, Barack Obama is also "discovering" shale.
President Barack Obama pushed drilling for gas in shale rock and support for cleaner energy sources to boost the economy in his final State of the Union address before facing U.S. voters in November. He also pledged more oil drilling. Bloomberg, 25 January 2012
The evidence is killing even the pet-scare-lines
Somewhere, some bright spark realized that coral reefs like warm water, and in areas where corals were growing at the edge or outside the tropics, what ho, but the corals liked it when the water got warmer. (And someone needed a study to know that? Or did they just need a research grant?) Where oceans have warmed the most (because they were the coolest to start with) the corals just got happier and happier. Where the temperatures warmed the most — the corals increased their growth rate the fastest…
Over the last seven years or so the Himalayan glaciers stopped losing ice. The Guardian. [NASA] h/t [Watts Up] Only a few years ago they were saying those glaciers would be gone.
The world is rediscovering those derided "extremists"
When all is said and done, they turned out to be more mainstream than anyone knew…
We Are Winning the Debate and Greens Don't Like It
Source: UK Express
Lord Lawson, who was Margaret Thatcher's Chancellor from 1983 to 1989 and an MP for 28 years, is not the only one to have suffered for his views on climate change. Anyone who dares to challenge the often zealous green lobby is apparently fair game.
Entertainer and mathematician Johnny Ball has been vilified for opposing the commonly held view about global warming.
He says: "For daring to take this contrarian view I've lost bookings, had talks cancelled and been the subject of a sinister internet campaign that only came to an end following the intervention of the police."
Environmental campaigner David Bellamy also claims he has been victimised for taking an alternative position. He has said: "The sad fact is that since I said I didn't believe human beings caused global warming I've not been allowed to make a TV programme. The idiot fringe has accused me of being like a Holocaust denier."
Even the Greenie groups at the leading edge know they need to move on, and call it something else…
Rio+20 or the Earth Summit, that it risks ending up as all talk and little action. In an attempt to avoid too much confrontation, the conference will focus not on climate change but on sustainable development. –Deborah Zabarenko and Nina Chestney, Reuters, 24 January 2012
General hat-tip to the excellent GWPF
Don't forget to vote in the 2012 bloggies. It's your chance to guide the internet traffic to your favourite sites
Click here to find out how it works. Click here to go straight to the voting page.
Don't forget to look out for Tallbloke, Australian Climate Madness, Watts Up (x 2), Climate Audit as well as JoNova.
Rating: 9.1/10 (139 votes cast)
Skeptics are winning: "the carbon market is dead", 9.1 out of 10 based on 139 ratings
The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot.
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
February 11th, 2012 | Tags: Carbon Credits, Carbon Market, EU Carbon Market, Solar Energy, Tipping Point (of the Climate Scam), Wind Power | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | Email This Post |
317 comments to Skeptics are winning: "the carbon market is dead"
It just gets worse for Labor's re-election chances. Good riddance!
MadJak
Did they actually still have a chance? Now that would have been news.
Good riddance to obscene rubbish I say
I will enjoy dancing on the graves of the alp (Australian LIARS party) and the COMMUNIST greens……..
None of them will ever hold political office in Australia ever again.
Labor are just as likely to dump this before the next election, and blame Tony Abbott for it.
You might laugh but it has been dumped twice before – once by Kevin Rudd, and once by Julia Gillard prior to the last election. It would still have been dumped except for the green vote.
So there's still a very good chance they will quietly dump their 'global warming' policies in the runup to an election, and find a way to blame Tony Abbott for it. They've already got form in this area. They know it's a vote loser.
"Oceans choking on uncontrollable coral growth due to Global Warming!"
That's my vote in the "What's the next crisis?" sweepstakes.
My vote is lack of clean drinking water
My understanding is clean water is the real problem affecting mankind
Do not be misled. The water cycle has not stopped on earth as far as I am aware.
Roy Hogue
Politics is my vote for the next crisis.
Oh! I forgot…we don't get to vote on what it'll be. Sorry about that.
You are wrong. Australia will not be the last-man-standing on the deck of the burning ship called "Climate Change". Finland will. Our politicians will be at the forefront of the progress even after everyone else has given up on the "progress". It's what we do.
Thanks to incredibly high taxes our puchasing power may be among the lowest on the western world, but we are going to save this world no matter if it bankrupts this country! It's a matter of pride!
Numberwang
And the Province of Ontario will be right there with them, at least Captain Dalton McGuinty will be.
I hear that. He and his ilk rammed thru a monster wind farm just an hour away from where I live.
Don't forget British Columbia beat everybody in North America and Aus for the carbon tax. First In, Last out is their motto.
Andrew McRae
Excuse me Mr/Miss Finn, but aside from being the last-man-standing, your new 6 billion euro 1200MWe Gen 3 European Pressurised Reactor places your wonderful country at the forefront of countries ready to make tough pragmatic decisions to guarantee the energy you need – and possibly export some of it to your pencilneck neighbours (you know who I'm talking about).
The tough Finns show again that they are made of stronger stuff. It's going to take more than a few greenpeace alarmist radiation disinformation campaigns to scare them off buying the safest reactor design available today. Of course if the LFTR had been available back in 2000 then you would have chosen that, but there is always new technology "just around the corner" and you can't wait forever.
According to Greenpeace, no money was spent on renewables over the last 5 years because Finland had to pay for the reactor. According to Statistics Finland, your 60Mt of annual CO2 emissions will be charged ridiculous carbon taxes that add €72/t to the price of coal. Today's EU ETS price of 8 Euro per tonne CO2 is half what Australia will be paying. That tax will cost you about 500 million euros per year in CO2 which over the last decade has probably cost almost as much as the new reactor. However at least with the new reactors you know you will actually get reliable electricity for your money. We do not know how the money raised from our tax is going to be spent, probably on paying farmers to do nothing with their land and other greensploitation boondoggles.
Cookster
Andrew, money raised from the Australian Carbon tax will be used to compensate traditional Labor party supporters and pay for the extra public servants required to administer the tax.
Trouble is many of those traditional Labor party supporters will eventually lose their jobs when their job is transferred to Brasil, Indonesia China or India.
KinkyKeith
Global Warming may seem to be about CO2 induced climate change, but it is really about human deception; we have the innate capacity to hoodwink our neighbor for advantage.
In a small primitive village style environment this may have been useful and adaptive for survival but in modern close packed living environments it is disastrous.
The financial devastation wreaked throughout the world's economies by this excursion up the
political, economic, scientific and environmental backwater of Man Made Global Warming has
been a twenty five year long nightmare of deception.
We have been deceived by scientists, environmentalists and politicians but the worst aspect
of the whole business is that the average person has been badly ill informed by those we
trusted: the media and "scientists".
The mainstream media will not easily live down their failure to investigate and lead us to
a truer picture of the so called "problem" but the question is:
How do we prevent ourselves being the unwitting victims of the next scam?
see democratsagainstunagenda21.com. Click on What can we do?
I mostly agree with you, except "The mainstream media will not easily live down their failure to investigate and lead us to a truer picture of the so called "problem"".
I remind you of Y2k. There were a few mumbles about "being misled" and they moved on.
Truthseeker
So the millions of man hours put in by mostly sub-continent software houses checking code, changing code and testing code doesn't count?
A real problem was avoided so it must have been a hoax? You cannot pin that one on the MSM.
The Italians spent about 500 lire 'fixing' the Y2K non problem and they had about the same amount of 'trouble' as those who were duped into spending billions.
Paul Whyte
As the owner of a business that had a software package I can assure you that there was a Y2K issue. While the issue was real and had to be addressed the media in its usual catastopharian way over hyped the problem.
In our case the date did not have century so we needed to add it. This cost us some $150,000.
If we had not made the change the consequences would have been;
- All date based calculations would have been out, for example aging invoices for printing on statements, or analysing inventory demand history.
- The sequence that transactions were displayed on reports and screen enquiries would have been wrong
- Insurance companies would revoke any indemnity coverage
- Our customers would have left – due to their insurance issues (you should read insurance policies from the time)
Of course we could have chosen to not spend the money and then have the customers complain, just to prove the problem – but this was not commercially viable.
So as stated the Y2K problem did exist, but was greatly overplayed by the media.
I'd believe you Paul but if Y2K was really the problem we were told (sold) there would have been at least some instances of software failure in places less diligent in addressing the threat. Were there any and was the outcome potentially catastrophic (such as airlines falling out of the sky)?
It was very real.
It was mostly fixed by upgrading to newer systems and by a lot of very boring work.
The scares of airlines falling out of the sky, water systems malfunctioning, lifts failing etc were all just scaremongering. It was never going to happen.
Mostly it was a lot of insurance premium calculations and bank interest calculations that needed to be checked, upgraded and tested. Which they were.
The Euro conversion was far more challenging for many people and created much more work, but was never good enough or scary enough for a media beatup.
I'm a software engineer and worked for an airline in the U.S. at the time of Y2k. Yes, there was a problem. Yes, it was big. We did have a few failures, but they never hit the media as they weren't "big", as in loss of life or millions of dollars in revenue. They were annoying things that popped up, and that only because we spent so much time and money on Y2k. Places that were less diligent about the threat were either a) using software services of suppliers who were addressing the threat; b) just downloaded fixes from suppliers to correct problems; c) may not have had much automation to begin with.
Y2K was just one of many problems faced every day by civil society as it goes about life. But Y2K was a new toy to the media, a new game they could play. Those affected fixed their problem and went on down the road as Paul Whyte points out. I might add that even though costly to many, thechnically it wasn't a very hard problem to fix.
One much more serious problem than Y2K is the murder rate in various places here in the U.S. But not much attention gets thrown at that because it's a lot tougher to solve. Your daily MSM just rattles off the murders like it does the weather. There's not even a hint of a sense of urgency about it.
ghl,
Y2K was a very real problem. But while the world that didn't understand it rattled on and on about it the people who could fix it just quietly did it. As software problems go, it was almost trivial.
Rereke Whakaaro
And while they are allowed to do that, they still control the game!
Very few people (away from blogs such as this) actually understood what global warming or climate change actually meant in scientific terms. I am still not sure that I do, and I have been coming to this site for a while now.
What they pick up on, is the tag-line. The tag line becomes the concept, because of the way it is constantly used and presented.
The core Greenie groups are very professional in the way they built the tag-lines, and there are a lot of similarities between their propaganda techniques, and those used in military interrogation.
For example, during interrogation, the subject would be made to stay awake, through a variety of means that I won't go into here. Each time they were jolted awake again, they were told to "stay awake". Then progressively, that message was changed to, "you must stay awake", and then to "you need to stay awake to survive", to "I need to stay awake". In the end, the sleep depravation was self-imposed by the victim, who didn't really understand why they had to stay awake, they just new they must. The whole thing is based on the childhood fear of the dark.
What has broken the current push for power, is the emergence of the "me too" amateurs who don't really understand the techniques involved, and think they can rebrand the message to mean whatever they want it to mean. The classic example being the 10-10 fiasco.
But the professionals are still out there, and they will continue to do what they do. It is not over yet.
I have a colleague who is (in)famous for starting in a conference presentation, by saying, "At the time the Berlin Wall came down, and all the Communists escaped …"
Made my day, thank you.
Now – we need to continue to work at reducing 'big' government meddling in our lives. Good start would be to elect some leadership [none on horizon] that would focus government on rebuilding our basic infrastruture and self reliance culture. Pulling out of UN would be a great cost saving start.
Considerate Thinker
The Australian Labor party is in a cleft stick of Julia's making, Most, (grass roots labor voters and politicians)don't believe in CAGW, they see the evidence with their eyes, they listen to those that have lived through droughts, floods, and fire and have a healthy distrust of "hot gospellers" who try and shove an agenda down their throats, especially Climatologists and Greens, who have made so many outrageous doom and gloom predictions to try and get their agenda across.
Not only that they are faced with an angry electorate who have copped ever higher utility bills, rising fuel prices and the prospect of sky high electricity prices due to Australians prevented from benefit of cheap coal energy slugged with green "renewable" (read expensive and unreliable) energy and the collapse of subsidies and payback schemes.
I watched Adam Bandt and Bob Brown on the APAC channel proudly trying to promote their prevention of a cleaner coal power generation plant with legislation to be launched in parliament in almost a replication of Hansen's coal death trains mantra. Yet every Australian knows Australian coal WILL be burned in overseas power generation plants.
Will we see labor step up and take a stand for all of us based on the growing evidence of exposure of the climate scam. Problem is they NEED the tax money from the Carbon Tax, so they can lay it about and fool some of the people some of the time or do they lay the whole issue open for review and walk away from the Greens.
If both Labor and the Coalition parties refuse to endorse voter preferences to the greens the stupid carbon tax will go and it is game on if Labor can find a willing replacement to sell a clear message to blunt the destructive green agenda. Will Malcolm Turnbull scuttle the whole thing with a Liberal green Hijack and split the coalition for a decade or more on the opposition benches.
When that is resolved Australia may once again move to economic growth on manufacturing capacity and export of minerals and technology.
Juliar
Do they (grassroots Labor voters) really not believe in it? I remember a story on here of research from the CSIRO stating that ALP voters certainly did believe in it. The grassroots Labor voters in areas such as the western suburbs of Melbourne will still vote for them and prefernce the greens. Labor will never stop endorsing the greens because in the recent Federal election and also in the 2010 Victorian election it was Green's preferences that got them over the line. Labor don't win elections without the Greens preferences unless it is a landslide result so don't expect them to take such a stance on Global Warming.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/40-of-australians-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/ >>> Here is the piece I was reffering to earlier in my post.
Can't speak for Victoria but I'm not so sure grassroots Labor voters are keen on it. In the last NSW state election Labor got absolutely hammered with only about 25% of the primary vote. Much of this voter revolt came from grassroots Labor voters in Sydney's western suburbs who voted conservative for the first time in their lives. It had become apparent that NSW Labor was governing for the inner city "green left" and it's working class heartland had been forgotton. We are seing the same behavior now from Federal Labor.
The green energy collapse is already happening in Australia. The Kogan Creek solar plant project is stalled.
http://www.rechargenews.com/energy/solar/article299974.ece
NSW wind farms face increasing oppostion.
http://canwin.org.au/entry/2012/01/12/draft-guidelines-for-wind-farm-developments-in-nsw/
Another solar project facing financial difficulties.
http://www.ecoseed.org/solar-energy-blog/article/7-solar-energy/12428-australia%E2%80%99s-largest-planned-pv-farm-stalls-on-financing-hurdles
I love the sound of greenie heads popping first thing in the morning
Bruce – thanks for the links – very informative.
Just posted this over at Canwin.org in response to this statement "How could any reasonable person believe that a wind turbine is more unsightly than high voltage transmission towers and power lines snaking inexorably across the rural landscape?" – – Bunch of "holier than us" extremists!!
Are you FN JOKING?? They are the UGLIEST things I have ever cast my eyes upon AND we still need HV transmission towers anyway.
BTW – if/when solar and wind can compete with coal/gas/nuclear or whatever WITHOUT subsidies then I might be in a position to support renewables – but the windmills would STILL BE UGLY!!"
Isn't it funny how these a..holes ALWAYS rave on about bad coal & oil but utilise resources provided by same in an attempt to further their so called "environmental" causes – dammed hypocrites!!
Anyone who supports wind power should be required to erect a wind turban in his own back yard. We'd soon find out who is really serious and who isn't.
Brian H
Indeed. And, news flash, transmission towers proliferate when windfarms are emplaced, because they are generally far from their major markets, and need very robust connectivity because of the unpredictable jerking up and down of their output. The lines have to be able, e.g., to accommodate the highest possible freak surges.
Wind: it knocks you down comin' or goin'.
MargaretO
I totally agree that those wind turbines are a blight upon the landscape. They have totally ruined the view of Lake George.
Llew Jones
It is not only IPCC climatologists that fare badly out of this farce but also biologists who have been on a wild goose chase to discover how catastrophic "a warming planet" will be for other species.
For many of them a wasted lifetime of pointless research.
The IPCC has a lot to answer for in wastefully degrading the role of scientists.
cameronH
The "sustainable development" and "biodivesity" game has been on for a while. It is having a serious effect on agricultural industries and other development. I believe if somebody were to look closely at these areas of study the same use of dodgy computer models would be employed to provide the necessary evidence.
No need to even read what people say the Greens says, let them tell it to us in their own words:
I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That's the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it. IPCC Head Pachauri (link, link)
"Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies." Read more
David Suzuki, Canada's most prominent environmental activist, has said some interesting stuff. He doesn't seem to think much of people or our civilization.
Edward Goldsmith, the founder of the magazine that claims to have set the environmental agenda for the past 40 years, declares in its first issue that humans are parasites, an infection, and a disease. We're waste products that make no ecological sense. (here)
Our would-be German "Masters" demonstrate their thinking on the subject and show the Climate Change really is about power. At JoNova, and here.
If you happen to see him, just let David Suzuki know, he is not going to be added to my Christmas card list either.
Key glaciers
What are "key glaciers" what do you mean?
[Still haven't learnt to click on links yet? - Jo]
corals are happy
How can corals be happy'?
Governments won't tell you it's over
Evidence purleasee.
[Sure. I can't prove a negative, so you go ahead and prove me wrong by pointing out all the government documents telling us "it's over" that the evidence changed, that there is no value in putting taxpayer monies into trying to control the weather with our current knowledge. - Jo]
due to an election fluke that gave the Greens the balance of power
Thats a bit condescending toward the Australian voter. Are you sure that it wasn't a combination of moany tony and Julia disappointing voters by saying she wouldn't introduce a carbon tax and so driving sensible voters over to the greens.
[In a nation of 22 million, a mere 400 voters in Corangamite who knew a carbon tax was coming, could have changed our national government. It was the closest election ever. I think "fluke" is fair, and given that Oakeshott and Windsor voted against their own very conservative seats polling, I suspect voters in those electorates would say "fluke" vastly undersells what happened to them. If Julia had not promised "No carbon tax", "Yes to pokies regulations", which turned out to be lies, she would not be in government. The people who are condescending to Australian voters are the Labor Party -- Jo]
The Catholic Herald headlined it: Is the 'anthropogenic global warming' consensus on the point of collapse?
I didn't know the catholic Herald was a global trendsetter on science.
[Neither did I. We are all learning something all the time aren't we? -- Jo]
Thanks to the GWPF
Thems the people that released that hilarious temp graph, based on BEST data, that was so badly (and blatantly and baldly) manipulated that it became an instant denier classic. Love their replies to enquiries about their funding.
[Got any "reason" why that changes any of the news articles above? Didn't think so, it's just the way you do science and news, smear by smear. --Jo]
which was not just bad, but described as "one of the biggest blows ever to the sector
Nice rhetoric and leading to this…..
The changes are predicted to kill off much of the investment in renewables there.
And of course you believe it because you like it.
he people selling solar power in Greece were also told the government could not afford to pay their rates, and didn't really want more of that kind of power right now either, thanks.he people selling solar power in Greece were also told the government could not afford to pay their rates, and didn't really want more of that kind of power right now either, thanks.
I think you will find that the Greek government is saying, "no thanks" to lots of things now and anyway all those solar hot water heaters you see when you travel around Athens have been there for years and the heat they produce is free so I realy don't think people are going to start ripping them out now, do you?
[so? - Jo]
The U.K. government joined the rush to abandon renewables and promised to cut subsidies for solar energy (see Bloomberg).
You left out the legal battle. Naughty!
101 Tory ministers in the UK government
You did mean 101 MPs didn't you. Saying, "101 Tory ministers" is like saying Christopher Monckton was born into his grandfathers title or that he sits in the House of Lords.
[Yawn.Ad hom #2 - Jo]
The mainstream media won't publish any skeptical science
You mean the Oz and the Torygraph in the UK aren't mainstream media????
[Prove me wrong, find a mainstream paper that has published photos of surface stations, graphs of proxies of hundreds of studies that disagree with the Hockey STick, graphs of the holocene, mentions of the 800 year lag in ice cores, I could go on and on and on. If mainstream news reported what was on blogs, our blogs would hardly get any traffic. - Jo]
Ahhh Benny Pieser. I have always thought thats sports expertise naturally gave one an understanding of energy supply dynamics.
Somewhere, some bright spark realized that coral reefs like warm water,
A tertiary source…… naughty!
I thought you said the mainstream media ignored you.. Yes, you're right, its the Express.
Lord Lawson, who was Margaret Thatcher's Chancellor from 1983 to 1989 and an MP for 28 years, is not the only one to have suffered for his views on climate change.
I suppose he is still smarting from having had a scientist for a boss.
Recycling by the Express and the GWPF. I don't know how many times this guy has said this
Environmental campaigner David Bellamy also claims he has been victimised for taking an alternative position. He has said: "The sad fact is that since I said I didn't believe human beings caused global warming I've not been allowed to make a TV programme.
Even more recycled and of course no evidence has ever been offered up by Bellamy. The sad fact is that he just doesn't look as cool as Brian Cox.
"excellent GWPF" Says it all really.
Jo, if you're gonna keep doing propaganda you are going to have find fresher stuff. The GWPF, purlease.
[Jeremy, with reasoning like yours, I am delighted to score 1/10 on a Jeremy-scale. What can I do to get 0? - Jo]
Rebutted like a student debater, Jeremy. Which Labor/Greens hack do you work for? Whose troll roster are you volunteering for? How about you just concentrate on the science? On a flimsy hypothesis, that a trace gas is the primary driver of global temperature, popularised among a generation indoctrinated with 40 years of man-bad-plants-good propaganda in the secondary schools system, governments representing less than 10% of earth's human population (EU + Australia) are implementing hyper-expensive de facto taxation/subsidisy regimes that are now being rolled back. "Climate change" is an extremist political ideology to which all IPCC-aligned climate scientists have aligned themselves without a whimper of protest or the merest attempt to separate themselves. "Climate change" is pseudoscience that violates the standards of evidence of real science and has the support of a decreasing minority of people mostly in the West. There is any number of people reading this site who can dismantle your nickpicking point by point.
You forgot the obvious rebuttal:
The weather is cold or wet.
2011 was the warmest La Nina on record.
The witchdoctors claim that this is what they predicted, and it's due to global warming, but the crowd are not that dumb (and again, the Internet — their bad predictions are there for all to see).
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean McLean. Planning on writing a post about his excellent prediction Jo?
Tristan: "weather" — are you in denial that Europe is having a big freeze right now? This cold season doesn't mean a whole lot climate-wise, but it helps the public notice how well those predictions of warming worked out. — Jo
Speaking of trolls, who should pop up right on cue? Jeremy's mate! Don't tease us, Tristan. Tell us which disputed dataset of the past 100-150 years tells us the world is about to end?
World about to end? Sure hope not!
Don't worry Tom, you can feel safe with the knowledge that even if you never accept what's happening to the climate, you'll have lots of company in your boat. It's just the way of things.
Evidence, son, evidence. Your "science" is being exposed because it can't produce evidence. Why would you devote so many hundreds of hours of your life defending science? Of course you wouldn't. Because it's not science, is it? It's more than science. It's a belief system.
BobC
February 11, 2012 at 8:01 am ·
So, that must be why the Arctic isn't losing ice (last 30 years), the Antarctic isn't losing ice (last 30 years), and the Himalayas haven't lost any ice for the last 10 years.
Or, just maybe, the 2011 La Nina was the warmest on record, because the records keep being changed.
Or, as someone over at WUWT said:
You can fake the science and the data, but you can't hide the ice and snow.
The artic sea ice minimum has gone down massively (as you can tell in the animation), greatly outstripping predictions.
Guardian reported poorly. Higher glaciers are resistant to global warming due to it being so darn cold up there. Glaciers are in retreat worldwide however, antarctic included.
As was recently reported in Nature (a bit more reputable than the guardian):
The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth's glaciers and ice caps during the study period [2003-2010] was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles)
Agreed, so why try to hide the decline?
As the temp corrections are completely transparent, one wonders why someone hasn't been able to come up with a reason why the GHCN corrections were in error. On top of that, the US landmass is 2% of the globe, and the corrections make a trivial difference on global temps anyway.
it helps the public notice how well those predictions of warming worked out.
Interesting. Perhaps you'd like to cite one of these predictions regarding short-term regional cooling? As you may recall, Britain was covered in snow during the warmest (globally) year on record.
As you may be aware, we're going through a 'La Nina' at the moment, which certainly does lower the temperature in certain regions. In fact, on a scale of a decade or so, fluctuations due to ENSO dominate global temperature! Weird huh?
Evidence, son, evidence. Your "science" is being exposed because it can't produce evidence.
You've made your bed and will lie in it. Ain't no amount of evidence gonna change that. As evidenced by the fact that none of the copious evidence has!
February 11, 2012 at 1:49 pm ·
As the temp corrections are completely transparent, one wonders why someone hasn't been able to come up with a reason why the GHCN corrections were in error.
What makes you think they haven't? Transparent — maybe, justfied — not so much.
The climate science establishment treats data like US Democrats treat votes — they keep looking for adjustments (recounts) until they get the answer they want — then they stop. Right now, they are desperately looking for more "adjustments" to apply to the ARGOS data.
This is, of course, perfectly justified in their own minds, as they firmly believe that their models are right (an act of faith, apparently). Whatever they're doing, it's not science.
For rational folks, the fact that the models currently show no predictive skill distinguishable from chance indicates that they (and the AGW theory) aren't ready for prime time (or serious consideration in policy decisions).
There's a reason why the skeptics are winning (and the warmists are desperately adjusting data) — because AGW theory has proven barren of any real-world validation.
Did you ask Nature or did it tell you in rough figures the Earth's total ice volume in cubic miles?
No? Then try around 7 million cubic miles.
So what "massive" percentage of ice volume was lost in that period?
I'll go real slow just for you. Ready?
one thousand divided by 7 million multiplied by 100 = 0.014%
Depending which years the study covers that is for a period of 7 or 8 years. That averages out conservatively at 0.002% per year.
As we are not sure what the icemelt-time relationship looks like mathematically, lets quadruple that to say 0.008% per year and use that as the slope of a linear relationship for more extended periods.
So in one hundred years, unless you know what the actual relationship is, we could expect 0.8% of the world's ice to melt. In a thousand years that would be 8%.
Scary? We are all tough old bastards here. You'll have to do better than that Sonny.
Eddy Aruda
Straw Man.
End Point fallacy. Your precious UEA recently admitted that there has been no warming since 1997.
Ad Hominem, circular reasoning, feeble attempt at humor.
I will get back to you when I am done walking my dog. You must have been a fish in a barrel in your last life. Do you enjoy getting intellectually gangster bitch slapped around this site EVERY time you and your troll wingmen show up?
The actual Phil Jones quote. Reading comprehension skills and numeracy required.
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
The best part is, that the quotes you accused of:
"Strawman" and "Ad Hominem, circular reasoning, feeble attempt at humor."
Were from Jo's post above.
Do you enjoy getting intellectually gangster bitch slapped around this site EVERY time you and your troll wingmen show up?
Well, at least you get an A for effort.
Tristan,
It is still a straw man because you took the quote completely out of context! The Met office issued a paper in conjunction with the climate research unit of the University of East Anglia admitting that the recent warming peak ended in 1997. They can spin it anyway they want but that is a fact.
And yes, you get your intellectual ass handed to you every time you comment on this site.
Higher glaciers are resistant to global warming due to it being so darn cold up there. Glaciers are in retreat worldwide however, antarctic included.
You contradict yoursel, again. The reason Antarctica is not losing ice mass is simple, it is so darn cold down there. In fact, if it warmed a little it would actually snow more. That of course means more ice. Could you explain how, with the exception of a small land mass that sits astride the Antarctic circle, it is always below freezing and yet the glaciers are melting? Also, quote the source for your contention that Antarctica is warming!
We have warmed .0.7 degrees since we exited the little ice age in the middle of the nineteenth century and the LIA was a global event. As the ice recedes they are finding, on the slopes of the Alps, evidence of medieval civilization. CO2 levels were much lower and yet it was as warm or warmer the it is now. They are finding Vikings beneath the permafrost in Greenland.
Your quote from Phil Jones was from an interview a long time ago. The report I was referring to was from 2012. Do your homework before you stick your foot in your mouth, again!
You make the comment "reading skill and numeracy required"and then, later on, call me belligerent? You are such a hypocrite! I am going to enjoy making you whine about how belligerent I am. I don't take S%#T from anyone, especially an insincere and disingenuous troll like you!
If you had an ounce of class, which you don't, you would apologize for assuming I was commenting about the interview with Phil Jones when I was, in fact, referring to the recently report from the UEA admitting that the warming stopped in 1997.
The typical skeptic commenter on this site has more class in one of their fingernail cuttings than you have in your entire body. Your comments make a prima facie case.
You should have paid attention to the election results.
The Greens got their power due to Juliar needing them and the three useful idiots/ independents to give her some chance of passing legislation,and so form a government–remember the "marriage certificate" signing at all?.
The voters were stuffed by 2 of the useful idiots, as their electorates were conservative not Labor or Greens.
I stopped reading when I got to this "How can corals be happy'?"
Do you sit next to Tristan or face to face?
Trolls – what i could do with a bucket full of them!!
Streetcred
Being reasonably knowledgeable in area of coral propagation, "happy corals" grow REAL fast.
I've made inline replies to Jeremy and Tristan.
Lift your standard Jeremy. People who repeatedly ad hom fail the logic bar for commenting on this site.
It does make good target practice for skeptics…
Jacques Voorhees
With respect, Jo, it makes good target practice for skeptics only in the sense that a barn door makes good target practice from ten feet away. However, I did enjoy the "Yawn, ad hom 1″, "Yawn, ad hom 2″ progression. I may borrow that line for some of my troll hunting here in the U.S.
theRealUniverse
You Sir, are a proverbial warmist nutter. Its not what Jo has put its EVERY body who understands this globalist scam. YOU want evidence? go read the net! And the science that there is NO CO2 effect on climate EVER in geohistory because there is NO supporting physics.
Jeremy C: You're not Jeremy Clarkson are you?
Bob Malloy
From all outward appearances Clarkson is a Skeptic.
Hi Jeremy C
can say is
that your
was very well
spaced.
Congratulations Jeremy you now have the dubious title of "Spacer Of The Week".
A recent quote of Margaret Thatcher was:
"Eventually socialism runs out of other people's money".
The 2012 equivalent is:
"Eventually Green Environmentalism runs out of other people's money".
Enviromania is finished.
pattoh
Maurice & George must be crying in their Krug!
nicholas tesdorf
Jeremy C's letter takes the award for " Rant of the Week". It is short on facts and long on verbiage and big spacing.
When the Berlin Wall came down all the Communists escaped and formed the Green Parties. Now they have run out of other people's money too. Their rampage has severely damaged responsible environmental programmes.
Markus Fitzhenry
Joanne Nova asks:
•	But thanks to the Internet, people found out anyway — it just took a bit longer.
•	The weather is cold or wet. (bad predictions are there for all to see).
•	The money ran out. Ten years later, people have noticed.
•	Shale gas.
Pherifical matters have always been a distraction to the main issue;
Science, won the day for scepticism, the scientific method when properly applied won the day. It is the solid foundation that sceptics are able to base their argument upon.
Science can't be politicised, truth of fact can't be denied, a syntax of logic will always destroy beliefs that are without truth.
The Science says:
Pressure is the required variable only if one compares Atmosheric Thermal Enhancement across planets. For any individual planet, it is the atmospheric mass that effectively controls tremal enhancement. There is no confusion with the pressure-controlled lapse rate with the atmosphere of a given planet.
Why Now? It's the science;
•	The climate of Earths' atmosphere results from a formation of a climate machine by combining solar isolation and force of pressure. Coupled with spatio-temporal chaotic systems of irradiation and radiation of surface and atmosphere, dynamic heat distributions of oceans, a multiple pole thermodynamic atmosphere, with a gravitational velocity and planetary harmonics, spinning on an uneven axis around a Sun, with fluctuation of solar isolation, immersed in a space that has galactic electromagnetic winds.
•	The physical construct of a planet, with or without an atmosphere, retains ancient energy by the force of pressure on its mass. Otherwise planets could not exist.
•	Planets attract cold by the density of its mass and distribute heat by the dynamics of mass. Space attracts heat by the sparsest of its mass.
•	Heat rises, cool sinks. Atmosphere cannot back radiate heat to a warmer surface than the atmosphere which, cools with height. Thermodynamic gas laws describe the mechanisms of weather in the troposphere.
Ref: General Remarks on the Temperature of the Terrestrial Globe and the Planetary Spaces; by Baron Fourier.
The pressure of the atmosphere and bodies of water, has the general effect to render the distribution of heat more uniform. In the ocean and in the lakes, the coldest particles, or rather those whose density is the greatest, are continually tending downwards, and the motion of heat depending on this cause is much more rapid than that which takes place in solid masses in consequence of their connecting power. The mathematical examination of this effect would require exact and numerous observations. These would enable us to understand how this internal motion prevents the internal heat of the globe from becoming sensible in deep waters.
Where NASA got the science wrong:
Arrhenious in 1897 screwed up about the conservation of energy in gaseous mass , he flipped out about the relationship of carbon to life in a stupid greenhouse.
Dopey Hansen in the early 80's flipped out about Arrhenious' mistake and caused all his stupid mates to believe in an invalid scientific principle.
They spent billions in chasing argumentum ad populum. When, if they had followed a correct method of science, by applying scepticism, they would have found the answer that has been there, right under their noses.
Climate is a multidisciplinary field of science, and cannot be treated as a pseudoscience, necessary of propitiation. Science will correct this fatal mistake.
The force of pressure encloses our atmosphere not a greenhouse.
So, when somebody asks why you don't believe in AGW you can say;
"It's the science, stupid."
Ike Eisenhower gave a warning, philosophers expressed it, we fell for it. This time it came in the cloak of science.
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.
FOR DISCUSSION
Until we understand the reasons for the amazing planetary temperature stability, we have no hope of understanding the slight variations in that stability.
Does the reason reside in the deep cold waters beyond freezing by the force of pressure. A cold bath will attract heat from the warmer atmosphere of the bathroom.
The oceans have a exponential density of mass to the atmosphere, It is the oceans that takes heat from the atmosphere, the atmosphere doesn't give heat to the oceans. The oceans are the largest threshold-based thermostatic mechanism in climate.
Climate science looks from above to below, whereas, the major thermostat is the Oceans. The internal motion of Earth derives a cold, as does space. The harmonic balance of Earths climate systems lies beneath the surface of the Earth and her Oceans, not in her atmosphere, not in her Sun.
It is the the force of gravitational pressure on mass, that has the general effect to render the distribution of heat more uniform. In the ocean and in the lakes, the coldest particles, or rather those whose density is the greatest, are continually tending downwards, it is this mechanism that prevents the internal heat of the globe and the external heat of the Sun from becoming sensible in deep waters.
Climate above is derived from below. The internal motion of Earth is the forcing for the stability of Earths coupled climatic systems.
Idiot humans looking towards the sky for a God, yet he remains in dust.
Not tea bags, but … it's "peripheral". Honest.
Get this out and about:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog
Colossal costs to convert Australia to 100% renewable energy–and could it work then?
re a paper by Peter Lang
Graeme No.3
Will the suggested scheme work? No.
Merely a computer model.
Peter Lang's paper is a polite dissection of the original.
Jeremy C at 7.13am
Please go back to your toy room and play with your models and political boy/girl toys.
The real world measures now stacking up from scientific instruments report conditions in the earths climate far less severe than even the lowest predictions from your toys.
A C of Adelaide
I am sure I heard on the ABC (where else?) news a story about "unsustainable coral growth" in WA's NW Now that's what I call spin.
If that genuinely came from Johannes Teyssen, and not just some PR wonk with too much schnapps inside them, then that is seriously serious news. Do you have a FT article reference, or do I have to go fish?
The link is in the post update… (sorry I snuck it in up the top).
http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/4934-warning-over-dead-eu-carbon-market.html
I went fishing, and dangled my hook in the newswires …
Feb. 7 (Bloomberg) — The European Union needs to fix its "bust" emissions cap-and-trade program, the world's largest, and improve existing energy rules after investors lost trust in the EU's policies, said EON AG's chief executive officer.
"Ladies and gentlemen, let's talk real: the ETS is bust, it's dead," EON's Johannes Teyssen said. The call from the CEO of Germany's biggest utility to "start fixing the ETS" comes after EU carbon prices tumbled to a four-year low in January because of the economic crisis and concerns that planned new energy efficiency measures will further curb demand for emission permits.
So Teyssen is still bullish about carbon trading, he just doesn't like the current low returns.
I got quite excited there for a while …
John Westman
To Jim @ #6
I reckon Jim that we need an entirely new political culture. Below is my 2 bobs worth.
Do we need a new watchdog for Australia?
	Do we need to put Australians first?
	Do we need to put Australia first?
	Do we need a new kind of independent member in our Senate? A member that is not beholden to a political grouping? A member who respects and promotes the democratic process? A member who promotes the proper working of the Senate?
There appears to be a mood in Australia against giving too much power to politicians. Recently in the NSW state elections, Barry O'Farrell won a resounding majority in the lower house, but was unable to gain a majority in the upper house. Many people must have changed their vote for the upper house from that of the lower house.
We believe that people want to break down the power of politicians and are reluctant to give unqualified power to any party.
We are researching the idea of having an informal group of people run as independent candidates for the Senate, in the upcoming federal election.
Not having powerful forces behind us can in one instance be an advantage, as we want to be beholden to voters and not to powerful special interest forces, many of which are more interested in furthering their own ambitions, at the expense of the working people and taxpayers of Australia.
These independent senators would act as the Senate is supposed to act and that is as a house of review. The Senate, has at times, ameliorated the worst of some legislation, but basically has, too often, remained a rubber stamp for the main political parties.
The Independent Senators would be required to adhere to a list of "reality checks", or tests, regarding any proposed legislation before agreeing to support any proposed legislation. There would need to be strong extenuating circumstances to bypass these "reality checks" or tests.
	Is there a need for it? Does Australia as a nation need this?
	Is it legitimate? Does the government of the day have a mandate to introduce this? (Was it part of their platform at the last election?) If there is no mandate what has happened since the election to create the need for this to be introduced now, and not after the next election, when a mandate can be claimed.
	Is it cost effective? What are the costs; what are the benefits? Do the benefits justify the costs? In other words a cost/benefit analysis.
	Does it have democratic support? Do a majority of Australians want this and not some noisy minority?
	Do outside treaties need to be closely examined for a clear benefit to Australians? Such treaties could carry a sunset clause to protect us, in the long term, from bad government decisions.
	Is there a curtailment of sovereignty? As an example, people in the EU are now subject to laws from an unelected bureaucracy. Do Australians want this?
	Will it do the claimed job without side effects? What are the intended consequences? What are the possible unintended consequences? Does the expected gain from the intended consequences outweigh the risk of the unintended consequences?
	Will the legislation impact property rights without fair compensation?
No Australian should be placed in a worse position than prior to the implementation of legislation. This is only fair. Eg. Native vegetation laws.
	Will the legislation impact on individual freedoms without good reason?
	Price? Regardless of how desirable and popular it may be, can we afford it at this time? This relates to the financial cost of proposed legislation.
We see such a grouping of independent Senators being a viable option for many voters. It is stressed that this grouping would not have policies as such, like a typical political party, but would work in accordance with the principles above, to keep the politicians and the government accountable.
If you are concerned about our country's future, we strongly urge you to let us know your thoughts and opinions, by contacting John Westman johnwestman@bigpond.com
Yeah! Good luck with that. A politician's primary goal: to get into power. Without power, nothing can be accomplished. Does a politician do what the people want or want the party wants? Neither! A good politician makes the voters want what the politician wants.
Sorry John but at least when I vote for a major party I have some idea of what I am voting for (unless it's Julia Gillard's no carbon tax party).
If I have to put up with conscience votes I need to know before the election what the candidate's conscience tells him or her. Even a lunatic like Brian Harradine thinks he is acting in the country's best interests (though to be fair he never attempted to conceal what his conscience told him either.)
The upshot is- expose your conscience- expose your most intimate beliefs before election- your religion is fair game, so is your opinion on sexual preference or any other issue, controversial or no-controversial.
It might be a return to sectarian division, but if you want a conscience vote on anything at all, I simply wouldn't vote for you if you are a catholic because your parish priest will tell you how to vote- likewise jews, mormons, baptists or whatever.
It has its faults but the party system also provides checks and balances we don't otherwise have.
There is no place for conscience votes in a representative system. All decisions where a conscience vote is called for need to be made by plebescite.
You misunderstand gnome.
It is all about making the politicians accountable, promoting efficient and good government.
To give meaning to "government of the people, for the people, by the people", for today, much government is by which pressure group has the ear of the government.
Actually, our Catholic (capital C please) priest never presumes to tell a politician let alone the congregation how to vote.
When it comes to moral issues Catholics should know what is expected of them according to what the Church teaches… that is we should respect the right to life. It is that simple.
Accordingly, if a Catholic politician votes in favour of abortion on demand then that is going against the moral teachings of the Church, and there is an informal ex-communication. Nevertheless, the priest does not presume to tell the politician how to make that vote.
As for Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. etc. I do not know if their Pastors presume to tell them what to vote either.
Governments won't tell you it's over, but they are behaving that way (the Australian one excepted, due to an election fluke that gave the Greens the balance of power).
The illegitimate Laborgreen government cannot afford not to have the Carbon (dioxide) Tax. They have 'scorched' the Australian economic landscape, pissed out the Howard Government's surplus, doled out huge dollops of hard earned taxpayers money to their mates, destroyed industries, screwed up the 'middle class equilibrium', now in the process of killing off private health cover, and are ethically and morally bankcrupt.
CAGW is their 'get out of gaol' card … they have to milk it for all that it is worth and in the process bring our country to its knees.
Hi Streetcred
What a fantastic, condensed summary of life in modern day Australia.
I agree – well summarised. They're Vandals, not leaders
They could be Goths? Or they could Huns? Or perhaps Germanics? The poor Vandals get such a bad rap …
…they could be the ALP!!!
ALP….. AUSTRALIAN LIARS PARTY !
To Markus at 16.
Your comments re pressure. The atmosphere exerts a pressure of about 14.7 psi at the surface. We have all used a bicycle hand pump, and are aware of the heat generated by compressing the air. It is interesting to note that as pressure drops with increasing altitude so does temperature(the adiabatic lapse rate).
This is for me, the first time I have heard mention of air pressure being a possible cause of the "greenhouse effect"(which doesn't exist anyway?)
Thanks Markus for providing some stimulation for argument
Hi John Westman
In response to your comment:
"This is for me, the first time I have heard mention of air pressure being a possible cause of the "greenhouse effect".
This is probably the same for most of us here and there are reasons for this.
Mostly we took the CAGW proponents "selective IR absorption of CO2 and instant re-distribution of energy to the remaining air" as "the mechanism".
We then went and demolished the claim on its own merits, turning it back on the AGW mob by showing that man made CO2 was quantitatively irrelevant.
My earlier outline, "IF" detailed all that was needed, but then it was pointed out by
those more up to date in gas physics that the CO2 redistribution method doesn't work at
normal temperature and pressure and we are left with convection as the operational heat
transfer mechanism.
So the CAGW idea of CO2 as badman gas fails at two levels, quantitative and physical.
A few weeks ago somebody referred us to Noor Van Andel's great writing and that totally
lifted the perspective another notch.
Thanks Kinkykeith
More of my 2 bobs worth. As you mention, heat is carried up in the atmosphere by convection.
A greenhouse actually traps heat within it as there is no way that heat can move up by convection. As the air within the greenhouse heats up even further it must expand more and as there is only limited opportunity for this expanded air to escape it further enhances compression of the air to generate more heat. This can be alleviated by opening vents and is done so. There can be some transmission of heat through the walls of the greenhouse by conduction.
So while the sun shines, at a given output, a greenhouse can in effect generate the so called "greenhouse effect", the favourite lie of the climate crooks. But since convection forces are at work in the atmosphere there is no greenhouse effect, since heat is radiated into space.
I took on some university cultists at a seminar about this: They had no answer. All they could say was a disapproving grunt. I loved it.
Another interesting question is the tropopause, why does it exist, as it does represent an abrupt change in the Earth's atmosphere?
Hi John Westman,
You'll eventually dispense with the rhetoric of greenhouse. Atmosphere is not the cause of is temperature, as inside a greenhouse, it is a force of pressure that regulates the heating of atmosphere from radiation.
No greenhouse, never saw one.
""Another interesting question is the tropopause, why does it exist, as it does represent an abrupt change in the Earth's atmosphere?""
Now that's a real interesting question.
You would think the change would be gradual and continuous.
I have noticed bands of temperature at different densities in oceans.
Ever stepped of a ledge into the cold water below.
Tropopause is the, cooled by thermodynamics, denser air that sits under of the stratosphere.
John Brookes
We have all used a bicycle hand pump, and are aware of the heat generated by compressing the air.
Yes, and if you take air from high in the atmosphere and quickly bring it down to earth, it will warm considerably. Indeed, this experiment is done every day. Aeroplanes at high altitudes take in fresh (very cold) air from outside, and compress it for use in the plane. Once they compress it they have to cool it down, because it is too hot. And its not even compressed down to the pressure at ground level.
Look, this idea that pressure determines temperature is rubbish. Really. Maybe its part of the picture, but on its own its meaningless.
""Look, this idea that pressure determines temperature is rubbish. Really. Maybe its part of the picture, but on its own its meaningless.""
Maybe its part of the picture? That's right jonnyboy, a big part, it's the glue. there are many other coupled systems in our climate.
Here is the Earths harmony with solar and galactic planetary bodies.
Look at Dr Scafetta's observations compared to the IPCC. Kinda makes you feel ill doesn't it jonnyboy?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure9new_thumb.png
'Yes, and if you take air from high in the atmosphere and quickly bring it down to earth, it will warm considerably. '
THANK YOU, for demolishing one of the major stupidities in 'The Day After Tomorrow.'
Sometimes, brooksie, you open your mouth and something Other than junk science comes out of it.
Now go back to [snip] old men like Dr Ball.
Open to correction if I have my facts wrong. First, the air pressure inside a turbine powered aircraft is taken from bleed air around the turbine/s. Yes, it comes from the outside, but it is bleed air that is initially compressed by the turbine/s and then cooled and depressurised to an extent for the cabin.
Greenhouses, at least most, are not airtight. So the concept of compressed air in the greenhouse heating up even further is bunkum. Greenhouses limit convection and that's by far the most significant cause of heat buildup as far as I know. Heat can still escape by conduction and radiation, but the trapped convection is the main cause of heat buildup. The atmospheric greenhouse hypothesis is different. It argues that CO2 (and other so-called greenhouse gases) trap outgoing radiation (in the form of heat) and transmit that back to the surface. Some scientists are arguing that this violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because heat can not be transferred from a cooler object (the upper atmosphere) to a warmer object (the lower atmosphere). This is getting growing support. One thing's interesting. The scientist/s who proves the "greenhouse effect" is a fact will probably get a Nobel Prize.
The heat contained in the atmosphere that vaires with elevation/altitude (more correctly: the adiabatic lapse rate) as a function of atmospheric pressure is another hypothesis. It also is unproven. The hypothesis gets some support by examing the atmospheres of Venus, Earth, the moon and other planets. Temperatures at the 1000 HPa pressure height (1013 HPa being the accepted standard pressure at Earth's surface) and other corresponding pressure levels are remarkably similar on these planets. (The pressure on Venus' surface is roughly 90 times that of the surface of the Earth.) However, at this stage it is just a hypothesis. Pressure may have something to do with temperatures, but the actual lapse rates are still cause for much conjecture at this time. A few scientists seem to support the idea of pressure having some impact, but not many. More study needs to be done.
However, what this does tell us is that there is a HUGE amount concerning the atmosphere that scientists do not understand. For a diminishing group of diehards to stake their futures and continue to run scare campaigns and arrogant predictions based solely on computer models of which outputs are demonstrably false and way off is simply hubris in the extreme.
(Corrected the word for you) CTS
Hi fred
I think convection still takes place in greenhouses but because temperatures from one part of the greenhouse to another become very similar it will slow.
As you say, radiation and conduction through the glass are not very effective means of heat transfer and so heat builds up because it cant get out of the box
If heat is added to the GH then temperature will build up until the intensity of the sun reduces.
Convection also occurs in the atmosphere and can readily transfer heat from ground level to heights of several kilometres.
Totally agree with your last paragraph.
KK, it might not be quite correct, but the (plant) greenhouse works by a difference in temperature. The convection is stopped or slowed, therefore heat builds in the greenhouse. When the heat builds to a point where there is a max. sustainable difference between the temperatures on either side of the glass, then the heat transferring by conduction and radiation will equal the heat building in the greenhouse due to trapped convection. (Rough, but the best explanation I can do in a few words.)
It was mentioned above, but temperatures do not reduce automatically with altitude and reducing pressure. The tropopause (the deliniating level between the troposphere and the stratosphere) is the point where temperatures no longer reduce with altitude, but can and do increase. So there's a bit more work to do with the hypothesis of pressure causing temperature.
Not so sure Brooksie.
Perhaps it is a topic that needs some research, as to how much ground temperature is the result of compression. Lets remember that the atmosphere above ground level exerts pressure on the air at ground level. This pressure is known-it is about 14.7 psi. Typically you pump your bike tyre to about 50-60psi. Once you have made a few strokes on the pump, it can be almost too hot to hold for any length of time. Yet the pressure difference is only about 4 times.
Your analogy of the aircraft is full of flaws. For a start the pressure in the cabin of an aircraft at altitude is not the pressure at sea level. I forget the exact figure, but it is something like the atmospheric pressure at 6,000 feet.
Further, the air taken from outside for use within the aircraft cabin, has to be compressed because it is too cold and also too "thin", which can lead to hypoxia.
John: Now hold that pressure for a while in a tyre or a soccer ball. Yes, it air changes temperature while the pressure and/or volume is changing, but once it gets to that new state, then it reverts back to the same temperature as the outside air. If pressure was solely responsible for the temperature of the atmosphere, how do you explain the fact that a tyre or a soccer ball is not permanently at a higher temperaure than the air around it?
Because it's in conductive thermal contact with its surroundings, which are at lower pressure.
"Look, this idea that CO2 determines temperature is rubbish. Really. Maybe its part of the picture, but on its own its meaningless."
For a moment JB I thought that you'd had an epiphany.
mobilly1
How does your Fridge,Air conditioner or a air Compressor work John, Ever heard of a heat pump.
For once John, I agree with you. You've got this one right.
Penn and Teller on Gorebal warming :
Some naughty words used – particularly in reference to manbearpig. realy funny with some really sharp barbs – particularly in reference to buying carbon credits from… yourself!
According to the data above, EU carbon trading price is 7.92 euros per tonne which is around $10 AUD and we are going to soon be bring in a $23 caron price (per tonne). No more needs to be said.
I'd like to hear more.
Of course you would considering you support increased cost of living, closing down of industries and global socialism for a non-existant problem.
Wayne, s. Job
So the greens are changing tack and are pushing sustainable development.
This was the path we were on before they tried to wreck our economies, affordable sustainable development for the betterment of the human condition. Whenever or where ever we found ourselves spoiling our own nest we fixed the problem, thus we are all environmentalists for our own good.
To be true to themselves the greens must now endorse farming,forestry and the harvest of water, for these are sustainable. Technological developments that are sustainable must also be endorsed and those that are not sustainable cancelled.
Solar and wind, the pets of the greens are expensive high maintenance and unreliable, they are also unsustainable in economic terms, thus the greens must in their new sustainable mode call for all subsidies to be withdrawn.
The truth in all things has a habit of biting you on the bum, history is littered with the bones of
fraudsters, flimflammers, propagandists and spinmeisters the careers of whom were cut short by truth.
Time was always the enemy of the AGW crowd, cyclical climate change is normal and the cooling cycle has come around, they tried some fancy foot work explaining hotcold, wetdry and snownosnow blaming it all on warming. Sadly for them over the last 10 years real scientists have been doing real science which takes time. Weekly it seems studies are being released by scientists all over the world that put the lie on the AGW science.
The AGW mob have painted themselves into a corner, they had the last decade to start doing real science and missed the opportunity, so enamored in their faith they used every trick in the book to stop others with a different view. Thus they will be bitten on the bum by the truth.
Great comment
""Thus they will be bitten on the bum by the truth.""
Brett_McS
Indeed, something that requires subsidies is by definition unsustainable. Something that doesn't make a profit is only a short term proposition. That's life in the real world – not in Canberra, of course.
Faux Science Slayer
One hundred years ago a powerful banking syndicate lobbied the US Congress for monopoly control of the US banking system. They allowed themselves to loan ten dollars for every dollar in bank deposits and covered their bets by granting themselves the "right" to issue US currency known as Federal Reserve Bank Notes. As has been noted, it is NOT Federal, it's private….it has NO Reserves, it is all loaned out and it is not a Bank. This fundamental monetary defect then creates pump-and-dump profit cycles and when things get too bad, they stage set and direct the war machines of the planet. Carbon Climate Forcing has always been about a Forced Carbon Commodity Market and the Faux Science of Climatology was to provide the figleaf of necessity. The "ugly" was too big for the figleaf and honest scientists noticed and complained. Now all of the Faux Science and Faux History is too easily refutted and the bit players of Russia, China, India and Brazil are not happy with the roles they were being forced to play. The harmonic convergence of Truth is building. For more on the monetary monster read "Fractional Reserve Banking Begat Faux Reality". May you live in interesting times is going to get more interesting as the 'too-big-to-fails finally do FAIL.
""May you live in interesting times is going to get more interesting as the 'too-big-to-fails finally do FAIL.""
Mad.
Um… seems to me that we had business cycles and wars even when everyone was on the gold standard.
Loaning money you don't have is the basis of all banking. And it has been for a lot longer than 100 years. Read Money: Whence it came, where it went" by John Kenneth Galbraith.
That's BS Brookes.
Bankers have to have weighted classes of assets under the Australian Banking Act, 1959. They have to have more book assets in particular classes, then book debts.
Liar, Liar, pants on fire.
It's at this time – as public support is slipping away – that the true believers will be at their most desperate and most dangerous. Expect them to go full out to lock in some truly ridiculous "regislation" to try to institutionalise their madness.
That is why we are here…
But it will be hard to circle the wagons if the wheels have all fallen off.
Consider the conundrum that the Federal Labor Government now has wrt Alcoa and the Tax on CO2 emissions, their Price On Carbon.
On the list of the 'derdy polluders', Alcoa comes in at Number 7 on the list and five of the biggest above them are Companies operating large scale coal fired power.
This image shows the list of the Top 20, and the black squares to the left of the Company name indicate CO2 emitting power plant operators, 14 of the top 20.
Top 20 CO2 Emitters
Alcoa has a commitment under this CO2 tax to pay around $400 Million.
Now, admitted they have more plants than this one at Geelong, but it would still contribute a substantial amount towards Alcoa's total that they have to pay.
If this Point Henry Smelter 'falls over', then, in effect, the Government loses a substantial amount of money it would have received from the imposition of this CO2 Tax, possibly hundreds of millions.
Now that money, the CO2 Tax as a whole, has already been given away as bribes allocated, so if this Alcoa plant does fold, then that giveaway money has to be found from somewhere else.
Now, with those coal fired power plants, well, they just pass the cost directly down to all power consumers, well most of it anyway, as they still suffer a large hit to their own bottom line.
However, Alcoa produces Aluminium, which has a set Worldwide price. If Alcoa passes on the full effect of the CO2 Tax, that considerably increases the cost of this Australian produced Aluminium. Hence it becomes less attractive, in fact, a lot less attractive. So, to stay competitive, Alcoa must keep it's price for its Aluminium the same, hence realistically, they have to completely absorb the cost of the CO2 Tax, which means a pretty big hit to their bottom line.
So now, what is happening is the Unionists, and others, are looking to the Federal Government to 'bail out' this Point Henry Plant, in other words pay taxpayer's money to in effect continue emitting CO2.
See the point there?
This same Government that introduced this huge new Tax told us that aim of it was to lower those CO2 emissions.
Point Henry closes. Mission accomplished. Emissions are lowered.
No, now they are asked to bail it out, to keep it open, effectively ensuring that income from the CO2 Tax.
Also note how vociferously Dear Leader Prime Minister Gillard accentuated in the strongest terms that the 'Carbon Price' had nothing to do with this decision by Alcoa.
Also keep in mind the threat to send in the 'Carbon Cops' if people mentioned they were raising prices because of this Tax, and how they would prosecute the life out of anyone who said so.
Notice also, in much the same manner as the Legislation has in place measures to cover coal fired power plant operators who fall into trouble because of the imposition of this Tax, they will ensure, in their own words, Energy Security (eg that the Plants stay open) they are now considering keeping Alcoa open.
They are doing everything they can, not to actually lower emissions, but to ensure their income from the Tax is protected.
Scylla and Charybdis.
Great comment, and also a nice illustration of the economist's point that all taxes are ultimately paid for by us, the consumer, regardless of which 'evil corporation' is the initial target. They don't want you to know that, though.
So it doesn't matter how you tax, its all the same? So why didn't we have the Mining Super Profit tax then?
Consumers end up paying the tax (through higher prices or loss of choice) even if it is initially applied to the producers. Producers/corporations/companies are only conduits of taxation. It's Economics 101; really, something that everyone should know. If more people did it would take away one of the appeals to envy that is stock in trade in much of politics.
Specifically regarding our mining companies that operate in a world market and so can't pass on the taxes through increased prices, they pass them on through lower dividends, less investment in future plant in Australia and hence fewer jobs in the mining industry for Australians – just what the Communists Greens want, eh?
We did, which raises a question of vital importance: Is our Dear Leader not only an incorrigible liar and intellectually backward but is she also barking mad and thus should she be certified?
Is our Dear Leader not only an incorrigible liar and intellectually backward but is she also barking mad and thus should she be certified?
I might go with clueless.
Say, watch this short video, only 16 seconds.
Man on right – Renewable Power.
Man on left – Coal fired power.
Guess who wins?
On my constitutional earlier in the evening (Sat) I ran into an acquaintance of long standing who was a born and bred ALP/Union man. He is the local sales manager of one of the world's largest industrial and medical gas suppliers. A company I'm associated with buys large quantities of oxygen and acetylene (in the top 25 in Vic) from his company.
I asked him how the Carbon Tax would affect the price of their gases. He said "mate our customers are going to get a shock".
Then he said all our customers, I think he meant industrial rather than hospitals, which will get the extra money required out of our taxes via state and federal governments, are screaming about how they will find it hard to keep going with the cumulative loading effect of the Carbon Tax as it is passed on primarily from energy cost increases.
He said their largest customer, an international company who make and assemble earth moving equipment in a factory complex in the north western suburbs, estimate the Carbon Tax will strip over $20 million from their bottom line.
That is why intellectually challenged and or bonkers springs to mind when someone claims the Carbon Tax will be good for our economy and certainly not lead to the loss of jobs.
(I couldn't resist it so as I broke back into jogging mode I left him with the last word. "Mate that's what happens when you have unionists running the country.")
An interesting outline Llew,
I am very concerned about the possibility that small businesses are being given the death of a thousand cuts.
People who have held on, hoping it will get better are not able to compete with
goods imported under an Aussie dollar that has gone from 75 cents to 108 cents over
the last few years and there is only one business that is spending big: GOVERNMENT.
My wife and I are currently in the greatest gamble of our lives and have borrowed to build a house which has been on the drawing boards for 7 years.
During the final quote period, about 18 months back, there were a lot of interesting
things noted. We had been talking to a number of small 1 or 2 man businesses(husband
and wife) and a larger,well run project home builder with an office of 20 + staff.
Initially the small builders showed no interest but towards the end of the quote period they started to come back and we put this down to the fact that Nobody was Building.
People were scared.
A year later and new home starts are way down.
Now that we are building we note that the only area where price gouging is possible is in Government enterprises, and I use that term lightly.
Enterprise not government.
We have had close encounters with two organizations that are effectively government shielded monopolies and can do what they like.
AGL the local gas mafia and Energy Australia (electric power) have collectively
taken us for $6,000 before we even start to arrange connection of these two services.
It is obvious that while small businesses are constrained in their pricing by other
competitors, the Government monopolies are able to charge what they NEED.
Eventually their need will cripple all businesses in Australia but Gillard and
Swanny and Bob Le Brun still have our taxes to live on?.
Meanwhile many local businesses are marking time but could all end up folding together.
old bloke of Perth
"That is why intellectually challenged and or bonkers springs to mind when someone claims the Carbon Tax will be good for our economy and certainly not lead to the loss of jobs."But, but, aren't we going to get a "New Economy"?
Yes I see that's the best way to convince a rational person but I'm not so sure it would work for ODL.
I think Jo is not only an incorrigible liar and intellectually backward, but is also barking mad and thus should be certified.
Or is it only ok to say such things about politicians?
[John was asked to explain this comment and he did... -- Jo]
Jo, I don't actually think any of those things I said about you. But, free speech and all, I hate to see people say that about Julia. The only reason I repeated the statement, with your name substituted, was to demonstrate just how offensive the original comment was.
Truth hurts jonnyboy, eh?
This John Brookes person blogging here seems to be at a loose end, or indeed maybe more than one loose end, in fact I feel he has lost both ends. John the climate of all planetary bodies will be found to be governed by very simple and robust rules, for that is the way of all natural systems in the entire universe. Who would have thought a century ago that all carbon based life could be described by four bits of information, simplicity equals robust.
The convoluted science of your AGW is total BS. They have been playing at being climatologists and giving us alarming weather predictions to further their cause. They did not work out very well. Many studies of recent times are tending to simplicity in predicting the climate of all planetary bodies very well.
Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get. The weather is the earths negative feed back system to dump heat lest we cook.
There are no positive feed back systems, the sun is the source of our heat and the weather is our thermostat, get over your obsession with all things carbon, it does nothing to hurt us. (There might be some minor and temporary positive feedback processes in existence.We have to be careful in making definitive statements without justification) CTS
CTS, thank you for your input, I am sorry if you thought that my statement was less than correct, you are probably right in that the positive feed backs are minor and temporary as the negative compensate and overwhelm them, thus there are no positive feed backs.
Hi Wayne, This might help in understanding feedbacks and abnormal mean temperature increases.
Insolation and pressure explain about 99.6% of the surface temperature. There is, however, a 0.4% fraction of the absolute mean surface temperature, the change of which depends on the variation of global cloud cover controlled by solar magnetic activity. On Earth, this amounts to 1.2K global temperature change. This fraction may vary a bit among planets as a function of the enhancement factor. Why is this fraction important, though?
The 0.7K warming observed over the past 130 years, which began as a trend in the 17th Century and amounts to a total of 1.2K over the past 360 years is due entirely to a decrease in global cloud cover driven by rising solar activity. The Sun's activity (measured by the number of group sun spots at peak solar cycle) reached a maximum in late 1990s, and has been declining ever since. This caused a sharp increase in low-level clouds in 2001, which led to a leveling-off of the temperature trend (canceling the warming) over the past 11 years. So, the climate change we've been talking about so much, which gave birth to the AGW concept, is not related to changes of atmospheric mass or insolation, but to cloud dynamics.
Clouds, it's the clouds. Any cooling and warming outside of force of pressure and insolation are entirely accounted for in the shift in mass of atmosphere (not pressure) that lies behind the change in the flux in ozone that causes the cloud cover to change.
Do you need the equations?
The difference of course is that Jo is not in the process of destroying the Australian economy. Gillard is.
That she doesn't give a thought about lying to all Australians to promote her own self and political interest covers the incorrigible or compulsive or inveterate, liar bit.
Her adoption of the inadequately thought out policies, put to her by her gaggle of "experts" who have no idea of the deleterious consequences of those policies, when proposed as legislation or enacted, covers the intellectually deficient bit. Put simply for you she displays she hasn't even got the intellectual ability required to successfully run a corner grocery store.
The question I posed is, is this Aussie economy destroyer bonkers? The thought has crossed my mind more than once as I've watched her justifying her Carbon Tax policy.
An extension of that question that you have brought into focus with your naughty little boy slander of Jo raises the further question, are Gillard supporters also bonkers?
incoherent rambler
are Gillard supporters also bonkers?
No, but I suspect that they arithmetically challenged and cannot pick a liar.
But this is the most easily understood fraud / hoax in world history.
If Gillard and her cabinet bark the message that this is the "greatest moral challenge of our generation", then export 3 times the tonnage of coal that we use here at home it must be a 100% CON.
Mind you they are trying to increase that export tonnage every year.
They demonstrate they couldn't care less about co2 emissions and certainly don't believe the emissions are harmful in any way.
They must be trying to cripple our industries and export our jobs overseas, because they are deliberately wrecking the Aust economy for zero gain.
They happily cost us billions $ to wreck our economy and at the same time export our coal to help China, India, Japan etc build more industry and create more jobs for their people.
The CON/ FRAUD is that easy to understand and it must be 100% correct. Simple maths proves the case that its not about co2 emissions at all.
lmwd
Neville, you are absolutely right. They do not care about the purported deleterious effects of Co2 (which clearly we believe is debatable). What they do care about are the taxes they can rake in. Once they have sent many millions, or is that billions, overseas to the UN, they have all this extra moolah to splash about on industries and companies who play nice (read Union friendly). That kind of control over business must have them salivating. Big spending Govt's need big taxes. They are just hoping they can get away with it (that our mining boom will stop us ending up like Europe). Going by their track record of screwing things up with incompetence and poor risk management of unintended consequences, most of us have good reason to feel very nervous.
I do not believe that Gillard cares personally and one could question her moral fibre. She will say and do whatever is necessary – she lied about her loyalty and support of Australia's elected PM, lied to the Australian people and made deals she had no intention of honouring to gain power. She knows she's history. She'll have her pension and perhaps the potential of a cushy job in the UN, courtesy of the misery of the Australian people.
Loved watching The Bolt Report today. Aside from Dr Jensen, the story about Slipper had a lovely aspect of irony. Labor did something slippery by making Slipper the speaker. Now he is actually trying to do a good job, by enforcing the parliamentary rules. The one who is getting caught out is Gillard. When she drones on and on and on….. and turns her answer into a verbal attack on the opposition, as a tactic to avoid answering direct questions, Slipper is pulling her up and forcing her to answer questions put to her. The expression on her face, when she realised she couldn't get away with that anymore, was priceless!
ETS might not work in the US or the EU, but Korea is still going to try. They are planning to have ETS in place by 2015.
http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20120208001326
so if a parliamentary committee wants a tax that qualifies as "Korea is still going to try"? Come back to us if it passes at least two of the next three stages (referred in the korea herald article) it needs to get through. Then (and only then) tell us some details about the proposal so we can evaluate it against our own job killing tax.
Gnome is right.
The key phrase is:
A special parliamentary committee on climate change on Wednesday approved a bill …
"A special parliamentary committee" is code for "those Members who agree on a minority matter". The Members are being lobbied by various groups, and sending it to a "special committee" is their way off the hook.
If this were Government policy, the bill would have gone to one of the standing committees for approval, and without much fanfare.
I will be surprised if it goes any further.
I couldn't take it anymore, I had to write this book – Fritz Fahrenholt.
As we either knew or suspected there are a lot of twitchy believers out there with a bit hanging. The pressure just went up so expect a few more of them to start eyeing the exits. He also does a very good interview where the cross-examiner(interviewer) gets dispatched with aplomb. He's gone rogue and isn't getting back into any bottle any time soon. In Australian parlance he has done (a) : Bombie – where one enters the water making the biggest possible splash.
We keep saying "game-changer" but WTH. Game keeps changing.
Bruce D Scott
Thank you Jo and friends, I luv yous all.
I cant imagine anybody in Europe getting excited about AGW when Italian and East EU villages are being buried in 9 feet of snow! Great timing of the next LIA to stop this crap (AGW) in its tracks. Of course it IS climate change cant deny that.
http://iceagenow.info/2012/02/villages-buried-4-5-meters-snow-video/
http://iceagenow.info/2012/02/italian-villages-trapped-9-feet-snow/
Europe's Danube freezes over
Death toll now 460 as forecast calls for -30 C temperatures
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Europe+Danube+freezes+over/6130398/story.html#ixzz1m3Ya6mXu
Skeptics winning? No, I think you'll find it's reality that's winning……….
Johnathon, we couldn't do it without reality on our side, but then skeptics paved the way so the evidence would be listened too.
Imagine if the weather had gone cold, but there was no internet…. They would be saying "this is what we predicted" and the media would be saying "warming gives us cooling" and the politicians would still think they needed to recite the litany.
They would be getting away with it.
Mydogsgotnonose
This is something I contributed to a CAGW propagandist blog at the UK Daily Telegraph: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100136713/cosmic-rays-not-causing-global-warming/
'The World is cooling, locally: http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/figure-101.png
This cannot be explained by CO2-AGW. There is only one possible explanation, less warmed ice melt water is entering the Atlantic from the summer Arctic and there's less direct warming of the surface of the North Atlantic.
The last time this happened was 70 years' ago; the Arctic melt-freeze cycle is 50-70 years. Most of the increase in Ocean Heat Content in the 1990s which convinced the IPCC they were correctly predicting CO2-AGW, was from this, and it's reversing.
So, no need for your latest straw man on behalf of your lefty, scientific-midget propagandist mates. There's another process. It has been identified but in so doing, the key physics explaining why CO2-AGW has been supposedly hidden disappears. It also explains the end of ice ages. No CO2 is involved. It causes reduction of cloud albedo, now reversing.
CO2-AGW could well be slightly negative [they got that physics wrong too]. It's time the IPCC fraud was shut down, climate research taken out of the realm of politics and you'll have to find a new axe to grind. Let's hope it's real.
PS the ARGO floats are accepted as the only true measure of global temperature change.'
Carbon trading is dead because CO2-AGW may well be slightly negative with real warming from other processes……
Friday 5 Star Blogging « Autonomous Mind
[...] Jo Nova: Skeptics are Winning – 'The Carbon Market is [...]
Doug Cotton
Explanations of the Greenhouse Effect clearly claim that the Earth's surface receives thermal energy which is radiated from the atmosphere.
This would be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
It does not happen; it cannot happen. These explanations have no veracity.
I have said it many times and linked papers such as this* peer-reviewed published German paper which clearly explains the breach of the Second Law of Thermodynamics by such assumptions.
Radiation from a cooler atmosphere is merely scattered by a warmer surface and is never converted to thermal energy, so that the Second Law can in fact apply – ie no heat transfer from cold to hot. Only radiation from a hotter source (the Sun) can be converted to thermal energy. Without additional thermal energy the rate of cooling is not affected one iota.
* http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
"Unfortunately, there is no source in the literature, where the greenhouse effect is introduced in harmony with the scientific standards of theoretical physics."
Gee Aye
do you have anything else to say? Reminds me of the iron sun propaganda which I miss for its consistency, wrongness and off-topicness.
Baa Humbug
I grant you that Oliver K is consistent and often off topic, but what evidence have you that he is wrong?
Baa, he's totally wrong. You know he is, but you are too polite to say it.
I don't know that John. If you know, I'd appreciate you sharing that knowledge.
I happen to give the man a break for his tenacity. You and I could use that sort of tenacity in other aspects of our lives, if only we had it eh mate?
If you are reading this I implore you to BOYCOTT PANASONIC!!!
I just saw the most disgraceful Eco-propoganda advertisement on National Geographic channel featuring celebrity Sarah Brightman. Sponsored by the UN and WWF.
I will never buy PANASONIC again!!!
Search PANASONIC Ecoideas if you want to vomit.
http://panasonic.net/eco/ecoideas/#1
Exert from the website.
"For future generations, Panasonic aims to become
the No.1 Green Innovation Company
in the Electronics Industry
Panasonic was founded based on the philosophy of contributing to progress in society and to enriching people's lives through business activities. By offering products that help people lead better, greener lives, we have made close ties with people worldwide.
We believe we can integrate contribution to the environment with business growth, by driving green innovation in all aspects of our business practices such as product development firmly rooted in people's everyday lives and production activities.
The 'eco ideas' mark symbolizes Panasonic's strong commitment to continuous environmental sustainability management."
Up yours PANASONIC!!!
Sonny -er- Sony put out the same sort of stuff; they all do. Typical corporate PR crap; I wouldn't get too exercised about it. I'd be a bit more concerned about the blatant indoctrination going on in the schools that churns out the sort of zealous ignorami that lap this stuff up.
I feel sorry for Sarah Brightman, if she is reduced to doing propaganda puff-pieces for a living.
Tyranny and propaganda to be replaced with Freedom and the Truth « Counter Propaganda News : West Coast Outpost
[...] Nova : skeptics are winning and some more global warming links CEC on the [...]
There seems to be a firestorm going through the consensus camp. Looks like it's going to be over before I thought.
Canadian Yadullah:
"In an emailed interview with Financial Post, Prof. Clark explains why the environmentalists "have lost their way" and why NASA scientist James Hansen and former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore are plain wrong."
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/02/09/the-environmental-movement-has-lost-its-way/?__lsa=57313d3a
Peter Walsh
It is 101 Tory MPs (Members of Parliament) not Ministers.
Skeptics are winning…
When they have won, I hereby volunteer to lead the "climate retribution movement".
The purpose of the CRM will be to hunt down, prosecute and gaol, those in involved the great AGW scam. No quarter will be given.
Corporations who have promoted the scam will be stripped of all assets (to help pay for the damage they have caused).
memoryvault
You get my vote.
The "gentler" element here will no doubt condemn both of us for being "extreme", but the truth is, until an example is made, generation after generation will have to go fighting the madness of those who "know what's best" for the rest of us.
I've already fought my way through the "unleaded petrol" scam, the "holes in the ozone layer" myth, the Y2K rip-off, and now the great green greasy "greenhoax effect". Truth be told, I don't have enough years left in me to fight another round, and I'd like to go out knowing that something positive had been accomplished to at least slow these psychopaths down for a generation or so.
May I suggest as a start declaring a "closing date" of the end February 2010. That was three months after the release of the original "climategate" emails. All expressed opinions and actions prior to that date are forgiven, unless the perpetrator continued to espouse those opinions and continue those actions post that date.
For those individuals and organisations that continued to perpetrate the global warming hoax post the cut off date:
1) – All publicly elected officials and publicly paid individuals (politicians, heads of departments such as the CSIRO, BoM, "Climate Change Commissioners" etc), together with the directors of companies and corporations that exploited the hoax, stand trial for crimes against humanity. On being found guilty, publicly executed. I'd prefer the guillotine, but I'll settle for hanging.
2) – All shares in all public companies where the directors were found guilty in 1) above, to be appropriated by the state and redistributed to the population at large based on a lottery.
3) – ALL people paid by the public purse who, after the "closing date" promoted the scam, or stood mutely by and let the scam be perpetrated, be fired and stripped of any and all academic qualifications and/or seniority they may hold. This includes teachers, university professors and so on.
4) – Anybody else who supported the scam post the closing date, ie journalists, trolls, bloggers, shareholders of companies identified in 2) above, be required, for the rest of their natural lives, to display a three metre by ten metre billboard in their front yard declaring:
"I SUPPORTED MASS MURDER".
Wow memory vault. You are pissed off!
Hi MV
A lot of extreme hyperbole there but the point is real.
Soft measures will NOT change public perception of the scam and abuse of Public Office which
has been appalling. Tax payers have been loaded with extra years to work to cover
public debt incurred in fighting Global Warming.
This type of forced labor used to be called SLAVERY and was supposedly abolished?
hundreds of years ago.
Well said!!! Awesome, f#%!$&g awesome!
wes george
MV & Incoherent,
I hope you two feel better now. Because your heated and irrational expression of your frustration is exactly the same kind of inane mentality that led Greenies to make this lovely promotional video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM&feature=player_embedded
Debates are fought and won with the power of reason and persuasion, not half-baked fantasies that say far more about you than we need to know…
First rule of posting comments: Never make a statement that you couldn't defend when it is quoted back to you at a later date in another context.
I've seen up close and personal in Cambodia with what happens when the crazies are in charge and left unchecked.
Go read my follow-up post at #55, then watch these two video clips in order.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhsWzJo2sN4&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woItHu67X08&feature=youtu.be
The first one is universal, and while the second one is Yank-orientated, something along similar lines could probably be filmed pretty-much any day of the week at my grandchildren's school.
When you have finished that, check out this one of Dennis Jensen, a LIBERAL member of federal parliament, going out of his way to avoid having to admit to Andrew Bolt that most of his Liberal colleagues STILL support "climate change" action. Starts around the 4.30 mark.
Then you might like to follow up on today's news that the NSW LIBERAL government is going to "tackle" the drive-by shooting epidemic (you know – criminals shooting at each with illegal, unregistered firearms) by making it even harder for law-abiding gun owners to buy ammunition.
You might also like to check out the story about the VIC LIBERAL government refusing to even consider scrapping their state "carbon" tax, now that there will be a federal "carbon"tax, meaning all Victorians are going to end up paying twice.
The crazies are well and truly in charge here in Australia today.
The "CO2 causes Catastrophic Global Warming, Catastrophic Climate Change, Catastrophic Climate Disruption, Catastrophic whatever it is this week, has been thoroughly falsified by over a decade of no global warming.
The glaciers are not disappearing, the Arctic sea-ice is recovering, snow has well and truly refused to become a "thing of the past", the dams are full, there has been no "dramatic increase" in "extreme" weather events, sea level rise turns to not be "catastrophic" after all and even the Polar Bears are thriving.
All these things and more have been "debated with reason and persuasion" until we are hoarse, and yet our politicians still discuss them as "fact", our media still report them as "fact", and our children are still being taught them as "fact".
And the reason, Wes George, is because the crazies are well and truly in charge here in Australia today.
In case you've been missing other news Wes George, these same crazies who are running things, now want to BAN dissent from all forms of media. If they have their way, by the next election websites like this and TV shows like the Bolt Report will be banned, and making the kind of comments found in these places will be a jailable offence.
Where will have our "debates" then, Wes George?
We have voted for a return to sanity, Wes George. It didn't work. We just got a different group of crazies. We've also tried protesting for a return to sanity. That didn't work either. The crazies just ignored us.
Now I fear we must actually DEFEND sanity, otherwise that too, will be taken from us.
PS – Nowhere in the 10:10 video is there any mention of a trial. THAT is the difference between my post and the video.
Still, not surprising you missed it. You people aren't big on the Rule of Law are you?
Apologies – left out the Dennis Jensen link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X4hMzNFZ1U&feature=player_embedded#!
MV,
It's not your interpretation of what is wrong with the country that I dispute, but the odiously similar fantasies you share with the Left as a solution.
The fantasy of the state appropriating the wealth of our ideological foes and redistributing is exactly the sort of demagoguery we have come to expect from Bob Brown's Greens.
Look, you were just venting steam and we shouldn't make a federal case about it. I know you're not serious, so relax. Just remember this is the WWW and ill-considered words can be taken out of context, amplified and used against us in unexpected ways and places.
Whenever you get so angry you feel the need to post remarkably foul notions in a comment. Stop. Think. Go outside for a walk, howl at the moon, then come back to your computer and post a comment that rationally expresses your pain and frustration without resorting to invidious fantasies which tar us all by association. Make your comments count for our side, form them in ways that are useful, positive and uplifting, rather than submerging us in the same sewer the Greens bathe in daily.
We all know the crazies are in charge here in Australia. Duh.
But the cure isn't equal and opposite dark insanity, rather it is rational and persuasive return to reason and light.
…these same crazies who are running things, now want to BAN dissent from all forms of media. If they have their way, by the next election websites like this and TV shows like the Bolt Report will be banned, and making the kind of comments found in these places will be a jailable offence.
Exactly! … and you have cluelessly mused about exactly the same sort of reactionary fantasy (only in reverse) in your earlier comment.
Leftist authoritarian idiocy is almost as offensive as silly reactionary twaddle from our side of politics, but not quite. Why?
Because the Greens ARE authoritarians!
We're the other side in support of individual freedom of thought and expression, scientific transparency, rational inquiry and ultimately the free market of ideas. Freedom for not just our ideas, but also ideas we disagree with.
Besides the Skeptics are winning. Why the sad face?
Wes George,
There is nothing in my original post that is not currently supported by rule of law.
1) – Is the acceptance of imposing the death penalty on people for crimes against humanity. As a country we supported the trial and hanging of Saddam Hussein for the crime, and yet even to this day I am yet to see any actual evidence of said crimes.
2) – Is the exercise under existing Australian laws that criminals and their associates cannot profit from the proceeds of their crimes. Both Hicks and Corby had the proceeds from their books seized under this law, and we routinely seize the assets of people involved in the production and distribution of illicit drugs.
If the people who own shares in companies that are, or have been, involved in the perpetration of a murderous hoax simply to maximise profits couldn't be bothered registering their disapproval by divesting themselves of those shares, then I can think of no good reason why they should be allowed to go on profiting from them.
3) – A teacher or uni professor who was caught out brainwashing teenagers and young children with "white supremacy" propaganda, or neo-Nazi propaganda, or teaching Scientology as "fact", would very soon find themselves in hot water. I see no reason why the peddlers of the no less dangerous CAGW propaganda shouldn't be treated exactly the same way.
4) – The right and the ability of the public to identify potentially dangerous individuals in their midst is already enshrined in our "Child Sex Offender" register, and the requirement of people working with children to be subject to a police background check (Blue Card).
The people referred to in Point 4) above have already supported the murder of millions of children (and others) with their ban on DDT; supported the murder of a few million more with their insane "biofuels", and have now ultimately supported the murder of several millions as the world goes into an entirely predictable, and predicted, 25 to 30 year cooling phase.
I consider these people as much a threat to my grandchildren's wellbeing as those on the Sex Offender register.
Your problem Wes George, is that you really believe you're going to wake up one day soon, and the whole mess will have just "passed in the night", and everything will be just hunky dory again.
You'll still be trying to have your "reasonable and persuasive" debate with the men with the machine guns as they herd you into the cattle trucks for your one-way journey to the re-education camp.
Or, put another way,
You actually believe we are "we are winning".
The irony is that if such a thing were to pass, those men will justify their totalitarianism with exactly the same blind hatred you're spewing.
All hatred is the same.
You lost the plot, mate.
I am not sure where you keep pulling terms like "blind rage", and "hatred" from.
I am an old soldier, and as far as I am concerned, we are in a war. In war, "hatred "and "blind rage" are two of the quickest ways to get yourself and your men killed.
I don't "hate" the enemy, and if there is any great anger in me, it is largely reserved for people like you, who seem to think we are in some kind of high school debate. We are not: we are in a war which we are losing and have been losing for thirty years now, due in no small part to people like you who refuse to accept, let alone try to understand, the viciousness of the enemy. You and your kind are our Neville Chamberlains, proudly announcing "peace in our time", even as the enemy prepares to engage us on another front.
You finished your last but one post with the following line:
What exactly are we "winning", Wes George?
The little skirmish about CAGW? The minor battle that followed about "climate change"?
I hate to be the one to break this to you, Wes George, but the enemy have already moved on. The new battlefield – again, as always, of their choosing because "reasonable" people like you insist it be that way – is "sustainable development". Let me tell you what "sustainable development" is going to mean, Wes George:
1) – Serious curtailment of the use of fossil fuels – they're use is not "sustainable";
2) – A crippling tax on the use of fossil fuels – calculated on the "carbon" produced;
3) – The "need" for some kind of centralised, trans-national "planning" or "coordinating" body – like an expanded UN on the EU model;
4) – Endless MSM propaganda to explain how it's "all the fault of greedy humans".
Is any of this sounding familiar to you Wes George?
It should.
Having started this,
In what was (I thought) a jocular manner I was attempting to point out that IF the sceptics win what is now a political argument (on the basis of truth) then we need to put in place mechanisms that stop the stop thing happening again (e.g. another ozone hole, ocean acidification etc).
Criminal sanctions for financial gain by deception are only effective as a deterrent if they are enacted.
Methinks the perps should not be allowed to escape to repeat the act on another day.
Rambler,
I figured you were being jocular and I didn't want to start a flame war…but the sad fact is even your last post is an exact mirror image of Green and GetUp! extremism. You're spewing exactly the same kind of self-righteousness we find so disgusting in our Green political opponents and apparently it leads to the same sort of authoritarian overreach whether it comes from the right or left side of politics.
Note that your proposed "mechanisms" (jocular though they surely are) are exactly the same as proposed by the extremist left. Restricts on on free speech, confiscation of property and vastly increased power in the hands of Federal government to regulate with new criminal code powers. All based on exacting "climate retribution" from our political opponents???
How does "climate retribution" differ from "climate justice?"
My original point was motivated by the fact that I'm tired of hearing about how the No Carbon Tax protests in Canberra were an angry mob of uncivil bogans all based upon a few ill-considered placards. Just last week Fran Kelly (Radio National morning show) and her offsider Michelle Gratton (Labor hack for The Age) used the tent embassy rage on Australia day to compare the No Carbon Tax protests unfavourably to the behaviour of the mob who laid siege to the prime minister.
The narrative that The Carbon Tax protest in Canberra can be discounted as riotous mob of rude bogans who don't represent middle Australia is rock solid now on the left of center in politics and has diluted much of the emblematic rallying power the protests might have had if the tactical error of having Abbott give a speech with those placards in the back ground had been avoided
If it came out tomorrow that the people holding those placards were "mobies" and/or the camera crew purposely chose the camera angle to place the placards behind Abbott, I wouldn't be surprised. Even top-level political operatives in the Prime Minister's own office will shamelessly instigate mob violence – even on Australia Day – if they think they can wring political advantage out of it.
We can imagine what sort of mischief hoodies from the Greens and GetUp! are capable of getting up to.
Indulging in a jocular discussion on how best to hunt down, persecute, jail, execute and confiscate the property of our political opponents quite literally makes us look like a pack of dimwitted hypocrites when we condemn the same sort of intemperate speech among the Greens or in opinion pieces written for The Drum.
Just like ill-considered protest placards we run the risk of handing on a silver plater the "evidence" some clever columnist can take out of context to smear Skeptics as violent bogans with crypto-fascist ambitions to power. That risk will increase as we move closer towards the next elections.
In spite of MV's protestation, we are winning this debate and we should behave as if the debate and the coming election cycle is ours to lose.
Here's a comment I made almost a year ago and it's even more true today:
The skeptics are winning the CAGW debate worldwide on all fronts both in the science and the politics. Make no mistake about that. It's the mainstream media and our elite institutions which are in denial of the evidence now. Our task now is to talk the Alarmists down off the ledge. Obviously, many Alarmists have already invested their ego, reputation or career in CAGW fear and so would rather jump then response to reason. But most people aren't nearly so committed.
Since we're winning this debate we need to begin to make the psychological shift from being a minority under siege to an emergent consensus. This will require the ability to accommodate a diversity of opinion that we found so dismally lacking in the Alarmist consensus. Most of all it will require forgiveness and kindness. The Christian ability to turn the other cheek will win more friends then a take no prisoner approach.
We should be magnanimous in victory in order to allow all those who wish to come over to our side an easy face saving route. We should find the kindness of heart and the open mindedness of reasonable discourse to listen to everyone's fears and concerns because after a decade of apocalyptic climate visions, we wouldn't expect everyone to approach climate science policy rationally. Some people are literally in need of therapy on this issue. Be gentle. Hear their fears out. Our message is ultimately a very, very good one.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/the-abc-notices-the-anti-carbon-tax-rage/#comment-227667
Memoryvault and Wes George, WTF!?
I see, in my mind, that either of you two would carry ammo for the other when the shit really hits. MV, you aren't wrong for holding your more terse history based understanding and neither is WG for his holding to a history based diplomatic approach. Both of you see a problem and both of you have good ideas about how they might be resolved. Each of your approaches will appeal to different slices of the populace. THAT IS THE VALUE!
As near as I can tell you are both pointed in the right direction. You don't have to and you shouldn't drag each other down.
It must be the excessive summer heat that has cooked too many brain cells down under…….
Rare footage of the GetUp! alarmists "coming down off the ledge" and making peace with climate skeptic Gerry Harvey:
http://noharveyno.net/
The sense of their crushed egos and cringing acceptance of their destroyed careers is palpable.
sarc/off
By the way Wes George, unlike your "Peace In Our Time" victory speech above, the clip is from last week, not last year.
As I pointed out earlier, skeptics haven't "won" anything. The enemy has simply moved on, leaving people like you "celebrating" on what is now the empty battlefield of "climate change".
The new front is "sustainable development" and the above ad is merely their first salvo in this country. Expect many more, culminating in a full-frontal barrage in the week leading up to Rio+20 at the end of June.
http://www.earthsummit2012.org/
Thanks for the wake call Mark D.
Sometimes it takes someone with a calm head to step in between two hotheads.
The fact is that if we weren't winning the climate battle, Memoryvault and I would be so busy backing each other up while slapping down incoming waves of warmist trolls that we wouldn't have time to argue about to ground tactics…but we've neutralised the troll offensive in our zone and I guess were getting bored.
To extend the battlefield metaphor to it's logical extreme:
I totally agree with Memoryvault that the big cultural war didn't begin with nor will it end on the battlefield of climate change.
And MV is right that our victory in the climate debate isn't decisive, the enemy has just slipped quietly away into the bush to fight another day. Heck, maybe, this war ain't even winnable. But that's above my pay grade. I just fight the battles one at a time. Reckon the troops deserve a bit of celebration for a job well done, at least here on this day. Tomorrow, well, If MV's right about what lies up ahead then we deserve that celebration even more since it might be the last for some of the boys.
Make no doubt about it, we have won a major victory here and the enemy is on the run. They've lost territory and will soon be forced to surrender even more recent gains as they retreat. First parliament will fall, then the carbon tax. Now that we control some ground it's time to win hearts and minds and to offer amnesty to collaborators to come over to our side. After all we don't want to shut down the local economy by arresting every vendor in the market place who sold the enemy bread and petrol. And just like in any war the uncommitted civilian population in our zone grossly exceeds the number of enemy combatants. As we mop up our rules of engagement must be set firmly to limit civilian causalities. We're better and more disciplined the Climate Taliban we've ejected from our zone. We don't live off the land. We don't cut off heads or burn villages. We're here as liberators, not to extract retribution.
So, what do you say, MV? Let's call it a day and I'll shout you and your whole platoon a round at the canteen. No hard feeling, eh mate?
Tomorrow you can lead your blokes out on recon to locate the enemy. I'll round up the engineers and we'll do what we can to secure supply lines and rebuild local infrastructure, while starting the work necessary to convince the civilian population we're the good guys.
I suppose this is a true statement simply because unless an enemy is vanquished, killed or enslaved, they are still the enemy.
On the other hand wars are won a battle at a time. This enemy is not a weak enemy so we have more battles ahead. How many battles to go?
MV you are right big picture but this one battle over AGW may indeed have been won. The intangible benefit is that we have all learned a great deal. The methods and tactics of the enemy we now understand better than ever. It won't be so easy for anyone (or anymany) to fool us again.
Since this war has been fought by at least two generations, we now could win by attrition. Teach your children well, feed them on your dreams……
Nibbling away is what we are doing.
Gradually white anting.
However, when such monumentally huge amounts of money are involved, the other side will be doing all it can, not to do anything about Climate Change/Global Warming, but only to protect that money.
Those people now thinking that they hold the reins are using Science as an excuse, feeding small amounts of money to that Science in the form of grants to reinforce something that they know zero about, and they hope that by doing this, they are protecting their huge amounts of money.
If they were serious, they would be doing something.
The general public at large has been hoodwinked.
The big thing that I have noticed is that even when the correct questions are being asked, the answers bear no relationship whatsoever to that question. Just stay on message.
Reinforce the meme. Protect the money.
And when they have lost, I presume you'll be the first to offer us Jo's head on a block right?
How well you you sum up the difference between you and me Tristan.
IF I were wrong, the first and only head I would be offering is my own. Which I do.
Can we expect the same from you?
A long time ago I asked you for your "Plan B" if, in fact climate was indeed cyclical, and what you would suggest if the world cooled for a while.
You suggested people wear a jumper.
In the last week over five hundred people have frozen to death. From the scant details available, it would appear they were all wearing jumpers, or more.
And yet they they literally froze to death.
It would appear from observable fact that merely wearing a jumper is not sufficient protection against minus 30 degree C temperatures.
That makes YOU a mass murderer.[no it doesn't MV. Insensitive yes, flippant yes. Your accusation is over the top. mod oggi]
How does that feel?
For the record, I was addressing rambler, who said that when the skeptics have won, that we should:
hunt down, prosecute and gaol, those in involved the great AGW scam. No quarter will be given.
If he's a fair-minded sort I imagine he'd be equally punitive towards the disinformers should the skeptics lose. Jo being one such example. hence my question
(Snipped)
(Your comment was for the purpose of name calling and nothing else.That is why I have snipped it entirely.Please do better than this) CTS
Note to CTS: an explanation? Hate to say it, but in my case, it is a gut feeling as I read the words of a (Snipped)
(You need to drop the name calling and get back on topic) CTS
You're a bloody idiot Otter. You just go around calling people names or denigrating their history as if they are from a cesspool. Got it?
(Ha ha,you are not helping the moderators when you openly allow yourself to worry about someone who is already moderated.Please get back on topic and let the mods do their part ok?) CTS
…in the words of Sam Neumann…
U Are an idiot!
(Calling someone an idiot without explanation is considered unacceptable here.It must be explained to the world on why you or anyone else would use such a word in the first place) CTS
The word "idiot" has a number of meanings, the original being, "private person, layman, person lacking skill or expertise".
This meaning was originally applied to untrained foot soldiers who went into medieval battles armed with scythes, pitchforks, and pointed sticks; idiotiōtēs, to distinguish them from the trained, and presumably experienced, professional soldier; stratiōtēs.
Perhaps The Black Adder is implying that Tristan is somewhat inexperienced in the ways of the world? I have certainly noticed tendencies in that regard …
As long as the CAGW cabal has people like you on their side Jo has nothing to worry about. She will be able to sleep the sleep of the righteous. You Tristan, will probably need to look over your shoulder and keep peaking out from under that rock of a screen name you hide behind!
incoherent rambler – I was thinking along the same lines…
We will want ALL the money back which has been 'invested' in:
useless wind farms (coldest night of the year in the UK; -15C on my patio at 0830 this morning; wind providing 0.9% of electricity demand)
solar arrays ('Er – how much will you be generating at night..?')
carbon capture systems (how long before it all leaks out again..?)
Western goverments had better be ready for some expensive class actions…
OK, so lets say you took a class action against a government, and lets assume you won the case, where do you suppose they (the government) would get the money to pay the awarded reparations?
from a carbon tax
harking back to Monckton and his idea that Fox is Libertarian, here is Judge Andrew Napolitano, whose Libertarian "Freedom Watch" program on the Fox Business Channel was cancelled this week. Fox Business Channel is relatively new and has not taken off, no doubt partly due to the global financial crisis, but Judge Napolitano does have a devoted following among libertarian conservatives:
Youtube: Judge Napolitano: What If "They" Are Lying to Us about Ron Paul?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zyo10lusCY&feature=player_embedded
Wikipedia: Andrew Napolitano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Napolitano
All we need now to hammer in the last nail in Gillard's coffin (and hopefully the ALP as well) is to see snow in Sydney in the coming winter, not that's it's really needed. She is doomed now for sure. By the time it's all over she may very well end up being the most hated politician ever.
She's got my vote!
If it does snow in Sydney this winter, she will only say it proves the science. Every weather event is a winner for the cause.
Devil's advocate here. Why does it matter if the carbon market is 'dead'? (whatever that means)
Under an ETS ultimately it's the regulatory controls which limit carbon emissions. Large emitters require to purchase permits to cover their emissions; it doesn't really matter if they are buying them cheap or not. Bankers may scoff but officially the market doesn't exist to make people rich, it's simply to distribute the limited permits around.
A good question might be why has the price tanked? Could signify that the market participants aren't confident that the permits will even be needed in the future.
I predict a seamless transition from AGW to AGC by the eco loons, in about 5 years time.
The cry will be: 'we're heading for another mini ice age and the industrialised world is to blame'
It's not hard to guess what their suggested solution will be either!
Just remember you said that, 5 years from now. By that point we'll have had an el nino sufficient to knock the so-called 'skepticism' reeling.
You really are a true believer, aren't you, Tristan? Nothing to do with science. Natural climate variability is your ideological enemy.
Come on Tristan! Just 5 years? You haven't learnt much from the warmist camp have you? Sure the idea is to keep predicting some future catastrophic occurrence to hang over the heads of the gullible when current climate predictions vary so much from the alarmist preedictions of 10 or 20 years ago, but 5 years! Why not stretch it to 25 years or 50 years to give yourself a little more leeway to claim a catastrophic occurrence in that time?
Tristan is relying on an el Nino to save the day for the warmist camp:
By that point we'll have had an el nino sufficient to knock the so-called 'skepticism' reeling
He (and they?) are relying on a natural climatic phenomena to save the meme!
They are admitting that it is nature and not man that causes the climate variation – they are actually admitting that they have lost.
Unless of course, Tristian has some previously unpublished evidence that the PDO is caused by increases in a trace gas.
Nah, it's the 'skeptics' who have relied on natural variability for their arguments. That's why they regularly refer to periods of 10 years or less, whereas the science acknowledges the obfuscating nature of natural variability and focuses instead on longer trends.
The next El Nino will significantly curtail the 'skeptics' ability to disinform with their various short term not-happening memes.
As soon as there is a significant positive trend since '98 you guys are effed.
. . . science acknowledges the obfuscating nature of natural variability and focuses instead on longer trends.
That would be the "science" that gave us these pearls of wisdom . . .
"Snow will be a thing of the past. . .", and
"Ever milder winters and bbq summers. .. ", and
"Himalayan glaciers all melted by 2035″ (IPCC version), or
"Himalayan glaciers all melted by 2030″ (NASA version), and
"Perhaps we should start thinking of drought as the 'new norm'", and
"Even when it does rain, the water won't reach the dams – the ground will be too dry".
Is that the "science" of which you speak, Tristan?
Here is a little note on ENSO for you Tristan, I know I said I wasn't going to have talkies with you anymore but, it pains me to see another human in agony. I've even put a little graphic in so you can see a petty picture.
There are major zones of upwelling in the north and south eastern Pacific resulting in some of the richest environments on Earth. The difference between upwelling and not is the temperature of the water above the thermocline which in turn depends on the strength of the the Californian and Peruvian Currents moving cold polars waters along the coast of North and South America.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view&current=pacificcurrents.jpg
Sea level pressure in the polar and sub polar regions are measured in the Southern and Northern Annular Modes – the changes in sea level pressure creates the potential for the anomalous movement of atmospheric mass into lower latitudes. The movement drives storms spinning off the polar vortices and surface ocean eddies moving in Ekman spirals towards the coast of the Americas.
Together the oceanic upwelling in the north and south Pacific and the movement of atmospheric mass from and to the poles provide almost all of the decadal variability in Earth's climate. They are linked quite obviously – and as is shown in the objective network method of Tsonis. The polar changes in sea level pressure seem to be driven by ozone and UV interactions in the stratosphere.
ENSO and other ocean occislations are non-stationary and non-Gaussian. Swanson might not see it as returning to a warm mode a decade or so hence. Look him up.
Australia,regardless of what Flim Flam says is in for a drenching for quite a few more years yet.
Here is a challenge for you, since you think ten years is too short a period, show me any relationship between CO2 and temperatures for the last 500,0000,000 years. Here is a graph to start with and you can go from there http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/images/co2-levels-over-time.jpg
While you are at it, care to explain why Hansen bothered to predict in the '80s that temperatures would rise out of the statistical noise by the 1990s if ten years is too short a period? As the UEA admitted last month, the warming trend ENDED in 1997! Hansen failed miserably. His business as usual scenario was exceeded by actual increase in atmospheric CO2 and yet no warming! How is he going to "adjust" his way out of this?!
Bernard B
You don't even need to go that far in the past. Between 1940 and 1970 our planet cooled even though the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere went up. We could well be in a similar mode right now.
The sharp warming between 1975 and 1998 may well have a CO2 component to it, however with each passing year with no more warming, we can see this component is not dominant.
By the way 500 million years ago the Sun was not as bright as it is today, and yet our planet was warmer, as your graph shows. All stars during their 'main sequence' phase do get brighter with time. In about a billion years the Sun will be hot enough to boil our oceans away. At least we have some time to prepare.
Tristan's comment is so hilarious, it made my seven year old laugh. He knows more than Tristan ever will about climate. He said it sounded "desperate". 8^D
Sure Tristan, we skeptics never refer to periods longer than 10years, we don't mention that the warming had the same trend in the 1870′s, or that it started in 1680, or that the MWP was warmer, or the holocene, or the Eocene, or that CO2 was higher 400m years ago…
It's hard isn't it? Hard to keep denying reality.
As I said:
That's why they regularly refer to periods of 10 years or less
For instance, you have a booklet describing a statistically irrelevant period of temperature measurements as a 'fatal blow to global warming'.
You talk about the trend line shown by the ARGO data
Monckton looks at 'Arctic Sea Ice Recovery' from 2007 to 2009 etc.
I didn't say:
'skeptics' never refer to periods longer than 10 years
While on the subject of statistically irrelevent periods of time, I notice that you avoid questions you cannot answer so easily. See 47.1.4.3. You have time to split hairs so answer my questions!
Disingenuous trolls avoid the questions that challenge their pseudoscience and sincere posters don't!
I've more time to spend on Joanne than you, Eddy. It's fast approaching the point where I decide that your belligerence isn't worth any response at all. If you want me to address things you raise, work on your presentation.
I can play the 'post the graph' game as well.
I'm more interested in graphs that correct for solar forcing though.
A skeptical science graph. Is that the best you can do? Pathetic! You still have yet to show any evidence that gives credence to the claim that CO2 causes temperatures to rise.
Your graph shows no correlation between CO2 and temps with the exception of maybe the last 30 years. Another endpoint fallacy. Here are a few graphs for you http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html During recent geological times we have seen relatively small amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. In the past, CO2 atmospheric concentrations were an order of magnitude greater and then some. Yes, you do get tired when someone calls you on your BS. If you want some respect from me you had better start showing it to everyone on this site.
You are a typical troll. You get hit over the head with reality and then you pretend as if nothing has happened.
There is no long term correlation between CO2 and temperatures. If the graph I presented was in error prove it. Your argument by dismissal is as lame as it gets.
You have more time to spend here than I do, Tristan? Don't count on it. I own my own company which gives me the luxury of setting my own schedule. I will spend whatever amount of time it takes to flush tou out and destroy your lame, pathetic arguments. Trust me, that won't take much time at all!
I've more time to spend on Joanne than [I do on] you, Eddy.
The Met office issued a paper in conjunction with the climate research unit of the University of East Anglia admitting that the recent warming peak ended in 1997
Sorry for assuming that you meant the well-publicised Phil Jones quote.
All I can find is the daily mail article (which draws conclusions rejected by the met office itself, so clearly someone needs to work on their comprehension), I'm yet to find the report that it cites.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." – Yogi Berra
In an attempt to avoid too much confrontation, the conference will focus not on climate change but on sustainable development. –Deborah Zabarenko and Nina Chestney, Reuters, 24 January 2012
There is said to be another reason for the change of theme:
EXCLUSIVE: UN chief, aides plot 'green economy' agenda at upcoming summit
the Rio + 20 meeting, already being touted as a landmark environmental conclave on the issue of "global environmental governance,
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/09/un-chief-ban-ki-moon-top-aides-held-confidential-meeting-to-discuss-push-green/
Their problem with this is that they don't have any kind of universal connection unless they can point to something like CO2, which goes everywhere unhindered.
Even stuff like deforestation, soil loss, habitat loss, gross water pollution, is only local- no legitimate concern of any other polity.
"you don't like the way we manage our environment? Well butt out, it has nothing to do with you."
""(There might be some minor and temporary positive feedback processes in existence. We have to be careful in making definitive statements without justification)"" CTS
The term feedback causes confusion in radiology. A more apt term is loop, looping or looped. Feedback in a strict physical process leads to a static accumulation, whereas, loop allows a unbroken change of events.
I have been on the sidelines of this whole scam for decades. It has NEVER been about the science. Winning on the science front IS important, but it is a small facet of the ideology involved. As a young man, I was convinced that socialism was the way to go for humanity. As I grew older I realized that socialism is ONLY a great idea and cannot work due to inherent greed and corruptibility of the human psyche. Universities, while claiming to be bastions for open minded thought, are quite the opposite. Praying on the idealistic youth. That is the battlefront now. It is those graduates who go on to high profile careers that influence public policy. Let's face it, the poor have no control other than the vote. That is not enough as they fall prey to what they are fed in the MSM. I have seen how the left smears those who disagree into oblivion. It is time to bring back true "open mindedness" so that all views have a voice. "Climate Change" (who ever disputed that the climate changed?) is but a small part of the goal of control.
I also believed in peace (still want to), but the reality is that there are people and religions that want to silence you because you do not follow their ideology.
The carbon market was a scam from the get go. The sooner it's dead the better.
The entire environmental movement has made a colossal blunder in throwing so much energy and resources into AGW. There are real issues out there that have been neglected as a result: soil degradation, loss of aquifers, loss of biodiversity, overfishing, to name a few. Now it will be very hard to get anything done with these as the 'Greens' will be utterly discredited.
A couple notes:
'Cold and wet': both sides of the debate are guilty of using local, temporary weather events as 'proof' of global warming or lack thereof. Here in Canada, at least in my part of it, we had no winter to speak of this year. I've used my snowblower 3 times so far. Years ago, it could have been 30 times by this date. Looks like winter is in Europe for a change.
Shale gas:
You have to use that skeptical common sense and don't buy all the hype about shale gas. A lot of people out there are looking for ways to part people with their money – sounds familiar? At about 3$ US per million BTU shale gas is not economical to produce; 8-10$ is more like it. A lot of those wells dry up after a year or two. So maybe it's the be-all, end-all salvation for our civilization, maybe not. Just search 'shale gas hype' on the web for more info.
val majkus
don't miss Piers Ackerman today
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/carbon-tax-is-a-black-cloud-over-local-jobs/story-e6frezz0-1226268611172
The Gillard Labor-Green-independent minority government is pounding the nails into the Australian manufacturing industry's coffin.
The lid will be finally sealed on July 1 when the notorious carbon dioxide tax comes into effect.
Those workers who have already lost their jobs or are about to be sent to the scrap heap should remember exactly who stood happily alongside Prime Minister Gillard as she watched the corpse of the manufacturing industry grow cold.
Thanks for that link Val.
This in fact goes right to the heart of the problem with this Tax on CO2 emissions.
Electrical Power consumption.
The Tax is levied on those power plants who pass it directly down to consumers.
Electrical Power is demanded from THREE sectors, Residential, (38%) Commerce, (37%) and Industry. (24%)
ALL of the bribes Government compensation package goes at the INDIVIDUAL level, supposedly enough to cover the increase in your residential power bill, although in reality, it won't actually even achieve that.
However, while that compensation package is aimed at only the one sector, the other two, Commerce and Industry receive no compensation.
Your residential power bill is an average of say $350 per quarter.
The average Commercial enterprise is a quantum level higher, and Industry a quantum level higher than that.
Straight away now, Commerce, to cover that increase, must raise their prices, and especially here, think here of Coles and Woolies et al.
Straight away now, because of massively hiked electricity bills, Industry now producing the same things must either increase their prices for what they produce, making them less attractive when compared with cheaper foreign items, or take the hit to their bottom line.
Individuals vote. Bribe them and perhaps win a few votes.
Commercial and Industrial enterprises do not vote.
The Tax was flawed, and vastly overpriced, a price that is now crumbling as they watch.
They tell us it's aimed at their so called 'big emitters'.
However, with costs being passed on at virtually every stage, it's aimed not at those derdy polluders, but in fact directly at the people they attempted to bribe.
And Tony to convert Australia to 100% renewable energy Peter Lang has done the maths
using costs derived for the Federal Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (DRET, 2011b), the costs are estimated to be: $568 billion capital cost, $336/MWh cost of electricity and $290/tonne CO2 abatement cost. That is, the wholesale cost of electricity for the simulated system would be SEVEN times more than now, with an abatement cost that is THIRTEEN times the starting price of the Australian carbon tax and THIRTY times the European carbon price. (This cost of electricity does not include costs for the existing electricity network).
check out the post at http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1339 and pass it on – the electorate needs to be informed and the MSM are not doing this
the future looks not so bright
Val,
Peter sent me a copy on the release date.
For all you others who have an interest, Peter Lang carefully analyses a 'new' scenario to move Australia to 100% Renewable Power. This is a second scenario, independent of, and following on from the BZE scenario, one that Peter also 'deconstructed'.
Read very carefully the block quote in Val's comment above. See the estimate placed on what it might cost.
$568 Billion.
The end cost of electricity for demand (all consumers) will be 7 times higher than what it is now, and the the scenario is based on a Carbon Price of not the current over the top cost of $23 per tonne, but $290 per Tonne.
These green hued pie in the sky scenarios need to be shown for exactly what they are.
Clever spin, aimed at punters who have no concept what electrical power generation means other than it comes out of the hole in the wall.
Here is the link to Peter's analysis and it's a 33 page pdf document.
Renewable electricity for Australia – the cost
Read it and weep be horrified.
Tony, here is me being picky, but try not to use the word "quantum" when you should use "order of magnitude".
From wikipedia = "a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction".
What you are actual saying (but clearly do not mean) is that commercial and industrial energy bills are almost the same as residential energy bills.
It is a common misuse of the term.
Hey, thanks for that.
I still find it amazing that words that we think mean one thing actually mean another.
One for the memory bank, so thanks again.
scaper...
This is not a good development. I mean, what will I now have to blame?
For years I've been blaming global warming for every accident, mistake and for my laziness. Global cooling or worse…global natural variability just won't cut it and I might actually have to take responsibility for my actions and more importantly, my inaction!
Damn you sceptics!
Wednesday is the last stand.
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
I hereby resign as expert-reviewer of Chapter 13: Sea Level Changes. I do this for two reasons:
(1) TIME:
A few days ago I noted that the deadline is set at February 10, instead of Mach 10 that I had noted by mistake.
(2) QUALITY:
Having glanced through Chapter 13, I find it to be of such low quality that a serious review would require very much extra work. At previous expert-reviews of mine (2000, 2006), all comments and corrections were neglected, despite their firm anchoring in facts.
The so-called authors of Chapter 13 seem to be a collection of all those who have written anything about sea level changes that agrees with the concept of IPCC, despite that fact that many of those papers were of a very low quality.
To this group is added some persons who have absolutely no insight to sea level changes. It is an insult that such persons are named "authors".
– Rune Grand Graversen (Sweden) is a Ph.D. student in meteorology
– Gunnar Myhre (Norway) seems to be fully limited to meteorology
– Ruth Mottram (Denmark) is post.doc. in meteorology (glaciology)
Just to check my Nordic country fellows are all "non-specialists" who have nothing to contribute in sea level. Why are they there? But so typical!
All the debate and questioning has been shamelessly left out; not even referred to. And still, there is most probably within that material, the reality is to be found.
Today, the President of the Maldives had to resign. Finally, reality caught up with his illusions about sea level changes.
So should most of the Chapter 13 authors do, too – for the benefit of science. And by this I resign as expert reviewer
Stockholm, February 7, 2012
Sea Level Expert
Haaaaaa……..
Sonny @ 42.1.1
Actually, Sonny, when I wrote that comment last night (42.1), I was trying to be reasonable enough to avoid getting snipped, and stay within the bounds of what might be legally and ethically acceptable in OZ society today. My personal feelings on the matter go much deeper than that.
Last week my eight year old granddaughter, now in grade 3, got to watch "An Inconvenient Truth", as a documentary on climate change. Fortunately, being only eight years old, most of it went right over her head. Unfortunately I suspect it will not be the only time she gets to watch it over the next few years, unless we get some sanity back into our education system.
As far as I am concerned, the teacher responsible should be found guilty of gross child abuse, stripped of the right to ever teach again, publicly flogged (as should all child abusers), and entered on the Child Abuse Register for the rest of her life.
If she has children of her own they should be taken into protective custody, made Wards of the State, and found foster homes with people less inclined towards brainwashing them with political propaganda.
Societies have always had their psychopaths with their own, anti-social agendas. In saner times we have tolerated them, up to a point, and when they have gotten too far out of hand we have quietly assigned them to mental institutions where they cannot do themselves, or anybody else, too much harm.
Today the psychopaths are running the show. They are in our Parliaments, in our schools, in our media, running our bureaucracies, and in charge of many of our companies and corporations. Psychopathic insanity appears to have become the new "normal".
The whole CAGW hysteria trip is just another clear manifestation of this spreading malady.
It is time for radical surgery before the patient (society) dies from its own self-inflicted wounds.
To be fair, not all teachers will be bright enough to see through the scam. But I agree, schools that promote CAGW need to be prosecuted. And government officials behind the scam should be imprisoned for fraud and crimes against humanity.
Flogging your kids 3rd grade teacher is probably shooting the messenger.
A sort of pogrom? Stalin would be proud.
MV Some figures give the number of psychopaths as 4% of the population.
Jo the hits are finding their mark regularly now however we both know that this zombie will need to be shot many times, beheaded, stabbed through the heart (with a stake from old growth rain forest), quartered with each bit burned and buried on different continent. Harry Potter had it easy compared to our task. There can be no rest and all those who propagated this myth must be held to account.
Have to agree, Randy. Its a lot harder to kill and idea that is correct.
No, John – the idea collapses under the weight of its own contradictions. Its the faith of its committed adherents currently in positions of power that will take longer to fade.
John Brookes. I admire your idealism. You feel you are "saving the planet". That is admirable. You view all those here who disagree as people who hate nature and want to destroy the planet for monetary gain. Nothing is further from the truth. We all care about the future as well as the planet. If you read history, you know that life not long ago was nasty, brutish, and short. Nature gave us the tools to be successful and comfortable. As all species do, we propagate when successful. To elevate us from the eventual die-back that happens to all species, we need technology. I see a future where our technology saves the planet from harm. The claim of "do it for the children" is misguided as economic hardship is hardest on the young and the infirm. We cannot go forward by going backward. I would like to see all mining and energy production off planet, saving the earth as a garden. I have solutions for achieving this without the destruction of our environment. This is not fantasy as we are very close to being able to do this. We have come a long way from London in the 1800′s. It is levels of magnitude cleaner and healthier now than then. Lake Erie in the seventies was a cesspit. It is no longer like that due to advancements in technology and solid economy to achieve that. We do not have to destroy the human race to do what you want to do. You have to know that we all want the same thing. A brilliant future for our children and grandchildren. Unless that is not really what you seek.
And the largest flagstones are engraved with the words "for the children".
I forget who first wrote that.
On this theme of a solid economy being good for the environment let me give a theoretical model to support this assertion.
Individual motivations tend (satistically) be in something like the following order;
Food > Shelter > Companionship > Basic comfort > Procreation > Improved comfort > Social status > Local environment > Wider community > etc
Now people can argue about the exact order, an everyone is an individual ("I'm not!") but the point is, if you are worried about putting food on the table, then everything else can wait. Therefore you start screwing around with people's jobs and economic well-being you will see a significant shift away from "the environment" as being important as people worry about the more important stuff (to them).
For indigenous people living a low-technology lifestyle, the local environment IS both food and shelter. However for those of benefitting from our technological capabilities this is not so much the case. Most of the cleaning up of the environmental errors that were made in the past occcurred when the economy was going well. People could get involved in fixing environmental problems because other stuff was sorted. Companies that had good trading figures and profits didn't mind the tightening of emissions and waste products as it did not threaten their existence and they could be good "corporate citizens" (a phrase you do not hear much anymore).
The irony for the "watermelons" (they are not environmentalists) is that screwing up the economy will cause more environmental problems than economic prosperity will. However we all know it was never about the environment.
As I said in at an earlier post, John only comes here for the phishing. He always gets plenty of bites.
No, the 'money' hasn't run out. It's just running into other 'securities' that aren't money either.
All those hopeless DUD predictions from Flannery and BOM about rainfall are covered by Bolt in this mornings show.
Denis Jensen does a good interview with Bolt about those clueless predictions and BOM tampering with Darwin's temp record etc. He also agrees there should be a Royal Commission into CAGW.
A retarded five year old could see through this super expensive fraud so why shouldn't there be an enquiry?
One quick benifit would be the saving of countless more billions $ soon to be wasted down the plug hole for zero return to the Aust people.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_bolt_report_today4/#commentsmore
Want to know why carbon markets collapsed in price? It's the sun stupid!
Charles Nenner is an ex-Goldman Sachs analyst and an investment advisor to major clients such as pension funds. I have no idea if he knows what he's talking about, or if he is a troll par exellence, but he's got a very wacky idea: That the solar magnetic cycle electromagnetically influences investor behaviour on Earth!
Yeah, well Chucky, let us know how that turns out for ya.
[...] Barchart. The last year of carbon trading in EUR's continues to fall. (Click to enlarge).JoNova.com February 11th, 2012 People who we never would have imagined speaking against the Big Scare [...]
I was having a quick glance over at AB's blog and came across this story about an immigrant family to the USA
In November 2011, Mia Love filed to run for Utah's newly formed 4th Congressional District based on her demonstrated leadership on conservative principles. She credits her parents with providing the foundation for her ideals. After many years of living in the unstable, regime-torn socialist island country of Haiti, her parents immigrated legally to the United States with $10 in their pockets in hopes of achieving the American Dream.
Mia was born in Brooklyn, New York and eventually moved to Connecticut. Mia recalls both parents working hard to earn a living, her father at times taking on second jobs cleaning toilets to pay for school for their three children. On the day of Mia's college orientation, her father said something to her that would become the ethos for her life:
"Mia, your mother and I never took a handout… You will not be a burden to society. You will give back."
Now, JB and your rent-seeking sycophants, these are the kind of people that our country needs … you might try out this philosophy some time.
Richard C (NZ)
Skeptics are winning ?
Someone tell these guys:-
Architects Propose "Bibs" To Shield NYC From Global Warming's Floods
Global warming will make New York spectacularly vulnerable to flooding. Some researchers even suggest that in 200 years, Manhattan could look like Venice. Does that mean 8 million people oughta start packing their bags? Of course not. But experts agree the city should do something. Enter Tingwei Xu and Xie Zhang. The U Penn students think New York can protect itself the way a guy cracking lobster protects his tie: by strapping on a bib.
No joke. In their vision, an intelligent, lace-like membrane would be draped over building bases in low-lying parts of the city, guarding precious infrastructure from incoming floods. The membrane would feature a "transforming surface" that'd adapt to different weather conditions, offering more protection when it's wet out and less when it's dry. It'd also be planted with trees and other flora, which can form a natural barrier against floodwater.
>>>>>>> H/t Steven Goddard
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1668998/architects-propose-bibs-to-shield-nyc-from-global-warmings-floods
81 Tweets and spectacular model visualization aids.
Although I'm not sure of the significance of the guy in the HazChem suit. Perhaps he's there because Hansen said:-
"The oceans will begin to boil…."
Here is a simple proof in 10 easy steps why the Greenhouse Effect is a physical impossibility.
(1) The IPCC claim that radiation from a cooler atmosphere slows the rate of cooling of the (warmer) surface, thus leading to a greenhouse effect.
(2) The "rate of cooling" is a 24 hour worldwide mean, so wherever the Sun is warming the surface (any sunny morning) the rate of warming would have to be increased by whatever process is slowing the rate of cooling.
(3) Thus extra thermal energy must be added to the surface by such radiation in order to increase the warming rate in the morning and slow the mean rate of cooling calculated from both day and night rates.
(4) Now the Second Law of Thermodynamics relates to heat transfer which is not the same as energy transfer. Radiated energy can be two-way, but heat transfer between two points is always one way and it is invalid to split such heat transfer into two opposite components and try to apply the Second Law to each. Physics doesn't work that way.
(5) Hence, the surface cannot warm faster in the mornings due to such an imaginary heat transfer, because that would be clearly breaking the Second Law no matter what. Nor can it slow the rate of cooling because of (4). And in general you would expect the same process to happen whether the surface is warming or cooling.
(6) So, those photons from the cooler atmosphere are not being converted to thermal energy in the warmer surface, as Prof Claes Johnson proved in Computational Blackbody Radiation.
(7) Hence the effect of the photons being either reflected or scattered is that there is no impact on the surface at all.
(8) It is also clear that there is no significant transfer by diffusion or conduction from the atmosphere to the surface because the surface absorbs more solar insolation than the lower atmosphere, and we observe that the atmosphere is generally cooler and even cools faster at night than the surface.
(9) So it really does not matter even if extra thermal energy is trapped higher up in the atmosphere because it does not affect what we call climate, and any such energy cannot make its way back to the surface, except possibly an insignificant additional amount in precipitation.
(10) Hence there is no valid physical way in which backradiation or absorption by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause a significant atmospheric greenhouse effect.
If I haven't convinced you, read this paper Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Scientific Genesis:
Does government funded scientific research for policy create evil? Ike thought it might.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GOLld5PR4ts
Richard C
Hah I love that! only in New York they say…. they must put up a sample of them so they become known as the BBB's (BullShite Barrier Bibs) Erected around UN or Green headquarters they might just stop the Cr@p seeping out to pollute the environment…..
I had a rethink that maybe the HazChem suit worn by the guy in one of the photos was CO2-proof to guard against the poisonous atmosphere of the future – but then I realized there's a problem with that.
The words "Dumb" and "Dumber" come to mind.
Derek Cook
On the subject of the 100 UK MPs who wrote the letter about windfarms, the ever excellent Christopher Booker gives the real story on this in the following, after his take on Greek in the Euro Crisis. So read on past the first article if you aren't interested in the travesty of the Euro!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9075868/Democracy-is-ending-in-the-land-where-it-began.html
News for you. "Carbon Market is Dead"? The European Commission has put it on life support and is standing over it now with the paddles. Not only are they trying to save the Euro, but they still believe in carbon taxes et al. See the new 17% Carbon Floor Tax! Yes they are more excited with the cash cow that carbon has become? As everyone else in europe tightens their belts the European Commission announces increases in budgets!Classic!
I don't think Aus is the last man standing. In the UK our government are still committed to the utterly cretinous target of reducing CO2 emissions by 80% by 2040, at a cost of around £900,000,000,000 (nine hundred billion!). It's got to a stage now where I no longer get a combative reply from my MP (government minister for agriculture) on the issue. Instead he's decided to simply not bother replying at all.
Reed Coray
Is it just me, or do Tristan and John Brookes fall in Lincoln's "Some of the people" category?
It's not just you!
and not just Roy!
Alan Jones (radio 2GB Sydney) is talking to James Delingpole right now.
the market ain't dead 'til it's dead…
12 Feb: Business Week: Bloomberg: China Airlines in 'Intolerable' Spot on Europe Levies, IATA Says
The U.S., Russia and India are also among at least 27 nations due to meet next week in Moscow to discuss retaliatory measures against the addition of aviation to a European carbon market…
IATA has called for the EU to drop the airline-emissions cap and instead wait for a global program now being worked on by the United Nations' International Civil Aviation Organization…
The China Air Transport Association asked its government to oppose the EU levies and it is working on a legal challenge to be filed in Germany, Vice President Chai Haibo said Feb. 6…
Tyler also said that he "wouldn't rule out" the possibility of more airline failures in Europe after the collapse of Spanair SA and Malev Zrt. A European recession could cause the global industry to lose as much as $8.3 billion this year, according to IATA forecasts…
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-12/china-airlines-in-intolerable-spot-on-europe-levies-iata-says.html
couldn't be clearer where the Washington Post stands:
12 Feb: Washington Post Editorial: European air fare war
But the real story isn't as disturbing as it seems.
In 2005, Europe began charging for the carbon emissions its economy produces. Both Republicans and coal-state Democrats have made this seem like a wacky socialist plot, but any good economist will tell you that carbon charging can be an extremely efficient way to reduce pollution…
So it's understandable the Europeans would want to bring the sector under their carbon cap. Want to fly to Europe? Pay a price for the air pollution emitted to get you there, which, for now, isn't all that much — less than $3 a ticket for a flight from Beijing to Brussels.
America and other countries not in the European Union counter that Europeans shouldn't be able to charge for emissions produced outside E.U. airspace, or, China seems to believe, at all for non-European planes. The answer, though, isn't to scrap the whole program for everyone but E.U. carriers. Doing so would put European airlines at an unfair disadvantage and tear a hole in European anti-carbon efforts. Nor should the Europeans tempt an unproductive trade war by pressing forward no matter what.
The best way to solve this dispute — for world trade and for the environment — would be for America, China and others to put a price on carbon emissions on their own territory and airspace, in which case the Europeans wouldn't charge them. But that's politically impossible.
The parties, then, must sort out their differences at the International Civil Aviation Organization, the relevant international forum…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/european-air-fare-war/2012/02/08/gIQAZrAN9Q_story.html
in case u don't realise who all the guilty parties are, check out those involved here. they are not giving up. we went from gold-backed currency, to oil-backed currency, and now they plan a carbon dioxide-backed currency. we must stop them.
7 Nov 2011: pdf: Carbon Expo Conference 2011
http://www.carbonexpo.com.au/uploads/pdf/Carbon-Expo-Program.pdf
Economist plays the game of singling China out:
11 Feb: Economist: Planes and pollution
Trouble in the air, double on the ground
China objects to European efforts to curb its airlines' emissions
As an effort to make airlines pay for their pollution, the EU's action is overdue…
http://www.economist.com/node/21547283/comments#comments
Wikipedia: The Economist: The publication belongs to The Economist Group, half of which is owned by the Financial Times, a subsidiary of Pearson PLC. A group of independent shareholders, including many members of the staff and the Rothschild banking family of England,[9] owns the rest…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist
27 June 2011: WantChinaTimes, Taiwan: E. L. Rothschild invests in China's 'weather'
E. L. Rothschild, a family investment company, recently spotted a very unusual commodity.
The company acquired a 70 percent stake in U.S. -based Weather Central in January, convinced by the strong growth prospects of selling interactive weather graphics and data services to television, Internet and telecommunications companies…
In the interview, Lynn Forester de Rothschild said the purchase of Weather Central was the company's latest acquisition.
Weather Central provides real-time reports on weather, traffic and news. It is the only data provider to the China Meteorological Administration and the supplier to every weather channel on the mainland…
Furthermore, Weather Central launched MyWeather.com in the United States last month, which, she believed, is the world's most accurate and personalized digital weather service for customers.
Rothschild said that while her company has mainly collaborated with China's state-enterprises, it is also discussing agreements with some private-sector businesses on wind energy, adding that the group had unique wind technologies.
She also predicted that China would lead the world in the renewable energy market, adding that she and her husband had visited some alternative energy companies in China…
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1102&MainCatID=11&id=20110627000105
6 Feb: Guardian: John Vidal: Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering
Other wealthy individuals have also funded a series of reports into the future use of technologies to geoengineer the climate
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/06/bill-gates-climate-scientists-geoengineering?newsfeed=true
15 Dec 2011: Australian: AAP: Bill Gates gives tick to carbon tax
Mr Gates, the founder of Microsoft who's holidaying in Sydney with his family, said someone had to lead on tough global issues and it had to be hoped that by setting a good example, others would follow.
"I wish the world at large found it easier to get together on this because a carbon tax is a very important tool to encourage the invention of low-cost energy technologies that don't emit carbon," he told ABC Television.
"To help that happen, a carbon tax really is a key piece."…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/bill-gates-gives-tick-to-carbon-tax/story-fn3dxity-1226223361332
*****1 Feb 2012: Deutsche Presse-Agentur: Sydney sploshes through a cold, wet summer
Microsoft founder Bill Gates and other A-listers were in jumpers and raincoats rather than shorts and beach shoes during their Christmas holidays in Sydney…
The Weather Channel said Wednesday that Australia's biggest city had its coldest December in more than half a century and its coldest and wettest January in over a decade…
The Gates family got fed up with Sydney's weather and, like many of the locals, flew up to Queensland for a bit of southern hemisphere summer comfort.
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/asiapacific/news/article_1688430.php/Sydney-sploshes-through-a-cold-wet-summer
Ironic isn't it that Gates flew up here for a bit of global warming!
If he's so enamoured with our carbon (dioxide) tax then he should put his money where his mouth is and pay for our losses.
and here's a man not only preaching austerity for everyone else, but who heads a country pushing carbon trading and carbon taxes for the world's airlines! hypocrite?
7 Feb 2012: UK Daily Mail: Ted Thornhill: Austerity, moi? Nicolas Sarkozy spends £10k a day on food and keeps 121 cars under his palace
Just last week he sent a medical team to the Ukraine on board a state-owned private jet to attend to one of his sons, Pierre, and fly him back to Paris to the tune of £22,000…
Recent excursions include an 80-mile trip to Saint-Quentin, from Paris, that cost £350,000, a £109,000 sortie to the Lascaux caves with Bruni and a two-and-a-half-hour trip to Ain that Dosiere worked out cost £700 a minute…
His total annual expenditure comes to £95million…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096799/Nicolas-Sarkozy-spends-10k-day-food-keeps-121-cars-palace.html
A fantastic article that everyone here should take the time to peruse thoroughly;
http://greshams-law.com/2012/02/13/charting-the-federal-reserves-assets-from-1915-to-2012/
Maybe you will then understand that carbon credits, justified by the abuse of the scientific method by co-opted acedemics, media etc are but a branch of a far larger tree, though more apt would be a Lernaean Hydra, for each head cut off it grows two more.
Of course it will come to an end some day, credit bubbles always do but by then your good civilisation will be finished.
A bit off topic –
London Olympics may glow in the dark without outside power source-
Should we beware the east wind?
Extensive radioactive contamination has been uncovered on the London 2012 Olympic site at Stratford. OPEN has made an appeal for funds to meet the cost of commissioning an independent nuclear scientist to report on the working methods and risks arising from the excavation works there. OPEN has been passed copies of consultants reports, and replies from the authorities to information requests made by members of Games Moniter, which raise serious concerns. OPEN considers that local residents should be fully informed of the works being undertaken on the Olympic site.
If you can assist with funding the independent scientist's report please contact info@openuk.net.
Historically the Olympic 2012 site housed east London's "dirty industries" – insecticide & fertiliser works, paint and oil distillers, gas mantel works – many of which are known to have produced radioactive and other toxic by-products. London University's decommissioned nuclear reactor was also on the site. Documentary evidence revealed that, prior to 1963 when regulation was first introduced by the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, there had been uncontrolled deposits of radioactive thorium at a burial site under the West Ham tip. The likelihood was that radium, and other toxic wastes, were also present. Local residents became concerned in 2007 when contractors began drilling on the Clays Lane housing estate, which had been built on the former tip, and measuring the drilling samples unearthed on the estate with geiger counters.
http://openuk.net/
I see one of the TV stations (I forget which) is re-running Looney Tunes.
No doubt this version will appear on the ABC News.
Yes, Victorian gas mantles contained 1% thorium oxide in the thermoluminescent layer on the glass chimney. It boosted the light level when heated.
Where did they get the thorium oxide? Off a beach somewhere is most likely. It has a half-life of about 14.05 billion years; in other words very low level radioactivity. So low, that the "glow in the dark" phrase is a joke.
I have been told on another forum where I post and debate that left wing alarmists are not emotionally driven on the issue of Global Warming yet liberals are. Supposedly I have been brainwashed yet supporters of it haven't and that only the believers in CAGW have their science posted in science journals.
I nearly fell off my chair and felt obliged to share.
Unfortunatly I do not think that you right when you write that "Australia will probably be the last-man-standing on the deck of the burning ship called "Climate Change"". I think that Australia will have some comptetion from Sweden where the media completely clueless when it comes to the issue of climate change and the politicians in both the goverment and oposition are absolutely as single minded as they seems to be in Australia, and refuse to take in any facts that does not support the alarmist AGW dogma.
Bruce of Newcastle
Abandon ship, abandon ship! Green Energy Profit Crash Deters New CEOs
Renewable energy companies are losing their allure with top executives after profits and stock prices collapsed across the industry, making it more difficult for boards to replace underperforming managers.
First Solar Inc. (FSLR), the biggest U.S. solar company, ousted its chief executive officer in October and is still seeking a replacement. At Vestas Wind Systems A/S (VWS), the largest turbine maker, the chairman and finance director are leaving after the company cut sales forecasts twice in three months, and CEO Ditlev Engel said his own job is safe.
"It's becoming significantly more difficult to attract people into this market," said Shelly Fust, who leads clean technology recruiting in Los Angeles at Korn/Ferry International, the world's largest executive search firm. "In my 15 years, this is probably the most difficult time to recruit."
I love the sound of people voting with their feet.
"President Barack Obama pushed drilling for gas in shale rock and support for cleaner energy sources to boost the economy in his final State of the Union address before facing U.S. voters in November. He also pledged more oil drilling."
Umm maybe you haven't notice but Obama says one thing but then does another. Basically He LIES.
As a young man, I went to a Midnight Oil concert in Winnipeg. At that time, I bought into the environmentalist save the planet routine. Peter Garrett went on and on about the damage being done to the planet by mankind, the sky is going to fall, blah, blah. blah. After the concert was over and the place had emptied, I stood in awe of the hundred thousand PLASTIC Foster's Beer cups strewn everywhere. An alarm bell went off in my noggin. As I exited the stadium, I noticed all the semi-trailers lined up to transport the band to the next engagement, at which point I started to think about his ramblings during the concert. It really didn't make sense. The whole damn thing was a joke. Did he believe his own words? The wizard behind the curtain sprang to mind, and I started looking closer at all the things I believed were true. A lot of them were just a facade for the truth. Thank you Peter Garrett and Midnight Oil for helping me see the truth.
Jo, you have a wonderful blog with highly informed contributors. Folks like Tristan and John Brookes apparently do not realize that they help to solidify the skeptical arguments. Do not be so hard on them as they are likely the product of a University that does not allow true "free thinking". I always cringed when a professor asked me to "give my opinion" on an exam. That was not what he was looking for, was it?
Do not be so hard on them as they are likely the product of a University that does not allow true "free thinking".
Jo isn't hard on me. Our to and fro might be a little robust at times but we generally attack the argument, not each other
I can't say the same for most of the rest.
Do you always do an end run and never address the thrust of someone's post? I haven't seen you attack any argument directly at all. Just your version of the argument. Dancing around an issue, but never the main point. In formal debate, this is viewed poorly.
Why do I get the feeling that monitoring this site is your "assignment" or "territory"?
The obvious goal being obfuscation rather than discussion.
Please answer directly or your response will tell me all I need to know.
Dancing around an issue, but never the main point. In formal debate, this is viewed poorly.
Sometimes I prefer dancing to debating.
I can't tell you why you feel the way you feel.
Obfuscating what, the message? I'm running information interference for my warmist masters?
Give me a single question and I'll do my best.
You've told me all I need to know.
Thanks for proving my point!
I have been blocked from every pro-alarmist site I have ever tried to post on. Not one post ever allowed through. Yet those who post on those sites are allowed to post on "open" sites like Jo's and Anthony's. The one failing of a democratic society is that a sociopath can take advantage of this. It is frustrating but when viewed another way, an intelligent person can see through this and realizes that the sociopath HAS to do this, as they have no other way to maintain control of the discussion. They would be chewed up and spit out due to no scientific backing at all! I have done this silly "dancing" before. I shall not do it again.
You cannot have a productive discussion with someone who has their fingers in their ears going LA LA LA like a spoiled child. Basically "I know you are but what am I?" what joke!
What a Joke! please revise if possible. Please and thank you
The process you are referring to has been labelled "spacing" on this site because it puts space between the real comments.
The purpose, apart from giving the spacer's minders some time off, creates a messed up blogg and to an outsider the conversation may seem to be fragmented.
They will go elsewhere.
Doesn't bother me a bit. It is quite obvious what he is doing and revealing at the same time. Thanks, though!! Been through it before. It's all they've got.
Should clarify that:
" They will go elsewhere." refers to casual visitors not the spacers.
Guess I better add another space, the minders are looking harangued.
I have been blocked from every pro-alarmist site I have ever tried to post on. Not one post ever allowed through.
I know! Comments policies are so hard to follow! I just don't understand why a site wouldn't want posts of your quality, it's stupefying.
They would be chewed up and spit out due to no scientific backing at all!
What would constitute scientific backing? If you don't accept a proposition, it's always important to determine what evidence would change your mind.
I will change my mind about the size of the role that C02 plays in determining temperature if in 5 years time, the surface temp record doesn't show that warming since 1997 is statistically significant.
Sociopath out.
Always remember the maxim; "Don't argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
And always remember that the neanderthals do have a value, even if it is only a light entertainment one. I do get a laugh, at times, from them.
I am not replying to him. I am replying to what he represents. All alarmists everywhere.
The one failing of a democratic society is that a sociopath can take advantage of this.
I'm all for freedom of speech, even for sociopaths. I don't see it as a failing at all, other people have the freedom not to listen if that's what they want. The trouble is that once you decide to start censoring, you immediately set up a super-powerful interest group who ultimately *always* drift towards corruption.
I'd argue that our fundamental limiting point as a species is that we have no workable mechanism to identify trustworthy people. Thus for example, I trusted that the climate scientists were doing real science until their emails got published and I suddenly saw how shaky it all was. As another example, the Fukushima nuclear reactor had aged past it's design date and had drastically inadequate backup systems, but the people responsible were willing to look the other way. Democracy doesn't guarantee good leadership by any means, but it can limit the damage of bad leadership (and that's a lot of damage if you pick up a history book and see what really bad leadership delivers).
I see that you dislike Tristan because of his different opinion (and his dogged determinism to push that opinion) but think carefully about whether his opinion is genuine, or whether he is getting a kickback somewhere down the line (possibly not money directly, possibly career progression or peer-group influence, or something in-kind)? How would you devise an experiment to systematically search for that in a provable manner (presuming of course that no one has God-like powers here)? I'm not just asking this to make you look silly because you don't have an answer… it's a genuinely difficult problem.
The only answer that I've ever seen is that (in a social context) the Scientific Method must include full and open publication of all data, all experimental methodology, and be fully reproducible by many independent people, in many ways, and many times over. That's the only way you can get an answer *without* ever needing to trust someone. It's an admission that I can't answer the previous question either, nor can pretty much anyone, so a presumption of distrust is the rational way forward. Setting your standards low avoids disappointment.
By the way, after reading the long and sorry story of FOI requests (see Bishop Hill) I can only say that Climate Science has a long, long way to go before being able to deliver on the above terms. But then, I'm not expecting much, and every year we get more temperature readings… either the world will end… or it won't.
I dislike what he is doing. Being deliberately obtuse. A feeble attempt to hijack the discussion. Nothing more. You can set your standards low if you like.
"size of the role that C02 plays" The Kool-aid is coursing through his veins. He cannot help himself. I dare him to read "Slaying the Sky Dragon". Most skeptics are not brave enough to read it. The debate in the inner circle of climatology (except among true believers) has moved on from "how much Co2 warms the atmosphere" to "whether or not Co2 warms the atmosphere". What they want you to believe is the some of the first skeptics are out of the game. Nothing could be further from the truth. Tristan has been left behind and does not even know it.
In all records Co2 FOLLOWS temperature. Yes I have heard about the PETM. That happened 56 mya. The proxy error bars are 2 million years. What has happened in the last 2 million years? Quite a lot. The PETM claim is hilarious. Gavin and the boys are clutching at straws. AGW has struck the iceberg of reality. Temperature has hit a plateau ( I think it has dropped but I am going by the "adjusted data") and yet Co2 has been on the rise. This is their own data! Tristan will change his mind in 5 years if this continues. This I gotta see. If he hasn't taken a hard look by now at his "doctrine" I am skeptical that he ever will. The Hudson's Bay temperature record is 400 years long. Millions of data points. It shows that everything that is happening today (both warmer and colder) has happened in the recent past, pre-industrialization. The data (unadjusted) from all stations of this age shows the same thing. Why do you think they have worked so hard to shut my father up? Or anyone else who is aware of these records? The smear campaign against him has been going on for 30 years!! He could have easily towed the party line, but he new early on the game was rigged. It has NEVER been about the science or the existing data. The emails (have you read those Tristan?) show these guys don't have clue one more than anyone else as to what the driver is or what the future holds. WTF is "the cause"? How is that anywhere remotely "scientific"? How could anyone still believe Co2 is the climate driver? Only someone whose living depends on NOT knowing. Tristan would like it best if we all just shut up. Look at how he split my posts so that I could not reply to his childish remarks. That tells me that he hasn't got a clue. Period.
In all records Co2 FOLLOWS temperature.
I think we're all aware of that.
Temperature has hit a plateau
Yes, it has hit quite a number of plateaus. It's a herky jerky sort of rise. That's what happens when you have oscillating variables.
I dare him to read "Slaying the Sky Dragon".
Glanced over the freely available chapters. I'm not a physicist so it's meaningless to me. I do know that Joanne and Monckton acknowledge the physical basis of the greenhouse effect, where they disagree with the science relates to the strength of the feedbacks.
The debate in the inner circle of climatology (except among true believers) has moved on from "how much Co2 warms the atmosphere" to "whether or not Co2 warms the atmosphere".
Who exactly comprises this 'inner circle'. Your Dad and his friends?
Millions of data points. It shows that everything that is happening today (both warmer and colder) has happened in the recent past, pre-industrialization.
I'm sure it says a lot about Hudson Bay. I'm less sure it says much about the global mean
Look at how he split my posts so that I could not reply to his childish remarks. That tells me that he hasn't got a clue. Period.
I'm not even sure what this means.
What bothers the most is the ridiculous amounts of money spent on mitigating a non-problem when there are far more urgent issues that need to be addressed. "Do it for the children" for example. There are 100,000 registered pedophiles in the U.S. whose whereabouts are unknown. Medications that are expelled by the body after ingestion end up in our river systems, etc. You know, REAL PROBLEMS.
Climate is NOT my area of expertise. i was born into it. I know when someone is plying a boatload of bulls**t about it. I remember dinner table discussion with my dad and his colleagues 30 YEARS AGO about the problems of using dendro as a proxy for temperatures. Do NOT try and tell me that it requires taxation and a whole branch of gubmint to monitor effing plant food. My local greenhouse runs at 1000 ppm all day everyday. No one even notices other than the plants loving it. Miners are regularly subject to levels far exceeding 1000ppm with absolutely NO ill effects. People are starting to wake up from their collective nap on this subject. About damn time I say, ….
This will make many of you laugh, cringe and want you to throw something at your TV.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/kids-play-abc-show-to-help-sell-climate-goals/story-e6frg6xf-1226270219470
Ross James
Massive data collection of ancient pollens widespread across North America suggest MVP period was warm but nowhere near as warm as today.
(How come the Vikings were able to live at Greenland.Grow crops and bury the dead.Today in those same areas it is not possible) CTS
This research was conducted by Andre Viau, Matthew Ladd and Konrad Gajewski at the University of Ottawa.
Laboratory for Paleoclimatology and Climatology
University of Ottawa, Department of Geography
Website: http://www.lpc.uottawa.ca
Phone: 613-562-5800 x 1327
Posted by Robert Way on Tuesday, 14 February, 2012
In summary, these reconstructions can be used to validate model simulations of past climate and lead to improvements in our ability to predict future climate. They also provide a window into past climate dynamics using low-resolution proxies.
The researchers found that both the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) (800-1200 AD) and Little Ice Age (LIA) (1400-1850 AD) were both cooler than present (1961-1990 average) (Figure 2 – top and middle panels). The MWP was warmer than the LIA over much of the continent (Figure 2 – bottom panel). Hatched areas are regions where the reconstructions are more uncertain, due to sparse data.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Figure_1.PNG
The push back over CO2 skeptcism has begun. Over 40 papers in the last six weeks all confirm science is sound.
MWP a global phenomenon AND warmer than the current period.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
Pick a paper . . . any paper.
I'm sorry memoryvault but having just one single localised proxy is NO PROOF (it is anecdotal proof that is very weak).
(His link was to a map with many images based on many published science research.It was only a sample of papers from many hundreds of published science papers supporting the MWP as being as warm or warmer than today and in many regions of the planet) CTS
The Proxy study encompassed the entire USA surface – even though low resolution as well it was localised to a valley, a place, a digging, a find, a cave etc etc. Neither were tree rings used!
(You never looked at the link memoryvault posted.It is not about one "proxy paper" but a sampling of published science research scattered all over the world) CTS
Either the University has produced a fraudulent paper or it holds up to greater investigation and the proxies are more reliable or there not.
(It was a blogger who took the time to make that map YOU NEVER SAW. You are making wild unsupported guesses that exposes you as being anti science because you don't even know what those proxies you are attacking are) CTS
A lot has been said – having a party and winning an election based on opinion polling reminds of a fictional situation right on this site.
The Liberal Party prepared for yet another victory based on opinion polling. A five star resort was hired for the occasion. But alas as the night drew on and it approached midnight the reality began to sink in. So what of party – they celebrated anyway by turning off the TVs, mobile phone and shut down all outside communication. In other words satisfied in themselves they stopped allowing to be exposed to contrary evidence.
The same goes for this site. Sadly the hypothesis they hold to is looking more and more fragile as the days go by.
(Does this mean you will go away soon?) CTS
But then are at all aware of fresh evidence of even the last six months? Do not shut down / shut out evidence you disagree with!
(Bla bla bla….) CTS
Believe this is a trend here – many arguments put up here are based on very old papers and many of those science papers are either soundly refuted elsewhere or are simply too old to even bother talking about or refuting.
(The IPCC 1990,1995,2001 and 2007 reports are based on "old papers" does this mean we can now ignore them since they are either soundly refuted or simply too old to bother talking about them anymore?) CTS
Fresh evidence supporting AGW comes to my desk DAILY.
Let us never say we thought we were right because we simply stopped listening.
Ross James creates a false paradigm of authority when he states that only papers in support of AGW come to his desk daily. If you are in University today, one does not dare present a paper with any other conclusion. Therefore, ONLY papers supporting AGW will come to his desk.
His argument from authority is weak and as usual upon closer examination, rings hollow.
Ross sets us straight:
The researchers found that both the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) (800-1200 AD) and Little Ice Age (LIA) (1400-1850 AD) were both cooler than present (1961-1990 average)
Then moderator CTS asks:
(How come the Vikings were able to live at Greenland.Grow crops and bury the dead.Today in those same areas it is not possible)
It's obvious, CTS. The Vikings were able to plow and farm ground when it was colder than today (even though that ground is permanently frozen today) because they weren't fooled by skeptics! No doubt they had a Shaman as perceptive as Ross James to tell them that they could.
Earth to Ross: Your arguments shouldn't even be making sense to you. Next we know, you'll be telling us that WWII didn't even happen because a paper came across your desk saying so.
Reality is out there, Ross — it's not on your desk.
(I hope by all that is holy that you're not an engineer responsible for building things.)
More on sceptics are winning…
On 7:30 [Report] just now tonight, Chris Uhlmann's first report skewers the Government on the Australia day riot just one day after THAT interview on 4 Corners. A good start. I'm slightly surprised seeing this on the ABC.
Then next story blasts carbon capture and storage – a Combet-Rudd golden child – with nuclear-like fire. Only $175 million in the pot so far for no result. Nada. No less than $7.4 million in travel costs in the last 2 years! And to take the cake he has interviewed Joe Romm and Joe slams CCS repeatedly! For real! THE Joe Romm aka Climate Progress!
I never would have believe seeing Joe Romm be even remotely climate sceptical about anything on the consensus side. The world is getting very strange, but I swear things are looking up for us poor very-un-oil-moneyed sceptics.
No links yet, except my astounded eyeballs.
Carbon capture and storage is to coal-fired power generation as a perpetual motion machine is to physics.
Just more expensive.
I'm a chemist who has worked with the Benfield Process…so, no not quite correct. But the expensive bit, oh yes. And the capture bit…the Greens don't like fracking? This is fracking on steroids.
The Benfield Process put very simply is a process to clean up the end product of some other process (ie to purify something that will then be used for something else). Energy consumption is a secondary consideration.
In energy production however, the net output of energy is not only the PRIMARY consideration of the process, it is the REASON for the process. For any given amount of energy output it is not possible for a fossil-fuel powered electric power station to "sequestrate" all the CO2 produced, and have a net energy output.
The total energy required for the sequestration process of the CO2 produced will always exceed (by a significant factor) the total amount of energy produced for the amount of CO2 created.
In fact a few months ago TonyfomOZ produced some figures on an experimental program (in the US I think). If memory serves the station had consumed around 40% of its total electrical power output to sequester something like 10% of its CO2 output.
I'm amazed that anybody ever took this seriously enough to invest money in it.
Read this.
Clean Coal Hole In The Ground – Just Throw In Money
Don't worry, Australia isn't alone in its crass denial of climate reality … South Africa, where I live, is down for the count on carbon cartel's lie because they stand to benefit handsomely as a "developing" nation when the UN begins the 3rd world climate-cash sweepstakes. Just two weeks ago we had a couple of warm days and the cardinals of climate lies at the University of Cape Town immediately blamed climate change–I wonder who pays their salaries?
"comparison of land or ocean temperatures against the model predictions"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
I do not understand why Jo allows posts like Tristans'. I enjoy debate more than anyone, but this is not debate. He has contributed precisely nothing to the discussion, uses childish antics, with snide monosyllabic responses. This does not make for a positive experience. I also believe in freedom of speech completely, but to intentionally try to disrupt an intelligent conversation with inane responses is a waste of everyones time. It is not my blog and Jo can run it as she sees fit, but I think allowing behavior like that does no one any good whatsoever. It certainly does not advance the discussion in any positive way, for OR against.
As you have surmised, the purpose is to intentionally disrupt things.
Try looking at it this way, if we attempting to be decent went to an alarmist blog and provided links and dialogue that shot holes in their pet "proof of the week" for warming, our posts would just vanish. Or in the cases of some blogs they would be edited after the fact by those running the blog to make it convey the impression of us they desire.
Here, unless someone gets really out of hand or just can't converse without the D word, their posts and their posting privileges remain.
Because those disruptive types just don't seem to have the capacity to grasp this, by giving them the freedom to post Jo and the moderators allow those disruptive types to show everyone who visits the blog just what the other side is made of.
As many of us have stated over the years, they are their own worst enemy. We could never do the kind of damage to them that they do to themselves through their own actions and comments.
Consider it holding the gun steady for them so they don't miss their foot.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl