Climate Scientists Recieve Death Threats

[hutch]

Hutch has been booted for not keeping his temper under control and insulting other members. This happened a few days ago in this thread and his comment was completely unrelated to this topic - it was pure and simple character assassination of someone who isn't even involved in this AGW/CT discussion to any great degree.

As always with booting someone who has views opposed to my own the first accusation by him was that I booted him to censor his views. In fact the opposite is true. I hadn't even follwoed this thread, which is why I wasn't aware of the tabloid style slime he had dished out until someone else pointed it out to me. When I have to admin a situation where a bias is likely perceived I intentionaly give that person a lot more leeway. Hutch got HEAPS of leeway because he had so quickly accumulated 2 points previously and seemed to have tried not to step over the line again. But lately his self control had obviously failed repeatedly. Once there are no warn poitns left it gets difficult to wanr someone without booting them, yet mods, myself and a number of members have repeatedly pulled him up when he went too far.

I think hutch is a great example of why deniers are a problem. A denier is the same as a believer, but the opposite. And belief has nothing to do with science. His arguments on AGW are similar to arguing with a fundamental christian/muslim/jew - futile and irritating. I have great respect for sceptics. Some of the greatest inventions and discoveries are down to those who swam against the concensus. I think scpeticism is healthy, including in the AGW debate. If AGB is indeed wrong, then we need people who are ready with alternatives, otherwise much time will be wasted. But all such perspectives need to be based on the balance of scientific evidence. This very site is all about scepticism. Many members here are happy to look at drug research with an open mind rather than with preconceived ideas and it is only with an open mind that you can arrive at the possibility that MDMA might be healthy for the brain for example. It would be hypocritical to accept one type of scepticism while denying another.

I'd like to point out the big difference between denier and sceptic right here on his forum. Slybacon initially had strong opinions on AGW, but has learnt a lot from what woody has presented. he has kept an open mind and has learnt in the process. Whatever side he choses in the end, I have a lot of respect for him for going through the process. It is the process that eluded hutch.

As for the carbon tax I'd just like to say that it will neither have any significant effect on emissions nor will it hurt our wallets. It's about as hollow as it gets. however, it puts in place a framework for actually dealing with the emission problem in the future. if australia decides tat emissions need to be lowered [for whatever reason] then yes, it will hurt the wallet. But to think we can lower emissions without some pain is just naive.

Some comments were made about humans adapting. I am sure some of us will. But as a society things will change dramatically. we can't even adapt to a slight change in rainfall patterns without nearly going broke and we will whine for years about some self induced flooding, so how well will we cope with some dramatic changes as may be possible with AGW. Societies that do well always eventually fail and they usually fail out of arrogance, not because they had no warning. I feel that this may be our arrogant point of undoing.

 

Ideology....what ya gunna do? brand me...... or just gas me? I am afraid for the future of this country..spineless wanks...

Edited July 12, 2011 by hutch

[hutch]

If I can say one more thing...I care for a terminally ill wife who suffering a terrible and agonizing death. All your evil wishes had already come true...I watch her die every day and the I watch how much money is pissed up against the wall trying to make you all feel warm and fuzzy to drop the temp by fuck all with a tax that blows billions for nothing and we can't get funding for research into a cure..Karma to you all...

BYE......

Hutch

[tripsis]

You're your own undoing. Your insults, trolling and abuse has achieved nothing but to get you banned. Try to learn a lesson here about how to interact with people in future. As has been said before, if you spoke to people in real life like you have spoken to people here, you would have had your face punched more than once.

Edit: typo

Edited July 12, 2011 by tripsis

[synchromesh]

While its possible this scenario of being rounded up into cities for termination could happen, the fear from such a horrific concept is also a strategy used by the conspiracy media to boost sales/views.

 

Really? I guess you see more of it than I do then...

[Torsten]

It seems the remote option for banning doesn't work in this version, so had to do it manually.

If I can say one more thing...I care for a terminally ill wife who suffering a terrible and agonizing death. All your evil wishes had already come true...I watch her die every day and the I watch how much money is pissed up against the wall trying to make you all feel warm and fuzzy to drop the temp by fuck all with a tax that blows billions for nothing and we can't get funding for research into a cure..Karma to you all...

I have taken your mental state into account all along, which is also why I did not ban you, but rather suspended your account. Maybe one day you will have a different outlook that will allow you to deal with people and conflicts differently. Your lashing out here probably isn't making you any friends anyway.

Your last attack sums things up nicely. A tax for the common good [and in particular to reduce emissions that cause ill health] has priority over an individual's life. There are plenty of other wasteful things the government does that would be better targets for you. But most importantly please consider this: The fact that your wife's illness is not getting enough funding for a cure is because Australia does not foster a culture of science. We spend more on football and pokies than we do on the things that really matter. Ironically it is the same non-scientific cultural perspective that is the basis for AGW deniers. Have a good look at what you are doing - you are promoting the same non-scientific culture that you are complaining about.

[chnt]

and you also have to remember hutch, everybody has personal problems, and there are definitely others on this site going through as much shit as you (including me), yet they can still act in a rational and civil manner.

torsten is completely right in that there are so many other things that are worth complaining about, yet you are caught up in what the media wants everyone to be caught up in, how can people be a member of a site like this and not realise such simple concepts like, the media oozes propaganda, and they use that propaganda to influence the masses to aid the personal agendas of big business.

do you really think big business cares about you and your circumstances? do they care about helping the environment or do they care about a profit?

did you know that the media is on the right? of course they want you to hate the greens

edit: spelling

Edited July 12, 2011 by chnt

[WoodDragon]

For all that I steadfastly disagree with Hutch's profound refusal to consider understanding beyond (or in contradiction of) his own ideologies, I would never harbour any "evil wishes", especially for third parties not involved in the discussion on the thread here.

I've worked in medical research for too many years in the past, and I've seen too much illness, to wish such on anyone.

Hutch, do yourself a favour, and do your wife a favour, and let go of the venom that you harbour for those whom you believe are trying to ride roughshod over you. It might surprise you to know that most people, including all us "evil" sciencey types, wish only to do the best for others that we are able to.

Carrying around the bitterness that you have shown here won't help anyone, and will in all likelihood only make more than one person in your sphere less content than they otherwise might be.

I say this in the hope that is might somehow help you, in some small way.

[FancyPants]

I wish to add also that NEVER once have I directed any ill-will, "evil wishes" or any such vitriol against your person, or those you love, Hutch. I'll leave it at that, as others have said the rest of what needed to be said.

I really hope you and your wife finds peace and happiness in the days to come. Genuinely.

Nat.

[qualia]

The $5 billion bid for Macarthur Coal by the world’s biggest coal group Peabody, and its Indian brother in arms Arcelor Mittal, has been seized upon by the Gillard government as an endorsement of its carbon tax policy. Surely, it argues, no such investment would be made if the coal industry was about to collapse, as the Opposition claims.

It's true that the limited scope of the Gillard emission reduction plan (5 per cent by 2020) barely slows the growth of the coal industry. But what if the world got really serious about tackling climate change - and the Australian government too? A new report that emerged in the same 24 hours as the government’s carbon regime and the Macarthur Coal bid, poses this qeustion: Are they mad? (The bidders that is, not the government). And why are the bidders being so reckless with their shareholder funds?

The new study, Unburnable Carbon – are the world’s financial markets carrying a carbon bubble? – suggests that such transactions could ultimately be seen to be as reckless as those conducted at the height of the dot-com boom or just before the GFC exploded in everyone’s share portfolio in 2008.

The report is drawn from research by the Potsdam Institute and prepared by the Carbon Tracker NGO, and it questions why the stocks and shares of carbon-intensive firms are triple-A rated at a time when they face significant legislative, reputational and environmental risks across the globe.

The Potsdam Institute concluded that if the world is to meet its target of limiting global warming to an average 2°C, then based on the science the world should be thinking in terms of carbon budgets, rather than the sort of emissions reduction targets enshrined in cap-and-trade schemes such as that proposed by Gillard.

The institute estimates the world has a carbon budget of 886 gigatonnes of CO2 from 2000 to 2050. It’s already used a third of its allocation in the first decade, so just 565Gt CO2 is left for the remaining 40 years to 2050.

Incidentally, the Australian government’s Climate Commission came to a similar conclusion in its first major report, The Critical Decade. The numbers were slightly different – a 1000 gigatonne budget, but the ratio was the same: we’ve already consumed one third of our allocation in a single decade.

That poses a potential problem for market valuations, because it means that only one fifth of the world’s known fossil fuel reserves – at least those declared by state owned and publicly listed mining and energy firms – of 2,795 GtCO2 can be used if the world is to stand a good chance of avoiding temperature increases of two degrees. Investors, however, are valuing these companies on the basis that they will be able to burn their entire reserves – the Macarthur bid is a case in point.

The study estimates that the fossil fuel reserves held by the top 100 listed coal companies and the top 100 listed oil and gas companies in the world account for a quarter of the total reserves (most of the rest is state owned) and have potential emissions of 745 GtCO – well over the remaining budget.

The market is valuing these companies at a combined $7.24 trillion. But, the report says, if the 2°C target is rigorously applied, then up to 80 per cent of declared reserves owned by the world’s largest listed coal, oil and gas companies and their investors would be subject to impairment as these assets become stranded.

“This is where the carbon asset bubble is located. If applied to the world’s stock markets, this could result in a repricing of assets on a scale that would dwarf past profit warnings and revaluation of reserves," the report says. "This situation persists because no financial regulator is responsible for monitoring, collating or interpreting these risks.”

The report notes that Australia has one of the most carbon-exposed stock exchanges in the world. Even after adjusting the market caps of BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto to recognise only their fossil fuel assets, the report estimates that between 20-30 per cent of the market capitalisation is linked to fossil fuel extraction in on the Australian stock exchange. London, MICEX, Toronto and the Sao Paulo exchanges have a similar exposure.

The three companies involved in the Macarthur takeover battle all rank among those top 100 listed coal companies with the heaviest carbon exposure. Peabody ranks No 8 in the world with 10.23 gigatonnes/CO2, Macarthur is No 71 with 0.53 gigatonnes/CO2, while co-bidder ArcelorMitall is No 66 with 0.62 gigatonnes/CO2.

Jeremey Legget, one of the authors of the report, says bids such as that for Macarthur attach next to zero risk to any possibility of asset impairment. That is because, despite the limited measures being taken to address climate change in Australia and elsewhere, the short term forecast for coal is almost universally one of growth, and particularly so for the sort of high quality metallurgical coal mined by Macarthur.

But Leggett also pointed to a recent McKinsey report that noted that half the value of listed investments in industries such as coal and oil and gas were ascribed to cash flows that came after year 10, so that means half the current value of listed investments is ascribed to assets that will not be exploited until after 2021.

“That is a hell of a long time in the current investment environment,” Leggett told Climate Spectator. Particularly, as was raised quite evocatively by Paul Gilding on this website last September, the Potsdam Institute concluded that the carbon budget would be exhausted by 2024 if the world continued on its current rate of emissions.

“One clear implication is that a significant proportion of current listed reserves – as well as future reserves that are generated from current CAPEX – will need to remain in the ground,” the report says. And no one appears to be making any judgment about which reserves would be most likely to be developed and which would have to stay in the ground.

But is anyone listening? “It’s like bashing your head against a brick wall,” Leggett says. “In the spring of 2007, the very few people pointing out the toxicity in mortgage-backed securities were having the same experience. This is not an argument for investments in cleantech. This is an argument for having regulators point to risk.”

The report says the current system of market oversight and regulatory supervision is not adequate to send the required signals to shift capital towards a low-carbon economy at the speed or scale required, and the current short-term approach of the investment industry leaves asset owners exposed to a portfolio of assets whose value is likely to be seriously impaired.

“Until international regulatory frameworks and accounting methodologies for valuing reserves change, it is perfectly logical for investors, and their advisors, analysts, and brokers, to ignore long-term problems for fear of missing out on short term gain. Corporates are driven by the same quarterly results cycle and in the extractives sector are valued for increasing reserves.

It says shareholders need to push harder for actions that would reflect their long-term ownership position. "Few, to date, have shifted down a gear in terms of their exposure to fossil fuel assets. In the same way that universal owners held Lehman Brothers and HBOS to their collapse, asset owners cannot accept that a problem exists until the carbon asset bubble bursts.

"Only changes in market oversight and regulation will drive the improvements in transparency, risk assessment and reserves valuation practices which are required to deliver the shift in capital to finance the low carbon future we need.”

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/carbon-gods-must-be-crazy

helps put into perspective why coal's so vehemently against a shift to a low carbon economy, but it's not like no-one already knew that, right?

edit: cos i felt like it

Edited July 13, 2011 by qualia

[Slybacon]

There is a lot of talk of limiting to 2 degrees.

-What is predicted to change at the 2 degree mark?

-Has there been a time in the past we have exceeded this mark?

[Legba]

 

Science.

[botanika]

There is a lot of talk of limiting to 2 degrees.

-What is predicted to change at the 2 degree mark?

-Has there been a time in the past we have exceeded this mark?

 

Most of human evolution is a result of rapid and dramatic climate change. Rainforests thinning to savannahs and deserts, ice sheets marching across continents, being forced into coastal areas and developing new skills, sea level fluctuations allowing access to new land. There is also an evolutionary advantage to climate change when you consider our past. It's not all bad.

[qualia]

 

 

Bad Science.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/crux-of-a-core2.html

but you've already looked at criticisms of carters work, right?

[WoodDragon]

More reasons why Bob Carter is demonstrably speaking out of his arse, even if he manages to convince some of the lay public that he has a clue:

Threads on the Scienceblogs' Deltoid specifically debunking Bob Carter.

A general survey of Carter on Deltoid.

[Slybacon]

Most of human evolution is a result of rapid and dramatic climate change. Rainforests thinning to savannahs and deserts, ice sheets marching across continents, being forced into coastal areas and developing new skills, sea level fluctuations allowing access to new land. There is also an evolutionary advantage to climate change when you consider our past. It's not all bad.

 

I feel that way. Thats why I am curious to find out if we have hit the 2degree average mark in human history. I don't really like the Doom and Gloom prediction. They don't seem to take into account the human species incredible ability to adapt. Lets not forget the Trans Human or Post human evolution we are about to encounter.

[WoodDragon]

The record of temperature over human history has been illustrated before, but for completeness' sake I'll explain it again.

The Holocene epoch, which covers the approximately 11 700 years since the last ice age glacial maximum, has displayed a temperature profile that looks like this:

Unfortunately the Wikipedia graphic above loses resolution with the smoothing algorithm, so it can be a bit misleading for those folk who don't carefully look at the right hand side of the graph, or who don't know that the current anomaly is. If the modern instrumental record is overlaid, the graph looks like this:

The important line is the thick black one, as it shows the global average. The coloured lines are simply local records, and are therefore more variable than the global trajectory.

Now, even if humanity busts it guts and goes hammer and tongs to reduce emissions, it would be unlikely to prevent the black line from reaching an anomaly of 2 degrees celcius before the end of the century. That would look like this on the graph:

The present wisdom is that, given the rate at which humans are currently emitting carbon, the graph is more likely to peak between 4 and 6 degrees celcius by the end of the century, especially if permafrost methane and methane clathrate feedbacks kick in.

Even at a 2 degrees C anomaly, such an increase will change the biosphere beyond any state in which human civilisation developed in the Holocene - a period which effectively encompasses the emergence and persitence of all human civilisations. It's irrelevant how humans themselves adapt to temperature, because the problem is with the ecological and agricultural life-support services that we irrevocably rely on to survive, and those systems are going to change profoundly. Yes, even at 2 degrees celcius.

And if humans follow the Tony Abbott head-in-the-sand philosophy of climate response, a 4 degrees celcius or more increase in mean global temperature is the certain outcome by the end of the century.

The fact is that humans only developed as a civilised species under the Holocene "optimum" conditions that have existed over the last ten thousand or so years. There has been much commentary in the scientific arena on how the planet will change with a 2 to 4 degree C increase, but the short of it is that it won't benefit humans, and especially the 9 or 10 billion humans that will exists in another 50 to 100 years. As much was very explicitly noted by Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber on Lateline last night.

This is what the science says.

If anyone has any contradictory analysis that says global warming will be 'good' for humans and the biosphere, please link to the work that discusses how temperature and water will change in the future, and plants and animals will adapt to these changes in a way that preserves the current (struggling) biodiversity and ecosystem services. I'm especially interested in things like wheat production in Australia, and the health of the Great Barrier Reef, and the persistence of the Amazon rainforest.

[Edit: pedantry]

Edited July 13, 2011 by WoodDragon

[qualia]

thanks wd,

i knew i'd seen related articles recently,

this ones for +4C, but i suppose +2C would be along the same lines,

http://www.csiro.au/news/Four-degrees-scenarios-for-Australia-future-climate.html

[WoodDragon]

There seems to be some significant lack of awareness of just how poor the bona fides of the best-known denialists are.

In order to draw attention to the fact that there is really no such beast as a credible denialist, and to help those who are tempted to quote such people, I recommend that interested people do a bit of background reading first in order to establish that the denialists' apparent scientific 'knowledge' is in reality simply smoke and mirrors.

Tim Ball

Andrew Bolt

Bob Carter

Joanne Codling ("Nova")

Bill Kininmonth

Richard Lindzen

Jennifer Marohasy

Steve McIntyre

Ross McKitrick

Patrick Michaels

Christopher Monckton

Nils-Axel Mörner

Ian Plimer

Roger Pielke Jr

Fred Singer

Roy Spencer

Anthony Watts

Edward Wegman

The people above are the favourites of the global warming denialist industry. Anyone who thinks to quote something said by any member of this rogues gallery should first follow the relevant links above and, as I have already suggested, do a bit of background checking before relying on anything said by these people. What is universally apparent is that there has been a huge debunking of all of these denialists' claims; not to mention that many of these people, if not most, have engaged in the very same lying, fraud, incompetence and conspiracy that they claim is the case in the professional climate science.

Anyone weighing the relative reliability of this crowd, compared to that of the professional, expert scientists that they contradict, should immediately be very suspicious of the fact that the folk in the list above are so staggeringly and frequently debunked. If one possesses half a grain of scepticism, one would conclude that the rot is present in climate change denialism, and not in mainstream climatology and physics.

As ever, if anyone has a different opinion, I would invite them to detail it with a referenced and argued analysis.

Edited July 13, 2011 by WoodDragon

[Quill]

^Is this an example of an ad hominem argument and an appeal to authority?

Is this 'debunking' of denialists significantly different to Hutch's ad hominem arguments?

Whilst it does appear that science is not on these guys side, I cant help but feel that this is an ad hominem approach

[FancyPants]

Most of human evolution is a result of rapid and dramatic climate change. Rainforests thinning to savannahs and deserts, ice sheets marching across continents, being forced into coastal areas and developing new skills, sea level fluctuations allowing access to new land. There is also an evolutionary advantage to climate change when you consider our past. It's not all bad.

 

Natural climactic change is one thing, too. We have no control over that one way or the other. Who knows what devastation human-caused environmental change will cause?

Why are people all for evolutionary human outcomes knowing we will survive, at the cost of the vast majority of the human race; yet are hesitant to accept a measly tax in order to at least help steer OUR causative effects into the right direction? Unless the goal is to ultimately desire a vast population reduction, which many people object to when it's called genocide in the name of population cull. The human population will endure; but who knows how many of our loved ones if any, will be around to see it through?

[Slybacon]

Natural climactic change is one thing, too. We have no control over that one way or the other. Who knows what devastation human-caused environmental change will cause?

Why are people all for evolutionary human outcomes knowing we will survive, at the cost of the vast majority of the human race; yet are hesitant to accept a measly tax in order to at least help steer OUR causative effects into the right direction? Unless the goal is to ultimately desire a vast population reduction, which many people object to when it's called genocide in the name of population cull. The human population will endure; but who knows how many of our loved ones if any, will be around to see it through?

 

Fuck the tax, there are better ways of coming up with the money. How about reducing military funding. Or selling facebook. Maybe some of the hedonistic people who live in excess can fund the change. Fuck the Tax..... I don't care how small it is. It principle.

Seems simple to me-

If we can't even afford to impletment new strategies and we need to create a new tax, then we can't afford to be off fighting other peoples wars simple....

Edited July 14, 2011 by Slybacon

[FancyPants]

I definitely agree with you about reducing military funding. The US in particular would do well to do this.

As far as hedonistic people, someone previously in this thread mentioned all the plastic crap the vast majority of us average people have. Whether we like it or not, we've contributed immensely on multiple small scales, so we still have to do our parts.

Some people have commented in the media wondering why Aus has to do something, when India and China aren't. Do we really want to look at certain other countries in how we should do things? Shouldn't we be better than that? We're surely in a better position fiscally than many others. Certainly even, we don't have a one-child policy, as China does; should we follow them?

[Slybacon]

 

[botanika]

Natural climactic change is one thing, too. We have no control over that one way or the other. Who knows what devastation human-caused environmental change will cause? 

Why are people all for evolutionary human outcomes knowing we will survive, at the cost of the vast majority of the human race; yet are hesitant to accept a measly tax in order to at least help steer OUR causative effects into the right direction? Unless the goal is to ultimately desire a vast population reduction, which many people object to when it's called genocide in the name of population cull. The human population will endure; but who knows how many of our loved ones if any, will be around to see it through?

 

Population reduction doesn't have to imply genocide or culling - it can be managed down over successive generations. 

End of the day it's a tax. It ain't the first tax and won't be the last.  Will it change our humancentric view of the world?

I'll do whatever I can but ultimately I think we need to hit the problem from the top down and radically change our societies from a monetary system (tax, loans, debt, overly powerful banking cartels, corporate giants, rigged markets, religious powerhouses, war profiteering) to a resource based system (communities, ecosystems, science, technological innovation, education, social equality).  Theres a lot of bad in the world right now let alone what the future might hold.

Could grow a lot of organic carrots with those military budgets.

Edited July 14, 2011 by botanika

[Slybacon]

^^^^ For those that think the shift to a resource based economy is impossible. It has happened before. During the great wars nations didn't go " do we have enough money to build this massive warship" no instead they said "do we have enough resources to build this massive war ship".

If only it didn't take a world war to make the shift.

No "policy" is going to fix our problems. As botanika said, we need to start at the top!