Climate evidence is in.

[WoodDragon]

And Hutch, do yourself a favour and actually follow the links and see what they say, instead of ignoring them as you seem to mostly do.

Other people here will take the time to study these links, so when you continue to push what has already been demonstrated to be garbage, you only make yourself look stupid to the rest of the forum. Your current strategy of ignoring evidence and just swamping the threads with ever more crap will certainly frustrate people like me and frank and HD and many others, but it doesn't actually prove your case.

All it does is make you look ignorant, and not worth talking to for any extended period of time.

If you were smart, and if you really believe that you're right, you'd pick a particular line of inquiry and follow it through to the end. That's how truth is arrived at, and should be arrived at, no matter how painful it might be to your ideology.

[hutch]

And Hutch, do yourself a favour and actually follow the links and see what they say, instead of ignoring them as you seem to mostly do.

Other people here will take the time to study these links, so when you continue to push what has already been demonstrated to be garbage, you only make yourself look stupid to the rest of the forum. Your current strategy of ignoring evidence and just swamping the threads with ever more crap will certainly frustrate people like me and frank and HD and many others, but it doesn't actually prove your case.

All it does is make you look ignorant, and not worth talking to for any extended period of time.

If you were smart, and if you really believe that you're right, you'd pick a particular line of inquiry and follow it through to the end. That's how truth is arrived at, and should be arrived at, no matter how painful it might be to your ideology.

 

And I have wasted how much more of your time in the last couple of days? You can't help yourself can you.....I couldn't give a rats what you think and you know that....I just wound you up and away you went...predictable as ever....I don't actually read your pages remember so why are you bothering with me? I thought it an interesting experiment and was at first surprised it was you who took the bait....How could I not play you along for a wee bit? You are fun The alarmist title was just too much for this poor boy to bare....

Booga booga run for the hills people....

Sorry Woody...go back to what you were doing....I've had my fun and are done

[WoodDragon]

And I have wasted how much more of your time in the last couple of days? You can't help yourself can you.....I couldn't give a rats what you think and you know that....I just wound you up and away you went...predictable as ever....I don't actually read your pages remember so why are you bothering with me?

Dude, I don't give a pimple on Beelzebub's arse if you change your mind or not.

What I am doing is demonstrating to other people here, who might be innocently taken in by your promotion of pseudoscience, that you are full of it. My best tool in doing this is you yourself - especially when you opening admit that you can't be shagged actually learning about the science.

But that's fine. As I said before, it only goes to make you look stupid, and if that's how you want to promote yourself on the Corroboree then I'm all for it.

The alarmist title was just too much for this poor boy to bare....

Booga booga run for the hills people....

Sorry Woody...go back to what you were doing....I've had my fun and are [sic] done

Yeah, whatever.

Nice post hoc rationalisation. When you're not challenged on the falsity of your anti-science posts, you're all loud and proud about not accepting the reality of global warming, or the seriousness of its consequences. But when you're called on it you're just playing.

Keep it up Hutch, but don't pull too hard or it might fall off.

Edited June 5, 2011 by WoodDragon

[hutch]

Dude, I don't give a pimple on Beelzebub's arse if you change your mind or not.

What I am doing is demonstrating to other people here, who might be innocently taken in by your promotion of pseudoscience, that you are full of it. My best tool in doing this is you yourself - especially when you opening admit that you can't be shagged actually learning about the science.

But that's fine. As I said before, it only goes to make you look stupid, and if that's how you want to promote yourself on the Corroboree then I'm all for it.

Yeah, whatever.

Nice post hoc rationalisation. When you're not challenged on the falsity of your anti-science posts, you're all loud and proud about not accepting the reality of global warming, or the seriousness of its consequences. But when you're called on it you're just playing.

Keep it up Hutch, but don't pull too hard or it might fall off.

 

Awesome.....I can keep you doing this non stop cause you gotta correct the record so to speak....ha haaa.......interesting.....I feel some experiments coming on...Do you have plenty of time up your sleeve? I have. Should I be shut down cause I don't agree with you? I think not but that's fine if it was to be....I don't give 2 fucks what anyone's opinion of me is here. That is not important to me on a forum.....I admit I take a perverse pleasure in pissing you off....I get bored and you are prime and you should know better...we have done all this before but you just cant help yourself....Want to dance?

[Distracted]

Hutch stop wasting everybody's time, don't troll in a serious thread.

[qualia]

i was looking at that gallileo website before. i got as far as their assertion that because the variation in co2 within a year is greater than the co2 variation between years, this somehow cancels out the clear increase in co2 levels over time. i wonder, if i asked someone who had saved $5000 over 6 months, because their balance had decreased $250 over the past week if that means that their bank balance has decreased over all? as it has been said, chewbacca does not make sense.

[hutch]

Hutch stop wasting everybody's time, don't troll in a serious thread.

 

Why? is it Distracting to the subject at hand? Serious thread my arse.....look at the title... alarmist rot....as I said before "Booga Booga"

If you don't want to read what I put up then don't...should I just go away because I think AGW a joke? Most of you are hypocrites when it comes to this subject anyway....I'll stand my ground thanks and call out this garbage at every opportunity.....Watch this space.....this thread or similar could get very interesting shortly....Put your linkys in order Woody...

[WoodDragon]

...should I just go away because I think AGW a joke? Most of you are hypocrites when it comes to this subject anyway....I'll stand my ground thanks and call out this garbage at every opportunity...

To the thread in general.

Notice how Hutch can't actually read or comprehend science? Watch as he finds scads of random additional denialist tripe that claims to refute the professionals, but will certainly not stand any serious scrutiny - as long as others can keep up with his churning out of rubbish. There's even a word for this tactic - the Gish gallop.

I can guaranteee that it is all easily rebuffed, if it hasn't already been so done somewhere on the internet or in the professional literature. One of the things I tried to do with him in the Global 'Cooling' thread was to have him commit to particular claims so that they could be concentrated upon, and dissected, but either consciously or unconsciously he avoids that, knowing that it would be devastating to his cause.

Hutch might pretend that he's doing it just as a game, but given his running around pointing at every denialist meme under the sun it would appear that he's taking the whole thing very seriously, and his frank admission that he thinks human-caused climate change is "rot", and "a joke" and "garbage" cerainly makes a lie of his claim that he's just doing it for fun.

But as I said, I don't give a shit what ignorant numpties themselves think, nor do I delude myself that I can actually educate such ideologically blinkered fools. All I am trying to do is to warn unsuspecting bystanders that such people are selling snake oil, and the fact that they can't actually use evidence or scientific methods to support their case proves it.

The consequences of unfettered continuation of carbon emissions are dire indeed, and anyone with kids or with grandkids, or who cares about the planet a hundred or a thousand years into the future, should be taking the issue very seriously indeed. They certainly shouldn't be shooting off about how the world's scientists are all wrong, when they don't have any scientific ability themselves, and to the extent that they hinder the progress of society to doing something about the problem, they are responsible for the end result.

If I can do my bit to show why these propagandists are speaking from their arses, I'll happily do so, until any further effort is simply repeating what has already been said.

[Distracted]

WoodDragon I like reading your really long sciencey posts but I don't like having to sort through your paragraphs to ignore filler about hutch.

He's already said in this thread he's trolling you simply so you post really long posts. It would be awesome if you could put him on ignore as while i'd still like to read his posts I really don't think you should.

I feel guilty even posting this as it's a waste of space in this thread :/

[WoodDragon]

Distracted.

I well understand your issue with the Hutch 'filler'.

My problem with public behaviour such as Hutch's is that it encourages the tabloid media to persist with whipping up 'controversy' about science where none exists, leading to governmental hesitancy such as happened at Copenhagen, and which is rabidly promoted by Tony Abbot and his conservative cronies. More worrying is that it is now leading to threats of violence and death, as has been reported recently.

This is painfully ironic, considering that the repeated and emphatic scientific warnings are intended to mitigate the increase violence and death, over background levels, that will result from the effects of a warming planet.

Given that all of the resistance to acknowledging and to acting on the science ultimately comes from behaviour, in politics and in media, that reflect Hutch's type of obfuscations, I'm not sure that simply ignoring it solves anything. Certainly not without at least a decent effort in placing it in context.

Edited June 5, 2011 by WoodDragon

[qualia]

maybe hutch has another agenda

i certainly find it difficult to believe someone can fly in the face of all sound logic like he does, and not have an ulterior motive.

[WoodDragon]

On the matter of the urgency for action on curbing carbon emissions, and on the consequences of not acting, this recent research should alarm even the 'alarm-sceptics'.

Note, this work is referring just to the permafrost carbon. There's also a huge wallop of clathrate carbon in the polar and the deep seas, and much of it is just below the critical temperature for explosive phase change. If (or rather, when) clathrate carbon is released as the oceans warm in synchrony with the rest of the planet, there will be a huge additional postive feedback.

Permafrost and clathrates, if we permit them to be released, will take the mean global temperature to well over 6 C above 1960-1990 baseline. This is not a world where human society as it could be recognised would survive, and there's every reason to suspect that humans themselves might not survive for too many centuries in such a world.

Alarmist? Some will say so.

Alarming? Anyone with a modicum of respect for future generations of humans and non-human species should be very concerned.

One can try to argue with the laws of physics, but physics will have the last word.

[Edit to include clathrate link.]

Edited June 5, 2011 by WoodDragon

[Halcyon Daze]

Serious thread my arse.....look at the title... alarmist rot....as I said before "Booga Booga"

 

How can you say the title is 'Alarmist' WTF? WFDAYO

So the latest report has been released (nothing alarmist about that). It finds that things are erring towards the bad end of their earlier predictions. Sorry mate but that's not alarmist, that's just telling you what the study has found. (If you had actually read the study you'd have realized that by now lol)

The real issue is that the latest report suggests that things are looking worse than they had previously thought. At the same time a separate body of scientists in a different hemisphere has measured that we are emitting higher levels than ever before.

To me its a worry yes, am I was genuinely interested in a discussion, but am I being alarmist? No, my very next post says "People, Don't fear". I take the glass half full approach, while some of you others are like 'OH SHIT, IT'S ALL OR NOTHING, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IN A GREAT BALL OF SHIT! RING THE PANIC BELLS! AAAAAAAAAGH! WE GONNA DIE!!!" LOL

Seems like your judgement is up the creek and high on crack Hutch. Thanks for trolling this thread. This one's over IMO, time for the latest news.

Did you hear about the rallies supporting a carbon price? That's pretty awesome IMO. I may have to look into that one next.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Halcyon Daze

[mescalito]

You guys do realise that "Science" isn't finished yet....like really?..nah I'm being serious.

It's based on the past and regurgitated,sometimes amended!!,and you lot seem to predict the future using other peoples writings like you were actually there to collect and analyze the data,then super-impose it onto the future...let alone allowing room for any form of future anomaly.

Worked well for the stock market LOL.....come in spinner

[hutch]

Did you hear about the rallies supporting a carbon price? That's pretty awesome IMO. I may have to look into that one next.

 

Yeah that is awesome hey...did you hear two thirds of voters (you may not even be old enough) want Juliar to call an election over a carbon tax....

TWO-THIRDS of voters want Julia Gillard to call an election before introducing the carbon tax, and three-quarters believe it will leave them financially worse off and deliver little or no benefit for the environment.

An exclusive Galaxy Poll for the Herald Sun also shows 58 per cent of people are opposed to the carbon tax. Just 28 per cent are in favour, with 14 per cent uncommitted.

The national poll of 500 people taken last week says 64 per cent believe the Prime Minister should call an early election before she introduces the new tax. Only 24 per cent think she already has a mandate.

The next election is not due until 2013. Ms Gillard promised not to have a carbon tax during last year's campaign, but says she was forced by minority Government to break that pledge.

The poll finds 73 per cent of people believe they will be financially worse off if the carbon tax is introduced. Only 7 per cent say they will be better off, and 20 per cent don't know.

 

More here...http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/julia-gillard-told-to-test-the-carbon-tax-at-the-polls/story-e6frf7jo-1226069761840

Now that's what I find awesome.....not kiddies on parade......

[hutch]

wow...heaps of em hey....everyone of em a public servant no doubt...wow that really is a serious movement thereI had a better bowl movement when I got up......

[hutch]

Rallying for a cause with no idea of cost

THEIR message on a carbon tax was loud and clear - but when asked how much they were willing to pay, there was only a deafening silence.

Rallying for a religion......Its just feel good shit.....

More here:http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/rallying-for-a-cause-with-no-idea-of-cost/story-e6freuy9-1226069757405

[hutch]

 

A clear majority of Australian electors (67%) are aware that Australia is responsible for about 1% of the world's total carbon dioxide emissions and a majority (64%) believes that Australia's proposed carbon tax will make no difference to the world's climate. However, 52% of ALP supporters and 67% of Greens supporters believe a carbon tax will make a difference to the world's climate compared to only 15% of L-NP supporters.Few Australians (14%) believe the computer projection referred to by Prime Minister Julia Gillard that sea levels will rise 1.1 metres in the next 100 years, 44% of Australian electors believe global sea levels will rise by more than 20cm but less than 1.1 metres; 32% believe global sea levels will rise by 20cm or less and 10% believe global sea levels will not rise.A majority of Australian electors (54%) believe that global sea level changes are mainly due to Global Warming, 37% believe they are not mainly due to Global Warming. Interestingly, 76% of ALP supporters and 80% of Greens supporters believe sea level changes are due to Global Warming compared to only 39% of L-NP supporters.Although a clear majority of Australian electors (72%) do not believe the recent floods in Queensland and bushfires in Victoria a couple of years ago are due to Global Warming compared to some 20% that believe the floods and bushfires are due to Global Warming and 8% can't say.

 

Lates polls in regards to global warming......

14% of people believe the seas will rise 1.1 meteres in 100 years...14%.....you got a lot of work to do there Woody....

http://www.roymorgan...olls/2011/4672/

[hutch]

At least I fall within the majority....except for the last one where I'm for no impact......You better get on your key boards, seems this is still turning too shit....At least you woo them here hey Woody.....

[Slybacon]

I can't believe you guys would support the introduction of a carbon tax. Tell me you science types as its seems you like numbers and stats.....

For every $1 spend = Carbon Reduction of XXXX = Temperature Reduction of?

It doesn't add up, your emotions are being played!

Edited June 5, 2011 by Slybacon

[∂an]

Don't let those nasty little scientists scare you

 

I can't believe you guys would support the introduction of a carbon tax. Tell me you science types as its seems you like numbers and stats.....

 

I think part of the problem is that many people have not been educated in scientific rationalism and feel antagonised when scientists present arguments full of scientific rhetoric that they don't understand. The fact of the matter is that the only way your going to have a true idea as to the validity of anthropological global warming (AGW) is to study climate science. I find the use of the word 'believe' in the whole AGW debate a bit disconcerting. What does it matter that I, a lay person in climate science, believe in AGW? I haven't studied analysed the ice core data, done a statistical analysis of temperature measurements taken across the world in the past year, or performed numerical simulations of CO2's influence on the earths thermal balance – so really my belief is of little consequence, as it based purely on my instinct. Human's have a bad habit of only reacting when under great pressure. If the majority of the world's climate scientists are right and global warming is real, the only way the population at large is going to be convinced enough to act is (a) the climate changes such that it inconveniences them (ie the rising sea floods their beach front holiday house) or (b ) they have a firm enough grasp on climate science that they can read the warning signs themselves.

I think it behoves all of us to educate ourselves on climate science, and put emotions behind us, as this is a very serious issue that can only be dealt with by a properly informed population. Also, those people that do understand climate science need to realise the negative impact their rhetoric can have on non-scientific people. I sign of a good intellectual is when they can communicate an idea clearly without resorting to specialised language that most people can't understand (hope I haven't just contradicted myself here )

Edited June 5, 2011 by kalika

[WoodDragon]

1 sign of a good intellectual is when they can communicate an idea clearly without resorting to specialised language that most people can't understand (hope I haven't just contradicted myself here

This is a very important point kalika, and one well worth addressing.

The problem is that reporting the science behind climate change requires reference to many fields - mathematics, statistics, physics, chemistry, geology and biology, amongst others - and in any one media story, or even in an hour-long public lecture or television program, giving all of the necessary the mathematical and scientific background to people who don't have it just isn't possible. If a person does not understand the laws of thermodynamics, or the statistics of probability distributions, or the nature of a covalent bond, or the ecophysiological responses of a particular species, or any of dozens of other climate-related areas of science, then fully communicating any one of those things is a whole lesson/message in itself. Thus, learning about climate change is a process that takes a little time, and a little effort on the learner's part.

At some point in the public's engagement with science, the public either needs to take some initiative and spend a bit of time picking up the basics for themselves, or they need to accept that the professional scientists actually know what they're doing, and not doubt the take-home messages. Sure, the science can be dumbed down to little more than the take-home messages themselves, but by then the science has become so 'pixilitated' that it can be twisted and misrepresented at a cursory level, in exactly the way that denialists do in the media and for corporate interests. And even if it is not distorted, overly dumbing it down can mean that much of the message is lost, as much of the context of the science is lost.

Surprisingly, if you look extensively through the scientific literature, and through the workbooks of scientists, you'd probably find that what's in the public domain has already been 'de-specialised' to a great extent. And there are many resources available for interested lay people to learn the basics of the science, if they're prepared to do devote a bit of time and do the work to achieve this understanding. RealClimate has a page of resources for exactly this purpose, and it really is a good place to start if one wants to gain a functional background understanding of climate change, no matter the level of understanding of the person seeking the knowledge.

The best way for a lay person to engage in the issue is to ask questions about the things that they don't understand, and to listen to the answers that they receive. If they are genuine in their desire to learn, there are any number of scientists or scientific educators who will help them to gain the understanding they seek. If the first answers don't address all of the asker's questions, they should continue to seek the answers they need, and to be prepared to learn whatever background might be prerequisite to a scientific understanding. Randomly accepting and promoting the claims of people not trained in the disciplines being discussed, or simply ignoring material that is provided for enabling of a greater understanding, are sure-fire ways not to learn.

The fact that so much of the general public is so far removed from a basic functional understanding of science is a more reflection of the deficiencies of our education system than of scientists' endeavours to communicate their work, and it is also a reflection of the disdain which much of the public has traditionally had for science and for scientists. (Until The Big Bang Theory, the only sexy geeks were Dr Who and Bill Gates...)

And remember, no-one has ever expected brain surgeons or satellite engineers or flat-screen manufacturers to have their scientific underpinnings explained to the community in general at a non-specialised level. This is because the public has never needed to understand those disciplines. They just expect their surgeries to succeed, and their GPSs and weather reports to be accurate, and their soap operas to be broadcast, and that's it. Climate change, having the profound consequences that it does, alters the imperative to understand the science underpinning it, but it's as much the public's responsibility to try to understand the science, as it is the scientists' responsibility to tell the public the results of their work. Compared to many other scientific professionals (ecology probably being one notable exception) climatologists are already spending more time than they can afford trying to bring the lay public up to speed.

Frankly, for most of the public who have a modicum of interest in actually learning what it's all about, this happens without any great drama. It's largely the recalcitrantly ignorant part of society that makes such a noise about not understanding, and whilst I agree that some of the science is still difficult for the public to access, there is more than enough stuff out there to get the point across that we have no excuse for the years of delay that we've already indulged in.

When our decendants look back at this period, they won't be cursing the scientists for not communicating the issue, they'll be cursing the governments, the corporations, and the ideologues who resisted taking any significant action.

[Slybacon]

^^^^ Its great how you have an opinion, what are you actually doing to help the "problem".

The Govt is retrospectively changing its legislation for their own good and you are more willing to argue about all this bullshit. Now I disagree with the change for other reasons than climate, but you would think a few of you science types who are good with your words would speak out against such things. Instead, your two busy labeling people as denialists and arguing semantics.

Division wont help. We need to unite, I support empowing people to become self sustainable. Don't use fear to force an opinion or your no better than a religious fanatic.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Slybacon

[The Dude]

...the question remains, how will a carbon tax help? If green energy incentives are retro-actively abandoned and no funding is going into R&D of green technologies, where does this money go? (can we audit the tax office?), or as SlyBacon put it, how many degrees celcius is my tax dollar worth? Without accountability in government no fucking way am I trusting this carbon tax, considering the just recent track record of scrapping the solar rebate I KNOW this has nothing to do with saving the environment - even if politicians jumped on a legitimate issue to have us again believe in their righteous exploitation of our concerns, they can not fix the issues, they can only create more issues around the mismanagement of a serious issue.

In other words, *ahem* conspiracy *ahem* A top down heirarchy feeding off the infinite growth of international bankers interest rates, directing the rest of the world with these economic puppet strings through a carrot and stick mentality where we're all puppeteered by our own self interests, cannot be anything but parasitic. We cannot politely ask the vampire to stop in this inherently parasitic system (a parasitic ideology). It is obvious that any action taken to save us from ourselves is yet another parasitic action of the system. Fuck the system, overgrow the government, we have all we need without their "help".

I mean too many people are tangled in these strings for us to be able to affect change without being bogged down with economic concerns... hence, fuck these manufactured concerns. Lend me a hand and I'll lend you mine, fucking simple innit!

...On another note, maybe money is needed to affect massive change (that is mobilise masses of people), so perhaps at the core of the issue is the need for a fair and stable currency, a stabilised economy so that we can work together instead of against each other, acting from a paranoid mindstate of permanent shortage and the need to claim all of nature while you can (supply & demand) whereas had we worked with nature there would be abundance.

So there we have a free market, we need a free media and open dialogue without fear mongering and we can take deep breaths and act out of love not some state of panic that limits our options immensely.

Talk to your neighbours about co-operative farming, permaculture and all that. (I should do that too right now), it's a step in the direction of self determination, and I'm not gonna hold the states hand as they walk into oncoming traffic.

Edited June 6, 2011 by The Dude

[occidentalis]

I can't believe you guys would support the introduction of a carbon tax. Tell me you science types as its seems you like numbers and stats.....

For every $1 spend = Carbon Reduction of XXXX = Temperature Reduction of?

 

This isn't a thread about a carbon tax - it's a thread about new climate change research.

But just to address this question quickly, although I have done so elsewhere already:

If you are thinking about it in terms of every $1 = x amount of climate change reduction, then you are thinking about it wrong.

Simply putting a tax on GHG emissions won't really do much in the short term. The point is that over the long term, it will result in a gradual restructuring of our economy away from one that depends on environmental destruction for growth to one where economic growth is 'decoupled' (sorry to use a jargony term, but I think you can guess what it means) from environmental impact.

Currently, every time you buy a tank of petrol, every time a forest is logged, every time a shipment of coal is loaded, every time a useless consumer item is produced and sold, etc - the economy grows. Economic growth is almost intrinsically linked to environmental damage. While all of these actions have a damaging effect on the environment, the economy has no way of reacting to that. Those effects are 'external' to the economy, until their downstream impacts, such as the impacts of climate change like more extreme weather actually result in some sort of damage - and by that point it's too late. The cost is borne by people other than those who generated the problem (who may be children of current generations, or if the problem strikes sooner, they are likely to be people in less developed countries around the world, who are disproportionately at risk and are less capable of adequate response or adaptation).

Taxes and trading schemes are market-based responses to environmental problems. The government could also choose a 'command and control' method, where they apply strict legal requirements for companies to reduce their emissions. The problem is, the government doesn't know as much about the fine details of each business as those businesses do themselves - so would be likely to get it wrong. It's more efficient, more philosophically in line with a free society, and more effective to use a market tool to do the job. You create an economic situation that encourages businesses to produce fewer emissions, and leave it up to them to decide how to do it.

This has the effect of internalising those environmental 'externalities' (another bit of jargon that I trust you are intelligent enough to figure out) and ensuring that the market can act appropriately. The market only responds to costs; if something becomes more expensive, it becomes less attractive to the market. Under a properly-managed carbon tax, products and services that produce a lot of greenhouse gas emissions will become more expensive. The market will respond to that by investing less in those industries. Another way to say that is that if those costs exceed the benefits those industries provide in terms of useful products or employment, society will move away from them. Those industries will do everything they can afford to do to reduce the amount they pollute. Some of them will adapt and find new ways of producing their products at an affordable level. Others will not; they will either go offshore to less regulated economies or they will go broke.

That's unfortunate, but the reality is that it won't be possible to transition to a genuinely sustainable economy without completely changing or perhaps stopping some of the activities that we currently do. The role of the government is to use policy settings that get the most gain for the least pain - and that's what the current debate on the 'price' of carbon is about. Their second role is to minimise the social fall-out from these changes by providing adequate compensation and assistance to the people who will be most disproportionately affected - particularly the poor, and those that directly lose employment as a result. However, they need to do this in a way that doesn't compromise on the original goal of the scheme, which is structural economic change. And that doesn't come easy.