Poor countries cutting more emissions than the rich

[Slybacon]

Ok, well these are valid points but as far as I undertsand, we can expect more extreme weather events.

So some years will be unusually cold, some unusually hot, some extra dry some extra wet. Overall, the gradual warming of the planet is causing this climatic chaos and hence the term 'Global Warming'. But the term Global Warming has been superseded by the less confusing term, "Climate Change". And this is what we're seeing all around us every year.

Not only are we seeing it happen already but we're able to measure feedback effects like drier conditions in some places resulting in more bush-fires that release more carbon. They've been predicting this for 50 years and now it's happening. The fact that we can now measure feedback effects suggests we've already waited too long to get out of it easily. Every day we waste is another few months of extinctions and human and economic losses.

 

There is a lot of evidence to suggest this is true. Natural or man made being at the whim of the ever changing environment is scary for sure. I agree there are a lot of things that can be done to ensure we all live sustainably and take care of the environment that provides for us.

I think a much better motivation for bringing about these changes is providing people a way to give power to them selves. When I say power I mean the power over their own lives to influence the choices they make not power in the form of electricity, although this is part of it.

To think that there's some sweeping conspiracy that encompasses all scientists and all countries, and they're ganging up on the poor old oil companies is ridiculous. It's quite simply laughable.

Scientists are encouraged to speak out if they disagree with another scientist, but they have to be open to the fact that they may also be proven wrong by the next scientific findings.

Scientists love debate, it helps them narrow down the fact from the fiction.

 

In every emotional trigger there are huge power gains to be made for those in the position to exploit them. In fact there is enormous pressure on the men of position to take such action or potentially lose everything. We need to awaken to the fact we have very little to gain from our division on emotional subjects such as the climate despite the enormous amounts of knowledge and enthusiasm input. The power our emotions generate driving these threads is the fuel for tyrannical opportunities to manifest amongst the anger,blame and confusion. We should be looking at other ways of improving our situation. If we give this power to ourselves and not surrender to the whims of such convenience the unpredictable forces of the worlds tyrants will be powerless against us.

I feel that too many people picture a "conspiracy" as some synchronized effort of a select few, controlling the pecking order of the hoard to ultimately take over the planet. All in the name of some modern flavor society has dreamed up to fuel both sides of such debates. Dark and powerful men that dwell in exorbitant hedonistic realms commanding secret forces to do their bidding, warping the minds of modern science to influence the consequences of the herds actions. Like the super villains in comic books or the myths of the family bloodlines that frequent these circles. The word conspiracy is just a label, and one that has been twisted to bring about images. It is no more useful then other terms that appear through the pages of many debates on the topic of this thread. Words that can be twisted in the complexities of context to further the ego of the participants and gain favor for their adopted agenda. In the hope that the time they have invested in manifesting these personal truths was not wasted.

I think in truth a real conspiracy is born from ideals that motivate capitalism, greed and tradition. An idea that has lurked in the shadows of the minds of history's most powerful men. The heirachy of our modern world is geared to steer these idea's to gain the majority opinion of the masses. Every facet of modern convenience is used to drive this engine to further the agenda of Power and Order. The power of these idea's are resonated through the echelons of the worlds pecking order and its archaic existence has been known by many names through the rise and fall of countless civilisations. This is the phenomena science fails to explain, and what drives power of fear through the doctrines of the worlds modern religion.

Halycon I do respect your enthusiasm and I apologise for coming off as some what of an ignorant arsehole. I hope that as a society we can come to some sort of consensus about the climate and the way we use technology to enrich our lives, although I feel that a better way to address the problem would be restoring more power to the people and take away the centralised governing body that is the catalyst for a select few make the desicions that effect us all. Our Fate is in Our Hands.

[WoodDragon]

So is this now a part of Global warming? Is the CSIRO wrong? How am I too [sic] take the science seriously when I can find endless examples of scientists being alarmist and then proven wrong...

1) To the extent that the last year's cold weather would have been colder had there not been an increase in atmospheric CO2 - yes. It's just that you aren't 'getting' how it is "a part of global warming".

2) No.

3) By learning to understand:

a] the difference between climate and weather,

b] that warming does not preclude cold temperatures on parts of the planet

c] that warming increases atmospheric moisture, which falls as snow when it reaches said colder parts of the planet

Hutch, you might think that you're being smart, but as I keep telling you, the only person that you're fooling is yourself. To anyone who actually understands the science, you're obviously poorly-informed of the basics of physics. Seriously, if you want to cure yourself of your ignorance, and to demonstrate this fact to the world, you should read some of the stuff that I try to link you to. Try these for starters:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Record-high-temperatures-versus-record-lows.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Record-snowfall-disproves-global-warming.htm

If you can't accept the challenge and read them (and subsequently comment on their science to prove that you have read them) I will take it as meaning that I am right and that you are wrong, and that you are not reading any of my links at all, simply so that you don't have to confront the fact that you are wrong.

[The Dude]

Excellent post sly!

re: consensus, majority is not always right. The truth spoken by one is still the truth. I think we often subconsciously "follow the leader" twisting our own perspective in the process, I think that perhaps scientists believe in an objective material world out there forgetting their own variable in the equation; a theory was created based on limited data, now more data is made to fit this theory instead of looking at the data with fresh eyes.

In any case climatology seems quite a chaotic and counter-intuitive science, what with all these conclusive predictions being so inconclusive, I suppose that chemtrails and HAARP do not help to clarify the situation any either. Maybe the dynamics of climate have long ago been understood by a secret ruling elite and every leading world scientist is a relative noob, or paid dis-info? The uber-conspiracy-theorist in me would believe we've been controlling the weather ever since it became a popular new global enemy to control the masses.

Edited June 11, 2011 by The Dude

[santiago]

may have been mentioned before, the carbon tax will make absolutely no change to the big polluters output of co2.

they will still remaincarbon neutral. they will simply pass on any costs of a carbon tax to the paying public as all big corps do with new taxes, what then will be the incentive for them to reduce carbon emissions, absoulutely nothing.......regardless of a carbon tax they will still increase the output of co2 because thye cost is simply passed on.

they should have got the miners with a mining tax while they had the chance, the carbon tax is a complete waste of time, there is nothing in the carbon tax that will give them an incentive or means to reduce pollution as they passed on all costs. neutrality, its so blatently obvious that its ridiculous.

i respected ruddy, howard was at least stable..........this gillard lady is bonkers, she is gonna go down in history as australias worst prime minister, she is running the country into the ground in record time, if she stays on we will have an australian financial collapse, just you wait and see.

either rudd comes back in or else its 100% liberal all the way for me. carbon tax is the worst thing that will ever happen to this country-prediction made.

[hutch]

1) To the extent that the last year's cold weather would have been colder had there not been an increase in atmospheric CO2 - yes. It's just that you aren't 'getting' how it is "a part of global warming".

2) No.

3) By learning to understand:

a] the difference between climate and weather,

b] that warming does not preclude cold temperatures on parts of the planet

c] that warming increases atmospheric moisture, which falls as snow when it reaches said colder parts of the planet

Hutch, you might think that you're being smart, but as I keep telling you, the only person that you're fooling is yourself. To anyone who actually understands the science, you're obviously poorly-informed of the basics of physics. Seriously, if you want to cure yourself of your ignorance, and to demonstrate this fact to the world, you should read some of the stuff that I try to link you to. Try these for starters:

http://www.skeptical...ecord-lows.html

http://www.skeptical...old-weather.htm

http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm

If you can't accept the challenge and read them (and subsequently comment on their science to prove that you have read them) I will take it as meaning that I am right and that you are wrong, and that you are not reading any of my links at all, simply so that you don't have to confront the fact that you are wrong.

 

Funny how when it suits its weather......Why does an alarmist make all these false predictions in the first place? Its not like I made all the dud predictions...YOU scientists did! Over and over again your predictions have failed to come true....And you scientists keep making them and the weather keeps breaking them. Best you can do is mock me and point to my ignorance of the science but you can never explain why you guys have been continually wrong. With little effort I could bring up countless examples of alarmists at work. You seem to be quick to highlight when those that deny the science are wrong, never much of a peep about how YOU guys are wrong and just how often. Reminds me of our current useless as fuck PM. She thinks she is always right as well and she is quick to ignore her past errors as if nothing has happened. Thats why her approval rating is fucked. Same reason most people don't believe climate scientists any more. They have been proven wrong over and over again but choose to ignore that fact..... Conveniently....

[hutch]

Also, how come Andrew Bolt can't get one climate scientist on his new program to debate the science. NOT ONE!....Even the tool at "get Up" lacked the balls. Why are you guys scared to debate a tv commentator without a science degree? Wouldn't that be a great opportunity to put down a denier of the science publicly? Hiding behind "the science is settled" I suspect. It is a science of consensus after all....

[occidentalis]

they will still remaincarbon neutral. they will simply pass on any costs of a carbon tax to the paying public as all big corps do with new taxes, what then will be the incentive for them to reduce carbon emissions

The incentive is competition. If the carbon price is set right, if one company in a set of competitors finds a way to deliver their product or service with less carbon production, they will be able to do it cheaper - and hence have a competitive advantage in the marketplace.

absoulutely nothing.......regardless of a carbon tax they will still increase the output of co2 because thye cost is simply passed on.

 

Some companies may do that, but they will lose out to competitors that can do it cheaper. AND, that's just with the carbon tax. When it becomes an ETS in a few years, that will eventually become impossible - because the government will over time reduce the supply of pollution permits, and they will become more expensive and potentially unobtainable financially for companies that are not operating efficiently from a carbon pollution perspective.

[Halcyon Daze]

And you scientists keep making them and the weather keeps breaking them.

 

Well here's your problem. You're talking about weather and Climate Scientists are talking about... (drumroll) CLIMATE! This is an unforgivable mistake hutch.

Go back and start from the very beginning mate lol.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Halcyon Daze

[WoodDragon]

Why does an alarmist make all these false predictions in the first place?

Hutch, go to the scientific literature and look at the modelling, and show where there has been a failure. Before you do so though I'll give you some advice - the model scenarios are generally conservative with respect to the emissions trajectories, so your job will be a difficult one indeed.

If you are gagging over this:

CSIRO climate change expert Dr Penny Whetton says Australia's mountain snow cover could be reduced by up to 54 per cent by 2020.

where's the problem? Wait until 2020 and see what happens.

And if the figure of 54% takes until, say, 2025 to manifest, so what? You do realise, don't you, that these are not predictions as non-scientists probably understand them, but that they are scenario modellings? I suspect not, so to explain it to you... A prediction, in lay circles, is the statement of anticipation of a specific consequence at a particular time. A scientific modelling is the determination of a probability distribution of consequences around a mean, with confidence intervals defining the likelihood of deviation from the mean. When someone like Whetton says "could be reduced by up to 54 per cent by 2020" they are probably simply relating, in response to a journalist's question (which is rarely included to provide adequate context) one aspect of a model's output. Taking such narrow snippets of a greater whole as the final word on the matter is naïve at best, ignorant at not-so-best, and downright mendacious at worst. It's how the media likes to dumb down science for the consumption of the lay public, and it seems to be how many in the lay public (and in corporate vested interests) like to misrepresent the science, so that they can kid themselves that they know better than the professional scientists who did the work.

And I've also said this before, but models are more robust than you seem to believe.

Maybe you're fretting about the 2035 claim for loss of Himalayan glaciers, which, if you go back to the primary literature, was actually determined by some scientists to be likely to occur around 2350 - the date's rearrangement was originally the fault of a New Scientist journalist (Fred Pearce, I think) who was (carelessly, as is his habit) summarising the science. And the mistake was only included in one summary paragraph of the thousands of pages in AR4 (938 pages in WGII alone) - the actual scientific discussion in AR4 referred to the professional literature, and it gets the modelled dates correct. The error crept in because although the scientific content is written entirely by scientists, the summaries are written in part by government officials, who (as you yourself are extremely prone to) do not understand that non-peer-reviewed literature is not of the same quality as scientifically-scrutinised material.

Are you worried about the temperature predictions? If so, then you obviously did not follow my links at post #15, where I directed you to material that explicitly shows that Monckton was wrong (and incompetent, if not deliberately lying) in claiming that the modelling failed to peg temperature. If you're so concerned about science being wrong, read the bloody links for a change and find out why it is you that keeps on making the same old mistakes, years after countless people have sorted this denialist crap out.

Here's another challenge for you - list the number of mistakes in the IPCC AR4, and compare them to the overall size and complexity of the entire document. Comment on the rate of errors, and compare it to, say, Plimer's Heaven and Earth, the GGWS, or anything produced by Monckton the Classics graduate, Watts the TV weatherman, Bolt the tabloid hack ,or any other of your favourite denialists.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand. Looking at past models you'll find that they are actually bang on the money. Hansen got it right way back in 1980, and that is without the benefit of the more recent refinement of the parameter inputs. Current models are more sophisiticated, so the uncertainty is less than Hansen had to deal with, and I reckon that I'll trust them before you, every day of the week.

Changing the subject, I will draw your attention once again to the facts that you haven't commented on Watts proving himself wrong and climatologists right, and Richard Muller also agreeing with the concensus of climatologists. Nor have you answered the questions here.

Wrapping up, I will also draw your attention to the fact that you have so far chosen not to address my challenge to you yesterday. Am I to take it that this is an admission that I am right and that you are wrong, or are you simply still trying to figure out how to skirt around the facts?

And Hutch, for the umpteenth time, if you seriously want to argue against the science then pick a point that you dispute and be explicit in why the science is wrong and your climate change denialists are right. Of course, if you're just playing a game, as you have said several times now, then the most parsimonious conclusion is that you know that you're promoting garbage - which most of us here knew months ago...

[hutch]

These are not predictions hey, just scenario modelling....and the modelling continues to change as they realize they were wrong....

[hutch]

Well here's your problem. You're talking about weather and Climate Scientists are talking about... (drumroll) CLIMATE! This is an unforgivable mistake hutch.

Go back and start from the very beginning mate lol.

 

That was my point drop kick.....sorry you missed it...

[hutch]

Hutch, go to the scientific literature and look at the modelling, and show where there has been a failure. Before you do so though I'll give you some advice - the model scenarios are generally conservative with respect to the emissions trajectories, so your job will be a difficult one indeed.

If you are gagging over this:

where's the problem? Wait until 2020 and see what happens.

And if the figure of 54% takes until, say, 2025 to manifest, so what? You do realise, don't you, that these are not predictions as non-scientists probably understand them, but that they are scenario modellings? I suspect not, so to explain it to you... A prediction, in lay circles, is the statement of anticipation of a specific consequence at a particular time. A scientific modelling is the determination of a probability distribution of consequences around a mean, with confidence intervals defining the likelihood of deviation from the mean. When someone like Whetton says "could be reduced by up to 54 per cent by 2020" they are probably simply relating, in response to a journalist's question (which is rarely included to provide adequate context) one aspect of a model's output. Taking such narrow snippets of a greater whole as the final word on the matter is naïve at best, ignorant at not-so-best, and downright mendacious at worst. It's how the media likes to dumb down science for the consumption of the lay public, and it seems to be how many in the lay public (and in corporate vested interests) like to misrepresent the science, so that they can kid themselves that they know better than the professional scientists who did the work.

And I've also said this before, but models are more robust than you seem to believe.

Maybe you're fretting about the 2035 claim for loss of Himalayan glaciers, which, if you go back to the primary literature, was actually determined by some scientists to be likely to occur around 2350 - the date's rearrangement was originally the fault of a New Scientist journalist (Fred Pearce, I think) who was (carelessly, as is his habit) summarising the science. And the mistake was only included in one summary paragraph of the thousands of pages in AR4 (938 pages in WGII alone) - the actual scientific discussion in AR4 referred to the professional literature, and it gets the modelled dates correct. The error crept in because although the scientific content is written entirely by scientists, the summaries are written in part by government officials, who (as you yourself are extremely prone to) do not understand that non-peer-reviewed literature is not of the same quality as scientifically-scrutinised material.

Are you worried about the temperature predictions? If so, then you obviously did not follow my links at post #15, where I directed you to material that explicitly shows that Monckton was wrong (and incompetent, if not deliberately lying) in claiming that the modelling failed to peg temperature. If you're so concerned about science being wrong, read the bloody links for a change and find out why it is you that keeps on making the same old mistakes, years after countless people have sorted this denialist crap out.

Here's another challenge for you - list the number of mistakes in the IPCC AR4, and compare them to the overall size and complexity of the entire document. Comment on the rate of errors, and compare it to, say, Plimer's Heaven and Earth, the GGWS, or anything produced by Monckton the Classics graduate, Watts the TV weatherman, Bolt the tabloid hack ,or any other of your favourite denialists.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand. Looking at past models you'll find that they are actually bang on the money. Hansen got it right way back in 1980, and that is without the benefit of the more recent refinement of the parameter inputs. Current models are more sophisiticated, so the uncertainty is less than Hansen had to deal with, and I reckon that I'll trust them before you, every day of the week.

Changing the subject, I will draw your attention once again to the facts that you haven't commented on Watts proving himself wrong and climatologists right, and Richard Muller also agreeing with the concensus of climatologists. Nor have you answered the questions here.

Wrapping up, I will also draw your attention to the fact that you have so far chosen not to address my challenge to you yesterday. Am I to take it that this is an admission that I am right and that you are wrong, or are you simply still trying to figure out how to skirt around the facts?

And Hutch, for the umpteenth time, if you seriously want to argue against the science then pick a point that you dispute and be explicit in why the science is wrong and your climate change denialists are right. Of course, if you're just playing a game, as you have said several times now, then the most parsimonious conclusion is that you know that you're promoting garbage - which most of us here knew months ago...

 

Remember when I told you you were wasting your time....you still are...I can not believe how motivated you are to be right all the time...remember I told you I don't follow any of your links...Too many of them were leading to insults so I gave them up ages ago...I also don't pretend I'm a scientist so there is no point in sending me off to be baffled in your science mumbo jumbo...I still don't get how you can sit up all hours of the night writing marathon responses....surely you must have worked out by now I'm stringing you along and really don't give two fucks about your links.....I don't believe you nor respect your opinion just as you don't me or mine...You cant say I didn't tell you that from the start. You just can't help yourself...I will let you have a break today (but maybe not) if you like seeing it is the lords day...I will pop a few good ones up for you tomorrow....

Maybe you should pop over to a real climate science debate sites. I reckon they would tear you to bits.....You best keep it safe Woody and stick to those you know you have it over here....you wouldn't have your fan club over there....I can hook you up if you like!

Did I mention that a asteroid is going to smash into the earth in 2020 and wipe out most life....prove me wrong...I can always say I forgot to carry the decimal point in my equations.....just like a scientist....

"I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, and I'm sick and tired of being told that I am."

— Monty Python

Edited June 11, 2011 by hutch

[hutch]

Hutch, go to the scientific literature and look at the modelling, and show where there has been a failure. Before you do so though I'll give you some advice - the model scenarios are generally conservative with respect to the emissions trajectories, so your job will be a difficult one indeed.

If you are gagging over this:

where's the problem? Wait until 2020 and see what happens.

 

I can wait til 2020...If the heart holds on god willing.... that's the beauty of this...you blokes made all these dud predictions and put times to them.....I'm not a scientist but I can certainly see the difference in something said and something actually happening. I notice that you never disputed the actually temps on the graph I put up...trending the wrong way hey?

how about this one then...its expiry date was 2010....and I can find heaps more.....

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Program predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters, including sea-level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production. A very cursory look at the first available evidence seems to show that the places identified by the UNEP as most at risk of having climate refugees are not only not losing people, they are actually among the fastest-growing regions in the world.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/they-know-what-you-said-pm-theyve-read-the-transcript-in-cut-paste-often-enough/story-fn72xczz-1226039371213

To use your terminology....Oopsie

[hutch]

Piers calls it for what it is....."THE SCIENCE BEHIND TRICKING THE PUBLIC"....this bloke is spot on IMO....

Seems like the science is only settled on the Corroboree.....Its certainly not in the real world...

THE mendacious Gillard government is continuing its drive to impose a punitive carbon dioxide tax on Australians while refusing to address the key issues.

Put aside, if you can, the lies that both Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her deputy, Treasurer Wayne Swan, told the electorate before the election.

They are both trying to frighten the nation into accepting a new job-destroying, economy-wrecking tax they vehemently declared they would not have a bar of less than a year ago.

Not only have they dumped key promises, the worse intellectual crime is their utter failure to confront the reality that the so-called science they claim is "settled" is nothing of the sort. This is the stuff of Luddites.

In their endeavours they enjoy the support of the self-proclaimed progressive media - the taxpayer-funded ABC and the collective of journalists within the Fairfax organisation (which last week stooped to publish a disgraceful plea for censorship from Elizabeth Farrelly that might have been lifted from the pages of a Stalin-era edition of Pravda) - but they are facing a growing revolt from an increasingly better-informed public.

It is a matter of record that no one from the Gillard-Green-independent government (or its predecessor) has ever debated climate science with any of the many eminent scientists who have studied the dubious claims made by the scandal-tainted IPCC, which appear to be the basis for the hysterical statements made about rising temperatures and sea levels.

Nor have any of the tame scientists trotted out by Fairfax or the ABC taken up the challenge offered by those who are prepared to stake their professional and scientific reputations on their knowledge of climate science. Instead, the Australian National University hides behind ridiculous claims its climate scientists have had to be secured in special quarters due to death threats from those who have alternate views.

The ANU's claims were shown to relate to two idiotic messages sent over a five-year period and were so irrelevant they were not even forwarded to the police.

Over-reaction by the ANU or an attempt to provide a propaganda diversion to an embattled Labor government? Either way, the actions of the ANU were totally inappropriate for a university that should have as a core principle the desire to promote thorough research in the most transparent atmosphere.

Claims of settled science without evidence-based research are as meaningless as policy produced with evidence-based debate.

The Productivity Commission's long-awaited report is a parcel with this sort of nonsense.

Making comparisons of Australia's carbon dioxide emissions with China or the US are statistically nonsensical because these nations are so dissimilar from our own. The country most similar to ours is Canada.

What did the report say on this?

The sole reference in the 273-page report is this: "While a case could be made for including additional countries such as Canada - on the grounds that it has a similar economic structure to Australia - or other major trade competitors, this would not have been feasible within the timeframe for this study."

Don't laugh. It's true.

Instead, there is claptrap about the UK, for heaven's sake, where coal mining was closed by Margaret Thatcher 30 years ago.

At least the authors did nail the ridiculous Green push to install windmills and solar collectors everywhere, noting: "policies to encourage small-scale renewable generation are substantially less cost-effective and have led to relatively little abatement."

That aside, the report is essentially another waste of time and money by a government which is in dire straits and ready to throw money at any diversion in an attempt to recover some credibility before the next poll.

I recommend anyone who wishes to be truly informed about climate change look at the work published online last month by Quadrant magazine by four first-class scientists of international renown: geologist Bob Carter, carbon modeller David Evans, hydrologist-climatologist Stewart Franks and meteorologist-climatologist Bill Kininmonth.

These four scientists writing these reports have great individual and collective professional experience, ability and respect from their peers.

Beginning with then Climate Change Minister Penny Wong in 2009, their critiques utterly demolish the shonky IPCC "science" that continues to be repeated as a mantra by Gillard's handpicked Climate Change commissioner Will Steffen and his supporters in academia, the CSIRO and the Department of Climate Change. Copies of their report, based on weeks of work, were sent to all MPs and to the climate-change commissioners, none of whom have yet offered any public refutation of the material.

The question must be asked why the government and its advisers will not address this scholarly analysis.

The failure to respond indicates that neither Gillard nor her Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, or Steffen and his team, can refute the arguments - if they can, they should, otherwise there is no other possible conclusion to be drawn.

The government's argument for a carbon dioxide tax is as threadbare as that offered by actors Cate Blanchett and Michael Caton. It is no more than a specious attempt to garner some faux moral superiority.

Unfortunately, this obsession of the inner-urban elites now threatens the economic security of the nation.

It demands the fullest scrutiny, not a rubber stamp from acquiescent government appointees and Labor's media Fifth Columnists.

The jobs that will be lost will not be those of tenured academics and members of the misguided media collective - they will be those of farmers and miners and everyone who shares in the wealth generated by Australia's natural energy advantage and its resources.

The future of the planet is not in doubt, but the opportunities for your children and grandchildren are being threatened by the unbridled zealotry of these anti-science barbarians.

 

http://blogs.news.co...h/piersakerman/

[WoodDragon]

So the short of it Hutch is that:

1) you don't understand science

2) you can't use science

3) you won't reference science

4) you are not interested in the science

5) you kid yourself that you know better than scientists themselves

6) your partisan, ideological, non-rational, non-objective sources are all non-scientific

7) you can't admit that Anthony Watts and Richard Muller proved, against their own beliefs, that the scientists are correct

8) you do admit that you are not here to even discuss the actual, real science

Frankly, mate, that makes you many things, none of which include being right, or sensible or reasoned.

And I know that you're too chicken-shit scared to follow my links, in case you have to actually confront the fact that you're completely wrong, but for other interested parties here I have explained before why The Australian is not at all a reliable source for discussing climate science, and Piers Akerman is similarly a completely ridiculous person to rely on for anything remotely resembling informed opinion on climatology.

I'm fascinated that you think that slandering thousands of scientists, and ignorantly casting apersions on their work, and playing a part in promoting a dangerous hesitancy in acting to mitigate a profound problem for the future of the ecology and societies of the planet, all somehow constitute playing a game. It's fortunate that you're only fucking about on a thread on the Corroboree, where there is only a very small audience. Of course, you'd be shredded to powder if you actually tried to peddle your pseudoscience on a scientific forum, so I suppose that you have no option really except to play prepubescent games here.

And Hutch, don't worry your neurone over how long it takes me to respond to you. When not using VTT software I probably type faster than most secretaries, so I don't have to expend more than a few minutes replying, and I have spoken to so many denialist numpties in the past that my links are all bookmarked for quick access.

Edited June 12, 2011 by WoodDragon

[hutch]

I probably type faster than most secretaries, so I don't have to expend more than a few minutes replying....

 

Good for you...... I bet you could sharpen a pencil quicker than most toAll hail the mighty WoodDragon

[hutch]

I'm fascinated that you think that slandering thousands of scientists, and ignorantly casting apersions on their work

 

Again I am rolling around on the floor and pissing myself laughing at you blatant selective memory......how many scientists have you slandered here because they don't agree with you......Every one I have put up you have torn down as incompetent and wrong... So all those scientists who don't agree with you are not really scientists after all..And there are now heaps of them......

Mate, you are a perfect example of a hypocrite....you and "get up".....

[WoodDragon]

Every one I have put up you have torn down as incompetent and wrong....

Well, it wasn't difficult to do. And when they are incompetent and wrong, and demonstrably so, it's not slander or libel. It's simple fact.

If you'd bothered to follow up on the material I offered as evidence you'd know this Hutch.

The only thing that's selective here is your reading of the material on climate change. As you yourself point out by your admitted refusal to read my references to scientific analyses of the subject.

But getting back to one of the salient points, how are you going on your ability to confront the fact that Watts and Muller both painted themselves into corners by showing that they each were wrong?

Edited June 12, 2011 by WoodDragon

[WoodDragon]

Further to my post at #34 and the accuracy of IPCC modellings, it's instructive to look at those for sea level rise.

Notice also that 'prediction' in this context is a distribution of trajectories, rather than a single line. For simplicity the distribution appears to be evenly coloured, but in reality what was considered the most likely would be somewhere near the 'middle' of the shaded area, and the most unlikely (extreme) modelled rates of sea level increase would occur beyond the shading, and thus not shown.

So, the IPCC got it, but it was from the more extreme of their modellings. This is because they are themselves extremely conservative in what they take on board - for example, in this case they had no reliable data on the contribution of land ice melt, so it was excluded (and noted to be excluded).

There's a lesson here, and one that will almost certainly be completely ignored by the denialists - and that is that the message from the IPCC, and from the science that they draw from, is not in anyway an exaggeration. If anything, it's an unde-restimate, and any wise person, or wise society, would predicate their responses on this fact.

For those people who find the thousands of pages of the AR4 too intimidating to wade through, this document is a good summary.

[hutch]

Tell me Woody, are you using the name "actually thoughtful" on another site? He uses the very same links as you, his insults are the same as what you have used on me in the past and he is a real fucking turd...he is getting hammered but to his credit he keeps at it....I couldn't help but think it was you as I was reading through it.....plus he is a real fast typist...just like you....

Are you out there fighting the good fight elsewhere? I hope its you cause your getting a flogging....

[hutch]

 

They had great drugs back then...I was there.....

The best explanation of AGW I've heard yet....gets good at 1.00 in...."the ice caps are melting"

Scared the fuck out of the kids but he was one of our very first AGW alarmists

Sing along children..."the ice caps are melting"....

Edited June 12, 2011 by hutch

[hutch]

Puts it in perspective some what.....written by a bloke called "soldier"

CO2 in Perspective:

Take a 200 litre (44 gallon) drum to represent the entire volume of the Earth’s atmosphere.

Volume of total atmosphere 200 litres

Volume of water vapour 67 litres

Volume of total carbon dioxide 72 ml

Volume of human carbon dioxide 2.4 ml (half a teaspoon)

Volume of additional human carbon dioxide per year 0.012 ml

This is equal to the volume of one peppercorn.

Volume of Australian extra human carbon dioxide per year 0.00017 ml

This is equal to the volume of one grain of sugar.

One grain of sugar in the volume of a 200 litre drum!

And the Gillard government wants to cut this by 5%?

Why do people keep listening to these fools?

[WoodDragon]

Tell me Woody, are you using the name "actually thoughtful" on another site? He uses the very same links as you, his insults are the same as what you have used on me in the past and he is a real fucking turd...

You're so eloquent, Hutch. You must have studied poetry at university to come up with such a thoughtful metaphor.

he is getting hammered but to his credit he keeps at it....I couldn't help but think it was you as I was reading through it.....

Are you out there fighting the good fight elsewhere? I hope its you cause your getting a flogging....

It's not me, but if you give me a link to it I'll have a look for myself to find out what constitutes "flogging" in your mind, because as sure as the pope's catholic it won't be including any science.

And hutch, your dear "soldier" has no idea about numbers. I'll let you sweat for the day to figure out why you're foolish for posting that silly list, but I can guarantee now that you won't be able to figure it out, or at least have the intellectual intregrity to correct your posting of falsity.

Are you a masochist? It's hard to imagine another reason for you posting so much shit, when there are people on this board who actually know you. You must actually enjoy demonstrating to folk that you're clueless...

[hutch]

Are you a masochist? It's hard to imagine another reason for you posting so much shit, when there are people on this board who actually know you. You must actually enjoy demonstrating to folk that you're clueless...

 

I enjoy demonstrating what a goose you are...over and over again.....You can't leave it alone...each time I'm sure you must say to yourself "that's it, fuck him" but you keep coming back for more idiocy.....Come on doc...admit it, you are enjoying yourself? It takes 2 seconds to find rambling graphs that dispute anything....I whack em up and you can't help yourself....You really want to know what pulled me back in to this crap with you, which I swore to myself I would avoid but alas I am but a weak mortal....

It was post #18 in the "Climate Evidence is in" thread

http://www.shaman-au...opic=28095&st=0

It was this little bit that I reckon says so much about you that you tacked on the end of your post...

PS, I'm a scientist.

Was that a threat, a warning or a boast?

Fuck your full of yourself.....I have never found someone so full of his own glory as you...I bet you walk into a room full of strangers and announce "I'm a scientist"

I bet when you leave that room most of the people are shaking their heads saying to them selves "who was that fuck wit"...

It's ok people...he's a SCIENTIST.....so he says.....

[hutch]

I'm bored with it now Woody so I am going to turn you off again for awhile...Bye for now......