Climate change

[GrampianStars (Rob)]

An extract from Rudd's Global Warming policy
“All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.”
"“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”
( Adolf Hitler 1889-1945 )

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by GrampianStars

An extract from Rudd's Global Warming policy
“All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.”
"“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”
( Adolf Hitler 1889-1945 )

Thank you for that as it is exactly what method the denialists are using!

Bert

[PeterM]

Can someone explain to me how "Henry's law" fits into all of this.
Thanks
PeterM.

[glenc (Glen)]

I think that the climate is changing and most of the change is man made.
But I do not agree with Rudd's and Turnbull's ETS (CPRS). I think it mainly benefits the big polluters not the planet or the people.
Here is another way to reduce CO2. http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/2...-100-dividend/
The hacked emails get a mention here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...html?full=true

[leinad (Dan)]

This thread makes me sad.

How do we deal with world population growth and the climate through to 2020-2050. Why is this not mentioned anywhere!
Isn't this a major contributing factor? China is very aware of this at present, and is one of their arguments for assisting to regulate pollution increases, etc.

[sjastro]

Carl,

I don't assume the viewing audience is quite as dumb and ignorant as you give them credit for.

Plimer is a scientist in his own profession, that doesn't make him a climate scientist. His opinions are as lightweight as those of Monboit.
The fact that neither is capable of arguing climate science at a high technical level would actually make the discussion comprehensible to most people.

Plimer simply refused to answer some very basic questions and lost all credibility in the process.

Steven

[glenc (Glen)]

Four key reasons why it is important that we use a fee-and-dividend approach to regulating carbon emissions:
1) Fee-and-dividend is, without any doubt, the best way to regulate carbon emissions.
There is near universal agreement among experts including Al Gore, Jim Hansen, the inventors of cap-and-trade, economists, the CBO, EPA regulators, and Sierra Club that fee-and-dividend is the best way to achieve the goal of carbon emission reductions because it puts a predictable price on carbon. Conversely, cap-and-trade, even in the most optimistic scenario, would achieve virtually no reductions and in any practical, real-life scenario, would actually make the problem worse because at best it would lock in today’s emissions for decades.
2) Fee-and-dividend is popular with voters.
Fee-and-dividend is politically viable. In British Columbia where the opposition party made it an election issue, they proved it was political suicide to oppose it. The opposition party now supports it. There are now carbon fee laws all over the world, including in the US.
3) Fee-and-dividend helps our economy and our environment: it is a double-dividend.
Fee-and-dividend helps our economy whereas cap-and-trade would hurt our economy. So fee-and-dividend is a great idea even if you don’t believe in global warming; we pass the bill for the economic benefit and we get the environmental benefit for free. Economists call this double benefit (economy and environment) the “double dividend.” Cap-and-trade does not have a double dividend.
4) Cap-and-trade would irreparably harm our environment and hurt our economy.
The cap-and-trade bills would, even under ideal circumstances, insignificantly reduce emissions by 2020 according to the CBO analysis. Under any practical scenario, it would hurt the environment irreparably because it allows business as usual (BAU) for 17 years. This is why Jim Hansen is so against it and why key individuals within the green groups are personally opposed to the cap-and-trade part of the House and Senate bills. Cap-and-trade is a “double whammy,” hurting both our economy and environment.
http://bravenewclimate.com/

[ngcles]

Hi Bert & All,

Originally Posted by avandonk

Thank you for that as it is exactly what method the denialists are using!

Perhaps we ought to hear a quote from Dr Stephen Schneider, who was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II IPCC TAR and is currently a co-anchor of the Key Vulnerabilities Cross-Cutting Theme for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) (biographical material extracted from Wikipedia) who said ...

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

Emphasis added.

Please explain how this all squares-up with honest, scientific method?

He "hopes" to be both honest and effective? How can we tell when he isn't being "both"?


Best,

Les D

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Originally Posted by glenc

The hacked emails get a mention here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...html?full=true

Excellent link Glen, leads to wealth of other links that make me more sceptical than ever .

[Peter Ward]

I should not be amazed that this thread is still going....and have pondered many of the responses here to see if my position has changed (it hasn't)

New Scientist had this interesting stat: a recent poll found that 97.4% of active climatologists agree that human activity is warming the planet.

OK, lets say *you* have cancer.

You visit many specialists, and 97 of them say: Mate, you're gonna die unless we operate.

Three say: You'll get better, just keep doing what you are doing, don't worry, you'll be fine.

Who would you believe? What would *you* do?



P.S. Rudd's ETS is a crock.....and has been expertly pointed out elsewhere...the coal industry pays Labor party coffers well

[Bassnut (Fred)]

If then the doc said "whatever you do, it wont make any difference", yes, id just keep going..........., no, Id smoke more, drink more, and attempt to design a zero emission power scource, just for fun, assuming of course that the gov didnt tax me so hard with an ETS plan that I couldnt afford it.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

If then the doc said "whatever you do, it wont make any difference", yes, id just keep going..........., no, Id smoke more, drink more, and attempt to design a zero emission power scource, just for fun, assuming of course that the gov didnt tax me so hard with an ETS plan that I couldnt afford it.

Well...OK, I'd probably do the same...(I'd call it the Single Malt + Ferrari 458 option ) but....

...if I'd been smoking 40 day and had a devoted wife/family/just won lotto/lived on a human friendly planet and my actions would *very likely* change the outcome...you'd have to be a mug not to make the effort to change.

[AndrewJ]

Gday Freddy

If then the doc said "whatever you do, it wont make any difference", yes, id just keep going..........., no, Id smoke more, drink more, and attempt to design a zero emission power scource, just for fun, assuming of course that the gov didnt tax me so hard with an ETS plan that I couldnt afford it.

Luv yr thinking
I actually believe we lot ( humans ) are wearing out our welcome on mother earth, but i dont believe any of these these current schemes will work. Copenhagen is just going to be another chard sucking sushi munching failure.
The current crop of pollies will have a good life and die before it hits.
The ETS is just the next "no doc" loans scandal
In 10 years when we are one the bones of our ar$es, the "traders"
will still have enough profits to put petrol in their Ferraris ( sorry Peter )
and we will be screwed
To anyone who wants to win a Nobel prize
figure out an economic theory that doesnt depend on an ever increasing market ( ie read population )

Andrew

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Oh your sooo right Andrew, thank you, precise, wise words indeed.

[Peter Ward]

There are many concrete steps a government could make.

To name two: Thermal Solar & (shock horror) nuclear.

The latter is where Oz should hold its head in shame.

To quote a SMH journo (maybe it was The Age) , we act like a bunch of vegetarians running an abattoir.

Happy to ship yellow-cake to whatever (bomb making) nation wants it....but cannot seem to find a few hundred square metres out of 7.6 million square kilometers we call planet Oz to run a power reactor.

The last nuke-power engineering class at an Oz University was taught close to 30 years ago....

The French have been running power reactors for decades, without incident and are now not far from migrating to fusion (look it up).

Yet every year we pump out more CO2 and kill a few thousand coal miners. (breathing coal dust isn't much better than asbestos)

I keep forgetting..our marvellous (CO2 producing & Hunter Valley vandalising) coal industry.....and wonder how much they donate to the ALP & Libs....

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Carl,

I don't assume the viewing audience is quite as dumb and ignorant as you give them credit for.

Plimer is a scientist in his own profession, that doesn't make him a climate scientist. His opinions are as lightweight as those of Monboit.
The fact that neither is capable of arguing climate science at a high technical level would actually make the discussion comprehensible to most people.

Plimer simply refused to answer some very basic questions and lost all credibility in the process.

Steven

How many people in the general public, Steven, have enough science knowledge to be able to follow the debate. Most people in the general public have very poor understanding of even the most basic science. You only have to look at the level of performance in schools w.r.t. what's being taught. I know teachers who are supposedly science teachers who can't teach the subject!!!

Yes, what you have said there was true, but at least Plimer knows how to do the research to at least form an opinion. Plus he's knowledgeable enough in science to be able to understand what he's looking at. He's been trained in the scientific method, Monboit hasn't. The problem with most scientist is that despite them knowing a lot about their subject matter, they aren't good communicators. If you can't argue climate science at a high level with your peers, than be able to bring to a level that can be understood by non specialists and the public, then you shouldn't be trying to communicate it. That should be left to those who can. If you can't argue the debate because you haven't the knowledge, and you present to a debate trying to make a convincing argument, you'll only misinform your audience and confuse them even further. That's what we don't want.

But what we also don't want is someone presenting to an argument not telling the audience the whole of the matter, just pushing a "political" line for the sake of reputation or other vested interests.

[renormalised (Carl)]

I keep forgetting..our marvellous (CO2 producing & Hunter Valley vandalising) coal industry.....and wonder how much they donate to the ALP & Libs....

...and that's precisely what the problem is, worldwide. Big multinationals (oil, coal, energy generating etc) control the governments by controlling their election purses. Doesn't hurt to have your own people in power either (the Bush's are part of big oil, and more than half of the US Congress and Reps are in their (big oil/energy) debt). Also helps if the premier financial institutions are also in the game, which they are.

Might be a good time for a revolution

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Chris Plimers book was reviewed by an astrophycisist and was found to be wanting in both facts and deductive reasoning. The ridiculous amount of references were misquoted when it really mattered. The rest were there as padding to a tome which has no basis in reality.

Here from that august anti Global Warming Journal the Australian!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225710387147

As a retired physicist I am well aware of the complexity of the variables and the so called driving forces of our climate. Note I said Climate which is a long term global average not local weather.

I am personally sad at the number of commentators and journoes that can barely integrate or differentiate the exponential to the power x. Yes this is a trick question! They then have the nerve to denigrate climate models they cannot even begin to understand.

Even if you think the climate models are wanting can you ignore the many signs that something is terribly wrong. I could write several pages of really obvious signs of change.

The Sun has been totally exonerated as a driving factor so what is the cause?

Bert

I haven't read his book, but it wouldn't surprise me if Plimer made some factual faux pa's. It's not the first time he has.

I agree with you...I wasn't questioning that there is a problem that needs immediate remedying, only that the climate models used are only as good as the maths and physics they employ and the quality of the data being used.

The Sun may not be the driving factor (so far as they know) behind the changes occurring but it's input is being affected by other factors, CO2 increase being one of them. What we have to find out and be completely certain about is what are those factors driving the change. Once we know, we can be more careful about how we interact with our planet.

In the meantime, we should try and do something to mitigate what is happening.

[renormalised (Carl)]

To quote a SMH journo (maybe it was The Age) , we act like a bunch of vegetarians running an abattoir.

Happy to ship yellow-cake to whatever (bomb making) nation wants it....but cannot seem to find a few hundred square metres out of 7.6 million square kilometers we call planet Oz to run a power reactor.

That is an example of where ignorance isn't bliss and a little knowledge is not only dangerous but also open to abuse. Nuclear energy does have its own problems but the scare campaign run by the environmental lobby during the 70's and 80's in this country (just as an aside, I'd like to know where they got most of their funding from) was nothing more than a campaign of using a little knowledge to tell a lot of furphies.

[marki]

Originally Posted by renormalised

You only have to look at the level of performance in schools w.r.t. what's being taught. I know teachers who are supposedly science teachers who can't teach the subject!!!

Carl, this simply is not true. Perhaps you know a few teachers who are inept but to tar and feather the whole profession is a little premature to say the least. All of the Science teachers I know at least have a Bsc in a specialist area. All the folks in my department have at least Hons level in their specialist area, 2 have Phd's and one has a masters degree. To quote tabloids printing figures about student achievement is also a little silly as they twist figures to suit their own purpose. What you might like to consider is the number of teachers who are forced to teach outside their specialist area's due to a lack of suitably qualified graduates taking up the challange of educating our youth. An extreme lack of geology specialists comes to mind.....

To get back to the topic at hand as a professional body science teachers have our own associations and journals. It is from the last journal I would like to quote some statements made on climate change by climate scientists (rather than most of the speculation that goes on around here ) . This should cause a rukus no doubt.

The artical is titled " Secondary Students, Misconceptions about Climate Change"


" It is not widely understood that we are living in a relatively mild stage of an iceage"

"Proxy data for temperature over geological time have been provided with clear indications that the planet has experienced temperatures of 12 degrees C above todays level for most of the last 500 million years"

" Carbon dioxide levels are the lowest they have been in 500 million years"

"Carbon dioxide makes up a mere 0.038% of the Earths atmosphere and is a minor greenhouse gas."

" Carbon dioxide has never been a driver of global temperature over 500 million years"

"When the carbon dioxide levels were 10 times higher than today the Earth was in the depths of an iceage"

"Glaciers are not in retreat around the globe and the Antartic sheet is accumulating at around 2cm per year"

"Artic ice shows no sign of any "dramatic melting" so often potrayed in the media. Satellite telemetry records a seasonal melting and refreezing with no nett loss of ice since 2002"

"The Artic ocean has been iced over several times in the last 1000 years and will continue to flucuate"

" There is firm evidence for global cooling from 2 satellite data sets (University of Alabama and Remote Sensing Systems) as well as the Hadley Centre for Climate Studies. These data correspond with those from radiosondes which show that warming stopped in the 1970's with ongoing cooling since 2002, despite the levels of rising carbon dioxide"

" A desisive number of scientists now reject the notion of anthropogenic global warming and paleoclimatologist Professor Bob Carter explains why so many people still retain misconceptions about climate change. " Most of the public statements that promote the the dangerous human warming are made from a position of ignorance - by political leaders, press commentators and celebrities who share the characteristics of a lack of scientific training and a lack of ability to differentiate between sound science and computer based scare mongering"


I could go on . This is what we teachers are being told by "real practising climate scientists" to be the case. What do you think, who should we trust for our source of truth and fact?

Mark