(Just to be clear. 2008 = La Nina short term climate change event measured in years. Global warming = long term climate change trends phenomena measured in decades, not months or years.)

Anway, back to story land, like I don’t trust them there spectrometers either! I mean, we all know that spectrometers are used in the science of light right? That’s how they got the internet so wrong maaaan, like you can’t tell me that electrons flying down tubes and up into your computer screen just stop there! NO way maaan, they fly out straight into your face and fry do weird things to your brain maaaan. We can’t trust sciency stuff, like, cause “they” are using it to control our minds. I could sing you a song about the far out things they also do with microwaves and TV’s, but they’re probably watching me even now maaaan.

(Andrew, I tend to reply with various kinds of humour to charges of “blind trust” or even “green theology”, but that’s just me being delightful).

Dave,

You have been studiously avoiding my points, putting up fug instead, yes fug.

I’ll respond to a point when I see one.

I’ve replied to that John McClean piece before by highlighting that it completely ignores the basic physics of climate, ignores how many individual scientists and scientific organizations he is trying to claim all suffered from group think, ignores the fact that he has not addressed how we know what Co2 does with various spectra of energy, how we know how much extra energy extra Co2 will store, and how many other independent organizations have also tested this.

Besides, you don’t get to be demanding of me. I’ve chased the ball for you for months, written pieces responding to silly assertions about Albert Einstein, run 6 miles in your shoes etc.... and the whole time I have been asking you for MONTHS to answer one question.... What’s wrong with spectrometry and the RFE?

When you can respond to this one question then I might be obliged to reply to your red herrings (fug, whatever else you want to call it), but until then, I’m tired of you studiously avoiding the core issues and banging on about John McClean’s paranoid character attacks on all those scientists.
(Anyway, are you sure that guy is for real or just an internet avatar. Didn’t Bruce Willis play “John McClean” in Die Hard? And you want to quote him on climate science;-)

I’ll respond to your points when you, um, contribute some.

Andrew Tilsley - 18 November 2008 10:33 AM

Essentially, whenever a contrary view is put forward, the sarcasm surfaces quicker than Zondervan can publish a new life-style NIV derivative!

Andrew Tilsley - 18 November 2008 06:12 PM

Dave L’s ‘thud factor’ and sighs are a pretty much what I’ve been saying that warns people off this forum. Science over-load and sarcasm. Great mix.

Err.. Andrew, complaining about sarcasm sarcastically is a tad inconsistent. Feel free to lead by example.

David Palmer - 18 November 2008 02:49 PM

David P, Kevin, Andrew and Gordo,

All I’m saying is that until the peer reviewed science discovers some heretofore mysterious ‘circuit breaker’ that stops human induced global warming, there seems to be a consensus amongst the scientists that count.

Again, I do not share your sanguine views on peer reviewed science.

Hi David, I’m with you, peer review is over-rated - it is a helpful tool for science but is not infallible - it is still subject to human error.

(If I may change the context, look what happened to Jesus in his peer review after he was arrested ...)

Derek,
I didn’t know Jesus execution was a result of the modern empirical scientific method? How interesting.

So Derek, when is the science on something “settled” enough for you to accept it at face value, for the time being, until new data arrives? Cause that’s all the likes of Andrew Cameron are doing. He never said anything about the science being “infallible”. In fact, have I or have I not said that I’d LOVE global warming to be disproved tomorrow by the climate community! Is the science on new medicines always infallible? Yet at some point, when we’re really sick, we’ll try them anyway. It’s the best data we might to go on at the time, and so that’s what we act on in so many areas of life. Why not global warming, especially when there is NO credible organization that has produced peer review science questioning the basics?

But, how interesting, I’ve chased down another ball for the sceptics and still no answer to the “Big S and the RFE”!

David P, enough mate. You go disprove the Spectrometer readings and the RFE now OK? No more silly irrelevant character attacks upon dozens and dozens of climatologists… that’s just avoiding the question. It really is time to stop avoiding the real issues mate. I’ve had enough of your red herrings. You say you’re big on the “right to life"… do you know how many people W.H.O. says global warming is already killing, and how it is going to affect kids and babies and the poor voiceless multitudes in the 3rd world? It’s time for you to take a long, hard look at yourself and ask: when is there enough data for me to accept a scientific consensus and act accordingly — at least until new information emerges?

I want global warming to just “go away”, I really do. I hope, in God’s grace, there’s some fantastic development that completely disproves everything the climate guys have thought to date, and they all shake their heads in wonder and amazement at the new “fail-safe” they’ve discovered. But it’s going to have to be more convincing than the old wives tales and data cherry-picking that has been served up here in many “hit and run” postings.

It would be really amazing to have someone honestly post a question, check out the answers from the legitimate sources, and maybe even admit they had just learnt something.

However, sadly I’m not convinced that sceptics are actually here for a discussion or exchange of ideas. Their posts seem more like frustrated and sulking rants at the way world opinion is not quite going the way they want it to. Oh well, deal with reality before reality deals with you.

However, sadly I’m not convinced that sceptics are actually here for a discussion or exchange of ideas. Their posts seem more like frustrated and sulking rants at the way world opinion is not quite going the way they want it to. Oh well, deal with reality before reality deals with you.

It occurs to me that this last characterization might have been a bit harsh of some who are “not sure”, given all the FUD being spread by Exxon and friends. Some — such as David P — might be reacting to the more extreme climate doomsday scenarios, such as those predicting this will cause the extinction of humankind. There were a few lines in the ABC movie “Crude” that were a bit much even for me.

I just wish managing Co2 was already boring. We don’t have endlessly long Christian rants against lead or asbestos laws, as if these were some ultra-greenie anti-industrialization anti-civilization imposition on our basic “Christian freedom” to pollute. We know these substances to be ‘bad’ and so have limited their use and legislated how they are to be disposed of.

The best conclusions of science so far is that Co2 is ‘bad’ for climate stability. So why are so many Christians arrogant enough to decry the basic science when they are not climatologists, pretend they know better, and go around mouthing off against climate science embarrassing the gospel in the process? It bewilders me.

Scientific American has a report indicating that the situation is just getting worse, despite all the talk.

The 38 countries that pledged to restrain their emissions of climate change–inducing greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2), are failing, according to new figures released today. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the body charged with overseeing global emission reduction efforts, says that, overall, greenhouse emissions—measured in terms of the most ubiquitous: carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)—dropped by 894 million metric tons between 1990 and 2006 (the latest year for which figures are available).

But the UNFCCC found that emissions had grown by 2.3 percent—403 million metric tons of CO2e—from 2000 to 2006, and that the 16-year dip was due entirely to the drop in economic activity (factory and power plant shutdowns) in former Eastern bloc countries such as Russia after the 1989 fall of communist governments, which led to a decline of more than two billion metric tons of CO2e emissions. Those countries’ economies have recovered since 2000, leading to an increase in CO2e emissions of some 258 million metric tons, according to UNFCCC.
more

Here’s a site for all you tree-hugging, hairy-legged leftist greenies. See if you can pick the satire

The interesting thing about those 2 is that they take global warming so seriously that they’re concerned that ‘carbon offsetting’ might not work fast enough. I’m concerned that some carbon offsetting schemes might not be monitored properly, but otherwise hope that Biochar and other technologies CAN help make some difference.

Anyway, they’re doing a parody of people “offsetting” behaviour they find to be very offensive and bad, namely, emitting too much carbon! It’s interesting that I’ve heard right-winger denialists promote their site as evidence that global warming itself is bunk, but their point is exactly the opposite — which makes me wonder about the comprehension skills of denialists?

EG: In their about page…

What can I do instead?

* Measure your carbon footprint. There are good resources to do this online — visit www.resurgence.org/carboncalculator for a good, detailed analysis of your footprint. For a slightly quicker calculator try www.carbongym.co.uk, or www.chooseclimate.org to look in more depth at the CO2 emissions associated with flying.
* Think about reducing your carbon footprint. There are lots of easy ways to reduce the emissions from various areas of your life. You might want to think about your home, transport and what you eat and consume. There are lots of resources on the internet to help you reduce your emissions.
* Learn about Contraction and Convergence. C&C;is a framework for agreeing a global cap on carbon emissions. We believe that to make our individual sacrifices count, we need a global framework that caps the amount of carbon emitted, creates a timeframe for reducing emissions to a safe level, and distributes carbon credits equitably. C&C;satisfies all of these, and would make carbon trading fair and effective. Good resources are www.climatejustice.org.uk and www.gci.org.uk
* Use your influence as a citizen. You could lobby your MP for the adoption of C&C;and telling them you are concerned about climate change. You can also talk to and lobby your elected representatives from local and regional and European government. You can find out who your MP is at www.theyworkforyou.com. Think about joining a pressure group, lobby group or charity that you feel shares and promotes your concerns.
* Get together with your friends or family and discuss what you think. How we face up to the new challenges of climate change should be something everyone has an opinion on. Although individual action is needed, we also need ways to make government and businesses take a lead in responsibly dealing with emission reduction.

Once more to the fray dear friends, once more, to the well of dispute.

Dave,

I actually don’t think you have made any attempt whatsoever to respond to my recent posts.

I will restate my position in a different way.

I think it total nonsense, unbounded conceit if you like, hubris is another good word to consider that we would have any idea of what the world will be, weatherwise in 100 years, let alone 50 years.

I find it totally ridiculous that people should rely on the artificial constructs of computer modelling telling us what we don’t otherwise know, and all the more so when those models failed to predict the current 10 year long hiatus in average global warming.

To build a consensus of opinion on a highly incestuous coterie of 53 climate scientists is like building some vast edifice (think Anglicanism) on quicksand.

When I get more time (sigh) I will write my next paper and will zero in on those predictions on water, ecosystems, food, coasts and health.

Dave, take a deep breath, humans ADAPT, think Iceland, think Singapore, think humans have survived little ice ages, medieval warming periods. Poverty, war, breakdown in families are far greater threats to human happiness.

With all the affection that a tree hugging Calvinist can muster.

PS What’s happened to Bob Cameron, has his wife put a curfew on him?

David Palmer - 20 November 2008 10:55 AM

Once more to the fray dear friends, once more, to the well of dispute.
Dave,
I actually don’t think you have made any attempt whatsoever to respond to my recent posts. I will restate my position in a different way.

Sighs. Dave P, I’ll indulge you once more, but I have honestly replied to these assertions of yours many, many times before and am tired of repeating myself when you can’t be bothered answering my one question about the spectrometer and the RFE!

I think it total nonsense, unbounded conceit if you like, hubris is another good word to consider that we would have any idea of what the world will be, weatherwise in 100 years, let alone 50 years.

Climate scientists don’t claim to know the ”weather” on any particular day, month, or year, but model overall climate trends. I have explained this to you many, many, many, many times, but you keep refusing to use your dictionary.

I find it totally ridiculous that people should rely on the artificial constructs of computer modelling telling us what we don’t otherwise know, and all the more so when those models failed to predict the current 10 year long hiatus in average global warming.

You just assert stuff without sources, and don’t seem to understand how accurate many of those models have actually become, but that’s not the point. They don’t claim to know the actual future of weather, but model the most likely outcomes in overall climate trends. And their models are getting good! (I’m sure I’ve explained all of this before as well).

To build a consensus of opinion on a highly incestuous coterie of 53 climate scientists is like building some vast edifice (think Anglicanism) on quicksand.

“Once upon a time in the land of Oz”. Get over John McClean’s character attacks on the IPCC, and realise that there are plenty of other independent climate institutes like our own CSIRO divisions.

Dave, take a deep breath, humans ADAPT, think Iceland, think Singapore, think humans have survived little ice ages, medieval warming periods. Poverty, war, breakdown in families are far greater threats to human happiness.

1. We have to adapt to a post-fossil fuel world anyway because these things are running out.
2. I agree that we adapt, but that’s not the point. The sooner we adapt, the better off we’ll be.
3. Global warming impacts on agriculture and water availability may easily CAUSE poverty, war, breakdown in families.
4. I never implied Global Warming was the only social issue we face, but am just amazed at the head in sand denial over it.
5. W.H.O. says 200 thousand people die a year due to Global Warming, but that could increase into the millions soon if we don’t take action.
6. According to most projections, this will affect the poor vastly more than the rich nations which have some wealth to adapt. The poor may simply not have the resources to adapt, they may simply die. Sadly, this already happens, in African wars and hurricanes that dictators don’t respond to quickly enough etc. However, massive climate shifts can dwarf anything we’ve seen so far. Same story, just a bigger scale.
7. I remain hopeful. Our Lord will return one day, God is in control, but that does not mean He has guaranteed that “the American way of life is non-negotiable”. Some here think God said that, not some silly right-wing President.
8. I remain optimistic about changes in technology. A bold new renewable energy era is dawning, and some new gizmo could be invented tonight that totally revolutionizes everything we do so that fossil fuels are just not NEEDED any more. But at this stage, weaning off fossil fuels looks quite difficult, will need government action and commitment, and may involve quite some sacrifice. But “we need to leave oil before it leaves us”. Prices may have collapsed due to the economic crisis, but that does not mean the geology or consumption of oil have significantly changed. Sometime in the next decade all the information I’ve read indicates that oil will fail to meet demand, permanently. That change is going to be huge, and we should have started decades ago.
9. On the bright side, I hope and pray that by the time my kids are adults we’ll be significantly less dependent on oil. I hope they’ll live in greener, cleaner cities with less smog and particulates and healthier lungs. But the journey from here to there could be very, very rough… and if peak oil leads to war, then… oh well, I tried.

Dave, you’ve hammered this point a fair bit re acceptance of cyanide and other ills. I’m very comfortable with the position that if science can show the clear link between cause and effect, then we accept it. It would be foolish to ignore that basic position. If I take cyanide, I die. If I breath in asbestos dust, I die.

But the simple fact is, there is too much debate going about to link CO2 with being the main contributor to CC. If it was simple, we would not have the degree of scepticism around the world by thousands of scientists...and I’m sure all of these sceptical scientists wouldn’t take cyanide or breath in asbestos...!

I thought this article was quite telling about the British court deciding that Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, could not be shown in schools because it was a polemic.

The article says that, ‘They [British environmentalists] took the line that the errors didn’t really matter. Polemicists always overstate their case, they said.

Are you overstating the case?

I also saw another article recently about kids in some schools being taught to be Climate Change police...where they were educated on how to put their parents on ‘charges’ for inappopriate bevaviour at home. Man, that’s pathetic.

And Dave...can we stop all the sighing? It just comes across as such a put down. No wonder people won’t engage when that’s the response. It’s like you’re saying, [Sigh] ‘well for the dummy Dave P, I’ll dig out yet another quote to explain xyz’ At least that’s how it’s coming across.

Regards.

Hi Andrew,
Thousands of scientists dismiss global warming
I guess the answer is that thousands of scientists have been “had” by Exxon and friends. (See the strongly worded letter from the Royal Society of London, possibly one of the oldest and most prestigious scientific organisations in the world. This is NOT conspiracy theory hype, but an established historical fact. In other words, you’ve been had.)

Thousands of scientists don’t actually get training in a Spectrometer lab nor do they work on the RFE. EG: Thousands of plumbers aren’t carpenters or gyprockers or landscapers or roof-repairers, but they are all tradesmen. You’ve got to listen to the specialists in this.

“An Inconvenient Truth”.
Yep, and the movie actually contained some misleading innuendo’s that I’ve written long articles about. EG: Al Gore oversimplified the Co2 — Ice Age link, and opened that up to attacks from the likes of Durkin. (And his misleading cacaphony of lies, “The Great Global Warming Swindle"). Just because climate science is COMPLEX doesn’t mean it is FALSE — Christian doctrines like the Trinity can be difficult to get your head around as well and there’s division in many theological and religious insitutions about this basic Christian doctrine, but does that mean it’s not true? Real theologians prepared to objectively accept the bible as God’s word recognise the truth, but people with moral agenda’s and issues are easily sidetracked from recognising the obvious.

I’m actually glad an “Inconvenient Truth” is not being shown, because there are far better and more accurate (and alarming) documentaries that cover not just global warming, but peak oil, overpopulation, eco-cide leading to the 6th Great Exctinction event on planet earth, toxic build up, the North Pacific Gyre full of plastic, etc. Try “Crude Impact” for starters. (Watch it at that link, 98 minutes google video, pretty much sums up my opinion.)

Are you overstating the case?

Not according to the real experts in this field. If anything, the IPCC is a dumbed down, softened up, muted organisation with too many politicians blunting the accuracy of the method. The real climate scientists are issuing far more serious, urgent, and dire reports and are incredibly frustrated by the slow and prodding nature of the IPCC. Here that David P? I think you’ve got the climate story exactly back to front. Far from leading, the IPCC is actually dragging the chain!

Try the podcasts below
http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/ especially Interviews with Philip Sutton One and Two.

Kid climate police

I also saw another article recently about kids in some schools being taught to be Climate Change police...where they were educated on how to put their parents on ‘charges’ for inappopriate bevaviour at home. Man, that’s pathetic.

Yeah, absolutely, because just changing a light bulb or turning off the TV is not enough. We need a wholesale energy revolution to wean our society of fossil fuels, both because Global Warming is real, because it is especially dangerous to the poor, and because fossil fuels are killing us (lung cancer rates in the Hunter Valley being 3 times higher than in Sydney, breathing problems, oil wars in Iraq, etc), and because they are running out.

Online Behaviour
Come on Andrew, we’re all having fun. Even David P is having fun…

I think it total nonsense, unbounded conceit if you like, hubris is another good word .... I find it totally ridiculous ...To build a consensus of opinion on a highly incestuous ... Dave, take a deep breath.... With all the affection that a tree hugging Calvinist can muster....

It’s a vigourous debate, and sometimes frustration may leak out. I’m hoping that if Dave P and I ever met up we’d by each other a beer (or orange juice if Dave’s “one of those” non-drinking types. ;-)

Besides, you’ve been known to, how should I put it… (sighs ;-)

Dave Lankshear - 20 November 2008 01:04 PM

Come on Andrew, we’re all having fun. Even David P is having fun…

A bit more fun, here.

:-D

Dave Lankshear - 20 November 2008 01:04 PM

Dave,

You’re on. Beer’s fine, next time I up.