James Hansen has already featured on the front page of most the world’s influential newspapers at least once telling us the sky is about to fall in … well, not exactly.
James Hansen has though been in the media a lot, over the last decade or so, telling us that temperatures are rising and that by 2010 the earth will be somewhere between 0.6 and 1.1C warmer, see some of the discussion here at the Real Climate blog.
Prof Bob Carter coined the term, Hansenism, based on pronouncements by James Hansen, click here for the original speech.
According to Carter:
Why Hansenism? Because James Hansen was the NASA-employed scientist who started the climate alarmism hare running on June 23, 1988, when he appeared before a United States Congressional hearing on climate change. On that occasion, Dr Hansen used a misleading graph to convince his listeners that warming was taking place at an accelerated rate (which, it being a scorching summer’s day in Washington, a glance out of the window appeared to confirm). He wrote, in justification, in the Washington Post (February 11, 1989) that “the evidence for an increasing greenhouse effect is now sufficiently strong that it would have been irresponsible if I had not attempted to alert political leaders”.
Hansen’s testimony was taken up as a lead news story, and within days the great majority of the American public believed that a climate apocalypse was at hand.
Much later (2003), Hansen came to write “Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate … scenarios consistent with what is realistic”.
But this astonishing conversion to honesty came too late, for in the intervening years thousands of other climate scientists had meanwhile climbed onto the Hansenist funding gravy-train. Currently, global warming alarmism is fuelled by an estimated worldwide expenditure on related research and greenhouse bureaucracy of US$3-4 billion annually. Scientists and bureaucrats being only too human, the power of such sums of money to corrupt not only the politics of greenhouse, but even the scientific process itself, must not be underestimated.
Now, today Hansen features on the front page of the New York Times Online, not telling us how 2006 is going to be the hottest year ever, but claiming he is being gagged by the government.
For Hansen, claiming you are being gagged, seems to be yet another way of getting a link to all your research papers out there.
At least I found this link, on this page.
How could you gag someone like James Hansen in 2006 in the US – if you really wanted to?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
If Hansen was being gagged we would not have heard about it in the first place, would we. 🙂
Jen – by forcing his comments on climate policy to be vetted by management which what he is claiming is happening.
Gavin from Real Climate has an entry:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=243
Ender, And was it very effective? Next Michael Moore will be on case?
Ender,
I like Gavin’s comment “Jim is my immediate boss…”
Like expecting Cardinal Pell to publicly disagree with his holiness the Pope.
Ender – we now at least have Louis reading the right sources. Now if we can get to him to understand it our mission on the planet is complete.
Phil,
There are no such things as “right sources” in science – there are, however, such sources in religion.
I liked his comment about 2005, he said NASA can’t be 100 percent certain of last year’s record warmth because they had to estimate temperatures at the Arctic however he’s “reasonably confident” that last year was the warmest year.
Louis is your site a religious shrine then ?
And guys at least they’re honest and into disclosure unlike some.
Ender – they’re resisting – we may have to use a Jedi Mind Trick.
Rog,
That Hansen admits estimating the arctic temperatures means the whole process of estimating the mean temperature is full of holes. Estimates are not measurements.
What is intriguing is that Spencer and Christy also found a temperature anomaly over the arctic for the same period.
In any case I doubt Hansen will find any difficulty peddling his AGW – he just can’t do it as a representative of NASA – as a private citizen he has total freedom of expression.
The problem as Goebbels realised is that if you repeat a lie often enough it ultimately becomes fact. Hansen started this in 1988 and now it is accepted as such – fact.
Ender – That’s the Spencer and Christy who can’t organise their own satellite data !
And of course if John Zillman has signed off on AGW – why would we argue
How does “estimate” transmogrify into “fact” Phil?
How much science does it take to dangle a thermometer out the window?
Only in Enders World do we know the results before 31 December.
How come satellite experts can’t clean up their own satellite data.
On the Arctic business – nice cherry pick guys. He’s been totally explicit about what he’s done. If you don’t like the analysis plenty of room to step up with your own. Your comments are mischievous.
Phil,
All science is imperfect – the error was spotted by others because Spencer and Christy had all the data and code available for independent checking.
Except at Real Climate who still will not release their data and code for independent checking.
So until Real Climate and their cohort of nomads do, we are left with one plausible interpretation – their data may not support their conclusions. We will never know, of course, since their data remain inaccessible.
Before Tyndale translated the Holy Bible from Latin to English, the masses never realy knew what truths that book contained between its covers – after the translation the clergy lost their power.
The same is happening in Climate Science.
Phil,
you seem not to understand the difference between measurement and estimate.
True Hansen admitted the arctic temperatures were estimates, no one is denying that.
Strange however that the main temperature anomaly is in the estimated grid cells, not the measured ones.
Louis – “So until Real Climate and their cohort of nomads do”
So as a professional scientist you a calling another group of scientists a “cohort of nomads” – I am sure they would be pleased by that.
Phil,
Alas I did not originate this term and spotted it on another blog, but professional scientists release their data for colleagues to scrutinise, such as Spencer and Christy.
So who are the professionals?
Louis – correcting drift trends in satellite data is remote sensing 101. They eventually got caught out.
You seem very fixated on nazis and stalinist Russia, and greenies as the source of pure evil etc. How long have you had these symptoms now. Ender and I can help you if you let us.
Phil,
Greenies, national socialists and stalinist Russia have one common factor – socialism – and this political political philosophy to date has murdered over 100 million people since 1917.
And if it were simply remote sensing 101, but my understanding was that it was not that simplistic as you put it.
In any case it is always the simplest of errors which go undetected.
If Hansen claims that he is being “gagged” where is the evidence that he has been gagged? The available evidence is that he has been most forthcoming, all at the taxpayers expense.
Is this allegation merely other “estimate” from a oh-so-sensitive greenie?
Me thinks the true “green” is $$$$
This is interesting:
When the Bush administration allegedly tries to “muzzle” a well known greenhouse proponent, it gets to the NYT. But when the Clinton-Gore administration tried to destroy a well known greenhouse critic, they chose not to notice.
Talk about hypocrisy.
One thing that some public servants tend to forget is that they are paid by the taxpayer to do the elected government’s work not beat their own drum.
Pertinent information concerning Hansen’s public position.
“It is disturbing that the administration has sought to silence its critics and cut off debate,” Adler commented, pointing to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt’s declaration on the Diane Rehm Show that raising questions about climate science is “un-American”. Adler noted that during the first term of the Clinton-Gore administration, an Energy Department official was fired for questioning whether scientific research supports predictions of a global warming disaster. “If the facts are truly on their side, they have nothing to fear from an open discussion of the issue,” Adler said.
Source here http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,02753.cfm
But I’m not debating whether Hansen has been fairly treated by NASA or the US administration. You guys have been. I’m just talking about climate research.
And Rog, the public service has to serve both the elected government of the day and the public interest. The fire post shows that perhaps the elected govts are not acting in the public’s best interest. A moral dilemma.
And true green could be “$$$” – the technologies of the future.
And Louis you are therefore saying by logical association in your sentence that the beliefs of greenies are close to groups in history that have murdered millions. hmmmm.. yep OK … I see. And how long have you felt this way Louis.
Louis said “Greenies, national socialists and stalinist Russia have one common factor – socialism – and this political political philosophy to date has murdered over 100 million people since 1917.”
How many people have ‘greens’ killed? Did stalinists protect or degrade the environment? Do all greens lean to the left? Some greens are pro-property rights, free market mechanisms and investing in natural capital. Overly simplistic pigeonholing doesn’t achieve anything.
There is a disturbing trend, in the US and in Australia, to attack people who dare to question the mainstream position. Asking a question immediately means you are against society. It occurs on this blog: I have asked a question and had people jump down my throat from their pre-determination that my question constitutes a challenge to their accepted position.
The only people I’ve seen threatening violence on this blog, btw, have been stridently anti-green (and therefore anti-peace?).
Thinksy true,
some Greenies might not be socialists but I suspect they are few – but I pointed out that socialism did the killing, not the Greens per se. Nitpick, for sure, and non-socialist greens are exempt from my idiosyncratic view.
You must remember, however, that occasionally oversimplicity is a necessary method of communication, depending on the audience ‘ ability comprehend ideological complexities. Most of us realise this and don’t bother with it.
Phil,
Greenism is a religion, like socialism, and between the two they have despatched quite a few of their critics.
But I think it is an apt association which, again, is not my invention but that considered by many thoughtful individuals thoughout the planet.
And Thinksy, really the only threatened violence here came from the Anti-greens?
So may we get back to the topic which is Hansen’s crie de coeuer that the US admin, is gagging him?
I should clarify my last post, religions, whether secular or divine, have despatched quite a few of their critics.
Apologies
Secular means worldly matters, ie matters that have nothing to do with religion. Hence ‘secular religions’ is an oxymoron. A religion is the worship of a divine power of being that controls human destiny. The word religion is commonly corrupted to dismiss opposing views, be they political or scientific. Some (not all) of the approaches to deep-ecology approach a religion, but generally environmentalism isn’t a religion.
Generalisations and abstractions are useful for communicating, that’s true. But they should be made explicit. Otherwise it’s too easy to fall into the trap of overly compartmentalised thinking which causes errors in reasoning.
Back to gagging then!
So Louis – you don’t think you could think things through independently and be called thoughtful or independent i.e. not green
e.g. you might be pro-AGW, pro-nuclear, pro-GMO but anti-rainforest destruction (hypothetical example)
Does it all have to run together…. so often this blog’s position. (not that I’m complaining Mam he says cringing !)
Thinksy,
socialism is the worship of the state, an abstraction like those worshipped by the devout.
Phil,
I am known to be a lateral thinker, in the De Bonian sense I suspect, and stated so publicly, much to my personal discomfort.
You?
Decides to go home having caught his fish for the day.
I see Phil, Ender and laterly, thinksy have succeeded in achieving the blog stalkers equivalent of shouting down. Just read the post again folks, the commentary is pure distraction.
Ian – correct ! 🙂
but Ian you only like your own opinions too you know. “oooo Ian – you’re just so wonderful – swoon – faint”
OK – wanna talk about something serious then?
Ian,
not really, I am, like most humans, subject to the circadian rhythm of night and day and accept it.
They have not shouted me down, they are now flapping about on the banks, onlu to die overnight, for me to collect next morning as my breakfast.
But they do not sleep and are thus non-human. To these I have no explanation.
Realises that he has lost something here, a plot perchance?
Wonders, thinks, waits
Socialism worships the rights of state, libertarians worship the rights of the individual. Doesn’t make them relgions.
Ian would like to have those who disagree with him gagged. He’s not bigoted at all. I love you Ian. Deeeply. I’m in awe of everything you say.
But I possibly love Louis even more, at least he gives explanations for his point of view when pressed, without threatening violence or bushlaw, and he freely admits to having lost the plot. 😉
Back to gagging then.
Thinksys,
you wrote:
“libertarians worship the rights of the individual”
We are not in the habit of worshipping anything. Either we are robots obeying the commands of the State, or free thinking individuals, free of the state, to make up our own minds, at the same time recognising others rights.
Unbelieveable Thinksy has fallen for Ian and Louis – it’s all over between you and me Thinksy. I want my ring back.
On a planet, far, far away, Phil the Doon hands his ring back.
Ah ha. If it’s YOUR personally held belief then it’s free thought, unblinkered etc, but if it’s an opposing belief of an OTHER then it’s worship, habit, robotic and possibly ‘extreme’. Louis you display absolutely no evidence at all of compartmentalised reasoning.
You want to be ‘free of the state’. Many libertarians are anarchists. Animal rights activists (eco-terrorists) are also anarchists. Applying your own logic Louis, you’re an eco-terrorist.
Re: your ring Ian, you should have noted that I only like synthetic diamonds.
OOPPPS. I meant to say: Re: your ring PHIL, you should have noted that I only like synthetic diamonds. BUT I was dreaming of Ian again. Dreamy dreamboat.
Stayin out of this lovefest 🙂
Fish, when caught, tend to show all sorts of physical paroxisms on the banks of streams and rivers.
As do fish of the metaphorical kind in their misuse of metaphors, or should we, in this case, extend it to metafisheries?
(leaves with a Humphrey Appleby bemused expression?)
Theodore Dalrymple explains the corrupting influence of the State far better than I;
http://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id=1712
If genuine , dispassionate scientific practice includes admission of facts/data which are inconsistent with theory, why is it that this debate is coloured here and elsewhere as black/white , right/wrong ( or right/left )etc?
Would the protagonists be prepared to list and acknowledge the factual weak points( for want of a better term) in their positions as a demonstration that something more than ” four legs good , two legs bad” chanting was at work?
It surely can’t be the case that either side believes that their position is absolute or beyond doubt?
Jim – very good point – we could refer you to the climate archive at this blog. The IPCC documents themselves explicitly discuss the uncertainties.
Unfortunately we have politics and science continually combined. Bad mix. The contrarians assert one cannot believe in AGW without being an evil socialist, a doomsday merchant, and have signed off on every other green agenda possible.
In the Australian context, what Hansen has admitted to is both contempt of parliament and official misconduct. Are there similar laws governing testimony to government and honesty of public servants in the USA? Most likely. So why is he not being prosecuted?
Jeez you’re not getting any better are you. So Ian don’t complain about govt scientists dutifully carrying out bad fire management and poor vegetation management as directed by their elected govt. Fearless advice = zero !
Anyway what misconduct ?
Jim,
the problem is that AGW has become a passionate belief – the axiom – man-made CO2 causes global warming – is apparently inviolate.
Because of this contradictory data are dismissed via ad hoc adjustments to the core belief.
Paraphrasing Ludvig Von Mises
“No one should expect that any logical argument ot any experience could ever shake the almost religious fervor of those who believe in salvation though reduction of CO2 emissions”.
Patrick Michaels made a pertinent comment in 2004 on his blog.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/10/28/blowing-your-own-whistle/
Jim – you see when Louis says passionate belief I see his disbelief as passionate and illogical. He is also mixing politics in there at every turn and making comments about it being a religion. And of course we will do the Galileo and Catholic Church analogy, but only works if you know whose role is Galileo !
Jim do you have a proposal as a way forward?
This is what Hansen said in 2001;
“The growth rate of climate forcing by measured greenhouse gases peaked near 1980 at almost 5 W/m2 per century. This growth rate has since declined to ~3 W/m2 per century, largely because of cooperative international actions. We argue that trends can be reduced to the level needed for the moderate ‘‘alternative’’ climate scenario (~2 W/m2 per century for the next 50 years) by means of concerted actions that have other benefits, but the forcing reductions are not automatic ‘‘co-benefits’’ of actions that slow CO2 emissions. Current trends of climate forcings by aerosols remain very uncertain. Nevertheless, practical constraints on changes in emission levels suggest that global warming at a rate +/-0.15 +/-0.05°C per decade will occur over the next several decades.”
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_HansenSato.pdf
Ian again wants to gag someone who holds a different view to his (hypocrisy, as Ian will speak out against and resist the govt over fire/land mngt). Louis again contrasts his self-claimed ‘logic’ against the ‘passionate beliefs’ and ‘near religious fervor’ of those with different opinions to his. If this blog is an accurate guide, the right is truly self-righteous.
In the AGW debates here, the ‘let’s address it now’ group have admitted both sides of the evidence, whereas the ‘leave it and see’ group deny evidence that doesn’t support their claim, cherry-pick, yet repeatedly suggest the ‘others’ are irrational, extreme, lefties, genocidal lunatics, etc. Facts/data that challenge the status quo can only be put forward if the incumbents support open discussion. If not, then we have an undemocratic, faith-based model of governance.
Thinksy,
Science is not opinion or consensus.
Take rog’s quote from Hansen above your post – climate forcing has dropped since 1980 during which there was an accelerated increase in CO2.
And more importantly Hansen’s temperature prediction means in 50 years time the temperature will increase 0.5 deg C.
Antartica with an average temperature of -60 Deg C will then rise to -59.5 deg C. And nothing will melt.
So what is Hansen on about?
Some discussion that the sensitivity to CO2 may actually go up in AR4.
Love Louis’s turn of phrase “religious fervor of those who believe in salvation ” – keep saying it and it may come true.
Phil Done,
It was not my turn of phrase but Ludvig Von Mises. However attributing it to me would be regarded a compliment.
Louis – I apologise and retract – I should have said your predilection for such phrases.
Louis, you can take the scientist out of the lab but you can’t take opinions out of the scientist. The consensus line has been well covered by the ‘others’, irrationally and religiously in your opinion, I expect.
You argue that science is not consensus. You also dismiss as religious belief any opinions and science that oppose your personal hypotheses/scientific beliefs. Can’t you see that in essence you keep saying that only the beliefs/hypotheses that you believe in are correct, whereas others, scientific consensus or not, are wrong?
All of a sudden Hansen has been dropped from the ‘consensus’, was that a rational decision?
When Hansen’s 2002 paper was posted on RC they went into overdrive – not.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=15
Real Climate misquoted Hansen then ‘moved on’.
Jennifer,
I enjoyed your presentation at Qskeptics last night. Whilst those involved with the Australian Skeptics are probably more open minded than many, one does not have to look far to find a few members with as dogmatic views as any religious fundamentalist.
I much appreciated your insistence on evidence being the bottom line, which is what science is supposed to be about isn’t it? I am not qualified in your field so my opinions on this subject matter little, but, having heard Ian Lowe speak on several occasions I will continue to follow the debate with interest. A debate between you two would be entertaining I suspect.
Cheers I hope we see you again.
Neil Crellin
Thinksys
My personal hypotheses or beliefs? – care to let Jen’s readers know what they are? I too would be very interested in learning what I am supposed to believe in with great passion.
No better not, that would be off topic and Jen would have to remove it.
There is only one thing I do not accept – the notion that humanity can affect the planet’s climate.
Stars give birth, galaxies play mummies and daddies, there is no emergent order in the biosphere of the planet, real order arises from electronic fields, consensus is irrelevant to science, plate tectonics are fantasy, abiotic oil will save us all, views that don’t agree with yours are faith, generalisations are a valid subsitute for critical thought, greenies are genocidal socialists, etc.
I forgot to add another great one: no economic prediction has ever been right.
Thinksys
1 Stars give birth and galaxial mummies and daddies are mainstream theories – do a Google on stars and galaxies and birth.
2. Emergent order in the biosphere – I know nothing of that idea, nor have I ever thought about it.
3. Real order arises from electronic fields? What on earth is that about?
4. There is no consensus in science – that is a view held by most scientists.
5. Plate tectonics – I am among many geoscientists who don’t accept it.
6. Abiotic oil will save us – never ever said that
So far your score on successful hits is zero.
Thinksys
no economic prediction has ever been correct – that is a widely accepted mainstream view – find us one ecnomic prediction that did?
Please
A comment made by a US scientist on Hansen’s problem in a forum I subscribe to.
“He is perfectly free to issue political statements as ‘Dr J. Hansen’private citizen (or to reflect on anthropology, the quality of modern
music, or George Bush’s performance as president); if he does so as ‘Dr J. Hansen, NASA’, he is abusing his position by seeking a degree of political influence by way of his affiliation to which he is not entitled”.
This should end the debate I suspect.
Phil Done also avoided the question “name one scientific prediction that has come true”, threw up a whole heap of ‘stuff’ to draw the hounds off….
If I remember correctly he had a hissy fit, another bad hair day.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/author_pielke_jr_r/000699boehlert_on_hansen.html
Some sense finally – let’s not lynch anyone – let’s simply SORT IT OUT – and move on.
But in Australia we have the typical stupid right wing – ridicule it, shoot it, jail them reaction you have at this blog. Big on abuse. Little on solutions. Maybe yo’all need to be exported.
Rep. Boehlert Responds to Accusations Concerning NASA’s “Silencing” of Climate Scientist
PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Monday, January 30, 2006
Source: House Science Committee
WASHINGTON – House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) sent the attached letter today to Dr. Michael Griffin, Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), in response to articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post this weekend concerning NASA’s treatment of Dr. James Hansen, Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
January 30, 2006
Dr. Michael Griffin
Administrator
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington DC 20546
Dear Dr. Griffin:
I am writing in response to several recent news articles indicating that officials at NASA may be trying to “silence” Dr. James Hansen, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
It ought to go without saying that government scientists must be free to describe their scientific conclusions and the implications of those conclusions to their fellow scientists, policymakers and the general public. Any effort to censor federal scientists biases public discussions of scientific issues, increases distrust of the government and makes it difficult for the government to attract the best scientists. And when it comes to an issue like climate change, a subject of ongoing public debate with immense ramifications, the government ought to be bending over backward to make sure that its scientists are able to discuss their work and what it means.
Good science cannot long persist in an atmosphere of intimidation. Political figures ought to be reviewing their public statements to make sure they are consistent with the best available science; scientists should not be reviewing their statements to make sure they are consistent with the current political orthodoxy.
NASA is clearly doing something wrong, given the sense of intimidation felt by Dr. Hansen and others who work with him. Even if this sense is a result of a misinterpretation of NASA policies – and more seems to be at play here – the problem still must be corrected. I will be following this matter closely to ensure that the right staff and policies are in place at NASA to encourage open discussion of critical scientific issues. I assume you share that goal.
Our staff is already setting up meetings to pursue this issue and I appreciate NASA’s responsiveness to our inquiries thus far. I would ask that you swiftly provide to the Committee, in writing, a clear statement of NASA’s policies governing the activities of its scientists.
NASA is one of the nation’s leading scientific institutions. I look forward to working with you to keep it that way, and to ensure that the entire nation gets the full benefit of NASA sciences.
Sincerely
[Signed]
Sherwood Boehlert
Chairman
Rog – what herbal medications are you on ?
Even more fascinating is that Rog and Ian never disagree with Louis. I wonder why that is. Perhaps they agree with everything he says? I win the bet Ender.
So what exactly is your problem Phil, the letter you have referenced indicates that the Republican led house committee will defend “good science”
You would agree with that, eh?
Nice try Rog.
Even if this sense is a result of a misinterpretation of NASA policies – and more seems to be at play here – the problem still must be corrected. I will be following this matter closely to ensure that the right staff and policies are in place at NASA to encourage open discussion of critical scientific issues. I assume you share that goal.
Louis (btw you discounted emergent order of the biosphere when you discounted Gaia theory). There was no intention to discuss the finer aspects of your various personal hypotheses or beliefs. In response to your request, I was simply listing (in imprecise terms or not is immaterial, esp. given that they’re your beliefs, not mine) the various hypotheses or beliefs that you have raised recently. The reason you recall? –>
You maintain that your own beliefs/hypotheses are correct, yet claim that the beliefs and scientific methods of others, consensus or not, are wrong. You don’t *believe* that organisms or humans can affect the climate, therefore anyone who does, scientific consensus or not, supporting data or observations notwithstanding, has ‘religious fervor’ is a greenie socialist, socialists commit genocide etc etc. Such a position seeks to silence dissent. It leaves no room for a learning exchange.
Thinksys,
Scientific theories are explanations limited to the known facts – when the facts change we change our theories. Religions, however, never change.
Hence when you global warmers keep maintaining that AGW is true, in spite of contrary measurement and argument, you are behaving as religionists.
As far as Gaia is concerned I am indifferent, so you can’t pin that on me either.
As for socialists committing genocide – that is incontrovertible historical fact. Sad as it may be as a reflection of the human condition.
And as far as Hansen is concerned
“Why did Hansen raise such a hubba baloo over the Bush Administration gagging him? Publicity – you see Hansen just released a new book – “The Tipping Point” released two weeks ago.”
Phil,
I think you are a nice person, offering well reasoned and unemotional argument as a good debater. You refrain from name calling or other variations of the vilification “ad hominems”. You do not ridcule your interlocutors.
You seem to be a really, really nice person.
I wonder if rog and Ian would agree with me.
On politics and the environment, wouldn’t it be wonderful if Jennifer’s blog brought about the marriage of Thinksy and Ian and Louis; polygamy notwithstanding. Who was it that said that Australian men thought monogamy was a kind of timber?
Now that’s bloody funny. Fell off my chair.
Face it Louis – if I didn’t exist you’d have to invent me.
Yes Phil,
we only recognise hot because we know cold.
Neil,
polygamy notwithstanding? Brave interpretation though as there is no ambiguity between Ian and I, what about thinksy?
Could either end up as a threesome Brokemountain, or a “Menage a trois” in the French tradition.
Never thought of that interpretation did you.
Ok Louis, I now realise that your monotheistic beliefs can’t tolerate pluralism.
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert – my hero ! looking after our little mate Jim boy in that big old nasty US of A. And strange for Ian that Sherwood would be a member of the guvmint too.
Wrong again
I have no religious beliefs.
Phil and thinksy could run away to sea aboard the SS Greenpee and have their union blessed by Capt “full speed ahead” Arnie and Greenpee spin doctor Commissar Ivan Ratdeadski.
Donate Now!
Phil – sorry had to do some work ( the phone and electricity bills are due).
I took the paper, which was the original subject of this post, to make or infer the following points;
* global warming is occurring
* some of it may be attributable to human activity
* this is likely to be so insignificant that we shouldn’t worry about it
* a consensus of experts doesn’t = proven fact
* CO2 isn’t a pollutant
* the whole issue has been beaten up as a result of a scare campaign by Hansen
This is pretty simplisitic I accept but these points seem ( more or less) to be the most often repeated.
How many of them are actually contentious?
The point I was trying to make – badly – was that if AGW sceptics and proponents acknowledged the inevitable holes in their positions it would seem more like science and less like politics.
As I’ve said before , I’m not a scientist much less a climatologist ; so I really have no choice other than to accept the popsition of the majority of experts.
Yes expert majorities have been wrong before and yes newspapers/media are certainly guilty ( from personal experience) of presenting one sided dramatic exaggerations/distortions.
However, I can ONLY rely on the experts. It seems unlikely that a huge conspiracy is occurring or that the experts are suffering from mass delusion or that there isn’t really a consensus but hardly anyone is game to speak up about it.
Exposing the whole thing as a sham would be a MSM wet dream by now so it’s not as if the avenues for blowing the whistle are limited.
Maybe I shouldn’t be so lazy as to read this blog ( as enjoyable as the jousting is) but should read the experts directly.
I agree that CO2 isn’t a pollutant in the sense of CO (carbon monoxide). It does has have radiative properties as a greenhouse gas, and is an integral part of the biosphere at reasonable levels.
Indeed a consenus of experts does not prove fact, and assumed positions can be wrong but much of the contrarian objections misrepresent the case or can be readily answered. The contribution of coal and oil burning to increased emissions is well proved with isotope studies. There’s no doubt that it’s the combustion of coal and oil that is increasing the atmospheric levels.
The climate scientists on the pro-position have documented many uncertainties in scaenario projections and models. Of course uncertainties can go both ways (global dimming and amount of CO2 locked up in the biosphere may make matters worse).
The press love to make controversy in this area.
My ranting here on this blog is to make sure the research is not misrepresented and to advocate caution on the available evidence. I am not proposing to destroy western civilisation, the economy or take over the government.
Hansen is merely an interesting sideline in a long story. Hansen has had a dig (perhaps reasonably) and the press have run with it as a contoversy.
Also the continued mixture of politics and science in this area is confusing.
>The problem as Goebbels realised is that if you repeat a lie often enough it ultimately becomes fact. Hansen started this in 1988 and now it is accepted as such – fact.
The famous figure Hansen produced in 1988 can be seen at http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ (not to be confused with the doctored figure polularised by some sceptics, and which fooled Michael Crighton when he wrote State of Fear). The B scenario which tracked observed greenhouse emissions predicted exactly the 0.4C of warming which was subsequently observed. The prediction for 2005 was an anomaly of just more than 0.6C, compared to an observation of 0.6C.
Louis, prehaps you might share with us what lie was told? Such harsh criticism of character, verging on defamation, need to be sustantiated. Please all resist likening climate scientists to Nazi propogandists in the future; this is deeply offensive.
David
Friends; Are we playing, behind the eight ball here?
I believe we are after the G Bush statements today in his Address to the Nation. Although I don’t think for a moment they were all climate driven the hot winds have burnt a path in the US
On this blog we have been fiddling at the edges for sometime in looking for truth in pages splattered all over the www, looking for excuses to go on as we are, doing essentially nothing in common.
Today in SA they are looking at 20% renewable power in the short term. On the NIMBY farms down the East Coast there is a lot of catching up to do.
David
Easy – anthropogenic caused global warming was, and is the lie.
Ok – Louis – this it. Put up your arguments to David succinctly here and now and don’t nick off this time.
Things are getting serious now – should protective clothing be issued?
Only if you have a communicable disease.
Climatologist cum economist/social engineer has some wacky ideas;
“…Dr Hubbard said the process could be reversed by monitoring carbon emissions.
He said, “It’s never too late to change, and you can’t be drawn into a state of apathy. The answer probably lies in money, in a global system of carbon trading in conjunction with a direct tax on carbon dioxide emissions.
“There may need to be consumer-led embargoes on goods from countries which are the worst polluters, and there should be curbs on air travel, which makes such a huge contribution to total emissions of CO . Aircraft should not be flown with empty seats and there must be cleaner aircraft engines. Sports cars should be heavily taxed and consumers should rebel against things like excess packaging on goods.”
Another daffy taffy
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_objectid=16632851&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=-global-warming–to-cloak—wales-in-ice–name_page.html
That should be glaciologist cum climatologist/economist/social engineer – more proof that the education system is failing.
>Easy – anthropogenic caused global warming was, and is the lie.
Back to the one line quips…. shame the weather isn’t as predictable as your behaviour.
While you are at it prehaps you might remind us what Hansen got wrong – please spare us the doctored figure (using the extremely pessimistic emission scenario) – just to remind you he got the 0.4C warming from 1988 to present spot on, he predicted 2005 temperature to within 0.1C, need I go on. Of course this doesn’t prove the enahnced greenhouse effect any more than falling over proves gravity (but they are both just a tad suggestive).
If he was wrong wouldn’t it be rather easier for you to ignore him.
David
Louis: “Easy – anthropogenic caused global warming was, and is the lie.”
If Loius can’t substantiate his accusations as David requested, then it’s obvious to all that this has become Loius’ religious fervor and nothing more.
Thinsky, I think you are a tosser, can you substantiate the allegations?
Philsky might be able to give you a hand, he has a predeliction for losing causes, are you still to be wed?
I suggest you all type
define: tosser
into Google and read the result.
Such a pleasant blog.
I like Philsky – has that sort of Russian communist flavour.
Anyway then logically Rog – you are supporting Louis’s position – therefore you probably heavily support the commentary on his site (which nobody can comment on).
Therefore perhaps you are in need of the Google define function yourself.
Anyway still waiting for Louis .. ..
I don’t litter. rog I have grave concerns that your hot air is amplifying AGW.
When Louis has finished hand-knitting a new finger puppet, I’m sure he’ll rise to the challenge and substantiate his accusations of lies and propoganda.
Google away philsky, feel free.
Louis – give us all the climate science refs (not popular press) that reported a cold world in 1975.
Done + pinksy demand that Louis confirm their fiction.
Put up !
But of course you agree with Louis don’t you Rog ? Go on – say yes.
Fred Singer looks back fondly (not) at Paul Ehrlich and his unenviable record of failed predictions;
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Ehrlich-Failed%20predictions.htm
….Perhaps the most amusing part of Betrayal is a listing of so-called “fables” about the atmosphere and climate, every one of which turns out to be true, even though the Ehrlichs state them to be myths. The most obvious one is: “Paul Ehrlich has made incredible claims about the climate before; he is not credible on this subject”. This supposed myth, of course, happens to be absolutely correct.
Here are some others, taken from the book and the EMS media advisory:
· “Global warming is not a major environmental problem.”
Is this statement a myth? Certainly not. Our best estimate is that global average temperatures might increase by no more than a half a degree over the next hundred years as a result of greenhouse warming.
· “There is no evidence that global warming is real.”
A myth? No. Plenty of natural fluctuations in the climate record, but no evidence yet of any manmade arming trend.
· “The atmosphere has actually cooled since 1979, according to accurate satellite- based measurements.”
A myth? Not at all; the statement is absolutely correct. [NB: As of 1997; current data show a slight warming trend of uncertain origin.]
· “The less than one-half degree of temperature rise – all that global warming enthusiasts can find – is probably part of the slow recovery from the ‘Little Ice Age’.”
A myth? Hardly. This is considered the most likely interpretation of why the temperature increased between 1900 and 1940, well before industrial activity and population grew.
· “Even if global warming does occur, any necessary adjustments would be small compared to the adjustments we make to temperature differences over the course of a year.”
A myth? No. Just compare a half-a-degree increase to a summer-winter difference of as much as fifty degrees Celsius (in Minnesota).
· “If global warming is occurring, there’s probably not much we can do about it anyway.”
Even without the benefit of modern technology, humanity has adjusted to much larger changes in the past millennia than we anticipate to happen in the next centuries.
· “Just a few decades ago, climatologists were concerned about global cooling. Scientists are obviously confused about the issue.”
The first part of the statement is absolutely correct. And some scientists–like the Ehrlichs–are still confused…..
Fred Singer is not entirely without credentials;
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Adventures-GlobalWarming-Singer.htm
Oooo – Rog yaws hard left in sheer desperation to dodge the flak as to whether he supports Louis.
No answer means “well no I don’t but please don’t ask me to say that coz he’s on our side and he has some strange ideas (unfortunately)”
Throws a real desperate Google from Fred Singer as a diversion (“Jeez don’t give me a hard time – it was early and the best I could do”), but misses on the satellite data really badly. Usual contrarian mush and whinging. Despite knowing the other side for a long while now some don’t learn.
And we’re talking climate science here baby not some eco-superstars.
Still waiting for Louis – but maybe it is Louis -Ender who’s the sock puppet again?
zzzzzz
Rog, please for once buy out, and spare us your distractionary tactics. Louis has made a deeply offensive accusation… He needs to back it up or retract it.
The good cop bad cop, distract when loosing the argument, dig up discredited documents flooded with value judgments, are getting tired.
Meanwhile, most of eastern Australia has just experienced its hottest january on record, and Australia has experienced it warmest month of night-time temperatures on record.
Observations and physics speak for themselve.
David
Trying to gag me?
Gagging who? Rog ! Impossible !
>You must remember, however, that occasionally oversimplicity is a necessary method of communication, depending on the audience ‘ ability comprehend ideological complexities. Most of us realise this and don’t bother with it.
Can’t believe this howler from Louis was missed.
Louis, it sounds suspiciously like you are validating Hansen’s comment quoted by Carter in Jennifer’s post above:
“Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate … scenarios consistent with what is realistic”.
It has been implied by Carter, and in the comments here, that this is dishonest and fraudulent. In light of your comment i’ve repasted here Louis, do you think it is instead just a necessary simplification made to suit the audience back then?
Steve, I thought the context of your reference was “idelogical complexities”, is that what you are also referring too?
(like the proverbial shooting fish in a barrel)
Still waiting for Louis’s retraction or defense.
You still here Pinsky, you waiting for a bus?
Yep – we’ve got coffee and donuts and taking shifts on this stake-out
Scientist VS Bush Apointee
If you visitCNN.com and go to the “Watch Video” window about half way down the screen, then use the little scroll down menu that is right next to where is says “Watch Video” to find the section titled “Sci-Tech” you …
Scientist VS Apointee
If you visitCNN.com and go to the “Watch Video” window about half way down the screen, then use the little scroll down menu that is right next to where is says “Watch Video” to find the section titled “Sci-Tech” you …
Louis is taking shelter, hanging out on other blogs… Do we have to remind him that he has made offensive and unsubstantiated acusations here that he refuses to justify or apoligise for? Surely his parents taught him to place nicely or go without his supper.
The more Loius refuses to substantiate his objections and his allegations, the more obvious it is that he’s protecting personal biases and crackpot beliefs (religious fervor?) that he simply cannot explain. If he does respond, he’s sure to nitpick the questions, ask for it to be repeated again etc etc in an attempt to dodge it. Does the old dog just stand behind the gate and bark a lot because he’s got no teeth left?
Pinksy, all this is just an excuse for you and philsky to hang out, how sweet!
Kudos to you for trying to protect a mate rog, but your feeble diversionary tactics only serve to highlight Louis’ hit and run antics. I see Louis’ options as:
Hide like a coward.
Apologise like a man.
Fight like a beast: deny, block and thwart, or do some frantic research for superficial support to his claims.
The data verify me
End of story end of debate.
I withdraw my earlier statement that Louis “gives explanations for his point of view when pressed”. In his defence though, there’s no explaining certain personal beliefs, particularly when the believer acquires a religious-like fervor. End of debate because there wasn’t one.
Obviously we are not dealing with a scientist, a scholar, or a gentleman then.
Neither is thinksy
That’s correct – Thinksy is lady !
Ender
You seem to be so busy on web sites telling all and sundry that the world is going to end. Aren’t you busy building windmills?
They are also waiting on JQs blog for answers from Louis:
“# Waratah Says:
January 29th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Louis I was asking Ian to address John’s q 2 above so you can ignore that.
Louis you make a point that ‘coal and oil reserve estimations become problematic when mantle derived, abiotic hydrocarbon production is introduced into the analysis’ etc etc. Your point rests on highly technical theories that the average reader would just gloss past. Can you explain your point about mantle derived, abiotic hydrocarbon production (in simple language); and can you explain why the Second Law of Thermodynamics would need to be repealed for oil to be principally biogenic? What’s the problem with current estimates or assumptions?”
and
“Louis Hissink hasn’t responded though. My question: Can you explain your point about mantle derived, abiotic hydrocarbon production (in simple language or link to a website that does this); and can you explain why the Second Law of Thermodynamics would need to be repealed for oil to be principally biogenic? What’s the problem with current estimates or assumptions?”
Perhaps Louis is away somewhere.
Ender,
The website which I have frequently referred is
http://www.gasresources.net
And Googling also helps.
Why should the competent help the incompetent?
cf Dilbert cartoon.
This hilarious, Phil Done is accusing other people of repeating each others’ mantra. This is the same Phil Done who picks up Enders’s dirty laundry thrown around the house because Ender is too busy saving the world and building windmills.
Phil, Ender left some dirty underwear in the bathroom, please go pick it up.
Ender:
Where’s that one windmill you promised that was going to light up Perth?
Windmill Ender and dirty sick Phil, this is funny.
Ender, if your not too busy builing windmill in the back yard or Phil is not gagging at the thought of picking up Ender’s underwear, could either of you two gentleman answer my question.
If windmills are so efficient in the production of electricity why aren’t they in widespread use at the moment and why do they need enormous amounts of sudsidies.
Phil, hows that underwear? Smelly, right. He’s been up that bloody windmill for the last two weeks without even coming down for a shower?
Please let us know gentleman.
Joe
Do we know you? You will receive no answers from running this level of vulgarity. If you have a reasonable question pls make it. I have no idea what you are on about and don’t appreciate out of context gratuitous abuse from an unknown source. You will receive zero further reaction from any of us with that tone.
.
Shouldn’t that read zero emissions?
“You will receive zero further reaction from any of us with that tone”
Shouldn’t that read zero emissions?
Ok Phil
sorry.
So can you please remind us again how you and Ender plan to fire up the turbines using windmills and how electricity generated this way isn’t gunna cost more?
If Ender is up in the windmill, you can tell us from the laundry.
Sorry again.
Australia’s largest wind farm, proposed for south-west Victoria, will be the focus of a independent panel hearing next week.
Southern Hydro wants to erect 183 wind turbines near Macarthur.
Moyne council is supporting the project in-principle.
And Phil who pays for the electircity that is close to twice the cost of the good sort that produced from cheap easy to use brown coal? We pay for it, right.
You know what, phil, I can afford to pay for it because I am well off so in that respect I don’t give a rats.
However there are people who live close to the bread line and I dispair at what is going to happen to them.
So while you are cleaning Bender’s dirty Laundry as he is still working on his windmill, I suggest you sit down for a minute in silence and say to yourself, “I am a real prick for doing this to poor people”. When you have done that I suggest you take an axe to Bender’s windmill while the prick is still up there. But make sure the leaning end will hit you when i goes down.
Completly ignore joe and his homophobic remarks, his posts are disgusting and should be deleted.
Which was the homophobic bit Thinksy, it must have gone straight over my head.
“joe” = “rog”, venting frustration?
Actually, I not homophobic, finding that accusation quite offensive and it should be deleted.
What you don’t like is a rock thrown at your head after you have coninually thrown pebbles at other people.
We are left to wonder at your honestt, Phil, about my remarks that in no way suggest homoerotic behaviour.
I can only summize that you see homophobes under every bed or it was your attempt to tarnish me with that scurrilous accusation. I pick the latter making you a dishonest person.
Anyway let’s get back to windmills, Phil, at maximum efficiency windmills are only able to produce of 59% of a regualar coal fired turbine. Any comment?
Richard – yea – it’s a Rog sock puppet. Still pretty interesting though for your research I’d suggest.
My immediate reaction was that it was rog, trying to divert everyone from Louis’ shame. I said above that Louis was hand-knitting a new finger puppet, but he gave it to rog who needs more practice on his ventriloquy and finger control. Stick to shadow puppets rog. Meanwhile, it’s not forgotten that Louis has made offensive, unscientific remarks which he refuses to substantiate or withdraw.
Phil, Thinksy
Send me an email and I will reply. I am not Rog and quite happy in my own skin.
Out of interest why the overzealous concern with who it is. As I said, I not Rog, at least my wife thinks I’m me last time I asked. Shouldn’t you guys be more concerned with what is being said rather than who said what.
It just shows a remarkable focus on irrelevance if you ask me.
Unless I am a professional writer, which I am not as you can judge by my less than professional writing skills why would you give a hoot about exposing a “sock puppet” etc. In fact why would a sock puppet give a hoot about exposure. You guys are the wonderkinds. Stick to the comments rather than the commenter.
Any answer the question. Thinksy, you go first.
“My immediate reaction was that it was rog, trying to divert everyone from Louis’ shame”
Thinksy, you’re an idiot. With comments like that, you ought to be hanging your head down in shame.
Thinksy – you win the bet then. It was Rog. Had me going for a minute.
Anyway where were we before that bit of fun.
Silly me, thought I would see a retraction or justification for Louis’s nazi accusation rants.
BTW Joe, you make the old mistake of assuming climate change will cause no damage. Current estimates are that a 3C warming (which will occur just after mid century at current rates) will cost between $300 billion and $1 trillion (US) in present day dollars.
Have you not noticed how the “we’ll be economically doomed prophets” never publish numbers to back their claims???
Prehaps you might try reducing your own CO2 emissions; you will be suprised how easy & cheap it is. In our household we cut our electricity consumption by 85% (at a cost of $5000), and in the process have saved $1000 a year in electricity bills. We fully offset our car emission at a cost of $40 (see greenfleet.com.au).
David
This is an important factor that gets insufficient attention in the industry struggles to supply electricity: efficiency measures are good for businesses and the economy – they reduce costs, pollution, minimise large-scale capital investments and increase productivity. The closer to the energy source, the greater the ultimate savings. In this regard, whether or not AGW is happening is actually irrelevant.
Phil
Rog is not me and I’m not Rog, you idiot. There are other people apart from Rog who think the same as I do about you and Windmill Ender.
Come on Rog – it’s you isn’t it. Admit it.
Everyone else loves me.
Phil
I never said I hate you. I just think you carry Windmill’s washing too often for your own good.
Every website I go to you and Windmill are there backing each other up. It’s a really sad spectacle.
Now hop to it there are plenty of windmills to build.
Apart from above I don’t think I’ve every posted anything on wind energy. And “every website” – errr .. .. this one and Ender’s.. .. two sites?
and backing up ? gee I get into a lot more scraps than Ender does.
And would it not be a boring world if we all agreed with each other?
So I take it then that you are less than impressed with renewable energy.
Naaaaa Phil, I am not less than impressed. I just think “renewables” is another lie propagated by the Greens like the distortion that went into GM food. Lie once and get away with it, why not then lie again. So how could I ever have been impressed when I wasn’t in the first place.
You know why I hate about you and windmill Ender, Phil. It’s the utter devotion to everything that is negative to the human spirit. You and the rest of your type want to destroy everything that is noble about humanity- its genius of inventing technology that gives even the poor amongst us the chance of a good and decent life.
That’s why I consider you and Windmill Ender to be a the equivalent of a boil on our backside. You willingly partake in the fruit of human achievement and then “celebrate” it by giving it a good kick in the teeth. In other words you are a leech serving no purpose other than second guessing all that is good about humanity.
ooooooo .. .. so you’re unhappy with me then. It’s possible that you’re angry with me. I can sense it you know.
But I’m not a Green, and I’m not anti-GM. Am I campaigning to turn your lights off or send you back to the caves. “Your type” – what exactly is my type ?
And as far as destroying humanity I actually want to save it – particularly from buffoons and rednecks such as yourself.
So how long have you had these violent thoughts. Were they present as a child. Ender and I can recommend some good “counselling” – well actually psychiatry – that might help you.
But anyway why would renewables be a lie. And is anyone forcing you to have them. As I posted above someone must think it’s worth spending a lot of money in Victoria. I didn’t twist their arm.
If we can stop your violent and vulgar outbursts it may be possible to determine your IQ and see if you have any capability of logic or reasoning. But don’t get your hopes up. Cases like yours are usually incurable. But we can make you as comfortable as possible even though your contribution to society is nett negative.
Wow , just read the last dozen or so posts. Looks like I missed a ripper here!!!!
“Looks like I missed a ripper here!!!!”
Joe the Ripper, in fact.
The products of his mouth could run a sterling engine.
David,
I retract nothing.
Jim – it was merely a vigorous exchange. A storm in a tea cup. We’re all feeling better now after we had the diabolical affliction of tourette syndrome with added complications of a undergarment fetish explained to us by a qualified practictioner.
Moving on, we clearly we won’t be having Louis round to dinner then. We may even have to cross him off our Xmas card list. But when you think about it cranky eccentrics have been with us since time immemorial so we shouldn’t be surprised that despite advanced GMO techniques that the trait still persists.
On a more positive note – whatever happened to the sterling engine speaking of alternative power systems.
Correct Phil, I will not be around for your dinner here, despite the fact that you and your cohort have been given the opportunity to dine at Messenger Shooting.
At least you don’t hide behind a nom de plume, but have no identify elsewhere to identify yourself. That is as close to a nom de plume as one could imagine.
We all wonder why you squat here though, no place of your own to comment? Or perhaps you have but you would never invite guests for dinner, the place being, er, “inappropriate”.
The reason Messenger Shooting does not get used as some of us prefer the front door not the servants entrance.
Phil,
Thanks, the answer I was fishing for.
I’m guilty of that as well Louis – just a serial commenter enjoying the volley, with no delusions of anything else!
But I think you’ve been nailed mate!
Jim,
Not nailed at all.
Phil, Ender, Thinksy and others comment prolifically here, but elsewhere?
Do a Google.
Then I have won,
Won, game set and match,
Yes Louis – indeed you have won – you have a won first prize for being the greatest climate ninny and statistical ignoramus of all time; and third prize for being a bigot.
Greenies, national socialists and stalinist Russia have one common factor – socialism – and this political political philosophy to date has murdered over 100 million people since 1917.
And if it were simply remote sensing 101, but my understanding was that it was not that simplistic as you put it.
In any case it is always the simplest of errors which go undetected.
Posted by: Louis Hissink at January 30, 2006 07:11 PM
Having trouble with this post, sorry folks:
Many months ago, Louis responded to my opinion that popularist environmantalism was antisocial:
Antisocialism means rejecting the Lenins, Stalins, Hitlers, Maos, Che’s, Fidels, Dear Leaders, Pol Pots of this world, to mention a few. Posted by: Louis Hissink at May 16, 2005 07:55 PM
It’s good to see that his opinions have changed
But Louis is correct. Most of you use environmentalism as a new religion. Look at windmill Ender and dirty sock Phil. Both these two numbskulls are pushing the idea of windmills to produce electicity. It’s appalling what they think they can get away with. Any electrical engineer would tell them that at peak capacity a windmill would only be able to produce at 59% of a regular gas fired generator. These two morons are suggesting it would be a good thing.
Like to power these two goofballs with a one way ticket to Mars.
Obviously his medication has worn off again !
Joe if you don’t install a windmill you’re going to die and the planet will be consumed in an apocalyptic fireball from getting too close to the Sun. Now do you understand how powerful greenhouse gases are! Repent before it’s too late.
Neil,
Since you did not use quotations to quote me, I reject your comment out of hand.
If you quote me, do so accurately.
Please.
Phil,
Do facts ever intrude in your world-view?
rats, correction:
Do facts ever intrude your world view?
Grammatical correction, but then when has Phil, Ender, etc ever admitted error?
Joe,
they shoot the messenger because the message is false.
(Gee, I am not here and they speak in awe of my prononcements)
Gosh !
On the 16th May 2005, in a previous thread entitled ‘Rethinking Environmentalism’, I argued for relief from the antisocialism of previous approaches, to which Louis replied, “Antisocialism of previous approaches? Antisocialism means rejecting the Lenins, Stalins, Hitlers, Maos, Che’s, Fidels, Dear Leaders, Pol Pots of this world, to mention a few.
Eight-and-a-half months later; he has now included greenies with socialism but also with the murder of 100milliom people since 1917.
Quite a turnaround.
Neil,
To mention a few, which eight-and-a-half-month later, one should include the greenies.
Unless you wish to publicly renounce the feelings of Jaques Cousteau and his suggestion humanity needs to remove 350,000 persons per day?
Louis – have a good go – this thread will be gone tomorrow. You’ll have then escaped a decent full debate again. Yes facts constantly intrude into our world-view and uncertainties acknowledged. Like most extremists you rant and rave, low on facts, prevent debate, throw a few Molotov cocktails and then run.
Your own inflated ego and pomposity forbids you from seeing any other viewpoints. Just think all those scientists all wrong on every single fact. Wow – what a run of probabilitic luck – go straight to the casino !
Joe – so .. .. err .. .. so Joe you would fully support Louis’s position then? Simple enough question.
Phil
You haven’t answerd my question that I posed above. Do believe Windmills are as efficient as coal fired generation or not? If not by how much and if so why?
I hereby renounce Louis’s report of the feelings of Jaques Cousteau and his suggestion humanity needs to remove 350,000 persons per day.
Never let it be said that Louis can’t change. Indeed, it would appear that he has swung, environmentally, into the killing fields of inhumanity.
If, however, humankind reduced population growth by 350,000 per day, this would be entirely another thing.
Joe – you utter goose – I have never said I’m an expert in windmill technology. Are you mental. Anyway let’s proceed – define efficiency ?
“I have never said I’m an expert in windmill technology”
Windmill Ender will be displeased.
Power produced by a windmill (in Watts) = C (constant) x k (efficiency factor) x (Diameter of the windmill in meters)2 x (Speed of the wind in m/s)3
This formula tells you that at best windmills can only produce 59% of a coal operated generator.
Phil, you goose, if you can prove this formula wrong, please put yourself up for a Nobel Prize.
Oh anf the 59% is the windmill operating at its peak.
What does the efficiency factor mean though? Efficiency of what? And how do you work out the efficiency of a coal station?
While you’re there tell me – how much to build both amortised over working life of the plant, and how much to run.
Oh – and how much CO2 do they both create in operation?
Phil sterling engines are undergoing a rennaisance – lots of clever innovations all vying to be the one. The CSIRO recently developed a funky setup for warmth, coolth, hot water etc: bombproof solar dish (concentric rings that pack flat), sterling engine and salt battery for great storage and slow release. It’s being tested on a site in qld I think.
filing claims Hansen was not gagged:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200604/SPE20060417a.html
Nice Site.paradise poker