YESTERDAY President Barrack Obama praised the House of Representatives for its “Historic action with the passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act … It’s a bold and necessary step that holds the promise of creating new industries and millions of new jobs, decreasing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil… Now it’s up to the Senate to take the next step.”
According to Grist Online, environment groups are working to secure improvements in the Senate.
Senator Barbara Boxer, chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has commented “This bill gives us the momentum we need in the Senate, and signals that when we promised change for the better in America, we meant it.”
The bill was passed by just one vote more than the simple majority of 218 needed. Forty-four Democrats voted against it, according to Grist Online, “the vast majority representing Midwestern, Southern, coal-producing, and industrial states”.
So it seems Australia and the US are about on par when it comes to cap and trade legislation – it’s through the House of Representatives and still to be passed by the Senate.
**************
Notes and Links
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-26-climate-bill-senate-politics
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-26-does-cap-trade-really-work
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-26-reax-house-climate-bill-vote/
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1697/Climate-Depot-Editorial-Climate-Bills-Passage-Represents-nothing-more-than-unrestrained-exercise-of-raw-political-power-armtwisting-and-intimidation
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Some politically savvy people are saying that the bill will experience a natural death in the Senate, because its demographics are different than those of the House. I hope that they’re right.
Forty-four Democrats voted against it, according to Grist Online, “the vast majority representing Midwestern, Southern, coal-producing, and industrial states”.
very good point. the special interests of a few, are hindering the progress of everyone.
Sod…. Cheap affordable energy is not Just “a special interest”…. It is mandatory for a successful modern economy and industrially advanced society.
The Cap and Trade and the ETS are counter productive and damaging to any such economy or society.
Just on that criteria alone, it mandates that these despotic policies be scrapped and the people who champion them be despised.
Second, is the fact that Senator Fielding’s Questions are valid and are yet to be answered……. In light of the the observations that since 2001 CO2 has gone up whilst temperatures have failed to rise, contrary to climate models. What is the actual evidence of significant effects on climate by Anthropogenic sources CO2?
Both these bills in Australia and America will fail in the senate…. The Democrats need 60 votes and only have 34 as it stands, according to Senator Inhofe.
In the Australian Senate. Fielding will not be voting for the ETS….. So it looks like the bills will fail in both Senates.
Still, I will not be happy until an empirical stake has been hammered into the black heart of this AGW Hypothesis and it lies exposed to the cold harsh light of critical scrutiny and debate.
….. Because it will only be then, that this Superstition of Anthropogenic Catastrophism will be put to rest.
J Hansford (and must we be so formal) – you’ve had your answer here:
Is the climate warming or cooling?
David R. Easterling1 and Michael F. Wehner2
Received 18 February 2009; revised 25 March 2009; accepted 30 March 2009; published 25 April 2009.
[1] Numerous websites, blogs and articles in the media
have claimed that the climate is no longer warming, and is
now cooling. Here we show that periods of no trend or even
cooling of the globally averaged surface air temperature are
found in the last 34 years of the observed record, and in
climate model simulations of the 20th and 21st century
forced with increasing greenhouse gases. We show that the
climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce
periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged
surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight
cooling in the presence of longer-term warming.
Citation: Easterling, D. R., and M. F. Wehner (2009), Is the
climate warming or cooling?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L08706,
doi:10.1029/2009GL037810.
Perhaps it will be the black heart of the faux sceptics getting the nail gun.
so Luke, hotter colder wetter drier, whatever happens it will still be proving climate change!?
come on arent you starting to become at least a bit sceptical?
Can you answer Fieldings questions? I havent seen anybody else do it satisfactorily yet.
Joanne nova gave a very interesting account of the wong/fielding meeting didnt she? Didnt that make you even more sceptical?
I note that in your favour you are against an ETS and you support nuclear.
Now if Brown and Rudd and Wong really believed in climate change, wouldn t they also be suggesting the only option available to us?….they don t which demonstrates that this is really all about politics and doesnt that also make you a bit sceptical?
WE cut up Schwarzeneggar’s credit card, so he can’t afford to pay his carbon cops anymore, except with IOU’s.
The Fed was always going to be a bit more dodgy. On to the Senate. Up UP AND AWAY>
With any luck todays vote will end up bringing a fifty seat shift to the GOP in 2010.
Sod…. Cheap affordable energy is not Just “a special interest”
Jennifer wrote:
“the vast majority representing Midwestern, Southern, coal-producing, and industrial states”.
those coal producing states are NOT worried about cheap energy for every one. they just look at their own SPECIAL interest.
Luke hasn’t been the same since he read this. It upset all his theories on drought and AGW.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25673679-7583,00.html
Toby – (1) the record shows temporary periods of cooling or stasis in a longer trend of warming – fact (2) the models also show that behaviour (3) don’t confound your dislike with an ETS with the climate science quality
And yes we answered Fielding’s questions many threads ago. This is one of the answers.
1 & 2 is what the faux sceptics don’t want you to know ! A true sceptic would have informed you of that paper as duty of care. Why were you not informed by your sceptic mates?
as always, it is interesting to follow the money trail.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/26/26greenwire-lobbying-cash-paved-climate-bills-road-to-hous-97436.html?pagewanted=1
exxon mobile has spend more on lobbying in the first quarter ($9.3 million), than alternative energy combined ($7.2 million)
i am really happy, that Exxon is so concerned about providing cheap energy to the poor Americans.
Spanglers – if you went for that article – mate can I sell you the Harbour Bridge. Hahahahahahaha –
Rosenfeld might not be a snake oil salesman but those who are trying to represent him usually are. Hahahahahahaha
The worst event in American history was Obama’s election.
If the Cap and Tax bill goes all the way that will be the second worst event in American history.
For Luke…. re:
The TRUTH is; The periods of warming during the 20th century were temporary cyclic events in a longer trend of cooling which started over 6500 years ago. From the Holocene Climatic Maximum to any point since then it is impossible to demonstrate anything other than cooling. That is the truth, that is the real fact.
Luke, I have seen lots of attempts to answer the Fielding questions, but I have not seen any good ones.
Your comment about faux sceptics and 1 and 2 …means nothing to me?
What is more amazing?
That, after things are cooling off, AGW promoters develop a model to prove it was expected, or that AGW true believers actually believe that sort of post even rationalization?
sod,
Yes, the wicked evil empire, spending it millions is offsetting the billions of free and paid promotion by the AGW industry. If much of that money at all was spent in disputing AGW. Was it? No. In fact Exxon Mobil is pushing cap and trade.
I think ExxonMobil is concerned about just how damaging deranged social movements like AGW can be to the survival of their industry.
The interesting thing is that you seem to think providing energy at low costs to people is something the oil industries have not done, and that the AGW imposed policies will do.
Please show us any evidence at all that AGW imposed policies will do anything to lower energy prices for poor people.
In fact, AGW policies will, if actually implemented, disastrously increase prices for energy to everyone.
And this legislation will do nothing to, even by AGW standards, to halt the alleged global warming its promoters say it is designed to deal with.
Utter tripe Hunter – Nothing has been “developed” at all – the paper is actually a note pointing out the obvious that has been there all along. Your own spin machine has ill-advised you.
Simply refers to points 1 & 2 in the text above i.e. (1) the record shows temporary periods of cooling or stasis in a longer trend of warming – fact (2) the climate models also show that behaviour – it’s pretty basic…
Fielding Q1 – just answered it.
Fielding Q2 – “If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by humans carbon dioxide emissions; and in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?”
An amazingly stupid question. Have a look at the extinctions that have occurred ! Do you mind mind being part of it. More recently – mega-droughts in Africa, SW USA and China in the Medieval Warm Period. The Chinese are going gangbusters on nuclear and renewables. Mega-drought in China – well they’ll annex northern Australia as a farm !
Why human emissions – no competing theory at all. No solar or cosmic driver. And a good theory on greenhouse with empirical evidence.
Fielding Q3.
“Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only 8 years of warming were(sic) followed by 10 years of stasis and cooling.” Simple answer – no ! (and also – no on cooling)
Toby – you really do need to start looking more widely for your advice. But hey – he was never open to “convincing” anyway. “Convincing” as it’s always a risk analysis.
No. In fact Exxon Mobil is pushing cap and trade.
actually Exxon mobile is NOT pushing cap and trade. the company opposes it.
http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2009/01/05/daily49.html
Rather than looking at what is known as a cap-and-trade system as a means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which is one option currently being considered, Tillerson expressed his preference for a carbon tax.
oh, and just in case you made the fault to believe that he is in support of a global carbon tax: he is NOT. he knows that such a tax will be more DIFFICULT to achieve, perhaps impossible. cap and trade requires international cooperation. taxes don t.
sod,
Will the bill, as passed from the House, impact the climate at all?
And if the bill becomes law, will energy become less or more expensive for poor people?
Carbon tax or ETS or cap and trade, taxing or penalizing carbon will do nothing for the climate or more reasonable energy costs.
Why should anyone be in favor of penalizing the production of that which makes modern life possible?
Luke,
So you found studies that support the fact that we are not heating up much, and in many areas cooling, but it is still AGW. Yes, circular reasoning, along with puree of snark, all in one post.
Since you are such a true believer, I have a special opportunity for you:
There is a bridge in Texas for sale. I have the exclusive rights to sell it, and I think it would go with your skin tone marvelously.
http://www.texasescapes.com/TOWNS/Texas_ghost_towns/Langtry_Texas/Langtry_scenic_overlook.htm
Well stupid Hunter – that’s what has happened – a duh ! No circular reasoning – simply your IQ is too small to conceive of anything being a system with interactions.
Luke,
So you found studies which explained everything that happened, after it happened.
I would suggest that it is you who are too dim to understand the implications.
I think the evidence is that the skeptics have had all along the better handle on what is going on.
The true believers, of which you are one, need to be told what is going on.
And you lap it up as if a relic was bleeding.
Luke,
Just read your ‘response’ to the Fielding question issue above.
I have to wonder, since you keep talking about breaking keyboards, if you are maybe a wee bit tipsy when you write? Gibbersih does not make your case stronger.
sod,
Will the bill, as passed from the House, impact the climate at all?
And if the bill becomes law, will energy become less or more expensive for poor people?
Carbon tax or ETS or cap and trade, taxing or penalizing carbon will do nothing for the climate or more reasonable energy costs.
Why should anyone be in favor of penalizing the production of that which makes modern life possible?
you are drawing wild conclusions here.
the cost for the average household is estimated to be between $100 and $200. per year.
it will be less for the poor.
and people can reduce the cost, by *shock* saving energy!
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE55O2BS20090625
and the majority of americans support cap and trade.
“more reasonable” ( i assume you mean “cheaper”) energy costs are NOT a good idea. energy is much too cheap at the moment. that is, why we are wasting so much and why it always makes sense to replace human labour with an energy intensive option.
cheap energy will be back, when we get green energy.
sod,
Speaking of wild conclusions, your conclusion,
“cheap energy will be back, when we get green energy”
is one deserving of thorazine.
And jsut what wild conslucions am I drawing?
– By the AGW community’s own accounting, the so-called cap-n-trade will do nothing to combat that which it is claimed to be designed for.
-the whole basis of ETS/carbon tax/cap-n-trade is to penalize the use of carbon by making it much more expensive.
The assertion that the cost of cap-n-trade will only be in the low hundreds per family is so wrong as to raise questions about either your sincerity or critical thinking skills.
But yes, slave labor uses far less fossil fuels than our energy intensive lives of today. But then, I thought the idea of society was to progress and advance liberty?
Oh, pardon me.
Hunter you’ll never get through to the madmen on this blog because they are the true followers of the single variable.
Pat Michaels has just released the results of this C&T bill over the next 91 years. If just the USA changes its energy sources the results will be ZILCH and if the whole planet follows this lunacy the results will be ZILCH.
How many tens of trillions $ will be wasted on this idiocy over the next 91 years is anyones guess but the return on the investment would have to be the worst in fiscal history.
After the success albeit narrow of the cap and trade bill in the House, it will be interesting to see how it fares in the Senate. In any case, the US already has an emission reduction scheme based on tax breaks for reducing emissions. Ironically, it has worked better than the EU ETS.
If Australia does do an ETS, we could consider the model championed by Nick Xenophon (a respected independent here in SA). It is said to have worked well in Canada. A key feature is its combination of penalties for heavy emitters and positive incentives for reduced emission – as Xenophon puts it, carrot as well as stick. It is also said to reduce ETS problems like job losses, complexity and churning. Debate on it seems merited. Perhaps Jen might take it up on this blog?
sod “the cost for the average household is estimated to be between $100 and $200. per year.”
estimated by whom?
This is drivel.
It is estimated that household electricity bill will double, and energy costs feed into the price of everything – food, clothing, consumables. This will be a massive reduction in everyone’s standard of living, as wealth is transferred from the household sector of the economy to governments, carbon traders and investors in uneconomic solar, wind and geothermal energy generation. It is a waste of resources on a massive scale, and will retard economic growth and future prosperity.
Not since the ideology of communism has a society condemned future generations to a poorer future at the expense of the new elite.
Comment from: sod June 28th, 2009 at 1:11 am
Thank God for Exxon.
Sod you say the green lobby is only spending seven million on lobbying efforts?
I call BS.
Madonna concerts don’t come that cheap.
Here I can’t even listen to conservative talk radio without it being paid for by green lobbist commercials.
Al Gore alone burns through $7mil a year, just on decorative outdoor lighting.
Folks, what happens when everyone, and by everyone I mean every single household, “saves” let’s say 100 kilowatts off of their public utility bill?
I know in the private sector they will cut production or lower prices, one or the other.
But a municipality with a huge windmill production mandate from the State, what do you think they are going to do?
I’ll betcha anything there are 25 or 30 pages of legislative guidelines for what a muni utility can do in that circumstance buried in the middle of Wax/Markey.
The true believer’s/ gory bleeder’s/ religioscenti belief in carbon taxes not greatly increasing energy costs equates with their utter belief in Rudd’s claims that he was a “fiscal conservative” and we are now staring at an unnecessary, unheard of and unbelievable $300 billion deficit.
Don’t you dills ever learn?
Listen to ’em whine.
Invest a trillion in Iraq – not a squeak ! No a whimper. No problemo.
But whine and sook is all you’re gonna do – sit on your ever expanding butts and whine.
Quoting that denialist blog vomit over and over. Clutching your little hands praying so hard till those knuckles are white that it ain’t so.
What time is it? Whine-o-clock !
Luke,
This is Rosenfeld they are talking about. Who does it remind you of?
“Yet his work so far has been ignored in Australia because it does not fit in with the dominant paradigm that holds CO2 responsible for reduced rainfall in semi-arid regions.”
Bit like the deniers in this scenario:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html
The passage of the US “Cap n’ Trade” Carbon Act by the House of Reps is a calamity waiting to happen if endorsed by the senate. An 88% reduction of emissions from the 2005 level if emulated worldwide will reduce global emissions to 1.16 GtC by 2050, way below the total uptake by the global biosphere in 2005 of 4.3 GtC (an El Nino year, uptakes in 2006 were over 6 GtC). Perhaps Luke and his merry mates can tell us how these uptakes manifest themselves? Surely not in enhanced global food production! Luke and Sod , also please do explain what the impact of reducing new uptakes to a max. of 1.16 GtC means for humanity? Hint: as ANU’s Graham Farquhar has explained in numerous peer reveiewed papers since 1979, photosynthesis depends on the partial pressure of CO2, and that in effect equates to the atmospheric level of CO2, reduce one, you reduce the other and with it photosynthesis. Ah well, the first to starve will be the Indians Chinese and Africans, all expendable to the ANU’s Steffen, ACF, GP et al et al. and above all to Obama’s eugenicist mate John Holdren who no doubt celebrated with a sumptuous dinner on Friday.
Well it’s good to see denialists like Curtin having a go. Mate you couldn’t lay straight in bed. So being a devotee of the MWP – I assume you’ll be telling the Chinese how dust + CO2 = grain when their rainfall drys up. hahahahahahahahaha
But of course given you believe the world is actually cooling – you’ll be explaining why all that extra CO2 increases frost damage.
Or why CO2 loving C3 woody weeds have infested the world’s grazing lands over C4 grasses.
Hint: See real world – realise that Canberra phytotron does not equal real world growth, your mileage may vary. Also see political activist – see denialist alarmist – see shonk.
Like all good denialists you only EVER tell half the story.
Reduced rainfall in the semi-arid regions – it’s increased you clown ! See refs below.
Anyway what bunk Spanglers – jeez you’re gullible. They’re just trying to talk up a few spare million for yet another dubious cloud seeding experiment. That’s Gingis’s gig. Funny that these guys never do a desktop study to illustrate the point. They always want x million for a trial with no guarantees.
Qld has just spent $8M on the one of the highest tech experiments ever for yet another inconclusive result – with an international consortium from USA and South Africa. And bizarrely – the SEQ air was too clear of pollutants – not the other way around.
I suppose you were also supportive of Malcolm Turnbull’s shonky $10M grant to one of his mates in the last days of the Howard administration for Russian voodoo science – Louis would love it – electric fields – auroas – top secret Buckminsterfuller like metal grids. Proof of it working despite Australian Rain Corporation claims = 0.0
Taken in easily as we Spanglers?
Anyway – why do we need to import aerosol expertise when we have plenty locally?
Have Australian rainfall and cloudiness increased due to the remote effects of Asian anthropogenic aerosols?
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JD007712.shtml
Possible impacts of anthropogenic and natural aerosols on Australian climate: a review
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119879137/abstract
Try to keep up Spanglers.
Stupid fools can’t even get their basic argument straight.
There is only one denialist faction and that is the alarmist bedwetters, the sceptics know that the climate changes naturally, always has always will.
It’s only the leftwing idiots who cannot and will not accept natural climate change, enforcing their unreasoning and irrational outlook.
Just keep piling on the stupidity Neville – makes you look more moronic with every sentence.
Hey look Neville – AGW types with natural variability !! WOW – you said we denied it? You’re not very bright are you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
Luke
“why all that extra CO2 increases frost damage.
Or why CO2 loving C3 woody weeds have infested the world’s grazing lands over C4 grasses.”
You are talking rubbish!
Farming and regulatory practices may have more to do with it, and “the world’s grazing lands”?
isn’t it a tall claim?
Stick to abuse, you are better at that.
Gee luke what an underwhelming graph, could they possibly squeeze up the horizontal scale anymore?
Pity they don’t leave any room or attribution for the recovery from the LIA, but of course that one effect easily covers the claimed 0.7c increase in temp.
I’m sure Lindzen and Spencer are closer to the truth when they show little attribution to co2 because the hot spot definitely can’t be found after years of frantic searching.
And please don’t give us that hotspot by proxy crappy argument again, it would be found in 24 hours if it existed, so no REAL HOTSPOT no real AGW.
It is fairly obvious from his posts that Luke has
a) no idea how science works; and
b) no idea what criteria one uses for “evidence.”
It is also fairly obvious that he is in his adolescent years.
As a public service:
a) If anything whatever is consistent with the AGW models, then these models, whatever may be their aesthetic or moral value, are not scientific theories. A theory must produce testable results; i.e. you must be able to say, “these data support the theory” or “these data demonstrate that the theory is { inadequate, wrong, … }”. Anything else is Scripture, which has its virtues, to be sure, but is not science.
b) For over a decade now, IPCC “true believers” have, when presented with evidence that their theories are completely wrong, rejected the data. Since the Enlightenment, however, scientists have, when presented with evidence that their theories are completely wrong, rejected the theories, though often quite reluctantly. The major conclusion from this is that IPCC “true believers” are in serious danger of ceasing to be regarded as scientists.
Luke,
You are just sending in your performances lately.
It is as if you know, deep down, that AGW is full of hot air, but you are sort of ogoing throught he motions on inertia.
Neville has you pegged, and all your predictable snark cannot change it:
The AGW guys made the mistake all apocalyptic prophets make- specific predictions.
They have failed.
The rest is sturm and drang and posing from your side. Which you do very well.
Luke,
Leave the GCMs alone!
Your reply to tests and observations carried out in Israel and China is a couple of CSIRO model projections.
Even a lukewarmer can’t claim those as an argument.
They would be similar to the ones that show a cooling after it’s already happened.
Anyway, Rosenfeld’s argument isn’t that much different to yours.
Just the particulates instead of the molecules. [adds loonie luke larfter]
Y’see, we all want to know what the GI is that produces the GO.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CRUSourceCodes/#detail
Looks like Jen deleted me – oh well. She probably likes her denialist scummies.
Spanglers – how you got GCMs out of that amazes me – seriously mate I don’t think you’re up to the science here – the modelling simply confirmed what the obs were saying. That’s how modern science works – you need to explain things not just rant and froth like Neville and boofhead.
In any case – why would you want to go with second best – when you can have better on cloud physics? Try to keep up spangly.
Don’t you hate it when some blow-in like Goodrich drifts in with no idea of the argument to date. Another tedious blowhard full of philosophy and little else.
Gosh I hope luke’s deletion didn’t refer to me in rude and uncouth language.
“Spanglers – how you got GCMs out of that amazes me -”
A significant new result from climate modelling is that anthropogenic aerosol over Asia affects meridional temperature gradients and atmospheric circulation, and may have caused an increase in rainfall over north-western Australia. Global ocean circulation provides another mechanism whereby aerosol changes in the Northern Hemisphere can affect climate in the Southern Hemisphere, suggesting an urgent need for further targeted studies using coupled ocean-atmosphere global climate models. To better model climate variability and climate change in the Australian region, more research is needed into the sources of aerosol and their precursors, their atmospheric distributions and transformations, and how to incorporate these processes robustly in global climate models (GCMs).
If they didn’t use the “biggie”, it’s even more unreliable.
Yes so? an incidental point that appears to explain why circulation changes have brought more rain to NW and Central Australia over time. i.e. an explanation of change sin rinafll brought about by changes in the Asian brown haze aerosol fog
http://www.ainse.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/38082/Rotstayn_Leon.pdf
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/trendmaps.cgi?map=rain&area=aus&season=0112&period=1970
You don’t have to accept it – you probably believe God re-arranged things.
The cloud seeding issues were the main point and that Australia has its own aerosol and dust specialists – see review paper previous.
Luke mate,
The straws at which you are clutching are becoming more and more fragile.
Your support of this loosely held hypothysis is becoming very tenuous indeed.
Having had your drought in Australia argument, washed away in floods, you are now falsely claiming drought in China to support your untenable position.
There is NO DROUGHT in China that is outside of any historical norm.
The articles to which you have linked above are without any reason even to an old Bushy from back of Barellan.
Resort to personal abuse only debases your position.
Pikey.
Yea – stay at the back of Barellan you hillbilly.
I didn’t say there was a drought in China.
But hey given you mention it
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/world/asia/25drought.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/china-drought-wheat-crop
maybe there is … hahahahahaha
The hydrological drought on the Murray is far from over thanks to Modoki and IOD. And is that an El Nino brewing with a +ve IOD. hahahahahahahahahaha
Note La Nina didn’t come to southern Australia – hahahahahahaha
Once again, as a public service for Luke, I provide “the arguments to date”:
Most of the 20th century warming occurred before the rise in anthropogenic CO2.
— “Well, um, no, just look at this hockey-stick graph.”
But the methodology used for that graph produces a hockey-stick no matter what you feed into it — random data, Sunday attendance of Methodists in Giles County, TN 1919-1923, whatever.
— “The algorithms used are recognized statistical techniques.”
Greenhouse warming produces a distinctive rise in rate of warming just below the tropopause. Neither the satellite data nor weather balloons show any sign of such warming.
— “No, no, for accurate temperature you can’t depend on the thermometers. Look at these wind calculations.” [Thirty years after putting a man on the moon, we apparently can’t make an accurate thermometer.]
You account for lack of surface warming in the last decade by saying that the oceans are absorbing the heat. By your own figures, this would be 10^22 Joules annually. Yet five years of ARGO data to a depth of 2000 meters shows no sign of such a heat rise.
— “Er, ahh, it must all be hiding somewhere.”
Ice cores clearly show that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature by hundreds of years, so they could not possibly be the cause of prehistorical warming, as Gore implies in his movie.
— “That was then; this is now.”
A graph rising at 0.6 deg C with a +/- 0.2 deg wave representing the phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has a near-perfect correlation with the last century-and-a-half of global temperatures. A graph of CO2 concentration shows no such correlation at all.
— “Thank you for your comments.”
As an individual service to you, you blog swilling illiterate moron.
(1) ocean temps are still up –
Levitus, S., J. I.
Antonov, T. P. Boyer, R. A. Locarnini, H. E. Garcia, and A. V.
Mishonov (2009), Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of
recently revealed instrumentation problems, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36,
L07608, doi:10.1029/2008GL037155.
(2) Is it warming or cooling
Easterling, D. R., and M. F. Wehner (2009), Is the
climate warming or cooling?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L08706,
doi:10.1029/2009GL037810.
(3) PDO – what indulgent horseshit. It’s a local second order effect.
Parker, D., C. Folland, A. Scaife, J. Knight, A. Colman, P. Baines, and B. Dong (2007), Decadal to multidecadal variability and the climate change background, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D18115, doi:10.1029/2007JD008411.
(4) Ice cores – are you mental – of course that’s what you’d see – try the PETM instead
Don’t just breeze in here like some Johnny come lately and assume that you know anything at all. Learn to read first. Now piss off you post-modernist tool.
Clearly Luke is beyond help. He has resorted to quoting Scripture — all of which I presented briefly; the articles he cites are simply expatiations on the summary sentences in my post, saving us all time and ennui — and personal attack. I deeply regret offending any religious beliefs he may have; that was not my intention. I was simply defending science, which I still believe is well worth defending, and I sincerely believe he will eventually, in adulthood, learn to distinguish between them.
just filing this here:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/06/24/why-barack-obama-is-bad-for-canada/
more filing:
“Much of this is rather technical, but worth reading. The report that was held back before the vote (see last link) basically says that man-produced Green House Gases have little or no effect on the Global climate. And yet, the House passed a bill that would severely penalize all Americans by huge increases in energy costs in order to minimize the output of GHG’s. The bill was strictly brought up and passed for political reasons, especially when you consider that no one had time to read the bill before voting on it.
The article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml
The story was first made public by the site I frequent – http://wattsupwiththat.com/
The report that they would not allow to be published prior to the vote on the bill:
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
more filing:
“Hailed by President Barack Obama as an “extraordinary first step,” the proposed measures will do little to address climate change. While the working class will be hit with higher energy and fuel costs, the major corporate polluters will potentially reap enormous profits through the various subsidies contained in the legislation.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/carb-j29.shtml
Jennifer,
It’s not just the “major corporate polluters” who will laugh all the way to the bank. Since his candidacy in 2000, Mr. Gore has increased his net worth from US$2 million to US$100 million, principally by investing in EU carbon-voucher trades. He obviously plans to increase that by another order of magnitude or so with Waxman-Markey, via his financier friends at Goldman-Sachs. Note that all of this money will of course come from the people who actually use the energy (namely us, the consumers), since corporations (however “major”) do not pay taxes, they just collect them.
“(1) ocean temps are still up –”
Look at that? A government department with staff lolly-gagging about and lying to the public with group malice afforethought.
Thats just unacceptable. Next time I have a couple of beers I might ring the Premiers office and start shouting at people.
Not even J Edgar Hoover would have the nerve to try this on a civilian not guilty of anything. And if Ian Mott is to be believed this is malice coming from a department. On the taxpayers time.
Somehow someone somewhere has to pay.
I can feel the waves of fear coming from up North. Six O’clock a senior bureaucrat in the same department as GRAMSCIAN TEAM LUKE is having a shave. Its early Winter. But already this time of the morning. Beeds of sweat are popping up on his forehead.
So whats this follow-through all about? Its a strategy based on fear and desperation. An attempt is made to put a single name on this conspiracy and yet the tag-team effort continues, giving more cause to believe ongoing malfeasanse. An attempt to fake up “honest advertising” with the Luke-desk Jive. A bit of chummyness and the loopy stuff. A continuing presence to do what? Establish that this conspiracy was all AOK and is in fact just a bit of a joke. And after all its up to the blog-owner right? Perhaps she is cool with it all? And could block GRAMSCIAN TEAM LUKE at any time. Is that what the department is now trying to establish?
It is a very stupid thing for GRAMSCIAN TEAM LUKE to be hanging around independent of what the blogowner might think. Naturally your bosses and all sorts of people ought to be publicly humiliated and deprived of your useless careers over this conspiracy. Hanging around trying on the old leftist desensitization cannot change that fact, since the people who would take offense to this and follow it up are not going to be desensitized like the “masses” as your crowd would have it.
You and your bosses ought to be relying on one thing and one thing only. That the taxpayers. The people who pay all your salaries and raise all your kids, are too busy, what with supporting their own family and yours as well. And if you disappear the outrage of this conspiracy, performed as it was on the taxpayers time, may fall off the TO DO list in their minds. Not everyone has put it together just how critical it is for our national health to make an example of people like GRAMSCIAN TEAM LUKE and their bosses, and the head of the department. They don’t know just how obsessive, destructive and determined this campaign of lies is. They don’t understand the economics of this. That an energy shortage looms. That the very threat of a carbon tax devastates the balance sheets, share prices and capital spending flows, of those companies who could save Australia from economic disaster during this coming energy crisis. So you may get away with it. Supposing you disappear.
Not everyone understands that green is the new red. But it aint the new black. GRAMSCIAN TEAM LUKE is not the latest fashion. Those who would follow this up cannot afford for you to be hanging around desensitizing people to the notion that it is alright for a group of bully-boys such as yourselves, in a government department…… that its alright for you conspirators to run a two year campaign of lies and defamation like this.
If we ever get to a point in this country where we find it normal and according to Hoyles that tag-team tax-eating Rococo Marxists can gang up on a civilian like this, with malicious intent….. if everyone gets used to thinking that this is OK then this country is finished. So don’t try to pull the leftist desensitization strategy because we cannot afford it and people will have to act.
I won’t be the only one getting about with everlasting outrage on this. Just try hanging around. I’ll bet you’ll have people emailing members of parliament in no time flat. Better to disappear and hope that everyone is too busy to get the story of this conspiracy out there in the wider public domain.