“The principal aim of this Movement is to first win the battle against the currently threatened tax on carbon dioxide and then to win the war against any drive for ever putting a price on it,” said Case Smit announcing the launch of the new Australian-based website and movement, The Galileo Movement.
Mr Smit, and his business partner John Smeed, have backgrounds in science and engineering. Their experience is in environmental protection and air quality.
At first they simply accepted politicians’ claims of global warming blamed on human production of carbon dioxide (CO2). When things didn’t add up, they each separately investigated. Stunned, they discovered what many people are now discovering: climate claims by some scientists and politicians contradict observed facts.
Read more here: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/galileo_movement.php
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Congratulations to all concerned! And an impressive line up of advisers. Hope everyone can donate
Jennifer talking about donations what happened to your ‘tip jar’ button?
Can we expect it back
Yes, good to see people taking a stand against this creeping madness.
How interesting.
Instead of the increasing use of rhetoric and resulting ‘reduto ad absurdism’ these guys are following the money and asking what the ultimate result of all this will be.
Not just for the global climate but for people and their economies.
I see they mention the new book by Dr Wes Allen. I met Wes at the rally in Brisbane. ( I think he’s in the photo) He has just completed a full examination of Tim Flannery’s The Weather Makers.
Dr Allen’s review reveals that of its 313 statements only 59 are factual. The books statements have been classified into *:
– Extreme bias—17
– Less extreme bias—100
– No evidence—24
– Suspect source—31
– Incomplete statements—76
– Certainty implied without justification—45
– Misrepresentation—1
– Misinterpretation—23
– Exaggerations—78
– Factual errors—66
– Confusing/silly statements—53
– Contradictory statements—28
– Mistakes—12
* Some statements earn more than one category.
And 7 failed predictions.
What a pathetic site. A veritable gish gallop of garbage. Mainstream science would just kack over the climate science material. Every skank sceptic argument ever proposed in one spot.
The first person to invoke Galileo loses. In fact if you think you’re a modern day Galilean you’re a wanker.
How sad….
great reply luke. You are in form tonight.
The site, the name and the tone are far too cheesy for me.
On the other hand, if you check out Flannery’s Prius commercial, the Guardian’s environment pages, or Hungry Beast’s white gangsta nerds …
…maybe cheesy is the way to go when you want to make a point.
here’s a copy of the e mail I received today and I believe that any movement that could gain us media coverage is to be wholly endorsed
It’s time: an opportunity to support true scientists presenting real-world climate science to inform the public.
http://www.galileomovement.com.au
7:10am Tuesday morning, May 17th, and Wednesday, May 18th tune into radio 2GB, Sydney: http://www.2gb.com
16 May, 2011
Hi,
We’re delighted to be able to introduce you to the web site of the newly-formed Galileo Movement (www.galileomovement.com.au). The principal aim of this Movement is to first win the battle against the currently threatened tax on carbon dioxide and then to win the war against any drive for ever putting a price on it.
From recent public polls it is obvious that the majority of Australians are opposed to this tax and we believe you are probably part of that majority.
Our efforts are non-political as there are politicians in all parties who need to be convinced of the futility of taxing a beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. So many people still think that carbon dioxide is a harmful pollutant; we need your help to educate these people that this is not so! We have strong connections to excellent scientific and other advisers worldwide. We’re ready.
How can you help? Well, on the web site there is a printable flyer which you can print and distribute into letter boxes, at bus stops, shopping centres and railway stations; it is at http://www.galileomovement.com.au/threat_freedom.php#O and click on “flyer”.
More importantly, we intend to run a major, national, professionally-managed campaign to gain access to significant members of the mass media (print journalists, radio and TV personalities) who need to understand that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been spreading truly false information. This campaign will be costly, so we are appealing to you and all like-minded people to make a contribution towards this effort. You will note from our web site that virtually all our efforts are voluntary; there are some minor costs in maintaining formal financial records and in producing and maintaining the web site. Once we have won the war, any remaining funds are destined to go to the Royal Flying Doctor Service.
Please distribute this email widely to make people aware of http://www.galileomovement.com.au as this may be our last opportunity to unite to defeat this negative, economic and socially life-changing legislation. It is time to act: “The triumph of evil requires only for good men (and women) to do nothing”.
Thank you,
John Smeed, Director
Case Smit, Director
Malcolm Roberts, Project Manager
P.S. Our apologies if you receive more than one copy of this email.
P.P.S. Please let us have your suggestions for enhancing our web site.
P.P.P.S. Listen to Australia’s most influential radio personality Alan Jones of Radio 2GB (www.2gb.com), and Patron of the Galileo Movement, who will be interviewing distinguished American meteorologist Professor Lindzen at 7:10am Tuesday (May 17th) and at 7:10am on Wednesday, The Galileo Movement’s voluntary Project Manager, Malcolm Roberts
Malcolm Roberts
BE (Hons), MBA (Chicago)
Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)
http://www.conscious.com.au
My personal declaration of interests is at:
http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/additional%20material/Personal%20declaration%20of%20interests.pdf
(manually go to http://www.conscious.com.au and look for ‘Summaries’ and then click on ‘Aims, background and declaration of interests …’)
“Every period of warmer temperatures has been enormously beneficial for human and environmental health and for environmental diversity” ROFL – except for the PETM or Medieval droughts
“Do you wonder why more people choose to take holidays in warmer climates? ” tell that to the skiing industry – LOL !
“We are fortunate to be living in a warm period. It won’t last forever. People misrepresenting climate are preventing funds from being spent on the real climate challenge—how to adapt to cooler temperatures. What will the poor do? Will our political systems cope with people facing freezing? How much will food and crop yields decrease with temperature?” oh boo hoo – as if these goobers are really going to research something for 50,000 years hence
“Natural extreme weather events such as storms, floods, droughts, … are not increasing’ Omit critical Kerry Emmanuel work – fail !
“The UN IPCC downplays the known effect of solar and ocean-atmosphere oscillations such as El Nino Southern Oscillation Index. ” No they don’t !!!!!
“Uncorrupted rural temperature measurements across Australia and the USA show no net warming since 1890.” HAHAHAHAHAHAA – read Watts et al 2011
“Temperature changes have been less than half a degree, so slight that the human body cannot detect it” – sophistic bullshit
” Since 2003 ocean temperatures have been flat or falling slightly.” more bullshit framing
And that was 2 minutes….
One can only pray that they use this web site at a Royal Commission.
And it goes on over at Conscious.com “UN IPCC Expert Reviewer, Dr Vincent Gray” no he’s not.
“John McLean presents statistics on UN IPCC reporting processes..” so the authors one foray into the science literature was panned ! That’s encouraging.
“Nature completely controls CO2 levels —the UN IPCC’s
‘theory’ is insanity” – snigger – even Cohenite wouldn’t go there
And it goes on – it’s bizarre. It’s crap.
It’s an overwhelming rant.
and did I mention that Jennifer is one of the advisers
And as to media contacts Allen Jones is the patron and Andrew Bolt one of the advisers
Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2? The old appeal to weensy weensy – f’all % wise – but who cares
Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media? YES
Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made? The old net vs total ruse – LOL !
Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce? F’all actually
Question 5. Is CO2 a pollutant? – no b/s Fed framing – but irrelevant to the climate science argument
Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect YES HEAPS AND HEAPS – even Jo Nova agrees and says don’t bung the 2nd law ruse crap
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
Okay, it’s a bit creaky, and they need to lose the pompous title.
However, most of the site’s claims are true enough, since they are, indeed, standard skeptical claims. And I’ve been observing its ability to provoke shouty uppercase, multiple exclamation marks, girly squealing, mock-macho perjoratives etc in a typical warmist. Seems to be working well.
Luke,
Your ranting reminds me of the ranting directed at Galileo some centuries back – gee history does repeat itself.
Galileo had a compelling value proposition – you don’t
Luke,
I indeed don’t have a compelling value proposition – never did; I’m just opposing your valueless bullshit.
As far as I can tell the fantasy of CAGW is a lost cause in Australia and probably around the globe as well.
Trouble is we have pig ignorant, bi-polar, hypocritical pollies in Canberra who haven’t even got the slightest clue about their pet project.
It’s hard to believe they could be so dumb but they use terms like ” we must address climate change” or “we must tackle climate change”, so they really must be the dumbest layabouts to ever park their backsides on the govt benches in Australian history.
Remember this tackling CC involves us reducing our 1.3% of emissions by 5% by 2020 while a number of elephants in the developing world power along for decades at growth in co2 emissions of 2% a year.
Of course we also export the coal that helps them increase their emissions while whacking our own industries, workers and people at the same time.
This is indeed delusional madness of frightening proportions, but I still can’t believe that anyone could be that troppo to really believe any of it.
As I’ve said many times before this is very simple maths and only requires a very average IQ to do the calculations, so how can they be so ridiculously dumb?
Surely there must be some other reason for this madness?
Luke
This is my first comment on this blog and I will first compliment Jennifer for her efforts to attempt to bring some sense into this important subject.
Also I would say that I have read most of your comments on the subject and they have contributed little to my concept of the debate. They certainly have not advanced your expressed purpose of convincing those who doubt the science; abuse never achieves anything except contempt.
Neville, there is indeed some other reason for this madness – and it’s no conspiracy either – it’s been asserted as plain as day for those who could recognise it for what it is. It’s the UN Agenda 21, and it’s worth researching Maurice Strong’s activities. Then research the Fabians, and their long term game plan.
It’s perhaps those of low IQ, and the useful idiots who lead them, who unwittingly allow themselves to be shepparded into the comforting pen of socialist utopia via the delusional belief of CAGW.
Don’t be surprised if Lord Luke Haw Haw reacts intemperately to my post.
Alan Jones launched the Galileo Movement on his program this morning with an interview with Professor Lindzen.
You may be right Louis, creeping gradualism has always been the agenda of fabianism.
But this carbon tax idea is so dumb, useless and stupid you would think only the most mad or delusional fanatics would be interested.
Perhaps Bolt may be right ( once again) and the Greens may give Juliar the excuse to drop her mad tax because they want a much higher number than she/labor can politically afford.
But thankfully either way the damage has been done and she will never find her way back to any credibility with the Aussie electorate.
Joolya’s a Fabian and carries a lot of baggage.
Neville,
I’m not sure who or what originated the idea of a carbon tax – and yes it is pure lunacy – but that our media parroted it so smoothly might lead one to conclude there is a conspiracy afoot, or more likely, that the political left, in general, are basically stupid. Cunning like rats, but none the less still stupid.
Given the tragic failure that socialism has been, what else could we describe those who continue to implement it? Intelligent or ignorant???? I lean towards ignorant since there can’t be that many stupids in society.
After all an intelligent person would not adopt a socialist solution in the first place, given its track record.
On the other hand maybe they are insane in terms of Einstein’s observation that lunacy is repeating the same action in the hope of producing a different outcome.
Louis I agree, but it’s still hard to imagine so much stupidity/igorance when it’s so, so easy to understand.
Here’s those numbers showing the 20 to 1 ratio again( to 2035), but of couse China is higher than the non OECD average.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html
BTW just heard Bolt on radio saying Ipcc chief Pauchari has disputed that cyclone Yasi could have been caused by AGW.
Won’t Bob and the Greens be disppointed, the stupid loons.
Neville,
Not really – I think most of the misunderstanding comes from the term “absorption” used in the atomic sense – most seem to believe that this means that CO2, or any greenhouse gas, “absorbs” energy like a kitchen sponge absorbs water, thus storing it.
From such simple misunderstandings such enormous consequences flow.
I’m re reading Gold’s Deep Hot Biosphere, especially his sections on oil and coal, and it’s pretty conclusive that these carbon deposits are the result of upwelling from the earth’s mantle, and not as deposits of carbon extracted from thye biosphere.
I got pilloried by a UNSW academic in economics on Catallaxy files the other day for “believing” in abiotic oil, and some other sin, and it suddenly occurred to me that if biotic oil theory is falsified, then that actually removes a large part of the CAGW argument.
Go Luke – you gettem boy- good boy Luke – your blood must be on the boil to cause your spit of ad hominen vitriol.
Now Luke, calm down a bit and tell us – can you show any evidence that proves carbon dioxide is warming the planet?
Now Luke, calm down – try to be civil and answer that really simple question.
Now Luke, calm down – going off onto the boil is not good for your health. Just calm down Luke, consider and answer that simple question.
Luke the question is being put directly on you – no use flicking it to another by the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy.
Come on Luke, be calm, answer the question.
Louis,
re. biotic oil.
Has it ever been calculated/guessed/approximated how much biomass, plant and animal matter
would have been required to produce the currently known oil and coal deposits?
Also did it happen many times and accumulated in the same place or once only?
Jonathon,
I recall someone making a back of envelope calculation, and some anectdotal views, that the known petroleum reserves exceed that of what could be derived from the biosphere. There is also a website (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/AmandaMeyer.shtml) that lists the various estimates of the mass of the biosphere, with citations to the scientific literature), and the numbers vary by an order of magnitude from ~200 Pg (peta grams) to ~12,000 Pg. A small proportion of this will be due to carbon, the rest being hydrogen and oxygen, and how one can come up with a representative estimate of the chemical composition of the biosphere is another problem. One needs the total mass of carbon in the biosphere and compare it to the total mass of carbon in the known oil and coal. I suspect there isn’t enough biomass to explain it.
The one has to calculate how much biospheric mass was removed from the biosphere during geological time. You can’t reverse calculate from petroleum mass because then you end up with a circular argument.
IF the discussion is limited to petroleum, then what is its feedstocks? The petroleum industry points to the tar shales containing kerogens, but these hydrocarbon deposits are themselves thought to represent eroded older petroleum deposits, and once again we encounter circular reasoning, if not also the logical fallacy of arguing the consequent.
Another source is supposed to be the gentle ‘rain’ of marine life onto the ocean floors, and the hypothesis of plate tectonics to then subduct this material into the crust. How much carbon mass is involved in that process is unknown.
In terms of the standard geological model it’s supposed to be happening continually except that there isn’t any physical evidence for it. No where do we see old petroleum or hydrocarbon deposits being eroded to produce particles of kerogen that become trapped in sediments. The kerogen particles are there, no doubt about that, but their origin? As for the oil shales and tar sands, again, these are secondary deposits formed by the erosion of original hydrocarbon sources – but where are the sources? Certainly none are seeping out of the ground in active drainages to allow sedimentary transport to a place of accumulation. If the process is valid then rivers must be carrying a continual load of finely suspended kerogens or oil. Do they? Nope. From what we know of the various oil spill disasters, the marine environment via bacterial and microbial activity very quickly eliminates these oil spills.
So I’ll stick my neck out and suggest no one has computed these numbers because basically they can’t due to a lack of historical data and a lack of a viable mechanism.
As for coal, Rose has pointed out that a 1 metre bed of anthracite (black coal) and 3% mineral ash content, would need to have originally been 300 metres thick of vegetable matter, though what the original mineral ash content was remains unknown. Such accumulations have not been observed, and if we consider that surface deposits of peat and lignite, then we haven’t observed any 300 metre thick beds of those either.
Biotic petroleum and coal, fossil fuels, are the ideas generated by armchair geologists, trained in Lyellianism. These are better described as fossilised thoughts. Both petroleum and coal are better described as geology modified by biology, rather than biology buried into geology. Gold’s upwelling hydrocarbon theory is simpler and more plausible than the mish-mash of biogenic theories.
And the loudest critics of this hypothesis will be the CAGW brigade.
Whoops, it’s Gold, not Rose 🙂
James Hansen recants. Those damn models!
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
Mad labor and the even madder greens are having a stoush over the carbon price.
Wonderful to behold, idiots fighting idiots.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-greens-say-the-carbon-tax-will-need-to-be-far-above-40-a-tonne-while-the-government-says-it-will-be-well-south/story-fn59niix-1226057359647
Let’s see – Greens are far north of $40 and Guvmint are far south of $40.
Let’s strike a deal and compromise – Far North plus Far South = $40
Whoops, /2 to get $40
The core tenant of the Galileo Movement if it truely is to be of Galilean spirit and intent should be………..
“Man has no effect on the earth’s climate”
For nearly a century man has thought he influenced the global climate.
This new concept and revelation postulates he has no effect.
What’s that knock on the door!
Somebody coming to burn me at the stake?!!!!
Louis
Thanks for that.
Just downloaded the first chapter, free from Amazon, it’s available for $14.00 as an e-book.
Don’t have a “Kindle” e-reader so I see if I can transfer it to my reader using the “Whispersync” software they sent me, before buying.
Very interesting what you said about “geology modified by biology”
always wondered why a layer of coal contains some biological remnant like an impression of a leaf, while right next to it above and below, there is no sign of any other bits.
I may well be wrong but I would’ve thought, that that section being the same age, same location, there ought to be more?
Mack stacks it again
“The core tenant of the Galileo Movement if it truely is to be of Galilean spirit and intent should be………..
“Man has no effect on the earth’s climate”
For nearly a century man has thought he influenced the global climate.
This new concept and revelation postulates he has no effect.’
Yes that would be highly intelligent of the new wankerian old codgers network. hmmmm I wonder what a few 1000 years of land clearing might have done.
http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/2090/1/Effects_of_land_use_in_Southwest_Australia.pdf
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CFcQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loe.org%2Fimages%2Fcontent%2F070928%2FBunny%2520Fence%2520Experiment.doc&ei=5xTSTcbZB5K-sQOo3oygCQ&usg=AFQjCNHLmSnpPYNaVOe8ApkNSur8Ks45ug
Burn you at the stake. Mate why waste good firewood.
Jonathon
Kindle ereader is also available as a free download from Amazon. I have it on the home PC.
As for the oddities in coal, Gold recounts a couple of usual occurrences that completely discredits the biotic model. You are right there should be more biological remnants and the difficulty is that if coal is compressed vegetation in which all the hydrogen and oxygen has been removed, then how come delicate imprints can often be seen in coal? those parallel to bedding can be easily explained, but any cursory inspection of a lignite deposit, (I was in the Victorian Morwell pit decades ago) shows that the vegetation is somewhat chaotic, and compression should leave some ‘skeletal’ remnants. Gold mentioned one instance in Russia (his citation is to his earlier book) where a tree trunk was rooted in the bottom bed, passed through the coal bed, and then further upwards into the overlying stratum. The problem was that the trunk was only coalified within the bed, and not in the underlying or overlying strata. This needs to be verified by checking his reference etc. But is fits in with coal being formed by replacement of existing vegetation by upwelling methane etc.
Gold’s upwelling hypothesis asserts that strata of vegetation is replaced by carbon as the methane upwells through the vegetation beds but he has difficulty explaining the microbial remnants and hopanoids in the coal.
Science is never settled, as you might gather.
Tony from Oz has a new post
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/baustralias-carbon-dioxide-tax-conb/
the last paras:
THE CON.
When a total has been ‘ballparked’ by people here in Australia, the Government always seeks to deflect that talk by changing the subject, saying that the modelling has not been completed, and telling us that people will be compensated for any increase in price of electricity, and that sections of Industry will also be compensated.
Figures of around $20 Billion in total have been mentioned, and here you must realise that the calculations I have made here are for the electrical power generating sector alone, and that supposedly emits 35 to 40% of all CO2 emissions, so my total of that $9.88 Billion is lower than the projected total because it is only from that power generating sector.
However, people will see that maximum amount and think that (the bulk of) that will be returned to Australians in the form of compensation.
This is where the con comes in.
As I have shown here, the electrical power generation component of that only comes in at that $9.88 Billion.
Electrical power is consumed in three sectors. Those are the Residential sector which consumes 38% of all power, Commerce at 37% and the Industrial sector at 24%.
So, keeping those percentages in mind, the Residential sectors 38% of that $9.88 Billion comes in at $3.76 Billion.
So now, we can work out approximately how each residential account might be affected.
There are 7.5 million residential accounts in Australia, so the average increase on an electricity bill now comes in at around $500 per year. If the average power consumption per residence in Australia is $1600 per year (or $400 per quarterly account) then the percentage increase averages out at around 30%, so to see what that might be for individual users, take out your last account and add that 30% to it. Some pay less, and some pay more, so that’s why I have used averages here.
The Australian Government has promised to compensate households for any increase in their electricity bill, and for the life of me, I fail to see how this will result in people using less electricity, thus driving down those emissions because less coal fired power will be consumed.
So, keeping in mind that the Government has said that there will be compensation for residential consumers, and that the Labor Government always says it is the only Party that looks after the less advantaged amongst us, that is obviously ‘Code’ for the Government placing a means test on that compensation, for the lower income section of the overall community. That same Labor Government has said that any compensation package will amount to more than what the increase in power bills might be.
So, can you see the Con here.
The Government is going to compensate that residential sector only, and only part of them.
So, they will be raking in $9.88 Billion just from the electrical power generating sector, and giving back just part of that residential sector’s commitment of $3.76 Billion.
So, when you consider the overall ‘take’ for the Government,they can in fact give away all that Residential sector’s $3.76 Billion in compensation, because they will be making more than $6 Billion, just in increased electricity charges from those other two consuming sectors, Commerce and Industry.
So, when you hear of wonderful compensation packages for residential power bill increases, be very aware that only part of what is being raked in will be given back to consumers.
Given that only 38% of all power is consumed in the residential sector, and part of that overall take only will be refunded, consumers will then also bear the added costs from the extra being paid in those other two sectors, most importantly, the Commerce sector, which accounts for all your shopping, especially for groceries etc, so refunding a little more than the Residential sector’s commitment to some lower income households will not cover the increases added to everything you purchase as those other two sectors factor in their increased costs for the electricity that they consume.
Now perhaps you can see why this Gillard led Labor Government so desperately wants to introduce this Price On Carbon.
This is a windfall of the highest magnitude.
It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the environment and the reduction of CO2.
It’s just about the money.
Today’s news releases say that the price would need to be closer to $40 per ton to encourage a move away from coal fired power to natural gas fired power, and The Australian Greens Party would like to see the figure closer to $200 per ton, showing that they have not even bothered to do check the data and do the Maths as I have done here.
In some earlier Posts, I used the figure of 90 million tons of coal being burned in Australia. I have never attempted to inflate any figures to make the numbers larger, because even with those conservative totals I have used, the numbers are still staggeringly large.
and here’s Allen Jones launching Galileo
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8891
I’ve flushed out the sensitive new age inquisitor guy again.
My computer dosn’t allow me to get your second link Luke, but your first just deals with a piece of regional climate. Not global. If through some stretch of your imagination there has been a global effect because of regional effects ,it would have taken centuries, and we should all be cooking by now compared to say the early Brits.
But we’re talking about all the hockey sticks going on in THIS century Luke.
Pullease Mack – lots of regional effects of land clearing across the globe. You comment was absolute and bunk. We could also talk about solar brightening in Europe from reduction in aerosols. Humans clearly DO influence climate.
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2009/2008JD011066.shtml
http://www.loe.org/images/content/070928/Bunny%20Fence%20Experiment.doc note the pictures
All this just shows how dreadful your analysis is and how ill informed you are.
BUT – loved Val’s recommendation about Lindzen. He almost rebuffs Jones with a “I suppose so” on sentence one. And gets worse as a grubby Jones frames questions and tries to put words into his mouth which Lindzen responds with precision. Jones – barf !
BTW Val it’s Alan Jones – not Allen – try at least to be accurate with your sceptics if nothing else? Again showing how incredibly shoddy you guys are.
“Science is never settled, as you might gather” well that depends on who runs the practice as much as anything else.
For Debs; We can make oil or at least some of its products now from organic wastes and dare I say it, by simply mimicking forces evolving round the Earth’s crust as continents rise and sink. What is needed apart from organic waste? Just extreme heat and pressure on our liquefied waste stream.
During the early 1960’s my apprenticeship bosses gave me a fair chance to witness a unique form of combustion under trial at our paper mill complex. A small team of chemical engineers and physicists were working full time on their pilot plant and needed a hand with process measurements. What we had was a reaction that was near spontaneous combustion of rich organic wood chip leach called “black liquor” with the addition of air in the highly compressed mix. This little reactor had the potential to generate enough heat energy to run itself then some so the large scale version was built later and again I went back to tidy up their control measurement tapings in the 70’s. However I think shareholders sold the whole manufacturing business before the new plant earned it’s keep.
Research on black liquor processing moved to the “Kraft” pulp process and there are many references including Wiki but I maintain our initial work paved the way for “oil” from organics “Waste-to-Oil Company Selling Oil Commercially” 2004
http://www.changingworldtech.com/press_room/index.asp?id=19
Much nearer home – quite near in fact! “Producing Oil from Black Liquor” 2003
http://www.coveyconsulting.com.au/Documents/paper_gc_dc_producing_oil_from_black_liquor.pdf
Louis; A symposium in 88 gets a few others into the act “Pyrolysis Oils from Biomass – Producing, Analyzing, and Upgrading” with vacuum, vortex etc
http://pubs.acs.org/isbn/9780841215368
guys; I should have posed the obvious Q;
can we grow enough biomass to keep up to our energy demands afte the black stuff underground gets scarce?
Gavin,
your refer: “Louis; A symposium in 88 gets a few others into the act “Pyrolysis Oils from Biomass – Producing, Analyzing, and Upgrading” with vacuum, vortex etc
http://pubs.acs.org/isbn/9780841215368”
You don’t seem to understand the probem – biotic oil theory, sensu strictu, asserts that the burial of biomass to pressures and temperatures assumed to exist at the base of sedimentary basins spontaneously transforms it to petroleum; the emphasis is SPONTANEOUS.
You are only allowed to increase pressure and temperature to lower crustral conditions to transform biomass to petroleum. You cannot invoke the Fischer-Tropsch method or any similar technique to explain how biomass is converted to petroleum with burial.
No one has yet produced any scientific experiment demonstrating this. Abiotic oil scientists have generated petroleum from CaCO3, FeO and H2O subjected to T and P of the upper mantle. This experiment has recently been replicated by an independent laboratory.
The PT at the base of a sedimentary pile basin is about 200 deg C and 3Kb or Zeolite metamorphic facies. Pyrolysis demands an O2 free, at temperatures above 430 deg C, which corresponds to greenschist facies metamorphism and petroleum is simply not found in these sedimentary rocks. Petroleum is usually found in sedimentary rocks in the zeolite facies domain.
The P and T of this domain cannot transform biomass into petroleum.
Actually it gets worse for the biogenetical oilers, since the PT conditions are more like 150C and 2 Kb (bar), so the pyrolysis technique is even further out of the game.
Any evidence that aerosol pollution over Europe cutting down on clear days a little wattage reaching the surface has had any effect on the climate in Europe Luke? Any effect on the global climate Luke.?
It would be good if could attach those chest expanders of yours to your brain and give it a little stretch .
Expand your thinking.
Computer still won’t unload bunny experiment. My guess it’s regional and irrelevant.
gav,
To use a Johism: don’t you worry about that!
Even if you become a card carrying member of the Metheuselah Society.
Lindzen must be getting on a bit now Luke. Age slows the sharpest of minds. Preservo and delivero.
“Humans clearly DO influence climate.”
Luke, if all the brightening and land clearing affect temps so much what’s left for li’l ole ACO2?
Just how much can you cut up that 0.7c?
I mean, don’t forget you got those 10c increases in the Arctic from all-year-round black asphalt airports and centrally heated cities and then there’s those Brissy afordables with all the a/c exhausts blowing in the neighbour’s windows which account for at least 5c compared with the bush.
You divvy that lot up and ACO2’s gotta produce COOLING for sure.
Well Spanglers – who said land clearing caused warming – clearing – brighter land surfaces – cooling perhaps.
Yes Spanglers there are simply 100,000s of airports in the Arctic creating an artificial signal – wake up !
It’s definitely on http://www.eoearth.org/files/168801_168900/168811/swipa-assessment-executive-summary.pdf only denialists would deny it
Sorry Luke. You’re the one who needs to wake up. What country do you live in? Try standing in the shade or in the sun.
And if you have all the Arctic thermometers alongside asphalt or central heating plants it doesn’t matter how many [or few] there are.
“only denialists would deny it”
But the lukes know what’s causing it.
This all has the air of QUEENSLAND WHITE SHOE BRIGADE about it.
I mean, I read one funded Lord Mockton, a right wing climate change denier,
to visit Australia. How muh did that cost? Why not fund a scientist or two?
Answer:they don’t like the message of climate change and want to suppress it.
The information they use is highly selective. Why don’t
they boycott all peer reviewed science while they’re at it?
WHY DENIERS ARE WRONG:
NO SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTION SUPPORTS THE DENIER STANCE. NOT ONE.
NO MAJOR SCIENTIFIC STUDY SUPPORTS THE DENIER STANCE. NOT ONE.
WHEN EITHER DOES, I WILL SEND YOU A CHEQUE.
(I AM NOT EXPECTING TO SEND YOU A CHEQUE.)
WAKE UP PEOPLE: GOVERNMENTS AND THE RICH BOTH
SHAPE INFORMATION FOR THEIR OWN ENDS.
*TRUST SCIENCE, NOT TABLOIDS OR BLOGS OR QUESTIONABLE
WEBSITES*.
“Pullease Mack – lots of regional effects of land clearing across the globe. You comment was absolute and bunk. We could also talk about solar brightening in Europe from reduction in aerosols. Humans clearly DO influence climate.”
Luke – can you please explain why according to the revamped hockey stick graph the world has been slowing cooling since 1000 yet throughout that period Europe and later the US plus huge tracts of Asia were being severely cleared for agricultural land yet at the peak of the clearing the world went into the little ice age?
The land clearing today is nothing compared to the clearing of that period. For the steam engines for the paddle steamers and the railways of the day huge forests were chopped down and burnt. Even the clearing of the selections in the 1800s (when it was compulsory) was far more than we clear today.
Are you that silly – widespread melt. Permafrost melting. Glaciers melting. Treelines moving. And you’re worried about thermometers?
John Sayers – mate you do go on and you do extrapolate to infinity. Gee John why do you think – perhaps you’d need to know the net combination of solar, volcanic, land surface feedback and greenhouse forcings wouldn’t you.
“The land clearing today is nothing compared to the clearing of that period” hmmm – dunno D9 bulldozers and chains tend to be quicker than axes? Qld rates were incredibly high until recently.
But hey John – land clearing brightens the surface on many landscapes (save black clays) – increased albedo – more reflection – cooling – so makes sense. LOL
Luke – the D9 has been around for around 60 years – the axes for 100s of years. Go to google earth and check out Europe and try and find a decent sized forest – all cleared before the D9 came around. Most of Austalia was cleared by the axe – ask Ned Kelly.
Bolt is spot on and even when agreeing with you he has the memory of an elephant.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/labor_chased_the_green_mirage_right_over_a_cliff_cheered_on_the_media/
Guys; Time for back peddling is over. You are getting a carbon tax and the NBN with both starting about now.
Something we don’t get here is an informed debate as illustrated by the notion of oil upwelling forever
Luke your SWIPA link came up on my computer,
It’s the same old (Norwegian?) govt. AGW propaganda. High in rhetoric and devoid of figures and facts.
……”including higher inflows of warm water entering the Arctic Ocean from the Pacific”
Seen any reduction of sea ice extent in the Bering Sea then have we Luke? Same as usual and maybe bigger this year.
And the purple in the satellite images looks as if it’s getting darker after 2007 Luke.
And I just love the way they always include the IPCC…..”very likely ( > 90% probability!!!) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”
Aaahahahahahahahahahahaha
I just love that word “likely”.
Well there’s only likely or not likely to any rational person, but these “scientists” have actually put a percentage on this rhetoric.
It doesn’t matter how many tantrums Luke etc throw over their fraudulent fantasy, the FACTS are they or the world can do nothing or sweet FA about it.
We could bring in Sarah Hanson Young’s $100 a tonne co2 tax today and then increase it every year forever and it wouldn’t alter the climate by a flicker.
But of course it would wreck the Aussie economy and start a depression, so I suppose the mad left would be happy about that.
Of course Luke and Gav’s hero Timothy said the whole world could stop emitting co2 today and we would not see a reduction in temp for hundreds of years or perhaps a thousand years.
You don’t have to be mad or delusional to follow the govt’s chief climate commisioner ( their expert ) but GEEEZZZ it certainly helps.
“..Time for back peddling is over. You are getting a carbon tax and the NBN …”
Actually, we’d prefer to resist fiercely, destabilise the independents, exploit other divisions of the Left, shame the Watermelons on the right, ditch the doctors’ wives…and get a brand new government. Thanks for the advice though.
‘We are getting a carbon tax’ say the mindless warmists. Over my dead body, sparrow.
‘Something we don’t get here is an informed debate’, Gavin says. You’re a lying bastard and if you want to make something of it you can find me at the barricades.
I am a little confused and perhaps you could enlighten me.
On the front page of your website, you make this claim:
“….Dr Marohasy is concerned that public policy on environmental issues is increasingly driven by moral crusading, rather than objective science or need. …”
Yet, despite this claim, you have aligned yourself with this organisation who’s patron is shock jock Alan Jones, and who lists as advisors such luminaries as Christopher Monckton, Jo Nova, Des Moore, John Nicol, David Flint, and Andrew Bolt.
It looks as though your concern about moral crusading is unidirectional. Perhaps you should show equal concern by rejecting the type of rhetoric that these people espouse, and concentrate a little more on the evidence. Does the word hypocrisy mean anything to you?
For someone who is supposedly a scientist, you demonstrate a spectacular ability to deny evidence and facts, whilst concentrating on discredited ideological dogma.
Sad really.
I feel like flying over there and resorting to a punch up too El Gordo .
Maybe the Luke could do some sort of Devo re-mix, with the entire sock puppet gang saying pious sounding crap like those grad students?
Where’s Luke hidding? 🙂 🙂
Jennifer,
Was this Bob Evans a real guy over there?
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/
hunter – it’s David Evans Joanne Nova’s husband.
Hunter here’s Jo’s hubby David Evan’s speaking at ther Perth Rally recently, very good.
‘During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.’
David Evans says it all in one par. Does joolya know about this model failure? Just asking.
Here you go Gavin,
Who said that CO2 is not being sold as a pollutant?
Check out the slogan calling people to action:
Say ‘Yes’ to cutting carbon pollution and a cleaner Australia!
Maybe this is your idea of informed debate Gav?
Look who stars in the You Tube vid.
http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/climate-action-now/nda-sydney/national-day-of-action-sydney
Here’s Jo at the Perth rally, good stuff again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtbuM3OuTZg
Gav and Luke shouldn’t watch these videos from these ex warmists and greenies because you too may wake up and throw your BS out the window.
How’s this embecile for hippo of the century award, talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
I know what some of the steel workers are paid and it’s bloody generous, yet this ungrateful slug wants to supertax the companies and then send them to jail.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/industry-union-chief-martin-omalley-wants-big-carbon-polluters-jailed/story-fn6mhb6v-1226042461956
Geeezzzz can we just have an election so the coalition can start fixing labor’s putrid mess.
Geeezzzz is right Neville!
Mr O’Malley told protesters “carbon polluters shouldn’t just be taxed they should be jailed”.
Yesterday he stood by the comment.
“People who pollute should be jailed,” he said. “The biggest polluters are the biggest multi-nationals in Australia.”
So now CO2 is such a bad pollutant it merits jailing people?
Since when Mr O’Malley?
GEEEZZZ! EXACTLY!
Maybe this is your idea of well informed debate Gav?
“If the rest of the world is doing nothing I’ll probably do nothing,” said Mr Windsor.
Well, that’s one in our pocket.
More fun Hunter can’t even get Evans names right. Twice in the same thread deniers goof on basics.
Tell you what – never listen to reformed devotees – they’ll get back on wagon soon enough. So has Evans given his ill gotten salary back to the Greenhouse Office. OF COURSE NOT. The least he could do after being involved in what he now regards as mortal sin is pay them back. And rocket scientist indeed – Fullcam is crap with a zillions assumptions he presumably programmed in.
Don’t you love reformers. And Jo baby in the video – “I used to be a greenie” – barf – what until David raced her off? “I care about the real environment” she goes on …. pigs botty she does.
Anyway the hotspot – Evans despite his zillion degrees is still NOT a climate scientist. He wouldn’t know – and programming some crappy job on greenhouse inventory doesn’t qualify him for diddly squat – Santer et al panned the hotspot nonsense http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~stevensherwood/santer_IJoC_published_2008.pdf
Deb; where precicely is your oil coming from, now and later on?
An informed debate may include considering points made by those who have a finger in the pie so to speak. The case I tried to make was about us continuing making and unmaking oil like products via major industry if we reckon on using every thing hydra carbon as we did recently.
As I told a lady serving at a popular w/e bakery recently, prior to the 1960’s we did not have these plastic wrappings offered as an alternative to their brown paper bags as used for the hotter loaves. In the 50’s we made glassine and grease proof paper. However by the 60’s & 70’s I had jobs in the petro chem industries making various plastics as pellets for a full range of extrusions and moldings, all requiring extreme heat and pressure at some stage of manufacture.
Just for the nostalgia I collect aluminum utensils made made last century with very cheap electricity. The spinning process used to form lids etc was the crafty bit where the forming tool could have been a wooden stick.
My next Q is; How do we continue to make these goods as our most convenient energy source is gradually removed with or without a carbon tax. As I see it the carbon tax is the least of our worries.
Well Gav for the millionth time why do you think we need a carbon tax?
It’s easy to prove it’s a total waste of time and money, plus it has every chance of wrecking business and jobs in Australia, so why do you want this idiocy?
We need to listen to the warnings of peak-preachers and alarmists, and submit to their taxes and controls.
Everything we depend on now will run out soon. Just like we ran out of horses, mast timbers, tallow, paraffin, adobe straw…and good cave-space. Remember the cave-space crisis?
When will people listen?
Nev; a carbon tax is one way to sort who gets that increasingly precious black fuel for whatever purpose they desire i.e. your plastic shopping bag or a spin round the nearest F1 track
gavin i trust you are not fan of the NBN? that 50 billion minimum could put a $5000 set of solar panels on every roof in oz and leave a bit of change. that would cut household emissions by 30-50%, helping us easily achieve the desired 5% reduction ( this is a bit simple because that ignores the need for coal back up for nights and sun free days….but it does make the point quite well i think?). if the govt had done cost benefit and opportunity cost analysis they would know this. so if CAGW is real, whats more important? porn downloads or the planet?…note most hospitals and schools currently have fast broadband………of course personally id spend the money somewhere else entirely. I do find it interesting that the only people i seem to find in favour of the NBN also believe in CAGW….i wonder why?
‘As I see it the carbon tax is the least of our worries’.
It might be the least of your worries, living in Canberra on a large super, but some of us still have to work to survive and this inflationary spike is causing problems. The pseudo tax is already in place and our power bills have gone through the roof and I blame Labor.
Look guys I’ll confess – NBN is crap – we need much more like 10Gbps AARNet speeds. This will explain why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iesXUFOlWC0
My new workplace http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssJLMGGFUtE
Gavin,
I assume you argue on the basis of peak oil theory? I don’t recall any of the proponents of peak oil theory being correct in the short term. Even the economic oxymoron can’t get his facts right.
You omit one salient fact – government controls 95% of the world’s oil supplies, and it is government which is driving the CAGW agenda.
Go figure.
el gordo,
what Gavin doesn’t mention is that his government funded super depends on maintaining the government Ponzi scheme. I pointed out some time ago that if it is revenue government is chasing, then that’s to fund the unfunded government pensions and superannuation schemes.
Given that the public sector doesn’t produce stuff, but are essentially tax-feeders, then government needs a constant income source to allow its members to survive. What better way than to tax our physical effort, whether directly or indirectly by taxing our proxies, machinery’s emissions.
Gavin’s super is funded by we tax payers, no one else, and if we don’t nip this lunacy in the bud now, then we can look forward to a Greek solution, which isn’t one, of course.
Lovely to see Windsor’s seat getting hard wired first. This is not payback for past favors and any suggestions to the contrary is just idle gossip, it was a decision of the NBN.
Still……this government is very transparent.
Toby: Yes, I’m a big fan of the NBN concept but not exactly all the details as we find people in the newer burbs wondering why they are missing out on anything remotely broad while their older telco’s stand back from the action.
You may remember it was my job for a while to understand the limitations of public and private radio traffic as new systems were being implemented. As it goes even while wallowing in my retirement, one comms systems efficiency researcher would have me back on the payroll. He says I won’t have to do the calcs as we did cause it’s all automated via programs. My guess is those machines still can’t negotiate.
elg; I’m so sorry you haven’t made it yet. Here ‘s my tip, recycle everything you can then stop buying goods from that big factory in Asia. Also watch “Grand Design” repeats on Auntie. Tonight we watched a handyman building from young forest stems, fresh cut boards, split shingles and straw bales plastered with local clay for extra insulation. Seven months work and I assume much of it part time as he sold wood products for cash.
BTW my combined supers incl % late wife, pension etc is about as small as they come, so I advise keeping your day job and staying healthy while you can
Thanks Louis, I will take this newly acquired knowledge and use it efficiently.
I like the straw bales, gavin, cool in summer and warm in winter.
Dear oh dear Gav you really understand logic and reason don’t you?
I’ll try again, what you propose is a totally meaningless gesture when you’re trying to influence fossil fuel use from a base of 1.3% of the worlds human co2 emissions.
This stupidity might make you feel good but will have zero effect on total emissions and will bugger up our economy, businesses and workers job prospects into the future.
Of course it won’t change the climate at all because our reductions in co2 are dwarfed by the twenty to one ratio increase from the developing world for decades to come.
I’m sure you’ve missed your calling, you should be part of the Gillard govt because you seem just as loopy as any labor or green loon in the Reps or senate.
Oh no Luke, not more model power!…..actually I do respect your ability to think even though I dont always agree with your conclusions….. I would not have put you in the camp of NBN supporters. My point does remain however that the only people I ever come across who support NBN ( and they are very hard to find) also believe in a carbon tax and the certainty of the science…strange is it not?
The NBN is like wind and solar. You guarantee that all the innovation money gets spent early on limited or prototypical technologies. Then all your prophecies of lack and limitation come true. Great Leaps Forward and Five Year Plans are still secretly but deeply popular with the elites, even as they lecture us about their newest fetish: The Market.
Gavin,
“BTW my combined supers incl % late wife, pension etc is about as small as they come, so I advise keeping your day job and staying healthy while you can”,
be that it may, the sceptics posting here are the people who pay the taxes, so it would be prudent not to insult them too much. Personally I would have you and Luke in the cart to make your meeting with Madame Guillotine. But that is a personal opinion, since I am human.
At $40 tonne RACQ seem to be saying $10 cents/litre extra and 12 cents on diesel
http://www.racq.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/64226/RACQ_Policy_Position_On_A_Carbon_Price_and_Fuel.pdf
At 15,000 km per year and 14 l /100km for old clunker and $40 tonne CO2 I think I concur
15000/100
150*14 = 2100 litres
2100/3.7854*8.8 = 8.8 kg CO2 / US gallon
4881.914725/1000*40 = tonnes per year * $40
195.276589/2100 = total cost per year
0.0929888519 = cost per litre
Close enough to 10 cents extra with GST….
” Personally I would have you and Luke in the cart to make your meeting with Madame Guillotine.” says moose head.
You mean people who “dodge” taxes….. ROFL.
“More fun Hunter can’t even get Evans names right. Twice in the same thread deniers goof on basics.”
“At $40 tonne RACQ seem to be saying $10 cents/litre extra and 12 cents on diesel”
Do all warmists get their dollars and cents mixed up? Or in other words how much is $10 cents per litre in plain Aussie?
While I’m not one to ridicule a persons religious belief I still think we can all gain some further understanding from watching this video.
Amazing how clear things seem when we apply some logic and reason.
Gav,
Thanks for inviting us into your house tonight to watch Grand Designs.
I’m really beginning to feel at home at your place. 🙂
No Llew they don’t. Only dropkick deniers can’t spot obvious typos especially when given the workings.
Luke,
You “dodge “taxes”as you actually, as opposed to, in the book keeping sense, don’t.
You are a tax feeder.
Luke,
Your figures are a nonsense.
They do not recognise the fact that many businesses rely heavily on fuel and other fossil fuels. Averaging out the usage of fuel for an average worker means very little other than it proves you are good at maths.
You obviously don’t understand the flow on effect of this nor the fact that many many businesses clock over 15,000 K in one month not one year.
Old clunkers do not drive the economy either.
They probably do drive votes via their owners.
It’s just another example of modern man’s ability to use figures, models and stats to prove or support just about any argument at all.
Debs and you are an agrarian socialised concern troll. Did I say I even supported a unilateral Aussie carbon tax. Was simply an idea of what “an average” person might be up for on one aspect. That’s all.
But golly gee Debs, after all manner of taxing fuel for decades everyone still seems to be alive and well. Was that the sky falling in I hear? No somebody just dropped a subsided Murray milk crate. Anyway as peak oil (and surely you don’t believe in this abiotic oil utter stupid nonsense of moose head’s) begins to bite fuel prices will go up of their own accord and I guess the sky will fall in. We’ll all be rooned Debs – mark my words.
I could reply to recent posts here but I think our dinosaurs can’t see. What do they hear?
Today we had Greg Barker speaking about the UK situation on ABC am radio. Perhaps Jen could run a fresh thread – “Cameron on Carbon” as I reckon our floor price will be influenced to some extent by what happens elsewhere including the UK and that’s all about us having having a finger in the industrial pie long term
Just a small taste of our future even before we bring in the co2 tax.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/201105/s3220680.htm
That would be more of a testament to the abiltity of business people to stay tough and to be flexible Luke.
Despite the fact that they are ‘under the gun’, we all think it’s OK to give them further grief because, as you put it, ‘the sky didn’t fall in’ when it was done before.
It is a very weak justification for doing it.
It does not nullify the fact that our govt is hell bent on revenue raising and it is the businesses that rely heavily on fossil fuels that are in the cross hairs.
You also need to be careful with your insistent bleating about subsidising rural industry in Australia.
Considering how good you are at reading models and graphs, have a quick check of the actual net account of tax dollars re rural production.
Who benefits the most? Rural industry or Govt coffers?
In the big picture, rural economies actually subsidise the Australian Federal and State Governments.
That’s right Luke, agricultural industry creates a positive cash flow for Australia which means there are $billions available for the wages for public servants apart from anything else.
In general rural types do not resent that.
It’s a bit annoying when people like you bleat about them being subsidised and also pooh pooh at them when they attempt to point out that new taxes related to areas such as fuel have a much larger affect on their industry than it does on the average person…whatever that is!
What 12% of GDP – pffft !
Neville,
It’s the religious thing as you showed in your previous link. Those who feel guilty for being alive have to make us all wear hair shirts. More tax! More tax!
The other side of the coin are the lukes. More grants! More grants! and you ‘n’ me are stuck with the bill.
The fact that the real producers are already wearing 6 hair shirts doesn’t register with this lot.
They are only focused on the soul [not the atmo] cleansing.
Er, that and the money, of course.
Sadly these self-flagellators are everywhere:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/19/3220796.htm
I would suspect that even 1% of GDP would be more than your business contributes Luke.
It doesn’t change the fact that it is a positive return or that the Australian Govt benefits from it.
It enables them to pay Public Service wages among other things.
Even 1% of GDP would still be a net positive gain to Govt coffers as well.
It’s all relative after all.
Pfft! is just another way to Pooh Pooh at a contributory sector of our society.
Not a particularly intelligent way BTW 🙂
Would you be willing to sacrifice 12% of your profit making ablities for the greater global good?
BTW, because we are a democracy, you’re actually free to do that if you so wish without feeling the need to have the Govt make decisions about who does and doesn’t do it 🙂
Well, waddya know! The IPCC’s gonna behave at last.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/18/ipcc-agrees-to-major-reforms/
But then again, maybe not:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/05/17/ipcc-screw-the-rules/
And another quiet day [century] at the office. Move along, move along:
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/05/fall-et-al-2011-what-we-learned-about-the-climate/#drop
And things aren’t always “worse than we thought”. But don’t tell WWF:
http://www.livescience.com/14216-overestimation-extinction-rate-habitat-loss.html
And that goes for the climate too. Weeeell, weather anyway:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/travel/news/perisher-to-open-three-weeks-early/story-e6freqwo-1226058779820
This is more like climate, with a trend.
Already more than 800 new record low temps have been set in the United States for the month of May.
Global waring is over.
Possibly not global waring, but certainly gorebull worming.
http://www.energy.unimelb.edu.au/uploads/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Report_v1.pdf
James Hansen is touring NZ and I wouldn’t be surprised if he turned up in Oz.
http://www.facebook.com/JamesHansenNZTour?sk=wall&filter=1
There are a lot of zealots in the land of the long white cloud.
Chris Gillham gets a guest post at Watts, discusses Perth’s hottest summer claim.
‘Rounded averages of rounded averages are not accurate and a .1C error is significant if claiming record temperatures, particularly when Australia’s economic and political future is likely to be determined by a public understanding of the need or otherwise for a carbon dioxide tax.’
Yeah Luke, like Denmark and Spain. How not to plan your country’s future, unless you want to go broke and you still need neighbours close by with surplus energy for when you haven’t any.
When you’ve got people like Clive Hamilton and Ian Lowe urging on the sidelines you know it’s gotta be high risk.
Point to one of these plants that works and is affordable.
The model one we built in Windorah would factually cost around $10,000 per household per year plus amortisation and they still have to run the generator almost as much as before.
Nuclear is so far ahead of this crap. It’s the only way the poms can achieve their goal but we aren’t even on the table when it comes to nuclear sense.
A thorium reactor in every suburb with almost no-cost energy. How sinful is that!
“A hypothetical 5 ton, truck-sized 1 MW thorium reactor might run for only $250,000 but would generate enough electricity for 1,000 people for the duration of its operating lifetime, using only 20 kg of thorium fuel per year, running almost automatically, and requiring safety checks as infrequently as once a year. That would be as little as $200/year after capital costs are paid off, for a thousand-persons worth of electricity! An annual visit by a safety inspector might add another $200 to the bill. A town of 1,000 could pool $250K for the reactor at the cost of $250 each, then pay $400/year collectively, or $0.40/year each for fuel and maintenance. These reactors could be built by the thousands, further driving down manufacturing costs.”
As a blind dinosaur, but with acute hearing as a consequence, Gavin’s comment has to be one of the more patronising, supercilious glibberations extant.
Louis,
re. gavin’s comment, thankfully I’m nowhere his age yet, but every time I see his posts
I pray that when I reach his age, I will have the good sense to shut up or have my mutterings
vetted by family members first. (some may say I should do it already I suppose?)
He reminds me of the character Dick Emery played, the bloke who knew and could do everything.
The longer he posts the more qualified he becomes and his achievements grow in numbers.
Jonathan,
I’ve never watched Dick Emery’s portrayal of that but I do recall his skit of the village idiot, and both Luke and Gavin continue to remind me of that performance.
Jonathan,
Mind you, both Luke and Gavin remind me of Dame Melly Melba’s comment, that in order to understand her, one needs to undertand she was, first and foremost, an Australian, or Orstrayan if either Gavin or Luke, using the current argot.
JW; her (current mate’s) grandkids call me “Mr Fix It” however SHE thinks we live in a large house absolutely crammed full of my junk all going nowhere. Sure, it’s a prop after trying to sort every kind of measurement problem that an aging technical type could be expected to handle but I don’t give up easily. Beware!
Note; ‘she’ was former technician who recently retired after a number of years service in concrete technology and in many ways my equal. We both practice deprogramming missionaries in our spare time. You know, the hapless ones who dress very smartly for their rather ordered door to door campaigns. Key tactic; get them following that money trail, usually back to a foreign HQ. Boy, I love reading some of the stups that come here too.
http://www.coag.gov.au/reports/docs/HTSolar_thermal_roadmap.pdf
Luke,
Spare us the 120 page proposals of old ideas that don’t work.
How about a current assesment of what is really being produced from these dud systems.
gav,
OK I’ll bite. Where is that junk going?
I love fixing old junk too so I can empathise but even when I do fix it, my cheese n’ kisses is never impressed.
Something along these lines: [you’re such a terrier for seeking out govt subsidies]
“In the U.K., a report by Verso Economics used the Scottish government’s own macroeconomic model to show that, despite receiving net transfers of about £330-million ($521-million) from the rest of the U.K. for its renewables sector, Scotland still experienced a net job loss from wind power, and for the U.K. as a whole, 3.7 jobs were lost for every job created in renewable energy.
“In Spain, researchers at King Carlos University found that, on average, each job in the wind sector cost the country more than £1-million, implying a loss of 2.2 private sector jobs for every new job created in the renewables sector.”
It doesn’t even have to be in English:
http://www.lavanguardia.com/medio-ambiente/20110517/54155159411/un-juez-de-lerida-ordena-desmantelar-un-parque-eolico-de-45-molinos.html
SD; with about 250 drawers full of fine metal threads, screws etc collected over several decades from deceased estates, scrapped appliances and so on I hope to restore anything vintage like hand tools toys etc.
Then there is a similar number of full 35mm film canisters full of smaller fry and a large collection of Whitworth bolts & nuts from eight to half inch dia in tubs waiting for that “antique” item that needs hard to find bits for completion.
Thats the normally organised storage downunder but if it takes an hour to disassemble an item it takes four times as long to get anything back together later on after Ive had to buff up all the threads. Some tiny bit always flies out of my fingers despite the better light next door in my carport. Btw I don’t do electronic circuit repairs any more and I avoid fiddling with clockwork motors, also most vehicle repairs at home.
I get lucky occasionally and can salvage some art work, dinner set or a decent piece of Australian furniture. Unfortunately the next gen, hers and mine don’t need it all so it often returns and piles floor to ceiling up stairs and down.
gav,
How are you for WW2 Italian aircraft fuel line fittings? 2 start thread, tapered?
I know they are obtainable overseas at exorbitant prices. I gave up however and turned some up on my beaut Chinese lathe. That multi-speed Norton gearbox gets me out of a lot of trouble.
More power to your elbow. It’s the challenge that counts.
gav,
That old clockwork stuff is fun. The tricky bit is adjusting the length of the pendulum to allow for 0.7c of AGW ☺.
More great renewable stuff Luke could tell us about:
http://notrickszone.com/2011/05/19/biogas-plants-producing-deadly-botulism-could-be-catastrophic-to-wildlife/
And while he’s at it he could even get back to fundamentals:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/vostok-cores-show-zero-climate-sensitivity/
Oh gawd! After cutting a bit off the pendulum now I’ve gotta solder a bit on:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/36664
But the more climate changes the more Polar Bears remain the same:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/international-conservation-group-global
SD; that graph T v CO2 could be quite misleading given it’s tiny outline, an unfortunate choice in the extreme. Don’t be fooled by a few of these naieve blog writers.
Look very carefully at the last 25000 years and see how T+ is now hanging up there like never before in our ice history. Something about the old CO2 temp relationship has suddenly gone wrong.
Back to clocks and threads, I served part of my time tuning large case masters and maintaining a string of puled slaved “time” card monitors. Clock on clock off routines and pay for a few hundred workers depended on how aware I was of sabotaged time machines down the line. It gave me a good insight to understanding tempest rated gear later on.
Distorted threads were another issue. If I can fix them, it’s usually with a mill file of suitable section in the first instance but it’s needle files for keys and locks. Your average machinist would be horrified by my shortcuts so we must agree that there are various ways to create an impression while drawing a cat.
Btw; double start threads are very uncommon and I suggest particularly for hard drawn tubing
It is hard to forget and cast aside the complex and beautiful mechanisms of the 19th & 20th centuries that modern production simply devalues.
“Btw; double start threads are very uncommon and I suggest particularly for hard drawn tubing”
Yeah and the bloody things had a hollow profile as well, for which I had to grind a special tool.
But back to that graph….. it’s not the temperature that’s hanging up there. It’s the CO2!
But I see what you mean and that is the beneficial part of man-made GW. Our population explosion does affect the warming but it is due to a lot more than just ACO2.
When there’s no one left on earth it will go cold.
Like the little boy said at the end of his sea-side holiday, “What will they do with the ocean now?”
Gavin
“Look very carefully at the last 25000 years and see how T+ is now hanging up there like never before in our ice history. Something about the old CO2 temp relationship has suddenly gone wrong.”
Which graph and what part of the graph are you criticising?
Louis,
I think gav means this:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/vostok-cores-show-zero-climate-sensitivity/
And I assumed he was referring to the length of the interglacial which I didn’t get at first.
Louis; see how T positive hangs on in this interglacial ie my “man made” influence via “Interglacial” ice age temperature changes@ wiki
Look a variety of geological studies puts climate sensitivity at 3C. Get with the program denier geologists. (and pullease don’t bung on the ye olde ice age ruse)
Spanglers – you’re so irrationally negative on solar. Give them them some development space. In fact why doesn’t the opposition run hard on no carbon tax but a sprint on technology. Louis would even love it as it will create a drive for minerals.
You’ll note that the holocene has the lowest temp out of the last 5 interglacials and even at Vostok the early holocene optimum is clearly shown.
But Goddard is right the last 60 year temp at this site doesn’t show any correlation to the extra co2 at all.
Rather buggers up their theory of CAGW wouldn’t you say.
BTW that terrible pollutant is finding favour when people ( babies, kids, adults ) suffer from too little co2 or too much oxygen called hypocapnia.
Levels 120 times higher than atmospheric levels (0.039% compared to 5%) can help with brain , lung and aterial problems.
Premature babies can have problems breathing in too high a level of oxygen and some studies show an increased level of co2 can help.
Not bad for that terrible pollutant rubbish that our embecible pollies rave about.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1872042/
Thanks Spangles,
Gavin, supply the evidence for your argument please, and don’t waste my time with Lukian distractions either, thank you.
Could the cosmic ray idea be gaining more converts based on solid evidence?
Roy Spencer seems to be coming around because he is mearsuring more effect from this source.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/20/indirect-solar-forcing-of-climate-by-galactic-cosmic-rays-an-observational-estimate/#more-40318
‘Why doesn’t the opposition run hard on no carbon tax but a sprint on technology?’
I agree, a decentralization program with fast and efficient transport to satellite cities with straw bale houses and state of the art renewables. That will work.
“Spanglers – you’re so irrationally negative on solar. Give them them some development space.”
That’s precisely what I want them to have as per Bjorn Lomborg’s recipe for future development but dont stuff up the ecology and the economy with today’s half-baked technology which is fundamentally no better than it was a generation ago.
I use off-grid solar pv [and I’ve used wind gen too] and I know just how limited it is.
Neville, that’s so true and why in those situations it is recommended we inhale from a container of our own exhalation.
Luke does not appreciate that it is our increased emissions that allows him to enjoy his rush-of-blood through cranial arteriodilation.
Mind you, he probably also gets it from the stuff he smokes….☺
Havana?
Just love those govt subsidies:
“As to subsidies, even the alleged billions for oil companies are a pittance compared to subsidies for wind, solar and ethanol. Subsidies per unit of energy actually produced are even more shocking. According to the Energy Information Administration, gas-fired electricity generation received a mere 25 cents per megawatt-hour in 2007 subsidies; coal got 44 cents. By comparison, wind turbines got 23.4 dollars and photovoltaic solar received 24.3 dollars per mWh.”
http://netrightdaily.com/2011/05/rants-lies-subsidies-and-job-killing-policies/
I use off-grid solar pv [and I’ve used wind gen too] and I know just how limited it is.
me to.
Just imagine you boof-heads being in charge at the turn of the 19th century – we’d still be feet deep in hose dung by now. Cars are too expensive. Horses are more reliable. Innovation will never work etc….
Neanderthal chimps … eeek eeeek eeeekkk
Pay attention Luke!
This is about getting poor battler workers and producers to subsidise the non-productive, pure-of-mind, green-religion drones in their search for the holy grail.
Back at the turn of the 19th c these battlers really embraced the new age tech yet were smart enough to keep their horses to produce the world’s food supply during two WWs and a depression when the short comings of that tech left them high and dry.
Use that analogy by all means because it is exactly what the sceptics are saying right now.
And I don’t recall a horse manure tax in those days but maybe that’s still to come.
Twaddle – acid rain tax (SO2), CFCs and motor vehicle emission regs have worked a treat. Couldn’t be done they said. Bull.
You guys just want to hold the clock back. In fact you guys would have been big proponents of the Red Flag act, The Locomotive Act and the Turnpike Acts.
You have stopped the moon landings.
You lot would have prevented nuclear power. And isn’t it telling that you boofs never decry the research investment into fusion research. Nary a tweet on that.
There is very good technical reason to think a lot can be achieved with thermal storage solar given a serious development attempt. But no you guys just love sucking on those coal cubes.
What a bunch of retros.
Anyway here’s my latest video for ya http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVP0msC8JCg&playnext=1&list=PL0FE490535897FB05
As spangled just pointed out, your analogy is a nonsense Luke.
New technology at the turn of last century was definitely not funded by a tax on horse manure!
It was also not created or encouraged by a centralised bureaucracy.
Neither was it encouraged or created by an artificial global market that shifted horse manure around the world via bookwork and funded by taxpayers.
Go check your history.
No one here is arguing that we don’t need new technology. We are pointing out that a ‘Carbon (O2) tax’ in Australia will not achieve any of the stated goals.
In a democracy like ours we are perfectly capable of funding and encouraging new technology without the need of extra government taxes.
In fact, historically, centralised governments have a nasty habit of wasting insane amounts of money on technology projects and social projects that could have been supplied and mass produced much more efficiently and cheaply via private enterprise.
That does not mean that we don’t need a government at all, we just don’t really need them sticking their hands in our pockets and ultimately wasting our money when there are much more efficient ways to achieve progress.
Also,
I hope people don’t mind, but I wanted to cut and paste a comment from Jonova’s site that is related to this discussion. I thought it was a colourful description of some of the debate around AGW:
“After reading both the “BackRadiation” posts until my eyes bled, I read comments on this post from KR trying to show that ‘warmer’ is worse than ‘cooler’.
What sort of warmer KR?
Isn’t global warming supposed to happen MAINLY at the poles? NOBODY F*****G LIVES THERE!
Isn’t global warming supposed to happen mainly in winter? THAT’S A GOOD THING, LESS COLD WEATHER DEATHS, LONGER GROWING SEASONS.
Isn’t global warming supposed to mainly increase minimum temperatures? NOBODY FRIGGING DIED OF HEAT STROKE AT 5AM IN THE MORNING
Don’t most “backradiation” proponents agree that BR hardly increases daily highs, but reduces heat loss overnight increasing daily lows at a given time of day? AN EXTRA POOFTEENTH OF A DEGREE AT 2 PM AIN’T GUNNA KILL ANYBODY
I have read many of your comments here and at Skeptical KR, you are obviously an intelligent person and you argue your cases quite well. So why do you feel the need to argue against such a lay down misere’ as health and AGW?
@John Brookes
Transition to a warmer world? WTF? Do you really think an increase of 0.7DegC in 150 years has made transition difficult for humans critters and vegetation?
We make a transition from single digit Ts in the morning to 30s in the arvo with no trouble. An extra poofteenth at 2pm at the height of summer in 2100 will only make a difference to advocates, those with agendas, lemmings and various Richard Craniums. Which one are you?
The rest of the discussion is here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/evidence-suggests-global-warming-is-good-for-our-health/#comments
One of the much loved arguments used by AGW Climate Change proponents is that a tax on carbon and a global governence on carbon trading will ultimately slow down global warming/climate change and therefore create health benefits because it will reduce the deaths from heat????
They also loudly proclaim that it is ‘the greatest challenge of our time’.
Really? I would have thought we have much greater challenges than an insanely expensive desire to prove that we are catastrophically effecting climate?
Also, I still want to know why CO2 is being touted as a dangerous pollutant?
Since when?
It wasn’t that long that I graduated from University. I was taught that we are carbon based lifeforms and we generate CO2 every time we exhale. I was also taught that plant life loves the stuff and will yield exceptionally well with higher levels of CO2. I also learnt that plant life waste product is Oxygen.
Has the science changed? Did I miss something?
If plant life ruled the world they would now perhaps be arguing for a tax on oxygen emissions?
Debbie your latest set of “science arguments” border on moronic. Are you actually that silly? I am utterly gob stopped by the pure stupidity of comments.
Debs – acid rain, ozone hole, automobile emissions have all been addressed by legislation.
And we all know CO2 isn’t a “pollutant” – just a Fed talking point – but changes nothing about the climate science – nothing.
A warmer world – sharks into colder waters. That’ll be fun for polar species. Changing mean climate affects the extremes. Insects grow quicker in a warmer world. Enjoy your pests. A drying sub-tropics – just for you Debs. Stronger cyclones. The comments on “backradiation” are fucking stupid.
In fact just open your mouth and sprout crap. Don’t bother to read any of the science. Just say the first moronic comment that traverses your two neurone synapses.
If you love CO2 – fill the room full of it and enjoy !
And just to make sure you didn’t miss it Luke,
Your argument re acid rain etc were about GENUINE POLLUTANTS and it was necessary to regulate them because they were GENUINE POLLUTANTS.
You are now advocating that we need our Govt to tax CO2 for the same reason?
I know you don’t believe that CO2 is a pollutant…so what’s up?
Your argument unfortunately is the one that could turn the clock back to a political experiment that has been tried before. (and failed)
Agree to this political manouvre and it is tied to an eventual global taxpayer funded governance of CO2 emissions.
There are much smarter ways for Australia to move towards new energy technology.
Deb,
Don’t forget about that new 40 billion NBN technology that 7 people in Armidale are using mainly for playing high-speed war games.
This is the sort of cost effective stuff we all need to make the world a better place.
Luke [and Tony Windsor] heaven.
Luke,
For your Sunday climax you should listen here to Naomi and Dr Karl urinating in each other’s pockets:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/5/21/oreskes-and-dr-karl.html
A recent report (not to hand) said the polar bears are doing fine after that recent 30 year bout of warming.
Yes eg, reports of their demise have been grossly exaggerated. The cold, hungry Inuits just wanna know when they can start eating them again. But of course they are too cute for that. Just like our crocs.
Where have we heard all this before:
http://www.livescience.com/14216-overestimation-extinction-rate-habitat-loss.html
Today is Glossy Black Cockatoo Survey day and I should be tramping around the bush in the rain to log their whereabouts. The buggers were here at the house yesterday but I am not allowed to count them. I’ve got go out and find them TODAY and draw pictures of their face markings etc for the register. I’ve already had two goes with no luck but I suppose I better go and get another wet arse. I just hope those bloody Glossies appreciate this.
Hopefully they are just hiding somewhere, because of the rain, so if I here that numbers are down I might be a little sceptical.
Debs – the whole idea of “pollution taxes” is about internalising externalities and the tragedy of the commons. i.e. if it doesn’t cost you anything to pump effluent into waterways and that’s the cheapest thing to do well it’s economically rational to do so. But if it costs enough business or the public modify their behaviour.
CO2 is a radiative forcing agent not a toxic pollutant in the normal sense – any sensible person understands this. Too much will rapidly change the Earth’s climate in the next 50 to 100 years. A number of undesirable consequences are likely so it’s good risk management to substantially move to a post-carbon energy economy. We need to do this quickly. The market has failed as externalities are not internalised. Hence the argument.
Of course it’s not that simple but that’s the gist of it. Why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
Warming is great – what anthropomorphic bias http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217220939.htm
Luke,
I’m not sure how name calling helps your case, but if it makes you feel better you go right ahead.
BTW, if you’re doing it to try and goad me into behaving in the same manner, it’s not working.
I always scored that type of argument and that tactic very poorly in University debates.
I am interested to know why you thought what I said about us exhaling CO2 and Plants converting CO2 is moronic?
I admit it was a simplistic explanation but as far as I am aware we do actually generate CO2 when we exhale and plants use CO2 and provide O2 as a waste product.
Maybe the science has changed?
I also admit I was using irony when I said that plants should be lobbying for a tax on O2 if they had reached our stage of world domination. I apologise if you missed the irony and found it offensive, that wasn’t my intention.
Also FYI, I pasted that comment from Jonova’s blog because I thought it was ‘colourful’ which is another way of saying ‘amusing’. The post is after all about yet another attempt to use climate science for the wrong reasons.
I am fully aware that you know that CO2 is not a dangerous pollutant.
Your flippant comment:
And we all know CO2 isn’t a “pollutant” – just a Fed talking point – but changes nothing about the climate science – nothing.
Is actually the whole point that is being made here. Unfortunately it has gone way, way beyond just being a fed talking point, more’s the pity.
Sprouting prophecies about sharks and insects among other things sounds impressive and may or may not come to pass.
Would you like to explain to me how a ‘Carbon (O2) tax’ is going to do anything to avoid these prophecies coming to pass? If they don’t come to pass and we did have a CO2 tax, does that mean it was the reason why (some time into the future?)
Also, when have I EVER criticised climate science as a science?
I have repeatedly posted that I think it’s a very important discipline and there will be no one happier than us agrarian socialist trolls (one of your many attempts to name call 🙂 ) when climate prediction gets better. Especially long term and seasonal predictions.
What I have vociferously objected to is the way climate science has been shamelessy hijacked for purposes which it was not intended and cannot possibly fulfil.
I have also vociferously objected to the misuse of projective modelling and claims that it ‘settles’ the science.
If we had all ‘settled the science’ about climate and the environment it would be time for all those extremely prophetic scientists to ascend to heaven!
Does that mean I think they are WRONG?
Maybe they are, maybe they’re not. That isn’t the point anyway.
I certainly don’t think they are Absolutely RIGHT, beyond any doubt and therefore it is imperative for us to introduce a global ETS to avoid the coming armageddon that we have caused by dangerously polliuting the atmosphere with CO2!
That is what is being sold to us.
It is propagandist and alarmist clap trap.
It is also interfering with our ability to move ahead with good technology and cheap power sources.
Those of us who study history have seen a variation of this same theme many, many times before.
whoops! Crossed posts!
Thanks for the last one Luke. That actually helps.
“The water only needs to remain above freezing year round for it to become habitable to some sharks, and at the rate we’re going, that could happen this century,” Wilga said. “Once they get there, it will completely change the ecology of the Antarctic benthic community.”
Some sharks will enter Antarctic waters by the end of the century. Hope these guys aren’t getting grant money to carry on their research.
Regional cooling will dampen AGW theory, but if it proved to be correct there is always the option of a shark bounty in Antarctic waters.
OK,
Now I have had a look at your links and they’re not helpful at all.
Prisoners and the associated psychology?
MAY be hospitable to sharks?
We have to sell our political souls for this?
Too much CO2 will rapidly change the Earth’s climate in the next 50 to 100 years?
What’s your definition of ‘rapidly change’?
Not even Tim Flannery will say that. He at least had enough sense to say a small increase in 1000 years although he got a massive slap on the wrist for saying it.
We need to do this quickly?
Who do you think WE is Luke?
It appears your idea of WE is SOMEONE ELSE.
I’m not certain (because we’ve all been SOOO bamboozled by SOOOO many graphs and models) but I’m pretty sure historical data shows that we have had much higher levels of CO2 in our atmosphere before and it didn’t cause the sharks to eat polar animals and neither did it directly cause a bug infestation. It also probably didn’t cause catastrophic weather events.
Catastrophic weather events are caused by changes in air pressure, changes in ocean currents, changes in seasons and the movement of moisture (or lack thereof) in the atmosphere.
They are also influenced by other variables that we do not fully understand and can’t predict. Those would include volcanoes and earthquakes as the more obvious examples but others such as variable heat and radiation from the sun and gravitational influences from places such as the moon and the closer planets could also be influencing climate in ways we don’t understand yet.
As far as bugs go, if you’re truly concerned about that, the money would be much wiser spent tightening up our border controls and studying entymology.
Climate science is unlikely to fix that problem or avoid it.
As I type this post we are copping a massive rain event that the BOM partly predicted but was nonetheless way off. A 90% likelihood of 10 to 20mls has just turned into a 5 minute downpour of over 30mls and it’s still pouring.
We’re not unhappy about that but it does sort of point out that climate science, even though it’s improving, DOES NOT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS AND SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A CRYSTAL BALL!
The market has not failed BTW. It hasn’t been given a chance because governments have interfered and decided that they should control it. They have also decidied that they should be the ones to pick the right projects to invest in. They have also decided that taxpayers all over the world will fund whatever they pick, via them.
That’s called a centralised socialist bureaucracy.
Good luck with that!
El Gordo wakey wakey – sharks and crabs would devastate Antarctic ecosystems and the Peninsula is warming quickly.
DEBBIE DEBBIE – WAKE UP ! The sharks example is one of a 1000 changes. It simply shoots a hole in the very human view that warming would be “nice” for everything.
The billions spent on drought relief on agriculture over decades PROVE Aussie farmers don’t cope. you simply don’t cope with big droughts (even though you preach you’ve got it under control – pigs bum you do).
And if you had any brains you’d know we’re down to our last bunch of pesticides with resistance closing in. They’re simply not developing many new ones. But you’ll enjoy another two generations per year in many crops species – enjoy !
Are you actually that simple that you think that you can change climate where Brisbane climate moves to Sydney over 50 years and not see major and unpredictable ecological change.
You cannot change the entire radiation balance of the planet’s atmosphere and not expect major effects. It isn’t solar – it isn’t the planets – it’s greenhouse forcing.
Prisoners dilemma – simply shows we’re highly unlikely to cooperate as to doing the right thing. As does MDB politics on another front. Instead of cooperating people will fight and everyone loses.
“That’s called a centralised socialist bureaucracy” = Aussie rice growing – ROFL …
Alarmists can neither claim nor explain that only ACO2 causes climate change and so they should look at this:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-paper-shows-significant-natural.html
Luke,
You are sprouting propagandist alarmism and using climate science just as inapropriately as the politicians are.
You cannot prove that CO2 is dangerous or that Brisbane weather will move to Sydney.
That is just nonsense.
You can theorise but that is not proof.
I could use a model to theorise that the increase of whale numbers and crocodile numbers have affected marine and coastal ecology and ocean temperatures and therefore the weather.
All that proves is that I can use modelling to postulate a theory.
Nothing else.
Your political postulating is old and broken.
That is the very old carrot and stick theory which requires a centralised bureaucracy to control.
Check your history.
Really Debbie you deserve a medal for trying to get any sense out of Luke and his ramblings above show he is the most inconsistent fool one could hope to meet.
As any sensible person knows there isn’t a thing we can do to change the climate in ten years time or a hundred years time.
Unfortunately history scientifically proves that the climate changes naturally all the time and certainly doesn’t need humans to somehow cause the change, whatever Luke thinks.
The trouble is Luke can’t complete the mitigation part of his argument and he’d be a fool to try and an even bigger fool to believe it if he did try.
But I’ll ignore my advice above and have a go, trying to be practical as I make the attempt.
Firstly we should make more use of our natural gas supplies and make sure any new power station is run this way. This saves about 75% in co2 emissions over coal and even more over brown coal.
Next we need to allocate a set amount from the budget to be spent on R&D and invention and new technology.
Along with the Smorgan family and companies in USA and elsewhere I still think there could be a big future for Algae generators fed co2 from power stations to rapidly produce all types of fuel.
But in the interim we should produce oil and gas from coal to reduce our imports. ( of oil)
South Africa has been doing this for years and the technology has been available for ages.
The Tesla roadster set a world record in Australia recently of around 450 klms on a single charge of its battery pack.
If use was made of new capacitor technology plus more nano battery tech as well who knows what could happen in the next ten years.
It’s claimed on youtube that some of the new nano tech will allow batteries to be charged in as little as ten minutes, or not much longer than a coffee/toilet break on say a 1000 klm trip.
Of course a docking facility could be used now to quickly change a standard pack quickly and at least as fast as a standard fuel stop takes at the moment.
None of the above will change the climate of course but would reduce co2 emissions all the same.
There I’ve had a go and I’m sure Luke will laugh his skull off and tell me what a hopeless bonehead I am, but who cares.
Luke
“a lot can be achieved with thermal storage solar given a serious development attempt”
Could you direct me to a site where it I can see the calculations, for a base load solar-thermal storage power plant?
I’m particularly interested in the location and the size required.
Like spangled drongo, I had to live with “renewable” power source(s) for a while and it ain’t easy or very convenient at all, I say.
You are confusing questioning of the theory with being a luddite and standing in the way of progress.
Debbie – you’re just a typical dismissive farm girl – doing a hand wave – “don’t you worry about that”. There are many examples of climate changing dramatically – some in fact off our own coast and off Japan. Frost frequency declining in the summer cropping zone over a century. But you’ll just wave your hand and dismiss it all as you really are just a denier. You’ve just saturated yourself in a political milieu – you don’t follow the science – you just look out your window.
And Neville – What a rabid alarmist sceptic. An encyclopedia in denial. BUT bizarrely Nev is suddenly advocating all sorts of speculative technology – go figure? Wow ! So do I sledge him for having a go – nuh !
So as for the carbon tax – bad idea. Elaborate money cycling. Want to tax me to develop new energy systems – yep up for that !
Ocean oscilations could also be responsible for the current “global” warming, most of which is in the Arctic.
And why would it be natural in the 1930s and ACO2 in the 1990s?
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ArcticCycles.htm
Lukes take note:
Green Spain’s under 25 jobless rate 44.6 percent:
http://www.news.com.au/world/unemployed-youth-protest-over-economic-policy-in-spain/story-e6frfkyi-1226060277267
And UK’s green carbon tax is pointing them in the same direction with a lot more to come:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/247946/EU-push-for-green-energy-costs-another-1-500-jobsEU-push-for-green-energy-costs-another-1-500-jobs
The rate of Greenland warming in 1920-30 was about 50% higher than 1995-2005:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_Greenland.htm
Talking of Japan, check out the anomaly.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom_new.gif
So why aren’t you guys protesting about the billions spent on fusion research. how strange.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/power-bills-to-double-in-six-years-on-carbon-price-truenergy/story-e6frf7ko-1226060533782
Things aren’t always what they seem Luke, for example Anthony Watts has driven an electric vehicle for years and has fitted his house out with LED lighting and yet he runs the largest sceptic site on the internet.
He certainly isn’t a true believer but likes electric vehicles and new technology. He probably does more in a personal practical sense than Gore and all the other urgers combined.
I would defy anyone to have a smaller carbon footprint than I have. My cars on gas and I live a very frugal existence and keep my expenses at a minimum.
I own only one house and could easily retire but I still run my own business and do my best to be a good friend and neighbour to those around me.
And no I’m certainly not a religious person either but some of my friends are and I respect that as long as they leave me alone on that score.
I’ve known for a long time that Luke is an incoherant lost cause, so why waste more time on him?
As Debbie has found out you cannot pin him down as to his real understanding of so called CAGW.
The remedy as proposed by the mad Gillard govt is an easily explained fraud and nonsensical con trick.
Simply explained if you export 3 tonnes of coal to 1 tonne used at home in Australia you can’t fix anything by reducing our emissions of co2 on that 1 tonne by 5% or indeed even 100%.
Luke of course believes in some new maths theory that somehow circumvents this annoying 3 to 1 ratio.
Of course there is another unbeatable problem or another unsurmountable ratio of 20 to 1 to overcome and this can only be fixed by using some new maths theory as well.
If non OECD countries emit 20 times the co2 of OECD countries for the next quarter of a century and at the end of that period nearly double the OECD’s total there is ZERO we can do about it.
Trust me if we are somehow able to reduce our emissions by 5% over that period (at incalculable cost to business and jobs) it will have no effect, so why do it.
Here’s another lateral way of producing the same result and with little pain. Just export 1.7% less of that coal tonnage every year and you end up with exactly the same result as the 5% reduction on our one third tonnage used at home.
Think about it Luke, but please use the old maths not the fantasy spoon fed to you by Juliar.
Another theory just out BTW and requires you to look down into the ocean depths and not into the atmosphere for the cause of any recent warming.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/blame_the_ocean_not_the_emissions/
Luke; “you don’t follow the science – you just look out your window”
In Deb’s case, I wonder about that Luke. Although it’s the subject of the latest thread and we’ve had a few drops overnight, the Canberra region is very very dry despite SD’s observation of an early ski season and a few other things in blogsphere.
The reality is 70% of the MDB population lives near me and we are being asked to give up 50% of our expected water needs for the sake of “our” environment a little further away.
IMO your Debs has a very narrow view from her window and SD doesn’t get about much either.
BTW cohenite’s old mate Will had quite a bit to say on the issue of our climate change, ABC news overnight
Good old Gav forever talking around his subject and proving nothing.
Another new theory on CC to perhaps fit into the emerging picture of what really causes our changes in climate.
Roy Spencer has started to look at the numbers and has come around to the galactic cosmic ray theory as espoused by Svensmark and Shaviv.
So perhaps we have co2 causing a small warming, oceans ditto and weaker or stronger sun having a role as well over a long period of time.
Problem is at the moment we can do SFA about any of the above so let’s hit the adaptation button and spend our spare funds on that and R&D/new invention as well.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/indirect-solar-forcing-of-climate-by-galactic-cosmic-rays-an-observational-estimate/
Debs: If your window is just a TV here is my tip.
Climate change in our region can be observed by anyone with an eye on the daily weather. IMO we are seeing on average much larger systems, both highs and lows. The overall effect is drier colder weather through the lower MDB about now, hotter spells later on as the big lows are driven south and hence miss places like Perth and Canberra for longer.
But nothing is so clear that we can each go Ahhh! One needs to be ball and very experienced with traditional measurement practices.
http://climatecommission.govspace.gov.au/files/2011/05/4108-CC-Science-Update-PRINT-CHANGES.pdf
BTW Neville – are you silly like Bolta. It’s 4.5 year cycle. Sheesh !
Nev; I intend to see you guys out based on easy observations. Glaciers are melting everywhere. sea levels are not going down but up and lifestyle is being impacted everywhere at the margins.
Note too I don’t work from info generally found round the blogs
The Bolter just talked to Steffen on his radio show and what a fool this silly bloke turned out to be.
You can hear it later today and it’s a beauty, if this is the best the govt can do then they are in a real hopeless mess.
He praised China because they are tackling their emissions yuk, yuk and wouldn’t concede that their co2 increases would rise by much because they are closing down old dirty Power stations.
Of course China is the world’s biggest emitter and will be increasing their emissions for the next 25 years by 2.7% per annum.
What a bloody fool this bloke is or perhaps a liar, you work it out.
I mean it’s not as if this is hard to calculate or understand, particularly for a so called climate scientist.
He was also evasive ( or unsure) on temps and sea level as well, what a joke.
Luke,
After all that name calling and ranting you then say this?
“So as for the carbon tax – bad idea. Elaborate money cycling. Want to tax me to develop new energy systems – yep up for that !”
I am now comlpetely confused why you find it so necessary to rant and rave when you seem to agree that the carbon tax is a bad idea and it is in fact just elaborate money cycling???
Isn’t that almost exactly what the Galileo movement (the topic of this post) is saying?
But back to the ranting and raving bit however…. and some questions and comments about that?
Where did anyone claim that the climate is not in constant change and flux?
The argument has always been about whether man is causing most of it or whether most of it is just what happens because climate and nature do change and always have. Man has always had some influence as well, especially in heavily urbanised areas and intensive agricultural areas. I haven’t seen anyone on this blog claim otherwise. It is the degree of man’s influence and also the propagandist alarmism about it that has been the issue.
How would you propose that AGW climate science could fix the fact that farmers struggle in droughts and that insects are becoming immune to some pesticides?
I would suggest that even though climate science (as a pure science not its alarmist AGW branch) is a very useful tool, it is not the best place to invest to fix those particular issues.
I would suggest tightening border controls and studying entymology would be a wiser investment for the bugs and sourcing better storage, water infrastructure, water recycling, hydro technology, drought resistant varieties etc, would be the wiser investment area for the drought problem.
Are you claiming that all your quoted examples of the climate changing rapidly are entirely due to and therefore controllable by mankind’s production of CO2?
I fear that Neville may be correct and you are rambling incoherently just for the sake of being argumentative.
You must be failing to spot the inwardly spiraling track your arguments are taking you.
You rudely claim that people who don’t agree with you are taking us back to the dark ages and you have scoffed at me several times about ‘we’ll all be rooned” and my supposed myopic and uninformed view of the world.
However you then preach ‘we’ll all be rooned’ if everyone doesn’t follow your precious projective AGW theory and the radiative forcing properties of CO2, because we will have untold millions of climate refugees, Brisbane weather is packing up and moving to Sydney, Sharks and crabs are going to feast on polar animals, it will never rain again, it will rain too much, we will have more cyclones, we will have more droughts, we will have bug infestations and on and on and on and on!!!!
In your own words Luke
SHEEESH!!!
Debbie Luke doesn’t seem to know what he believes in and poor old Gav can’t calculate simple maths either.
This is all you need to know that the Climate commission +Juliar report is a total absurdity.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html
Of course you can add the fact that Australia only emits 1.3% of the planet’s emissions and we export three times the coal we use at home and the absurdity just grows and grows.
Just heard on the news that the Spanish govt has had big swings against it in over night elections and people have been rallying against cost of living pressures etc.
Of course this was the place for all those green jobs we hear about, just a pity that it causes enormous unemployment and a financial crisis as well.
FYI Gavin,
Approx 70% of the MDB population does in fact live near you in the Canberra region.
That was one way Prof Quentin Grafton was able to seriously skew the economic figures in the Guide to the MDBP
However, you and Prof Grafton have failed to recognise that your region is NOT where the most prodution or the positive GDP in the MDB comes from.
I would suggest that your 70% of MDB population in the Canberra region is a massive tax dollar drain on the rest of the MDB.
Following your logic and your argument we would need to throw further tax dollars down that same hungry drain.
Gav, by looking out his window can spot AGW.
Ya gotta admit that’s pretty sharp especially when most of it is happening in the north pole producing a rate of around 0.5c per century.
And part [the most part?] of that due to natural variability.
Hawkeye Gav!
When the greenies get their way and we revert to horse and buggy systems, I wonder how bureaucrats will organise for air bags to deploy on a horses foot a split second before he kicks you?
“So why aren’t you guys protesting about the billions spent on fusion research. how strange.”
Luke, old chump, we support R&D. It’s what we’ve been telling you. Especially by private enterprise in competition with each other.
In case you haven’t noticed, that what’s known as the free market.
How many trillions have been spent in free-market R&D do you think?
And what is the outcome do you think?
Well without costing you a cent you can buy a million different products cheaper by the day.
Unlike your wonderful winner-picked, govt subsidised, energy supplier which gets dearer by the day and stuffs all our competitive local industries as it goes.
If you dills didn’t have a few sceptics pulling your chestnuts out of the fire for you, you’d all die a miserable death in no time flat.
Stephen Schneider [may he rest in peace and his tribe not increase] could never decide whether we should panic about warming or cooling but it didn’t matter as long as we panicked:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/1979-ncar-forecast-sea-level-may-rise-15-25-feet-before-the-year-2000/
Meanwhile [yawn] the more things change the more they stay the same [no visual SL rise in my lifetime].
New study in Nature; oceans, not CO2.
Filed under surprises for settled scientists. “We still have a lot of work ahead of us”.
http://notrickszone.com/2011/05/20/duh-oceans-drive-climate-not-co2-says-new-nature-study/
The true believers of Chicago. No matter how cold it gets they still sweat.
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/screenhunter_05-may-22-23-09.gif
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/science/earth/23adaptation.html?_r=2
More stoopids – Spanglers – it’s a 4.5 year cycle in AN ocean. For trucks sake.
And no a whimper about fusion research. Not a squeaky peep..
But onto my lil’ mate Debs.
Well Debs it’s this simple.
I’m fighting for the integrity of the climate science against nefarious anti-science attacks from your rabid anti-science lynching gang.
You have decided that as you don’t like the idea of a carbon tax you’ve rationalised that ergo the climate science must be wrong. Not logical. The two are not linked – at least conceptually. Perhaps politically.
BTW back to uni with ya – insects don’t develop immunity to pesticides dearie – they become resistant through selection pressure over generations. Humans develop immunity in individuals – same generation through stimulation of antibodies i.e. the immune response.
Drought resistant varieties still tend to give no yield with no soil water. Strange that.
You now have many examples of how AGW will likely cause deleterious effects (which you have sniggered at – as it doesn’t affect your little rice farm and myopic line of sight out the kitchen window).
Anyway so the science well tells us that major growth of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause profound changes in climate (AND YES it’s not a frigging pollutant). But we also need to not to stuff our economy by unilateral rapid mitigation action.
My opinion is that we need to rapidly accelerate the development of superior energy technology (solar, baseload solar, selective wind, ocean wave and new generation nuclear) which we can also export.
What the Federal opposition should be formulating.
As well as sinking carbon into thoughtful selective landscape revegetation and soil health enhancement from greater soil carbon sequestration.
Irrationally dumping on good climate science is not intelligent. Not all the climate science is correct but there is enough evidence to suggest the potential risk is quite considerable. You won’t sink those extra watts without some serious effects. Indeed a few degrees difference in sea surface temperatures affects most of the planet’s circulation already.
A drier sub-tropics for instance would disastrous. (an example Debs – an example)
You will note some semblance of intelligence from today’s opposition response.
Last 2 paras. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/23/3224340.htm
The opposition need to get out denier mode embrace the science and lead ! and not with a unilateral carbon tax.
http://climatecommission.govspace.gov.au/files/2011/05/4108-CC-Science-Update-PRINT-CHANGES.pdf
And who would EVAH have expected this?
http://www.news.com.au/national/solar-panel-installations-faulty-audit/story-e6frfkvr-1226060350765
Stupid is it Luke?
When will you ever learn?
“Now, consider the respective heat storing capacities of water vapour in the atmosphere and the water in all those oceans.
“The truth is that those oceans by virtue of the density and volume of the water have a heat storage capacity many magnitudes the size of the heat that can be stored by the atmosphere through the greenhouse effect. My contention is that man made CO2 and other man made trace gases are not only a miniscule proportion of the naturally occurring CO2 and trace gases but in turn CO2 and other trace gases have only a miniscule proportion of the heat storing capacity of the water vapour in the atmosphere AND ADDITIONALLY the atmosphere stores only a miniscule proportion of the heat stored by the oceans. The heat stored by the atmospheric greenhouse effect is far less in quantity and far less long lasting than the heat stored by the oceans.
“Man made CO2 is but a tiny part of a tiny part of a tiny part of the whole.
“So why do we only ever hear about the heat retaining properties of the atmosphere when the true cause of the Earth having the atmospheric temperature it has is not the atmosphere at all but the oceans?”
Scientist alarmists, perhaps?
Just look how Steffen and the ABC cream their knickers over this one-eyed report and their certainty of the culpability of ACO2:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/05/23/3223860.htm
Jee Spanglers the ocean stores lots of heat does it. I never knew that.
So Luke has heard about the heat storage capacity of the oceans, but he hides the fact very well.
Here’s Bolt’s take on the “Independent” report from Steffen and Flannery. What an obvious silly fraud this ridiculous nonsense is, I can’t see it fooling anyone.
Just think we reduce our emissions by 5% and we avoid a nastier future climate and also keep the sea levels at bay. Amazing times we live in.
But I suppose dingalings like Gav and Luke will lap it up and grab the bait, hook line and sinker.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/if_climate_commissioner_steffen_was_truly_independent_he_wouldnt_have_stall/
“Jee Spanglers the ocean stores lots of heat does it. I never knew that.”
We’re all quite happy with you being a smart arse. But do yourself a favour and don’t be a dumb smart arse.
And talking about dumb smart arses, [to which you can add implaccable alarmist and denier] here’s Will Steffen:
http://www.mtr1377.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8758
Sea level rise will have a big impact on Sydney, says report.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/sealevel-rise-to-hit-sydney-worst-warns-climate-report-20110522-1ez0x.html
All lies, what more can I say?
EG,
These super alarmist, lying bastards are sure digging themselves a hole but because of the time frame they think they can pull any figures they like and get away with it.
The most thorough study available of corrected southern Australian tide gauge data is that of Harvey et al. [2002] and is 0.11mm/yr which implies a rise of 1 cm by 2100.
Just think, 1 whole centimeter!
That’s why, for the whole of my lifetime I have never been conscious of any SLR.
Because there isn’t any!
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/RMC%20-%20aspects%20of%20sea-level%20rise%20in%20southern%20Australia%20Z.pdf
But don’t forget SD that SL was 1.5 metres higher around Australia 4,000 years ago.
Amazing what a much warmer, earlier, NATURAL holocene climate can do.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2278381.htm
Neville,
Isn’t it interesting how it seems to warm on a millenial cycle. Those cycles were as warm or warmer than the CWP.
Why couldn’t whatever caused THEM, cause the CWP?
Maybe Luke can tell us?
The new alarmists report with SFA alarms, what a load of crap on which to wreck our country.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/alarmist_report_short_of_er_alarms/#commentsmore
Ove HG, that bedwetter extraordinaire. I wonder why we had coral reefs as far south as Jervis Bay a while back.
Could it have all happened before? Only warmer?
“Also working within Australia’s Great Barrier Reef system, Berkelmans and van Oppen (2006) investigated the thermal acclimatization potential of Acropora millepora corals to rising temperatures through transplantation and experimental manipulation, finding that the adult corals “are capable of acquiring increased thermal tolerance and that the increased tolerance is a direct result of a change in the symbiont type dominating their tissues from Symbiodinium type C to D.” Then, two years later, working with an expanded group of scientists (Jones et al., 2008), the same two researchers reported similar findings following the occurrence of a natural bleaching event.”
Why don’t they tell the truth?
Luke,
Cut and pasted key comments from both of us and noticed something very strange 🙂
From Luke:
I’m fighting for the integrity of the climate science against nefarious anti-science attacks from your rabid anti-science lynching gang.
You have decided that as you don’t like the idea of a carbon tax you’ve rationalised that ergo the climate science must be wrong. Not logical. The two are not linked – at least conceptually. Perhaps politically.
My opinion is that we need to rapidly accelerate the development of superior energy technology (solar, baseload solar, selective wind, ocean wave and new generation nuclear) which we can also export.
From Debbie:
Also, when have I EVER criticised climate science as a science?
I have repeatedly posted that I think it’s a very important discipline and there will be no one happier than us agrarian socialist trolls (one of your many attempts to name call 🙂 ) when climate prediction gets better. Especially long term and seasonal predictions.
What I have vociferously objected to is the way climate science has been shamelessy hijacked for purposes which it was not intended and cannot possibly fulfil.
I have also vociferously objected to the misuse of projective modelling and claims that it ‘settles’ the science.
Where did anyone claim that the climate is not in constant change and flux?
The argument has always been about whether man is causing most of it or whether most of it is just what happens because climate and nature do change and always have. Man has always had some influence as well, especially in heavily urbanised areas and intensive agricultural areas. I haven’t seen anyone on this blog claim otherwise. It is the degree of man’s influence and also the propagandist alarmism about it that has been the issue.
Strangely there is much that is on the same page but from a different perspective.
The rest of the disagreement is really about political philosophy.
I would argue that the last institution we would need to fund new energy resources and new technologies is a centralised bureaucracy funded by tax payers.
Because my discipline is History, it is easy for me to see that this type of approach does not work.
As soon as people see the bottomless well of taxpayer funding and as soon as it is run by career bureaucrats all the crazies and greedies are climbing all over the funding and working out how to ‘rip off’ the government for as much as possibe. They learn quickly how to ‘tick the boxes’ and massage the egos. Their motivation is not to create cheap affordable services to the community.
Our most recent example of this is the Pink Batts scheme. I’ll take a wild bet that the next one will likely be the NBN scheme.
On the other hand, if Governments regulate the excesses of a society where innovative and entrepreneurial people could invent competetive ways to produce new energy sources and new technologies, that is actually a political and economic model that usually succeeds.
Are any of them perfect?
Definitely not.
But one has historically proven that it works better than the others.
And finally, the latest reports flapped around by our Govt are further examples of propagandist alarmism. They are shamelessly using the THEORY of AGW as ‘settled’ and loudly claiming that this decade is our last chance to do something about this ‘greatest ever challenge’.
How many times has history seen that type of approach before?
It is nothing but alarmist propaganda to ‘frighten’ people into toeing the government line and allowing the government to interfere in the highly lucrative technology marketplace.
Bureaucrats, Bankers, Brokers, Politicians and now sadly Academics are not the right people to decide what will be successful in the marketplace or how it should be funded.
Deb, Luke jumps to silly conclusions like: “You lot would have stopped the moon landings”,
“You lot would have prevented nuclear power”, infering also that we don’t want R&D on renewables when it is EXACTLY what we do want, etc, etc.
Then he pontificates:
“Not all the climate science is correct but there is enough evidence to suggest the potential risk is quite considerable.”
While not accepting that the small warming that could possibly be blamed on humans has been exceeded many time in the past as the result of natural causes.
He reminds me of those old pier slot machines where the penny used to get stuck a lot because of salt corrosion.
Probably nothing a WD40 enema wouldn’t fix.
Is luke a member of the Sierra Club do you think?
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/15044
Come on Spanglers we know you love snorting coal dust. You love it. You’re all just stuck in the 1950s.
And you begrudge solar research as a waste of time but not a little mouse squeak about fusion research. That’s OK coz they’re playing with big dick nukes.
And how do you know it was warmer in the past Spanglers – gee you’ve have to selectively believe in bits of science. Tell us which bits do you believe today? You’re like a kid picking the coloured jelly beans you like.
As yes the last great warming – the MWP – and the magnificent mega-droughts of the Americas, China and Africa. And what would have been the world population then ? hmmmm
Luke,
I think you must never read my posts. Or pay attention.
I’m all for R&D on all the renewables and that certainly includes fusion. I’ve just recenlty supported Lomborg’s call for a solid decade of more R&D before we go stupid with our current limited renewables.
And don’t come the raw prawn on the MWP, RWP et al not being as warm or warmer than the CWP.
Even your coloured jelly beans don’t support that.
So now that I’ve got your attention, tell me the answer to this simple question: why couldn’t whatever caused those WPs also cause this one?
NO ANSWER, WAS THE STERN REPLY!
“As yes the last great warming – the MWP – and the magnificent mega-droughts of the Americas, China and Africa. And what would have been the world population then ? hmmmm”
What’s the point you are trying to make here?
As many a wise head has already stated, shit happens, but what does ACO2 specifically have to do with it?
“And how do you know it was warmer in the past Spanglers”
Well, c’mon Luke, now give us your principal component analysis as to why you can use tree-rings for 960 years to show there was no MWP and then switch to thermometer data for the last 40 years to “hide the decline”.
Are you serious?
Here’s just one of many papers supporting the global MWP:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N5/C1.php
“And how do you know it was warmer in the past Spanglers”
Your favourite PETM wasn’t the only warm period:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/Five_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.jpg
And how does Ross Gittins know it was warmer in the past?
He doesn’t, poor sap because, like Luke, he couldn’t analyse the back of his hand:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/climate-inertia-shows-ugly-side-of-the-australian-character-20110524-1f2dj.html
But you don’t believe the climate science Spanglers – so what is your special reason for believing alleged warming periods when you want to – objectivity – pffft !
Shit happens – No warming dries out the sub-tropics – climate shifts ! Whether it be MWP warming or other. Shit just doesn’t happen – that’s for superstitious cave dwellers and deniers.
Ross may have investments in renewables?
Luke…this is my thinking on a double-dip.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/images3/nino34SSTMonE120.gif
“But you don’t believe the climate science Spanglers”
I believe lots of climate science, Luke.
But just answer the question.
Could whatever caused those earlier warm periods also cause this one???
Simple YES? or NO?
“Shit just doesn’t happen – that’s for superstitious cave dwellers and deniers.”
But doesn’t this shit always happen? Regardless? Like the recent tornadoes, cyclones and floods?
Or are you saying that if I come out of my cave and join your religion, all will be well?
“so what is your special reason for believing alleged warming periods when you want to”
Don’t verbal me Luke.
Show me where I haven’t supported warm periods? Current or historic?
Not that it has any bearing on the question.
Could whatever caused those earlier warm periods also cause this one?
Simple answer, yes or no?
A new paper says ENSO ‘is the dominant mode of interannual climate variability on Earth…’
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/li2011/li2011.html
“Could whatever caused those earlier warm periods also cause this one???
Simple YES? or NO?”
No !
Spanglers
This is a “special” warm period heated by Luke bs.
Good comment Spanglers at 23rd 6.16pm
The whole AGW mob would give their eye teeth to have a disconnect between ocean and atmosphere.
Yes I’m a coal dust snorter of the 1950s Luke. totally unaware I was doing my bit to prevent global warming!. Hansen will have been doing a bit of snorting too no doubt.