Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
willm

Climate change issue resolved?

Recommended Posts

Either way it really makes no difference to me. So for the sake of conversation lets agree that the Earth is warming/cooling/whatever and that man made Co2 is to blame.

 

Now what?

 

If the goal (as stated) becomes Co2 reduction what's the BEST way to achieve that? Surely it would have to be govt. regulation of Co2 producing industry, that is to say that the government could simply put in place a mandate that all C02 producing factories must limit their output to a certain amount of co2. ANY ETS scam, errm, scheme will not achieve this as any new taxes or ETS scams levied on a particular industry will simply be passed on to the customers...that's you and me btw and industry can and probably will continue to function as it always has and C02 will not be reduced.

 

And why is it REQUIRED for us to sign binding international agreements in this regard that simply places what's left of our sovereignty under the (further) control of foreign powers who have their own agenda? This is the biggest tell of all in what's really going on here as Monkton (and many others) have noted, it's a bout global government and control and if 'Co2' is to be the means to achieve that end then that's what the hysteria is about, I have a 1973 U.N. document that states that very thing so it's not like nobody saw it coming.

 

And who's going to regulate the new global ponzi scheme in carbon derivatives trading, Chase Manhattan? They already have the scam ready to go in case you were wondering but it got a bit postponed when Copenhagen fell over. These are the same guys that caused last years crash (and now that the cracks are appearing in the great global bailout rip off possibly this years depression) using the exact same financial shenanigans. And lets not forget Al Gores' huge investment in this area.

 

So, true or not, man-made or not I'll fight the rot till there's no more fighting to be done OR a sensible solution, one with some integrity and credibility is put in place that doesn't involve the wholesale continued thievery by governments, foreign and domestic of people's hard earned cash.

You have not thought this through have you? Basic economics is based on supply and demand, no?

 

Essentailly your proposal is to work on only 1 side of that eqauasion (supply). What happen then? When is supply is limited but demand is high then those who have money pay more and those who dont have money go without. So the price of electricty skyrockets and only the engery companies win.

 

Now compare that to a solution where you only work on demand - by taxing electricity. The effect is very similar (prices go up) but the extra money goes to the government (for redistribution ot the population).

 

So is there a solution that works on both supply and deman, and if there is what would it's effects be?

If you have a quota system, where the allocations can be traded, and the allocations are not just dished out by the government - but can be createde by private enterprises (via CO2 saving initiatives) then you restrain supply and at the same time manage supply. It also means that the government does not say what is effecient or inefficent, but industry get to choose/research/develop new technologoies to take advantage of the system.

---

why do we need binding interantional agreements? Seriously?

OK - what if Austraila and China implemented different systems, then after a few years China decided that it did not want to hold it's industry back anymore?

--

and yes, change will result in some people profiting. Don;t hate them becasue they see the logical conclusion and set up their investments to profit from the inevitable.

--

SO you will "fight the rot", but the big question is will you fight to understand the truth?

 

 

That's a bit of a generalisation, but let's run with it. Why should people have a trust of scientists? I mean, being a scientist doesn't immediately make someone trustworthy. Scientists are human - they're corruptible by money, fame, fortune.

 

It'd be like me asking you - why don't you trust the pool cleaners?

When you are going to a doctor, you should trust that they are going to try to help you to make your health better (not worse).

When you go to a governemtn office, you should trust that the public service is going to resonably help you to access the services provided by that government office.

When you hire a lawyer, you should expect that they will provide you with information that is in your best interest.

 

 

So now we get to scientists. A scientist can be dishonest. A scientist can be involved in cash for comment/cash for biased research. However a scientist who uses their good reputation for nefarious purposes will have their conclusions challenged and if found to be false will have their previous work scruitinised.

SO if a scientist wants to keep their reputation intact they would take resonable steps to ensure that they only publish credible, well thought out conclusions. If they start down the route of payola, they realise that is a one-way route and they will be stuck with payola.

Edited by pappes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have not thought this through have you? Basic economics is based on supply and demand, no?

 

Essentailly your proposal is to work on only 1 side of that eqauasion (supply). What happen then? When is supply is limited but demand is high then those who have money pay more and those who dont have money go without. So the price of electricty skyrockets and only the engery companies win.

 

Now compare that to a solution where you only work on demand - by taxing electricity. The effect is very similar (prices go up) but the extra money goes to the government (for redistribution ot the population).

Electricity and it's production is ALREADY taxed, this is another tax theft on 'CO2', and I find it hard to believe that you're naive enough to believe that the majority of stolen tax revenue get redistributed to the population, really dude. But then why should electricity be taxed anyway, I mean if I buy electricity from a company then the transaction is between me and that company and no third party, that company pays company tax, the employees pay their taxes (or rather have their taxes pinched form their earnings) so why is the government involved at all? (OK in the case of govt. owned electricity co's then the government is the company.) In short I'm happy to pay for goods and services, I object to funding global financial criminals.

 

If you have a quota system, where the allocations can be traded, and the allocations are not just dished out by the government - but can be createde by private enterprises (via CO2 saving initiatives) then you restrain supply and at the same time manage supply. It also means that the government does not say what is effecient or inefficent, but industry get to choose/research/develop new technologoies to take advantage of the system.

So self regulated industry? Always a winner that one. And what of the carbon derivatives market where carbon trading units are created out of thin air but third party parasitical financial institutions in order to rort everyone else just like they've already been doing in other derivative markets?

 

why do we need binding interantional agreements? Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

 

OK - what if Austraila and China implemented different systems, then after a few years China decided that it did not want to hold it's industry back anymore?

Then that's their choice isn't it? Or are you promoting a system or 'agreement' where we can send in TEAM America to kickass anyone who's carbon emission specs are a tad out?

 

and yes, change will result in some people profiting. Don;t hate them becasue they see the logical conclusion and set up their investments to profit from the inevitable.

 

lols, that's like saying don't hate the criminal who 'profited' from pinching your TV, there's a HUGE difference between making a smart investment and manipulating and disadvantaging large populations of working people to pander to your own insatiable greed.

 

SO you will "fight the rot", but the big question is will you fight to understand the truth?

What truth? The world is run by scum, people are starting to wake up but it might be too late already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got any links to the peer reviewed papers?

Yes. Do you have an account with Nature so you can read them?

 

The article you linked above reads like any other hobbyist attempt at discrediting climate science, despite the PHD and Nasa references. At the end of that article:

Roy Spencer is a contributer to AR2, AR3 and AR4 of the IPCC report. He is also a cojoint winner of the prize given to Al Gore and the IPCC.

 

This is as much of a hobbyist as I am a sports trainer.

 

"If an expert in this subject sees a major mistake I’ve made in the above analysis, e-mail me and I’ll post an update, so that we might all better understand this issue.

 

Comments are closed."

 

Says it all really.

Erm, email and blog comments are different things. He closes almost all comments - same as Richard Dawkins - because nasty people like to leave comments. In fact he has posted comments: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/the-or...nand-engelbeen/

 

Then there's the fact that he's a proponent of intelligent design:

 

"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."

 

Which shouldn't invalidate his arguments, but definitely makes me question his grasp of science. I'd prefer to debate credible sources.

Fair enough. I don't like IDers either. Yet it seems to me that by invalidating him, you're invalidating the IPCC's report. Is that correct?

 

Most "respectable" scientific institutions, individuals, organizations etc all seem to agree and there seems to be a consensus. The link I provided has some info on that.

Wrong. The boards of respectable scientific institutions believe there is a consensus - their membership hasn't been polled. Some of the most respectable members (including Nobel laureates) of the aforementioned institutions don't agree with the statements made by the board.

 

The people who disagree don't seem to be working in that field and seem to have an agenda. That makes it pretty simple for me.

What agenda? And what people?

 

 

This off topic though, I'm not interested in wasting time trying to discredit spencer. I'd prefer to argue over peer reviewed articles, as the information they provide is much more credible than something from a blog.

Yet another person who clearly has zero clue.

 

Peer review does not make something any more credible. You really don't have a clue what peer review is, or how it works, do you? Like not even a shadow of a clue?

 

By the way, if anyone is interested, here is a list of 700 peer-reviewed (for those that care) papers that call into doubt some facet of AGW theory:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/p...supporting.html

 

You'll need accounts to GRU, Nature and Science - or access them at your uni library. There are 203 journals in that report, including some of the most famous ones. All of these are written/researched by credible PHD scientists - many of them contributed to the IPCC report.

 

If you still think there's a wide-ranging consensus after reading even 10 of them, you need to go see a psychiatrist for treatment of your delusion.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Director>> I find it hard to believe that you're naive enough to believe that the majority of stolen tax revenue get redistributed to the population, really dude.

So where doe the money go? Do they bury it? If I go all "Oceans Eleven" on John Howards basement will I finds huge vaults of cash?

And who pays, for the roads, the army, the hospials these days? Seriously, with the budgect and other fiscal acountability measures, I do not see how you can maintain the illusion that money is being taken out of the system.

 

>>But then why should electricity be taxed anyway

I am not taking about a tax, I am talking about a trading system where anyone can choose to engage in CO2 reduction activites and be compensated for that at "market rates".

 

>>So self regulated industry? Always a winner that one.

That would be true if that was what was being proposed, but it is not. The proposal is that the govt does the regualtion and private industry chooses to polute/not polute so long as it supports their "bottom line"

 

>>And what of the carbon derivatives market where carbon trading units are created out of thin air

Are permits created out of thin air or are derivitives?

If derivatives are created out of thin air then more fool the customer who buys the product.

If permits are being sold with the requisite work being done then that is a simple law enforcement issue, that need sto be cleaned up in the courts.

 

 

>>Then that's their choice isn't it? Or are you promoting a system or 'agreement' where we can send in TEAM America to kickass anyone who's carbon emission specs are a tad out?

Some people/governements realise that invasion is not the only answer to countries that do not respect international agreements.

Did Germany need to invade Greece to persuade them to cut spending/raise taxes? NO becasue the international agreements that Greece is a part of and that Greece wishes to remain a part of, were enough to convince the Greek govt to take action that litterally has the population rioting in the streets.

 

>>lols, that's like saying don't hate the criminal who 'profited' from pinching your TV

If you give your TV to someone, then hate them for accepting it, then you have some issues that need to be dealt with. THis is not about stealing, it is about choice. You choose where to buy your power from and the supply/demand ratio of the market defines how much you pay for it. No-one has a gun to your head telling you to buy electricity from Energex.

 

 

>>What truth? The world is run by scum, people are starting to wake up but it might be too late already.

Yes it is and it will continue to be as long as decent people sit back and bitch about it rather than stepping forward and bringing alternate proposals that work to the populace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pappes, go outside, open your wallet and throw some money at the general weather.

 

Then sit back and trust that the person who finds that money will improve the weather for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got any links to the peer reviewed papers?

Yes. Do you have an account with Nature so you can read them?

I've got an account. Links? Given your previous post, I'm expecting a dozen of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Director>> I find it hard to believe that you're naive enough to believe that the majority of stolen tax revenue get redistributed to the population, really dude.

So where doe the money go? Do they bury it? If I go all "Oceans Eleven" on John Howards basement will I finds huge vaults of cash?

And who pays, for the roads, the army, the hospials these days? Seriously, with the budgect and other fiscal acountability measures, I do not see how you can maintain the illusion that money is being taken out of the system.

A fraction of it goes to those things, as witnessed by the state of the army, roads and hospitals... the MAJORITY of it goes in interest payments on loans the government has taken out with privately run and owned banking cartels who invent the 'money' out of thin air. I've been trying to ascertain the amount we are in the shit (trillions I believe), to whom we are in debt and at what terms, I'm at the 'write to my local member stage' cos so far I can't find any reliable info about it.

 

>>But then why should electricity be taxed anyway

I am not taking about a tax, I am talking about a trading system where anyone can choose to engage in CO2 reduction activites and be compensated for that at "market rates".

Is that what's being touted then? Not a bad idea though, tax reductions for companies to upgrade their plants and reduce their CO2, much better than tax everything which will get passed on to you and me or a global carbon trading economy and the accompanying derivative scams.

 

>>So self regulated industry? Always a winner that one.

That would be true if that was what was being proposed, but it is not. The proposal is that the govt does the regualtion and private industry chooses to polute/not polute so long as it supports their "bottom line"

So how can it be 'regulated' if they don't have to comply?

 

>>And what of the carbon derivatives market where carbon trading units are created out of thin air

Are permits created out of thin air or are derivitives?

If derivatives are created out of thin air then more fool the customer who buys the product.

If permits are being sold with the requisite work being done then that is a simple law enforcement issue, that need sto be cleaned up in the courts.

Here's some further reading on that point: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=16449

 

 

>>Then that's their choice isn't it? Or are you promoting a system or 'agreement' where we can send in TEAM America to kickass anyone who's carbon emission specs are a tad out?

Some people/governements realise that invasion is not the only answer to countries that do not respect international agreements.

Did Germany need to invade Greece to persuade them to cut spending/raise taxes? NO becasue the international agreements that Greece is a part of and that Greece wishes to remain a part of, were enough to convince the Greek govt to take action that litterally has the population rioting in the streets.

So screw the citizens, dodgy paper rulez?

 

>>lols, that's like saying don't hate the criminal who 'profited' from pinching your TV

If you give your TV to someone, then hate them for accepting it, then you have some issues that need to be dealt with. THis is not about stealing, it is about choice. You choose where to buy your power from and the supply/demand ratio of the market defines how much you pay for it. No-one has a gun to your head telling you to buy electricity from Energex.

Can I choose to buy from one that isn't part of an ETS scam?

 

 

>>What truth? The world is run by scum, people are starting to wake up but it might be too late already.

Yes it is and it will continue to be as long as decent people sit back and bitch about it rather than stepping forward and bringing alternate proposals that work to the populace.

 

I agree, but then I've also noted than when anyone does propose something DIFFERENT they're always shouted down or ignored. I mean I've suggested that government simply regulates the CO2 output of factories wintohout imposing any new tax and without signing the country away to the NWO. Don't tell it's not simple and doable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peer review does not make something any more credible. You really don't have a clue what peer review is, or how it works, do you? Like not even a shadow of a clue?

I missed this gem on my first read over. Gave me some chuckles, especially given the context of published paper vs blog post :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>the MAJORITY of it goes in interest payments on loans the government has taken out...

If the alternative is to default on the loan (a la Greexe) or to print more money that noone will want(a la zimbabwe) then I would prefer an orderly payback of interest. However I thing that MAJORITY does not cover this (I dont have the figures on hand)

 

>>Is that what's being touted then?

What is being touted is that the govt will issue a limited # of permits, sell a limited # and orivate enterprise will be able to sell some based on carbon reductions made. Big carbon emiters would need to purchase enough permits to cover therir emissions at whatever rate the market comes up with.

>>So how can it be 'regulated' if they don't have to comply?

whachutalkingabout?

 

>>So screw the citizens, dodgy paper rulez?

more like "end of the free lunch, time to act like adults and pay for your services"

 

>>Here's some further reading on that point

OK so deriviatives are potially hedging/investment devices. my point remains - If derivatives are created out of thin air then more fool the customer who buys the product.

 

 

 

>>Can I choose to buy from one that isn't part of an ETS scam?

If you electricity supplier doesn't emit GH gasses then it does not need to particiapte in an ETS (although it would be crazy not to becasue it could make a killing issuing it's own permits)

 

>> I mean I've suggested that government simply regulates the CO2 output of factories wintohout imposing any new tax and without signing the country away to the NWO. Don't tell it's not simple and doable?

Most CO2 emitters are very small scale

Many CO2 emmiters are medium scale

Very ver CO2 emiters are lage scal (coal fired power plants)

 

So if the governemnt imposes a blanket regulation that no company may emit more than X tons per year then:

Small scale emmiters will be uneffected

Medum scale emitiers will be uneffected or need to cutail production

Large scale emiters have 2 options - Shut down or set up 365 differenter companies each of which run the powere plant for 1 day a year, each of which is below the regulated threshhold.

 

Hence the proposal of a blanket ban is unworkable, you need to curtail supply and need to encourage alternaitves and make the consumers who choose dirty power, suffer finacially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got any links to the peer reviewed papers?

Yes. Do you have an account with Nature so you can read them?

I've got an account. Links? Given your previous post, I'm expecting a dozen of them.

 

Before I go searching I want you to prove that you have an account. In rpevious discussions we've had online, either as tastywheat or as Psychonaut you've shown a knowledge of science that frankly, is pathetic, even on a hobbyist level.

 

So before I go wasting my time searching for studies I haven't read in years, I'll waste your time first.

 

So to prove you have an account, here are some studies:

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Study 4

 

In all of the above studies/letters, please write the last sentence of the paragraph immediately following the abstract. When you do so, I'll bother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peer review does not make something any more credible. You really don't have a clue what peer review is, or how it works, do you? Like not even a shadow of a clue?

I missed this gem on my first read over. Gave me some chuckles, especially given the context of published paper vs blog post :)

 

It's not a gem - it's actually a very real state of affairs. You clearly know nothing of what peer review is, so let me educate you.

 

- The general objective of the review system is to help answer the following question: is the object under review (submitted manuscript, project proposal, etc.) good enough (for publication or funding) relative to other candidates and/or to a pre-defined threshold?

- The normative statement of the task of reviewing a manuscript submitted to a journal for possible publication is that of comparison to a (varying) set of standards (e.g. to other papers in the same journal, or in other journals).

- The acceptance level is an Editor’s instrument to match supply and demand (incoming papers vs available journal space). He may adjust the threshold of acceptance, seeking an equilibrium level dependent on circumstances. He navigates trying to avoid the two extremes:

having a large backlog of accepted papers waiting for their turn to be published; and

having too few accepted papers for the forthcoming issue.

- Editors are primarily responsible for the quality of journals. Typically, an editor wishes to avoid, as far as possible, making editorial “errors of the first kind” (publishing papers that do not deserve publication) and “errors of the second kind” (rejecting papers that deserve publication).

 

There are several types of peer review systems:

Half-blind review

Names of referees are unknown to authors, but names of authors are known to referees, so the system is asymmetric, by construction. Another asymmetry lies in the perspective of the parties, since authors are working for their career, while referees are doing unaccounted (due to anonymity) and unpaid community service. Half-blind (half-anonymous) mode is the dominant option in academic publishing.

Open (eponymous) review

Open review (where all names are known to all parties) is being introduced in some journals, and considered in others (this is also known as signed review, mandatory reviewer identification and more concisely, eponymous, as opposed to anonymous review). The rationale is: “Let’s do away with anonymous reviews and take both the credit and the blame for our ideas” (Robinove, 2003).

Blind (anonymous) review

Completely blind review: no one but an editorial assistant knowing the identity of the authors and only the editor knowing the identity of the reviewer.

The rationale for the blind review is: “I do not want people to think about who I am. I want them to think about what I write” (Forel, 2003).

 

Now, anyone intelligent (even yourself) can see the problems and advantages of all the above systems:

- Half-blind review is workable and satisfactory to most stakeholders but allows subjectivity, bias, abuse and affords referees the possibility to be rude, vindictive and lazy

- Open review is transparent and allows for accountability in the work of the reviewers, however it allows for definitive positive bias for established authorities on subjects (ie, this guy is famous, he can't be wrong) - which is not unlike your particular brand of idol-worshiping of scientists just because they are "experts".

- Blind review is the best of the bunch but it is costly and difficult to implement, and in particular cases (due to teamwork) unfeasible

 

Now, the Hydrological Sciences Journal carried out a review of its peer review system with a sample size of 100 submissions. In 68 cases, all referees who dealt with a paper placed it in the same category. In four cases they disagreed completely.

 

Now, lets have a look-see at how to get your paper past the review board best:

 

Ioannidis (2005) on the false published research findings:

1. False findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims

2. The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true

3. The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true

 

Armstrong’s (1982) hexalogue to increase the likelihood and speed of acceptance of your paper:

1. Do not pick an important problem

2. Do not challenge existing beliefs

3. Do not obtain surprising results

4. Do not use simple methods

5. Do not provide full disclosure

6. Do not write clearly

 

Now, lets have a look at peer review in action:

Two “breakthrough” celebrated papers in stem cell research were published in Science (in 2004 and 2005)… but then were retracted (2006), after a major fraud was found (fabrication of results) resulting from serious research misconduct

- Donald Kennedy, Editor-in-Chief of Science: “Peer review cannot detect [fraud] if it is artfully done”

- Martin Blume, Editor-in-Chief of the American Physical Society and its nine journals: “Peer review doesn’t necessarily say that paper is right; it says it’s worth publishing”

A very interesting point of this story is that the fraud was not uncovered by means of formal journal procedures (i.e. discussion papers), but through Internet exchanges (on blogs)

 

In short, peer reviewed papers mean basically the following:

- The paper was interesting

- The paper was worth publishing

 

What peer review papers don't mean is basically the following:

- Peer review does not go over the actual science in the paper

- No experiments or maths are validated in peer review

- Thus peer review says absolutely nothing about how right a paper is on a given topic.

 

I hope you understand now, because peer review is not something to hide behind - it is in fact no different to blogs with comments.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how when threatened, you always double down on the bullshit.

 

If you're not going to go to the effort of linking me the studies, why should I bother to respond?

 

Edit: Heh, double post.

Edited by tastywheat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how when threatened, you always double down on the bullshit.

 

If you're not going to go to the effort of linking me the studies, why should I bother to respond?

 

Edit: Heh, double post.

 

Bullshit? Sounds easy enough to reply if you have what you claim. If don't (can't), then it would seem you are the one lacking substance. And where was he "threatened"? Did you threaten hin? Or just trying to feel better about being caught out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullshit? Sounds easy enough to reply if you have what you claim. If don't (can't), then it would seem you are the one lacking substance. And where was he "threatened"? Did you threaten hin? Or just trying to feel better about being caught out?

The bullshit relates to his long speel on my 'lack of understanding of the peer review process'. There's nothing incorrect about his description of the process when read in the right context, but then again, there was nothing particularly incorrect about my statement that a published study was more credible than a blog entry. It's all a distraction from the fact that, despite his original claim that he had 'dozen papers in reputable peer-reviewed journals', he hasn't produced a single study that casts doubt on my original claim that the increase in the ratio of 13C/12C is a result of human activities.

 

The onus is on him to prove his point, I'm not going to prove it for him.

Edited by tastywheat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullshit? Sounds easy enough to reply if you have what you claim. If don't (can't), then it would seem you are the one lacking substance. And where was he "threatened"? Did you threaten hin? Or just trying to feel better about being caught out?

The bullshit relates to his long speel on my 'lack of understanding of the peer review process'. There's nothing incorrect about his description of the process when read in the right context, but then again, there was nothing particularly incorrect about my statement that a published study was more credible than a blog entry. It's all a distraction from the fact that, despite his original claim that he had 'dozen papers in reputable peer-reviewed journals', he hasn't produced a single study that casts doubt on my original claim that the increase in the ratio of 13C/12C is a result of human activities.

 

The onus is on him to prove his point, I'm not going to prove it for him.

 

 

You've failed to prove you have an account for the studies he's mentioned, which was asked of you. I made it quite clear. Simple request, which you've so far not addressed. Your choice.

 

I'll leave you pair to argue the "lack of understanding of the peer review process", I'm just still waiting to see if you have the access you claim, and then we can move on to you lot debating other points. If you were telling the truth, it should not be difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to be a closed issue, I just don't get why people are still discussing it. If you are not educated in that field, and the majority of people who do, and noteworthy institutions all reach the same conclusion, then why argue it?

Becuase most of the successful part of the world is ruled by right-wingers, and if climate change is true it means the hippies were right. And the right wingers can't hack that.

 

The fact of that matter is that the hippies were right about the environment even if climate change isn't true. Historically, environmental mismanagement has been a leading cause of the collapses of civilisations. Societies nees to ensure that their practises are sustainable in order to survive.

 

I don't see why they right wingers can't give this one to the hippies. I mean they have been right about everything else ;-)

 

I guess the only thing is, that industry and uber-capitalists don't want to accept this as it will put a dent in profits. The company that has no restrictions - that can mine without being taxed, that can employ slave labour, that can poison a waterway without cleaning it up - makes more money.

 

In the short term, anyway.

 

Most ex-mine sites in the USA for example, are costing the US tax payer more to clean up than the money made by the mining company over the lifetime of the mine. And either the company conveniently went bankrupt after polluting the immediate environment, or aren't liable as the mine predates US environmental laws. That's why certain people are against climate change, because it means they'll have to pay a truer price for carbon - one that includes the clean up cost of whatever it is they're doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to be a closed issue, I just don't get why people are still discussing it. If you are not educated in that field, and the majority of people who do, and noteworthy institutions all reach the same conclusion, then why argue it?

Becuase most of the successful part of the world is ruled by right-wingers, and if climate change is true it means the hippies were right. And the right wingers can't hack that.

 

The fact of that matter is that the hippies were right about the environment even if climate change isn't true. Historically, environmental mismanagement has been a leading cause of the collapses of civilisations. Societies nees to ensure that their practises are sustainable in order to survive.

 

I don't see why they right wingers can't give this one to the hippies. I mean they have been right about everything else ;-)

 

I guess the only thing is, that industry and uber-capitalists don't want to accept this as it will put a dent in profits. The company that has no restrictions - that can mine without being taxed, that can employ slave labour, that can poison a waterway without cleaning it up - makes more money.

 

In the short term, anyway.

 

Most ex-mine sites in the USA for example, are costing the US tax payer more to clean up than the money made by the mining company over the lifetime of the mine. And either the company conveniently went bankrupt after polluting the immediate environment, or aren't liable as the mine predates US environmental laws. That's why certain people are against climate change, because it means they'll have to pay a truer price for carbon - one that includes the clean up cost of whatever it is they're doing.

 

 

No. I'm far from a "Right-winger", and I'm still yet to be convinced. Over-generalising much?

 

Just accept that not everyone has been convinced by all the hype.

 

It's been mostly conjecture and suggestion so far, nothing has conclusively shown anything to support such claims. Much is made from certain studies, that try and link A and D, but miss B and C to connect them, since they can't find an actual connection.

 

Yes, environmental mismanagement HAS historically been bad, and still is. But poor management of our environment and waste has been an issue pushed to the side by this focusing on a hyped, unproven phenomenon. The recent insistence that CO2 is suddenly a pollutant is just more hysterical hype, and is just one of many false issues to suddenly be in the spotlight, while the real environmental issues is ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I'm far from a "Right-winger", and I'm still yet to be convinced. Over-generalising much?

Of course I'm generalising. If I was talking about you it would be a totally different story. For one thing, I could just ask you what you know and what you thought.

 

But, no offence or anything, you're just not important :-p

 

Neither am I. I was generalising about the violent, frothy-mouthed opposition that capitalists and industry has had to the issue of climate change and things like an ETS.

 

Just accept that not everyone has been convinced by all the hype.

No one has been convinced by the hype. Not a single climate change scientist will say with any certainty that climate change is real or that it will have a real detrimental effect on human society. The point is that they aren't sure, but the best guess is that it "could" be bad. And the solution is to clean up after ourselves.

 

This should be a no-brainer. You go to the doctor and he says "Yeah, you might have kidney stones and you might be prone to them. It's really hard to tell, not much is coming up on the x-rays. Anyway, just drink lots of water (at least 2L a day) and you'll be fine."

 

So you trash the doctor's office because he can't prove you have kidney stones? Of course not, the cure, even if you don't have the disease, is cheap and good for you.

 

Making industry more efficient is cheap, financially, and making it cleaner, which goes hand in hand with efficiency, is good for us for a host of other reasons. It's a no brainer.

 

Yes, environmental mismanagement HAS historically been bad, and still is. But poor management of our environment and waste has been an issue pushed to the side by this focusing on a hyped, unproven phenomenon. The recent insistence that CO2 is suddenly a pollutant is just more hysterical hype, and is just one of many false issues to suddenly be in the spotlight, while the real environmental issues is ignored.

Well, you have a point, but I'm not so sure it has been ignored any more than it might have. Take computers. We are making and buying more and more of them every year, filled with plastic and steal and trace amounts of heavy metals. All of which is valuable and potentially hazardous. It's costing councils and governments more and more each year to safely dispose of or recycle these things. Finally, in the last couple of years, efforts are finally being made to cost the initial price of these things with an inclusion for the clean up costs. Either the manufacturers recycle them themselves, and charge extra for them, or they pay the costs to councils and again charge extra for them.

 

This needs to happen with everything we do. If I don't factor in the cost of clean up with everything I buy - the effort to take out the garbage, for council to pick it up and get rid of it - the stuff will just pile up. We're not shitting in the woods any more, our environment wasn't built to support such an overabundance of lemmings.

 

This is why we need a properly thought out carbon tax. At the moment, we don't clean up carbon, and we need to. And as with everything, that needs to be paid for.

 

Edit: Um, forgot a rather crucial word.

Edited by Kothos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how when threatened, you always double down on the bullshit.

Maybe. But according to you, I do it when I'm threatened. You literally dribble bullshit out of your mouth.

 

Without being threatened.

 

However, I note, that instead of doing the easy thing and shutting me down by quoting those sentences, you've gone for the personal attack. That clearly indicates your strategic awareness hovers somewhere near the nonexistent, and also conclusively proves you are a liar. You have no way of accessing any studies that I link you to, and therefore the considerable effort to find them that I would have to undertake across dozens of journals would be completely wasted.

 

Becuase most of the successful part of the world is ruled by right-wingers, and if climate change is true it means the hippies were right. And the right wingers can't hack that.

Erm, climate change is true. And the hippies weren't right. You've got a false causation even Al Gore would be proud of.

 

Understand that hippies are not right - hippies are simply people who are at one with nature. These people are hippies:

 

These people are not right, in either the mental sense or the scientific sense. They need help - mental help.

 

The fact of that matter is that the hippies were right about the environment even if climate change isn't true. Historically, environmental mismanagement has been a leading cause of the collapses of civilisations. Societies nees to ensure that their practises are sustainable in order to survive.

Hippies weren't right about the environment. Neither were the environmentalists. The people who were right were the conservationists - the people like Norman Borlaug.

 

Most ex-mine sites in the USA for example, are costing the US tax payer more to clean up than the money made by the mining company over the lifetime of the mine. And either the company conveniently went bankrupt after polluting the immediate environment, or aren't liable as the mine predates US environmental laws. That's why certain people are against climate change, because it means they'll have to pay a truer price for carbon - one that includes the clean up cost of whatever it is they're doing.

I love how everything returns to a price on carbon. Kothos, you've just married your wife. In the process you gave her an allotope of Carbon, if you look at her right hand, you'll find it on her finger, probably set in a white gold ring. In several years or so you will produce a screaming bundle of environmental destruction. That screaming environmental bundle of destruction will initially weight about 5kg.

 

0.9kg of that will be carbon.

 

What's a fair price for carbon Kothos?

 

No one has been convinced by the hype. Not a single climate change scientist will say with any certainty that climate change is real or that it will have a real detrimental effect on human society. The point is that they aren't sure, but the best guess is that it "could" be bad. And the solution is to clean up after ourselves.

What in the hell are you on about? There is not a climate scientist in the world who will say climate change is not real. Climate changes - end of story.

 

Secondly, it "could" be bad is not a valid reason to create a solution to a problem whose parameters you haven't identified.

 

Let me ask you a question Kothos: when you go to work, how many roads do you jaywalk across knowing full well that by jaywalking you are exponentially increasing the risk of death to yourself AND risking a $44 fine? As a sentient human being you assess the risk by considering all the parameters available to you and take your chances based on said risk. This is because you have all the facts at your disposal, including knowledge of the existence of facts that you don't know that provide positive or negative feedbacks into your risk profile (blind corners, nearby crossings, etc)

 

What I've described to you is a linear process - every single jaywalking instance on your way to work is independent of others - ie what happens on jaywalk 1 in no way affects what happens on jaywalk 2.

 

Climate isn't like that - feedbacks from past events influence present events. It's why reconstruction of past climate is absolutely essential to understanding future climate. However, and this is a big deal - all current models have failed to account for the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Yes, I can prove that. Easily. CO2 content has increase by almost 30ppmv and temperature has stayed relatively stable at historically low levels.

 

So, when somebody tells me something bad "could" happen because of climate, I look at their facts. What are their facts? The world has been warming very slowly over the last 50 years with a signal the IPCC describes as anthropogenic. However not an iota of data establishes a causative link between current temperature and CO2 - only a process of elimination - purely circumstantial - you can read about that in the recent BBC interview with Phil Jones.

 

On top of that I have modeled data for the last decade that shows that temperatures should be clearly way above what they are now.

 

So if they can't get their predictions within a 95CI, what CI do they have in their "could be bad" statements? 5%? 10%? 40?

 

Let me know, because if it's 5%, that means there's a 95% chance that things will be better with a warmer climate. And then I don't want to do a single thing, precautionary or otherwise.

 

At the moment, we don't clean up carbon, and we need to.

You've got it ass backwards. You're saying we need to clean up carbon and use taxes to justify it.

 

What you haven't explained is exactly why we need to clean up carbon. It's not a poison, it's not a pollutant, it's a harmless element on Earth that is the 15th most abundant chemical in the crust and the fourth most abundant element in the universe.

 

Carbon is as much a pollutant as your mum is a whore.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leonid - is all that peer review process for real? Did not know that much detail. Damn. And here I was thinking publishers actually cared about their content. Ah well, you learn a new thing every day I guess.

 

Re: consensus and climate change ...

 

*sigh* had a long post, but it's all been said before: the climate is the least of our problems. Chemical toxicity, biodiversity, topsoil erosion (esp. in Australia) etc. etc. ... even CO2 "pollution" ... actually solving the problems is straightforward and relatively simple.

 

The fact that it's not being done means that either everybody is retarded, or some force/motivation other than solving the problem is at play. Or a third option I've not considered. :--P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leonid - is all that peer review process for real? Did not know that much detail. Damn. And here I was thinking publishers actually cared about their content. Ah well, you learn a new thing every day I guess.

Yes. It's for real.

 

There are only a handful of journals that require data release with all studies - and no journal actually replicates the study before publishing. Peer review is simply an election by acclamation. It's not an examination of validity or suitability for purpose.

 

One of the only journals that requires data release is Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society - a journal thanks to which Ross McKitrick was able to prove that the entire Yamal series was corrupted by YAD06 - arguably the most important tree in the world.

 

In fact, peer review is so bad that that nature letter/study I linked to earlier - it's so basically flawed that I, a non-scientist, can dismantle the science in it within seconds. And I'll be happy to do that for anyone.

 

If anything, this thread has served as a timely reminder that the more intelligent and clued in people in climate science are the ones who are sceptics - not the ones who blindly align themselves to a consensus they cannot quantify and with data they've not seen. I can guarantee you that neither tastywheat nor willm have read a single study, pro-AGW or sceptical-AGW that has not been made available for free on the web - and even then I'm not sure they've read past the abstracts. Thus, their belief is entirely religious and driven entirely by what they read on activist blogs and petitions from scientists.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything, this thread has served as a timely reminder that the more intelligent and clued in people in climate science are the ones who are sceptics - not the ones who blindly align themselves to a consensus they cannot quantify and with data they've not seen. I can guarantee you that neither tastywheat nor willm have read a single study, pro-AGW or sceptical-AGW that has not been made available for free on the web - and even then I'm not sure they've read past the abstracts. Thus, their belief is entirely religious and driven entirely by what they read on activist blogs and petitions from scientists.

Oi, I did that with other other thread, independent to climate issues.

 

Any time anybody takes anything as a given, without undertaking the task themselves, they are operating on faith.

Our standard practice is to ensure we know enough about the people involved to minimise that risk.. but anything short of replicating the modelling/experimentation yourself is not scientifically rigorous.

 

It is, as you've highlighted, one of the reasons I cannot stand defenses of the peer review system.

 

Anyway

 

When I see all the raw data released and analysed and modelled by 5 or 6 different, unrelated groups, and highly-similiar conclusions released, then I'll be happy to accept germs of scientific honesty. Otherwise, it really, really is inseperable to religious faith. (Which in and of itself is just authoritarian relinquishment of individual responsibility.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Midnighter - all the information you asked for is in the link I provided at the start, which is followed by a discussion with many people making the same points with evidence. I'm not going to go through and manually copy them. If you want to dismiss what I say because of that, I have no problem with that :)

 

Leonid, you said you would provide links to papers that would back up your point. Adding the stipulation that tastywheat prove he has an account is ridiulous, and makes it seem as if you are trying to find a way out a hold you dug yourself into.

 

It doesn't matter if he has an account or not. If you provide the references he can look them up on his account, look them through university, look them up through a public library etc. Like Wewise for anyone following the discussion who would be able to access Nature article, they can't because you won't back up your point. Whether Tastywheat has an account or not has absolutely nothing to do with the points being argued.

 

I would also suggest you stop making absolute assumptions, at least about myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Midnighter - all the information you asked for is in the link I provided at the start, which is followed by a discussion with many people making the same points with evidence. I'm not going to go through and manually copy them. If you want to dismiss what I say because of that, I have no problem with that :)

 

Leonid, you said you would provide links to papers that would back up your point. Adding the stipulation that tastywheat prove he has an account is ridiulous, and makes it seem as if you are trying to find a way out a hold you dug yourself into.

 

It doesn't matter if he has an account or not. If you provide the references he can look them up on his account, look them through university, look them up through a public library etc. Like Wewise for anyone following the discussion who would be able to access Nature article, they can't because you won't back up your point. Whether Tastywheat has an account or not has absolutely nothing to do with the points being argued.

 

I would also suggest you stop making absolute assumptions, at least about myself.

 

I read your slashdot article, and followed the included links. Again, all it contains is claims and the usual "denier conspiracy" crap. There is nothing concrete, or usable as "evidence. I am not dismissing you, and have not. I am asking, again, for something substantial. You clearly consider it substantial because it already conforms to your views on this matter, but for others, it is sadly lacking, and is just another rant. Also, the list of people signed to the "letter" is not exactly what one might call a "majority". You claim those who don't agree have an agenda. Again, I say, you continually fail to realise that many who don't agree do so because the issue is NOT proven or settled. And the fact you continually dance around, claiming all the evidence I need is in your link, without actually backing it up when requested, is making it difficult for me to take you seriously. I am willing to be shown reasonable proof, but I'm not accepting rants by about "denialist conspiracies" as anything but that, a rant. That's all it is. A rant by people annoyed that not everyone is willing to blindly believe what they do.

 

If you would like your views to be taken in a serious context, then please give serious replies when they are politely requested. And refrain from suggesting I am doing or saying things I am not. I am not dismissing you, never have, I'm just still waiting for clarification on my questions. Nothing at all unreasonable about that. I don't blindly take people at their word just because they think I should.

 

 

edit: funnily enough, for an article on posted on the 6th, comments are now closed. Based on logic used earlier, this must mean they are trying to stifle any disagreement with their views. Not to mention the disturbing number of comments deleted. Funny that. Who's in denial now?Hmmm?

Edited by Midnighter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×