Copenhagen Climate Change Conference = The League of Nations

[purch]

Oh and another point for those interested in Earth history:

Greenhouse phases = time of accelerated evolution, abundance of life

Icehouse phases = mass extinction

This is the opposite of what the public is being told.

Just wait until Mt Erebus burps. When it happens it will make humans' contribution of 'greenhouse' gasses into the atmosphere completely insignificant. Which makes you wonder why we aren't spending billions on finding methods of stopping volcanic eruptions

[fish]

I am an earth scientist. I do believe in climate change too, just not human-induced climate change. Just about all of my Australian colleagues are with me. Even the environmental scientists that I know now concede that the science is poor. (Actually hard to call it science if you look at it critically).

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion purch but you are definitely in the minority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change

"National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007. Some organisations hold non-committal positions".

I haven't checked all of them but am unaware of any of those scientific bodies changing their positions endorsing the IPCC conclusions about human induced climate change.

[Q.]

I think what Purch means about the science being poor is that essentially it all operates on the basis of pseudo-replication.

Science is built on actual replication. Unfortunately we have only one Earth - not three or four with which to compare with.

However, climate scientists have no choice but to work around it. Doesn't mean we should necessarily ignore climate and atmospheric data.

I'm of the opinion that regardless of whether you believe or don't believe, we should still be progressing toward a less destructive way of living - a more consumer conscious society. It's unfortunate that it takes apocalyptic theorum to motivate us.

[Psyber]

In the meantime Science moves on - this Internet site attributes a new global warming threat, with some of the elements of Y2K thrown in, to NASA.
I wonder if this one will turn out to be true - at least it is consistent with the records of the Milankovitch cycles..
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/technology ... reak-havoc

It is an interesting aside that what doesn't get a mention here is that electronic circuitry using valves would survive such surges, where transistors or silicon chips would not.
So my hifi system will still work, when everything else is gone.

[Psyber]

I think what Purch means about the science being poor is that essentially it all operates on the basis of pseudo-replication.

Science is built on actual replication. Unfortunately we have only one Earth - not three or four with which to compare with.

However, climate scientists have no choice but to work around it. Doesn't mean we should necessarily ignore climate and atmospheric data.

I'm of the opinion that regardless of whether you believe or don't believe, we should still be progressing toward a less destructive way of living - a more consumer conscious society. It's unfortunate that it takes apocalyptic theorum to motivate us.

I agree with you there Quichey.

[fish]

Oh and another point for those interested in Earth history:

Greenhouse phases = time of accelerated evolution, abundance of life
Icehouse phases = mass extinction

This is the opposite of what the public is being told.

That may have been the case in the past but is a very simplistic forecast that is simply not backed up by the scientific projections. These days natural habitats are highly fragmented due to agriculture and other human land use, giving species and ecosystems much less chance to evolve/migrate - not only due to the smaller habitat size but also the non-conectiveness of natural habitats, which prevents species and ecosytems from easily shifting their range along with shifting climatic zones.

The impacts on natural systems are only part of the problem - there are also the negative impacts on human communities due to sea level rise, extreme storms and weather events, water scarcity with impacts on food production, the impacts on human health, infrastructure etc. etc.

This is exactly what the public is being told and exactly why I am concerned.

[Psyber]

I'm currently reading an old Sci Fi novel called "Mother of Storms", published in 1994.
It trots out all the theories that have since been embraced by the Climate Change movement, and looks rather dated in view of what has happened, and in view of the growing, though still only minority believed, evidence that we may be now entering another temporary cooling phase like the one that occurred between approximately 1150 and 1890 AD.

[Gozu]

"Silence from the media on IPCC apology":

Watch this space for an embarrassing backdown by The Australian over a front-page story attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the World Wildlife Fund for an “unsubstantiated” claim that 40% of the Amazon rainforest would be wiped out by global warming.

The “scandal”, dubbed “Amazongate”, was repeated and re-reported across the media, including outlets like ABC’s Radio National (The World Today), 2GB’s Alan Jones and The Sydney Morning Herald and even featured in a Crikey wrap.

The Australian’s editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell confirmed to Crikey early this afternoon that he was preparing to issue an apology in the wake of the Press Complaints finding and The Sunday Times backdown. “I think we will…I had not seen the correction”, he said.

No word on a correction on Bolt’s blog as yet.

UPDATE 2:38pm: Since Crikey went to press The Australian has removed the “Amazongate” report from its website. For the curious, it is still available here.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/06/23/sun ... the-media/

[fish]

I'm currently reading an old Sci Fi novel called "Mother of Storms", published in 1994. It trots out all the theories that have since been embraced by the Climate Change movement...

Psyber surely you are not suggesting that people, like myself, who take the threat of climate change seriously, get our opinions from a fictional novel from the 90's!

That is simply ridiculous.

[Psyber]

I'm currently reading an old Sci Fi novel called "Mother of Storms", published in 1994. It trots out all the theories that have since been embraced by the Climate Change movement...

Psyber surely you are not suggesting that people, like myself, who take the threat of climate change seriously, get our opinions from a fictional novel from the 90's!
That is simply ridiculous.

No, I'm suggesting the author was one of the first to work out that there was money in promulgating this misinterpretation of the causation of climate change later cashed in on by unscrupulous researchers.
Seriously, I'm suggesting he was one of the first true believers to flock to the "It's all caused by us!" cause.

Interestingly enough, 2 years earlier there was a novel called "Flare" about increased sunspot activity occurring in cycles causing electronic disruption and global warming.
This one by Zelazny & Thomas did not hook into the popular mood to blame human activity entirely as well as the John Barnes one, "Mother of Storms".

The whole thing is interesting - the latest publications seem to suggest that thought our 12,500 year old global warming phase is set to continue for a while, it may be about to be briefly interrupted again by another short cooling phase a bit like the one between 1100 AD and about 1890 AD.

There is a serious threat from climate change and we do need to watch it carefully and do what we can, if there is anything we can do.
There would be a serious threat from climate change to if global cooling went further into a mini ice age too as some are now suggesting.
My only argument has been with those who insisted it was all caused by human activity and had nothing to do with sunspot activity and the Milankovitch cycles [or orbital accretion], and that we could magically fix it by giving ourselves a new tax that did nothing to push changes in technology along.

I'm for a levy on polluting industries, which they can't pass on to the consumer, that goes into a reserve fund the government can't use as general revenue to pay for junkets,and out of which grants can be made to do constructive things like replace coal and oil use by building clean Thorium fission reactors as power sources.

My argument with the carbon tax was that allowing it to be turned into a tax on the consumer took away any pressure or reward for changing what we were doing already, and it became just a disguised new tax.

[fish]

I'm currently reading an old Sci Fi novel called "Mother of Storms", published in 1994. It trots out all the theories that have since been embraced by the Climate Change movement...

Psyber surely you are not suggesting that people, like myself, who take the threat of climate change seriously, get our opinions from a fictional novel from the 90's!
That is simply ridiculous.

No, I'm suggesting the author was one of the first to work out that there was money in promulgating this misinterpretation of the causation of climate change later cashed in on by unscrupulous researchers.
Seriously, I'm suggesting he was one of the first true believers to flock to the "It's all caused by us!" cause.

Interestingly enough, 2 years earlier there was a novel called "Flare" about increased sunspot activity occurring in cycles causing electronic disruption and global warming.
This one by Zelazny & Thomas did not hook into the popular mood to blame human activity entirely as well as the John Barnes one, "Mother of Storms".

Still not sure why you are spruiking fiction about climate change Psyber?

The facts too scary for you eh?

[Psyber]

You never seem to grasp it no matter how many times I try to explain, carefully, fish - I don't know whether it is deliberate trolling or something else..
I keep saying I have no doubt climate change is real.
I keep saying we should do something about our pollution.
The only thing I dispute is the argument that it has been proved that present climate change is caused by man's activities.

I also argue that a carbon tax that is passed on to an end user is only a tax because it does not push real technology change.
My case is that the polluting company should not be allowed to pass it on, but that the funds raised should be isolated from general revenue, and not spent by the government as general revenue.
They would then be available to give grants back to companies to support real technology change when they submit a realistic plan.
Buying "offsets" or passing on a levy to the end user just moves money without changing the technology.

[purch]

Well...while we're all talking about rapid, human-induced climate change, leading to GLOBAL WARMING...

I hear there's been a record cold snap in southern Australia during my absence in the past few days (straight after the same happened in Eurasia and Nth America in their last winter)

Of course, at the end of the day, it will still be the hottest winter ever recorded...due to all the climatologists with thermometers up their a55.

[purch]

The facts too scary for you eh?

You never seem to grasp it no matter how many times I try to explain, carefully, fish - I don't know whether it is deliberate trolling or something else..
I keep saying I have no doubt climate change is real.

Fish, of course climate change is real...only flat-earthers would deny that...it's been changing constantly for the past 4.5 billion years (that's in current years, a year used to be much shorter - we know that simply by looking at fosillised tree rings).

But climatologists are funny beasts...kinda like an archaeologist studying what you ate for breakfast 20 years ago and then deciding what your great great great great great grandchildren will eat will be eating for breakfast when they are around. Hmmm...what do you think? Robopops?

[Psyber]

Fish, of course climate change is real...only flat-earthers would deny that...it's been changing constantly for the past 4.5 billion years (that's in current years, a year used to be much shorter - we know that simply by looking at fosillised tree rings).
But climatologists are funny beasts...kinda like an archaeologist studying what you ate for breakfast 20 years ago and then deciding what your great great great great great grandchildren will eat will be eating for breakfast when they are around. Hmmm...what do you think? Robopops?

Yes, Immanuel Velikovsky had a go at explaining that in one of his somewhat fanciful books - "Ages in Chaos" I think. [IIRC he suggested some old calenders worked on ten 30-day months.]
His theories were interesting and seemed to make some sense, but he extrapolated a bit far from the evidence he had in coming to his conclusions.
That resulted in his ideas being jumped on and given the full treatment to discredit him that is usually dished out to incautious proposers of unfashionable ideas.
I don't think there has ever been much serious consideration of whether there may be some truth to any of them.

[Gozu]

"Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty over data":

The climate scientists at the centre of a media storm were today cleared of accusations that they fudged their results and silenced critics to bolster the case for man-made global warming.

Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the world-leading Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) are not in doubt. They did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, the panel found, while key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... dishonesty

[Psyber]

"Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty over data":
The climate scientists at the centre of a media storm were today cleared of accusations that they fudged their results and silenced critics to bolster the case for man-made global warming.
Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the world-leading Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) are not in doubt. They did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, the panel found, while key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... dishonesty

Well, of course, the alternative finding would have suggested that gullible government [or world wide governments] had failed to vet the data and allowed data fiddling and grant rip-offs to occur.
No government would appoint an enquirer likely to come to that conclusion - picking the right person with the right socio-political set to undertake it, and setting the right terms, gets you the outcome you want.
Looks at examples in Australia...

I don't think any official enquiry has ever criticised the view the government of the day has held, but I may have missed them.
I'll read them, and review my opinion, if you can put me on to any examples.

[fish]

Well...while we're all talking about rapid, human-induced climate change, leading to GLOBAL WARMING...

I hear there's been a record cold snap in southern Australia during my absence in the past few days

Wow - a cold spell in the middle of winter that is a real surprise!

Global warming must be a myth!

[Gozu]

“Climategate” investigated, cleared, still waiting for apology":

You remember “Climategate”? That the “sceptics” like Bolt, Devine, Akerman declared exposed “the rotten heart of the propaganda machine that has driven the world to the brink of insanity” and that so undermined the campaign for action that Labor offered less than a token and the Libs dumped their leader?

Yeah, well, the final of the three investigations into it has now reported, and the answer is clear: there was no impropriety – it was a massive beatup.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2 ... r-apology/

[Psyber]

Don't worry true believers, if Julia wins and the Greens have the balance of power we'll get the ETS.
Polluting will continue, but we'll all pay a disguised tax to fund buying offsets, so we can all feel we've done something.
Oh for a government that would actually support [and help fund] real change to cleaner technology that can produce an adequate base load.