By: yfancythat
22/06/2009
12:12 pm Yahoo! Profile:
yfancythat Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Why is it so difficult to answer Three simple climate questions?
senator Steve Fielding recently undertook a well-publicised fact-seeking trip to a climate change conference in Washington.
Listening to the papers presented, the Senator became puzzled that the scientific analyses that they provided directly contradicted the reasons that the Australian government has been giving as the justification for their emissions trading legislation.
At the Washington meeting, Fielding heard leading atmospheric physicist, Professor Lindzen of MIT, describe evidence that the warming effect of carbon dioxide is much overestimated by current computer climate models, and then remark tellingly:
âWhat we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong. In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming/climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own - quite removed from scienceâ. Indeed.
And another scientist, astrophysicist Dr Willie Soon from Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, commented that âA âmagicalâ CO2 knob for controlling weather and climate simply does not existâ. Think about |
|
By: yfancythat
22/06/2009
12:12 pm Yahoo! Profile:
yfancythat Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
that for a moment with respect to our governmentâs current climate policy.
Quite reasonably, therefore, on his return to Canberra Senator Fielding asked Climate Minister Penny Wong to answer three simple questions about the relationship between human carbon dioxide emissions and alleged dangerous global warming.
Fielding was seeking evidence, as opposed to unvalidated computer model projections, that human carbon dioxide emissions actually are driving dangerous global warming, to help him and the public at large better assess whether cutting emissions will actually be a cost-effective environmental measure.
After all, the passed-down cost to Australian taxpayers of the planned emissions trading bill is of the order of $4,000 per family per year for a carbon dioxide tax level of $30 per tonne.
And the estimated âbenefitâ of such a large tax increase is that it may perhaps prevent an unmeasurable one-ten-thousandth of a degree of global warming from occurring. Next year? No, by 2100.
It was our privilege to have attended the meeting between Senators Wong and Fielding at which these three questions were discussed between ourselves and the Ministerâs scientific advisors, Chief Scientist Penny Wong and Director of ANU climate research centre Will Steffen. |
|
By: yfancythat
22/06/2009
12:13 pm Yahoo! Profile:
yfancythat Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
The three simple questions that were posed were:
1. Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
2. Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth's history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
3. Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming were followed by ten years of stasis and cooling?
s independent scientists, we found that the Ministerâs advisors were unable, indeed in some part unwilling, to answer these questions.
We were told with respect to the first question that it needed rephrasing, because it did not take account of the global thermal balance and the fact that much of the heat that drives the climate system is lodged in the ocean. Que? What is it about âcarbon dioxide has increased and |
|
By: yfancythat
22/06/2009
12:13 pm Yahoo! Profile:
yfancythat Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
temperature has decreasedâ that the Ministerâs science advisors donât understand?
The second question âwas the late 20th century phase of warming unusual in rate or magnitudeâ was effectively dismissed with the comment that climatic events that occurred in the distant geological past are not relevant to policy that is concerned with contemporary climate change.
Try telling that to Professor Plimer.
And regarding the third question, and the matter of the accuracy of the IPCCâs computer models, we were assured that the models are improving all the time, and that better models still are in the pipeline.
So the Ministerâs advisors appeared to concede that the climate models that have guided preparation of the current ETS legislation are inadequate, but donât you worry about that because the new, better models will get it right next time.
Scientific legerdemain, and an apparent inability to discuss the important climate change issue in simple terms that the public can understand, are not adequate responses to the crisp questions that Senator Fielding posed to the Minister and has yet to receive clear answers to.
It was reported in the Business Age last July that the Ministry of Climate Changeâs Green Paper on climate change, which was issued as a prelude to carbon dioxide |
|
By: yfancythat
22/06/2009
12:14 pm Yahoo! Profile:
yfancythat Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
taxation legislation, contained seven scientific errors and oversimplifications in the first sentence of its opening section.
Almost 12 months on, our experience confirms that the balance of the scientific advice Minister Wong is receiving is quite simply inadequate to justify the exorbitantly costly upheaval of our societyâs energy usage that is intended to be driven by the governmentâs emissions trading legislation.
All Australians owe Senator Fielding a vote of thanks for having had the political courage to ask in parliament where the climate Empressâs clothes have gone. Together with the Family First Senator, and the public, we await with interest any further answers to his questions that Minister Wongâs advisors may yet provide. |
|
By: yfancythat
22/06/2009
12:16 pm Yahoo! Profile:
yfancythat Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Maybe the business that have out source Australian jobs over seas should, pay for the carbon that the unemployed Australian, would have been able to pay if he or she had of still been working |
|
By: robbyisme
22/06/2009
1:13 pm Yahoo! Profile:
robbyisme Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I saw Fielding and want the answers to those questions to. I want my taxes taken for good reasoons not panic mongering. |
|
By: bigw89
27/06/2009
5:10 am Yahoo! Profile:
bigw89 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
if India and America stop using nuclear weapon we will consider about it!
That is no way to pay for a environment when another side are polluting the earth for free,NO, actually they are getting money from Asia bank to pollute the earth!
stop Japanese useing the wealthy of the world we made to pollute the earth ,then we all settle! no need to pay so much for keep environmnet clear any more! |
|
By: lkarnd99
27/06/2009
11:03 am Yahoo! Profile:
lkarnd99 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
The whole subject about human caused climate change is just another false crisis designed to deprive the useless eaters of their assets for big business and government, and keep them enslaved.....
Like the 91101 terrorist crisis, the subsequent energy (oil) crisis, the 91108 financial crisis, and the current flu pandemic crisis, it provides the government and big business the opportunity to slug the tax payer, and workers......
We certainly need to reduce the pollution caused by our activities, but to say that we mere humans are causing climate change is total crap, and recent studies of the solar cycles, and volcanic activity around the planet prove it.
It's about time we stood up to government and big business and said... "enough is enough, we aren't gonna take it anymore"........
While I and my family were sucked in by this debate over the last few years, I can say that the new evidence has totally changed our outlook, and we see it for what it is, another money-grubbing exercise, that will further destroy small businesses to the benefit of big business, and make the cost of living more difficult for ordinary Australians. |
|
By: rrianaflo
27/06/2009
11:27 am Yahoo! Profile:
rrianaflo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| i'm more interested in the carbon build-up inside my oven... wahhh!!! (apparently bi-carb works?) |
|
By: madcowsmile
27/06/2009
12:53 pm Yahoo! Profile:
madcowsmile Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
1. Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,
The Earth system is a complex open living system taking in energy from the sun, gravity from the cosmological makeup. It comprises a myriad of complex feedback loops, both positive feedback loops and negative feedback loops caused by life and the chemical disequilibrium that Earth's evolved biosphere comprises. This means many of the signals of change will have a myriad of positive and negative feedbacks that will change at different times and in manners that trigger change across feedbacks that appear to be moving in opposing directions.
However much change happens by natural influence, in this era, humans cause global size change. It is known that the atmosphere is a greenhouse warmed atmosphere. That is understood science. To think that the human addition to that existing greenhouse will be static rather than dynamic would not be a good conclusion. We are altering an understood greenhouse atmosphere and pretending this might not be happening because the signals of change are not following a linear projection.
Rather we should in my view recognise our impact on the Earth as upsetting a complex system of positive and negative feedbacks rather than a simple linear system. When you recognise this, you will alter the question and remove that word 'blame' and we could possibly make some sound decisions.
You would also recognise our atmospheric pollution as a system is influenced by the other ubiquitous apocalyptic human act being our encroachment on the natural ecosystems that make the Earth alive and able to sustain life. |
|
By: madcowsmile
27/06/2009
1:47 pm Yahoo! Profile:
madcowsmile Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
2. Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth's history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
These references to the past are not entirely easy to compare to today's events. Today we use computer technologies to measure our biosphere. Those warming and cooling periods of earlier times in the life of Earth do not have such accurate data with which to compare.
Warming is a problem today and not comparable to those earlier periods in that the global population today is 6.5 billion people. It seems from the data we are convinced is accurate, this is the first time the Earth has had this many humans. So change now, would have a human dimension.
That is, change for Earth had species come and go, Earth continued on. On the extinction of the human species due to global change, we are speculating, but on the disruption to humanity, we are realising that it will be more expensive to adjust our habits when forced too than if we adjust our habits today. |
|
By: madcowsmile
27/06/2009
1:51 pm Yahoo! Profile:
madcowsmile Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
3. Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming were followed by ten years of stasis and cooling?
......................... ......
So far I have two correct answers out of three, but before I answer the next question, can someone tell me what GCM is?
Thanks. |
|
By: willbuzzyilier
27/06/2009
2:00 pm Yahoo! Profile:
willbuzzyilier Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
$4,000 per family carbon TAX
===how many people can afford that? each year? lol |
|
By: madcowsmile
27/06/2009
2:01 pm Yahoo! Profile:
madcowsmile Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions
......................... ...
Further to question 2, because the release of CO2 into the atmosphere from the beginning of the industrial age has established findings.
The obvious conclusion from this knowledge scares a lot of people. Worries a lot more. And is disowned by others. The conclusion is that given CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we can assume it will increase the solar energy trapped in the atmosphere and cause heating and a change in climate. |
|
By: madcowsmile
27/06/2009
2:10 pm Yahoo! Profile:
madcowsmile Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
We certainly need to reduce the pollution caused by our activities, but to say that we mere humans are causing climate change is total crap, and recent studies of the solar cycles, and volcanic activity around the planet prove it.
[lkarnd99]
That's not science. Solar cycles, and volcanic activity do not determine the question of whether our human contribution to the atmosphere has or has not any influence on Earth's biosphere. |
|
By: madcowsmile
27/06/2009
2:17 pm Yahoo! Profile:
madcowsmile Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
$4,000 per family carbon TAX
===how many people can afford that? each year? lol
....................
At face value, it looks like really good propaganda. |
|
By: willbuzzyilier
27/06/2009
3:37 pm Yahoo! Profile:
willbuzzyilier Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| yes must be libras' dump job. they somehow turns into louses. |
|
By: aquaman609
27/06/2009
8:37 pm Yahoo! Profile:
aquaman609 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
The obvious conclusion from this knowledge scares a lot of people. Worries a lot more. And is disowned by others. The conclusion is that given CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we can assume it will increase the solar energy trapped in the atmosphere and cause heating and a change in climate.
Isnt this Logic wonderful ?
back in the 70s we had to stop using sprays because the Ozone layer that adjusts earths temp had a Hole in it was getting bigger ,and we where getting colder now we are getting warmer can we start using Flurocarbon sprays again ? lets Face it Al Gore was Unemployed and layed an egg and all the chickens followed , some scentists agree because it means job security and others who have secure jobs say climate change is a load of old cobblers , I,m not that old in the scheme of things but I can remember as a kid ice an inch thick on Puddles and floods in summer and temps where it was hard to Breathe , for me this planet is an amasing place and it travels through space at a pace you cant Imagine, around a sun that is also fasinating and Life giving , when these clowns Know more about the Universe Ill take Notice , in the meantime stop african , indian and Chinese from breeding and Increasing the worlds population let the starving starve , they are breeding faster than we can produce food !!! No wonder half the planet is Barren ! |
|
By: lkarnd99
27/06/2009
9:33 pm Yahoo! Profile:
lkarnd99 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
That's not science. Solar cycles, and volcanic activity do not determine the question of whether our human contribution to the atmosphere has or has not any influence on Earth's biosphere. << madcow >>
====
No, it's common sense that human activity will not make any notable difference to the overall effect on Earths biosphere of the newly discovered underwater volcanic activity at both poles causing emissions of methane into the atmosphere that far exceed anything that humans can contribute.
In addition scientists have now determined that the earth is heading into a new ice age determined by solar activity, and there is no consensus among scientists regarding the effects of CO2 on the Earths temperature.
My argument against any Carbon Tax is the fact that it is based on false and unproved science, and is just another political fraud imposed on Australians that will not provide them with any measurable benefit.
Here is an article that highlights the issue:
Global warming 'mistaken'
December 26th 2008
http://www.pamibe.com/2008/12/global-warming-mista ken/
Scientist fired by Al Gore was told "science will not intrude on public policy".
More and more now, eminent scientists are coming out in opposition to the alarmist cry of 'global warming'.
Noted energy expert and Princeton physicist Dr. Will Happer has sharply criticized global warming alarmism. Happer, author of over 200 scientific papers and a past director of energy research at the Department of Energy, called fears over global warming "mistaken".
"I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect", said Happer.
"Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science."
..cont |
|
By: lkarnd99
27/06/2009
9:42 pm Yahoo! Profile:
lkarnd99 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
cont..
Dr. Happer views climate change as a predominately natural process. "The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past."
In 1991, Happer was appointed director of energy research for the US Department of Energy. In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn't support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused then-Vice President Al Gore to fire him. "I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy", he said. "I did not need the job that badly".
The introduction of a Carbon Tax will provide business and governments with another method of screwing the workers out of their assets, particularly when carbon tax credits become tradeable on the stock exchange and futures markets, and the crooks start manipulating the markets as they have done to create our current economic crisis.
As usual Australia is selected to get this started, as we did with gun control, because we are the most compliant people on Earth. Perhaps that should change.
We should get our representatives to vote this Tax down... |
|
By: madcowsmile
28/06/2009
10:20 am Yahoo! Profile:
madcowsmile Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
back in the 70s we had to stop using sprays because the Ozone layer that adjusts earths temp had a Hole in it was getting bigger
......................... ..................
Wrong, it was the harmful effects of UV rays that ozone protects that was the issue. Not temp. |
|
By: madcowsmile
28/06/2009
10:41 am Yahoo! Profile:
madcowsmile Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
No, it's common sense that human activity will not make any notable difference to the overall effect on Earths biosphere of the newly discovered underwater volcanic activity at both poles causing emissions of methane into the atmosphere that far exceed anything that humans can contribute.
......................... .
Bad grammar makes the reply tricky. Nevetheless, comparing sources of emissions is one thing. To suggest that source with the greatest emissions nullifies all other sources is poor thinking. |
|
By: lkarnd99
29/06/2009
5:04 pm Yahoo! Profile:
lkarnd99 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
To suggest that source with the greatest emissions nullifies all other sources is poor thinking. << madcow >>
===
Sorry, my intention was to point out the fraud being perpetrated by introducing a tax on human activity that will make little difference whatsoever to climate change given the impact of the natural factors that have governed the Earths climate since time immemorial.
It is in reality a tax on human activity, that according to the Plan will be capped initally at $20.00 per ton(Tonne?), but is expected to be traded at least $100 per T, when the cap is removed, and even more when the speculators start their futures trading etc, on carbon taxes.
In the UK, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders estimates that the energy needed to build an average car in Britain during 2005 translated to 600kg of CO2. Honda in the US reckons its figure is 810kg. Not much considering that an average UK car emits 2.8 tonnes of CO2 over 10,000 miles.
see link
How your carbon footprint is made up
http://www.channel4.com/4car/ft/feature/feature/80 74/
Using our mathematical genius we can see the possible extra cost for vehicle usage @ $20/T, $100/T, and $200/T.
If Carbon trading is not regulated then our entire lifestyle, and jobs will be at risk, as manufacturing in countries having a Carbon Tax trading scheme becomes more expensive than in those countries without.......
The U.S. and Australia seem to be in a rush to get it in place before Copenhagen at the end of the year. Why?????? |
|
By: waterbank
29/06/2009
5:10 pm Yahoo! Profile:
waterbank Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
This carbon tax is a complete con job.
People dont be sucked in.... |
|
