DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Religion, Politics and World Events (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events-47/)
-   -   The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition) (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events/592386-one-only-global-warming-thread-part-11-co2-kills-10-billion-people-edition.html)

movielib 07-04-11 12:28 PM

The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)
A new thread is started when the old one gets to around 800 posts so here it is.

Part 10:


I had just posted in the last thread a link to the rantings of Australian scientist Gideon Polya who made the claim that climate change will kill 10 billion people this century. I could now be partially responsible for killing about 900 times more people than Hitler. That seems important.

I will repost Post #789 from the last thread as Post #2 in this thread.

Enjoy the carnage.

Mods, please close the last thread.

movielib 07-04-11 12:28 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Wow. Read this crazy thing. It's a long diatribe so I won't post it all, I'll just post the link.

This Australian scientist hits all the typical notes plus he makes a bunch of stuff up that not even Michael Mann would say.

He says methane is 105 times more potent than CO2 (it's about 25 times more; he also fails to mention it's far less plentiful - it's measured in parts per billion, rather than per million). He says CO2 is now over 450 ppm when it's at about 390. His wildest claim of all: ten billion people will perish because of climate change this century.

His name is Gideon Polya. He makes Hansen and Mann and Schmidt and Jones and the rest of them look sane so he serves a purpose in Alarmland.

His favorite phrase seems to be "Climate criminal, climate racist, climate Apartheid Australia."


OldDude 07-04-11 02:59 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
In another "Australians are crazy over global warming" story, apparently you can kill a farting camel for carbon credits, although camel scientists are upset about the camel kill.
(As an side, Farting Camel Killers would be a great name for a rock band)


Wind of change: Aussie 'farting camels' cull under attack
By Joseph Barrak | AFP – Sun, Jul 3, 2011...

The world's association of camel scientists fought back angrily on Monday over Australian plans to kill wild dromedaries on the grounds that their flatulence adds to global warming.

The idea is "false and stupid... a scientific aberration", the International Society of Camelid Research and Development (ISOCARD) charged, saying camels were being made culprits for a man-made problem.

"We believe that the good-hearted people and innovating nation of Australia can come up with better and smarter solutions than eradicating camels in inhumane ways," it said.

The kill-a-camel suggestion is floated in a paper distributed by Australia's Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, as part of consultations for reducing the country's carbon footprint.

The scheme is the brainchild of an Adelaide-based commercial company, Northwest Carbon, a land and animal management consultancy, which proposes whacking feral camels in exchange for carbon credits. . . . .

kvrdave 07-04-11 03:45 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
The similarities between this and doomsday cults is fascinating.

DeputyDave 07-04-11 04:03 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by kvrdave (Post 10841514)
The similarities between this and doomsday cults is fascinating.

Except the doomsday cults can mostly be convinced they are wrong when the end date comes and goes.

arminius 07-05-11 08:07 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
I just don't see how you can read all this stuff and not come to the conclusion that this is just a power/money grab. Unless of course, you are one of the grabbers.

movielib 07-05-11 10:10 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
As reported previously, Rolling Stone gave Al Gore a platform to spout his nonsense after a period of relative quiet. This was not surprising as RS is in the tank for CAGW and Gore said nothing new, just the same old exaggerations, half-truths and lies.

This inspired someone to write:


After an unusually long silence, Prince Albert of Gore has resurfaced, with a 7000-word essay for Rolling Stone magazine. (See Walter Russell Mead's two-part takedown here and here.) Yet I imagine that, with Al's inflated self-importance, it must rankle to find Katy Perry getting the cover photo instead of him. Which reminds me of a song...

Cover of the Rolling Stone
(with apologies to Shel Silverstein, and Dr. Hook - original lyrics, mp3)

Well I'm an ex-V.P., without a Ph.D.
Idolized everywhere I go
I preach of disaster and show slides about warmth
For a hundred thousand a show*
I write Congressional bills and I got media shills
And lobbyists I can phone
But though I'm a fixture, I can't get my picture
On the cover of the Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone
Wanna see my picture on the cover
Wanna buy five copies for my mother
Wanna see my frowning face
On the cover of the Rolling Stone

To meet a desperate need I wrote a brilliant screed
Of just seven thousand words
A work of style and great importance
Like they had never heard
You'd think I would get a front page spread
'Cause my face is so well known
And so it enrages to be in the back pages
Of the stupid thankless Rolling Stone


I got a lot of over-zealous Greenpeace groupies
Who swallowed all my lies
I got an Indian railroad expert
Who's sharing in my Nobel Prize
I got land and jets and mansions and cash
And an Oscar of my own
And I keep gettin' richer but I can't get my picture
On the cover of the Rolling Stone


* Yes, that's his price.

movielib 07-05-11 10:54 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Another extremely silly paper has been making the rounds. It purports to explain why it hasn't been warming. Supposedly it's because the Chinese have been burning more coal and the sulfur particulates are preventing the planet from boiling as it should because of CO2. Critics have pointed out the study depends on an old 2006 model that was never any good to begin with. Also, it's been pointed out that worldwide such particulates haven't been changing anyway. The study was printed in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science which should raise alarms because the once respected PNAS has become a vanity publisher for NAS members who can get them in easily (unless they are climate skeptics who apparently have different rules).


Chinese coal blamed for global <strike>warming</strike> er... cooling
Economists ride into sulphurous cloud of aerosols
By Andrew Orlowski
Posted in Environment, 5th July 2011 11:51 GMT

The refusal of the global temperatures to rise as predicted has caused much angst among academics. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't," wrote one in 2009. Either the instruments were wrong, or the heat energy had gone missing somewhere.

Now a team of academics, after tweaking a statistical model to include sulphur emissions, suggest that coal power stations may be to blame for a lack of global warming since 1998. The IPCC's 2007 assessment but acknowledged the negative radiative forcing (aka, cooling effect) of both natural aerosols from volcanoes and manmade aerosols, but admitted the level of scientific understanding was low.

A team of two geographers and two economists headed by Professor Robert Kaufmann at the Department of Geography in Boston publish their results in a new paper Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008 [PDF], which includes manmade emissions of sulphur and simulates the flat temperatures since 1998. Kaufmann has a PhD in energy management policy. In this paper, he and his colleagues revisit "a simplified model" from 2006 (PDF) containing statistically estimated equations for three variables: global surface temperature, CO2 and CH4. The actual temperature differences described in the new paper are tiny – with variations from model predictions of 0.1°C.

"Results indicate that net anthropogenic forcing rises slower than previous decades because the cooling effects of sulfur emissions grow in tandem with the warming effects greenhouse gas concentrations. This slow-down, along with declining solar insolation and a change from El Nino to La Nina conditions, enables the model to simulate the lack of warming after 1998," the team explains.

The model estimates a 0.06W/m2 increase in cooling since 2002. Declining sulphur emissions between 1990 and 2002 – caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the switch to gas – had a warming effect of 0.19W/m2.

Kaufmann et al declare that aerosol cooling is "consistent with" warming from manmade greenhouse gases. Recent studies suggest greenhouse gas emissions may be masking a long-term cooling trend as solar activity declines.

Climate scientist Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, doesn't find the economists' statistical theatrics convincing. She wonders why the short-lived regional increases in particulates should have a global effect on temperatures. She also notes that there has been no increase in aerosols, either globally or over East Asia, from 2000 to 2006; Chinese emissions only rose in the period 2004 to 2007. Kaufmann et al do acknowledge that a La Nina weather pattern cooled the planet between 1998 and 2000, while a warm El Nino increased temperatures in 2002 and again in 2010.

"The political consequence of this article seems to be that the simplest solution to global warming is for the Chinese to burn more coal, which they intend to do anyway," writes Curry.

Doubtless they will. First we blame them for warming the planet, but now we blame them for cooling the planet.
Another interesting thing is that one of the authors is Michael Mann - no, not that one (and also not the movie director). But it has caused some confusion. Different middle initial and different schools though.

But perhaps the most significant thing is that the authors admit the world hasn't been warming which is causing consternation among some alarmists who keep saying it is even though it isn't.

movielib 07-07-11 08:45 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
This clever little 9 minute "cartoon video" is quite good. Unlike many of the first overwhelmingly positive skeptical reactions, however, I find it somewhat wanting as giving too little credit to nuclear energy and in giving too short shrift to the sun while citing "indirect" causes of warming (and cooling) that are, in all probability, indirectly caused by the sun in the first place (these indirect influences amplify the sun's small direct influences). Specifically, I find it lacking that Svensmark's cosmic ray theory isn't included, especially because the person behind the video is Roy Spencer who has recently become much more accepting of the possibility Svensmark is on to something. I understand there is only so much you can fit into 9 minutes and you don't want to lose your audience by being too long or too technical but these changes wouldn't take much tweaking. But still, it's a mostly good and informative video and is very much worth watching.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vvObfrs3qoE?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vvObfrs3qoE?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

movielib 07-07-11 01:03 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
This is a riot.

Alarmist Chris Mooney blasts skeptic Chris Horner because, at the Heartland ICCC conference June 30/July 1, Horner claimed that many proponents of CAGW, particularly the leaders, are "watermelons," green on the outside and red on the inside. Their real goal is to stop capitalism and free markets and redistribute wealth.

Then, in the comments to Mooney's article, a whole bunch of alarmists come in to blast Mooney and show that Horner is absolutely right. Mooney gets blasted for being closer to Horner than he is to them.

While it can be sometimes difficult to assign motive, many alarmists have said just the things Horner talks about. The quotes are there. Horner has written books about it full of such quotes.

Here is Mooney's article and the comments, wherein Mooney bemoans the fact that his supposed allies have come in to prove him wrong and Horner right:


Lubos Motl does his usual splendid job of analysis (despite dork's derisive comment about Motl and myself in a recent thread (see http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-wo...leased-22.html), Motl is not an "internet loon"; he is harsh and sarcastic and his style is not mine but he is seldom wrong, and when he is he admits it, unlike many other people):


Thursday, July 07, 2011
Chris Mooney defends growth, becomes a heretic
Lubos Motl

Chris Mooney has always been a kind of opportunist who figured out that it was possible to make profit out of spreading the environmentalist delusions - but he has arguably never believed them. If he were a politician, he would be the ultimate insider in Washington D.C.

Such a position has worked for years but it no longer works. Environemtalism and its most radical reincarnation, global warming alarmism, is gradually regaining the status of a fringe movement promoted by the lunatics. Mooney has clearly not noticed the difference yet.

In a recent article,
In the Climate Debate, The Misunderstanding Is Mutual (Mooney's article plus fiery debate),
he has complained about a panel discussion at the Sixth Heartland Climate Conference. Around 57:00, panelists Marc Morano, Chris Horner, and Alan Carlin (no, it's not Noam Chomsky) confirm the suggestions from the audience that the primary driver behind the climate movement is an attempt to reorganize the society, a new green version of socialism or communism or anti-capitalism.

A few years ago, such a Mooney could be attacked by climate realists who would explain him why it's obviously true that the climate alarmists are like watermelons - green on the surface but red (Marxist) inside. That would lead to repetitive confrontations with no apparent winner.

However, we're in 2011 so what happened was more creative. ;-) What was that?

Well, Chris Mooney has been attacked by the climate warmists. Horner is obviously right and Mooney is betraying the most degenerated version of Marxism that drives almost all of his readers to his "The Intersection" website.

Commenters "1985" and "William Furr" immediately came to complain about would-be green people like Mooney who don't admit that capitalism absolutely has to be destroyed and the economic growth has to be sent deeply into the red numbers as soon as possible.

Mooney cried in comment #3 for the first time. Did they come to prove Horner right? Well, they don't have to prove him right. Everyone knows that Horner is right. Mooney has over 2,000 daily visitors to his blog that doesn't boast any scientific content - and it can't because Mooney has no clue about science - so try to ask a simple question, Chris, what drives over 2,000 people to this pure trash that you're posting on the Internet?

Well, yes, they're the hard core of the environmentalist movement who are eager to read any garbage as long as it licks the a*s of the environmentalist movement. They're the "Deep Greens" as they called themselves. I didn't know the term but it's apparently how the most radical part of the green movement is calling itself.

It wasn't just "1985" and "William Furr" who complained about Mooney's lack of will to fight against capitalism - which should be the primary goal of the climate alarmism. "Boris" in #4 argued that the "best" minds in the AGW business have claimed that a goal of the AGW hysteria is to redistribute wealth. :-)

"William Furr" returned in #5 and said that Mooney isn't the kind of great minds who want to hobble economies and redistribute wealth. Instead, Mooney is the kind of opportunist who wants to eat a cake and have it, too. Very true. ;-) "William Furr" and "1985" came to explain that it's not possible to have a cake and eat it, too.

In #6, Mooney cried for the second time. He still believes that the new green Marxism isn't the main force behind the AGW alarmism but he is already "willing to be convinced otherwise". :-)

In #7, "Eric the Leaf" promotes the book "End of Growth" to his (probable) soulmates "1985" and "William Furr".

In #8, Mooney cries for the third time. In his opinion, admitting that the AGW movement is about the liquidation of growth has been a losing card for the liberals and one of the reasons behind the "conservative counter-revolution in the U.S." (oops!).

In #9, "1985" says that the laws of physics dictate something else (destruction of the world economy) than what is politically feasible and Mooney is missing this key point. In #10, "William Furr" says that doing not enough is equivalent to doing nothing. That's why Mooney is equivalent to a denier, a point that will be repeated many times.

In #11, Mooney claims that both physical and political laws are important for the reality and it's a bad idea to misunderstand either. Very true - the only problem is that Mooney misunderstands both. A few more exchanges between "1985" and Mooney follow.

A new player enters the arena in #16. Dr Michael Tobis who is "in it for the gold", says that they have to prove that Horner is right and the destruction of the world economy has nothing to do with ideology - only its preservation is purely ideological. He insists that the greens who are eating roots and sleeping on the trees have to be presented as the most un-ideological, mainstream people. The average American family can't be scaled to the whole world so a revolution is needed, we learn. But it's not about ideology! It's just a non-ideological revolution meant to remove everything that the mankind has ever built.

In #17, "1985" criticizes Mooney for understating the gap between physics and politically feasiable things - i.e. understating the urgent need for a revolution that circumvents all standard political channels. In #18, Mooney supports Tobis' opinion that the black should be presented as white and vice versa. "Incredibly well stated, Michael."

In #19, a new participant, "Nullius in Verba", divides the Greens to Green-lite, Green, and Deep Green. He has no doubts that the latter group exists and has "explicitly anti-Capitalist, redistributive, 'climate justice' sorts of authoritarian/totalitarian policy ideas." It's more radical than communism that wanted to preserve - and expand - technology.

In #20, "1985" attacks Tobis because the point is to liquidate capitalism while Tobis wants to allow this monster to retain the status of a sacred cow. According to #21 by "1985", "Nullius in Verba" is missing the point, too. There is nothing totalitarian about controlling the people's carbon cycle and preventing them from breathing out. Instead, it is necessary to preserve life. Just to be sure that there is no disagreement between these greens, Nullius in Verba agrees in #22 that they agree about the long-term goals - a complete control over the people's behavior. They just differ in the strategies how to achieve this holy goal.

In #23, "Michael Tobis" labels "1985" as a gift to his opponents. Tobis even dares to think that the growth and capitalism belong together and have done miracles for many. In #24, the next thing that "1985" expects from "Nullius" is to say that Julian Simon was correct. I eagerly expect it, too!

According to "M Burke" in #25, capitalism may save the planet by providing us with fuel-efficient cars and light bulbs. :-)

In #26, "TTT" figures out that this thread is an "epic OWNGOAL". He is ashamed, as an environmentalism. I would also be ashamed if I were an environmentalist - from the very first moment. He unsuccessfully tries to mock Chris Horner and says that the "infinite growth is impossible" but that's less important than to "poke and mock the freaks".

In #27, "Brian D" says that capitalism doesn't work because it ignores "externalities" such as CO2 so it has to be "given signals".

In #28, Mooney cries again. He agrees it's an owngoal and he is tired of it.

In #29, "Nullius" says that the tragedy of the commons is about the lack, and not excess, of the markets. Things have to be privatized and the tragedy is over.

In #31, "DirkH" who is apparently a skeptic smiles that Mooney wanted to separate the fight against the growth from environmentalism and he has been returned back to the reality by his would-be soulmates. Go get him boys, he's befouling Gaia. :-) Dirk loves warmists fighting with each other, and so do I.

Mooney cries in #32 for the fifth time and agrees that Dirk is right and the warmists are losers. Depressing.

In #33, "Brian D" protests: privatization can't avoid the tragedy of commons because the real commons like CO2 in the atmosphere can't be owned by anyone.

According to "1985" in #34, the most selfish thing is to self-sacrifice and co-operate (with the green world government). People just haven't understood yet that this is the happiest form of greed. And your humble correspondent is afraid that they will not understand it. In #35, "1985" says that the lost battle doesn't matter because small victories doesn't matter because their required goal is so huge. ;-) Mooney says that these discussions provide more ammunition for the denialists - so what? Unless every single human on Earth is completely controlled by the radical green machine, there's no chance, anyway. :-) The comment #36 by "1985" says that the point of the tragedy of commons is not to think about it or try to solve it, but just to have a talking point to spread propaganda about ecology, so "1985" criticizes "Nullius" for his attempt to think how the tragedy of the commons was solved in England - another clear heresy. In #37, he says that the judgement day is not in the year infinity but in this century and people should have been getting ready for the Armageddon for 50 years.

In #38, "Nullius" recommends Mooney, who understood that he was a sore loser, to cure the situation easily. Just admit that you're not on the same side as the Deep Greens! You oppose them as much as you do oppose the Republicans. ("Nullius" recommends Mooney a career suicide if not a physical one.) "Nullius" himself would love to be explained some things because he finds green attitudes to all meaningful questions a mystery. "Nullius" isn't quite optimistic about the privatization of the atmosphere so he proposes a "climate change bond", something that allows you to make profit whenever the climate changes. I would surely buy it - to make a profit every day! :-)

A new participant, "PDA" in #39, says that it's not an owngoal because there's just one anti-capitalist person on this thread. "PDA" predicts that they will lose every single argument in the future because there won't be a 100% unity between them - if the unity is needed, and be sure that for totalitarian movements such as the AGW alarmism, it's badly needed, I add.

In #40, "1985" accuses Tobis of considering capitalism to be a sacred cow. I guess that the super hard core Marxist Tobis isn't used to this kind of criticism. ;-) In #41, "1985" criticizes "climate change bonds" because when the sea level rises by 1 meter, several and maybe infinitely many meters are already in the pipeline, so capitalism doesn't work, and if you thought it does, the physical laws describing the oceans have to be rewritten.

In #42, "William T" believes that "1985" is in a minority and he is a troll.

In #43, "Nullius" agrees that if the sea level rises by 1 meter, infinitely many meters are already in the pipeline. Why would "Nullius" dare to heretically disagree with this self-evident axiomatic dogma? The climate change bond would already know about the Armageddon in advance.

"Brian D" has a long comment #44 that I didn't understand but he surely wants to say that the ICCC conference is not science-based.

"Johnny" in #45 says that the resources are infinite - we may switch. Nature has solved all other growth problems, too. "Nullius" in #46 defends signals sent to the market. Both of these positions are disagreed by "PDA" in #47 - the previous comments are just beliefs, he says. Instead, one should parrot that the infinite growth is impossible because this approach has already been useful - by brainwashing millions of greens into a pile of mindless zombies.

"Gofigure" in #48 promotes a recommended skeptical literature. In #49, "TTT" uses a quote by "Nullius" to show that "Nullius" is also a Marxist - more detached from reality than the other Marxists. In #50, "Nullius" tries to denounce Marxism.

Rod Taylor in #51 says that Kevin Drum and other liberals (including far left economist DeLong) publicly admitted that the carbon fees were just another tax and the rightwingers were thought to be stupid enough not to see through the tricks. ;-) Well, Drum et al. have been proved wrong.

In #52, Mooney would love to agree that "1985" is in a minority but he realizes that this is not what readers of the thread will conclude - because it's preposterous. The green movement is overflooded with unhinged Marxists of the "1985" type. In #53, "1985" responds to another comment: roughly speaking, who is not a Marxist contradicts the laws of physics.

A fun discussion. Here is the most important lesson for Mooney to learn from his comrade "1985":
In that sense, and I again, I am sorry and very sad to say it, the difference between you [Mooney] and the denialists is smaller than the difference between you and the people who actually get it. If you do not understand that growth has to stop and be reversed immediately (and why), despite all your writings on the subject, you are actually in the same kind of denial that the people you write about are.

I usually prefer to comment on the science and the excesses and silliness of the alarmists and usually (not always) stay away from going into political motives. After all, the skeptics have those too although I think they have the science firmly on their side. But neither should political motives (on both sides) be entirely ignored.

grundle 07-08-11 01:00 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib (Post 10841346)
A new thread is started when the old one gets to around 800 posts so here it is.

Part 10:


I had just posted in the last thread a link to the rantings of Australian scientist Gideon Polya who made the claim that climate change will kill 10 billion people this century. I could now be partially responsible for killing about 900 times more people than Hitler. That seems important.

I will repost Post #789 from the last thread as Post #2 in this thread.

Enjoy the carnage.

Mods, please close the last thread.

Paul Ehrlich said that overpopulation would kill 90% of the world's population by the 1980s.

movielib 07-09-11 05:14 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
They wonder why we laugh at them, Part 1:


Monbiot: Global Warming Jellyfish Apocalypse – End of Vertebrate Life Is Nigh.
Posted on July 9, 2011 by hauntingthelibrary

In another gem of a piece that exceeds even his infamous “2012 Meat Apocalypse” prediction, George Monbiot has warned that global warming Co2 is breeding an invasion of the jellyfish that spells the end of vertebrate life itself!

Monbiot starts his latest Jeremiad by observing that there used to be a lot more fish in the sea, citing two impeccable scientific sources: himself and old people who remember how many more mackerel there used to be. Apparently, you used to be able to just walk along the beach with a bucket and the fish would just about leap into it for you. Ah, the good old days!

Finding that there is no scientific explanation – or even data – on why things are no longer what they used to be in the world of mackerel, our hero jumps into a kayak and paddles three miles (!) out to sea. He doesn’t see any mackerel, but does spot something else. “Unimaginable numbers” of monster jellyfish!
But I could also see something else. Jellyfish. Unimaginable numbers of them. Not the transparent cocktail umbrellas I was used to, but solid, white rubbery creatures the size of footballs. They roiled in the surface or loomed, vast and pale, in the depths. There was scarcely a cubic metre of water without one.
Yikes! Could the arrival of these monster jellyfish spell a doom of Lovecraftian proportions and strangeness? Monbiot believes it could well do. This could be the end of vertebrate ecology itself we are witnessing:
Is this the moment? Have I just witnessed the beginning of the end of vertebrate ecology here? If so, the shift might not be confined to Cardigan Bay. In a perfect conjunction of two of my recent interests, last week a monstrous swarm of jellyfish succeeded where Greenpeace has failed, and shut down both reactors at the Torness nuclear power station in Scotland.
Damm those monster jellyfish! But why now? What is causing this terrifying invasion? Could it possibly be down to C02 and global warming? Why yes it could be:
A combination of overfishing and ocean acidification (caused by rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) has created the perfect conditions for this shift from a system dominated by fish to a system dominated by jellyfish.

If this is indeed what we’re seeing, the end of vertebrate ecology is a direct result of the end of vertebrate politics: the utter spinelessness of the people charged with protecting the life of the seas.
The jellyfish are coming, thanks to C02, and they’re shutting down the power stations as they move inexorably to a “system dominated by jellyfish”. This, surely, is proof of the unprecedented effects of global warming? We’ve never had jellyfish breeding in such numbers as to shut down power stations before, after all. Have we?

Well, of course, it’s nothing new – this has all happened before. Like in the Phillipines in 1999, where an “enormous concentration” of jellyfish was blamed for crippling the new power station. In Miami in 1984, where a “huge crowd of jellyfish” shut down the nuclear reactor at the St Lucie power station and again in 1993. In Tampa Bay in 1971, where massive “swarms” of jellyfish shut down the power plant. In Tokyo in 1972, where they closed a power plant, in the Persian gulf in 1958 where they shut down an oil refinery – the list goes on.

Having backtracked on his “2012 Meat Apocalypse” prediction, Monbiot’s latest is even better – the end of vertebrate life and the imposition of “a system dominated by jellyfish” who apparently are starting by shutting down power stations. Run for the hills!

movielib 07-09-11 05:22 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
They wonder why we laugh at them, Part 2:


Climate "scientists": 95 percent of people fry to death at 20 °C
Lubos Motl
July 9, 2011

The Sydney Morning Herald has discussed what happens when the global mean temperature increases by 4 °C:
Too hot to handle: can we afford a 4-degree rise?
Kevin Anderson, a director of a Tyndall Centre somewhere in the U.K., sees it in this way:
If you have got a population of 9 billion by 2050 and you hit 4 degrees, 5 degrees or 6 degrees, you might have half a billion people surviving.
So the population will happily continue to rise to 9 billion by 2050. Suddenly, the global mean temperature will apparently jump from 15 °C to 20 °C, we're told, and 8.5 billion people will suddenly die because 20 °C is surely deadly.

I wonder whether those loons actively realize what they are saying - and what their colleagues are saying - and whether at least some of them know that the likes of Mr Anderson are mentally ill. You see that the U.K. doesn't have any counterpart of the ObamaCare if they can't afford to store Mr Anderson in a psychiatric asylum.

Needless to say, there doesn't exist any empirically based reason to think that the temperature change in the next 40 years will exceed something like 0.5 °C - see all RSS cooling and warming trends (which imply that the very sign of the future temperature changes are unknown) - so five degrees is already an overestimate by one order of magnitude.

However, if the planet were warmer by 5 °C, just imagine this nonsense for the sake of it, we could notice the difference but we would surely see no substantial death rate. In fact, that's about the point at which the warm-weather-related deaths would match the cold-weather-related deaths. At this point, the number of temperature-related deaths would probably be minimized. That's not a shocking insight - after all, 20 °C is the temperature we like in our living rooms - I actually favor 23 °C but it is not far - so if this is also chosen to be the global mean temperature, the planet will surely become more comfortable than it is now.

But it's amazing that those people don't realize how little 4 °C is for our planet. Every year, the seasons change the temperature at every place away from the equator by dozens of degrees. Every 24 hours, we experience a day-night temperature difference comparable to 4 °C, too. The different places on the globe differ, too:


You see that depending on the location (equator vs Antarctica are the two extremes), the annual average temperatures go from -50 to +30 °C or so. The width of this interval is 80 °C. Four Celsius degrees is just 1/20 of this width. So by moving by something like 1/20 of the distance between the equator and the poles which is 1/80 of the Earth's circumference, you may completely compensate the effect of such a warming. Many people have moved by much more than 1/80 of the circumference of the Earth and many of them survived. ;-)

A cooling by 5 °C would have a higher impact because ice sheets would begin to grow at many places which would change the environment "qualitatively": that's why the ice ages were pretty different. But that's only because on the downside, we're pretty close to a phase transition, the freezing point of water, 0 °C, when certain important things change discontinuously.

However, the continental ice sheets have been gone for thousands of years and we're extremely far from the next similar point, the boiling point of water at 100 °C. So you can't be shocked that an increase of the temperature by an extra 5 °C will make no qualitative difference to the Earth. It would be indisputably measurable if it occurred - unlike the controversial increases by 0.6 or 0.8 °C attributed to the last century - but "measurable" doesn't imply "worrisome".

I have discussed those points many times, see e.g. 13 °C of warming would be fine for life.

After a stream of preposterous statements how the Earth and maybe the Milky Way would collapse if the temperatures grew by 4 °C, another alarmist called David Spratt makes the following punch line of the article:
‘And we are talking about how we might adapt to a 4-degree warmer world,’’ Spratt wrote. ‘‘Have we gone mad?’
Well, you surely have. There is absolutely no problem for humans and others to move from 15 °C to 20 °C and there is no reason to even talk about the question how they will adapt. The only adaptation will be done by the farmers - and the adaptation will simply be that they don't have to work so much to get the same results.

Do you find it hard to imagine a world that is warmer by 4 °C? How will all the layers of the atmosphere, oceans, and ecosystems react? Well, this may be a hard homework exercise to calculate but there's a simple way to solve it: look at the map above and find a place that is 4 °C warmer than the place where you currently live. Think about the ways how the ecosystems, people, and economies can survive over there today - and you will understand how your place would be doing if the temperature increased by ten times more than it can realistically increase.

Nothing would change much.

OldDude 07-09-11 05:39 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib (Post 10847814)
They wonder why we laugh at them, Part 2:


I would urge all the CAGWers to jet off to conference locations that are projected to average about 15 °C during the week they are there. I would note that they seem to prefer locations that are about 25 - 30 °C. Oh, the horror. I don't know how they survive (well, the conference room has a/c, but I think golf under those conditions would kill them.)

movielib 07-11-11 08:54 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
A carbon tax or an emission trading scheme (ETS - Aussie for Cap and Trade) has been a huge issue in Australia. In late 2009 it brought down the opposition leader who supported it in favor of a new opposition leader who managed to kill the impending ETS. But Labor was still in control. Last year Labor PM Julia Gillard very narrowly won by enough to keep Labor in power and she did that only by promising there would be no carbon tax. Then she did a 180 and said there would be. There has been uproar ever since.

Yesterday Gillard announced details of the plan. Meanwhile, a new poll shows she and her party would get trounced if an election were held today.


Poll predicts landslide Coalition victory
By Jeremy Thompson
July 11, 2011

A new poll, taken in the week before yesterday's release of the climate plan, has the Government losing an election in a landslide and has Opposition Leader Tony Abbott as preferred prime minister.

The latest Essential Report shows that on first preferences the Coalition leads Labor 50 per cent to 30 per cent and after preferences the Opposition leads by a massive 57 to 43.

Essential's pollster Andrew Bunn says if an election were held now it would be "getting on to the proportion of the New South Wales State election" which was a massacre for the Labor government.

Mr Abbott leads Prime Minister Julia Gillard by 39 to 37 per cent - a narrow lead, but a year ago Ms Gillard was in front 53 per cent to 26 per cent.

"This is the first time we've [Essential] had him ahead and the approval ratings for Ms Gillard have been rapidly reducing over the last couple of months," Mr Bunn told ABC News Online.

"The major movement started in both voting intention and approval from the announcement in February of the carbon pricing. The two party preferred was neck-and-neck in February and it's now 57-43."

Ms Gillard has slipped even further in outright approval, with only 29 per cent of people approving of the job she is doing as Prime Minister and 62 per cent disapproving.

But Mr Abbott's approval rating is not in positive territory either - 39 per cent of those polled approve of the job he is doing as Opposition Leader and 49 per cent disapprove.

Neither leader rates well in the eyes of the public.

Essential's last poll showed former prime minister Kevin Rudd is more popular than Ms Gillard and former opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull is more favoured than Mr Abbott.

Mr Bunn says it is not too late for Ms Gillard to rekindle her electoral chances because former prime minister John Howard came back from a similar position.

"What's going to be critical is the response over the next few months on the response to the carbon pricing scheme," he said.

The poll also shows the lowest approval for a carbon price since Essential started polling in March - 53 per cent against and 35 per cent in favour.

The results were published as Ms Gillard began her campaign to sell the climate change plan.

"I've got a lot of explaining to do and I'm going to keep explaining," she said after visiting a family in western Sydney.

"Yesterday when we launched the package I wanted to explain the way it worked to Australians and I'm doing that today and I'll be doing that for many days, many weeks, many months ahead."

At the same time, Mr Abbott was at a coal mine in the Hunter Valley of New South Wales campaigning just as vigorously against the plan.

He said he would not support the Government's $1.3 billion compensation package for the coal industry - nor the $300 million assistance package for steel.

"The best form of compensation for the coal industry is not to have a carbon tax in the first place," Mr Abbott said.

"We are not going to make it easier for the Government and its toxic tax. It's up to the Government to get this legislation through. We can't save the country from opposition," he said.

However, the package appears likely to be passed anyway and Mr Abbott is risking political pain by opposing assistance measures to industry and households.
With the parliamentary system Australia has I'm not sure when a new election can be called but the carbon tax and Gillard's huge lie should be her undoing. I only hope it is soon enough.

movielib 07-11-11 04:27 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Energy Secretary Chu saves us from our "bad" choices.


Sunday, July 10, 2011
Nanny Steven Chu: “We Are Taking Away a Choice that Lets You Waste Your Own Money!”
Paul Gregory

Steven Chu was a co-winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997. That he developed methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light does not mean he understands economics, consumer choice, or politics. A Nobel Prize does not even guarantee common sense. Often it guarantees the opposite.

In a Friday conference call with reporters, Chu argued against a House bill that would repeal a 2007 federal law outlawing incandescent bulbs. Many Americans object to being told that must buy the fluorescent, halogen, and LED bulbs starting in January of 2012 as dictated by federal law.

Chu argued the more-efficient bulbs mandated by Congress save consumers money over the bulb’s life even though the up-front price is higher. Chu defended Congress’s right to dictate what kind of light bulb Americans buy because:

“We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money."

There are many things that cost more up front and “pay for themselves” in terms of longer life or lower operating costs. Think of insulation which costs a bundle but lowers utility bills, or electric cars that costs $10,000 more but save on gas. So far, we have allowed the people themselves to decide: More money now, but less later? Or: Less money now and more later? That is my or your decision.

The choice of light bulb is a classic problem of economic choice over time. Consumers, who place a high value on money now, do not buy insulation, electric cars, or fluorescent lights. We have different time preferences. People who pass on insulation, electric cars and fluorescent light bulbs are by no means wasting their money. They are making choices that are perfectly rational for them.

This basic point of economics escapes Nobel laureate Chu.

Which light bulb is better for you is not an easy calculation. The compact fluorescent costs about six times more and contains hazardous mercury, but lasts six times longer and saves energy. There are also matters of taste and aesthetics. Some will find the new light bulb shape ugly. Others will not like the light it emits, but there will no longer be any choice. Just like we lost Freon in 1995, we will lose Edison’s light bulb in 2012.

Chu says the state should make the choice of light bulbs for you, but why should he stop there? Why not insulation or which car to buy?

Welcome to the Nanny state.


PS I cite below the EPA's recommednations for cleaning up a broken mercury bulb:

This page presents only the most important steps to reduce exposure to mercury vapor from a broken bulb. View the detailed recommendations.
Before cleanup

* Have people and pets leave the room.
* Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment.
* Shut off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one.
* Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb:
o stiff paper or cardboard;
o sticky tape;
o damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes (for hard surfaces); and
o a glass jar with a metal lid or a sealable plastic bag.

During cleanup

* Be thorough in collecting broken glass and visible powder.
* Place cleanup materials in a sealable container.

After cleanup

* Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly. Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors.
* If practical, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system shut off for several hours.
I think the EPA's estimation of the dangers of mercury in CFLs is overblown like it is for most things. But that doesn't make Chu's nannyism any less wrong. His arrogance is monumental but that is true of most environmentalist positions. The guy should go back to his lasers. He's obviously incapable of understanding freedom of choice. He's been a disaster from day 1.

BearFan 07-11-11 04:37 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Thank God there is someone so wise to make decisions for me ....

For the record, we have purchased quite a few fluorescent bulbs, but there are some we have not and if they burned out, I would replace with a regular bulb (like the 14 year old bulb in the attic that gets turned on at most 10 times a year .. it would not make sense for me to spend the extra money on that bulb and a few others, because I would never make up the extra cost).

movielib 07-11-11 05:24 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
I've posted this before:

A while back I bought what I think will be a lifetime supply (of course, I'm older than almost all of you). I bought double life incandescents, where available, that are only a little more than the standard bulbs. Everything: 60w, 75w, 100w, globe bulbs and 3-ways cost me a total of about $180.

My wife hates CFLs and I like her more than I like Sec Chu.

orangecrush 07-12-11 08:24 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib (Post 10849927)
I've posted this before:

A while back I bought what I think will be a lifetime supply (of course, I'm older than almost all of you). I bought double life incandescents, where available, that are only a little more than the standard bulbs. Everything: 60w, 75w, 100w, globe bulbs and 3-ways cost me a total of about $180.

My wife hates CFLs and I like her more than I like Sec Chu.

My main beef with the CFLs is that it isn't made very clear where you are supposed to dispose of them correctly. You have to really go out of your way to find out where to dispose of them and if you don't have internet, you wouldn't know at all. I wonder how many have made their way into landfills?

al_bundy 07-12-11 10:21 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib (Post 10849927)
I've posted this before:

A while back I bought what I think will be a lifetime supply (of course, I'm older than almost all of you). I bought double life incandescents, where available, that are only a little more than the standard bulbs. Everything: 60w, 75w, 100w, globe bulbs and 3-ways cost me a total of about $180.

My wife hates CFLs and I like her more than I like Sec Chu.

my wife hates them only when she knows they are there. one time i replaced a few bulbs with CFL's and she never noticed the difference

al_bundy 07-12-11 10:24 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by BearFan (Post 10849867)
Thank God there is someone so wise to make decisions for me ....

For the record, we have purchased quite a few fluorescent bulbs, but there are some we have not and if they burned out, I would replace with a regular bulb (like the 14 year old bulb in the attic that gets turned on at most 10 times a year .. it would not make sense for me to spend the extra money on that bulb and a few others, because I would never make up the extra cost).

CFL's still cost more? last i saw you could buy them for $1.50 or so each at home depot and costco

movielib 07-12-11 10:46 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by al_bundy (Post 10850743)
CFL's still cost more? last i saw you could buy them for $1.50 or so each at home depot and costco

At Home Depot I got 48 each of 60w, 75w, 100w (all double life) plus 48 globe lights (which are more) plus 12 3-way lamp bulbs (which are kinda pricey) for a total of about $180 so yes, CFLs are still more expensive.

Edit: 6 packs of 60w, 75w, 100w double lifes today are $3.47.


Get 'em before the supply goes down and prices go up.

movielib 07-12-11 03:48 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Al Gore coming back:

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PY-mboZkhD0?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PY-mboZkhD0?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

As ever, everything Gore says is the opposite of the truth. The alarmists have much more money (not even close, maybe three orders of magnitude; plus his side even gets more from fossil fuel companies, particularly BP and Shell). Just a few years ago, Al boasted about putting $300 million into alarmist propaganda. Where is money anything like that in skepticism? Sure, you've seen all the skeptical commercials, right? What his side doesn't have is the science and the truth.

September 14 should be a real hoot.

movielib 07-12-11 04:18 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
According to John Kerry, a scientific "expert" is one who takes federal money to (presumably) agree with him.


What makes a scientific expert? Congressional Democrats offer a shocking answer
Posted on July 12, 2011 by Steve Milloy

What makes a scientific expert? Knowledge? Expertise? Accomplishment? Respect of one’s colleagues? A new bill introduced in Congress has a shocking new answer.

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) have proposed a rigged process to ban so-called ‘endocrine disrupting’ chemicals like bisphenol A (BPA).

The bill would establish an “Endocrine Disruption Expert Panel” to advise the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences on banning chemicals.

But to be on the panel an “expert” must:
… have received Federal endocrine-research-related funding within the 2 years preceding appointment under this subsection…
So you can’t be an expert unless you’re at least partially-owned by the politicized federal agencies that want to ban chemicals like BPA in the first place. Astonishingly, a scientist’s source of funding is what makes him expert, according to the Kerry-Moran bill.

While the bill is unlikley to go anywhere due to probable Republican opposition, it does expose where Democrats want to take science and scientists.
Remember how Obama and the Democrats were going to follow the science? They had it backwards.

grundle 07-13-11 05:18 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Germany plans to replace green energy with dirty coal energy!


Germany to fund new coal plants with climate change fund cash

Published: 13 Jul 2011

The German government wants to encourage the construction of new coal and gas power plants with millions of euros from a fund for promoting clean energy and combating climate change.

The plan has come under stiff criticism, but the Ministry of Economics and Technology defended the idea. A spokeswoman said it was necessary as the government switches from nuclear to other renewable energy sources and added that the money would promote the most efficient plants possible.

Funding for the initiative is limited to five percent of the energy and climate change fund’s annual expenditure between 2013 and 2016.

Annual funding for the new plants could total more than €160 million per year between 2013 and 2014 alone, the Berliner Zeitung newspaper reported on Wednesday.

The fund was first established to encourage nuclear plant operators to develop new, renewable forms of energy production. Now that nuclear power is to be phased out by 2022, the fund will pay for research into reducing carbon dioxide emissions from buildings, developing renewable energy sources and storage technologies for them.

Opposition politicians and environmental groups said the plan was wrong because it would promote what they argued were climate-damaging plants. They also worried that money earmarked for other valuable projects could be reduced as a result.

Oliver Krischer, a member in the Bundestag of the Green party, told the Berliner Zeitung that the country would do better to encourage more investment in energy efficiency

And the environmental pressure group Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND) said additional coal-fired plants were entirely unnecessary.

The Economics Ministry spokeswoman said that in any event, that Germany’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2020, would not be damaged by the new initiative.

grundle 07-13-11 07:58 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
A wikipedia editor named "Scibaby" was banned some time ago, because he kept adding reliably sourced information that was skeptical of global warming, and the fascists who control wikipedia do not tolerate that kind of thing.

His user page is here:


Since being banned, he's used more than 900 sockpuppet accounts, which have all been banned, and are listed here:


Here's a recent example of something that he added, which was then erased:


Several prominent contributors to recent IPCC reports are critical of the claims of consensus on global warming. One contributor, Dr. Paul Reiter, professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France stated in testimony to the United States Senate "…such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment. The complexity of this process, and the uncertainties involved, are a major obstacle to a meaningful understanding of scientific issues by non-scientists. In reality, a genuine concern for mankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and skepticism that are intrinsic to authentic science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse."<ref>http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/reiter-042606.pdf</ref>. Similarly, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, indicated “Claims of consensus…serve to intimidate the public and even scientists” and are “a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.”<ref> http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597</ref>
That's the kind of thing that the global warming fascists at wikipedia don't want people to know about.

movielib 07-16-11 10:03 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
2/3 of Americans are in favor of light bulb freedom. Only 1/5 are against it.


67% Oppose Upcoming ‘Ban’ on Traditional Light Bulbs
Friday, July 15, 2011

One-in-five Americans (20%) say they or someone they know has bought large quantities of traditional light bulbs to use when those bulbs disappear off store shelves next year under new federal light bulb regulations.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% of Adults aren’t doing that themselves or don’t know anyone who is, but another 10% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The new government regulations provide for the manufacture of similar-looking bulbs that will last longer and be more energy-efficient – but also more expensive. Critics view the regulations as unnecessary government intrusion in the free market and see them as effectively banning the kind of light bulb Americans have used for decades.

Just 20% of adults think the sale of traditional light bulbs should be banned. Sixty-seven percent (67%) oppose such a ban. Thirteen percent (13%) are undecided.

However, 57% think it is at least somewhat likely that the new light bulbs, while they will cost more up front, will save money in the long run, as the federal Energy Department claims. Thirty-six percent (36%) think long-term savings are unlikely. These findings include 29% who think the savings are Very Likely and just nine percent (9%) who say they are Not At All Likely.

Two years ago, only 18% of adults thought it was the government’s job to tell Americans what kind of light bulb they should use. Seventy-two percent (72%) say it’s none of the government’s business.

The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on July 13-14 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Americans have decidedly mixed feelings about the impact of the new fluorescent or halogen bulbs on the environment. Twenty-eight percent (28%) believe the bulbs will be good for the environment, but just as many (28%) think they will be bad environmentally. Twenty-eight percent (28%) more feel they will have no impact. Seventeen percent (17%) aren’t sure.

Still, 81% say they or someone they know has already bought and used one of the new energy-efficient light bulbs.

Perhaps suggesting there may be a consumer surprise coming soon, just 63% of adults have followed even somewhat closely news stories about the legislation mandating the manufacture and sale of only the new high-efficiency light bulbs. This includes only 27% who say they have been following those stories Very Closely.

Women oppose the ‘ban’ on traditional light bulbs more than men do. Voters over 40 are against it more than those who are younger.

But the majority of adults across all demographic categories oppose a ban on the sale of traditional light bulbs, including 69% of those who say they or someone they know has already bought and used one of the new energy-efficient bulbs.

Higher-income voters are the most likely to have already tried out the new bulbs or to know someone who has bought and used one. Those who’ve already used the new bulbs are also much more likely than those who have not to think they will save money in the long run.

Younger Americans are more convinced than their elders that the new bulbs will be good for the environment.

A majority of U.S. voters continue to feel as they have for years that discovering new sources of energy is more important than reducing energy consumption.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters believe a free market economy is better than an economy managed by the government. Just 14% think a government-managed economy is better.

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.

movielib 07-17-11 09:07 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
New study shows how CAGW "consensus" was "manufactured." Climate scientist Judith Curry, who was once a total alarmist but who has been moving more and more toward skepticism because she has been honest enough to keep an open mind comments at her blog (indented material indicates quotes from Goodwin's paper and a few quotes from other sources at the end of the post; nonindented material indicates Curry's analysis) :


Manufacturing(?) consensus
Posted on July 16, 2011
by Judith Curry

The consensus on anthropogenic climate change provided by the IPCC is the source of much controversy. Central to the controversy is the meaning and implications of “consensus,” in both scientific and sociological contexts.

Some important insights on this issue are provided by this paper on The authority of the IPCC and the manufacture of consensus by Jean Goodwin at Iowa State University. Some excerpts are provided below:
Through a series of (up to now) four reports starting in 1990, the IPCC has managed to establish as a political “given” that the earth is warming, and that human activity is a significant cause. The fourth report was the occasion for the Bush II administration’s shift from statements like this:
We do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it.
in 2001, with it’s typical assertions of “uncertainty” as a reason for inaction, to statements like
[The IPCC report] reflects the sizeable and robust body of knowledge regarding the physical science of climate change, including the finding that the Earth is warming and that human activities have very likely caused most of the warming of the last 50 years.
in 2007. How did the IPCC manage this feat? In opposition to those who would create an appearance of doubt, the IPCC has made evident a broad and deep agreement among scientists—they have “manufactured consensus.”

As far as I can tell, the word “consensus” is absent in the WGI section of the FAR–in particular, it is absent from the initial “Policymakers’ Summary” Where it first turns up is in the earliest representation of the FAR: a statement defining for public audiences what the FAR is and how it should be taken. John Houghton, the UK’s Chief Meteorologist and chair of WGI, wrote the following in his “Foreword” to the report:
“In preparation of the main Assessment most of the active scientists working in the field have been involved. One hundred and seventy scientists from 25 countries have contributed to it, either through participation in the twelve international workshops organised specially for the purpose or through written contributions. A further 200 scientists have been involved in the peer review of the draft report. Although, as in any developing scientific topic, there is a minority of opinions which we have not been able to accommodate, the peer review has helped to ensure a high degree of consensus among authors and reviewers regarding the results presented.”
JC comment: It appears from this argument that John Houghton was responsible for the initial decision to use consensus as key element of the IPCC’s rhetoric, in the context of selling the FAR to the public.
What is being done by this complex of features?—this rhetorical form, which I will call a ”consensus claim”? One place to begin is by realizing its oddity. After all, we teach our students to recognize and reject ad populum or “bandwagon” appeals. I suspect that it would be hard to find scientists claiming to each other that such & such ought to be believed, because a “consensus of scientists” thus quantified backed it. In fact, the WGI report itself did not frame its statements “socially,” with information about how many scientists of what type and nationality were speaking. Instead, it framed its statements “epistemically,” presenting in the Summary for Policymakers what “we are certain of…calculate with confidence…predict” as well as what “uncertainties” remain, and detailing in a series of chapters some of the evidence backing these claims. If scientists tend to offer each other epistemic as opposed to social grounds, it is no surprise that there seem to be no mechanisms within science for establishing that a scientific consensus exists.
JC comment: The wikipedia article on scientific consensus is worth reading. It states “Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method.” It is “intended to communicate a summary of the science from the “inside” to the “outside” of the scientific community.”
The consensus claim thus seems to be primarily aimed at non-scientists, and in particular (I assert, somewhat speculatively) constitutes an appeal to authority. In this representation of the FAR, audiences are being invited to credit the assessment not because of its epistemic grounding, but because of the social fact of who wrote it. . . Whereas non-experts almost by definition are unable to assess an expert’s reasoning, they may be well capable of judging social facts, such as whether some procedures were inclusive. To adapt a phrase of Collins & Pinch, where we might find it impossible to assess scientists on scientific grounds, we can instead assess them on the same everyday, pragmatic grounds we trust plumbers.
JC comment: Climategate was about the social aspects of the consensus. Whereas scientists rightly claimed that climategate changed nothing epistemically with regards to climate science, the public saw substantial problems with the procedures upon which the consensus was built.
The consensus claim, furthermore, appears to be an elaboration of the appeal to authority specifically designed to heighten its force. “Credit what I say, because I say so” is the minimalist version of the appeal to authority. I have argued elsewhere that the force of this appeal is based in a kind of “blackmail”: it puts the audience in a position such that they will appear imprudent if they conspicuously go against the view of someone who obviously knows more. The minimalist appeal, however, is relatively easy for audiences to evade. For example, the audience can shop around for a second opinion, and then excuse their non-compliance with the appeal on the grounds that the experts themselves seem to be divided. If, however, all the experts say the same thing, the layperson’s “plausible excusability” is restricted.
JC comment: this strategy is clearly reflected in the arguments of Oreskes and Anderegg et al.
To make a consensus claim is thus to do as the Foreword says: to make an “authoritative statement.” It’s worth noting that there is some evidence that some participants in the IPCC process aimed it to achieve just such authority. Bert Bolin, the overall chairman of the IPCC itself, recalls that he “repeatedly pointed out to the working groups that the goal was not necessarily always to reach an agreement, but rather to point out different views when necessary and to clarify the reasons for disagreements when possible.” He goes on: “But this was still seldom tried”. In line with this, Houghton himself was quoted as saying (upon the establishment of the IPCC in 1988), “we must arrive at a general consensus”.
JC comment: is this aiming that makes this a manufactured consensus. It is illuminating to see that the idea of a consensus was pushed for by Hougton, with some resistance by Bolin.
Scientists involved in the first IPCC assessment process represented the final report as the result of a “consensus of scientists”; as far as I can tell, however, this was not the official position of the IPCC itself. This situation changed, however, in the course of the later IPCC process. Whatever its beginnings the consensus claim seems to have become one of the ways the IPCC represented itself to its audiences. For example, a flyer for the Third Assessment Report represented it as “an authoritative, international consensus of scientific opinion”.

The emphasis on consensus also became codified in the IPCC’s internal procedures, as they became increasingly settled after the first (and quite rushed) assessment process. As early as 1991, a rule was adopted stating that “in taking decisions, drawing conclusions, and adopting reports, the IPCC Plenary and Working Groups shall use all best endeavours to reach consensus”.

Meanwhile, however, the IPCC endured close to twenty years where its authority was undermined by objections which were legitimate under its own announced standards. By committing the IPCC to quantitative inclusiveness, those representing its work as a “consensus” created grounds for controversy.
JC comment: I agree that the claim of consensus is ultimate source of controversy surrounding the IPCC. As I’ve argued in my previous post no consensus on consensus, a consensus on this topic is neither necessary or desirable.
The IPCC and its defenders therefore were obliged to undertake a second task: the “boundary work” necessary to distinguish those qualified to contribute to a scientific consensus on global climate change, from those who were not. This work is evident in some of the press reporting above, where the “minority” was characterized not only as quantitatively small, but as “extreme” and “scientifically suspect.” Unfortunately, the need for boundary work also likely created temptations to make illegitimate attacks on the scientific credibility of opponents whose views did not fit with the consensus. Even when successful and legitimate, boundary-drawing created additional problems. If indeed every scientist within the consensus agreed that policy action was urgent, and every scientist outside thought otherwise, a strong appearance of politicization was created—i.e., that the boundary between “insiders” and “outsiders” was based on political views, not scientific relevance.
JC comment: This is an astute insight, on how the scientists have become politicized on this issue.
Finally, the consensus claim created opportunities for opponents to object that the IPCC’s emphasis on consensus was distorting the science itself. Once the consensus claim was made, scientists involved in the ongoing IPCC process had reasons not just to consider the scientific evidence, but to consider the possible effect of their statements on their ability to defend the consensus claim.
JC comments: I have argued previously that the IPCC is torquing (and even corrupting) climate science, and this article clarifies that the source of this corruption is the consensus building process.

“Consensus” is a strong claim, and it opens a wide argument space; that is what I have been trying to suggest in the above sketch. By representing their work as a “consensus,” the scientists of the IPCC essentially legitimated the objections of those commonly labeled as “denialists,” and committed themselves to a twenty year process of replying to them.
Let me close this section with a call that “more research is needed!” into the report as a rhetorical strategy—a subject that, as far as I can tell, has been almost entirely unexplored. It could be that we would find that the “report strategy” does not aim to construct an appeal to expert authority enforcing its conclusions, but attempts to seriously engage a lay audience with the modes of expert reasoning used to reach those conclusions. In the terms I suggested above, a “report strategy” would be taking an “epistemic,” as opposed to “social,” approach to communicating science. . . And it seems likely that pursuing a “report strategy” would require from its authors commitments different from, and much less than, the strategy of making a consensus claim.
JC comment: Goodwin hits the nail on the head in terms of the need to seriously engage the lay audience with the modes of expert reasoning used to reach those conclusions. In the absence of transparency on the IPCC’s reasoning and uncertainty assessments, I suspect that there is a substantial amount of fallacious reasoning (particularly circular reasoning) that underlies many of the IPCC’s conclusions and likelihood statements.

JC conclusion: Lets return for a moment to the previous post on agnoiology and this statement by Lehrer:
We shall argue that consensus among a reference group of experts thus concerned is relevant only if agreement is not sought. If a consensus arises unsought in the search for truth and the avoidance of error, such consensus provides grounds which, though they may be overridden, suffice for concluding that conformity is reasonable and dissent is not. If, however, consensus is aimed at by the members of the reference group and arrived at by intent, it becomes conspiratorial and irrelevant to our intellectual concern.
Goodwin makes a strong argument that the IPCC is a manufactured consensus that has been reached by intent. As such, Lehrer argued in 1975 that such a consensus is conspiratorial and irrelevant to our intellectual concern.

The IPCC needs to lose the emphasis on consensus and pay far more attention to understanding uncertainty and to actual reasoning. I’ll close with this statement by Oppenheimer et al. (2007)
The establishment of consensus by the IPCC is no longer as important to governments as a full exploration of uncertainty.

Curry thinks Goodwin makes a strong case that the IPCC deliberately tried to manufacture a CAGW consensus and marginalize and delegitimize skeptics.

I think that this has been evident for many years but it's nice someone has validated it in a study.

The IPCC is a political organization with an agenda. It uses scientists but is not scientific. It pushes one way and those who play along get rewarded and those who don't get ignored, pushed out or quit in exasperation. Its conclusion is predetermined and drives the science instead of allowing the science to drive to its conclusion.

movielib 07-18-11 08:47 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
While it's not at the top of the issue list in most countries (odd since it is supposed to be the biggest threat to the Earth, humanity and all of "creation" in the history of this or any other universe), the global warming issue is #1 in Australia. PM Julia Gillard's government is crumbling (see Post #15).


How Carbon Taxes Splintered Australia's Government
By Lois Parshley
Jul 18 2011, 7:00 AM ET 4

The prime minister's bid to regulate greenhouse gases has threatened her party's dominance, fractured the political system, and even drawn calls for breaking apart the country

Last February, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced a new carbon tax, effective in 2012, the details of which she finally released last Sunday, July 10. If she succeeds in rolling her plan out, Australia will be the first country in the world with an economy-wide tax on carbon emissions. But Australia's economy relies heavily on carbon-intensive agriculture and mining exports and opposition to Gillard's plan has been intense. Now the Prime Minister and her Labor party are struggling to hold onto power as the fight over carbon taxing threatens not just to derail Gillard's plan but to topple Australia's government.

The same day the plan was announced, Mines Minister Norman Moore, one of the top officials in Western Australia, spoke openly about the possibility of Western Australia seceding, citing the unpopular carbon tax as proof that the federation was broken. How did things get so far?

The carbon tax began not so much as an environmental but as a political concession. When Australia's 2010 federal election resulted in a hung parliament, the incumbent Prime Minister Gillard, suddenly in need of support from another party, reneged on her campaign promise not to introduce a carbon tax to woo the Green Party into a coalition. Senator Bob Brown, the leader of the Greens, told the local Adelaide Now newspaper that both Gillard and her primary detractor -- Tony Abbott, the leader of the center-right Liberal party -- made it clear they would accept a carbon tax as part of negotiating a coalition. Brown said he had advocated for the tax because it was an immediate mechanism to moderate pollution.

As conceived by a Climate Change Committee that included the Prime Minister's ruling Labor party, the Green Party, and two independents, the carbon tax would be in place for three to five years as an introduction to a fuller emissions trading scheme. In her announcement last Sunday, the Prime Minister set the carbon price at $24.60 a ton, lower than some of her critics had feared.

Senator Christine Milne, the Deputy Leader of the Greens, told me, "The tax will increase at a rate of 5 percent per year until 2015," when the introduction of a trading system would link the Australian price to the global carbon price, which is currently controlled by the European Union. Milne said the tax aims to reduce emissions levels to 5 percent below 2000 levels, eliminating 159 million tons of pollution by 2020. She cited South Korea's announcement on Tuesday -- Seoul will set Korea's first ever carbon targets for 2020 -- as evidence that Australia's move will encourage other countries to legislate carbon.

Although Milne is confident the tax will win over detractors, opposition leader Tony Abbott claims the legislation, applied to all companies that produce at least 25,000 tons of carbon a year, will cause electricity hikes for consumers by as much as 10 percent. Gillard hoped to ameliorate such concerns by offering a $1.39 billion compensation package to the worst polluters, providing $10 billion in loan guarantees for electricity generators, increasing the tax-free income threshold, and providing a budget buffer to four million low income households.

Nonetheless, Australian citizens have not received the plan warmly. In a Galaxy poll this week, 60 percent said that they oppose the tax. Fergus Hanson, Research Fellow and Director of Lowy Polling, has been tracking Australian opinions on global warming since 2006. He explained, "While there has been a sharp drop in the proportion favoring the most aggressive form of action, 81 percent at a minimum agree 'the problem of global warming should be addressed.'" According to Hanson, the political problem stems from "the type of action people want," suggesting that most people, worried about the state of the economy, would prefer a more moderate approach.

Australia provides 28 percent of the world's coal, and the western regions that produce it have weathered the global financial crisis well. But southern and eastern Australia, where the majority of the population lives, are still struggling: as the faster-to-recover Western areas are driving a rise in the prices of staples, many Australians are concerned about making ends met.

Tim Wilson, a Director at the Institute of Public Affairs, told me that the political situation is increasingly tense -- with many Australians blaming Gillard. "The Prime Minister lied about not implementing a tax, and people are seriously pissed off. The hostility towards the government is incredible -- in a public forum in Queensland, a man asked why a citizen's militia shouldn't take the government back by firearm. That might not sound extreme to you, but we don't have a firearm culture over here." Lowy's polling shows 59 percent of Australians dissatisfied with Gillard as a Prime Minister, and opposition leader Abbott, with 49 percent dissatisfied, isn't faring much better.

How will all this play out? Tim Wilson predicted that the carbon tax will be passed by Parliament sometime this fall. "Prime Minister Gillard only has a government by one seat," he said, and at the next elections, currently scheduled sometime before November 2013, Gillard and the Labor party will almost certainly fall. "Whoever takes over next will repeal the tax," Wilson guessed. "And that will be the last we hear about a carbon tax for a while."

Perhaps, as an island nation, it's appropriate that Australia is the first country in the world where discussions of climate change are capable of toppling a government. According to Fergus Hanson, it's been the key issue over which every Australian Prime Minister and opposition leader has seen their demise since 2007, including former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who lost office in 2010 after a failed bid for national climate legislation.

For other Western democratic governments looking on, Australia's turmoil suggests that even the political will for climate legislation may not be enough without strong public support for the proposed plan.
Gillard is now regularly called Juliar. She made a deal with the Greens to stay in power, truly a Deal with the Devil. She and her Labor Party deserve what they get. Australia deserves better.

movielib 07-18-11 09:20 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
We all know about the CLOUD experiments at CERN, designed to test Henrik Svensmark's theory that lower solar activity allows for increased cosmic ray bombardment of the Earth which causes increased lower level cloud cover as the particles become seeds for water droplet formation which cools the Earth (and all of this vice versa when solar activity increases). This has already been confirmed by at least two other experiments but CERN is supposed to be The Big One. The first results will be published soon but there is a remarkable development.


Monday, July 18, 2011
CERN boss: I forbade employees to interpret our climate experiment
Lubos Motl

Political pressure on scientific research even at CERN began to resemble the undemocratic era

Nigel Calder has found an incredible interview with Rolf-Dieter Heuer, the boss of CERN, in "Die Welt" (see also The Register):
Wie "Illuminati" den Cern-Forschern geholfen hat (German)
How did "Angels" helped the CERN researchers (autom. transl.)
Heuer is also asked about the CLOUD experiment (TRF) that will release its results on its simulation of the formation of clouds by the cosmic rays momentarily.

His answer contains these shocking sentences:
I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.
In reality, the relevance of the experiment for the fashionable debate about the "global climate change" is the only sensible justification of the investment of 9+ million euros by CERN whose job is something completely different than atmospheric science.

One could perhaps understand if all scientists were similarly constrained and prevented from interpreting the results of their research in ways that could be relevant for policymaking. However, the main problem is that many people who are trying to work on very different phenomena in the climate are not prevented from interpreting - and indeed, overinterpreting - their results that are often less serious, by orders of magnitude, than the observations by the European Organization for Nuclear Research.

Moreover, this sentence by Heuer
One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.
is really a proof of his prejudice. Whether the cosmic radiation is just one player or the only relevant player or an important player or an unimportant player is something that this very research has been supposed to determine or help to determine. An official doesn't have the moral right to predetermine in advance what "one has to make clear" about these a priori unknown scientific results.

I urge Dr Kirkby to ignore the shameful interventions into his scientific work and the bullying by his boss. But even if Dr Kirkby turned out to be an obedient puppet, I assure you that the people who are more relevant are undoubtedly going to think about the experiments and its broader implications because this experiment wasn't designed and paid by the European taxpayers including myself with the purpose to instantly throw the results to the trash bin.

And if the experiment happened to confirm a theory by Henrik Svensmark, which has had nothing to do with politics when published, by the way, Mr Heuer has no moral right to try to prevent Henrik Svensmark from enjoying all the credit that he would deserve in that case - credit for contributions to science that would exceed Mr Heuer's own contributions to science by orders of magnitude.

In reality, it is almost certainly true that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters. But so are water vapor and carbon dioxide and aerosols and oscillations of the ocean; except that in the case of the second item on the list, scientists are being similarly prevented from saying that this chemical compound is just one among many drivers.

I am pretty much sure that Mr Heuer has heard about some people who are claiming that CO2 is important in the climate and he must know that they're allowed - and, indeed, encouraged - to "interpret" those wild speculations that are, relatively to the CLOUD experiment, supported by nothing. But he still finds it appropriate to suppress the broader findings that may follow from the research done by his very lab. This is an utterly dishonest behavior reminding us of science in the 20th century totalitarian societies and Mr Heuer should be ashamed.

Much of Feynman's famous "Cargo Cult Science" commencement speech is dedicated exactly to these questions but let me quote this portion:
One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results.

I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish at all. That's not giving scientific advice.
I think it is totally obvious what "results of a certain kind" that are being published mean in the particular issue of the "global climate change". On behalf of the European taxpayers, I authoritatively urge Mr Heuer to retract his outrageous "ban" and to apologize for it. Indeed, such speech codes - that Mr Heuer has been so candid about - are among the top reasons why the scientists ceased to be trustworthy in recent years and it is unacceptable for this violation of the scientific integrity to propagate to particle physics.

And that's the memo.
It seems to me virtually all studies on climate science, regardless of which "side" they come down on, include some interpretation of the results. This interpretation forbidding from the CERN chief seems bizarre. Likewise the statement that cosmic rays are "only" one of many parameters. No one ever said differently. The question is "How much?" If it's a lot and, particularly if it's a lot more than CO2, that is enormously important. But the researchers are not allowed to say so?

At Nigel Calder's blog, a paragraph from one of the comments is most apt, applying the chief's admonition to the Higgs Boson, so sought after at CERN using its Large Hadron Collider:


Robbie says:
18/07/2011 at 11:15

So in essence: No conclusion about the existence of the ‘Higgs’-particle can be given by any of CERN’s publications. Conclusions on the existence of the ‘Higgs’-particle should also not be part of CERN’s practice. They should be “just” publishing the results of the experiments. Not their interpretations.
I'm really not too concerned with this "ban." If the CERN researchers don't "interpret" their work, plenty of others will.

movielib 07-18-11 07:17 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Al, this is going to flop bigger than that concert you had in 2007.


Critic: Gore's starting over reflects failure
Bill Bumpas - OneNewsNow - 7/18/2011 4:20:00

lFormer Vice President Al Gore has announced his plans for a live streaming event that is meant to mobilize people to help solve what he calls the "climate crisis."

Al Gore's organization, the Climate Reality Project, was formerly known as the Alliance for Climate Protection. It will soon launch "24 Hours of Reality." But one prominent global-warming skeptic believes Gore is going back to the drawing board because all of his efforts over the years, including a movie and a Nobel Prize, failed to win over the public on "manmade global warming."

"Here's a man presiding over the greatest collapse of a modern environmental movement in history, and this is what he has now -- 24 hours to try to regenerate it and start over," deduces Marc Morano, executive director of Climate Depot.

Marc Morano (GOP EPW)He points out that Gore is a man who has been interviewed by every major media outlet in the United States, without criticism. He is "a man who thought he was on the winning side of science and history. And now, in 2011, he raises the white flag and says basically, 'I have to start all over. We've have failed.'"

The former vice president's press release says the Climate Reality Project will connect the dots between recent extreme weather events and manmade pollution.

"A to Z, the entire case of manmade global warming has collapsed around Al Gore. So now, he's morphed the movement into extreme weather because this is a much easier case for them to emotionally make," Morano explains. "There's no scientific case for it. But now, every time there's a hurricane, a tornado, a flood, a drought [or] a heat wave, they can just say, 'Ha, ha -- further proof of manmade global warming.'"

Gore's "24 hours of Reality" event is scheduled for September 14 and 15.
About the weakest weapon in the CAGW arsenal is the bad weather/global warming link. Every attempt is refuted by organizations that are essentially in the alarmist camp to begin with such as NOAA and NASA. Even they don't buy this baloney. But that doesn't stop many alarmists who have no other case.

There is always bad or undesirable weather somewhere (our heatwave right now, for example) so there is no end to the opportunities. It's junk but low hanging junk. That this is what Gore is grasping at as a last resort shows the depth of his desperation.

movielib 07-19-11 06:57 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Irrational global warming fears threaten to destroy town.


Higher floors, lower roofs: the town being shrunk by climate change angst
Stuart Rintoul
From: The Australian
July 18, 2011 12:00AM

PORT Albert, on Victoria's southeast coast, is a pretty-as-a-picture fishing village that is at war with the science of climate change.

Residents in the village have been told that because of rising sea levels, new housing has to be built on stumps almost 1.5m above ground level, despite the fact many of the town's original colonial buildings have withstood time and tide on ground level without ill effect since the 19th century.

At the same time, a heritage overlay in the village, introduced more than a decade ago, prevents roof lines being built higher than the roof of the local pub, which is claimed to be Victoria's oldest continuously licensed hotel.

Residents have seen land values plummet by 38 per cent in the past year under the weight of the overlays. Investment in the town has stalled. And Port Albert Progress Association president Donna Eades says that, with rising floor levels and roof lines limited by the height of the pub, "the next generation of Port Albert residents will have to be pygmies".

Ms Eades says Port Albert residents have been made the "guinea pigs" for rising sea-level predictions, while the charm and character of the historic township has been sacrificed to climate change fashion.

"We're sick to death of the climate change issue and how it's impacting our community," she says.

"We were the first port in Gippsland. We had the tall ships in our harbour offloading people and cattle into the gold fields. We're proud of our maritime heritage and we like how the town looks."

Ms Eades says the Gillard government's proposed carbon tax will also hurt the township through rising power costs affecting farming and jobs being lost in the neighbouring Latrobe Valley.

The Wellington Shire Council says that new building requirements on the black soil floodplains of Port Albert are in line with "a number of studies and projects" by Gippsland water management authorities as well as state policy requiring the council to plan for a 0.8m sea-level rise by 2100.

Flood predictions have been based largely on a 2009 CSIRO report, The Effect of Climate Change on Extreme Sea Levels along Victoria's Coast.

Ms Eades was born in Port Albert and spent 20 years in the Australian navy before returning to the town to raise her family.

"It's just a shame, because we have so much potential here," Ms Eades says. "We are a tranquil, beautiful little coastal hamlet, we're a lovely community, and we just want to move ahead."

Progress Association secretary Gayle Maher, whose family moved into the town five years ago, says the C33 amendments - introduced by the former Labor government and adopted by Wellington Shire in April, but now under review by Planning Minister Matthew Guy - risked turning Port Albert into a ghost town.

Ulla Killury and her husband, Rob, have run the post office and garage for the past 11 months. Ms Killury says she and her husband are now uncertain about staying.

Poring over voluminous correspondence with Wellington Shire and charts showing flood and inundation projections swamping the town, they say the people of Port Albert are furious by the uncritical adoption of climate change predictions that 1:100 year flood levels will rise from a present 1.75m to 2.68m in 2100.

New housing is required to have floor levels at 2.98m against an approximate ground level of 1.5m, while roof lines are held under heritage overlays at the Port Albert Hotel's 10.57m.

Port Albert, according to the women of the Progress Association, flooded twice last century, the water rolling in over sandbanks and mangroves, long before a sea wall was built in the 1960s.

Deputy Premier Peter Ryan, who, while in opposition last year, tabled a petition asking for Port Albert to be removed from Labor's C33 amendment, said a Coalition government would look at the feasibility of a new sea wall.
"We have to destroy the village to save it."

These politicians have seen An Inconvenient Truth too many times (once is too many) and believe those computer graphics flooding Florida and other places.

Dealing with bad weather and real climate change (the climate is always changing but it is virtually always little and slowly) is prudent. Overreacting to climate change fantasy is destructive.

And they want to do this kind of stuff to the whole world.

movielib 07-20-11 04:39 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
This is a debate that took place in Australia a few days ago. Christopher Monckton, skeptic vs. Richard Denniss, alarmist.

Monckton is hardly my favorite skeptic. He's very knowledgeable but is not a scientist and he's prone to exaggeration and errors (although not nearly to the extent of Al Gore or other nonscientist alarmists, or even compared to most scientist alarmists). I've never heard of this Denniss, who's an economist.

Both their opening statements are not great but Monckton's was better. All Denniss had were bad (even pathetic) analogies, the very flawed computer models and the supposed popularity of the nonexistent "consensus." Monckton at least knows the subject and can quote from scientific peer reviewed papers. I didn't hear a single word from Denniss about science in the whole debate.

But where things get interesting is in the Q&A from Australian science journalists. These "journalists" were obviously completely hostile (although in a polite way) to Monckton. Almost all the questions were directed at Monckton and the format allowed Denniss to answer after Monckton. That should have given him a big advantage but he still got slaughtered. Monckton several times pretty much destroyed the "journalists" and exposed their abject ignorance.

This is not a "must see" but if you have the time and interest it's only an hour. The better part of the program is the Q&A which starts a little before the second half.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ma6cnPLcrtA?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ma6cnPLcrtA?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

movielib 07-20-11 09:57 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
The BBC decides it can ignore CAGW skeptics pretty much completely.


20 July 2011
The BBC's secular inquisition
Melanie Phillips

I am open-mouthed. The BBC Trust is recommending that its journalists ditch balance for propaganda.

A report being published today has apparently decided that the BBC no longer needs to interview man-made global warming sceptics because there is a consensus on this issue that the theory is true.

Its conclusions are said to be based in part on recommendations by the geneticist Professor Steve Jones. Astonishingly, he is said not only to have found no evidence of bias in the BBC’s output on climate change, but suggests that on issues like this where he says there is a ‘scientific consensus’ – also including the MMR vaccination and genetically modified crops – there should be no need for the BBC to find opponents of the mainstream view.

This is as terrifying as it is outrageous. First of all, the claim that there is a consensus on man-made global warming is itself false. The wickedly cynical propaganda strategy to promote this false belief in a consensus was described in an eye-opening blog post by James Delingpole in the Telegraph last year:
The story begins in autumn 2004 when the government’s hysterically warmist chief scientific adviser Sir David King successfully persuaded the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to put action on global warming at the heart of UK government policy. This resulted in the creation of a propaganda body called The Climate Change Working Group which in turn sought PR advice from a company called Futerra communications.

Futerra – Britain’s answer to Fenton communications in the US – recommended the following policy:

Many of the existing approaches to climate change communications clearly seem unproductive. And it is not enough simply to produce yet more messages, based on rational argument and top-down persuasion, aimed at convincing people of the reality of climate change and urging them to act. Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement.

To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken [emphasis added].
There is no consensus on man-made global warming. There are in fact hundreds of scientists at the very least, amongst them some of the most distingushed in their field, who are sceptical about the theory. Some of them, such as the meteorologist Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, have testified to the outright fraud and intimidation used to support the climate change scam. Some have been subjected to professional ostracism, loss of grant funding, vilification and even death threats because they have stood up for scientific evidence against the gross perversion of science involved in what is probably the most intellectually corrupt episode in scientific history. Such wholesale intimidation means that without a shadow of a doubt many more scientists are climate change sceptics than are registered in public debate.

Now the Trust is apparently stating that there is no need for their voices to be heard. So there is 'no need' for the BBC to report on one of the great scandals of our time -- the systematic intimidation of scientists and suppression of ideas within the academy. If this grotesque ruling had been in operation when the ‘Climategate’ scandal erupted, when warmist scientists tried to suppress the evidence that the climate was not warming but remaining static or even cooling, this would surely have meant that the BBC would have barely covered the scandal since the heart of it ran against the ‘consensus’.

Indeed, it would mean that in general BBC reporters would not only fail to present experts telling us the truth about the non-heating up of the climate but also guarantee that they fail to report the wholesale collapse of the theory and rout of the warmist agenda which is taking place.

Not that the BBC does this now – far from it. For with some honourable exceptions, its journalism has always presented the warmist nonsense as mainstream and the sceptical side as heresy. It is already difficult for sceptics to get a hearing on the BBC. But if the Trust has its way, BBC science journalism will become as bent as a corkscrew. And dissent from its own ideological position -- dissent which happens to represent the views of at least hundreds of scientists and the majority of the population -- would be suppressed.

This is nothing less than a totalitarian agenda. Indeed, why stop at science? If ‘consensus’ dictates what is to be reported, and consensus is itself subjectively determined on the basis of the presumed weight of expert opinion (which can never be truly known) or the presumed agreement of the population (which can never be truly known), then it follows that on issues such as abortion, membership of the EU or immigration (on which even the BBC has been forced to admit it got public opinion terribly wrong) the BBC would similarly see ‘no need’ to allow alternatives to chattering-class opinion to be heard.

A free society requires toleration of dissent. Progress depends upon the recognition that today’s dissent may turn into tomorrow’s orthodoxy. Science is littered with examples of this, from Galileo onwards. Indeed, the idea that a presumed consensus should wipe out dissenting voices is positively anti-science. If science doesn’t have an open-mind, it is no longer science but propaganda. And that is what the BBC Trust is proposing.

The BBC Trust is supposed to be the guardian of the public interest. Its role is to ensure that the BBC adheres to the high standards of its charter. But with this recommendation, the Trust has shown that it will destroy the BBC’s duty of fairness and impartiality and replace it by an Orwellian double-speak on the grounds that there are certain ideas which cannot be challenged. This is not guarding the sacred flame of journalistic integrity. It is a secular Inquisition.
Nothing new. They just made it official.

movielib 07-21-11 08:05 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Follow up to the last post. Excellent analysis by James Delingpole.


'BBC's biased climate science reporting isn't biased enough' claims report
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: July 21st, 2011

Before commenting on the BBC Trust’s report into the BBC’s science coverage, I thought I’d take the trouble of reading the actual document rather than the press previews. I’m very glad I waited because the finished product is an absolute corker. Let me take you through some of my favourite moments.

The report, as you may be aware, was written by my fellow Telegraph columnist Steve Jones. Besides being a fine and engaging writer, Dr Jones is a geneticist of distinction and I would certainly never dream of questioning his judgement in his fields of expertise (notably Drosophila and snails). Fortunately, as becomes quite clear reading the report, climate science isn’t one of them.

Dr Jones sets out his ideological position fairly early on when he strives to bracket global warming “denialism” with a range of other syndromes: believing that “AIDS has nothing to do with viruses, the MMR vaccine is unsafe, complex organs could never evolve, or even that the 9/11 disaster was a US government plot.” I’d love to see his evidence for this casual slur-by-association.

The distinction he tries to make between “scepticism” (good, up to a point, he thinks) and “denialism” (bad, obviously) is in any case a straw man argument. Of all the sceptics I’ve ever met or read, not a single one has ever striven to deny that climate changes nor that modest global warming has been taking place since 1850 (when we began emerging from the Little Ice Age).

What many of these sceptics – or deniers, if you must – do question is

a) whether – and if so by how much – this warming is anthropogenic (ie human-caused)

b) whether the warming constitutes a threat – or whether its benefits might in fact far outweigh its drawbacks

c) whether this warming likely to continue or whether – as happened without human influence at the end of the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period – it will be followed by a period of natural cooling

d) whether the drastic policy measures (tax, regulation, “decarbonisation”, the drive for renewables) being enacted to ‘combat climate change’ will not end up doing far more harm than good.

Jones concedes at one point that “A debate remains, and it deserves to be reported with as much objectivity as would any other unresolved issue.” But the apparent reasonableness here is certainly not borne out by the rest of his screed against sceptics, whom he caricatures as “proponents of the idea that global warming is a myth” – while neglecting to engage with the subtleties of the arguments mentioned above.

Sometimes, in his enthusiasm to put all these evil “deniers” in their place, Dr Jones appears to forget the basic rules of science altogether. For example, he describes how measured levels of atmospheric C02 have increased since 1959, and how “basic physics show that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas” and how “three independent sets of records of global temperature agree that 2010 was one of the three hottest years since figures were first collected.” Dr Jones might be surprised to learn the “deniers” agree with him on this. Where they differ is over a fundamental scientific concept: “Correlation is not causation.” We are, remember, emerging from the Little Ice Age. So the rise in global temperatures is perfectly explicable in terms of natural climatic cycles. Furthermore, you could reasonably argue that the theory of anthropogenic CO2 as a driver of catastrophic global warming has already been “falsified” (or, as I prefer to think of it, torpedoed below the waterline, hit in the magazine and blown out of the sea). That’s because, as even the great Dr Phil Jones of the CRU has acknowledged, “global warming” stopped in 1998 (even as anthropogenic CO2 levels, notably in China) continued to rise.

Another category error Dr Jones falls into is in his use of the Argumentum ad Verecundiam, the appeal to authority. He tells us:
The IPCC concluded that it is beyond doubt that the climate is warming and more than 90% likely that this has been driven by human activity.
And he cites an open letter to the journal Science by two hundred and fifty members of the US National Academy of Sciences:
“(T)here is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.”
But as both Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn could have explained to Dr Jones, science does not advance through “consensus”; and as Einstein could have told him, science is not a numbers game. When Hitler commissioned the book 100 Authors Against Einstein, Einstein coolly replied that if he were wrong, one author would have been enough.

If Dr Jones would like to learn more about these complexities, I would be more than happy to send him a free copy of my book Watermelons. One gets the impression that he hasn’t yet had much opportunity to find out what climate realists (as we prefer to style ourselves, “deniers” being – you know – a touch Holocaust-y) actually think or properly to familiarise himself with the terms of the debate. Also, the book’s quite well-researched so it might help him avoid repeating any of those embarrassing errors he makes in the report.

Still, as I suggested at the beginning, I’m extremely grateful to Dr Jones for writing his report because it offers such a sustained and brilliant rebuttal to the threadbare notion that our state broadcaster is in any way capable of being fair and balanced.

As Biased BBC notes, it has been five years since the BBC officially abandoned all pretence that it was adopting a neutral position on “Climate Change”. In a 2007 BBC Trust policy report, it wrote:
The BBC has held a high level seminar with some of the best scientific experts (on whose and what measurement) and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of consensus.
This anti-heretic policy it has been pursuing with Torquemada-like fervour ever since. Though Dr Jones’s report argues that the BBC should from henceforward give less space to sceptics, it’s difficult to imagine quite how it could possibly do so. About the only occasion on which they have been given any air space has been on hatchet-jobs like the BBC’s feature-length assault on Lord Monckton, “Meet The Climate Sceptics”.

Dr Jones notes with concern Britain’s growing scepticism:
A poll carried out by the Cardiff University Understanding Risk Group in early 2010 showed in contrast that one in seven among the British public said that the climate is not changing and one in five that any climate change was not due to human activity. Fewer than half considered that scientists agree that humans are causing climate change.
The conclusion, however, he draws from this is not that this is a fair reflection of the lack of evidence to support CAGW theory – but that media organisations like the BBC aren’t doing enough to promote the “correct” version of reality. “The divergence between the views of professionals versus the public may be seen as evidence of a failure by the media to balance views of very different credibility. The BBC is just one voice but so many in Britain gain their understanding of science from its output that its approach to this question must be considered.”

In other words, Dr Jones thinks that the growing numbers of people in Britain (and around the world) who are sceptical of man-made global warming are victims of “false consciousness.” There speaks the authentic voice of the left-leaning cultural establishment. The BBC must be very proud: they chose the right man for the job.
Can there be any doubt that the BBC went looking for an alarmist with scientific credentials to "investigate" and write their report and found exactly what they wanted? The blatant audacity shows the contempt the BBC has for real, responsible journalism.

movielib 07-21-11 10:16 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Apollo astronaut tells off Texas alarmist in letter to the editor.


At odds on climate change
July 19, 2011, 9:10PM

Not buying it

Regarding "Texas is vulnerable to warming climate" (Page B8, July 10), some opinions are just too over-the-top to resist responding. Professor Andrew Dessler's essay falls in that category. He makes the point that we had better begin to accept that we are responsible for Texas' very hot summer, and we should get our legislators to begin taking steps to control our temperature.

Typical of these alarmists of human-caused global warming, he cites the opinions of those colleagues who agree with him while not citing one bit of data to support this unproven and unaccepted hypothesis of global warming, first dreamed up about 20 years ago.

Dessler would like for us to stop arguing about the science. That is because the "science" does not support this hypothesis of humans causing global warming. Dessler would rather restrict discussion to the political arena.

One of the strategies climate alarmists now use in their attempt to gain acceptance for an unproven hypothesis is semantics. They have usurped a term that has been used and accepted by everyone for millennia: "climate change." Yes, the climate has been changing forever, sometimes up and sometimes down, and life on our planet has been adjusting to those changes for billions of years, with varying degrees of success.

Dessler maintains "the uniformity of expert opinion that reductions of emissions make sense." What uniformity of opinion? As the historical record shows, our climate is always changing, and on many occasions more than it is today.

Those interested in the truth about human-caused global warming should not just accept the opinions of others (including mine); they should look at the historical data themselves. We can either adjust to the climate as it changes, as we have always done, or we can adjust after wasting billions — no, trillions — of dollars in a hopeless attempt to control the temperature of the Earth.

— Walter Cunningham,
astronaut, Apollo VII, Houston
Along with Harrison "Jack" Schmitt (who is also a geologist) and Buzz Aldrin, there are at least three astronauts who are CAGW skeptics (most, I assume, have never taken a public position).

I love it when alarmists say "deniers" are like people who believe the moon landings were faked. I guess Schmitt and Aldrin think they walked on a Nevada desert.

movielib 07-21-11 10:41 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Stark raving mad.


UN security council to consider climate change peacekeeping

Special meeting to discuss 'green helmets' force to intervene in conflicts caused by rising seas levels and shrinking resource
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
Wednesday 20 July 2011 09.06 BST

A special meeting of the United Nations security council is due to consider whether to expand its mission to keep the peace in an era of climate change.

Small island states, which could disappear beneath rising seas, are pushing the security council to intervene to combat the threat to their existence.

There has been talk, meanwhile, of a new environmental peacekeeping force – green helmets – which could step into conflicts caused by shrinking resources.

The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, is expected to address the meeting on Wednesday.

But Germany, which called the meeting, has warned it is premature to expect the council to take the plunge into green peacemaking or even adopt climate change as one of its key areas of concern.

"It is too early to seriously think about council action on climate change. This is clearly not on the agenda," Germany's ambassador to the UN, Peter Wittig, wrote in the Huffington Post.

"A good first step would be to acknowledge the realities of climate change and its inherent implications to international peace and security," he wrote.

Bringing the security council up to speed on climate change could be a challenge, however.

The Pentagon and other military establishments have long recognised climate change as a "threat multiplier" with the potential to escalate existing conflicts, and create new disputes as food, water, and arable land become increasingly scarce.

Wittig seems to agree, noting that UN peacekeepers have long intervened in areas beyond traditional conflicts.

"Repainting blue helmets into green might be a strong signal - but would dealing with the consequences of climate change - say in precarious regions - be really very different from the tasks the blue helmets already perform today?" he wrote.

In an official "Concept Note" ahead of the meeting, Germany said the security council needed to draw up scenarios for dealing with the affects of extreme temperatures and rising seas. How would the UN deal with climate refugees? How would it prevent conflicts in those parts of Africa and Asia which could face food shortages?

But there is a deep divide over whether the security council should even consider climate change as a security issue.

China, for example, argues that the security council should leave climate change to the experts.

However, small island states in the Pacific, which face an existential threat due to climate change, have been pushing the council to act for years.

"The security council should join the general assembly in recognising climate change as a threat to international peace and security. It is a threat as great as nuclear proliferation or global terrorism," Marcus Stephen, the president of Nauru, wrote in a piece in the New York Times.

"Second, a special representative on climate and security should be appointed. Third, we must assess whether the United Nations system is itself capable of responding to a crisis of this magnitude."

That remains an open question.

Wednesday's meeting arrives at a time of growing doubt about whether the UN is equipped to deal with climate change. Last month's climate talks in Bonn produced little progress in key areas.

Meanwhile, Ban has been refocusing his attention from climate change to sustainable development.

The security council has also been stalled in its efforts to deal with the threats posed by climate change.

Its first attempt was at a meeting in 2007 convened by Britain. But the effort swiftly exposed the deep divisions of the common problem.

Small island states, which could disappear entirely beneath rising seas, were anxious for the security council to intervene, saying the threat they faced was as severe as war.

But China and other countries resisted, arguing the security council should stick to maintaining the peace.
Green Helmets. rotfl

No islands are "sinking." But it's a damn good way to try to extort money from the West, especially from clueless politicians and bureaucrats who feel guilty for having "caused" something that isn't happening.,

movielib 07-22-11 02:59 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Follow up to Post #33.

Reactions show Monckton won the debate.


Lord Monckton wins Press Club debate and persuaded 9% more Australians to his view that ‘Concerns about Global Warming are exaggerated’

Article No. 1393 - This special Roy Morgan Reactor included an Australia-wide cross-section of 218 respondents aged 14+.: July 20, 2011

Despite negative publicity surrounding Lord Monckton’s visit to Australia, the results of a special Roy Morgan Reactor test over the last 24 hours show Lord Monckton won the debate and persuaded a substantial 9% of Australians to his view that ‘Concerns about Global Warming are exaggerated’.

People reacted along party lines with L-NP supporters reacting positively to Lord Monckton and negatively to Dr. Denniss, while ALP and particularly Greens supporters reacted positively to Dr. Denniss and negatively to Lord Monckton. However, as shown by the white line below, the Reactor spent more time in ‘positive territory’ when Dr. Denniss was talking than when Lord Monckton was.

When asked after viewing the Reactor to nominate a winner of the debate, more respondents (49%) nominated Lord Monckton as the winner ahead of Dr. Denniss (37%) and 14% couldn’t say.


The crucial issue at the heart of the debate is whether either speaker managed to considerably shift the views of respondents reacting to the debate. Did either Lord Monckton or Dr. Denniss change the views of how ordinary Australians view the issue of Global Warming?

Before viewing the Reactor respondents were asked for their views on Global Warming: 44% of respondents said of Global Warming — ‘If we don’t act now it will be too late’, 43% said ‘Concerns are exaggerated’, 10% said ‘It is already too late’ and 3% couldn’t say.

After viewing the Reactor these views had shifted with 52% now saying ‘Concerns are exaggerated’ — an increase of 9%, 38% (down 6%) saying ‘If we don’t act now it will be too late,’ 7% (down 3%) saying ‘It is already too late’ and 3% couldn’t say.

The changes demonstrated by this question definitively back up the view of respondents that Lord Monckton won the debate — 9% of respondents viewing the Reactor shifted their opinion towards the point of view Lord Monckton expressed.


Michele Levine, Chief Executive Officer Roy Morgan Research says:
“The results of Roy Morgan’s Reactor on yesterday’s debate between Lord Christopher Monckton and Dr. Richard Denniss provides a valuable insight into how Australians are viewing the complex debate surrounding Global Warming, Climate Change, Carbon Dioxide and the Carbon Tax.

“Roy Morgan Research data has shown continually that Australians are concerned about Global Warming and Climate Change but do not want the proposed Carbon Tax; and that the issue is highly politically divided.

“This special research combines real-time response — ‘how much do you agree or disagree with what the speaker is saying’; with ‘pre- and post- measures of environmental attitudes.’ This shows clearly that the electorate is delicately poised on this issue — ‘concern about the environment; but much more worried about the economy, and the Carbon Tax.

“Each speaker clearly outlined their point of view — and for the most part the Reactor showed this appealed along party lines. However, a clear difference between the speakers was that Lord Monckton talked extensively about the climate science and quoted figures about changes in the climate over past time periods provided by scientists whilst Dr. Denniss concentrated more heavily on the economic and political implications in Australia from taking action on Global Warming.

“Listening to Lord Monckton — he says what many Australians want to hear — ‘Don’t worry about Climate Change! It will be alright!”
This special Roy Morgan Reactor survey covered an Australia-wide cross-section of 218 respondents aged 14+. For a closer look at the Reactor and how the different points expressed by Lord Monckton and Dr. Denniss were received by those reacting to the debate, please view the full Reactor highlights here:


movielib 07-22-11 07:10 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

movielib 07-23-11 06:08 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
On Conclusion Based Science and Epicycles.

That's not the title of the following essay but it could be. CAGW alarmists start with their conclusion: Human generated CO2 causes catastrophic global warming and if anything doesn't fit they invent a reason to explain the discrepancy (that is, when they don't just ignore the inconvenient truths which is often). It is much like Ptolemy's geocentric theory which in addition required that every orbit be a circle (rather than an ellipse, as we now know) and to which had to be added circle upon circle (epicycles) to make things fit (approximately) as more knowledge was gained. It's ingenious but it's not science and it's fatally flawed.


Saturday, July 23, 2011
Do stratospheric aerosols mask global warming?
Lubos Motl

In recent months, it has become popular among the climate alarmists to "explain away" the lack of warming in recent 10-15 years.

Aerosols have become their best ally in these efforts. A few weeks ago, we discussed this question:
Did the Chinese coal cause the cooling since 1998?
It was no fluke but an example of a whole new fad. Phys Org, among many others, promoted a new article by Susan Solomon et al.:
NOAA study suggests aerosols might be inhibiting global warming
The article itself is in Science and it's called
The Persistently Variable “Background” Stratospheric Aerosol Layer and Global Climate Change
What they're obsessed by is -0.1 Watts per square meter by which the energy flows may have dropped between 1960 and 1990.

When they evaluate the impact, they decide that the predictions of global warming should be reduced by 1/3 to be more realistic. Fine. It's enough to publish one more paper and reduce the alarmists' prediction by an additional 1/2 and they will be consistent with the observations - and with the climate skeptics.

You may see that the assumption that there is a big warming to start with is treated as a dogma by these would-be scientists. A big warming is the "default assumption" and "dirty corrections" have to be added in order to get to the reality. Only a blind person may fail to see the bias of the authors.

Their science resembles the science of the chieftain of a terrorist training camp. He believes in the Tooth Fairy and designs an amazing method to earn some money for his terrorist hobby. He punches away the teeth of all the mujahideens in his group, puts the teeth under the pillow, and expects that the Tooth Fairy will replace them by millions of dollars during the night, when he sleeps.

Instead, he still finds the teeth in the morning. So he is totally puzzled: what miraculous, unexpected, supernatural power could have prevented the Tooth Fairy from replacing the teeth by the money? Of course, he is as clever a chieftain as the IPCC scientists so he finds an explanation that satisfies him: the Tooth Fairy asked the Bone Fairy for a permission and didn't get it.

So the chieftain breaks all the bones of his men and puts them under the pillow. It must be different this time, he is confident, and he is waiting for the Tooth Fairy to replace the teeth and bones by millions of dollars. His belief in these laws of physics remains perfect - well, up to the moment when this man is finally shot by a NATO soldier.

It's very similar with the global warming nuts. Instead of admitting that their could have made a wrong assumption, they always prefer to add dozens of other wrong assumptions.

Sources of aerosols in the stratosphere

But what I really want to do is to compare the quality of this portion of science as it is being done today - when these disciplines are contaminated by tons of junk and corrupt scientists with an agenda - with what the science looked like 45 years ago - when you would expect that it had to be much more primitive.

Compare the abstract of the Solomon et al. paper with another paper that is fully available:
On the meteoric component of stratospheric aerosols
J.P. Shedlovsky and S. Paisley wrote it in 1965, i.e. 46 years ago! Let me represent this paper as an average paper about these issues from the 1960s. Nevertheless, you may see that their science was much more advanced, rational, impartial, and systematic. Fine, let us make some comparisons of the broad ways of thinking inherent in the 1965 and 2011 papers.

Background: aerosols, stratosphere

First, some background. We are talking about aerosols - suspensions of fine solid particles within a gas or liquid droplets - that are located in the stratosphere. The stratosphere is the layer of the atmosphere, approximately between heights 10 and 50 kilometers, defined by the property that the temperature increases with the height. It's warmer as you're getting closer to the Sun, if you want to formulate it in an extreme way.

(But this bizarrely sounding sentence is essentially right because what matters is that the solar radiation is being absorbed so its amount is decreasing as you go deeper into the atmosphere from outside, at least at some frequencies.)

Consequently, there is no substantial circulation of the air in the stratosphere: warmer (less dense) air is higher which is how it should be: we say that this layer is "stratified", therefore the name of the "stratosphere". In this respect, the stratosphere is the opposite of the troposphere - the part of the atmosphere between the surface and the stratosphere (they're separated by the tropopause) which we know and where the "weather" takes place. In the troposphere, the temperature decreases with the height (think about the flights with United: the adiabatic lapse rate is a zeroth-order approximate way to see why it is so) and the air circulates all the time (because the warmer air is less dense and therefore wants to get up).

So in the stratosphere, there are also aerosols. I want to mention the very methodology how to look at two questions: whether and how the composition changes with time; and how the aerosols got there.

Time dependence

If you read the 2011 paper by Solomon et al., you must be sure that the authors are stunned that things can be changing in Nature. How is that possible? Only humans are the nasty animals who introduced change to the Earth, they still essentially think. Before the human sins, things in Nature were not changing with time. Isn't the very purpose of time to guarantee that nothing changes? :-)

On the other hand, the Shedlovsky-Paisley 1965 paper has no problems with the concept of time. It discusses various changes that influence the chemical compounds - especially the atmospheric residence time.

They also have no problem to acknowledge a huge uncertainty about various numbers. For example, on the last page, they say that the estimates of the accretion of extraterrestrial particles by the Earth ranged from 8 to 3.6 million tons per year.

These scientists, much like any genuine scientists, knew that every effect of this sort or any other sort may be relevant for your questions unless it has been shown to be irrelevant. On the other hand, the climate alarmist hacks always start with the opposite approach. They assume - without any evidence and often in a direct contradiction with the evidence - that every effect is irrelevant and the only moment when they start to abandon this utterly preposterous and clearly invalid assumption is when their models based on random assumptions disagree with the observed data by an order of magnitude or more.

If someone has been making the assumption that none of these things - such as the aerosols in the stratosphere or the water vapor in the stratosphere (Solomon's previous papers) - matters for questions they care about (for no good reason), such as the "climate change", then one of the following things must hold: they have just had a big party, remembering a recently deceased colleague, they had gotten drunk and they still suffer from some hangover. Or they are assholes. Solomon et al. is the latter case who deliberately want to lie and distort the empirical facts.

Chemical composition

The IPCC admits that their uncertainty about the overall effects of the aerosols on all things such as the climate is comparable to the whole effect of global warming. But they worship a key dogma that everyone has to believe - namely that the aerosols (and everything else) must be less important than the carbon dioxide.

Consequently, this dogma inevitably suppresses the scientific research of pretty much everything that matters in the atmosphere - and the aerosols in the stratosphere are no exception. That's why the quality of the scientific research in this discipline has actually plummeted since the 1960s.

You may see this striking decline in every detail. For example, ask the simple question where the aerosols come from etc.

Today, aerosols are among the dozens of "inconvenient and dangerous" players that could threaten the exceptional, divine (or devilish) status of the carbon dioxide. Worshiping the bad effects of the carbon dioxide is what these assholes are all about and what their whole criminal income is based upon so they make sure that no one studies e.g. aerosols too carefully, and if he does, he never interprets the results so that the aerosols may still be treated as one of those irrelevant Cinderellas whom no one really knows. This research - pretty much any research unrelated to CO2 - has been dangerous for these assholes since the very beginning so they do everything they can to marginalize it.

So because it's not possible or allowed to rationally talk about the aerosols, the knowledge of most people - including those who should know them - has gone down from the 1960s. In particular, those people only talk about "volcanos" and "chimneys" as the sources of the aerosols - which may also get to the stratosphere. This is how the popular media think about the aerosols and the "scientists" in that field don't know much more that would go beyond the pop science in the media.

Things couldn't be more different in the 1960s. The average 1965 paper analyzes the concentration of 8 elements and many other things in the aerosols and tries to pinpoint their origin because the relative concentration of various elements and compounds differs among the sources, too.

Let me copy and paste the whole introduction to the 1965 paper:

The chemical composition of stratospheric aerosols has been shown by JUNGE et al. (1961) and JUNQE & MANSON (1961) to consist primarily of sulfate, presumably a mixture of ammonium and sodium sulfates. In addition, aluminum, silicon, chlorine, calcium and iron were reported as being detected.

There are several different possible source materials which can contribute to stratospheric aerosols. These include atmospheric H2S and SO2 which are photochemically oxidized to sulfate, erosion products of continental surfaces, oceanic salts, volcanic debris and extraterrestrial material accreted by the earth. These sources are all significantly different as regards their chemical composition. Thus, it may be possible to determine the relative importance of such sources to stratospheric aerosols from a more thorough knowledge of the aerosol chemical composition. The purpose of this paper is to report some air concentrations of a number of elements in the low stratosphere and to relate these data to the extraterrestrial component.
You see that the scientific approach is perfectly sensible. They don't make any unjustified detailed assumptions that they would be trying to hysterically and dogmatically defend - which is what the alarmist assholes are doing all the time. Moreover, they also appreciate - and it's the main point of the paper - that the aerosols in the stratosphere may have not only terrestrial but also extraterrestrial origin. Chemistry is the bulk of this research and it has to be: calculating the absorption by a particular component of aerosols is a relatively simple added result in comparison. But you can't get the right results if you don't know the chemistry and how much it changes with time and why.

Make no mistake about it: a volcano eruption emits a greater amount of aerosols. But a big majority of it remains in the troposphere. To get aerosols into the stratosphere, you must work hard and relatively small meteorites etc. that are often burned over there may arguably be more important.

The point I want to make is that these difficult and technical questions were studied rationally in the 1960s; but they are no longer studied rationally today. The contemporary authors such as Solomon et al. have neither the expertise nor the scientific integrity to figure out where the aerosols are coming from and what's happening with them. Consequently, they can't make any justifiable predictions about the future evolution of the concentrations of these aerosols, either.

Instead of analyzing hundreds of numbers describing various elements etc. in the aerosol samples - which is what the 1965 paper is made out of - Solomon et al. are only interested in one, scientifically unimportant number - the average forcing that aerosols may be adding or subtracting from the energy fluxes that determine the global mean temperature.

Needless to say, they usually want to show that this number is low because aerosols shouldn't threaten the "climate monopoly" that has been assigned to the carbon dioxide by all these assholes. On the other hand, when they're running into real trouble - e.g. when they predict a huge warming for a decade but they get a cooling - they want the aerosols to "explain" the discrepancy. They beg for a while, hoping that the aerosols will be erased from the science again in the future.

But if one only works with one number, such as the change of forcing caused by the stratospheric aerosols, it's easy to adjust the arguments so that you get the number you wanted to get in the first place. It's not robust science. To do robust science, one has to work with lots of numbers - such as the concentrations of the elements in various samples etc. in the 1965 paper. A theory can't be scientific if it just "explains" one number - such as the global warming rate - by one parameter (and usually many more). A scientific theory must explain and/or predict many more numbers than the number of parameters. Using words of Feynman,
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
The alarmists are violating this rule all the time. The main problem is that they're not really interested in explaining Nature and the immense wealth of interesting patterns and unexplained numbers. They're interested in making one ideologically chosen quantity, the global warming rate, high and seemingly believable - so that it may be worshiped by the brainwashed society. But that's not science.

And that's the memo.
Lubos is never one to mince words and, as usual, he uses words stronger than I would. But his point is irrefutable. I can add other examples to the one here about aerosols. There's the Hockey Stick to "get rid of" the Medieval warming period. There's the study that claims to find the missing tropical troposphere hot spot by measuring winds instead of temperatures. There's the study that claims Antarctica is warming when every other study says it's cooling. All these alarmist papers have been thoroughly discredited. That doesn't stop them or even slow them down. The feedback from clouds and water vapor caused by increasing CO2 seems to be negative so they say it's positive. They dismiss the cosmic ray theory and pooh-pooh the importance of the ocean circulation cycles because they identify "villains" other than CO2. No, none of these things can dethrone the great CO2 monster but when things aren't working the way they say they should, all of a sudden aerosols from some coal plants in China can "suppress" the dreaded warming effects of CO2 (even though these coal plants also emit plenty of CO2).

How many epicycles does it take to collapse a theory?

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:56 AM.

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.