Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Climate change - from the horse's mouth...

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Farab, Jul 18, 2008.

  1. Interesting, from one of the more credible scientists (I would think?), surely...

    Edit: sorry guys, had the wrong link posted earlier


  2. Haven't believed that crap for ages anyway ... good article though :)

    There are reasons why those in power may want to instill fear, panic and stress in the great majority (us).
    There are reasons why everything gets more expensive while wages/salaries never really keep up.
    There are reasons other than "The Economy" (more BS ... think about it) why interest rates go up, markets crash, etc.
    There are reasons why we get fleeced by every greedy politician, corporation , etc and nothing is done about it ... latest example would be service stations - lots of BS white-wash "oh look at us we care" talk, but zero action ... tells me just as much as the truth would.

    Don't want to start, but does anyone really believe things have to be expensive? That companies and corprations really need billions of dollars in pure profit while ordinary families are loosing their homes, people starve, more and more homeless are created, etc.???

    I'll stop now before I get carried away. My motto these days: Enjoy life, treat other humans with respect , and if I happen to come accross one of those non-human ba&%rds and they happen to be on fire, I'll pull up a chair, light a smoke and enjoy the show ... sorry, but to me they're in the same league as rap1sts and murderers ... rant over.

    Deep breath ... deep breath ... I need a girlfriend ... too tense :grin: [/i]
  3. ^
  4. The Rudd Government (and the toadying 'don't want to get left behind') Opposition is treading a fine line between policy and contravening the consitution on the division of church and state. Never in my life time have I seen such religious fervour for something utterly unproved and unprovable; climate change is virtually the State Religion.
  5. ^ Yes, there always seems to be some or the other Boogie Man, to keep us occupied, in angst: the past cold war, nuclear threat, environment, terrorism, climate change. Whilst there is an element of reality in all of them, they are always exploited...
  6. And here we all were wondering where PP had gotten to.... :LOL:
  7. Excellent article.

    We'll see how many people are towing the climate change line when their energy bill doubles, the cost of food skyrockets etc.

    The sad thing is that we all know who'll be hit hardest by any carbon trading scheme the Rudd government will come out with - the so-called "Working Families" who they purport to be the champions of.
  8. You forgot about the hole in the ozone layer!
    Weren't we meant to be all burnt and crispy by now!? :LOL: :LOL:
  9. http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm
  10. I kid you not, i was waiting for that! P1ss off!!:LOL:
  11. Stuff it I am now just looking at how I can make a buck from the carbon trading scam sorry scheme. :grin:

    Please note because some say it, it aint so.

    And paul you are spot on with religous point, we do have people who are eco evangilists who do take the extreme view as always.

    People the truth is in the middle.
  12. Yeah but remember the WORLD took action on this with the banning of CFCs, so assuming CFCs were the issue it worked.

    Of course this was relativley easy as it took only a simple change in design. Carbon is a little more involved. :grin:
  13. Why are people so easily exploited though?? That's what I cant understand. It always amazes how much people will freak out about terror!sts yet every day I see people almost killing themselves on the road without a care in the world.
  14. Rather than taking one person's word for it, perhaps go and have a look at the evidence. There is *overwhelming* evidence for the existence of climate change and *extremely strong* evidence that manmade greenhouse gases are the dominant contributing factor. If you want to be a skeptic, be an informed one.
  15. So the article is dated march22…
    I’d expect to have seen a whole bunch of fallout by now…
  16. I think the lack of response shows the arrogance of the climate-change proponents; they have governments and even Popes in their pockets, why do they need to respond to contrary views?
  17. Farab, your OP suggests that the link is the source of the quotes.

    Where did those quotes come from? Edit: Found it - see below. Bravus, your opinion would be appreciated.

    By the way, does anyone have an update global temperature graph or similar?


    No smoking hot spot
    David Evans | July 18, 2008

    I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

    FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

    When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

    The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

    But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

    There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

    1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

    Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

    If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

    When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

    Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

    2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

    3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

    4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

    None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

    The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

    Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

    So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

    In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

    If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

    The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

    What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

    The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

    Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
  18. It's worth noting that 'Counterpoint' is the ABC's right wing perspective program. I listen to it regularly, and it's regularly good and interesting, but it's by no means an unbiased venue, and picks guests who will support a right wing agenda every time. That's what that program is there for.

    Taking 1998 as a starting point for any comparison is unscientific and dishonest - that year was anomalously hot for a number of reasons, so of course if you measure from the peak to the trough (as Andrew Bolt also does in his column today) you can manipulate the data to say what you want. Look at trend lines and the picture is different.

    Or, you know (a) the story was in such an obscure venue that they didn't hear of it or (b) it was so obviously slanted that it wasn't worth responding to. And the article itself says they are taking the challenge seriously and responding to it.

    Immediately ascribing the worst possible motives to those with whom you disagree is hardly the hallmark of civilised or scientific debate.
  19. There s overwhelming evidence that emissions are causing deaths - right China? If you want to call that greenhouse or not - emissions aren't a good thing.
  20. I'm disappointed. I was expecting to hear Mercedes Corby's opinion of climate change.