OT GW

[Paul Saccani]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:22:19 +0800, Bernd Felsche
<berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:

Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 12/5/2011 12:40 PM, terryc wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

ALL the major scientific organisations on the planet (including:
CSIRO, NASA, The Australian Academy of Science, the US National
Academy of Science, the UK Met, The Australian BoM, The French Academy
of Science, the German Academy of Science, Austrian Academy of
Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Royal Danish Acadeny of Sciences
and Letters, The Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Hungarian
Academy of Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of
Scotland, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, et al.)


Fallacy: Appeal to authority.

That is not a logical fallacy in itself. These organisations may be
seen to be experts in fields relevant to the subject, and it s
Trevor's contention that there is a consensus amongst such experts.

The flaw you should be aiming at is the complete and outright
falsehood that they "tell us that AGW is the most likely explanation
for the warming that has been noted.".

They don't, so Trevor's claim fails on that basis.

Trevor will cite various papers and what not from various members,
committees and such like, but that will not prove his claim that the
organisations "tell us that AGW is the most likely explanation for the
warming that has been noted.".

Nonetheless, I have invited him to provide evidence of this claim.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 19:40:51 +1000, John_H <john4721@inbox.com> wrote:

In fact they're hopelessly inept compared to those before them,
whether it be pink bats, climate change, live cattle exports, the
Malaysian solution or Craig Thomson. Being beholden to the Green
Slime hasn't helped.

What has the Intelligence Corps got to do with this?

--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Noddy]

On 7/12/2011 6:52 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**I'll bite. List those claims and their sources that you feel are
credible. I will discuss each and every one with you.

By "discuss" I assume you'll give me reasons as to why every one I may
offer up is wrong, regardless of who it is and what credentials they may
have.

I'd also assume that if the world's most eminent climatologist was to
make a public statement claiming that their modelling was flawed and the
climate situation isn't as dire as we've been led to believe you'd
suggest that they'd been "got at" by some organisation and they were a
crank.

Don't worry Trev. I don't expect such a thing will ever happen. If it
did *millions* of dollars of research funding would suddenly evaporate,
and we can't have that

**Of course not. Look at the Catholics. However, unlike the Catholics,
AGW researchers have quite a number of 'runs on the board'.

Really? I must have blinked and missed them.

Let's look at a very quick snapshot of what the issue entails:

Yes. Lets.

* The planet has warmed at a faster rate in the last 100-odd years, than
at any time in the last 600,000 years. FACT. No dispute.

Bzzzt. *Plenty* of dispute. Just none that you're prepared to accept

* The planet has accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere at a faster rate than
at any time in the last 600,000 years. FACT. No dispute.

Uh-huh.

* CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. FACT. No dispute. The contribution of
CO2 to planetary warming has been known for more than 100 years. It has
been shown experimentally many times. Even Mythbusters were surprised
when they performed the experiment. VERY tiny amounts of CO2 can and do
cause 'Solar forcing' (Additional warming).

Lol Mythbusters

The definitive scientific research team

* As the planet warms, more CO2 will outgas from the oceans. FACT. No
dipute.

Nasty.

* As the planet warms, methane will be released from permafrost areas.
Methane is a MUCH more potent GHG than CO2. Fortunately, methane breaks
down rapidly (about 10 years) in the atmosphere. UNFORTUNATELY, CO2 is
one of the breakdown products. CO2 has a very long life in the
atmoshere. FACT. No dispute.

Bugger.

* All this is thought to lead to a kind of positive feedback (aka:
'Tipping Point'), where more CO2 leads to hotter temperatures, which, in
turn, leads to more GHGs being released into the atmosphere, which, in
turn, leads to higher temperatures, more GHGs and so on.

The ultimate "gift that keeps on giving" if you will....

The 'Tipping Point' is thought to be around 500ppm. SPECULATIVE. Plenty of dispute.
In fact, at least one researcher is of the opinion that the tipping
point has already been reached.

Interesting.

So, the upshot is, that we are really only arguing a single point:

Will the release of more CO2 cause irreparable damage to the planet?

We don't know for certain. The general concensus amongst most climate
scientists is that more CO2 will lead to irreparable problems.

Further to that point: Like most things in life, early attention will
cost a whole lot less than dealing with it later.

Nicely summed up there Trev.

But here's the thing that there's no getting around for me: For all that
"indisputable fact", why is the "science" so uncertain about the effect?

Okay, try this on for size for a moment, and look at the issue from a
layman's perspective.

Here we have a situation whereby data has been collected over a period
of years. That data has been examined by people who are experts in the
field and has lead to some theories, but no one can say for sure what
the effect, if any, will be. In fact we can't even get universal
agreement amongst the experts themselves. Yet we're advised that there
is a issue that needs to be dealt with, and we should change the way we
do things today (read -> Spend squillions of dollars) to adopt a "just
in case" policy rather than leave that "issue" (if any) for future
generations to deal with.

Do you see a problem with any of this Trevor?

**It is very important that those who embrace the non-scientific
approach be made aware of the people that share their views.

What, guilt by association?

Just because my neighbour and I might not like the taste of Broccoli
doesn't mean we have anything else in common.


--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 7/12/2011 7:02 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Does it? Tell you what: You present a few of the emails, IN CONTEXT,
that you feel completely destroy the notion of AGW.

I never said anything remotely like that Trevor, but I did post a copy
of text from an email in another post, and without seeing the previous
emails or replies it's difficult to imagine the text having any context
but the obvious one.

There's plenty of others apparently.

**I just deal with facts.

With respect Trevor, you deal with what you *want* to passionately
believe in.

AFTER you have read the IPCC AR4 you may share my view.

I seriously doubt it.

**The scientific method:
1) Define a question
2) Gather data
3) Hypothesis
4) Test hypothesis
5) Analyse data
6) Interpret data and draw conclusions
7) Publich results.
8) Retest

In the area of AGW, we are at #8.

We are?

So tell me, how well did we do at 4?

**And, as I have stated before, absolute, conclusive proof will come at
a time when it is too late to act (assuming the 'tipping point' theory
is correct).

Indeed.

"Assuming" is the hang up point for a lot of people. To buy into the
climate change debate hook, line and sinker you have to be prepared to
assume a very great deal.

The cost of action now is relatively inconvenient, but
managable. The cost of acting later (say 100 years hence) is likely to
be impossible to fund. IOW: Human society will be fucked.

Human society *might* be fucked, but then there is every chance that it
might *not* either.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 7/12/2011 1:46 AM, terryc wrote:

You can not be serious.

I couldn't be any more serious.

Oh wait, there is some great labor dead wood in
parliament, so ice bergs chance in hell might be right.

Look at it, has no support but is picked by the power boys. Then
proceeds to shit all over everyone and ignore past practises and other
peole. Eventually they labor pollies get so pissed off with him,ten when
he is gven the word, he can not get enough of them to say that they
would support him, so he folds and walks away. He was a complete good
time boy and that was the total sum of him.

Now, he throws petulant hissy fits when he isn't the centre of
attention. hardly leadership material.

Since when did leadership material ever matter when picking a leader?
Think of just *some* of the clunkers we've had in the last couple of
decades. Kim Beazley? John Howard? Mark Latham? Simon Crean? John
Hewson? The Ranga or Abbott?

Hardly leadership material in any of them

The party machine cares not the slightest bit about the leadership
qualities of whomever they stick up as their poster boy (or girl). All
they care about is their popularity with the electorate, and to that end
they'd happily go with Bart Simpson if they thought he'd win them office.

That's precisely the reason why they arseholed Rudd in the first place.
They thought he would cost them the upcoming election and they installed
someone who they thought was "popular". The irony is that the current PM
has turned out to be such an inept & unpopular *twat* that she's made
Tony Abbott look like a real viable alternative.

Short of their being some miraculous turn around in her fortunes I don't
expect Gillard will be leading Labor into the next election, and given
that Rudd's popularity is now higher than when he was flicked for being
"unpopular with the voters" I'd bet my left one that he has a crack at
getting his old job back before too long.

Nope. I couldn't be any more serious.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 7/12/2011 10:35 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**If she was earning 88 Grand a year, I reckon she'd be doing well too.
Sadly, she doesn't earn that much. In fact, she doesn't make as much as
my local plumber, builder, doctor, lawyer, electrician or almost anyone
in the WA mining industry.

Sadly in this day & age you can say that about a *lot* of professional
people.

My last apprentice is picking up a nice 230
Grand a year working in WA. Let's not even get into how much money Gina
Rinehart makes, just though an accident of birth.

Lucky her.



--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 7/12/2011 3:31 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**I've mentioned that he should be extremely cautious. Ultimately, it is
his decision. For some reason, he wants to live in the US. I guess he
figures that by owning real estate, he can find a way in.

Odd.

You couldn't give me enough money to make me want to live there.




--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 7/12/2011 8:27 AM, Jeßus wrote:

I don't mind him *until* he gets onto this subject, or on gun control.
He specialises in a special blend of oversimplified, inflexible and
naive one-sided viewpoints and insults whilst at the same time
apparently trying to have a reasoned debate. I gave up on it a long
time ago, the longer the debate goes on the more obtuse he becomes.

Notice the constant references to Alan Jones in this thread... I don't
have the patience for it anymore

Yeah, it gets a bit over the top. I'm sure he thinks everyone who
doesn't agree with him is a slobber dribbling Neanderthal with an IQ of
about 24

A good read nonetheless on the quirks of humanity, I especially like
the one about the psychiatrist

Yeah, he was a *really* strange guy, and it made me laugh to think that
someone as strange as he was was paid to give his opinion on the mental
health of *other* people....


--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 7/12/2011 9:00 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

* You speak of my position on gun control. What is that position? (I
don't want to drag this off-topic and into a long discussion, but see if
you can characterise my position, rather than what you imagine it to be).
* The IPCC AR4 report runs to more than 1600 pages. AR5 may be even
larger.

See if you can guess why I have no desire to read it Trev. Have a shot...

Climate science is complex stuff. Very complex stuff. I don't
pretend to understand anything more than the basics. And yes, I've read
AR4.

Your interest in the subject clearly extends beyond the casual.

I've also read a large amount of denialist 'science' as well. It is
virtually impossible to encapsulate the basics in a newsgroup
discussion, particularly, when the person one is discusing this stuff
with has not even bothered to read the most important document that
pertains to the topic. Of course, I resort to qips. I have no other choice.

Which are more than enough.

**I use those points for effect. I want deniers (Noddy is one) to be
well aware that people like Jones are precisely the people that he is
aligned with.

That's a fatal flaw right there Trevor.

To suggest that I'm "aligned" with someone infers that I emphatically
agree with everything they say on the subject, and I make no such claims
at all. As I've mentioned I've never listened to Jones, nor do I read
Andrew Bolt (as it happens I can't stand the bloke) and I have no idea
what their respective opinions on the subject are.

If I happen to have a similar view on a given subject then it's purely
coincidental, and to be quite frank I couldn't care less about who I may
share my views with.

Jones has probably be bought by the fossil fuel lobby to
get their message across. Their message is pretty obivous - To muddy the
waters around the science, to pick up on the tiniest details and expose
those tiny errors and declare the whole lot invalid. Take AR4, for
instance. Of the 1600-odd pages, approximately 4 have been found to
contain errors. Naturally, it is those tiny errors that deniers focus
on. They fail to mention the 1596 pages of decent, solid science. AND, I
might add, the IPCC has addressed those errors and made the appropriate
admissions and corrections.

Clearly the IPCC needs a new proof reader

**Bollocks, Noddy. Scientists are human. They make mistakes. They lie,
cheat and steal.

Indeed.

In the main, however, scientists are not in the job for
the money. The guys who publish books on denialist 'science', like
Carter, Lindzen and the others can make a lot more money. The boss of
Exxon makes STUPENDOUS amounts of cash.

I'm sure he does.

**Except that Noddy's assumption is not rooted in fact. He made a faulty
assumption.

Just to be clear Trev, all I've ever been giving is my *opinion*, and it
contains about as much "fact" as the climatologist's theories.

**My partner is a physicist. She studies the Sun. She works damned hard
for a government department. She is paid a wage that is less than a
highly qualified teacher (which she used to be), a plumber, a sparkie, a
lawyer, a doctor, or almost anyone in the mining industry. She spent
years at uni and has spent years since, studying her business (she often
goes to bed with texts to keep up with current developments - she is not
paid for those extra studies, which she needs to do to ensure she can do
her job effectively). Know any other government workers who do that?

In a way, yeah I do. Not to the extent of the amount of study, but
certainly the time put into the job.

My wife is (or until very recently was) a Communications/media advisor
for EPA Victoria. Her job was basically dealing with reactive media and
preventing small stories from becoming embarrassingly big ones that the
Premier's office would get it's knickers in a twist over when they made
the front page.

It was a 7 day a week, 24 hour a day position that would often see her
out of bed at three in the morning to deal with local media looking to
turn a minor issue into a major "scoop" on an otherwise slow day.

I don't. She is the best person I know (NEVER tell her I said that).
Honest, ethical and very hard working (she works 7 days a week, once per
month, getting essential reports out to defence, shipping and
communications people).

Oh yeah: She haseven less patience than I do with either those who don't
accept AGW and complete contempt for anyone who does not educate
themselves on the matter. She cannot understand why I waste my time with
attempting to educate people in the matter. She figures they deserve
what they will get. She does not suffer fools.

And finally we discover the root cause

--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[terryc]

kreed wrote:

On Dec 5, 11:43 am, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
Noddy wrote:
On 4/12/2011 8:40 PM, John_H wrote:
In fact they're hopelessly inept compared to those before them,
whether it be pink bats, climate change, live cattle exports, the
Malaysian solution or Craig Thomson. Being beholden to the Green
Slime hasn't helped. Theirs has to be one of the most spectacular
crashes in Australian political history.

I would have thought it'd be *the* most spectacular. Even Labor party
members are talking about the party being eradicated.
The rot has been into the Labor Party for decades and the Liberals are
just a few years behind them.



Interesting that their former leader Latham wrote similar in his book
(I don't know if he mentioned the Liberals)
after leaving the ALP.

If nothing else, he was in a position to know a lot more about the
organisation than most.

I have had the experience of brushing up against it a number of times.
Firstly to become a number in branch stacking(modern term). Secondly
when a community organisation became the battle ground between different
factions(nasty for employees). Also been educational to follow the
careers of the three party names iaround at the time.

Lastly a lot of the people we interacted with locally were in either
party and occassionally you have a quiet chat. We also witnessed the
disappearance of the labour party members from handing out at the local
booths over the years.

 

[terryc]

John_H wrote:

terryc wrote:
John_H wrote:
They're already irrelevant, all of their own own making. Rudd could
and should have gone to a double dissolution on the ETS. Whatever the
outcome, not only would Labor have maintained their credibility the
Green Slime would've been neutered to boot.
Their demise started in the 80's when power factions started taking
power away from local party members and started annoiting their local
candidates.

Which doesn't quite explain how they were able to maintain the most
successful federal Labor Government in Australian history from 1983 to
1996!...

Various reasons, especially when they had an enormous rusted on block.
It takes a few decas for the rust scales to get scrapped off. Also, they
did have some capable leadership who looked ahead and not at their polls.

And if weren't for the totally uninspiring Beazley would've
been back in office after just two terms in opposition (at most).

The "Green Slime" has been growing for longer, very slowly. It does well
when large segments of the people are fed up with BOTH major parties.

They're suddenly doing exceptionally well as the loony left desert
Labor in droves (and aren't likely to return). The Greens are to
Labor what One Nation was to the National Party... except that Gillard
has been stupid enough to form an alliance which has pissed off the
moderates, who then vote Liberal. The biggest obstacle to an even
greater exodus is Abbott.

You might be right about Abbott.
Keep in mind that the Greens are actually replacing some of their old
supporters. The "tree huggers"(Kumbi Ah mob[sp?]) have become
disenchanted that it is now just like any other party.

The only direction remaining for Labor is down!

Lol, is it that long ago that people have forgotten aout the thrice
risen souffle? Wasn't that Keating about Howards chances?

 

[terryc]

Noddy wrote:

On 7/12/2011 1:46 AM, terryc wrote:

You can not be serious.

I couldn't be any more serious.

Oh wait, there is some great labor dead wood in
parliament, so ice bergs chance in hell might be right.

Look at it, has no support but is picked by the power boys. Then
proceeds to shit all over everyone and ignore past practises and other
peole. Eventually they labor pollies get so pissed off with him,ten when
he is gven the word, he can not get enough of them to say that they
would support him, so he folds and walks away. He was a complete good
time boy and that was the total sum of him.

Now, he throws petulant hissy fits when he isn't the centre of
attention. hardly leadership material.

Since when did leadership material ever matter when picking a leader?
Think of just *some* of the clunkers we've had in the last couple of
decades. Kim Beazley? John Howard? Mark Latham? Simon Crean? John
Hewson? The Ranga or Abbott?

Hardly leadership material in any of them

There is leadership and leadership. Different to charisma. John Howard
at least lead for ten years until that election. Admittedly some of
that may be due to the fact that he had windfall surpluses rolling in
and there was only jelly fish and choir boys behind him.

What Rudd did in his short act was to mightily piss off the choir boys
so thwey were happy to let the power brokers have thir way.

The party machine cares not the slightest bit about the leadership
qualities of whomever they stick up as their poster boy (or girl). All
they care about is their popularity with the electorate, and to that end
they'd happily go with Bart Simpson if they thought he'd win them office.

Agree entirely. The pollies were stupid to allow this turn of events to
occur, but then most of them would be there if they were not annointed.

That's precisely the reason why they arseholed Rudd in the first place.
They thought he would cost them the upcoming election and they installed
someone who they thought was "popular". The irony is that the current PM
has turned out to be such an inept & unpopular *twat* that she's made
Tony Abbott look like a real viable alternative.

Short of their being some miraculous turn around in her fortunes I don't
expect Gillard will be leading Labor into the next election,

Hmm 2013. We will see. If they do, then it will be suicide. She is
delivering big items, whereas Rudd did little.

and given
that Rudd's popularity is now higher than when he was flicked for being
"unpopular with the voters" I'd bet my left one that he has a crack at
getting his old job back before too long.

We will know it is really, finally something other than a rudd wet dream
when a labor polly and more are prepared to publically declare their
support.

Nope. I couldn't be any more serious.

I live in hope that the labor pollies might become reacquanted with
their balls. no matter who is in power, you eed a strong capable
opposition to get the best out of them.
>

 

[terryc]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 12/7/2011 1:09 PM, terryc wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

* The IPCC AR4 report runs to more than 1600 pages. AR5 may be even
larger.

Brings to mind that if you can not dazzle them with brilliance, then
baffle them with bullshit.

Climate science is complex stuff. Very complex stuff.

Still no excuse for troweling it on. Hint,if the climate science is
accepted, then you don't have to explain it.

**Agreed. Good thing it is accepted by all the climatologists.

That is very, very worrying.

Alan Jones, George Pell and Monckton
are holding the line against the science.

Are you coming out? You really are obsessed with these guys,

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/7/2011 11:00 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 7/12/2011 6:52 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**I'll bite. List those claims and their sources that you feel are
credible. I will discuss each and every one with you.

By "discuss" I assume you'll give me reasons as to why every one I may
offer up is wrong, regardless of who it is and what credentials they may
have.

**No. I mean DISCUSS.

I'd also assume that if the world's most eminent climatologist was to
make a public statement claiming that their modelling was flawed and the
climate situation isn't as dire as we've been led to believe you'd
suggest that they'd been "got at" by some organisation and they were a
crank.

**Why would you think that? Nothing would please me more than to
discover that all the scientists are wrong.

Don't worry Trev. I don't expect such a thing will ever happen. If it
did *millions* of dollars of research funding would suddenly evaporate,
and we can't have that

**You seem to think that the whole thing is a scam to line the pockets
of evil scientists. Weird. Consider the possibility that the scientists
are making observations (that the planet has warmed) and are simply
trying to understand why and if it is due to man's influence.

Or, think of it this way:

Let's say the scientists convince Exxon, Alan Jones, George Pell, Nick
Minchin and the others that AGW is a real thing and that CO2 reduction
schemes must be enacted immediately.

Their job is done. No more money for the scientists. For the scientists
to succeed, then they'll put themselves out of a job.

So, according to your logic, it is the deniers that are the problem. It
is Alan Jones, Nick Minchin, Exxon and the others that keep all these
evil scientists in work.

**Of course not. Look at the Catholics. However, unlike the Catholics,
AGW researchers have quite a number of 'runs on the board'.

Really? I must have blinked and missed them.

**www.ipcc.ch

Let's look at a very quick snapshot of what the issue entails:

Yes. Lets.

* The planet has warmed at a faster rate in the last 100-odd years, than
at any time in the last 600,000 years. FACT. No dispute.

Bzzzt. *Plenty* of dispute. Just none that you're prepared to accept

**Incorrect, but place your evidence here.

* The planet has accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere at a faster rate than
at any time in the last 600,000 years. FACT. No dispute.

Uh-huh.

**Good, I'm pleased we agree on that one.

* CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. FACT. No dispute. The contribution of
CO2 to planetary warming has been known for more than 100 years. It has
been shown experimentally many times. Even Mythbusters were surprised
when they performed the experiment. VERY tiny amounts of CO2 can and do
cause 'Solar forcing' (Additional warming).

Lol Mythbusters

The definitive scientific research team

**Not at all. Mythbusters are just ONE bunch of people that has proven
the influence of CO2 as a GHG.

* As the planet warms, more CO2 will outgas from the oceans. FACT. No
dipute.

Nasty.

* As the planet warms, methane will be released from permafrost areas.
Methane is a MUCH more potent GHG than CO2. Fortunately, methane breaks
down rapidly (about 10 years) in the atmosphere. UNFORTUNATELY, CO2 is
one of the breakdown products. CO2 has a very long life in the
atmoshere. FACT. No dispute.

Bugger.

* All this is thought to lead to a kind of positive feedback (aka:
'Tipping Point'), where more CO2 leads to hotter temperatures, which, in
turn, leads to more GHGs being released into the atmosphere, which, in
turn, leads to higher temperatures, more GHGs and so on.

The ultimate "gift that keeps on giving" if you will....

The 'Tipping Point' is thought to be around 500ppm. SPECULATIVE.
Plenty of dispute.
In fact, at least one researcher is of the opinion that the tipping
point has already been reached.

Interesting.

So, the upshot is, that we are really only arguing a single point:

Will the release of more CO2 cause irreparable damage to the planet?

We don't know for certain. The general concensus amongst most climate
scientists is that more CO2 will lead to irreparable problems.

Further to that point: Like most things in life, early attention will
cost a whole lot less than dealing with it later.

Nicely summed up there Trev.

But here's the thing that there's no getting around for me: For all that
"indisputable fact", why is the "science" so uncertain about the effect?

**Science is not uncertain. Science tells us that the 500ppm tipping
point is around 95% certain. That is not "uncertain". That is mostly
certain.

Okay, try this on for size for a moment, and look at the issue from a
layman's perspective.

Here we have a situation whereby data has been collected over a period
of years. That data has been examined by people who are experts in the
field and has lead to some theories, but no one can say for sure what
the effect, if any, will be.

**Well, no. We have already seen/measured the effect. Arctic ice cover
is decreasing, the oceans are warming, we are experiencing more hot days
during Summer and fewer cold days during Winter. No doubts about the
effects.


In fact we can't even get universal

agreement amongst the experts themselves.

**Not quite. There is dispute about the precise tipping point. At least
one researcher believes it has already been reached, whilst others
believe that 550ppm is more like it. It is uncertain because climate
science is hideously complicated and we are entering a condition never
experienced by humans.


Yet we're advised that there

is a issue that needs to be dealt with, and we should change the way we
do things today (read -> Spend squillions of dollars) to adopt a "just
in case" policy rather than leave that "issue" (if any) for future
generations to deal with.

**Pretty much. It is, however, important to get the "squillions of
Dollars" into some kind of perspective. The figures generally bandied
about suggest that the cost, if done today, would be around
US$0.75/day/person for about 20 years. That's everyone, of course. Some
will pay more, some less. If we wait another ten years, the cost is
likely to rise sharply.

Do you see a problem with any of this Trevor?

**Yes.

**It is very important that those who embrace the non-scientific
approach be made aware of the people that share their views.

What, guilt by association?

Just because my neighbour and I might not like the taste of Broccoli
doesn't mean we have anything else in common.

**Slightly different.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/7/2011 11:07 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 7/12/2011 7:02 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Does it? Tell you what: You present a few of the emails, IN CONTEXT,
that you feel completely destroy the notion of AGW.

I never said anything remotely like that Trevor, but I did post a copy
of text from an email in another post, and without seeing the previous
emails or replies it's difficult to imagine the text having any context
but the obvious one.

There's plenty of others apparently.

**OK. Submit them, in context, so we can discuss them. No out of context
stuff will be acceptable.

**I just deal with facts.

With respect Trevor, you deal with what you *want* to passionately
believe in.

AFTER you have read the IPCC AR4 you may share my view.

I seriously doubt it.

**Humour me. read AR4.

**The scientific method:
1) Define a question
2) Gather data
3) Hypothesis
4) Test hypothesis
5) Analyse data
6) Interpret data and draw conclusions
7) Publich results.
8) Retest

In the area of AGW, we are at #8.

We are?

So tell me, how well did we do at 4?

**The hypothesis has been tested many times. CO2 acts as a GHG. No doubt
about it.

**And, as I have stated before, absolute, conclusive proof will come at
a time when it is too late to act (assuming the 'tipping point' theory
is correct).

Indeed.

"Assuming" is the hang up point for a lot of people. To buy into the
climate change debate hook, line and sinker you have to be prepared to
assume a very great deal.

**Not quite. Let's say you live near King Lake. Over a lifetime (say 60
years), you are told there is a 1% chance your house will burn down in a
bushfire. Do you insure against that 1% possibility? Let's say you live
in Brisbane. You live in a flood-prone area. You are told that in a 60
year period, there is a 5% chance your home will be flooded. Do you
insure against that 5% chance.

I live in a very safe neighbourhood (we often leave doors unlocked -
last time there was a house break-in, it made the local newspaper), not
prone to bushfires, flooding or any other things. I pay $4.38/day to
insure against events that just don't happen where I live. I pay that
insurance, because, in the extremely unlikely event that something DOES
happen, I would be ruined.

Science tells us that there is a 95% probability that we are going to
experience dangerous climate change. Do you insure against that?
$0.75/day/person.

The cost of action now is relatively inconvenient, but
managable. The cost of acting later (say 100 years hence) is likely to
be impossible to fund. IOW: Human society will be fucked.

Human society *might* be fucked, but then there is every chance that it
might *not* either.

**It is not a 50:50 chance. It is a 95:5 chance. Factor that into your
thinking.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/7/2011 11:31 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 7/12/2011 3:31 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**I've mentioned that he should be extremely cautious. Ultimately, it is
his decision. For some reason, he wants to live in the US. I guess he
figures that by owning real estate, he can find a way in.

Odd.

You couldn't give me enough money to make me want to live there.

**No argument from me. He loves the place.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/7/2011 11:29 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 7/12/2011 10:35 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**If she was earning 88 Grand a year, I reckon she'd be doing well too.
Sadly, she doesn't earn that much. In fact, she doesn't make as much as
my local plumber, builder, doctor, lawyer, electrician or almost anyone
in the WA mining industry.

Sadly in this day & age you can say that about a *lot* of professional
people.

**Indeed. My point is that most scientists don't earn all that much.
They'd be better off doing something else. They don't, largely because
that what they want to do. My partner also has a law degree. She hates
law, but like science. Guess which one pays better?

My last apprentice is picking up a nice 230
Grand a year working in WA. Let's not even get into how much money Gina
Rinehart makes, just though an accident of birth.

Lucky her.

**Dunno about that. She is an ugly as a hatfull of arseholes. The only
way she managed to get laid, is because of her money.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/7/2011 11:35 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 7/12/2011 8:27 AM, Jeßus wrote:

I don't mind him *until* he gets onto this subject, or on gun control.
He specialises in a special blend of oversimplified, inflexible and
naive one-sided viewpoints and insults whilst at the same time
apparently trying to have a reasoned debate. I gave up on it a long
time ago, the longer the debate goes on the more obtuse he becomes.

Notice the constant references to Alan Jones in this thread... I don't
have the patience for it anymore

Yeah, it gets a bit over the top. I'm sure he thinks everyone who
doesn't agree with him is a slobber dribbling Neanderthal with an IQ of
about 24

**Not at all. There's a bunch of people who display a fair mount of
intelligence who disagree with what I say. You appear to be a reasonably
intelligent guy. Paul Saccani, JohnH and a few others. atec77 is as dumb
as a rock, but, I suspect, I'm not revealing anything that you don't
already know there.

There's intelligence and there's what you do with that intelligence. My
IQ is higher than my partner's. She makes up for it by working her arse
off to better herself. I, OTOH, am a lazy slob by comparison. As are
those people who claim to hold an unbiased view of AGW theory, but have
been too fucking lazy to acquaint themselves with both sides of the story.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/7/2011 10:08 PM, Paul Saccani wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:05:13 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Thats because its not. It's mostly fabricated crap in order to get the
result they are paid
to get and it is laugable. The peers that review this garbage are
just as corrupt as the authors.


**I see. So, your contention is this:

ALL the major scientific organisations on the planet (including: CSIRO,
NASA, The Australian Academy of Science, the US National Academy of
Science, the UK Met, The Australian BoM, The French Academy of Science,
the German Academy of Science, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Royal
Society of Canada, Royal Danish Acadeny of Sciences and Letters, The
Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Scotland, Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences, et al.) tell us that AGW is the most likely
explanation for the warming that has been noted.

Trevor, kindly substantiate your claim.

In an appropriate measure of detail.

**Certainly:

http://www.csiro.au/resources/pfbg
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
http://www.science.org.au/nova/091/091key.htm
http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/climate/report-of-the-french-academy-of-sciences-on-global-warming/
http://www.leopoldina.org/en.html
http://www.oeaw.ac.at/limno/projects/detective.html
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=3bfd5526-9e7e-4666-aaa4-dba75fd4fc6a
http://www.vki.hu/workingpapers/wp-186.pdf
http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/881_FacingUptoClimateChange.html
http://www.kva.se/Documents/Vetenskap_samhallet/Miljo_klimat/Yttranden/uttalande_klimat_en_090922.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/index.html

That'll do you. I'm bored now.

Why did you want me to jump through hoops, when you already knew the
answers?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Noddy]

On 8/12/2011 7:12 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Why would you think that? Nothing would please me more than to
discover that all the scientists are wrong.

Now I genuinely find that surprising given your level of passion on the
subject.

**You seem to think that the whole thing is a scam to line the pockets
of evil scientists. Weird.

Actually I don't think that. But I think it would be incredibly naive to
assume that they're all altruistic. I'm sure the scientific world is no
different to any other in that ego plays a major part.

Consider the possibility that the scientists
are making observations (that the planet has warmed) and are simply
trying to understand why and if it is due to man's influence.

That's pretty much how I think of it.

Or, think of it this way:

Let's say the scientists convince Exxon, Alan Jones, George Pell, Nick
Minchin and the others that AGW is a real thing and that CO2 reduction
schemes must be enacted immediately.

Their job is done. No more money for the scientists. For the scientists
to succeed, then they'll put themselves out of a job.

So, according to your logic, it is the deniers that are the problem. It
is Alan Jones, Nick Minchin, Exxon and the others that keep all these
evil scientists in work.

Well, not really. Not as far as I can see anyway.

For the scientists to achieve that goal they'd need proof, and
*conclusive* proof, not just the theories that are being bandied about
now. If they achieved that, the need for "climate watch" would be ever
more pressing in my opinion so the funding would be likely to increase.

**Good, I'm pleased we agree on that one.

That wasn't an agreement Trev. Just an acknowledgement of your statement

**Science is not uncertain. Science tells us that the 500ppm tipping
point is around 95% certain. That is not "uncertain". That is mostly
certain.

Actually it isn't.

You're talking about theory as if it's proof when we all know that it
isn't, and the fact that 95% of climatologists agree with that theory
doesn't make it so.

**Well, no. We have already seen/measured the effect. Arctic ice cover
is decreasing, the oceans are warming, we are experiencing more hot days
during Summer and fewer cold days during Winter. No doubts about the
effects.

No doubt about the planet going through change. It has done from the
year dot. There is some doubt about the cause though.

**Not quite. There is dispute about the precise tipping point. At least
one researcher believes it has already been reached, whilst others
believe that 550ppm is more like it. It is uncertain because climate
science is hideously complicated and we are entering a condition never
experienced by humans.

Indeed.

**Pretty much. It is, however, important to get the "squillions of
Dollars" into some kind of perspective. The figures generally bandied
about suggest that the cost, if done today, would be around
US$0.75/day/person for about 20 years. That's everyone, of course. Some
will pay more, some less. If we wait another ten years, the cost is
likely to rise sharply.

This is the crux of the issue for me.

We don't know how likely the "likely" actually is, and for all anyone
knows we could go through a regime that will cost a packet but make no
difference at all. I'm sure it wouldn't do any *harm*, but I'm not
convinced that it's necessary.

**Slightly different.

Not as far as I can see.

Adolph Hitler apparently liked Cheese, and so do I. But that doesn't
make me want to send millions of jews to the "shower block".

Well, not millions anyway


--
Regards,
Noddy.