OT GW

Noddy · Dec 7, 2011

On 8/12/2011 7:26 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

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

If I come across them I will, but the "context" qualifier makes it
difficult.

**Humour me. read AR4.

You said it's around 1600 pages, didn't you?

I can tell you right now as sure as I'm sitting here that I wouldn't
wade through 1600 pages of Bill Gates' will if I was named his sole heir.

**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.

Of course, but then that's natural reaction to an illogical fear.

I don't know where you live, but you probably have house & contents
insurance as well as vehicle insurance. Statistically the likelihood of
you ever needing them is probably small, but you're comforted by the
knowledge that if you ever find yourself unlucky enough to do so you'll
be covered.

The chances are that you'll (hopefully) go your whole life and never
need to make a claim which in an economic sense would make the premiums
you've paid look like a poor investment, but you got peace of mind out
of it.

Insurance companies know that too, which is why they exist.

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.

Indeed.

I'm in much the same boat as you and do the same thing. Most people
would I imagine.

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.

I wouldn't, and for no reason other than I've seen nothing to suggest
that (a) we have a problem that needs to be addressed, and (b) if there
is, there is anything we can do about correcting it.

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

At the moment my thinking is that there is a hell of a lot of money
being thrown at the climate issue and all we've got out of it thus far
is a *theory* that is supported by 95% of climatologists that "we need
to do something".

That doesn't exactly make me want to jump out of my chair and scream
with panic.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

Noddy · Dec 8, 2011

On 8/12/2011 12:59 AM, terryc wrote:

There is leadership and leadership. Different to charisma.

And largely irrelevant as far as the leadership position is concerned.

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.

Bear in mind that John Howard's success as the country's leader was due
more to the lack of a viable alternative than to anything else.

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.

Rudd could have royally pissed of as many people within his party as he
liked without consequence as long as his popularity remained high. The
back room boys may not like it, but they're not stupid enough to forget
that the party survives largely on the popularity of the person they put
up as leader, and they're *never* going to cut their noses off to spite
their faces.

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.

It's politics.

You're talking about a bunch of incredibly paranoid people who's idea of
looking ahead into the future would be lucky to extend much beyond next
Thursday.

Hmm 2013. We will see. If they do, then it will be suicide.

They are already *well* past the point where they have absolutely
nothing to loose.

She is delivering big items, whereas Rudd did little.

I don't know what you think she's delivering, but all I can see is that
she has the Midas touch in reverse in that everything she puts her hands
on turns to shit in a fucking big hurry.

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.

And due to the fact that they're all spineless to a man, we won't see
that any time soon until it's obvious to Stevie Wonder that it's going
to happen.

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.

2013 is the next election, isn't it? That'll be about the time the Labor
Party finds out just how strong an opposition they can be.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

Noddy · Dec 8, 2011

On 8/12/2011 7:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**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?

Science?

**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.

That may be so, but it's not her fault she was born into her position,
and nor would I have a grudge against her because of it.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

Noddy · Dec 8, 2011

On 8/12/2011 7:36 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**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.

Lol

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.

You have to have an interest. It's not just about being lazy.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

Trevor Wilson · Dec 8, 2011

On 12/8/2011 10:59 AM, Noddy wrote:

On 8/12/2011 7:26 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

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

If I come across them I will, but the "context" qualifier makes it
difficult.

**Context, as you well know, is everything.

**Humour me. read AR4.

You said it's around 1600 pages, didn't you?

**Yup. That includes a bunch of purty pictures though.

I can tell you right now as sure as I'm sitting here that I wouldn't
wade through 1600 pages of Bill Gates' will if I was named his sole heir.

**OK. It makes it kinda difficult for you to claim that it's 50:50 WRT
to the notion of AGW then. Tell you what, here's a site that makes life
a whole bunch easier for you:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

There's even a bit for newcomers. It's accessible, easy to read and you
can jump all over the place, concentrating on only the stuff you want to
know about. Read the Q&A. It should address many of your questions.

**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.

Of course, but then that's natural reaction to an illogical fear.

I don't know where you live, but you probably have house & contents
insurance as well as vehicle insurance. Statistically the likelihood of
you ever needing them is probably small, but you're comforted by the
knowledge that if you ever find yourself unlucky enough to do so you'll
be covered.

The chances are that you'll (hopefully) go your whole life and never
need to make a claim which in an economic sense would make the premiums
you've paid look like a poor investment, but you got peace of mind out
of it.

Insurance companies know that too, which is why they exist.

**Of course. And I'll bet you are insured too. You probably pay a
similar amount in premiums. AGW can be addressed by spending around
US$0.75/day/person. By my calculations, that's less than a fancy
home-made cup of coffee, vastly less than a store bought coffee, less
than 1 fag a day. Not a huge ask.

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.

Indeed.

I'm in much the same boat as you and do the same thing. Most people
would I imagine.

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.

I wouldn't, and for no reason other than I've seen nothing to suggest
that (a) we have a problem that needs to be addressed, and (b) if there
is, there is anything we can do about correcting it.

**a) The planet is warming and CO2 levels are responsible.
b) If CO2 levels can be stabilised, then dangerous temperature rise can
be contained. If CO2 levels can be lowered, then temperature levels may
be able to be returned to pre-industrial levels.

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

At the moment my thinking is that there is a hell of a lot of money
being thrown at the climate issue and all we've got out of it thus far
is a *theory* that is supported by 95% of climatologists that "we need
to do something".

**I didn't claim "95% of climatologists". I said that all the
climatologists have expressed, with 95% confidence, that AGW is real.

That doesn't exactly make me want to jump out of my chair and scream
with panic.

**Of course. This planet is not going out with a bang. The destruction
will be slow and inexorable.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson · Dec 8, 2011

On 12/8/2011 11:16 AM, Noddy wrote:

On 8/12/2011 7:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**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?

Science?

**ROTFLMAO!

**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.

That may be so, but it's not her fault she was born into her position,
and nor would I have a grudge against her because of it.

**I don't either. What I do hold a grudge against, is her misuse of her
money to skew politics and public opinion, so she can make even more
money. Rinehart is a first rate cunt of the highest order. She pays
liars and charlatans to mislead the public. That is just plain evil.
Make no mistake: Some of my clients are very wealthy. Some have made
their own money. Some have inherited it. I don't hold that against any
of them. If they use their wealth and power for nefarious purposes, then
I have a problem.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

terryc · Dec 8, 2011

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Or, think of it this way:

Let's say the scientists convince Exxon,

Are you sure that Exxon doesn't have any green energy investments?

Trevor Wilson · Dec 8, 2011

On 12/8/2011 11:53 AM, terryc wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Or, think of it this way:

Let's say the scientists convince Exxon,

Are you sure that Exxon doesn't have any green energy investments?

**They probably do. That's just spreading the risk. Their main source of
income is to get people to burn as much oil as possible. They are a
major funder to denialist groups and institutions.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

terryc · Dec 8, 2011

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 12/8/2011 10:59 AM, Noddy wrote:
On 8/12/2011 7:26 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

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

If I come across them I will, but the "context" qualifier makes it
difficult.

**Context, as you well know, is everything.

**Humour me. read AR4.

You said it's around 1600 pages, didn't you?

**Yup. That includes a bunch of purty pictures though.

I can tell you right now as sure as I'm sitting here that I wouldn't
wade through 1600 pages of Bill Gates' will if I was named his sole heir.

**OK. It makes it kinda difficult for you to claim that it's 50:50 WRT
to the notion of AGW then. Tell you what, here's a site that makes life
a whole bunch easier for you:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

"Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge
themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens
with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence
that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument,
op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming. This website gets
skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any
scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?"

Above says it is a waste of time. Approach is Treva like.

And under big picture; all about thirty years only.

"And yes, the warming is continuing. The 2000s were hotter than the
1990s, which were hotter than the 1980s, which were hotter than the 1970s."

I tried before at this site and it is just like a cruddy media blog.

terryc · Dec 8, 2011

Noddy wrote:

On 8/12/2011 12:59 AM, terryc wrote:

There is leadership and leadership. Different to charisma.

And largely irrelevant as far as the leadership position is concerned.

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.

Bear in mind that John Howard's success as the country's leader was due
more to the lack of a viable alternative than to anything else.

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.

Rudd could have royally pissed of as many people within his party as he
liked without consequence as long as his popularity remained high. The
back room boys may not like it, but they're not stupid enough to forget
that the party survives largely on the popularity of the person they put
up as leader, and they're *never* going to cut their noses off to spite
their faces.

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.

It's politics.

You're talking about a bunch of incredibly paranoid people who's idea of
looking ahead into the future would be lucky to extend much beyond next
Thursday.

That appears to describe the current lot. Sigh, my Wednesday afternoon
studies was listening to parliament on the radio and there were some
good people in parliament then.

Hmm 2013. We will see. If they do, then it will be suicide.

They are already *well* past the point where they have absolutely
nothing to loose.

She is delivering big items, whereas Rudd did little.

I don't know what you think she's delivering, but all I can see is that
she has the Midas touch in reverse in that everything she puts her hands
on turns to shit in a fucking big hurry.

Media shit screen and back stabbing from a certain group. OTOH, they
don't help themselves.

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.

And due to the fact that they're all spineless to a man, we won't see
that any time soon until it's obvious to Stevie Wonder that it's going
to happen.

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.

2013 is the next election, isn't it? That'll be about the time the Labor
Party finds out just how strong an opposition they can be.

terryc · Dec 8, 2011

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.

Some of us have lived the evolution of the last forty years. The "story"
holds no mystique and the absoluteness is worrying, very worrying.

Trevor Wilson · Dec 8, 2011

On 12/8/2011 12:09 PM, terryc wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
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.

Some of us have lived the evolution of the last forty years. The "story"
holds no mystique and the absoluteness is worrying, very worrying.

**What "absoluteness" do you refer to? Are you referring to the 95%
probability? Is that what you claim to be absolute? Or are you still
claiming that all the scientific journals were warning of an ice age in
the 1970s? (Hint: Newsweek is not a scientific journal of note.) Is that
what you mean by absolute?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson · Dec 8, 2011

On 12/8/2011 10:40 AM, Noddy wrote:

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.

**Why? I don't want to pay a carbon tax. I don't want Sydney Smummers to
get any hotter. I want to be able to go skiing down Thredbo for the next
20 odd years. I don't want to pay higher insurance premiums to cover
more bushfires and floods. I don't want those who come after me to have
to clean up the mess made by my generation.

**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.

**Not under dispute. Your words suggest that ALL the AGW researchers are
automatically corrupt and that the denialist scientists are pure as
driven snow. I accept that there are probably SOME corrupt scientists on
both sides of the debate. The vast majority are likely to be honest.

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.

**It should be. If there was no dispute about AGW, then the researchers
would be deprived of research funds, since everyone accepts the 95%
probability.

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.

**Conclusive proof may never be reached. In the 1970s, we were at around
70% certainty. Now we are at 95% certainty. IOn ten years, we may be at
(say) 98%. In 20 years, 99%. In another 50 years, 99.5%. In 100 years,
99.9%. It is an asymptotic curve. 100% certainty may never be reached.
Such is the nature of these things.

Assuming 100% will never be reached, at what point do YOU consider the
theory acceptable? 96%? 97%? 98%?

**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.

**Yeah, it is. By any sane measure.

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.

**I did not say: "95% of climatologists". I said that the climatologists
were 95% certain that AGW theory was valid.

**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.

**Yes. There is a small amount of doubt. There is, at present, around 5%
doubt.

**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.

**If you consider US$0.75/day/person a "packet", then I suspect you no
longer drive a car, drink beer, drink coffee or smoke fags.
US$0.75/day/person is less than one cigarette per day. Significantly
less than what you and I pay for household insurance right now. Consider
it insurance. In fact, the figure is less than I pay for Greenslip
insurance right now.

**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

**Uh-huh.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Bernd Felsche · Dec 8, 2011

terryc <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.

Some of us have lived the evolution of the last forty years. The "story"
holds no mystique and the absoluteness is worrying, very worrying.

Trevor claims to have read AR4. Yet he didn't recognize the
contradictions.

Stuff like in this extract of AR5 (draft):

Radiative forcings and radiative perturbations from
Earth-System feedbacks
# Since AR4, the knowledge about recent natural forcings has
progressed. Revised estimates of past solar and volcanic
forcings have been published, spanning the current
interglacial period and the last 1500 years, respectively.
Different representations of solar and volcanic forcings
have been used for simulating the climate of the last
millennium.
# Records of past black carbon deposition and biomass burning are
emerging, in relationship with climate variability and
anthropogenic land use change. Large discrepancies are
identified in various estimates of pre-industrial
anthropogenic land use changes.
# Ice core records of past concentrations and isotopic composition
of greenhouse gases have been expanded back to 800 ka,
confirming the previous range of glacial-interglacial
variations. Less precise pre-Quaternary reconstructions
obtained from geological records suggest that CO2
concentrations above 400 ppmv likely prevailed during the
past 65 Ma, until the Pliocene (5.3 to 2.6 Ma).

Earth System responses and feedbacks at global and
hemispheric scales
# The available information depicts tight coupling between
pre-Quaternary CO2 levels and global climate including
thresholds for Antarctic and Northern Hemisphere ice sheet
inceptions. It is likely that CO2 concentrations were
above about 1000 ppmv and global mean surface temperature
about 8°C above pre-industrial values about 50 million
years ago (the Eocene, the warmest part of the past 65
million years). Global mean temperatures 4 ą 2°C above
pre-industrial were encountered during the Pliocene, when
CO2 levels were likely around 400 ppmv.

Nothing irreversable about high CO2 levels and high temperatures.

There are over 100 pages. Trevor should read his copy.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \ and postings | --HL Mencken

Trevor Wilson · Dec 8, 2011

On 12/8/2011 1:17 PM, Bernd Felsche wrote:

terryc<newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.

Some of us have lived the evolution of the last forty years. The "story"
holds no mystique and the absoluteness is worrying, very worrying.

Trevor claims to have read AR4. Yet he didn't recognize the
contradictions.

Stuff like in this extract of AR5 (draft):

Radiative forcings and radiative perturbations from
Earth-System feedbacks
# Since AR4, the knowledge about recent natural forcings has
progressed. Revised estimates of past solar and volcanic
forcings have been published, spanning the current
interglacial period and the last 1500 years, respectively.
Different representations of solar and volcanic forcings
have been used for simulating the climate of the last
millennium.
# Records of past black carbon deposition and biomass burning are
emerging, in relationship with climate variability and
anthropogenic land use change. Large discrepancies are
identified in various estimates of pre-industrial
anthropogenic land use changes.
# Ice core records of past concentrations and isotopic composition
of greenhouse gases have been expanded back to 800 ka,
confirming the previous range of glacial-interglacial
variations. Less precise pre-Quaternary reconstructions
obtained from geological records suggest that CO2
concentrations above 400 ppmv likely prevailed during the
past 65 Ma, until the Pliocene (5.3 to 2.6 Ma).

Earth System responses and feedbacks at global and
hemispheric scales
# The available information depicts tight coupling between
pre-Quaternary CO2 levels and global climate including
thresholds for Antarctic and Northern Hemisphere ice sheet
inceptions. It is likely that CO2 concentrations were
above about 1000 ppmv and global mean surface temperature
about 8°C above pre-industrial values about 50 million
years ago (the Eocene, the warmest part of the past 65
million years). Global mean temperatures 4 ą 2°C above
pre-industrial were encountered during the Pliocene, when
CO2 levels were likely around 400 ppmv.

Nothing irreversable about high CO2 levels and high temperatures.

**How?

There are over 100 pages. Trevor should read his copy.3

**I should. I was waiting for the final proof.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Noddy · Dec 8, 2011

On 8/12/2011 1:10 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Why? I don't want to pay a carbon tax. I don't want Sydney Smummers to
get any hotter. I want to be able to go skiing down Thredbo for the next
20 odd years. I don't want to pay higher insurance premiums to cover
more bushfires and floods. I don't want those who come after me to have
to clean up the mess made by my generation.

Fair enough, but in a lot of those cases you'll be paying more
regardless of there being an effect or not. "Climate change" is far to
good a topical whipping boy not to be exploited.

**Not under dispute. Your words suggest that ALL the AGW researchers are
automatically corrupt and that the denialist scientists are pure as
driven snow.

I wasn't suggesting that for a second, and to be honest I can't see how
you would get that from what I've been saying. All I said originally was
that some of the leaked emails coming out of the "climategate" scandal
seem to suggest that some scientists are more concerned with feathering
their nests than anything else.

I accept that there are probably SOME corrupt scientists on
both sides of the debate. The vast majority are likely to be honest.

I couldn't agree more, although it's a little disturbing that some of
the corruption seems to be coming from the upper levels.

**It should be. If there was no dispute about AGW, then the researchers
would be deprived of research funds, since everyone accepts the 95%
probability.

Everyone very definitely does *not* accept the 95% probability. The fact
that in this entire thread you're the *only* one who stands on the pro
climate change side would suggest that those who do accept it are in the
minority.

**Conclusive proof may never be reached. In the 1970s, we were at around
70% certainty. Now we are at 95% certainty. IOn ten years, we may be at
(say) 98%. In 20 years, 99%. In another 50 years, 99.5%. In 100 years,
99.9%. It is an asymptotic curve. 100% certainty may never be reached.
Such is the nature of these things.

And therein lies the problem.

Assuming 100% will never be reached, at what point do YOU consider the
theory acceptable? 96%? 97%? 98%?

I don't put a number on it, because the theory itself is *far* too vague
for mine.

Man *may* be causing an accelerated warming, and that *may* have an
effect on the way we live. We *may* find ourselves with food shortages,
and we *may* find ourselves facing rising water levels. In 30 years time
we *may* find our beachfront properties well under water and we *may*
find ourselves subjected to more flooding, more bushfires, and hotter
weather.

It's like a political promise. There's all kinds of predictions, but
there's sweet fuck all that's definite.

**I did not say: "95% of climatologists". I said that the climatologists
were 95% certain that AGW theory was valid.

Okay. 100% of climatologists are fairly sure, rather than 95%. I beg
your pardon.

**Yes. There is a small amount of doubt. There is, at present, around 5%
doubt.

There's a small doubt in certain circles. There's a much larger doubt in
the broader community, and probably more still who couldn't care less.

**If you consider US$0.75/day/person a "packet", then I suspect you no
longer drive a car, drink beer, drink coffee or smoke fags.

I don't consider 75 cents a day to be a lot of money, but then I don't
think that financial modelling would be accurate. I mean, how do you
accurately cost "changing the environmental state of the entire planet"?

They have to start somewhere and put a price on it, but for all we know
the cost could run into the trillions and the effects would be largely
unknown.

US$0.75/day/person is less than one cigarette per day. Significantly
less than what you and I pay for household insurance right now. Consider
it insurance. In fact, the figure is less than I pay for Greenslip
insurance right now.

Assuming for the sake of the argument that that's how much it costs.
Personally I doubt it, but then I'm sceptical of the whole debate myself.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

Paul Saccani · Dec 8, 2011

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 08:27:46 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

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